About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

ABC, NBC continued pattern of ignoring Hayden's misleading 2002 testimony

May 19, 2006 7:20 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: Reports by both ABC's World News Tonight and NBC's Nightly News on the Senate hearing for Gen. Michael Hayden's nomination to be CIA director aired Sen. Ron Wyden's (D-OR) comment that he had "a difficult time with [Hayden's] credibility." But neither network mentioned the reasons cited by Wyden to explain his concern, including Hayden's misleading statement to Congress in 2002 that the National Security Agency did not have the authority to electronically eavesdrop on residents without a warrant -- even as the NSA was reportedly conducting such surveillance.

8 Comments

On May 18, reports by both ABC's World News Tonight and NBC's Nightly News about the Senate hearing on Gen. Michael Hayden's nomination to be Director of Central Intelligence aired Sen. Ron Wyden's (D-OR) comment that he had "a difficult time with [Hayden's] credibility." But neither network mentioned the reasons cited by Wyden to explain his concern, including Hayden's misleading statement to Congress in 2002 that the National Security Agency did not have the authority to electronically eavesdrop on U.S. residents without a warrant -- even as the NSA was reportedly conducting such surveillance. And while NBC's report merely provided no specific context for viewers to assess Wyden's charge, the ABC report, by chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos, further misrepresented the exchange by juxtaposing it with Senate Select Committee on Intelligence chairman Pat Roberts's (R-KS) assertion that Democrats "had not objected to the program in more than two dozen classified briefings." This juxtaposition falsely suggested that Wyden's concerns about credibility were based on his objections to the administration's domestic surveillance program, not on the specific issue of Hayden's truthfulness to Congress.

As Media Matters has noted, in 2002, Hayden testified before a joint congressional committee investigating the September 11 terrorist attacks that surveillance by the NSA on any citizen or legal resident could be conducted only pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). But, Wyden said, at the time Hayden testified, White House lawyers had already told Hayden that the NSA could conduct electronic surveillance on people in the United States without obtaining FISA warrants. Media Matters for America has noted examples of the media ignoring Hayden's 2002 testimony here and here.

Hayden's 2002 testimony was the first example that Wyden presented at the May 18 hearing to justify his concerns about Hayden's credibility. But neither ABC nor NBC aired Wyden's reference to the 2002 testimony or to the other example Wyden cited as the basis for his concern about Hayden's credibility. ABC instead juxtaposed it with questioning of Hayden by Roberts, which took place approximately two hours later:

WYDEN: In your opening statement, you said that under your leadership, the CIA would act according to American values. So we're not talking about a law here, but we're talking about values. For me, values are about following the law and doing what you say you are going to do.

When it comes to values, credibility is at the top of my list. Now, General, having evaluated your words, I now have a difficult time with your credibility. And let me be specific.

On the wiretapping program in 2001, you were told by the president's lawyers that you had authority to listen to Americans' phone calls. But a year later, in 2002, you testified that you had no authority to listen to Americans' phone calls in the United States unless you had enough evidence for a warrant. But you have since admitted you were wiretapping Americans.

Let me give you another example. After you admitted you were wiretapping Americans, you said on six separate occasions the program was limited to domestic-to-international calls. Now the press is reporting that the NSA has amassed this huge database -- that we've been discussing today -- of domestic calls.

So with all due respect, General, I can't tell now if you've simply said one thing and done another, or whether you have just parsed your words like a lawyer to intentionally mislead the public. What's to say that if you're confirmed to head the CIA we won't go through exactly this kind of drill with you over there?

HAYDEN: Well, Senator, you're going to have to make a judgment on my character. Let me talk a little bit about the incidents that you brought up.

The first one, I believe, is testimony in front of the combined HPSCI [House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] and SSCI [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence], the joint inquiry commission on the attacks of 9-11. And in my prepared remarks, I was trying to be very careful because we were talking not in closed session in front of the whole committee, but in front of the whole committee in totally open session. I believe -- and I haven't looked at those remarks for a couple of months now -- I believe I began them by saying that I had been forthcoming in closed sessions with the committee. Now, you may quibble that I've been forthcoming in closed sessions with some of my information with the leadership of the committee or with the entire committee, but that the language of the statute you referred to earlier does allow for limited briefings in certain circumstances. And I know there'll probably be questions on what are those legitimate circumstances.

