About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Des Moines Register reported on Romney's "defen[se]" of wiretaps on "suspected terrorists" without mentioning central issue

December 20, 2007 8:16 pm ET

SUMMARY: A Des Moines Register article reported that Mitt Romney "defended the Bush administration's use of wiretaps to spy on suspected terrorists," quoting Romney asserting that President Bush "has done what was necessary here with the Patriot Act, as well as by listening in when al-Qaida was calling." But the article simply ignored the central issue in the debate: whether the government should have to obtain warrants to eavesdrop on communications involving people in the United States.

21 Comments

A December 20 Des Moines Register article, headlined "Romney defends administration's use of wiretaps," reported that, while speaking at a campaign event in Davenport, Iowa, Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney "defended the Bush administration's use of wiretaps to spy on suspected terrorists." The article quoted Romney asserting that President Bush "has kept Americans safe" and that "[h]e has done what was necessary here with the Patriot Act, as well as by listening in when al-Qaida was calling." In doing so, however, the article fundamentally misrepresented the administration's position on wiretaps and the nature of the debate over the president's conduct of domestic surveillance.

By reporting that Romney "defended the Bush administration's use of wiretaps to spy on suspected terrorists," the article simply ignored the central issue in the debate: whether the government should have to obtain warrants to eavesdrop on communications involving people in the United States. Contrary to claims by President Bush and administration supporters, critics of the administration's eavesdropping program have not said that the government should refrain from spying on terrorists; rather, those critics, including numerous members of Congress, have said that the president should be required to obtain warrants before eavesdropping on conversations involving people in the U.S. But the word "warrant" or "warrantless" is nowhere to be found in the Register article, which purports to identify Romney's and Bush's position on the issue of wiretaps.

As Media Matters for America documented, ever since a December 16, 2005, New York Times article first revealed the existence of the Bush administration's domestic warrantless wiretapping program, critics of the program have consistently acknowledged the need for U.S. intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on the communications of suspected Al Qaeda operatives. At the same time, however, Democrats -- and numerous Republicans and conservatives -- raised serious questions about Bush's actions in apparent violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which, except as otherwise specifically provided (and as temporarily amended in August), requires the government to obtain a warrant to conduct domestic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.

Furthermore, Media Matters has also repeatedly noted (here, here, here, and here), that the administration's warrantless eavesdropping program was not limited to calls in which one party was a "suspected terrorist," but that thousands of Americans with no ties to any terrorist group were also reportedly ensnared by the program. For instance, on November 25, 2006, The New York Times reported that "government officials involved" in the wiretapping program "have said that it has often led to dead ends and to people with no clear links to terrorism."

From the December 20 Des Moines Register article:

Davenport, Ia. - Mitt Romney on Wednesday defended the Bush administration's use of wiretaps to spy on suspected terrorists.

Romney sought to contrast his support for the president with that of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, his leading opponent in the GOP presidential race.

Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, acknowledged that the United States "struggled through several years of mistakes" in Iraq, but repeatedly praised President Bush for his efforts to fight terrorism. He pounced on Huckabee's criticism of Bush in the January/February 2008 issue of the journal Foreign Affairs.

Bush "has kept Americans safe, and that hasn't been easy to do," Romney said against the backdrop of the Rock Island Arsenal. "He has done what was necessary here with the Patriot Act, as well as by listening in when al-Qaida was calling."

Romney's remarks along the Mississippi River coincided with recent criticism of Huckabee for denouncing the Bush administration's "arrogant bunker mentality" abroad.

Romney seized on the comments, looking to strike another contrast with Huckabee in the tight GOP race. Huckabee has recently overtaken Romney's lead, according to several key polls, leading to attacks from Romney on immigration and his tax record.

Huckabee "made a significant error in insulting the president as being subject to an arrogant, bunker mentality," Romney said. "That is not accurate."

Earlier this week, in an interview with CNN, Huckabee said he had no reason to apologize for his article and dismissed Romney's criticism. His Iowa campaign manager, Eric Woolson, said Wednesday that Huckabee supported President Bush on Iran and the troop surge in Iraq, and Romney didn't.

"Governor Huckabee is keeping the military option against Iran on the table, and has stood by the president on the global war of terror, including the surge in Iraq - something Governor Romney cannot say," Woolson said.

Bush's approval rating dwindled in the face of the unpopular war and he became what many Americans consider one of the most polarizing presidents in recent history. But among staunch Republicans - the group most likely to caucus on Jan. 3 - his popularity remains high.

