Briefing Congress is not oversight!!!

Great exchange today in the White House press briefing regarding oversight and Congress. If you get a chance, read the entire transcript. Apparently the White House is hoping that by saying members of Congress were notified of the program and that Congress is a separate branch of government, people will think checks and balances were satisfied. If that's not betting on the ignorance of the public, I don't know what is :

Q Congress defines oversight as "the authority to conduct inquiries or investigations, to have access to records or materials, or to issue subpoenas or testimony from the executive." Which of these powers were members of Congress granted with regard to the NSA surveillance program?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as you just pointed out, Congress is an independent branch of government, and they're elected by their constituents. We briefed and informed members of Congress about this program going back to 2001; more than a dozen times since then we've briefed members of Congress --

Q But briefing isn't power to investigate or issue subpoenas to ask questions. And I'm asking you, which of the powers of oversight were they granted?

MR. McCLELLAN: Congress is an independent branch of government. That's what I just pointed out, Jessica.

Q Which has the right to check the functions of the executive. And these are --

MR. McCLELLAN: They have an oversight role, that's

right.

Q Okay, so in what way --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why we thought it was important to brief members of Congress about this vital tool that we're using to save lives and to protect the American people, and why we talked to them about how it is limited in nature and limited in scope.

Q But as you know, members of Congress who were briefed said that they were informed -- yes, briefed, but given absolutely no recourse to formally object, to push back and say, this is not acceptable.

MR. McCLELLAN: They're an independent branch of government.

Q So in what way were they given oversight?

MR. McCLELLAN: They were briefed. And we believe it's important to brief members of Congress, the relevant leaders --

Q Would you also say they were given full oversight?

MR. McCLELLAN: They're an independent branch of government. Yes, they have --

Q Were they given oversight?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, they have oversight roles to play.

Q So they have oversight. So, in what way could they have acted on that oversight?

MR. McCLELLAN: You should ask members of Congress that question.

Transcript

Unanswered Questions

Questions unanswered from Bush’s press conference this morning:

1. If the secret court allows a 72 hour retroactive warrant and has an extremely high approval rate for requests—I’ve read they only denied presidential requests a handful of times in 27 years—why act without its oversight? Other than expediency, which is a questionable reason given the nature of the secret court, why supersede the court?

2. If the FISA court, which was made to be both secret and expedient, was insufficient, why didn’t Bush seek to alter the FISA court process rather than ignore it?

4. If the spying program is intended for “agents of a foreign power” only, what assurance do we have from anyone other than executive branch officials who report directly to the President (e.g. Department of Justice) that spying was limited only to these known agents? Without court oversight, how can we confirm that this standard for suspicion was met in each case?

5. Bush emphasized that certain members of Congress were informed of the program in classified meetings. What power did they have to investigate abuse and provide oversight? Were they given any valuable details about the program? (Daschle says he was notified but key details were left out, and Rockefeller just released a letter to Cheney that he wrote on the day he was briefed stating severe concern about the program.)

6. Bush said the program was reviewed every 45 days for abuse. Reviewed by whom? What were the review criteria? Who had oversight to assure compliance with program revision recommendations?

7. If the logic is to spy on known agents of a foreign power, why not spy on purely domestic communications? And if this logic aims to protect us from another attack, then why not spy on suspected, not “known”, terrorist associates or contacts? Why not spy on anyone?

8. He authorized the National Security Agency to spy on American citizens without going to a court. Is this a violation of the Constitution and laws passed by Congress? Congress has specifically stated, in statute, that the criminal wiretap statute and FISA “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.” Are there other statutes that have superseded this limitation?

Bush recovering in the polls

Yesterday, many pundits were in agreement that Bush was finally “coming out of his bubble” by admitting that he acted on bad intelligence and by giving a series of “real” interviews and speeches with real reporters and Washington insiders. (Since when is Brit Hume a real reporter?) He's not coming out of any bubble, but he is improving his image.

In a speech yesterday, he said "It's true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," and pretty much left it at that. What about the rest? What about that the administration also ignored warnings from intelligence officials about the shaky intelligence? What about the inclusion of the Niger claim in his State of the Union Address despite requests from the intelligence community to remove the claim from the speech? In other words, what about how he mislead everyone? By merely admitting his failure to catch the faults of others, he’s cropping the story into a neat little tale where we don’t get to focus on his real role in the drama.

