Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Karl Rove on Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid
radioblogger.com (via hughhewitt.com) ^ | 1/26/06 | Hugh Hewitt

Posted on 01/26/2006 7:03:32 PM PST by frankjr

HH: Welcome back to the program, Karl Rove. Great to have you on the Hugh Hewitt Show.

KR: Wonderful to be on, Hugh. How are you doing?

HH: I'm great. Now Karl, we don't have a lot of time, so I want to focus immediately on the NSA program, which was a part of a speech you gave last Friday, and which was the focus of a lot of the questions of the president's press conference this morning. And the white paper from the Department of Justice is out there, and Democrats are not buying it, or at least they're pretending not to buy it. Why so much resistance to surveilling al Qaeda operatives contacting their agents in the United States from the Democratic Party?

KR: Well, you'll have to ask them. I don't understand it, frankly. I think that any American, if they take their partisan hat off, would say that in a time of war, after we've been struck on our homeland, that the President of the United States, if he has the ability to have the appropriate agencies, with Constitutional restraints, and respect for personal liberties of Americans who might unintentionally get sort of swept up in it, if a phone call comes from a bad guy in some bad part of the world to somebody here in the United States, we want to know who they're contacting and what they're saying. And I frankly don't understand what the objection is. Look, under far less terrible circumstances in the 90's, the previous administration used warrantless surveillance in the United States. And this president, particularly after it was struck on 9/11, had a responsibility to do everything possible as commander-in-chief, and after the declaration by Congress to protect the country. And that's exactly what he's doing.

HH: In his speech at Kansas State, the president said look, we brief Congress. We obviously are not hiding...how many times were ranking members of Congress briefed? And who were they that got those briefings?

KR: Well, both the number of briefings and the breadth of the briefing structure has been deliberately not kept...deliberately been kept vague. But we briefed the leadership of the appropriate committees, the leadership of Congress. It was done so on a regular basis. As the president said at Kansas State, if he was trying to hide the program, what was he doing briefing Democrat and Republican members of Congress? And over the course of the last four years, we have not had...you would have thought that if there'd been objections on grounds of principle, that those objections would have been raised not just once, but repeatedly in those briefings, and that Congress would have made its expressions known. But you know, it's only now that people are getting exercised about it, and aain, they've got an obligation. If al Qaeda is calling somebody in the United States, why shouldn't the government have all of the tools at its disposal to listen to those conversations, and detect if they involve a threat to the United States. Now if somebody happens to pick up a phone in some bad part of the world at some local pizza parlor, and call, you know, the local pizza parlor in a city in the United States, and it turns out that it's...while that phone may have been used by al Qaeda, it's being used by somebody to contact their nephew studying at B.U., that there are procedures in place so that those conversations, having been identified, are in essence taken out of the stream. But we're talking about bad people who have done bad things to the United States, and to our citizens, who've killed 3,000 Americans. And we ought to find out when they're plotting and planning to strike us again.

HH: I know you've been vague about it. I'm not sure why we're being vague about how many Democrats have been briefed. Is there a reason why the administration has not done that?

KR: Well, there are reasons, I suspect. And I know there are reasons, but I don't know them, and I'm not privvy to that information. That would probably be on a much more restricted circle of people.

HH: All right. Why...the principal argument from critics of this program is that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court exists, and you could have gone to them to get the approval to do this. I've answered it myself, what's your response to that, Karl?

KR: Well, the response, I think, General Hayden put it succinctly the other day. He said we need a softer and quicker method than FISA allows. The FISA is just one of several tools. It's not the only tool, not the only authority under which the president operates in this area. And it sets standards and processes that are not applicable in many of these cases. I thought he put it well: softer and quicker. There are...that allows them to be able to do these things when there is less information available than might be in available, in order to prepare a FISA request and go before the FISA court. You know, most of the FISA requests are literally, you know, I think the average is a hundred and fifty pages long. And they require certain standards in order to be met, in order to conduct...remember, this is primarily, FISA's primarily aimed at domestic wiretapping and domestic listening. It may involve foreign intelligence service agents, which is where FISA gets its name, Foreign Intelligence Service Agents, but it is really aimed at domestic surveillance. And it is, I repeat, only one of several tools that a president has, particularly in a time of war, to detect conversations of our enemies from without, as they try and talk to the enemy within.

HH: Now Karl Rove, in the white paper the Department of Justic put out, and in the president's press conference today, he clearly asserts a Constitutional authority to do this. And he also notes that the authorization for the use of military force was supplemental to that Constitutional authority, placing it in the full flood zone, in Justice Jackson's tri-part analysis. However, legal commentators, media analysts, and Democrats, refuse to join this argument with at least a fair assessment of what the Constitutional argument is. Is that disingenuous? Do you expect that will continue into the face of this election?

