The White House searches in vain for talking points

February 26, 2008

To hear the White House tell it, Congress’ reluctance to immediately give the president all of the surveillance powers he wants is not only the most pressing matter on the nation’s policy agenda, it’s currently putting all of us at risk of a catastrophic terrorist attack.

But if that’s true, why can’t the White House answer basic questions about the controversy? If Bush and his team consider this so important, shouldn’t the president’s chief spokesperson be able to honestly tell reporters why the administration is right and Democratic lawmakers are wrong?

In today’s White House press briefing, spokeswoman Dana Perino continued the attacks on Congress. When reporters pressed Perino to explain how intelligence analysts are now limited since the expiration of the Protect America Act (PAA), Perino was forced to concede that she had no idea:

QUESTION: Is it not the case, as the writers of the op-ed in today’s Post claim, that the law protects all of this until August?

PERINO: It’s a little bit more complex than that. […]

QUESTION: Dana, to be clear, don’t you still — you can still pursue that information, go after it, as long as you come back within three days and get a warrant under FISA, correct? I mean –

PERINO: I’m not a lawyer. […]

QUESTION: If this is such a big deal, why didn’t the president accept another extension? … The president made clear he wouldn’t accept it.

PERINO: Well, that’s true, but they wouldn’t have been able to pass it anyway.

None of this made any sense at all. Current law extends surveillance powers through August, but Perino didn’t want to concede that, because it’s politically inconvenient. The regular ol’ FISA law allows intelligence officials to get the information they need now, and then go back days later for a warrant, but Perino didn’t want to concede that, because it’s politically inconvenient, too. The White House refused to accept an extension of the status quo, which would have passed, were it not for Republican opposition, which Perino didn’t want to concede that, because, you guessed it, it’s politically inconvenient, too.

This became especially amusing when the subject turned to telecom immunity.

QUESTION: Who gave them the right to break the law?

PERINO: Nobody broke the law. That might be your opinion, but nobody broke the law.

QUESTION: When these companies — when no warrant is given and they didn’t break the law?

PERINO: You’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own set of facts.

QUESTION: Oh, come on.

(CROSSTALK)

PERINO: The companies were asked to help, and they allowed it. They helped with a legal program that has helped save lives.

QUESTION: Who told them they could break the law?

PERINO: That is just — that’s not true.

If the telecom companies didn’t break the law, why is the White House so desperate to give them retroactive immunity from law-breaking? Isn’t that the point — that they broke the law but deserve protection anyway?

Perhaps best of all, Perino repeatedly pointed reporters to a Mukasey/McConnell letter about the administration’s curtailed surveillance abilities — which, coincidentally, the White House was forced to walk away from over the weekend.

I mention all of this for one simple reason: the White House just doesn’t seem to have any legitimate arguments at all. They continue to complain, insist that Dems have made America less safe, and bluster endlessly, but when confronted with basic questions, the Bush gang’s arguments fall apart like a house of cards. There’s just nothing there.

It’s almost amazing to watch.

Why didn’t she say: “the terrorists want to kill your kids.”

  • I happened to catch the press conference live yesterday and could not get past the contrast of the tone of questions and general atmosphere in the room. Remember those jovial days of 03 and 04 when any confrontational question was immediately pooh poohed away and laughed at? Remember the instant talking point regurgitation followed by reporters cowering or asking the next prearranged question?

    Yesterday, each of Perrino’s lame repetitions and tortured conclusions was met by rolling eyes and labored exhaling. The pretense of respect is indeed getting thin. Makes me wish Tony Snow was back to get the treatment he always deserved.

  • It’s becoming very obvious now that the wiretapping wasn’t for purposes covered under FISA but rather of a political nature.

    I’m convinced now that the Bush Admin under the direction of Rove was using the NSA for opposition research and blackmail for political and economic gain (and it wouldn’t be the first time or the last time law enforcement/external security was used for that purpose.)

    Why else would they vigorously defend this warrant less wiretapping? Is there any other reason that fits?

  • Dana is getting what she deserves…couldnt happen to a nicer person…what’s that darn Bay of Pigs thing again?

  • This is just speculation, but I would suspect that the lawyers for the telecoms have advised their customers that the cooperation may, in fact, not be legal, and that they should not continue unless immunity, retroactive and prospective, is issued. The Bush administration, not surprisingly, has a tendency to replace case law with the opinions of its own appointees. And of course, anyone who followed the Jay Bybee case knows that the Bush administration likes to know the opinions before appointing them. Therefore, Perino’s claim that “you may have your opinion, but ours is the one that counts,” is SOP. I believe Olbermann reported last night that the last of these telecoms have agreed to continue, which is probably the reason McConnell and McKasey are doing their backflips.

