Posted on 12/20/2005 6:30:32 AM PST by The_Victor
WASHINGTON - Some Democrats say they never approved a domestic wiretapping program, undermining suggestions by President Bush and his senior advisers that the plan was fully vetted in a series of congressional briefings.
"I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, said in a handwritten letter to Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003. "As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney."
Rockefeller is among a small group of congressional leaders who have received briefings on the administration's four-year-old program to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al-Qaida.
The government still would seek court approval to snoop on purely domestic communications, such as calls between New York and Los Angeles.
Some legal experts described the program as groundbreaking. And until the highly classified program was disclosed last week, those in Congress with concerns about the National Security Agency spying on Americans raised them only privately.
Bush, accused of acting above the law, on Monday issued a forceful defense of the program he first authorized shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. His senior aides have stressed the program was narrowly targeted at individuals with a suspected link to al-Qaida or affiliated extremist groups. And Bush said it was "a shameful act" for someone to have leaked details to the media.
He bristled at the suggestion at a White House news conference that he was assuming unlimited powers.
"To say 'unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject," he said angrily. "I am doing what you expect me to do, and at the same time, safeguarding the civil liberties of the country."
Despite the defense, there was a growing storm of criticism in Congress and calls for investigations, from Democrats and Republicans alike. Until the past several days, the White House had only informed Congress' top political and intelligence committee leadership about the program that Bush has reauthorized more than three dozen times.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he and other top aides were just now educating the American people and Congress. "The president has not authorized ... blanket surveillance of communications here in the United States," he said.
The spying uproar was the latest controversy about Bush's handling of the war on terror. It follows allegations of secret prisons in Eastern Europe and of torture and other mistreatment of detainees, and an American death toll in Iraq that has exceeded 2,150.
The eavesdropping program was operated out of the NSA, the nation's largest and perhaps most secretive spy operation. Employees there appreciate their nicknames: No Such Agency or Never Say Anything.
Decisions on what conversations to monitor are made at the Fort Meade, Md., headquarters, approved by an NSA shift supervisor and carefully recorded, said Gen. Michael Hayden, the principal deputy director of intelligence.
"The reason I emphasize that this is done at the operational level is to remove any question in your mind that this is in any way politically influenced," said Hayden, who was NSA director when the program began.
Since the program was disclosed last week by The New York Times, current and former Congress members have been liberated to weigh in.
Former Sen. Bob Graham (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla., who was part of the Intelligence Committee's leadership after the 9/11 attacks, recalled a briefing about changes in international electronic surveillance, but does not remember being told of a program snooping on individuals in the United States.
"It seemed fairly mechanical," Graham said. "It was not a major shift in policy."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., received several briefings and raised concerns, including in a classified letter, her spokeswoman Jennifer Crider said.
Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said he, too, was briefed by the White House between 2002 and 2004 but was not told key details about the scope of the program.
Daschle's successor, Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., said he received a single briefing earlier this year and that important details were withheld. "We need to investigate this program and the president's legal authority to carry it out," Reid said.
Republicans, too, were skeptical.
Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has promised hearings next year and said he would ask Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, his views of the president's authority for spying without a warrant.
Bush said the electronic eavesdropping program lets the government move faster than the standard practice of seeking a court-authorized warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent," the president said.
And he was cool toward investigations. "An open debate would say to the enemy, `Here is what we're going to do.' And this is an enemy which adjusts," he said.
___
My wife said last night that Americans would not be able sleep at night if people like Byrd, Reid, Pelosi, and Kerry were in charge of keeping us safe.
Listening to the members of the MSM/dem party caterwaul last night, their talking point was "the President has not made the legal case for intercepting and eavesdropping on phone calls."
To begin with, I was under the impression, and someone I am sure will correct me if I am wrong, that it is perfectly legal intercept phone calls so long as it is done abroad, ex-US. During the news conference yesterday, the President hinted that this was the case, the he authorized intercepting calls ex-US. It also seems to me that in order for the President to thoroughly defend himself, which I believe he can with the greatest of ease, he would be forced to reveal the minute details of many top secret programs still underway, thus undermining or destroying our nations intelligence gathering capabilities. The President was NOT willing to do this in the name of expediency and relied upon his war powers as CIC to justify his actions. Of course, during times of war other Presidents (named Roosevelt and Lincoln, for example) have made Bush's actions look tame, but hey, suddenly the Constitution has become a suicide note.
Nonetheless, the MSM/dem party still takes the position that the President has not made the legal case. This position presupposes two things 1) that the President has no war powers because Republican Presidents should have no powers at all; and 2) even if the President did have war powers, THIS IS NOT A WAR.
