First off, Bush is not answering the reporters' questions, such as they are. He is instead making broad, vague assertions ("the authority comes from the Constitution...") and avoiding asking why he saw fit to bypass FISA rules. The reporters, for their part, have fallen back into a swoon, asking Bush what his biggest mistake has been (for the umpteenth time) and failing to hit the obvious follow-ups (when Bush called disclosing classified information a "shameful act" ... hello, Valerie Plame... or mentioned Iraq emerging from a dark past of secret torture prisons, I'd call that a slow pitch right over the plate... Stretch? ... Stretch...????)
Update: One brave reporter managed to find his manhood and ask Bush whether the seemingly perpetual war on terror means no end to "the unchecked power of the executive." That one really got under the emperor's... Supreme Leader's ... president's skin...
Conversely, there are several ringers in the audience, including one whose question was "what are your hopes and goals for the next three years and what's your best case scenario for Iraq," and another whose burning question was "do you really expect Democrats to reject partisanship and support your policy in Iraq?" Clearly that was the Fox News question. Also, where is David Gregory? Was he even invited...?
Related:
Here's Al Gonzalez's lame spying defense. According to NBC News:
The president, as commander-in-chief, has certain authorities under the onstitution, Gonzales said, and those were expanded by Congress to include electronic surveillance a few days after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
The president’s use of that authority is “consistent with law in my judgment,” he said, adding that he had met Sunday night with Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., and other senior lawmakers to explain the authority. Well I wish he'd explain it at this press conference, because such authority -- let alone any mention of wiretapping powers -- just isn't mentioned in the force authorization post-Sept 11.
Update 2: Lame, lame questions (even April's question sucked...) Final score: The reporters get a D on this one. Bush clearly got the better of them.
Update 3: Reax from the rightward end of the blogosphere are generally favorable (not surprising, since their guy was the clear aggressor.)
Michelle Malkin liked the combative tone and questions for Democrats who voted for the Patriot Act...
The Noonz Wire also found the president's aggressive tone more appealing than his sad sack speech Sunday night, and he gets the press part right:
John Roberts of CBS confirmed that that particular media organization is still not to be taken seriously when he used his time to re-ask the ridiculous question of whether or not the President believes he has made any mistakes.
I have to stop writing now, but in closing I have to say that based on the insipid questions coming from the press, the only person in the room who is truly concerned about our national security is the President himself. Well I don't know about that last bit, but insipid is exactly what that questioning was. ... and pretty lame, too...
Over on the left end of the blogosphere, Scott Shields at MyDD just read the transcripts (probably a good way to avoid frustration), but also finds the amount of press chuckling distressing... and he didn't appreciate Bush's silly story about the Iraqis who want to off Saddam Hussein without a trial (is he sure that was Iraqi "voters" who came to his office and not Charles Krauthammer...?)
Kos finds an even better press conference: the one prior to Bush's by Alberto Gonzalez:
Q You have stretched this resolution for war into giving you carte blanche to do anything you want to do.
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, one might make that same argument in connection with detention of American citizens, which is far more intrusive than listening into a conversation. There may be some members of Congress who might say, we never --
Q That's your interpretation. That isn't Congress' interpretation.
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, I'm just giving you the analysis --
[...]
Q If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program. Did you get this? Gonzales says it was okay to spy on Americans without authorization because the war resolution gave them that power. But when asked why they didn't ask for specific congressional authorization, he says, well, Congress wouldn't have given them that power.
Wow.
Wow indeed...
Previous:
Tags: News, Bush, Iraq, War, Spying, Foreign Policy, Media |
Post a Comment