  • Hey, Former Dan, can you say J. Edgar Hoover? If the DOJ has been co-opted by the GOP, why cant the intelligence services. I think you are spot on…now perhaps the fourth estate could start looking into this angle.

  • Isn’t that the point — that they broke the law but deserve protection anyway?

    In theory, they are innocent of lawbreaking but the administration is going all-out to make sure they don’t have to spend a dime on lawsuits they might win anyway.

    No, that doesn’t make much sense either.

  • Not to get off topic, but did anyone see that Chris Dodd (champion of the constitution and defender of no immunity) is endorsing Obama? Dodd for VP!!

  • I wish the Democrats would pull their finger out and present the case as follows:

    Your phone company would rather let terrorists Kill U Dead than risk the remote possibility that someone might sue them. Ask your phone company why it values money more than human life.

    Apply pressure to the weakest point. Get the tcoms to tell Bush to StFu.

  • brian said:
    Why didn’t she say: “the terrorists want to kill your kids.”
    ========================
    Ahhh…there’s the rub. Pesky reporters keep asking inconvenient questions, and discerning readers and politically aware observers (like us, doncha know?) see the sham for what it is.

    In the meantime, the soundbite is George looking angry/concerned and telling the Walmart shoppers that, “…the Democrat Party won’t let me and the Telecoms keep you safe…”

    Since when did this administration let the facts interfere with doing bidness?

  • It’s almost amazing to watch.

    True, but what’s even more amazing – and exciting – is watching the Dems FINALLY grow a pair! Now, was that SO hard? LOL

  • For anyone that missed the press briefing missed a great one Helen Thomas was the questioneer CB was talking about and she wasn’t giving as you know she is an attack dog and none of the flunkies in the WH press office care much for her because she doesn’t take any spin from them. We’ll probally find out soon that they have tried to dismiss her again from the press corps. Or the’ll use the old stand by of not picking her.

  • It’s really very simple. If the telecoms have to defend themselves in court they will present as a part of their defense the justifications that the Bush administration provided them. This scares the crap out of Bush Co. and the telecoms know it. They’ve in effect said to Bush – Either you get us immunity or we divulge this material. Bush in now like a rabid dog trying to prevent this from happening.

  • It’s funny that at one point she indicates that she’s not qualified to discuss the rules of FISA (“I’m not a lawyer”), but moments later makes unqualified legal judgements (“Nobody broke the law” and “They helped with a legal program…”). Either she has the knowledge to make legal judgements or she doesn’t.

  • Former Dan (3) – That makes perfect sense. I have been scratching my head this whole time about WHY the administration would just want to listen in on people’s calls for no reason. Do they get some kind of weird voyeuristic thrill? And then I read your post and, duh.

  • Until I read the exchange above, I hadn’t truly realized that observance of the law was such an opinionated matter for the WH crowd, but the transcript of Ms. Perino contending such is there for all to see. I guess the WH opinion of what is legal and what is illegal trumps all others! -Kevo

  • Sad thing is, and despite all of this transparent bluster by the WH and the apparent upper hand for those who value the rule of law (and not of men), the Dems will probably pass retroactive immunity in the end.

  • It’s becoming very obvious now that the wiretapping wasn’t for purposes covered under FISA but rather of a political nature.

    Dan, you’ve hit on what I’ve heard some people remark on before, and what I’ve always felt was the HUGE undiscussed issue.

    It’s pathetic and sad and insulting to the Founding Fathers and every other brave principled American that has upheld our Constitutional freedoms in the face of: the English, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, etc,etc, that we can debate whether waterboarding is torture, or “torture-lite” or enhanced interrogation. That fact remains, even if we are pathetic and amoral enough to allow it, IT PROVIDES BAD INFORMATION.

    Now if you want to know who’s involved in terrorism, it would make sense to start with known players, track everyone they communicate with, then everyone they communicate with, etc, in and expanding web, and look for patterns, right? What doesn’t make sense is scooping up EVERY email, text message, cell phone pic, voice mail, cellular call etc, and go through them ALL to look for a Terroist Plot. My God, the chatter from one high school alone could tie up the computers and personnel in the intel community for years! But if you KNOW who you want to listen too, but you have no legal justification (a political contributor’s business competitor, your political opponents, the lawyers/congressmen investigating you) it would be very easy to hide that activity in the avalanche of nonsense and BS that is the daily communication of the US (and friends, family, business partners overseas)

    I think at the end of the day we may be watching a 21st century version of Watergate (I’m trademarking Watergate-gate right now, just in case)

    If only our Reps had the stones to impeach like they did then, or Our president had the decency to resign.

