Media uncritically reported White House claim that Dems chose "confrontation" in issuing wiretapping subpoenas
SUMMARY: In their reports on subpoenas issued by the Senate Judiciary
Committee over the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program,
media outlets uncritically quoted the
White House claim that "[i]t's unfortunate that congressional
Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation" to suggest that
Democrats were solely responsible for the committee's action. In fact,
three Republicans voted with the Democrats to approve the subpoenas.
In reporting that the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to the White House for information on the Bush administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program, a number of media outlets allowed the White House to characterize the committee's action as partisan by uncritically quoting a White House spokesperson's claim that "[i]t's unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation." In fact, three Republican committee members voted with the Democrats to issue the subpoenas, including ranking member Sen. Arlen Specter (PA). In addition, while The New York Times and Los Angeles Times both noted the Republican senators' votes in their reports on the subpoenas, their articles attributed the move to the Democrats and quoted the White House's statement without specifically challenging it.
On June 27, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to the White House, the Office of the Vice President, and the Justice Department seeking information regarding internal deliberations on the legality of the administration's warrantless wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency. According to a June 27 press release from Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the committee has made numerous attempts to acquire the information from the Bush administration, to no avail:
"Over the past 18 months, this Committee has made no fewer than nine formal requests to the Department of Justice and to the White House, seeking information and documents about the authorization of and legal justification for this program," Chairman Leahy wrote in letters accompanying the subpoenas to Bush Administration officials. "All requests have been rebuffed. Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of Administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection."
Reporting on the committee's action on June 27, the Associated Press quoted White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto as saying: "It's unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation." However, the article immediately rebutted the White House response by noting that three Republicans voted in favor of the committee's action:
"We're aware of the committee's action and will respond appropriately," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "It's unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation."
In fact, the Judiciary Committee's three most senior Republicans -- Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, former chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah and Chuck Grassley of Iowa -- sided with Democrats on the 13-3 vote last week to give Leahy the power to issue the subpoenas.
By contrast, in their reports on the subpoenas, NBC's Nightly News anchor Brian Williams, ABC News chief White House correspondent Martha Raddatz, and Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume all mentioned the White House's statement accusing Democrats of choosing "the route of confrontation" while not mentioning that Specter, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) also voted to approve the subpoenas.
Additionally, while The New York Times and Los Angeles Times noted in their June 28 reports that three Republicans voted to subpoena the White House, the articles nonetheless depicted the committee's action as pitting the Democrats against the Bush administration and uncritically quoted Fratto describing Democrats as having chosen "the route of confrontation":
- The New York Times reported that the subpoenas "put Senate Democrats squarely on a course they had until now avoided, setting the stage for a showdown with the Bush administration over one of the most contentious issues arising from the White House's campaign against terrorism." The article then noted that the recent testimony of James B. Comey -- a former deputy attorney general "who described a March 2004 confrontation at the hospital bedside of John Ashcroft, then attorney general, between Justice Department officials and White House aides over the legality of the wiretapping program" -- "has given Democrats an opening to argue that they are focusing on the legal issues of the [NSA wiretapping] program, rather than on the merits of monitoring the phone calls of terrorist suspects." The Times did not note that three Republicans voted in favor of issuing the subpoenas until the 21st paragraph of the 24-paragraph article.
- And finally, the Los Angeles Times asserted that the subpoenas "set the stage for another legal and political battle between Senate Democrats and the Bush administration over its counterterrorism and law enforcement policies."
From the June 27 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
WILLIAMS: Now to Washington and a serious showdown between Congress and the White House that could end up in federal court. The Senate Judiciary Committee today subpoenaed Vice President Dick Cheney, the National Security Council at the White House, and the Justice Department over the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The committee wants to know about disputes inside the administration over whether the controversial program is legal or not. A White House spokesman said it was unfortunate that Democrats, quote, "chose the route of confrontation."
From the June 28 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
KATE SNOW (co-host): We begin with two stories developing in Washington. First, a Senate committee has issued subpoenas to the White House in connection with the administration's controversial wiretapping program developed after 9-11. The committee says the White House has been stonewalling its investigation. Senior White House correspondent Martha Raddatz joins us now. Martha, the question today I guess is the -- will the White House cooperate with those subpoenas?
