Garrett misrepresented Lieberman quote on domestic wiretapping
SUMMARY: Fox News correspondent Major Garrett cropped a quote from Sen. Joseph Lieberman to present a misleading account of Lieberman's view of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program. Garrett reported that Lieberman said he "supports the surveillance" and called it "a critically important program to the prevention of terrorist acts." But Garrett cut out a key part of Lieberman's statement, in which he said, "I don't believe that [the administration has] operated within the law as it exists."
On the March 13 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, correspondent Major Garrett cropped a quote from Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) to present a misleading account of Lieberman's view of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program. In a report addressing the resolution introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) to censure President Bush over his authorization of the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic wiretapping program, Garrett reported that Lieberman said he "supports the surveillance" and called it "a critically important program to the prevention of terrorist acts." Garrett also reported Lieberman's comment that "I don't know a person here in the Senate who is against this program." But Garrett cut out a key part of Lieberman's statement, in which he said that he "disagree[s] with the Bush administration's legal judgment" about the program, saying, "I don't believe that they have operated within the law as it exists."
In introducing the resolution, Feingold argued that the Bush administration's conduct of the domestic surveillance program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Additionally, Garrett misleadingly stated that "Lieberman said not only does the Senate oppose censure, it supports the surveillance." In fact, Lieberman didn't "oppose" Feingold's measure in the March 13 press conference on which Garrett reported; Lieberman merely said he would "take a look" at Feingold's proposal.
From the March 13 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
GARRETT: Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] declined to support the censure resolution.
REID: I commend Senator Feingold for bringing this to the attention of the American people.
GARRETT: Connecticut Democrat Joseph Lieberman said not only does the Senate oppose censure, it supports the surveillance.
LIEBERMAN: But this is a critically important program to the prevention of terrorist acts here in the United States. And I don't know a person here in the Senate who is against this program.
GARRETT: Feingold wants to run for president in 2008 as the liberal anti-war alternative to New York Senator Hillary Clinton [D]. The censure effort, sure to fail in the Senate, could succeed among party liberals.
However, in his report, Garrett cropped out a portion of Lieberman's statement in which Lieberman stated that he believes the warrantless wiretapping program is illegal. From Lieberman's press conference:
QUESTION: Would you support censuring the president?
LIEBERMAN: Well, in fairness, I want to -- first off, I respect Senator Feingold, and I certainly respect him enough to take a look at his resolution of censure. It's a very unusual measure. I don't believe it's happened in more than a century and a half. But frankly, I'd prefer to spend our time figuring out ways to bring this very important program of surveillance of potential terrorists here in the United States under the law.
I've said before that I disagree with the Bush administration's legal judgment on this one. I don't believe that they have operated within the law as it exists. But this is a critically important program -- the prevention of terrorist acts here in the United States. And I don't know a person here in the Senate who is against this program. If this place was operating as it should, we'd all be figuring out how to sit down around a table and bring it within the law. And I hope that's what will happen. But I'll look at it and let you know how I feel after that.
QUESTION: Will you likely vote no? I just want to be clear on where you would be on this.
LIEBERMAN: I haven't even seen it. As I said, I don't think -- I don't want to see us get into -- look, Russ is a very thoughtful senator, a friend. He has a right to put before the Senate whatever he chooses, and I feel a responsibility to respect it and look at it. I'd prefer to see us solve the problem. And the problem is that we have a critically important national security program -- how do we listen to the conversations and read the e-mails of people we have reason to believe are terrorists, who want to strike the United States. I don't think the administration program has been conducted within the existing FISA law. We ought to figure out a way together to make sure that that's the way the program goes forward.
