Spin Control on Pre-9/11

After the devastating interview between Chris Wallace and President Clinton, I wondered to myself just how are is the Right-Wing going to respond to this?

Well, the first thing they've done is - surprise - try to demonize Clinton and bolster Wallace. You see, Wallace was just being a responsible journalist - a victim of Clinton's "bullying tirade".

Yeah, right. Poor little Chrissy Wallace. Crushed by the avalanche that was Bubba Clinton. And just how do the Redstaters see this entire thing, particularly after taking their talking points from Bill Kristol?

Clinton wants to make it incorrect, or at least impolite, to criticize his record on terror. Chris Wallace stood up to him. Will others? Will his next interviewer raise the same set of questions? Will they be willing to take the criticism of being "conservative hit men" or part of the vast, Fox-centered right-wing conspiracy? Bullying and intimidation sometimes work. Clinton has used both effectively in the past. Now he wants to put out of bounds certain perfectly legitimate and straight-forward questions. Can we debate which party--based on their practice when in power--can better deal with the jihadist/terror threat? No, according to Clinton. That's illegitimate right-wing propaganda. Whose personal reputation benefits from putting such issues out of bounds? Which political party benefits? Which 2008 presidential candidate?

Bill Clinton is a smart (and calculating) politician.

Redstate:

... discussions of which President may have failed in the past to successfully take on the terrorist threat are not as important policywise as actually taking on the terrorist threat. But that is certainly not to say that people should be intimidated from taking on the issue. It is one thing to recognize priorities. It is quite another to give in to bullying. If we are willing as a body politic to call a cease-fire on the issue of past Presidential actions--an across the board and bipartisan cease-fire at that--then I would be in favor of it. But I am most certainly not in favor of allowing one side to get a pass merely because one of the former Presidents on that side blew a gasket.

Allowing "one side to get a pass"? When exactly did Clinton ever get a pass? Did these guys actually see "Path to 9-11"?

Now I had thought that Thinkprogress had already settled this matter, by pointing out that Clinton's issue with Wallace - that they were asking him a question that they'd never asked the Bush Administration - was absolutely true.

Neither Chris Wallace, nor his predecessor, Tony Snow ever asked anyone in the Bush administration why they failed to respond to the bombing of the USS Cole, according to a Lexis-Nexis database search. Wallace and Snow have had plenty of opportunities:

– Vice President Dick Cheney has been on Fox News Sunday 6 times.

– Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has been on Fox News Sunday 9 times.

– Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been on Fox News Sunday 23 times.

– National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley has been on Fox News Sunday 4 times.

For the record, this was Bill Clinton’s first solo appearance on Fox News Sunday.

Not so, according to a link provided by Redstate.

In 2004, Wallace asked almost the exact same question of Donald Rumsfeld that he asked Clinton today.

Here’s what Wallace asked Clinton today:

[H]indsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

And here is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:

I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?

. . . .

What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?

. . . .

Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.

Like Clinton, Think Progress shifts the argument to specific questions about the U.S.S. Cole, in order to argue that Clinton is correct:

Ooh, it looks like the Reds have a "gotcha". Although neither Wallace (or Tony Snow) ever asked specifically about the response to the U.S.S. Cole - they did ask one person, Rumsfeld, about pre-9-11 responses one single time among the 42 times that they've had Bush Administration Officials on their show. This is classic Right-wing debate strategy -- point out one minor questionable factoid in the midst of an mountain of information and poof, the mountain disappears like magic or the careful application of some "Shout" on a grass stain.

But here's the thing - I actually followed the interview link to the DOD site and found that the question Wallace asked Rumsfeld wasn't about the Bush Administration pre-9/11 response, it was about Richard Clarke.