    Pat

  • (In reference to comment #10)

    The so-called “Walmart shopper” should be the prime constiuency of the Democratic party. Comment #10 sounded very class snobbish to me – the antithesis of what I think the Democratic Party should be about. It would be hard for me to stand with anybody who looks down his or her nose at “Walmart shoppers.”

  • Cornered animals are very dangerous , I hope the press has a coordinated attack plan . The sheep turning on the wolves .

  • The Don Siegelman story should put to rest any questions as to how far ShrubCo would go to gain any political advantage. They are scrambling now, (not as much as they should be but maybe it’s a start), but in the early days they were bulletproof and thought they could and should get away with anything. From ShrubCo’s perspective, not using the advantage of eavesdropping on their “enemies” would have been stupid. “Do it to them before they do it to us.”

    No permanent Republican majority without slamming the opposition with every hammer in the bag.

    The White House is an outhouse about to overflow.

  • The Bush administration tried to privatize intelligence, both domestic and foreign. Collection and analysis were contracted out. Leadership was corrupted. The telecom abuse is just one example of a ‘collection contractor’ to come to light. Ahmad Chalabi and the ‘stovepipe’ to Cheny is another. republican party neocon think tanks doing politicized analysis is a third. A lot more to follow. These functions are now being removed from Bush political appointees and their contractor friends.

    During the first years of this admin Bush and co. thought they were successful in subverting the officer corps. They weren’t. The first duty of the (sworn) officer and agent corps has always been to support and defend the constitution, which includes the bill of rights. The training and culture is ‘rule of law’. It may have been true at one point that ‘resistance is futile’, but it is now, and always has been, true that time is on our side. The vast majority did not drink the cool aid.

    It also appears that the Bush admin was not completely successful in subverting the courts. Bush can shut the courts out of individual criminal cases with pardons and his republican friends can pay off and individual civil judgements, but only congress can grant corporate immunity. If the good guys can keep the congress from immnizing all of the corporate scoundrels we may have a chance.

    Note that a lot of the information which was collected for the bush admin is still in the hands of the corporations which collected it and could be available for their use. Those lists of phone numbers you called are subject to “trafic analysis” which produces the equivalent of a FaceBook “friends list” with some additional indicators of the influence relationships. (FaceBook is fox news). When these guys are immunized this data will be available for commercial use. Data aggregation is big business and this is valuable data. Imagine a credit card company with a list of your purchases and a list of your friends (ala FaceBook). How about a current or potential employer? Or a stalker or soon-to-be-ex spouse? Or the republican party. I’m not willing to give up my rights and my privacy simply because I have nothing to hide.

  • Another way of looking at the wiretapping business is why are the Bushies acting as if all our our intelligence eggs are in the basket of only one type of intelligence gathering? Listening to Perino, it sounds as if the only anti-terror mechanism available is wiretapping. And if that is now the case, I would imagine the entire lengthy debate about tapping phone calls would tip off the other side that has in the past shown great ability to overcome high-tech security measures (airport x-rays and metal detectors) with low-tech solutions (box cutters and using the airplanes themselves as weapons.)

    Someone in the media needs to ask Dana Perino that hasn’t all this grandstanding about wiretapping tipped off the terrorists, not that she’s a lawyer OR a terrorist expert though?

  • You stupid clods!!!! When The President’s spokesperson tells you something as a fact, it’s like The President told you Himself – except, like Santa, He’s too busy for individual attention. How dare you question any conclusion drawn by The President, especially after years of rolling over in obeisance and exposing your loathsome pink bellies?

    You picked one hell of a time to grow a spine.

  • Ha ha, suckers! You think I’d let those commies in the WH press corp hand me my a$$ like this? Why do you think I got out early?

    And now I’ve got my old job back at Fox News! I can slime the DemocRATS all day long and Helen Thomas can’t ask me a single question about it! And for lots more money, too…

    Eat it, you godless liberal traitors! Vote however you like – Diebold will take care of that. And then some of you can offer up your unpaid slave labor to build your new cells in an expeanded Gitmo!

  • But if that’s true, why can’t the White House answer basic questions about the controversy?

    Current law extends surveillance powers through August, but Perino didn’t want to concede that, because it’s politically inconvenient. The regular ol’ FISA law allows intelligence officials to get the information they need now, and then go back days later for a warrant, but Perino didn’t want to concede that, because it’s politically inconvenient, too. The White House refused to accept an extension of the status quo, which would have passed, were it not for Republican opposition, which Perino didn’t want to concede that, because, you guessed it, it’s politically inconvenient, too.

