OxBlog

# Posted 12:57 AM by Ariel David Adesnik

SO WHY DIDN'T REID AND PELOSI OBJECT? This Week still won't provide transcripts, but George S.'s interview with John McCain is really worth listening to. (Podcast here.)

Again and again, Stephanopoulos kept pressing McCain to justify how the administration could circumvent the foreign intelligence courts when authorizing wiretaps. No matter how times Stephanopoulos repeated the question, McCain kept giving the same answer: the White House consulted with both the Democratic and Republican leadership in Congress before making its decision.

Pelosi has spoken of voicing "strong concerns" when initially consulted about the policy, but that doesn't sound very persuasive. If she didn't object or disagree or contradict, then she should just say that she accepted the decision.

Nonetheless, McCain -- like Condoleezza Rice and Lindsey Graham -- admitted that he couldn't provide a clear legal justification for what the administration did.

(13) opinions -- Add your opinion

Comments:

If you believe anything the White House says, I can give you a confidential briefing about an investment that the White House says is "a slam dunk." I even have a White House lawyer who will give you an opinion.

Just send me $1.0 million and I will let you in on the secret. You will become rich beyond your wildest imagination. Just trust me. It's true.

Just email me at: iamsogullibleideservetolose$1million.com

Anybody who defends what Bush has been doing is a complete idiot or a fascist. There are no other explanations.

# posted by

Anonymous : 4:17 AM

A little more courtesy would be appreciated. I can handle the cheap insults, but such language does tend to lower the level of discussion as a whole.

# posted by

Ariel David Adesnik : 9:39 AM

Was the notification of Pelosi, Rockefeller, et. al. required? Was it just to give them a heads up? If they had objected would it have meant anything? I don't think that it is even clear what they were told.

# posted by

Anonymous : 11:19 AM

Let's assume Pelosi was as appalled by this as I am. What, precisely, was she supposed to do?

# posted by

David Watkins : 4:21 PM

Pardon me - but what is going on here.

Senators were told about what was happening - ages ago. Newspapers were made aware ages ago. All ... All ... said and did nothing. Nothing.

And now?

Now?

Despite all this information - provided to US Senators by Bush we have a wave of claims of SECRET wire taps etc... ILLEGAL actions ...

Yeah like Bush is going to break the law but carefully inform his political opponents before hand.

Just call me a naive limey, but come on really, 'US government defends its citizens against terrorists' ... shock horror!!

It might be worth reminding you all that the on 7 July, 4 British guys blew 50 people to bits on the underground. ... You know what? My main complaint is that there was not enough good old fashioned surveilence of my fellow citizens by an intelligence service which knew something was going to happen.

# posted by

Anonymous : 6:12 PM

Can anyone identify anything that a GOP president can/not/ do under the prevailing dispensation? Can he take pix of Hilary in her undies? Can he stick a fork in Ted Kennedy's cat?

# posted by

Anonymous : 6:12 PM

Major tenants of our law and legal system as well as the perception in our society focuses on intent. Murder and manslaughter differ only in intent. Mr. Bush will survive and actually come out smelling like a rose in this if he is able to show that the intent of these wiretaps etc. was purely national security. If he starts dicing words ("what is, is" anyone) we will get a preview of president cheney real soon. By the way don't be naive in thinking that the government isn't engaging in domestic spying daily. They always have, they always will. They just usually won't get caught. Your right to privacy largely goes out the window the minute you get a social security number.
PP

# posted by

Anonymous : 7:40 PM

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

# posted by

David M : 3:04 PM

I couldn't get your podcast link to work. This link worked better for me.

And ABC News has apparently released the McCain/Stephanopoulos transcript to anyone willing to pony up $19.95.

# posted by

David M : 3:09 PM

John Hinderaker at powerlineblog.com cites the legal authority for why Bush did not break the law with his wiretaps. It was all patched up, anyway, in the Senate late tonight, though probably not to the satisfaction of Feingold, who is rather apoplectic on the subject... In the days of President Lincoln there were hundreds of innocent people victimized by the president taking the law into his own hands, held without being charged, etc. With Dubya there are no such innocents anyone can point to... Of course, to me anyone who thinks Bush could conceivably want to take the law into his own hands comes over as a bit unhinged.

# posted by

Anonymous : 11:17 PM

Example:

The NSA is listening to phone calls made by a suspected terrorist in Dubai. A connection is made and the conversation turns to a specific terrorist act planned for the US. Then, horrors! the listeners realize the other end of the conversation is a US phone number. Are the NSA supposed to stop, turn off the tap and run out to get a court order before continuing to listen? Get real.

# posted by

Robert : 2:08 PM

Daschle today said that Bush sought war powers "within the United States" just after 9/11 but was rejected by the Congress. Presumably, the war powers Bush sought would have allowed this sort of wiretapping. Bush has claimed that the AUMF resolution implicitly allowed warrantless wiretapping. If it did, why did Bush also seek these additional war powers in the US? Because he knew that Congress had not given him the authority to wiretap in the AUMF.

# posted by

Anonymous : 1:07 AM

When did Bush not follow the law? Specifically? Or is this just another thing "everybody knows"?

# posted by

Robert : 10:04 AM