MR. WALLACE: I think a lot of people in Washington are trying to figure out, to understand, Richard Clarke; to make sense of what he has said and of apparent contradictions in his story. Is he telling the truth or is he pushing an agenda? What do you make of his basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, I don't know the man. I have probably met and been in meetings with him two or three times, but it seems to me that apparently he was there for 10 years, and the reality is that a terrorist can attack any time at any minute, 24 hours a day, using a variety of techniques in any place at all. And it's not possible to defend in every place against every technique, against every conceivable approach. Now, what does that mean? It means that you can't stop every terrorist attack. We know that throughout history, which you keep innocent men, women, and children are going to be killed if terrorists are determined to do it. What you must do, then, is to go after the terrorists where they are and get them before they have that opportunity to have the advantage of an attack.

So basically - Rumsfeld doesn't know if Wallace's suggestion that "Clarke has an agenda" is true - which of course leaves he possibility that he does hanging in the air without Rumsfeld himself having to launch the smear - and as far as stopping 9/11 there was "nothing they could do"....

But Wallace wasn't done, he had more smearing of Clarke and back-filling for the Bush Administration to do:

MR. WALLACE: Let me follow up on that, if I can, sir, because you talked to the 9/11 Commission in private before you talked to them in public, and in your public testimony this week, and according to the Commission, the staff, this is what you told them in private. Let's put it up here, if we can --

"He [Rumsfeld] did not recall any particular counterterrorism issue that engaged his attention before 9/11 other than the development of the Predator unmanned aircraft system for possible use against bin Laden. He said the DOD," the Department of Defense, "before 9/11 was not organized or trained adequately to deal with asymmetric threats."

Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, Chris, if you look at how our government is organized historically, the Department of Justice has the responsibility for law enforcement in the United States. The Department of Defense is, in fact, by law, under the posse comitatus law, prohibited from the engaging in frontline law enforcement, police-type activities.

In other words - "It's not my job, man". Terrorism is a law enforcement issue for the DOJ. But my-oh-my isn't that pre-9/11 thinking?

MR. WALLACE: But the terrorists were based overseas.

SEC. RUMSFELD: The terrorists were in the United States. They used a U.S. airplane, and they attacked a U.S. target, and those are things that are outside the purview of the Department of Defense.

MR. WALLACE: But what about --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Let me just make sure you understand this. The way the government instructions were laid out, the Department of State had the responsibility for the diplomatic side of it, the Department of Justice has the responsibility for the law enforcement side for domestic intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency has responsibility for foreign intelligence, and the Department of Defense has responsibility for external threats and force protection. Now, it was not something that the Department of Defense historically, in our history, was organized, trained, and equipped to do. We were organized, trained, and equipped to fight armies and navies and air forces -- not to do individual manhunts.

Aint that the truth. Still it should be pointed out that Clinton had charged Gen. Hugh Shelton (then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) with finding a way to have Special Forces go after Bin Laden, but was stymied by logitistical issues in the region. They couldn't get Helicopters with a Special Forces team deep enough into Afghanistan without performing a night refuel operations and the Joint Chiefs and Pentagon Brass refused. Only after 9-11 did we Special Forces get the access to Uzbekistan and Pakistan that they needed.

In fact, there have been occasions in the history of the Department when the Department was chastised for investigating things locally, if you'll recall, during the Army investigations back in the '60s in the Vietnam War period.

MR. WALLACE: But looking back, sir, and I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it's more than an individual manhunt. I mean -- what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Which is the only way to do it, in my view. I think you simply have to go out --

MR. WALLACE: -- pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, we were thinking about what to do about al Qaeda. Any suggestion that the administration was not would just be incorrect. Now, as I think it was Rich Armitage said, were we able to stop that attack? The answer is no. Were we ahead of those particular terrorists and what they were doing? Obviously not. George Tenet put it well, I thought, when he said, "Look" -- they said, "Why did it happen?" He said, "Because we didn't have a source inside that particular terrorist cell." That would have enabled it to being stopped.

Pardon me for a short moment of factiness, but we did have a source inside that particular terrorist cell. The San Diego landlord for two of the hijackers was an FBI Informant. Carry on. We also had an FBI agent in Arizona who had noticed several people leaning to fly planes, but not neccesarily how to land. He was ignored by FBI brass.

MR. WALLACE: Clarke makes one other specific charge that I'd like to give you the opportunity to respond to here today. He says that on September 12th, the day after the attack, that when all the evidence was pointing to al Qaeda that you wanted to hit Iraq. Let's look at this.

