TPM Muckraker

« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Bush: Suck It Up!

As expected, President Bush used today's press conference to bang that drum on the surveillance bill. It's "dangerous" that the House Democrats aren't giving in.

Despite the speedbump of CBS' Bill Plante asking the unusually blunt question of whether Americans, left with no recourse for challenging the legality of the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, should just "suck it up" (Bush disapproved of putting it that way "in public"), Bush recovered to hit all the talking points.

Here's the video:

As in prior appearances, the omissions and distortions came some fast and furious. "You can't expect the telecoms to participate if they feel like they're going to be sued" (of course, they wouldn't be sued for complying with an unambiguously lawful program); the administration's warrantless wiretapping program "was legal" (yes, by the Bush/Cheney/Addington view of the Constitution); it's "important" for the American people to "understand that no renewal of the ... the Protect America Act is dangerous for the security of the country" (House Republicans and the administration led an effort to prevent a second extension of the Protect America Act); etc.

A rush transcript is below.

QUESTION: ... if you can get the Congress to protect telecom companies from lawsuits then there's no recourse for Americans who feel that they've been caught up in this.

QUESTION: I know it's unintended to spy on Americans, but in the collection process information about everybody gets swept up and then it gets sorted. So if Americans don't have any recourse, are you just telling them when it comes to their privacy to suck it up?

BUSH: I wouldn't put it that way, if I were you -- in public. You've been around long enough.
Anyway, people who analyze the program fully understand that America's civil liberties are well protected.

There is a constant check to make sure that our civil liberties of our citizens aren't -- you know, are treated with respect.

BUSH: And that's what I want, and that's what most Americans -- all Americans want.
Now, let me talk about the phone companies. You cannot expect phone companies to participate if they feel like they're going to be sued. I mean, it is -- these people are responsible for shareholders. They're private companies.

The government said to those who have alleged to have helped us that it is in our national interests and it's legal. It's in our national interest because we want to know who's calling who from overseas into America. We need to know in order to protect the people.

It was legal. And now all of a sudden plaintiffs attorneys, class-action plaintiffs attorneys, you know -- I don't want to try to get inside their head; I suspect they see, you know, a financial gravy train -- are trying to sue these companies. It's unfair. It is patently unfair.

And, secondly, these lawsuits create doubts amongst those who will -- whose help we need.

BUSH: I guess you could be relaxed about all this if you didn't think there was a true threat to the country. I know there's a threat to the country. And the American people expect our Congress to give the professionals the tools they need to listen to foreigners who may be calling in to the United States with information that could cause us great harm.

So on the one hand the civil liberties of our citizens are guaranteed by a lot of checks in the system, scrutinized by the United States Congress.

And, secondly, I cannot emphasize to you how important it is that the Congress solve this problem.
The Senate has solved the problem. And people say, "Would you ever compromise on the issue?" The Senate bill is a compromise. And there's enough votes in the House of Representatives to pass the Senate bill. It's a bipartisan bill. And the House leaders need to put it on the floor and let the will of the housework.
My judgment happens to be the will of the people, to give the professionals the tools they need to protect the country....

QUESTION: Mr. President, on FISA, do you worry that perhaps some House Democratic leaders are playing a high-stakes game of wait-and- see in terms of if we get attacked, we all lose, if we don't get attacked, then maybe that makes the case that you don't need all the powers in FISA?

BUSH: No, I don't think so.

I mean, I think that's -- that would be ascribing, you know, motives that are just -- I just don't think they're the motives of the House leaders to do that.

I think -- look, I think they're really wrestling with providing liability protection to phone companies. I don't think they're that cynical or devious. That's -- it's just too risky. A lot of these leaders understand that there's an enemy that wants to attack.

The caucus, evidently, in the House is -- the Democratic caucus, is -- you know, is concerned about exactly Plante's question, you know. And I just can't tell you how important it is to not alienate or not discourage these phone companies.

BUSH: How can you listen to the enemy if the phone companies aren't going to participate with you? And they're not going to participate if they get sued.

Let me rephrase it: less likely to participate.

And they're facing billions of dollars of lawsuits. And they have a responsibility to their shareholders. And yet they were told what they were going do is legal.