RADDATZ: Well, I'll tell you Kate; this could be a real legal standoff. The White House saying this morning, "We're aware of the committee actions and will respond appropriately. It's unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation." One of the reasons the Democrats do continue with confrontation is the dramatic testimony from a former deputy attorney general about a confrontation at the hospital bedside of former Attorney General John Ashcroft urging him to reauthorize the program. But it is still unclear whether the White House will comply with those subpoenas -- Kate.
From the June 27 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: The Senate Judiciary Committee today issued subpoenas to the White House, Vice President Cheney's office, the Justice Department, and the National Security Council. The committee is seeking documents related to the now-discontinued practice of electronic eavesdropping without warrants, which the president had authorized.
Committee chairman Patrick Leahy says the White House and Justice Department have rebuffed nine formal requests. White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said it was unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose what she called "the route of confrontation."
There would be no confrontation if they White House would give them the information that they require to complete their oversight duties and all.
You can say that again!
If they did that, indictments would surely follow. Dam those pesky dems. Oversight? the right does not want oversight into their machinations and nefarious activities. How dare those pesky dems anyway. Can't a bunch of criminals operate in secrecy? The next thing you know, the dems will want to bring up the rights glaring failures under baby bush. How dare them?
There would be no confrontation if the White House would give them the information that they require to complete their oversight duties and all.
This shouldn't be surprising at all. This fits the story line that the media has been pushing since last year's elections. Remember all the scare talk of how Dems were going to clog up business in Washington with "frivolous" oversight and subpeonas or, que horror, IMPEACHMENT. The SCLM loves a good story line because it means they don't have to explain anything since "everyone knows" Democrats are so partisan? Right?
And "route of confrontation", gotta love that! How bout Shrub's confronting Iraq, Iran, Terri Shaivo, Immigration reform, taxes, subpeonas, even the freakin' Constitution is getting in their way and needs some confronting!
From Leahy's letters;
"Over the past 18 months, this Committee has made no fewer than nine formal requests to the Department of Justice and to the White House, seeking information and documents about the authorization of and legal justification for this program,"
"All requests have been rebuffed. Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of Administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection."
So, why is it unfortunate that they went the subpoena route? Does this administration consider any demand for accountability and transparency just some sort of bad luck?
This is precisely what they want. Pushing back until subpeonas were issued is exactly the way they wanted it to play, they are not stupid. As soon as the subponas were signed they began their spinning, catapulting the propoganda, that Democrats were being unreasonable! Nothing like this happens unless Rove and co. want it too.
I love how the media went on and on about Democrats being "obstructionists" while the Republicans had the majority in Congress, but they are completely silent on all the obstruction from the current Congressional Republicans.
Not allowing an up or down vote used to be the height of obstructing the will of the people according to the mainstream media....at least while Democrats were doing it. Republicans' use of the tactic is completely ignored.So you're right, it doesn't surprise me that they repeat the Republican talking points on this either. Democrats try to actually uphold the Constitution and rule of law, and they are trying to start a "confrontation". I mean, how could those evil, evil Democrats not just accept Dick Cheney's argument that he's a separate entity of our government and completely above the law???
There's a second part to the strategy, and that's The Big Stall. At this point, this administration is just running out the clock.
This white house won't ever start acting like an adult. They remind me of that little girl from Kindergarten Cop:
Detective John Kimble: Emma, take your toy back to the carpet and sit down. Emma: I'm not a policeman, I'm a princess! Detective John Kimble: Take your toy back to the carpet! Emma: [softly] I'm not policeman, I'm princess. Detective John Kimble: TAKE IT BACK! Emma: [miserable] All right.
This is how the white house needs to be treated from here on out.
Maybe if there'd been a little confrontation by congress in the six years pior to the 06 elections it wouldn't seem so alien to our media.
A healthy agrument, or six, makes for a healthy democracy. Keeps people involved, also a good thing.
Can't say I'd recomend taking an argument to the Supreme Court these days though, respect for precidence my, ohh wassname. South end of a north bound horse thingie.
The examples usde here actually quote the white house and do not use the opnion as their own. Therefore, it is used correctly, altough not provided with an answer from the commitee that should have made clear that ist is not democrats against the white house, but the senate against the white house that is not willing to comply with efforts of the senate to get oversight. Also, it is not clear here why the commitee is using their subpoena power: the white house only wanted to give certain documents and have some people testify (behind closed doors and without anything put on paper). So: the white house wants ovesight of the sante, but only of the things they decide deserves oversight.
Associated Press,NBC's Nightly News anchor Brian Williams, ABC News chief White House correspondent Martha Raddatz, and Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume,The New York Times and Los Angeles Times, all framing the wire tapping scandal in the language of Dems choosing to confront the White House; even though spying without a warrant is Unconstitutional.
What we demand out of the fourth estate is Revolution against the Bush Regime, but what we get from the fourth estate is political masturbation aka loyal Bushies.
Notice also, how when republicans hold up legislation via the filibuster, and other procedural tactics, they are never called out on it within the press either. Meanwhile, when the democrats did it when they were in the minority, they were being obstructionist, and not giving legislation/court nominees, and other things an up or down vote that they so deserved.
What the democrats currently in Congress ought to do is to push for these subpoenas and open up lawsuits if they don't get what they want from the White House, and get the job done, but then again, with the Bush stacked Supreme Court (by Dad and W), I'm sure said lawsuits would get shot down.
Sad, very sad.
Sorry for repeating most of your argument in my post above. I agree 100%.
Cops have to "choose confrontation" every time they arrest any crook. To enforce any law is to "choose confrontation"
Or is it the criminal who chooses confrontation - when they break the law?
You nailed it! The "choice" here is the criminal's choice, to break the law. The cops are sworn to uphold the law, leaving them no choice but the confrontation.
Arlen Specter is, disappointingly, pushing the "confrontation" nonsense too. He's actually suggested that Congress should take the White House's offer for unrecorded interviews without oaths. To borrow from an old Smothers Brothers exchange, Sen. Specter may as well be asking us to jump from a bridge...ummm....Not again!
Forgive me if this point's been made already, but it looks more to me like the voters chose confrontation (i.e. oversight) last November. It's about damn time if you ask me.
Sadly, we didn't get what we voted for when it came to cutting spending for the Iraq mess.
The Dems are fine with illegally occupying Iraq. They could be pushing impeachment against Bush. But they play these little games to make it look like they're in opposition. We have enough evidence to convict Bush a million times over, they don't need to subpeona anyone. All they need to do is drag out a VCR and the past five years of Bush lies about Iraq. Instant conviction. But invading and occupying Iraq is just fine with them. So they argue subpeonas to keep the blue kool-aid drinkers mad at the red kool-aid drinkers and our boys continue to die in Iraq and our government continues to torture prisoners. It's all just one big sick game to con the masses to keep voting for suicide at the polls.
The White House needs a big push
Like subpeonas to move their tush
Otherwise they'll just dither
Oversight will thus wither
All due to Cheney and Bush
Your best today I think JJ.
Merci, mon ami
It's about time for a little "confrontation". While we're at it, how 'bout a little kicking of a$$, and some taking of names?
Suggested press release from the Democratic leadership
"It is unfortunate that the White House has chosen to obstruct lawful and constitutionally mandated investigation by the co-equal legislative branch into alleged criminal action in the executive branch with spurious claims of "executive privilege," found nowhere in law or the constitution. Similar claims by the Nixon administration were rejected 7 - 0 by the Supreme Court and every administration since has cooperated either voluntarily or under court order with such investigations.
Accused criminals who refuse to cooperate with lawful investigations are always confronted with subpoenas, search warrants and other investigative tools. They are never pleased thereby, but in our system, no one is above the law. There is no "Executive Privilege" to break the law, obstruct justice or conceal evidence from a lawful investigation. When the administration chose to withhold evidence, it made confrontation necessary to preserve our constitution and democracy.
Too bad (for us) that the Dems are so torn between doing what we need done, and preserving all that collegiality they share with their Repugnant counterparts.