Good work by MM to point out the overwhelming distinction between the message conveyed by Lieberman and that conveyed by Garrett's cherry-picking. No one doubts that this Senate, and certainly Lieberman and Reid, will vote against censure, so in one sense Garrett was just premature, but for Lieberman to go on and confess the criminal nature of Bush's conduct is further than I've seen him lean in the direction of truth in a long time. It still does not excuse his attitude of sacrificing liberty for the sake of security, even if it were not true that we had already gone too far in that direction with the unPatriotic Act. And yesterday the Fed judge (don't know who appointed him yet) ordered Google to release potentially millions of private internet communications by American Citizens to the Feds to learn whether any of those citizens might be violating child porn laws. Okay, next how about those who might be violating marijuana laws, or drinking while driving laws ... picking up all kinds of private information not criminal in the process. Feel secure from unreasonable searches? I don't. Who could? Yeah, our government is really looking out for us.
Worse than just clipping their buddy Lieberman's quote, FOX NEWS has also distorted Feingold's position to the point where they portray him as against all lawful surveillance.
He isn't.
Worse still, FOX NEWS is working hard to make us believe that the censure motion was introduced because Duhhbya used any kind of surveillance at all.
It wasn't.
FOX NEWS - WE DISTORT, YOU'RE DECEIVED
Lieberman claims to be a Democrat. However, that doesn't mean he isn't a weasel. Even though Garrett left out part of Lieberman's comments, his representation of Lieberman on this issue of domestic spying is, sadly, accurate. Let's examine what Lieberman said:
I've said before that I disagree with the Bush administration's legal judgment on this one. I don't believe that they have operated within the law as it exists.
The key words here, of course, are "as it exists." Bush breaks the law, but Lieberman is starting to set up the argument that the law is at fault.
But this is a critically important program -- the prevention of terrorist acts here in the United States.
Naturally, he doesn't want to be seen as weak on terrorism. However, the claim that NSA program, which one FBI agent referred to as "another one thousand calls to Pizza Hut, is "critically important" is a dubious one.
And I don't know a person here in the Senate who is against this program.
How about Russ Feingold?
If this place was operating as it should, we'd all be figuring out how to sit down around a table and bring it within the law.
What Joe was thinking - "If I was President, the government would be legally violating the 4th Amendment." In other words, let's just change the law to make the program legal.
And I hope that's what will happen. But I'll look at it and let you know how I feel after that.
...as soon as he sees the polls.
The later, in reference to the proposed censure, Joe says...
He has a right to put before the Senate whatever he chooses, and I feel a responsibility to respect it and look at it.
Naturally, he isn't going to openly criticize Russ.
I'd prefer to see us solve the problem.
But he isn't going to walk out on a limb for him.
Garrett may have cut out Liberman's weasel words, but he pretty accurately portrayed Lieberman's position, i.e., Lieberman supports domestic spying and, therefore, opposes censure, but wants to change the law to make the spy program legal.
CD
Except for the (D) behind Lieberman's name, he is by all accounts a Republican. He should be voted out in '06 along with the other shill Democrats.
Zell Miller *cough*
..if someone in Fox news or here could point to ONE democrat saying they are against all wiretaps. Or any place that even ONE democrat said we should not go after terrorists trying to do harm within the US. Of course those here and there cannot, because nobody thinks that. All I have heard from those in opposition (democrats and republicans, by the way) is the need for oversight. Look back over your history books and you might find some reasons why oversight in the government is a good idea.
That oversight should be by the life-tenured federal judiciary, not a Republican dominated committee of the Senate or House with a Republican President in office, nor a Democrat dominated committee with a Democrat in office.
Unfortunately, with the current legislative proposal to "bring the program within the law," oversight is being sold out for the appearance of oversight...and Lieberman apears to be on that path.
CD
GARRETT: "Feingold wants to run for president in 2008 as the liberal anti-war alternative to New York Senator Hillary Clinton [D]."
I thought Feingold was progressive, not liberal. Is that not the case. The media is so caught up in its own hype, it doesn't understand the difference. And again with the anti-war. Arguing against the policy of going to war in Iraq doesn't make one anti-war, any more than supporting the policy makes one pro-war (which the media shuns saying). If the media does call Feingold anti-war, they need to be calling the other side pro-war.