KR: I think it will continue, and I think you're right. Look, you're the legal scholar, Hugh, I'm not. I mean, you're a smart guy, you went to law school. You understand these things better than most Americans do, but yes. The legal scholarship is impeccable on this. The president has this responsibility and authority. And to suggest that he doesn't would be to say that at a time of war, a president of the United States is not able to do the things necessary to protect the country. And presidents throughout history have exercised this Constitutional authority that they have. In fact, they have a Constitutional duty to protect the country. And we believe that that's backed up even further by the authorization for the use of force.

HH: Is it fair to say that...and one of the White House press members asked this this morning, that the administration doesn't want a new amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, because it does not want to give legs to the idea that Congress must be a participant in wartime conduct of wartime operations?

KR: Well, look. There is a struggle. We saw it in the Civil War, where there was a Congressional committee called the Committee For the Investigation of the Conduct of the War, in which Congress attempted to micro-manage the conduct of the U.S. military and the actions of the commander-in-chief. But it was a bad experience, and the founders, if you go back to the Federalist papers, this is why they put the responsibility in the executive for the management and conduct of war. Congress has the ability through the appropriations process to terminate support for the war, but it put...it lodged the responsibility of...the day to day responsibility for the conduct of the war in the hands of the executive. This was born out of the founders' experience in the Revolutionary War. Remember, the people writing the Constitution had seen what happened when the legislative branch attempted to manage the conduct of the war, and they said the security of the United States is too important to be left to this haphazard and weak system of management that they had seen in the Revolutionary War.

HH: Now Karl Rove, this is a profoundly important discussion. Very, very serious, and yet the sallies forth by people like Al Gore and Senator Clinton are not serious. They're radical in some instances. Al Gore's speech was wild. And there is a wildness in the Democratic Party now, especially on their activist base, in places like Daily Kos, etc. Does that alarm you? Has the Democratic Party fundamentally changed from the party of Jack Kennedy when it comes to serious matters like this?

KR: Well, look. We have had two strains in American politics. We've had the strain of bipartisanship in foreign affairs, particularly in the decades of the 40's and the 50's, and 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. That has obviously frayed somewhat. We've also had a tradition of internationalist strong Democrats: Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy. You know, the hyperventilation by some Democrats can be chalked up to having lost an election or political aspirations. But I'm at a loss to explain why so many Democrats seem intent upon focusing their energies and efforts upon hatred of this president, rather than staying focused on the principal responsibility that all in government, and all in the public life of our country have, and that is to sustain the country in a time of war. And...

HH: But Karl, do you share the opinion that I have that a significant part, the majority of this part in Congress now, the Democratic Party, has gone radical on us, as opposed to merely being sort of a liberal opposition, domestically at home, that we're used to, even in the early Clinton years?

KR: Yeah, well, I understand that view. I'm not certain I can quantify it, because like for example, when it came down to it, when the U.S. House of Representatives had to vote on the resolution that embodied Congressman Murtha's pretty remarkably radical proposal, which was immediate stand-down of U.S. troops in Iraq, and their withdrawal by the end of April, the vast majority of Democrats voted against it. They voted in support of a policy aimed at victory. So I mean, there is a difference between rhetoric and action sometimes. There are political strains and stresses within that party that cause good people who know better to say and do things they otherwise wouldn't do. But look, we can't control what they do. I mean, this president treats the opposition with dignity and respect. You'll notice that he has never, for example, said anything regarding the Democratic leadership that could come close to the venom and the anger and the rage that you've seen from people like Al Gore and Senator Clinton and Senator Reid, Senator Reid who routinely refers to the president as a loser and a liar. You know, can you imagine? I could never imagine those words passing the lips of the president of the United States in a news conference. And yet we get them virtually every day from people like Senator Reid.

HH: Now I want to make sure I read the crucial paragraph from your speech last Friday, which I viewed as opening the 2006 campaign. "At the core, we," this is Karl Rove speaking, "We are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security. Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview, and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic, but it does make them wrong, deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong." Karl Rove, I always make the point, you always make the point, it's about their judgment, not about their loyalty, but that their judgment is wildly out of whack with the judgment of the American people.

KR: Right.

HH: Do you expect that will be the issue of 2006?

