Nagourney: NSA Helps President Bush?
By all indications, NY Times’ reporter Adam Nagourney can’t believe that the NSA issue is a winner for the President. Nagourney’s surprise at this shows in how he words things. Here’s a couple examples:
With a campaign of high-profile national security events set for the next three days, following Karl Rove’s blistering speech to Republicans on Friday, the White House has effectively declared that it views its controversial secret surveillance program not as a political liability but as an asset, a way to attack Democrats and re-establish President Bush’s standing after a difficult year. Whether the White House can succeed depends very much, members of both parties say, on its success in framing a complicated debate when the country is torn between its historic aversion to governmental intrusion and its recent fear of terrorist attacks at home.
Notice the obfuscation in that paragraph. Claiming that the NSA wiretap issue has started “a complicated debate” is silly. President Bush framed it yesterday as an issue of keeping the American people safe. People get that loud and clear. Further, most people believe that the President has the authority to have the NSA intercept international communications, though they aren’t certain if the AUMF gives him that authority or if the Constitution gives him that authority.
Polls show that the American people understand that Democrats’ complaining about the NSA program is simply Democrats’ playing politics with national security. That’s why so many people have tuned out the Pelosis, Kennedys and Kerrys of the world.
Polls suggest that Americans are divided over whether Mr. Bush has the authority to order the searches without warrants that critics say violate the law and that the president says are legal and critical to the nation’s security. But as the White House and Democrats are well aware, the issue can draw very different reactions depending on how it is presented. These next few days could prove critical, as both Mr. Bush and Congressional Democrats move aggressively to define what is at stake.
This paragraph gives Democrats and the Senate too much attention. The simple fact is that President Bush has the bigger bulhorn and he’s got the issues on his side. Game. Set. Match. Democrats are on ‘part of the play’ but they’re in the orchestra pit, making loud noises from time to time but essentially staying out of sight.
At the end of the day, people will remember President Bush saying things like “If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?” They’ll remember that it was the President who harnessed all the power of the presidency and used them in concert to keep Americans safe. At the end of the day, what will be said about Senate Democrats like Kennedy and Kerry? That they were merely bad sideshows to a grand play.
Nagouney also tries pulling a fast one by saying “Polls suggest that Americans are divided over whether Mr. Bush has the authority to order the searches without warrants…” It’s true that they’re split but it’s a 65-35 split. Nagourney’s wording suggests that it’s more like a 50-50 split. Nothing is further from the truth and he knows it.
Democrats, and, though Mr. Rove made no mention of this Friday, some Republicans, too, have indeed challenged the administration for eavesdropping without obtaining warrants. They argue, among other points, that the White House is bypassing legal mechanisms established in 1978 that already allow law enforcement agencies to move rapidly to monitor communications that might involve terrorists. Yet it is difficult to think of a Democrat who has actually argued that it is not “in our national security interest” to track Qaeda calls to the United States, as Mr. Rove contested; he did not offer any examples of whom he had in mind.
When Nagourney says that “it is difficult to think of a Democrat who has actually argued that it is not “in our national security interest” to track Qaeda calls to the United States”, he’s factually accurate but he’s parsing words. What is equally factually accurate is that Democrats have gotten quite good at making statements that say something like “We all agree that it’s important to protect against terrorists’ attacks. We simply believe that the President has gone beyond what the law allows.” Senators and congressmen that make those types of statements NEVER TALK ABOUT drafting legislation that would guarantee the President the ability to conduct these wiretaps. Then again, how would you be able to have that debate?
A number of Republicans have joined Democrats in challenging the surveillance program, pointedly reminding the administration that precedents established today will be in place whenever a Democrat returns to power.
What a crock. Republicans shouldn’t be worried that “precedents established today will be in place whenever a Democrat returns to power” because we’d want the President, whether it’s a Democrat or Republican to have the power to protect us by using whatever technology is available at the time. Nagourney’s argument isn’t worthy of debating.
After examining the history of Mr. Rove’s campaigns, it’s difficult to see how this isn’t a major plus for Republicans. And that isn’t a delicate dance at all.
Cross-post at LetFreedomRing
January 24th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Bush defends tactics in war on terror
President Bush on Monday went on the offensive against critics of his tactics in the war on terroris