    Perhaps best of all, Perino repeatedly pointed reporters to a Mukasey/McConnell letter about the administration’s curtailed surveillance abilities — which, coincidentally, the White House was forced to walk away from over the weekend.

    It’s almost amazing to watch.

    And this post is almost amazing to read. Everyone of those tidbits that I pulled was written as if the knowledge needed to present it was gained at the Ward Churchill School of Banality and Revisionist History. Hell, it only took 24 hours to rewrite the actual events of yesterday’s press conference.

    I mention all of this for one simple reason: the White House just doesn’t seem to have any legitimate arguments at all.

    Dana Perino actually did answer every stupid FISA-related question thrown at her, especially by that old fool and Democratic shill Helen Thomas. How do I know they were stupid? Do any of these “reporters” understand that since the Protect America Act expired, the enemy terrorists on foreign soil that communicate with other enemy terrorists on foreign soil are now protected by the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution…you know…that part of the Bill of Rights that requires a warrant based on probable cause? I mean, come on. I’m a little surprised that they don’t accuse President Bush of violating the 8th Amendment when we blow these terrorist bastards to hell, although that would require morons like Helen Thomas to use a scintilla of brain matter to be able to put that together.

    Has anybody gone back to the LA Times site lately to re-read their piece called “White House backtracks on claims of lost intelligence“? This has been added:

    FOR THE RECORD:
    Terrorism intelligence: In Sunday’s Section A, a headline and sub-headline —”White House backtracks on lost intelligence: Officials acknowledge that telecom firms are furnishing all requested information” — incorrectly characterized the administration’s action. As the article correctly said: Hours after Bush administration officials warned Congress in a letter that intelligence was being lost because wiretapping legislation was still pending, they informed lawmakers that they had prevailed on telecommunications companies to continue cooperating with requests for information while legislation talks continued, but that intelligence had been lost in the meantime.

    The whole idea that the White House “backtracked” came from some lying anonymous congressional Democrat official. Even the Democrat’s LA Times couldn’t keep up the lie that the White House changed its tune.

    And if you want the real history and some valid analysis, go here.

  • Oh, Steve. Well, I guess that’s what can happen when you play rough contact sports without a helmet.

    Are you seriously suggesting the White House had the capability to monitor every single phone conversation in the United States on a daily basis? Or maybe they were all monitored electronically, with embedded filters to sift out conversations featuring the word “bomb” or “Allah”. I sure hope terrorists don’t catch on to that one, and start learning to use code, like “our new baby was delivered this morning” or something like that, to sidestep the filters.

    If neither of the above is true (and neither is, of course), then the administration simply wanted to monitor CERTAIN phone calls as it chose, based on reasonable apprehension that one or both parties were talkin’ terror (or Democratic election strategy, but let’s not get into that). If that’s true, the administration can still do that, and always could. They just have to get a warrant, from The Court That Never Says “No”. In cases deemed so time-sensitive they can’t wait for a warrant, they can start tapping and get the warrant later. They could always do that, too.

    They’ve had unrestricted phone tapping for a goodish while now – where are the successes? The Bush administration only gets tongue-tied when it’s trying to defend its hamfisted tactics – when there’s the slightest glimmer of success, they’re quite the blabbermouths. So far, they have not caught a single terrorist with the new surveillance powers. Not one.

    But I bet they’ve collected some juicy intercepts that have nothing to do with terror. Not to mention making everyone who wants privacy afraid to use the telephone, a power that shouldn’t be sold short either.

  • Talk about playing without a helmet. Are you seriously suggesting the White House had the capability to monitor every single phone conversation in the United States on a daily basis? No, I’ve never said that, and I don’t say that here. Don’t know where you’re getting that from. However, fearmongering moonbat demagogues like to tell the American people this has been going on since after 9/11. Or maybe they were all monitored electronically, with embedded filters to sift out conversations featuring the word “bomb” or “Allah”. I sure hope terrorists don’t catch on to that one, and start learning to use code, like “our new baby was delivered this morning” or something like that, to sidestep the filters. Not sure where you’re going with this one, nor how it relates to the previous sentence.

    They just have to get a warrant, from The Court That Never Says “No”. Do you know why the Protect America Act was passed? And why do you think it’s appropriate to get a warrant when two overseas terrorists are communicating with each other, although the network hub linking their communications goes through the United States? Did you read my post? Did you know this happened, The Court That Never Says “No” said “NO!!!”?

    They’ve had unrestricted phone tapping for a goodish while now – where are the successes? Let’s see; how about no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in nearly 7 years?

    So far, they have not caught a single terrorist with the new surveillance powers. Not one. And you know this how? Don’t tell me; you’re with the NSA. At least in your dreams. Well that makes it official then, doesn’t it?

    • Comments are closed.