If anyone in the U.S. government should be empathetic to the dilemma of someone in the position I was in, it should be members of this committee who have classified knowledge floating around their left and right lobes every time they go out to make a public statement. You cannot avoid in your responsibilities talking about Iran, or talking about Iraq, or talking about terrorist surveillance. But you have classified knowledge. And your challenge and your responsibility is to give your audience at that moment the fullest, most complete, most honest rendition you can give them, knowing that you are prevented by law from telling them everything you know.

That's what I did while I was speaking in front of the National Press Club. I chose my words very carefully because I knew that some day I would be having this conversation. I chose my words very carefully because I wanted to be honest with the people I was addressing. And it wasn't that handful of folks downtown. It was looking into the cameras and talking to the American people.

[...]

ROBERTS: There was, as I recall, a conversation unto the necessity of, perhaps, to fix FISA -- if that's not an oxymoron -- to improve FISA, to reform FISA. And that is an ongoing discussion in this committee and in the Judiciary Committee.

And my memory is that it was members of Congress who gave you advice not to do that. Is that correct?

HAYDEN: Sir, that was in the large group in March of 2004. And there were discussions. FISA was considered to be one of the ways ahead. And my memory of the conversation is that there were concerns, I would say, almost universally raised, that it would be very difficult to do that and maintain the secrecy which was one of the advantages of the program.

ROBERTS: There was in fact, during these briefings, pretty much a unanimous expression of support. Is that correct?

HAYDEN: Sir, again, I'm reluctant to characterize members. But, again, the issues raised, any concerns answered, questions answered -- we all left knowing we had our jobs to do. And I came away with no course corrections.

From the May 18 broadcast of ABC's World News Tonight:

ELIZABETH VARGAS (anchor): Now, to the man President Bush wants to lead the Central Intelligence Agency. A Senate committee put General Michael Hayden on the hot seat today. His confirmation hearing began after weeks of controversy about government surveillance of Americans in the search for terrorists. ABC's chief Washington correspondent, George Stephanopoulos, joins us now with more. George?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Elizabeth, that program was the focus today. But General Hayden disarmed the committee by promising to crack down on leaks, train better spies and obey the law.

STEPHANOPOULOS: From the start, the four-star general appeared to be among friends.

ROBERTS: General Hayden is no stranger to this committee.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And he promised to fix a CIA under fire.

HAYDEN: CIA needs to get out of the news, as source or subject, and focus on protecting the American people by acquiring secrets and providing high-quality, all-source analysis.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Democrats wasted no time grilling Hayden on the controversial warrantless wiretapping program he ran at the National Security Agency, especially recent allegations that the NSA collected records of billions of American phone calls.

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): Would you say there are privacy concerns involved in this program?

HAYDEN: I could certainly understand why someone would be concerned about this.

LEVIN: But that's not my question, General. It's a direct question.

HAYDEN: Sure.

LEVIN: In your judgment, are there privacy --

HAYDEN: You want me to say yes --

LEVIN: No, I want you to say whatever you believe.

HAYDEN: Clearly, the privacy of American citizens is a concern constantly.

WYDEN: I now have a difficult time with your credibility.

HAYDEN: Well, Senator, you're gonna have to make a judgment on my character.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the committee's chairman charged that Democrats had not objected to the program in more than two dozen classified briefings.

ROBERTS: There was, in fact, during these briefings, pretty much a unanimous expression of support. Is that correct?

HAYDEN: I came away with no course corrections.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hayden resisted calls from some senators to retire from the military.

HAYDEN: The fact I have to decide what tie to put on in the morning doesn't change who I am.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But he also promised to stand up to the Pentagon when necessary.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): There are two messages for you. One is from [former] Ambassador [and director of national intelligence John] Negroponte and the other one is from Secretary [of Defense Donald H.] Rumsfeld. Whose call are you going to return first?