KR: I expect it will be a big issues in 2006. I mean, elections are never solely about one thing. They're about a range of things, and they're also about the personal characteristics and abilities and personas of the candidates. But yes, I think this will figure big in the minds of the American people, because again, think about this. We're starting off the year with the discussion of whether or not your government, our government, should be listening in to conversations from al Qaeda, in the broader Middle East, trying to contact their allies and friends within the borders of the United States of America. And we're also starting off with a battle on whether or not we should re-authorize the Patriot Act, the Patriot Act which passed the United States Senate by a vote of 98-1. And I remember the ceremony at which the Patriot Act was signed. There was Harry Reid, not more than a foot and a half away from the president, with a broad grin on his face, you know, and afterwards, complimenting the Congress and the country for the passing of this important legislation, talking about how vital it was in the War On Terror. And then fast forward to last December, where in front of raucous sort of left-wing crowd at the Capitol, Harry Reid proudly proclaimed, "We've killed the Patriot Act." Now, well, he hasn't killed the Patriot Act, but the Congress has delayed it. And it's vital for the protection of the country. Ultimately, we're going to win it, but the point is the year starts with the Democrats saying we object to the president of the United States using his authority to do this, listen to conversations between al Qaeda without and al Qaeda within, and we are against the Patriot Act. We glory in the fact that we think we've killed it, which they haven't. So that sort of sets the tone for the year, and builds on these bad perceptions that the Democratic Party has occasionally suffered from, particularly in recent years, of having a mindset that is wrong.

HH: Karl Rove, will the president accept another short-term extension of the Patriot Act?

KR: Well, we will do whatever is necessary to keep this on the books. It may be necessary for us to have another short-term extension, in order to sort of work out any last-minute kinks in order to get it reauthorized on a permanent basis. But our goal is...I mean, look. Law enforcement uses the tools of the Patriot Act routinely in the pursuit of other criminal enterprises. Roving wiretaps, for example, are used to get drug dealers. We use search of business records in order to get at Medicaid fraud. We use other tools in the Act in order to get at organized crime. You know, the view of this administration is if these tools are good enough to crack down on drug dealers, you know, white collar crime, and organized crime like The Sopranos, it's good enough to be used against terrorists who are striking at the heart of our country, and killed 3,000 people on 9/11. We cannot let our memories fade of that terrible moment, that terrible morning, bright September morning, when aircraft struck our country, and when al Qaeda declared its intention to drive America back in on itself. And we will only leave a world that is less peaceful and less hopeful for our kids if we falter in this fight.

HH: Karl Rove, Democrats, and critics of the president, seem to envision a sort of Orwellian moment, when this administration is eavesdropping on Americans, although he repeatedly intones about civil rights, all those programs are being reviewed every 45 days. They have some idea of sort of Jack Bauer and 24 unfolding in their backyard every day. How do you make the independent voter, the unpursuaded voter, the one who is going to decide this, understand the values and civil liberties that hold within this administration?

KR: Well, it's just to continue to talk about it, and to explain the program as best we can without...explaining it in such a way that the enemy understands exactly what we're doing, and changes their nature of how they do it. Remember, we've had an episode already, over the course of the last several decades, in which inadvertent disclosures of the means and methods and operations of intelligence gathering allowed our enemies to change the way that they communicated, and make their operations more oblique to us.

HH: Karl Rove, I'm at my fifteen minute mark. I know you're pushed. Have you got time for two more questions?

KR: You bet.

HH: One is about the media, and it seems to me that from the early call of Florida, and wrong call of Florida in 2000, to this morning's press conference, it's not the (fourth) estate. It's really allied with the Democratic Party when we talk about the mainstream media. Is that frustrating? Do you sense that? Is there some way that you work around that?

KR: Well look, every reporter comes to this with the conscious or unconcious biases of their background, their upbringing, their political views, their philosophical alignment, their social structure, their culture. And we just have to deal with it as it is. Sometimes, it's fair, sometimes it's not. And you know, that's just the sea in which we swim, unfortunately.

HH: Last question, a political one, a time bomb, really, for the Republican Party concerns the border. The House of Representatives passed an act at the end of last year. It hasn't yet come up in the Senate. What is your advice to the Senate about the House's decision to crack down on the border and build the fence?

KR: Well, we support the border security initiative. We are a little bit concerned about the fence. I mean, look. There are now parts of the border, particularly in urban areas, where a fence is necessary and helpful. Frankly, building a fence along a 400 mile part of the Texas border that is high cliffs along the Rio Grande River is probably not the best expenditure of our money. We like to think of the concept of a virtual fence, where we use a combination of fences, barriers at critical points, sensors and technology to in essence strengthen the border. And I'm confident that the Senate is going to take this up. I know this is a strong concern to Senator Frist, the Senate Republican leader. I think the Senate is likely to tackle the issue in a more comprehensive fashion, and not only look at border security, but also look at the issue of a guest worker program as a way to relieve the pressure on our border, so that whatever technology and manpower and resources we've got on the border are concentrated on the border, with fewer people trying to come across because we have got a program to match willing worker with willing employer for jobs that Americans won't do. But we'll see. They're going to try and take this up, I think, in March. We're doing a lot more on the border.

HH: When people say guest worker means amnesty, what's your response.