Romney has voiced support for wiretapping before. As governor in 2005, he called on the federal government to devote more money to domestic intelligence gathering efforts and raised the prospect of wiretapping mosques - remarks that alarmed some civil libertarians.

The Romney-Huckabee clash has torn many Iowa Republicans. In interviews throughout the state in recent weeks, several have said they still can't decide whom to support as the caucuses near.

Richard Miller, a Bettendorf Republican, said he plans to caucus for Romney because of his past business experience. Miller said he disliked a recent Huckabee ad alluding to religion.

"I don't like him saying he's, quote, the Christian candidate," Miller said. "I don't think a person's religion should matter at all."

Romney later swept through West Des Moines, greeting a crowd of 1,000 at the Sheraton Hotel with his son, Josh, and Meg Whitman, the CEO of eBay and a longtime friend.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mefirst (December 20, 2007 8:31 pm ET)
         

      bush "has kept americans safe" accoring to romney.  by?  i think it's extremely likely we never would have had 9-11, had bush been paying the least amount of attention.  there were numerous people warning some kind of big attack was coming, and there were two fbi agents trying to warn that foreign students were taking flying lessons and that the instructors at those schools were suspicious of their motives.  this is the same thing we are going to hear for the next year.  bush kept us safe.  it's crap.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Clevenative (December 21, 2007 7:33 am ET)
           

        I agree Mefirst. If Bush "has kept americans safe" since 9/11 then Bill Clinton "kept americans safe" from the time of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing until the end of his presidency.

        Neither The Patriot Act nor wiretapping of every mosque in the country would have “kept Amercia safe” from The Oklahoma City FBI Building and Atlanta Olympics bombings.

        I hate these weak arguments that are used to justify their visions of a "police state" as the easiest solution to the problem. Republican's like to think they have all the answers - problem is, none of them work.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 21, 2007 8:03 am ET)
             

          Actually it's much worse than "it doesn't work".  It wins the war for the terrorists.  Al-Quaeda can blow all thebuildsing they want and they will still have destroyed nothing but buildings.  Doing what Bush & Co. have done destroys the pricipals upon which this country was founded and which make it great!  He's destroying the very principals that the terrorists hate so much in the first place! 

          And as for any counter that Al-Queada is also ending lives...  The hard truth is that everyone's life is going to end.  We'd all prefer that it be later rather than sooner, but the options are not dying or living forever.  It's dying now or dying later.  But the PRINCIPALS of FREEDOM and LIBERTY are meant to endure.  The very SPIRIT of this great nation is meant to out live you or me, or the soldier on the battlerfield or the victims of a terrorist attack.  The are bigger than us. 

          Should I die (say, in a terrorst attack) because of my desire for free speech / religion or privacy from gov't eavesdropping then I have died defending LIBERTY every bit as much as the soldier in Iraq.  (Possibly more so - IRAQ was never a threat to our liberty!)  And, in truth, neither is Al-Queada!  They can't take away our freedom.  Only we can do that, if we fear them enough to let our leaders act without oversite, or limits to their power.

          DO NOT LET YOUR FEAR ALLOW THE PRINCIPALS OF THIS GREAT NATION TO BE DESTROYED! 

          Do not let them "save us" at the cost of what makes up worth saving! 

          Report Abuse
        • Author by thomp.steve9098 (December 21, 2007 9:39 am ET)
             

          I agree Mefirst. If Bush "has kept americans safe" since 9/11 then Bill Clinton "kept americans safe" from the time of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing until the end of his presidency.

          Have you forgotten the Kobar Towers in 1996?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 21, 2007 9:55 am ET)
               

            Why?  Were there a lot of Americans in Saudi Arabia at the time? 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by thomp.steve9098 (December 21, 2007 10:05 am ET)
                 

              19 American deaths.  I'm just pointing out the oversight.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by dmcc9995 (December 21, 2007 10:50 am ET)
                   

                At least 3,800 American deaths in Iraq since Bush has been "keeping Americans safe". But hey, I'm just pointing out the oversight...