By the way, among the questions not asked in his series of “real” interviews: was Karl Rove the White House source?

Return of Fantastiko

Okay. I can’t stand it anymore. I’ve been toying with the idea of admitting that I have made a mistake by shutting this blog down. The time has come. It was folly to think that I could endure Bush’s second term without an outlet for my curiosity and frustration.

Now that I plan on posting comments again, let me be clear about Act Two: I have no expectations for discussion this time around. As I hit the mute button on my remote control (Bush is speaking to a group in Philadelphia on the war in Iraq), I fully realize that it’s difficult to write coherently and passionately with the world going on around us and without a stipend to motivate full commitment. So feel free to write one sentence, a book, or an academic article in response—I don’t care!!! I’m just happy to get any thoughts at all.

A topic within a topic (a long one, so be ready):

Terrorists in Iraq?

As I understand it, Bush’s recent speeches on the war in Iraq aim to reinforce the administration’s justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Consistent with post-invasion rhetoric, Bush continues to use the term “terrorist” when referring to the insurgents in Iraq. The objective of his terminology is clear: Iraq is an important part of a global war on terrorism, which began on 9/11. Just today, Bush said that our enemies in Iraq share an ideology with the terrorists who struck on 9/11. The linking of Iraq insurgents with the war on terror, and with the 9/11 attacks is not new. Is it right? Is the link as clear as it seems?

First, let me say that many of us have been itching to discuss this issue since the start of the war. It blows my mind that only now we’re talking about this—only because Murtha decided to bring it up and the press has finally noticed.

Given: We know that there was no direct link before the invasion. That is, Hussein had no more ties to terrorist groups than we did. We also know that, presently, the majority of the insurgents are not tied to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. (Remember! I'm questioning the notion of terrorists in Iraq--not that Hussein's government was evil.)

So, let’s talk about why Bush calls Iraqi insurgents terrorists. Here is the premise he uses for using the term over and over in his foreign policy speeches: If you use terror, then you are a terrorist. And all of the insurgents in Iraq use terror, so they are terrorists. Insurgents in Iraq conspire with terrorists, further cementing their terrorist label (in other words, even if only 1% of the insurgents are members of Al Qaeda, 100% of the insurgents are terrorists).

Here’s why Bush’s claims about terrorists in Iraq doesn’t make sense to me. I challenge the clarity of his premises in three ways: 1) his use of his definition of terror, 2) his disregard for the timing and nature of events, and 3) the use of the “you’re either with us or with the terrorist” threat.

1. Defining terror: Definitions vary among dictionaries, cultures, political parties, etc. Google it and you’ll see what I mean. Bush knows this. As a nation, we have not carefully defined terrorism in the past, and Bush is depending on the ambiguity in order to define it for us today. I personally see using an atomic bomb on a city, or using depleted uranium in a bomb—which we’re doing now—as acts of terrorism.

Bush has defined it more narrowly for us: Terrorists are those who use terrorism against freedom. That’s not us! Or is it? Didn’t we put Hussein in power in the first place? I’m confused. And what the hell is “freedom” anyway…

2. The timing and nature of events: If insurgents weren’t terrorists before the invasion and occupation, they are now. They fit Bush’s definition, so, in his eyes, they’re terrorists. But who made them that way? Would they have become terrorists had we not invaded? Bush implies that they have become terrorists, conspiring with Al Qaeda, because they share a common ideology. What exactly is this ideology? And do they share it completely, or is there just overlap? How much overlap constitutes “sharing an ideology”? Again, I’m confused…

3. Bush said: “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Why can’t people be somewhere else? Why can’t Iraqis? This isn’t a logically valid statement, but it is an effective one. Many Americans bought this crap because they didn’t grasp this ridiculous non-sense; they were distracted by the implied threat. This is the most shameful part of Bush’s argument, and this is why the war in Iraq is wrong (if nothing else): because they threatened all of us to pay for it with blood and treasure.

In sum, he has been vague enough to encircle anyone—American, Iraqi, or otherwise—in his definition of terrorism so that the label can be applied at any politically convenient time; he has successfully relied on our ignorance of middle-east politics, cultures, and religions to avoid a challenge of any claim of common ideology between insurgents and terrorist groups; and he has preoccupied and agitated everyone with a threat that is on its surface valid, but in reality ambiguous. So my problem with him is simple: he has ignored the complexities of the world and has taken advantage of our desire for simplicity to justify a war.