Angle, Krauthammer falsely claimed Democrats altered position on domestic surveillance
SUMMARY: Fox News' Jim Angle falsely claimed that Democrats initially objected to the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program because they opposed eavesdropping on people believed to be tied to terrorist activity but then made a "shift in strategy" to argue, as Charles Krauthammer put it, "a narrow issue of legality." Krauthammer further suggested that Democrats engaged in a "wholesale retreat" after recognizing that "opposing the idea of listening in on an Al Qaeda call into the U.S. is not a political winner."
On the February 3 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, guest host Jim Angle falsely claimed that Democrats initially objected to the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program because they opposed eavesdropping on people believed to be tied to terrorist activity, but made a "shift in strategy" to question the program's legality after recognizing that such surveillance "is a good thing to do." Charles Krauthammer went further, falsely suggesting that Democrats' criticism of the program over "a narrow issue of the legality" constituted a "wholesale retreat" that occurred after Democrats recognized that "opposing the idea of listening in on an Al Qaeda call into the U.S. is not a political winner." In fact, no leading Democrat has called for the administration to stop monitoring Al Qaeda communications. Rather, Democrats, as well as some Republicans and prominent conservatives, have been consistent in their criticism of the Bush administration for bypassing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which provides a mechanism by which the administration can obtain court orders to engage in surveillance of U.S. residents.
The characterizations put forth by Angle and Krauthammer of the Democrats' initial response to the spy program echo a distortion of the Democratic position by White House senior adviser Karl Rove. As Media Matters for America documented, Rove falsely claimed that "some important Democrats clearly disagree" with the proposition that "if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why."
From the February 3 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume:
ANGLE: All right, one quick last question -- quick question for you, Charles. The -- the fact is, Democrats -- some of whom initially protested this -- are now saying this is a great idea. This is a good thing to do. But, they question the legal authority to do it without warrants. That seems to be a little bit of a shift in strategy.
KRAUTHAMMER: It's more than a shift. It was a wholesale retreat. It was a rout on that issue. Democrats understood, within a week, that opposing the idea of listening in on an Al Qaeda call into the U.S. is not a political winner. So, as a result, it's a narrow issue of the legality, and, I think, on the politics, the Democrats are going to lose.
I seem to understand more about what had been said than these clowns, and I simply scan the Web for real news. This is getting to be irritating -- I just know that I'll have to correct some local Fox listener who will now say the same thing... verbatim I'm sure.
Q: What is the difference between domestic surveillance and written in law and Bush's version? How would things be different if he didn't break the law?
A: Bush's version is illegal. Nothing would be different.
How is this so hard to understand? FISA covers everything these guys want. If they had followed the laws, nothing would be different, except they wouldn't be grilled like they are (or impeached like they deserve.)
Hey... not that anything has been thwarted by these methods anyway, legal or not.
KRAUTHAMMER: "So, as a result, it's a narrow issue of the legality..."
Legality is the issue. I think this clearly delineates the difference between someone who thinks that the laws are to keep the common man in line, but not meant for politicians (their politicians, of course.)
Does Krauthammer really think this way? I doubt it, but there's so much propaganda, so little time.
In his testimony (NOT under oath), A.G. Gonzales explained the difference in the standard of proof between that required by FISA and that applied by the NSA in house.
"It's the probable cause standard. There is no difference." he said.
The difference, of course, is who that standard has to be PROVEN UP to. In FISA, the information has to be presented to the judges in the secret court, and THEY determine if the "reasonable" standard of "probable cause" has been reached. IN HOUSE, the NSA makes the determination, and then NOBODY tells them whether it's a reasonable determiniation or not.
Taken to a cop on the beat, HE has to prove a reasonable threshhold of "probable cause" to justify a search warrant. If he's after the "bluejean" gang, he might decide that a suspect's car should be searched because the driver is wearing bluejeans. A judge would want MORE. If the cop is free to act WITHOUT having that "check" on his powers, he will go ahead and search, feeling secure IN HIS OWN MIND that he is justified, and that sufficient Probable Cause existed.
Back to the NSA. Saying that the SAME standard applies is simply a lie. If you have the same standard, but one is objectively tested while the other is NOT, they cannot be called the same. Yet, A.G. Gonzales wishes us to believe that there is equal protection AND application in each instance.
Everyone wants Al Queda foiled in every way possible, UNDER THE LAW. The Administration says that the law cannot be followed, because it restricts them, but that the standards are "the same". This is a fundamental fraud perpetrated by whoever speaks it. Then, to COMPOUND the fraud, the Administration says that any who wish to restrict them to THE LAW does not want such surveillance to take place at all. This is a butt-covering LIE. And they know it.
Your comments are always factual, and at the very least, well thought out - I've read a lot of your posts and always come away thinking, this guy knows what to say. You wouldn't be a journalist or university professor, would you?
KRAUTHAMMER: Democrats understood, within a week, that opposing the idea of listening in on an Al Qaeda call into the U.S. is not a political winner.
Has a Democrat ever opposed that idea? I would like to see when.
"They" meaning the Bush adminstration, that is.