MR. CLARKE: Rumsfeld said "There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan, and there are lots of good targets in Iraq." I said, "Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it."

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Secretary, true or false?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, I don't know the context that he said that. I said publicly at one stage during our effort in Afghanistan, which was, of course, a highly successful effort to deal with the al Qaeda there and run them out and deny them that haven, that Afghanistan had run out of targets. That is a correct quote. It's out of context here, but it is a correct quote.

This entire line of questioning wasn't so much about whether the Bush Administration did enough pre-9/11, it was entirely about "Is Clarke Crazy or just plain nuts?" Rumsfeld tries not to directly smear Clarke, but in the end he does state :

Any suggestion that the administration was not [thinking about Al Qaeda] would just be incorrect.

Technically he's correct since Richard Clarke himself was a part of the Bush Administration and he was certainly thinking about it. But he was just about the only one. Condoleeza Rice, who was Clarke's boss and was the one who demoted him and deprioritized the entire Counter Terrorism Group - has herself has been sharply critical of Clinton's comments:

In her interview with the New York Post, Condoleezza Rice claims that the Clinton Administration did not develop a strategy to fight al Qaeda:

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton’s claim that he “left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy” for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

“We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,” Rice responded during the hourlong session.

Here’s what the 9/11 Commission Report has to say about it:

As the Clinton administration drew to a close, Clarke and his staff developed a policy paper of their own [which] incorporated the CIA’s new ideas from the Blue Sky memo, and posed several near-term policy options. Clarke and his staff proposed a goal to “roll back” al Qaeda over a period of three to five years …[including] covert aid to the Northern Alliance, covert aid to Uzbekistan, and renewed Predator flights in March 2001. A sentence called for military action to destroy al Qaeda command-and control targets and infrastructure and Taliban military and command assets. The paper also expressed concern about the presence of al Qaeda operatives in the United States.” [p. 197]

Clarke, who also worked for the Bush administration, wrote Condoleezza Rice a memo as soon as the Bush administration took office, stating, “[W]e urgently need…a Principals level review of the al Qida network.” His request was denied.

Not only was his request for an urgent Principals meeting denied, no meetings what-so-ever took place on Al Qeada with key members of the Bush Administration for over 8 months.

Clinton's principle arguement was "I tried and I failed. They didn't try!".

On that point there is absolutely no denying the facts, even if that is exactly what Condi is now claiming. She's wrong. So is Redstate.

Clinton pointed out, accurately, that Fox News has a known right-wing bias. Conservatives have frequently claimed that the non-Fox and Rupert Murdock owned media has as "left-wing bias", suddenly it's unfair for a Democrat to make the exact same claim about Fox when this is the first time they've interviewed him - Ever - and the very first question is an attempt to bash his Administration for something the Bush Administration failed to do? Ridiculous.

But not at all unexpected.

Vyan

The SmearBoating of Ray McGovern

It's been going on for some time, but last night on the O'Reilly factor Operation Rally Round the Rumfeld reached an all new level as 27 year CIA vet Ray McGovern was repeatedly accused of being a "Far Left Looney" by O'Reilly and Faux-Liberal Juan Williams.

(Transcripts are not yet available, but from what I remember O'Reilly stated)

"He wants to Impeach the President"

"He claims the Presidents wants terrorists to attack the U.S."

"He's conspired with Cindy Sheehan"

"He's a nut"

"None of the other news outlets have honestly looked into this guys background - it should have been a the TOP of every article"

"It's not like anyone who has worked for the government, automatically has credibility"

So, McGovern is a wacko-nutjob that the press should have exposed? And exactly how does this explain that Rumsfeld did say he "knew where the [WMD's] were" on This Week, and that he did say "There's bullet proof evidence of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda"?

Yeah, sure, McGovern being a "nutball" just happened to make Rumfeld Lie his ass off... right.

I'm sure Media Matters will be all over this a few hours, they usually are -- but before they join the fray I wanted to take a bite outta O'Leilly.