                Report Abuse
                • Author by thomp.steve9098 (December 21, 2007 10:58 am ET)
                     

                  No oversight on my part. Just don't think the rosy picture of the clinton era is entirely accurate.  Not a big fan of this war though. Although I believed the WMD hype prior to, that was a mistake.  As Pat Buchanan, Tucker Carlson and Robert Novak had screamed about from the get go, Congress let us citizens down by wholly disregarding their constitutional obligations.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by young.matthew9801 (December 21, 2007 11:21 am ET)
                       

                    No, I'm sorry, it was the Bush Administration that let us down by cherry picking intelligence to show to the Congress. Intelligence from guys named Curveball.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by thomp.steve9098 (December 21, 2007 11:38 am ET)
                         

                      Definitely they cherry-picked intelligence. But congress rolled over. By saying this I'm not defending republicans, as they controlled congress.  But their rolling over and so completely failing to provide any oversight over their co-equal branch of gov't was just so shameless and so unbefitting of our constitution.  The principle of checks and balances is designed to, among other things, prevent the sort of misguided decisions that led to the war in iraq.  Congress is a bunch paranoid, opportunistic wimps.  And no, I don't think it's any better now with dem's at the helm. 

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by bittermarv (December 21, 2007 4:38 pm ET)
                           

                        Don't blame this on Congress.  Republicans were chomping at the bit to go to war.  Bush and crew wanted war in Iraq from the day GWB stepped into the Oval, and probably sooner.  The Republican Party pushed for the removal of Saddam in their 2000 campaign platform.

                        This wasn't about Congress rolling over.  It was about fooling what was left of Congress into going to war.  Looks to me that the House Republicans had enough votes, and Senate Republicans needed two more than they had. 

                        Republicans don't get to blame anyone but Republicans. 

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (December 22, 2007 10:49 pm ET)
                           

                        This I have to agree with to a large extent. I wouldnt say Congress deserves as much blame as the administration but I KNEW it was a bunch of BS and I am just a guy with a job. No way Congress gets a pass from me.

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by mefirst (December 23, 2007 8:06 pm ET)
                           

                        the vote was to authorize force if needed.  it was taken in october 2002, just prior to the elections, when bush was still seen as our protector.  the republicans portrayed anyone voting against it as siding with terrorists.  indeed, they portrayed some of those who did vote for it that way anyway. since it was bush's stated purpose to disarm saddam, the u.n. inspectors were actually back in iraq, before bush had them pulled out so he could invade in march 03.  the mistake was trusting bush, but the republicans also framed the vote in an entirely political way.

                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by dmcc9995 (December 21, 2007 11:22 am ET)
                       

                    "...Congress let us citizens down by wholly disregarding their constitutional obligations."

                     - With that, I wholeheartedly concur. But I'd like to remind you that those who held power in the Congress after 1994 didn't exactly work to make Clinton's task any "rosier", did they? And Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson as heroic whistleblowers? Woah, doggies ~

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by thomp.steve9098 (December 21, 2007 11:31 am ET)
                         

                      Not so much whistleblowers, as Congress' failure was not very concealed. I think of Buchanan as more of a visionary, with insight that is gift to American politics and to us citizens. 

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mefirst (December 21, 2007 7:13 pm ET)
                           

                        kobar towers was the fault of the commanders on the ground in saudi arabia.  nothing to do with clinton.  and there were several plots stopped during the clinton presidency.  why?  because he gave a damn about terrorism.  he talked about it all the time and held meetings constantly.  bush ignored the subject and set the tone for his administration.   the hart-rudman commission on terrorism, set up by clinton and gingrich, issued their report when bush came into office, and he ignored it.  he promptly dismissed all the recommendations, which included a department of homeland security.  then after 9-11, bush acted like it was his idea.  he also said cheney would chair a commission on counterterrorism.  there was never a single meeting.

                        Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 21, 2007 11:24 am ET)
                   

                So, you're saying that Clinton needed to keep American's safe even when they not IN America?

                 Are you suggesting that Bush has done a better job with that?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by commonsenseliberal (December 21, 2007 7:23 pm ET)
                     

                  Don't forget that if Clinton gets the credit for keeping us safe after the WTC bombings, he did it without wiping his backside with the Constitution as GWB has.

                  How does GWB become a hero, "keeping us safe since 9/11" and at the same time denying people their Constitutional rights, all in the name of keeping us safe, but his predecessor, who was able to keep us safe and guarantee our Constitutional rights, is "the most corrupt President we've ever had"?  This messed up Right-wing logic astonishes me.

                  Report Abuse
    • Author by roundhouse (December 20, 2007 9:23 pm ET)
         

      Secrecy, Violence, Torture. Vote Romney.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by representativepress (December 20, 2007 9:29 pm ET)
         

      Still have not gotten a good answer from the Des Moines Register about what they did to Kucinich

      see video: Ralph Nader says, "I Do Like Kucinich"

      Report Abuse
    • Author by sportsguydave (December 20, 2007 11:11 pm ET)
         

      Just one more example of why Romney isn't going anywhere. He's an empty suit ... the next original thought he has will be his first.

       

      Report Abuse