Raw Story
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid hits back at President Bush's speech earlier today with a list of "fact checks" that range from the pre-war claims of WMD in Iraq, Congressional briefings about NSA wiretapping, and Vice President Cheney's involvement in putting together Colin Powell Speech to the UN in 2003.
Senator Reid's press release:
REID: BUSH PREACHES TO THE CHOIR IN TAMPA
“In his latest appearance before handpicked supporters, the president today called on the American people to just trust him with our nation’s security. Trust him on Iraq. Trust him on domestic spying. And trust him on preparing and protecting America for terrorist attacks and natural disasters. Unfortunately, more than five years of incompetence have failed to protect the American people and have eroded the president’s credibility. We need more than tough talk and rhetoric. We need real leadership that will make 2006 a year of significant transition in Iraq, will finally take the necessary actions to protect Americans from terrorism here at home, and will speak honestly about the challenges we face."
FACT CHECK: PRESIDENT BUSH
Bush: “I thought there would be weapons of mass destruction. And so did everybody else in the world. And so did people in the United States Congress from both political parties. Thought that there would be weapons of mass destruction.” [2/17/06]
FACT: The Bush Administration Sought Out, and Then Disseminated, Pre-War Intelligence Designed to Make the Case for War in Iraq. The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East accused the Bush Administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify its decision to go to war. “The Bush administration, Pillar wrote, ‘repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war,’ including information on the ‘supposed connection’ between Hussein and al Qaeda, which analysts had discounted. ‘Feeding the administration's voracious appetite for material on the Saddam-al Qaeda link consumed an enormous amount of time and attention.’ The result of the requests, and public statements by the president, Vice President Cheney and others, led analysts and managers to conclude the United States was heading for war well before the March 2003 invasion, Pillar asserted.” [Washington Post, 2/10/06]
Bush: “The United Nations and the United Nations Security Council thought there would be weapons of mass destruction. After all, they passed unanimous resolution that said, disclose, disarm or face serious consequences.” [2/17/06]
FACT: The White House Refuses to Turn Over Documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Cheney’s Involvement in Colin Powell’s 2003 Speech to the U.N. “Among the White House materials withheld from the committee were Libby-authored passages in drafts of a speech that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered to the United Nations in February 2003 to argue the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq, according to congressional and administration sources. The withheld documents also included intelligence data that Cheney's office -- and Libby in particular -- pushed to be included in Powell's speech, the sources said.” [National Journal, 10/27/05]
Bush: “And General Mike Hayden of the N.S.A., he is a wonderful person, said he thought there was something more we could do. And he showed me plans for this country to pick up the conversation, listen to the conversations from people outside the country, inside the country, who had an affiliated with Al Qaeda. Or with Al Qaeda. He said I think we can design a program, Mr. President, that will enable us to have quick response to be able to detect and deter a potential attack. I said that's interesting, General. It makes a lot of sense to me. I said you're not going to listen inside the country. No. This is called from outside the country or outside in whom we know or suspect are affiliate with al Qaeda.” [2/17/06]
FACT: While Bush Cites General Hayden to Reassure Americans that his Domestic Surveillance Program is Limited in Scope, General Hayden Declined to Discuss the Scope of the Program in his Congressional Testimony, Raising Concerns That The Surveillance Program is Far Broader than Publicly Acknowledged.
LEVIN: Why is it all right for Secretary Chertoff to talk about thousands of numbers, but you can't give us, or won't give us, in open session an estimate of the number of those communications?
HAYDEN: Senator, as I said, I'd be uncomfortable of doing it in open session, and I don't know the precise number.
LEVIN: I'm not saying precise number. I asked for an estimate.
HAYDEN: I cannot give you an estimate of the number of communications intercepted. [Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing, 2/2/06]
Bush: “And I remember some of the phone calls coming out of California, prior to September 11 attacks by the killers. Thinking, maybe if we had listened to those in a quick response basis, it might have helped prevent the attacks.” [2/17/06]
FACT: 9/11 Did Not Result Because America Was Not Engaged in Warrantless Eavesdropping
· The 9/11 Report makes it clear that the September 11, 2001 attacks did not happen because the government was not able to wiretap without a warrant. [See the 9/11 Report here.]
· Prior to 9/11, the CIA and FBI were not communicating. "The problem was the CIA and FBI not communicating and not picking them up," said Thomas Kean, the commission's former chairman. [New York Daily News, 1/27/06]
Bush: “My second question was, is it legal? I take that oath of office seriously. I've taken it twice as your president to uphold the laws and the constitution. And so we've got lawyers all oh Washington, as I'm sure you can imagine. [Laughter] I'm not one. I said it is illegal -- I'm asking of the attorney general of the united states, the legal counsel in the white house, N.S.A. Has lawyers. A lot of lawyers looked at this. And they said, you bet, Mr. President. It is legal.” [2/17/06]
FACT: 14 Legal Scholars Wrote to Congress, Stating that the Constitution Does Not Authorize Bush to Spy. They wrote that, “even conceding that the President in his role as Commander in Chief may generally collect "signals intelligence" on the enemy abroad, Congress indisputably has authority to regulate electronic surveillance within the United States, as it has done in FISA. Where Congress has so regulated, the President can act in contravention of statute only if his authority is exclusive, that is, not subject to the check of statutory regulation.” [New York Review of Books, 2/9/06]
FACT: Conservative Bush Appointees Paid a Price for Objecting to the Secret Program. [Newsweek, 2/6/06]
FACT: According to Senator Specter: “There is no doubt that this is inappropriate.” [Washington Post, 12/17/05]
Bush: “I knew I needed to tell the Congress. They're a co-equal branch of government and I recognize that and honor that. And so we briefed members of the United States Congress. On the full program so they would know. Appropriate member of congress. Leaders, republicans, and democrats. Leaders of the Intelligence Committee whose job it is to provide oversight on intelligence operations.” [2/17/06]
FACTS: Briefings to Congress Have Been Inadequate.
· The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service says that the Bush Administration’s limited briefings to Congress were “inconsistent with the law.” [Statutory Procedures Under Which Congress Is To Be Informed of U.S. Intelligence Activities, Including Covert Actions, CRS, 1/18/06]
· The Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee protested at the time of the secret briefings that he did not have enough information to make responsible decisions about the legality or effectiveness of the program. In his letter, Rockefeller specifically says he is reiterating concerns he previously voiced in a briefing. (See the private letter that Senator Rockefeller wrote to Vice President Cheney protesting the program in July of 2003, here.)
· Briefings made it difficult for Congress to know if the NSA program violated the law. “Congressional sources familiar with limited aspects of the program would not discuss any classified details but made it clear there were serious questions about the legality of the NSA actions. The sources, who demanded anonymity, said there were conditions under which it would be possible to gather and retain information on Americans if the surveillance were part of an investigation into foreign intelligence. But those cases are supposed to be minimized. The sources said the actual work of the NSA is so closely held that it is difficult to determine whether it is acting within the law.” [Washington Post, 12/16/05]
According to Senator DeWine: “‘It's in the country's best interest, the president's best interest’ for the White House to discuss the spying program with Congress, ‘then to see whatever changes in the law have to be made’ to implement it.” [LA Times, 2/7/06]
· No authorization in the law has ever been given by the Congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment