Posted on 12/30/2005 5:11:35 AM PST by saveliberty
By Tony Snow
Dec 30, 2005
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The White House Social Office needs to note right now, before anybody has a chance to forget, that it really must send flowers, chocolates and wall-sized Christmas cards (um, holiday cards) next year to James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times.
The intrepid duo saved the Bush presidency recently by breaking news that the National Security Agency has been conducting surveillance of al-Qaida operatives abroad and their minions in the United States. The reporters noted that the agency monitored phone calls, e-mails and other electronic communications by means of sophisticated eavesdropping devices and even more sophisticated computers that can pick out known terrorists' vocal patterns while monitoring words and phrases that may refer to terrorist acts and targets.
This is hardly new. "Signals intelligence" has been the rage among intelligence communities for some time. CBS reported in 2000 on the Echelon program, a joint effort involving the United States and its four chief English-speaking allies to monitor every electronic communication on Earth. Presidents Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush 43 each authorized the use of such surveillance (without bench warrants) in cases involving national security.
The Times pushed the story furiously, and its editorial page inveighed gravely against the president. A handful of Democrats cited the reportage in demanding the president's ouster, while purveyors of Beltway Conventional Wisdom declared "impeachment" the word of 2006.
Yet as opponents grimaced and gathered, curious and unexpected things happened. The president's poll ratings rose, as did public support for the supposedly controversial operation.
This confluence of events works not only to the president's advantage, it fits his political style. When pushed, George W. Bush doesn't like to play smash-mouth. He prefers the poker stratagem of calling people's bluffs.
He did it in proposing his tax cuts. He did it in seeking authorization for the war. And now, he can perform his biggest bluff-call yet.
To understand why, consider a few observations:
-- A president ought to do whatever is necessary and proper to defend American citizens from terrorists.
-- A president has constitutional authority to approve warrantless searches of known and credible terror suspects, especially when he puts in place procedures that allow all three branches of government to oversee the operation.
-- Intelligence failures permitted al-Qaida to pull off not only the Sept. 11 attacks, but also a series of assaults before and after, including the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; the attack on the USS Cole; the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia; slaughters in the Madrid and London subways; and hotel massacres in Jordan and Bali.
-- Signals intelligence and data mining have almost unparalleled potential for exposing terror networks and complicating the work of would-be mass murderers.
Given these statements of the obvious, the president ought to open his State of the Union Address by asking Congress to give him official authority to approve warrantless searches of known and identified terrorists, or of people in regular contact with those terrorists whom authorities reasonably suspect of plotting to commit acts of murder, terror or sabotage. These activities ought to be subject to monthly review by the attorney general. The administration also ought to be required each month to brief the top four congressional leaders, both intelligence committees and the head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
The proposal would codify the status quo -- but shorten the reporting periods to 30 days from 45 -- and place the impeachment crowd in a sticky situation. The public would support both proposals overwhelmingly, leaving the president's most hysterical critics isolated utterly.
Note who has not spoken against the NSA program since the Times story broke. The list includes Harry Reid and Dick Durbin in the Senate; Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer in the House; and members of both intelligence committees. In other words, Democrats in the know either have supported the surveillance program or just kept their mouths shut.
A straightforward vote would shut up the rest, highlighting vividly the gulf that separates a president responsible for national security from critics responsible to nobody. Civil libertarians are right to fret about abuses of government power, which is why successive administrations have brought Congress, the courts and the Justice Department into the review process. But the Great Bluff-Caller is right about an even more fundamental point: If we try to fight the war on terror with eyes shut and ears packed with wax, innocent people will die.
Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2005/12/30/180703.html
Your Tony Snow article ping
Tony Snow ping.
What would we do without the Snowman? ;-)
L
LOL! Good point. After all, we are the Snowflakes.
LOL ! I'm a "snowflake" !
Rockefeller (not the brightest bulb) is asking for an investigation about the leak
The NYT however, can't understand why we are not obeying their instructions and why we are supporting the President. They continue to pound this issue today and are shooting themselves in the assets.
To quote Hemingway in The Sun Also Rises..."isn't it pretty to think so"?
LOL! We all are.
A small price to pay, apparently, for the politically hysterical and neurotic crowd.
Great article
ROCKEFELLER is asking for a probe??? He's the Leaker! LOL! The cheddar has really slipped off his cracker! What a dumb***.
The American public agrees that it's a small price to pay. They also show that to the dismay of the rabid liberals, the American people trust the President.
As they should on this issue.
I disagree with Tony on this one. By asking for permission after the fact, the President would be tacitly admitting that what he did requires Congressional approval. If the POTUS has the authority he should NEVER ask for permission to use it.
Or a staffer of a member on the Committee.
Remember the staff person of Martin Frost, who was supposed to be a conservative Democrat in the House, breaking in to a Republican rep's office to take documents.
I do not think that the president should do any such thing. He has the inherent authority to take these actions granted to him by the Constitution. The Congress can neither grant him such powers nor take them away. To request that he be granted powers which he already has would weaken the presidency. I wish Tony would have a talk with Mark Levin about this. Maybe what the president could do is challenge Congress to pass a law that says he cannot do this without their permission and then litigate it right to the Supremes if necessary. He would win and it would settle the question for good.
:-) Thanks
Surely my right to privacy comes before this nations right to survive.
Next thing they want will be my Social Security number, my drivers licence, and a credit card to fly on a commercial airline, or rent a car.
I feel so violated.
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.