Glenn Greenwald has already been on the case here and has carefully documented the rise of these rumors and allegations against McGovern as they bubble up from the fever swamp of the right-wing bloviosphere.

What is it that Gateway Pundit's "investigation" revealed about McGovern that prompted Reynolds' admiration, along with his lament that "Big Media" failed to issue a similar report? To begin with, in the headlines of Gateway Pundit's post, we learn right away that McGovern is a"nutjob," as in: "Nutjob Ray McGovern Heckles Rummy."

But that revelation is just the beginning. Gateway Pundit also informs us that McGovern is a "certified nutcase" who "has a trail of lunatic behavior a mile long." G.P. also uncovered evidence conclusively demonstrating that McGovern is a "moonbat." I agree with Instapundit- what right does the MSM have to keep this important information from us?

What is the evidence which supports these substantive allegations? G.P. first cites a website - something called PrisonPlanet.com - with the headline: "Government May be Manufacturing Fake Terrorism," presumably to imply that McGovern believes that Islamic terrorist attacks are perpetrated by the U.S. Government. In fact, the website merely quotes McGovern as accusing the administration and its supporters of manipulating terrorist threats in order to maximize their power and urging skepticism about government statements in the event that another terrorist attack prompts efforts to impose martial law.

So McGovern doesn't really think the government is sponsoring terrorism, but we could speculate about exactly what feels - just like O'Reilly does - forever. (Maybe he feels that the "Red Light/Green Light" Homeland Security alert system just might be being manipulated, that the government might be taking advantage of the fear that terrorism attacks engender to gather more and more power onto itself. Y'know, like ignoring Habeas Corpus, the 8th Amendment ban on "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" and the 4th Amendment ban on illegal "search and seizure"? God they're right, that McGovern is a fucking fruitcake! That kinda shit could never happen in the U.S. of A!)

Enough guessing - here's what McGovern actually said...

Ray McGovern, former CIA Analyst during the Regan and Bush 41 regimes, joined Alex Jones on his daily radio show Monday 17th October as part of a round table discussion of issues surrounding the Iraq war and the "war on terror".

...

Mr McGovern stated that the war

"has nothing to do with democracy or freedom or defending "our way of life", it is to do with enriching the pockets of those who support this administration."

Alex then put it to Mr McGovern that Congressman Ron Paul had recently been on the show and said that The Bush Administration was openly trying to set up a martial law police state in America. McGovern responded in the affirmative:

"Well it does seem that those who have his (Bush's) ear are hell bent on giving away or providing wider responsibilities to our military. Witness what they are talking about now with giving the military primary responsibility for catastrophes, for hurricanes and so forth. Our military has been built up as an instrument of power but has never existed with this kind of potency before, and so we all need to look at this because there are laws against using the military in law enforcement capacities and we need to get to our Congressmen and Senators and say "look enough of this stuff."

That law would be the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. So McGovern is being called a "nutball" for accurately pointing out the reality of the greater militarization of our society as being illegal?

Greenwald continues...

McGovern has also said that the desire for control over oil and the desire by some "zionists" to benefit Israel were factors influencing the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- views which apparently makes him both crazy and anti-Semitic. Moreover, McGovern travelled to Iraq as part of what G.P. calls a "hate America freakshow" that included "pedophile" (not to mention former United States Marine officer and aide to General Norman Schwarzkopf) Scott Ritter, whose pre-war claims about Iraq (in stark contrast to Instapundit, among others) proved to be entirely true. G.P. also uncovered the highly incriminating fact that McGovern (like 60% of Americans) also opposes the war in Iraq and, as a result, has attended various anti-war events. G.P. also links to "Allahpundit" over at Hot Air, Michelle Malkin's new venture, where the same "charges" are repeated.

It seems rather amazing that the fetid ramblings of Instapundit and Michelle Malkin are winding up on National Television -- oh wait never mind we're talk about FOX aren't we? Ok, it's not that surprising.

As Georgia10 points out today, this phenomenon is far from new - it's classic rebranding GOP/Fox style.

This obsession with form over substance is the hallmark of political analysis these days. Instead of addressing the substance of Colbert's critique, Cohen's first column obsessed over the form of its delivery. And now, he wastes a second column whining about the tone of emails he received, instead of addressing the substance of his readers' complaints. Deborah Howell, in her Abramoff column dust-up, focused more on the form of reader emails than the fact they were calling her out on a factual error. And the substance of Harry Taylor's dissent wasn't analyzed as media coverage focused on form: the President vs. the protesting American

Confronted face-to-face with facts that are unarguable, the tried and true tactic is to impune the character of the person bringing out the issue. This has been done to Cindy Sheehan, Joe Wilson, Scott Ritter and many others.

Catch the GOP in the midst of indiscriminately spreading rancid bullshit (which I suspect they might consider fertilizing) and you'd best be ready to get smeared. It doesn't matter that when you compare Rumsfeld 2006 to Rumsfeld 2003 you have a clear picture of things - let's ignore that and instead accuse the accuser of having untoward motives simply for asking the question.

What I find really frightening about this, is the concept of the litmus test, that somehow you have to be perfectly and completely politically "clean" - simply for your question to be considered legitimate. Just like the soldier who had previously asked Rumsfeld about "Hillbilly Armor", and was later accused of being a pawn of the media. Instead of wondering why the media would need to use pawns and couldn't simply ask the question themselves, they attack the soldier and ignore the fact that the U.S. forces to this very day have not resolved the armor issue.

It's Revisionist Reality.

Rumsfeld didn't really say what he said - because McGovern is an anti-semite who likes to flog cats on the weekend. Fact doesn't matter. Truth doesn't matter. Experience and expertise don't matter. This guy is a "Far Left LI-BER-AL" and can't be trusted. And poor Don Rumsfeld had to put up with his rantings? Good on the Secretary for being so patient, so gracious...

And the most frightening parts is that this shit works at redirecting the attention of a large portion not only of audience of Faux News, it works for much of the general public as well. Operation: Hey Look over There... marches on.

And we all lose in the process, left and right alike.

(Update - Link to Olbermann Transcript)

Vyan

Why I love David Gregory (MSNBC)

Crossposted on Dailykos

In yesterday's White House press gaggle, David Gregory (MSNBC) just stepped up and Cleaned-Scotty's-Clock and it was a wonderful thing to witness - and it should be remembered, therefore I am presenting it here as well as my own appropriately snarky commentary and background info.

First the Party-line From The White House

MR. McCLELLAN: We've already talked about the FISA court. That is a very important tool, as well, and we make very good use of the FISA tool. But FISA was created in a different time period for longer-term monitoring. This program is for a shorter period of time aimed at detection and prevention. And so that's what it's focus is.

And I think we have to step back and remember that -- and I think the Attorney General talked about this in his remarks yesterday -- there is a longtime tradition in war of engaging in surveillance of the enemy.

Overseas? Yes. Domestically, well yes too if you include COINTELPRO, but I wouldn't recommend using that as your example, Scotty.

That's what this is. We are a nation at war, and there is an enemy that is deadly and determined to strike us again and inflict even greater damage. And we saw the problem highlighted in the 9/11 Commission report when we learned too late about communications that were taking place from two hijackers that were in the United States talking to people outside the United States.

But the problem there wasn't that the couldn't pick up the communications - they did. The problem with some of the most daming communictions was that they didn't translate them soon enough. The 9/11 Commission Report also said this...

In May 2001, the drumbeat of reporting grew louder with reports to top officials that "Bin Ladin public profile may presage attack" and "Bin Ladin network's plans advancing." In early May, a walk-in to the FBI claimed there was a plan to launch attacks on London, Boston, and New York. Attorney General John Ashcroft was briefed by the CIA on May 15 regarding al Qaeda generally and the current threat reporting specifically. The next day brought a report that a phone call to a U.S. embassy had warned that Bin Ladin supporters were planning an attack in the United States using "high explosives." On May 17, based on the previous day's report, the first item on the CSG's agenda was "UBL: Operation Planned in U.S."9 The anonymous caller's tip could not be corroborated.

Why do you need to tap the phones of Americans without a warrant when you have people calling you direcly, and walking in the front door telling you "Osama Bin Ladin is going to attack" - and you don't listen?

Ok, Rant over....back to Scotty.

MCCLENNAN: That's the kind of problem this is designed to detect, and then be able to act and prevent attacks. It's about connecting the dots. That's what the 9/11 Commission said we need to do.

So the President not only had the authority to do what he's doing, but he has the responsibility to do what he is doing, because it's about saving lives. It's about preventing attacks. It's very limited in nature, and it's focused on international communications involving al Qaeda members or affiliated terrorist organizations from either communicating inside the United States to someone outside, or communicating from outside the United States to someone inside. And I think the American people expect us to do everything within our lawful power to protect them. And the President made it very clear that as long as he is President, he will continue acting to do everything he can within his powers and within the law to protect the American people.

But we work very closely with Congress. We have briefed members of Congress on this vital tool over the course of the law few years, and we'll continue to work closely with Congress.

So they've prevented attacks, eh? Which attacks? Who whom? Where? During his Presidency the Clinton Administration prevented attacks on LAX, the UN, the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel, CIA Headquarters and 11 simultaneuos airliner bombs over the pacific. Just what you done for us lately Scotty?

This is where David steps up to the plate.

DAVID GREGORY Q I think that -- I mean, the way I read this question, he's asking, will you ask the FISA court for approval of this program -- not specific instances, but will you ask the FISA court if this is -- if this program, the overall program, is sanctioned under the law. And that's the -- MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if the FISA court wants to talk any more about any communications that they have had with administration officials, that's up to them. It is a highly classified court, for good reasons.

Q They won't talk about it.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's why I leave it up to them. If there's anything more they want to say, then I would leave it up to them.

So basically, the court can't talk about it for security reasons and the President, Attorney General and General Hayden are talking about it, but Scotty won't answer questions about whether they've considered amending the law? Huh?

Q Can I just follow on this point, because let's be clear about a couple of things. First of all, the President argues, asserts, that he has the power to unilaterally authorize this wiretapping, okay? It's not -- he doesn't have the monopoly on the truth of how --

MR. McCLELLAN: The courts have upheld it and previous administrations have asserted it, as well.

Q Well, that was different, and that is, again -- this is your position --

MR. McCLELLAN: Same authority. Same authority, David.

Q -- that's in dispute.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not -- hang on -- that's not in dispute. And look at the Associate Attorney General under the Clinton administration. The courts have upheld this authority in the past. Look at the federal courts. The President talked about it and we provided it in a document. So that's wrong.

Q No, I don't think that's wrong, and we can go into that, but I don't -- our time is not best spent doing that.

No, Scotty it's not the same authority and it's not wrong.. McClellan it would appear is referring to the congressional testimony made in 1993 by Clinton Admin official Jamie Gorelick during the Aldrige Ames case where his home was physically searched without a warrant. At that time, the FISA Law didn't cover physical searches - but was amended to do so in 1995. The Clinton Administration assertion that they had an inherent right to warrantless physical searches of foreign intelligence did not violate FISA. Bush's warrantless electronic surveillance does.

MR. McCLELLAN: That the courts haven't upheld it.

No, the courts have not upheld this authority in the past. The "document" that Scotty is referring too is certainly the 40-page DOJ defense of the extra-FISA program. That document notes the Hamdi case where the court found that an American Citizen could be held as an "Enemy Combatant". It said nothing about surveillance, and further the court insisted on judicial review of the case prior to the designation being assigned to that prisoner. Transfering the rules in Hamdi to the NSA situation would clearly indicate that judicial review and a warrant are still required before subjecting American citizens to the same treatment as foreign terrorist targets.

One of the other cases mentioned by the DOJ, Youngstown v Sawyer involved President Truman taking control of the nations steel mills in order to prevent a strikes in the midst of the Korean War. The court held that the President did not have that power under Article II of the Constitution and his "Command in Chief" duties. The DOJ, bizarrely, argues the reverse. I'm a layman, not a lawyer and I could figure this out, as apparently has David Gregory, what's Scotty's excuse?