HAYDEN: Yes, sir, that's pretty straightforward.

HATCH: That's straightforward, yeah.

HAYDEN: Yes, sir. I work for the ambassador. So, I would return his call.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That was the right answer. The committee went into closed session after the public hearing. And they're expected to confirm General Hayden next week. Elizabeth?

VARGAS: All right, George. Thanks so much.

From a report by NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell on the May 18 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News:

MITCHELL: General Hayden aggressively defended warrantless eavesdropping and a second program to track telephone numbers as legal.

OFFSCREEN VOICE: -- the truth, so help you God.

MITCHELL: Under fire about government surveillance from committee Democrats, Hayden wouldn't back down.

HAYDEN: It's clear the privacy of American citizens is a concern constantly, and it's a concern in this program, it's a concern in everything we've done.

MITCHELL: He insisted the National Security Agency targets Al-Qaeda, not ordinary Americans. Most committee members were not briefed on the secret programs until late yesterday, a last-minute White House effort to blunt today's questions. It didn't completely work.

SEN. RUSSELL FEINGOLD (R-WI): I came away from that briefing yesterday more convinced than ever, first, that the program is illegal.

WYDEN: Having evaluated your words, I now have a difficult time with your credibility.

HAYDEN: Well, Senator, you're going to have to make a judgment on my character.

MITCHELL: At one point, Hayden claimed that if they had been tracking calls before 9-11, they would have caught Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, two of the hijackers who flew into the Pentagon. But according to the 9-11 Commission report and a Senate inquiry, the CIA did know about the two men and didn't tell the FBI.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by therick (May 19, 2006 10:26 pm ET)
         

      I quit talking to Osama when Ronny Reagan funded his rebelion against Russia.

      I quit talking to Saddam after he negotiated deals with Don Rumsfeld, (not to mention he's been busy lately).

      Al Quida quit calling me after my numerous rejections to their fundraising efforts.

      And I haven't heard anything from Kadaffi in years.

      If I try someting sleazy at the Watergate hotel, they'll probably think I'm one of them.

      I try to keep my vocabulary below a 5th or 6th grade level, because I don't want to appear more intelligent than them.

      OH GOD ! When I spoke to my brother earlier, I mentioned that I was going to the beach tomorrow. They probably think that's code for: Going to Iraq. Oh no!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Buzzramjet (May 20, 2006 6:46 pm ET)
         

      One does have to wonder why liberals are more concerned about America and it's safety through civil liberties than the press is.

      I wish I could pinpoint exactly when the press became frightened of it's own shadow. Probably about the time Ronnie Raygun took office or shortly thereafter.

      Cowards...the lot of 'em.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mybrotherskeeper (May 21, 2006 3:40 pm ET)
           

        Might that explain some things? For example, if there was a report that the NSA had tested a program, pre-9/11, which was fully legal, which encrypted (with only a minute's delay) identifying caller ID info (in order to ensure citizens'privacy), and which had built-in features which monitored agents to increase their efficiency as well as guard against possible abuse of the system, but that Gen. Hayden himself made the call and opted instead for a program without all of these benefits, this would be big, big news, right?

        Well, apparently there was such a program, and apparently, it was Gen. Hayden who killed it. According to the website of Common Dreams The Baltimore Sun published on May 18 an article on this matter by Siobhan Gorman. The headline: "NSA Killed System That Sifted Phone Data Legally." The link: [link to www.commondreams.org]

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mybrotherskeeper (May 21, 2006 3:20 pm ET)
         

      If USAF Gen. Hayden really thinks the intelligence community has had its "every action analyzed, second-guessed and criticized on the front pages of the morning paper," he is demonstrating an appalling lack of balance, judgement and common sense. I am afraid he appears to be just more of the same, more of what we have come to expect from this Bush administration.

      In his testimony Gen. Hayden also said, "To the best of my knowledge, the folks out there [conducting the NSA's eavesdropping activities] are batting a thousand. No one has said that there has been a targeting decision made that wasn't well-founded in a probable cause standard." Possible translation: "We have not been caught yet."

