On Monday, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on recent changes to the FISA law, which the Bush administration has insisted were necessary to keep Americans safe. In defending the law, McConnell seems to have lied to the Senate. Badly.
Joe Lieberman asked whether the new law, passed shortly before the August recess, played a role in facilitating the arrest of terrorist suspects in German last week. McConnell was unequivocal: “Yes, sir, it did.” It wasn’t an off-hand comment — McConnell went into some detail explaining how and why the law provided potentially life-saving intelligence in this specific example in Germany. When a noticeably-impressed Lieberman restated the revelation — that the eavesdropping ability allowed under the updated surveillance law helped foil the purported plot in Germany — McConnell did not object.
It seemed like a key victory for Bush administration policy. Democrats have argued that the new law was excessive and unnecessary, and yet, here was the DNI claiming that the FISA revisions actually thwarted a serious terrorist plot. Bush 1, Reality-based community 0.
It’s a shame, therefore, that McConnell’s comments weren’t true.
In the wake of McConnell’s testimony, Democratic lawmakers asked for proof to substantiate his claims. As TP summarized, “House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) demanded McConnell back up his sworn statement. Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) said the Protect America Act ‘played no role in uncovering the recent German terrorist plot.’ House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes urge McConnell ‘to issue a public statement immediately’ correcting his remarks.”
The good news is, McConnell responded to lawmakers’ request. The bad news is, he unapologetically conceded that he lied to the Senate.
Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball reported:
In a new embarrassment for the Bush administration top spymaster, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell is withdrawing an assertion he made to Congress this week that a recently passed electronic-surveillance law helped U.S. authorities foil a major terror plot in Germany. […]
After questions about his testimony were raised, McConnell called Lieberman to clarify his statements to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, an official said. (A spokeswoman for Lieberman confirmed that McConnell called the senator Tuesday but could not immediately confirm what they spoke about.) Late Wednesday afternoon, McConnell issued a statement acknowledging that “information contributing to the recent arrests [in Germany] was not collected under authorities provided by the ‘Protect America Act’.”
The developments were cited by Democratic critics on Capitol Hill as the latest example of the Bush administration’s exaggerated claims — and contradictory statements — about ultrasecret surveillance activities. In the face of such complaints, the administration has consistently resisted any public disclosure about the details of the surveillance activities — even thought McConnell himself has openly talked about some aspects of them.
McConnell’s statement yesterday was noticeably unrepentant. He conceded that his testimony was the opposite of the truth, but he made no mention of regret or apology. He didn’t even say he’d misspoken. It was just matter of fact — there was the truth, there was McConnell’s testimony, and the two were completely different.
And let’s also not forget the context of all this. Congress passed the FISA expansion a month ago, but set the law to expire in six months. Most of the Democratic leadership wants to revisit the law even sooner. It is against this backdrop that McConnell testified that the new law prevented terrorism — even though the old law, supported by Democrats, got the job done.
At this point, I have a few questions. First, how does anyone expect lawmakers to negotiate policy matters with the White House in good faith when administration officials lie with impunity? Second, will there be any consequences for McConnell in light of these revelations?
And third, isn’t it against the law to lie to Congress?