Q My question is, instead of spending time trying to fine-tune the rhetoric over what you want to call this program for political purposes, why not seek to amend FISA so that it can better suit your purposes, which is another thing the previous administration did when it wasn't considered to be agile enough? So why not, if you want the program to be more responsive, to be more agile, why not seek to amend FISA?

Seems a perfectly reasonable question to me. If you need this authority, why not ask for it? What was the Patriot Act all about anyway?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let's look at a practical example. Do you expect our commanders, in a time of war, to go to a court while they're trying to surveil the enemy? I don't think so. This is a time of war. This is about wartime surveillance of the enemy. That's what this is about. And we don't ask our commanders to go to the court and ask for approval while they're trying to gain intelligence on the enemy. So I think that's a real practical term to look at it in when you're talking about this issue, because that's what this is about.

Well, gee - do you expect that the "enemy" just might sometimes include the American people? If yes, and you assert that we are now doing law enforcement via the Military you have a problem with the Posse Comitatus Act now don't you? (NSA is a part of DOD btw)

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

The PCA generally prohibits U.S. military personnel from direct participation in law enforcement activities. Some of those law enforcement activities would include interdicting vehicles, vessels, and aircraft; conducting surveillance, searches, pursuit and seizures; or making arrests on behalf of civilian law enforcement authorities. Prohibiting direct military involvement in law enforcement is in keeping with long-standing U.S. law and policy limiting the military's role in domestic affairs.

And if the Military is not doing law enforcement, then basically - we are under Martial Law. But then that's exactly what these guys are really thinking isn't it - with their Signing Statements and all. It doesn't matter what the law is if the President simply chooses to ignore the law and make up a quasi-Constitutional Justification that is in direct contradiction to "previous administrations and the courts".

Q There's no way to amend --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, no, let me back up, because I talked about this the last couple days. I mean, it's a very good question and an important question. FISA is an important tool. We use it. General Hayden talked about that. When we were briefing members of Congress over the course of the last few years -

No, you briefed the "Gang of Eight" and they had no advisory capacity nor could they share the information with anyone else, including their own staff due to security. The Congressional Research Service has noted that failing to notify all of Congress (not just the Gang of Eight) may have broken the law.

MCCLENNAN - I think it was more recently, over, maybe, the last couple years -- I think the Attorney General talked about it -- we talked with congressional leaders, bipartisan congressional leaders, about this very issue: Should we go and get legislation that would reflect the authority the President already has?

Why not? Particularly since FISA is currently the sole and exclusive controlling legal authorization for Foreign (International) Surveilance under Under 18 USC § 2511?

MCCLENNAN - cllAnd those leaders felt that it could compromise our national security interest and this program if we were to go and get legislation passed. Because we don't want to let the enemy know about our play book, and the more you talk about this program, the more potential it has to harm our national security interest. That's why we don't get into talking about the operational aspects about it.

Oh, so you think Al-Qaeda is out there reading the Congressional Record, becoming versed in U.S. Federal Law and would like stop calling the U.S. if they knew you might be listening in? Yeah, right. Logic dictates that they've long ago adapted to the possibility of NSA phone taps on "international" calls and are using code-words and phrases to mask what's really going on. Why stop doing that when calling the U.S.?

Btw, the FISA court is already Secret - so why are you expecting al-Qaeda to get your "play book" and know who we're tapping, when and where? Roving Wiretaps were approved under the Clinton Administration in 1995 weren't they?

MCCLENNAN: But it is important for the American people to understand exactly what this program is and how limited it is and what its purpose is. There's been some misrepresentations. Now, with that said, as I pointed out, we work very closely with Congress. We'll continue to work closely with Congress as we move forward. But the President has the authority and the responsibility to do what he's doing and he's going to keep doing it.

You'll work closely with Congress,eh? Well it seems they don't have the security clearance to even listen to a whistleblower like Russell Tice, and they won't even share information about Katrina which isn't classified in any way shape or form. Tell us another one, Scotty...


Vyan