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tex (May 21, 2006 8:17 pm ET)
         

      Republicans and Bush are USELESS at protecting America. 9/11 happened with plenty of warning, but Bush wasn't listening, or simply failed to comprehend. In any event, he and Condi and the rest did NOTHING to protect America.

      On the fateful day, Bush showed America exactly what DOING NOTHING looks like. We got to watch him reading "his favorite" children's book, unreactive to an ongoing attack on American soil.

      We know how interested Bush is in "keeping us safe" because he's given up finding Bin Laden.

      We know how interested Bush is in keeping us safe, because in SIX YEARS he has taken NO actions to protect our borders or our ports.

      We DO know that Republicans are aces at political dirty tricks, however. We know Nixon spied on his political foes. We know the Congressional GOP tapped into the computer which held private Democrat messages about judicial nominees and other information. We know the GOP will stop at nothing to spy on their POLITICAL opponents. Remember when they went after the "Pentagon Papers" Daniel Elsberg's PSYCHIATRIST? Or when MellonScaife spent MILLIONS digging into Clinton's sexual past? Nothing's sacred, if perverting democracy is at stake.

      But protecting us from REAL enemies? Zero, Zip, Bupkis from these incompetent thugs.

      We must always remember that we aren't dealing with any WARRIORS in the Bush Administration. We're dealing with petty thugs and political smear artists. The only thing they're the least bit interested in protecting is their own political hides.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by LL-TIME (May 22, 2006 9:36 am ET)
           

        " WE KNOW ...Republicans and Bush are USELESS at protecting America. 9/11 happened with plenty of warning, but Bush wasn't listening, or simply failed to comprehend. "

        Uhmmm, how do we "know" that? There was no warning from any credible sources. Clinton had all the info Bush had, and if it had been credible, Clinton (being the man he is) would have done something about it! Everyone knows that all the info on OBL was false and created to authorize an attack on two countries that had nothing to do with terrorists, and left the one country alone that did...Syria.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by tex (May 22, 2006 10:00 am ET)
         

      ... you probably didn't know about the following.

      I can't imagine what excuse you use for being so willfully ignorant.

      -----

      At the end of 1998, after Iraq expelled UN weapons inspectors, President Clinton ordered a bombing campaign that completely wiped out Iraq's weapons capabilities.

      Clinton made this statement to the nation on Dec 16, 1998:

      “Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

      Warplanes aboard the USS Enterprise combined with more than 200 cruise missiles from eight Navy warships to converge on Iraqi targets at 5:06 p.m. EST. The attack by U.S. and British forces against Iraq broadened and intensified, as salvos of missiles pounded scores of targets throughout the country and the skies over the Iraqi capital filled with the flash of huge explosions, the smoke of distant conflagrations and the brilliant red tracings of antiaircraft fire.

      The second wave of strikes by allied cruise missiles was by far the heaviest attack against the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein since the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

      Not a single U.S. or British casualty was reported in about 70 hours of intensive airstrikes involving 650 sorties against nearly 100 targets. A total of 415 cruise missiles were launched, Pentagon officials said, including 325 Tomahawks fired by U.S. Navy forces and 90 heavier cruise missiles deployed from Air Force B-52s.

      ------

      So when you say, LL-TIME: "Clinton had all the info Bush had, and if it had been credible, Clinton (being the man he is) would have done something about it!"

      He DID do something about it. And what he did changed the situation dramatically. Bush, and you, have a wish to rewrite history and ignore inconvenient facts. I understand. There is no rational excuse you can make for this FAILED BUSH administration, so you present blatantly untrue visions of history hoping somebody might be fooled. Nobody is.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by LL-TIME (May 22, 2006 3:23 pm ET)
           

        Yes, that is very true, that Bush's admin has failed in many aspects, but how in Iraq? Didn't the same democrats (as under Clinton) make claim after claim of present WMD's? Bush, also, did something to eliminate the threat and the Iraq war is claimed to be "a war built on lies". Which lies did Bush use that the democrats weren't already using at the time?

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.