There is one group out there that disagrees with the Invasion of Iraq and thinks it is not an extension of the War on Terror, thinks that Afghanistan should have remained our main area of focus, and thinks that we were united in the War on Terror until the Iraq invasion. There is yet another group that supports the larger War on Terror, but still thinks it is time to get out of Iraq. What do both crowds have in common? They both know there is a War on. Moreover, these groups realize that prior to 9/11 we failed to connect the dots even as the attacks against American interests intensified until America itself was hit.
In the aftermath of 9/11 the democrats (hoping to slime Bush) loaded up the 9/11 commission and used it to scream the loudest that Bush had failed to connect the dots. Could anyone forget Hillary Clinton standing on the floor of the Senate blaring that "Bush knew?" Do we have such amnesia that we are unable to remember back just two weeks ago when the 9/11 members were criticizing Bush for not doing enough? Yet now he is criticized and criminalized for carrying out the very actions the 9/11 commission suggested. . . .as if there is NO WAR.
The Patriot Act killed, the Iraq War effort undermined, Intelligence leaked selectively to undermine political opponents at the expense of national security, etc. etc. These actions mean only one thing, the democrats believe that if they aren't in power, the country must not be worth saving. Better a destroyed America than one without them in power. Surely they must know that these extreme positions will win them nothing with the voters. In effect, the dems have strapped a bomb vest on themselves and become the ultimate suicide weapon for our enemies. Congrats guys, you hit rock bottom.
Bush finally got on the offensive and his poll numbers are rising. Now this. Pisses me off.
The Commander-in-Chief does not need permission from a minority in Congress to intercept communications with THE ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES!
Apparently he was not sufficiently concerned to follow up with any legal inquiry of his own.
"I am, however, a very wealthy trust baby with a low IQ."
Therein lies the problem.
The dems and the MSM do not get it. They want the President to follow the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Give the other fellow a sporting chance.
IMHO all lawmakers should be made to watch the footage of 9/11 at least once a month. Perhaps then they might remember what we are up against.
God bless President Bush and all the brave men and women in uniform.
He put the "anal" in anally retentive.
Well, they are stupid enough. They have attacked Bush all year long and got his approval numbers down because he did not fight back. However, he is fighting back now and their paradigm of a new Vietnam is going to be broken.
Well, they are stupid enough. They have attacked Bush all year long and got his approval numbers down because he did not fight back. However, he is fighting back now and their paradigm of a new Vietnam is going to be broken.
Well, Bob sure is changing HIS story. I guess he looked back in one of his daily diaries.
Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said he, too, was briefed by the White House between 2002 and 2004 but was not told key details about the scope of the program. Daschle's successor, Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., said he received a single briefing earlier this year and that important details were withheld. "We need to investigate this program and the president's legal authority to carry it out," Reid said.
Ah, how would they KNOW that they didn't get briefed on all the details if they weren't given "all the details?" What ARE the details?
No he is a damned liar, just like Harry Reid. Last Sunday Harry Reid would not answer Tim Russert's question when he asked him 3 different times if he was briefed by the White House. Senator Rockefeller's position in the Senate on the National Security Council would also ensure a complete and in depth briefing. This will blow up in the Democrats face like the mother of all bombs, MOAB. My question is has the leak crossed the line of treason?
The USA has been attacked without provocation or warning.
More than 2,000 innocent Americans perished.
And the demonRATs now want to say doing everything possible to prevent further attacks was not in the nation's best interest?
demonRATs are scum--no...scum is a step up from a demonRAT.
Exactly!! They are using this now to detract from the success of the elections in Iraq since the "pullout now" tactic wasn't working. These hate-Bush traitors will do and say ANYTHING to undermine this president and his administration even if it compromises our national security and aids those we are at war with. They are truly despicable and their true colors are showing more than ever. I am disgusted.
Could this be what Rockefeller didn't "understand?"
They want to cry Impeachment, Impeachment until it sticks.
Yeah, and how are they going to do that? The nitwits haven't yet realized 1) They don't own the House 2) Impeachment proceedings begin there 3) The President did nothing deserving impeachment or illegal 4) The American people are once again seeing Democrats protecting terrorists over their safety.
Brilliant startegy Dems. This is the ticket to success. You would think in the polls they believe are gospel that are rising since they went down this path that they'd realize national security isn't their turf, and never will be their turf so long as they embrace Osama, Zarqawi, defeatism and disregard for our safety. All they are doing is conducting one long campaign commercial for the People on why they should remain a decreasing minority. Well, not all they are doing. They seem determined to make us unsafe in the process with their leaks. I want the leaker(s) imprisoned.
"I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, said in a handwritten letter to Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003. "As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney."
Bwa-ha-ha!! Good one Democrats. Bush told you all about it but you lacked the competence to understand it. And you want to be put into power? Now THERE'S a position to run on! Do I see another RNC commercial in future? Hope so!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.