The president took no prisoners
By jkelly
Irish Pennants
in his press conference today. I didn't get to hear it live, but I read the transcript, which is here.
washingtonpost.com
The questions asked Bush were typically snotty, but he more than held his own. I particularly liked this exchange:
<<<
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Are you going to order a leaks investigation into the disclosure of the NSA surveillance program? And why did you skip the basic safeguard of asking courts for permission for these intercepts?
BUSH: Let me start with the first question.
There's a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks, and I presume that process is moving forward.
BUSH: My personal opinion is it was a shameful act, for someone to disclose this very important program in time of war.
The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy.
You've got to understand, and I hope the American people understand, there is still an enemy that would like to strike the United States of America, and they're very dangerous.
And, you know, the discussion about how we try to find them will enable them to adjust.
Now, I can understand you asking these questions. And if I were you, I'd be asking me these questions too.
But it is a shameful act by somebody who has got secrets of the United States government and feels like they need to disclose them publicly.
>>>
Over at National Review Online, Jim Robbins on why what the New York Times did was so shameful, and Byron York explains that just a couple of years ago, Democrats agreed that the sluggishness of the FISA court is a big problem. And Glenn Reynolds reminds us that Democrats didn't squawk when President Clinton proposed a much broader regimen of electronic snooping on U.S. citizens. (all relevant links below)
Over at RealClear Politics, John McIntyre thinks Democrats are nuts if they think they'll gain political advantage from this. I agree.
Over at NRO, a friend of Michael Ledeen has a suggestion for finding out who leaked the info on the NSA wiretaps:
<<<
Forget about prosecuting anyone for now. Justice should set up a special full time grand jury, meeting five days a week, to questions everyone connected in any way with the leak, including congressional staffers and elected officials. Everyone gets a grant of immunity for any underlying crimes before testifying. The only thing they can be prosecuted for is perjury.
It would take about an hour to put each person on record against future perjury charges. Do you know reporter x? Did you talk with reporter x, what was the nature of your conversation etc. etc.
Witness are required, as a condition of employment by the CIA, to reveal their testimory to CIA counsel. Those who leaked have three options. They can refuse to testify and be held in contempt, since immunity has been granted and fifth amendment protections are irrelevant, at which point the CIA has grounds for dismi ssing them. They can tell the truth, admit to leaking, and be fired . Or they can lie and hope that Riesen and company won't give them up after sitting in jail for six months. Most will probably tell the truth and resign their positions.
The point here is that instead of dragging this thru the legal system for years, the whole issue could most likely be resolved in a matter of weeks. The removal of these employees would have a powerful deterrent effect as well.
>>>
Over at Power Line, Paul Mirengoff thinks its time to flush out both the Dems and the MSM:
The MSM is on a mission to expose the administration's
secret efforts to obtain information with which to combat
and thwart terrorists. It's stated justification for
publishing classified information on these matters is the
need for debate over the administration's policy. If
that, not animus towards the president, is the MSM's real
reason, then it should promote such debate through a
concerted effort to flush out the position of all those
running for Congress in 2006 on the subject of
intelligence gathering.
As a general matter, the MSM should press all candidates
to state their view on the extent of the danger currently
posed by terrorists to our homeland. All candidates
should be asked (with the same persistence that Scott
McClellan is asked about Karl Rove) whether they think
the level of peril to the homeland is now significantly
less than what it was shortly after 2001. They should
also be asked whether, in general, the government should
adopt a less intrusive approach to intelligence gathering
than the one it now employs.
All candidates should also be asked their position on
each controversial provision of the Patriot Act. And the
MSM should ask whether there is any investigative procedure
or device that the federal government should be permitted
to use to fight organized crime, but should not be permitted
to use against suspected terrorists.
The bastards have overreached. Time to nail 'em.
irishpennants.com
nationalreview.com
nationalreview.com
cryptome.org
realclearpolitics.com
corner.nationalreview.com
corner.nationalreview.com
|