KR: That it doesn't, because what we do is require people to come here to the United States, if they want to come here to the United States, they've got to apply. They've got to be matched up with a job. They can stay here for a certain number of years to work, three years or four years. They might be able to renew that for one time. Look, most people who come here, every bit of evidence that we've got, is that most people who come here don't come here with the expectation that they're going to spend the rest of their life in the United States. They come here in order to get together a grub steak, and go home and support their family. For example, the average capitalization of a business in Mexico is $5,000. Most, particularly younger workers who come here, they're hope and expectation is I'm going to be able to put together a couple of thousand dollars, and maybe go back and buy some land, or buy a tractor that we can use on the land my family owns, or I'll buy the little gas station at the corner, or I'll open up a shop, or I'll gain a skill to make it in life. But we are so good at once they get here, making it difficult for them to go home, that they lose all connections with their home community or home nation. And after ten years of being here in the underground economy, they wake up and way you know what? It doesn't matter to me anymore. I have no connection. What we need to do is have a program where we have rigorous defense of the borders, but workers who come here are allowed to travel back and forth across the border freely, so they can keep those connections, build that little nest egg, and go home. And you know, our economy depends upon immigrants. We are a nation of immigrants. We're an economy that benefits when smart people and bright people and energetic people come here. And we've got to find the right mix in order to keep that balance.

HH: Karl Rove, thanks for the time. Look forward to doing it again.

End of interview.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alito; gore; nsa; scotus

1 posted on 01/26/2006 7:03:35 PM PST by frankjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: frankjr

test


2 posted on 01/26/2006 7:06:15 PM PST by ffusco (Maecilius Fuscus,Governor of Longovicium , Manchester, England. 238-244 AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

Rove 2008


3 posted on 01/26/2006 7:07:11 PM PST by goresalooza (Nurses Rock!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

Image compliments of Freeper "Dead"...:)

4 posted on 01/26/2006 7:07:24 PM PST by rlmorel ("Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does." Whittaker Chambers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frankjr
Bump for later reading, but it already looks like a home run for our side...

IT'S CALLED LOGIC VS ENEMIES OF THE STATE

5 posted on 01/26/2006 7:09:07 PM PST by demkicker (democrats and terrorists are familiar bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

Most Democrat mind control machines only have dials that go to 10. This one goes to 11. It's one higher.


6 posted on 01/26/2006 7:12:31 PM PST by Gordongekko909 (I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

Democrats would sell their mother for a situation that would make George Bush uncomfortable. If they cant find one they make one up.

I dont believe any right thinking person in the USA would say let Al Quaeda have privacy to plan attacks on Americans and yet this is what these sorry Democrats want. The politicians are almsot as bad as the terrorists and their supporters are either stupid or as crazy as Kennedy-Kerry.


7 posted on 01/26/2006 7:14:30 PM PST by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

The MSM is allied with the RAT party, which is a Communist front group. How many Libs died on 9/11? Why such despicable conduct of the RATS since then?


8 posted on 01/26/2006 7:17:54 PM PST by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

If ANY freepers do not listen to Hugh Hewitt, you are REALLY missing THE BEST!!


9 posted on 01/26/2006 7:21:58 PM PST by Ann Archy (Abortion: The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience. T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

LOL! I love that reference...:)


10 posted on 01/26/2006 7:23:37 PM PST by rlmorel ("Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does." Whittaker Chambers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
I live here in Phoenix. Until just recently, KKNT / 960AM broadcast Hugh from 4 to 7pm. The perfect drive-time show to listen to on the way home from work.

And then in his spot, comes the Liddy & Hill Show, a couple of high-pitched, unfunny, boring guys who got too big for their britches at KFYI / 550AM.

I emailed 960's mgmt to protest replacing Hugh with Liddy, who's the over-emoting unfunny Jim-Carrey of the airwaves and Hill, who's actually tolerable by himself but laughs at every single one of Liddy's antics.

Unfortunately, these two bozos are still on in the same time slot, so I resigned myself to listening to music CDs on the way home. I sure miss Hugh's show....

11 posted on 01/26/2006 8:02:23 PM PST by kromike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

I ,like the guy and many of his strategies, but I swear they have tin ears on this border/illegal thing. They are missing the clarion call of the public, including at least half of the legal hispanic citizens, who view illegals as an economic threat.


12 posted on 01/26/2006 8:22:56 PM PST by catbertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

That is Truly Funny....


13 posted on 01/26/2006 9:25:23 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

I'm still waiting for the democrats to complain that when our troops go into a city, we aren't getting warrants before we search people's houses. Oh wait, didn't Kerry complain about that one? Right, when he said we were "terrorizing" the Iraqi women and children -- and then tried to explain that "terrorizing" didn't mean we were terrorists (and nobody in the MSM had the guts to point out that the word he should have used was 'terrifying').


14 posted on 01/26/2006 9:27:50 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kromike

How horrible! Maybe someone else is carrying him......he really IS the best!!


15 posted on 01/27/2006 3:05:59 AM PST by Ann Archy (Abortion: The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience. T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson