Mr. Bush also emphasized that the program was "limited" in nature and designed to intercept communications from known associates of Al Qaeda to the United States. He said several times that the eavesdropping was "limited to calls from outside the United States to calls within the United States."
But this is what the December 22, 2005 Department of Justice Memorandum said in arguing that the NSA program was legal:
The NSA intercepts certain international communications into and out of the United States of people linked to Al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization.
That rather blatant contradiction led to this:
This assertion was at odds with press accounts and public statements of his senior aides, who have said the authorization for the program required one end of a communication - either incoming or outgoing - to be outside the United States. The White House, clarifying the president's remarks after his appearance, said later that either end of the communication could in fact be outside the United States.
Aren't we far enough into this scandal to be past the point where the President describes the NSA program inaccurately? One would think that the President would be particularly careful to avoid these sorts of misstatements, given that he said this in 2004:
"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap," Mr. Bush said in Buffalo, "a wiretap requires a court order."
He added: "Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
I have never been one who believes that George Bush is stupid. His verbal skills are far from superior but I think even that is something that he plays up because it works to his advantage. And verbal skills are not a prerequisite, or really even a marker, for intelligence. I think Bush is perceptive, wily and well aware of what he is doing, particularly on big issues like this. But he has grown so accustomed since 9/11 -- and almost certainly before that -- to being able to say anything to justify his conduct without any regard to whether it's true that he can't stop himself.
He said "several times" yesterday that the only calls being monitored were those originating outside of the U.S., but he had to know that that is just false. How could he not know that? He ordered the eavesdropping, and it's a pretty good guess that the nature of this program has been discussed somewhat extensively at the White House these past couple of weeks. And all of that follows his repeated, ongoing statements over the last two years -- as he ran for re-election and then argued for renewal of the Patriot Act -- that the Government always obtains warrants before eavesdropping, something he also had to know was not true.
This has to matter, doesn't it? It can't be acceptable for George Bush, in the middle of this controversy, to run around making plainly inaccurate statements -- multiple times -- about what the NSA eavesdropping program does and does not include. As always, there is the scandal itself, and then false statements made by those in the middle of the scandal to protect themselves and conceal wrongdoing. No matter how you look at it, yesterday was a pretty clear example of the latter.
And as for the Administration's claim that only Al Qaeda members were the subject of the eavesdropping, isn't it clearly well-advised to wait for the evidence regarding the scope of the eavesdropping rather than relying on the Administration's self-serving say-so? The Administration's statements thus far on the nature of its eavesdropping haven't exactly been reliable or notable for their accuracy.
Is it OK to say that the President is "lying" yet, or does that still make you a crazed socialist crazy?
ReplyDeleteAre we only allowed to say that the President "lies" when he denies having an extra-marital affair and there is cum on the girl's dress? Or can we maybe expand that word "lie" to include a President who says that the Government only eavesdrops with a search warrant and only on calls from outside the U.S. when both statements, as he must know, are completely false?
Mr. Greenwald, clearly Bush's statement was inaccurate, but they corrected it almost immediately afterwards. Don't you account for the fact that people can mis-speak and get confused. He has a lot of facts in his head and it's hardly a big deal if he made the mistake of saying that the only monitored calls were incoming.
ReplyDeleteClyde, if Bush is "confused" about what this eavesdropping does, after all these years of authorizing it and after 3 weeks of intense controversy, isn't that even more disturbing than the prospect that he lied?
ReplyDelete"He [Bush] has a lot of facts in his head and it's hardly a big deal if he made the mistake of saying that the only monitored calls were incoming." -- Clyde
ReplyDeleteIs poor Bush's brain overloaded??? Well, maybe he should have an official "retracter," waiting nearby to immediately clean up the messes that Bush leaves behind after his speeches.
Possiby Mr. Bush is confused in the role he now has. He is more of a mimic than an actor. Currently he is mimicing Clint Eastwood. He mimics the blonde Sunday school teacher often also. He obiously is well coached. I bet it is hard.
ReplyDeleteClyde, if the president cannot be relied on to communicate clearly and accurately, what's the point of his speaking at all?
ReplyDeleteMaybe I've answered my own question...
I think I'll innaccurately file my taxes this year. A missing buck here or there shouldn't worry the government, should it. Yeah, they'll be really cool about me deciding to be so careless with how much money they get out of me...
ReplyDeleteMuch to do about nothing. If everytime one misspoke, we would all be labelled liars. This is an an unfortunate time in American politics where all we do is bash the President in power. I admit, it seems that Bush bashing has become an art unto itself and with no or little foundation. Perhaps it is payback for impeaching Clinton, but it is shameful. And I didn't even vote for Bush.... As for wiretapping, it doesn't matter whether the call originated in the US or overseas. There can be NO expectation of privacy when making an overseas call since foreign governments regularly monitor conversations. I would be concerned if they were point to point domestic calls. Calls to people in a foreign nation, lacking the foundation of a privacy expectation, do not fall under the guise of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The standard is no different than the mail.
ReplyDeleteBob: What we expect of the US government differs from what we expect of foreign governments.
ReplyDeleteMy expectation (and hopefully yours) is that our government follow the law (their law and ours). Or am I just being a 'crazed socialist crazy' here?