And, anyway, I'm going to keep talking about the issue. This is an important issue for the American people to understand, and it's important for them to understand that no renewal of the Patriot Act -- I mean, the Protect America Act -- is dangerous for the security of the country. Just dangerous.

I'm sure people, if they really pay attention to the details of this debate, wonder why it was OK to pass the Protect America Act last summer, late last summer, and all of a sudden it's not OK to pass it now.
And so I will keep -- keep talking about the issue and talking about the issue.



15 Comments

| Leave a comment

And so there it is:

"And they're facing billions of dollars of lawsuits. And they have a responsibility to their shareholders. And yet they were told what they were going do is legal."

What they were told what they were going to do is legal.

If the telco are forced to defend themselves they will produce the materials that the administration used to justify its legality. This scares the daylights out of the administration and is why they are acting like rabid dogs trying to head this off.

Hmmm... it's possible that the Bush regime is actually afraid that the corporations won't comply with legal directives from an actual court... because from the Cheney point of view "law" is optional.

White House reporters are numskulls. How no one asked the patently obvious follow up to Bush's podium-punding (literally) tirade about the program being "legal" -- IF THE PROGRAM WAS LEGAL, WHY WOULD THE TELECOMS NEED IMMUNITY, RETROACTIVE OR OTHERWISE? -- is befuddling to me. Can we hire some high school newspaper reporters to take their place?

user-pic

The problem for Bush and the telecom industry is that Americans DO UNDERSTAND what took place and that they are now looking for Congress to bail them out of a bad situation created by their own breaking of the law.

"Sure, I stole your privacy, but I didn't expect to get caught."

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

user-pic

"I'm sure people, if they really pay attention to the details of this debate, wonder why it was OK to pass the Protect America Act last summer, late last summer, and all of a sudden it's not OK to pass it now."

Um... being forced to ADD retroactive immunity tfor companies that you are claiming never broke the law in the first place? Maybe?

Shouldn't there be a quick and widespread Dem response to this nonsense?

Shouldn't there be one? Where is it?

user-pic

Treat him like a troll. Do nothing! He's not getting legislation either... nothing. nothing. nothing!

Oh, well the phone companies are responsible to shareholders, as Bush says. That's a good reason to take a dump on the constitution.

user-pic

The little boy sure stamps his feet when he doesn't get his way.

The President’s nervous laugh in begging of his answer is creepy, no?

It's as if he doesn’t seem to take civil liberties seriously, or perhaps he feels that he's talking to children.

His argument is:

A) The companies shareholders are more important than American citizens.

B)The opposition consists of greedy trial lawyers that want to ride the gravy train.

If what this President were doing were just and legal, would there be a gravy train to ride on in the first place?

I'm sure psychologists have a name for Bush's personality type who, with one turn of phrase, can stoke a locker-room cameraderie complete with winks and nervous laughter in one breath, and send chills down one's spine with irate, petulant verbal fumblings and fist pounding in another. No one (reporter, lackey, politician) crosses the man, on the one hand, for fear of being left out of the joke, and, on the other, for fear of recrimination and being the object of derision.

But the political term for Bush is Tyrant.

"I'm sure psychologists have a name for Bush's personality...."

Lovelynina, here you go, this was a study commissioned and paid for by President Bush....

"Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition"

It's free as a PDF and it's a great read.

This couldn't really have been what it sounded like, could it?

I wouldn't put it that way, if I were you -- in public. You've been around long enough

I can just hear this in a Don Corleone voice...

This may be the strangest footage I’ve seen of the man.
He seems high. I wouldn’t claim confidence about which chemical compound. Republicans with public drug problems seem to favor pain-killers. It helps support Big Pharma, and that’s right on message.

He keeps wanting to smile. Especially in odd or inappropriate places.
And MannyaJ’s quote. Same thing. He’s trying not to giggle.
Almost charming, like a drunk or a sociopath.
I’ve seen him bumble, and stonewall, and smirk.
But making the genial locker-room bull-session-while-high Animal House moves throughout a press conference whose words were written for attack on Congress and defense of his policy? Talking about desperate danger imperiling the innocent Us? Reminiscent of a stand-up comic routine?

I’m not a White House press conference junkie so I lack a statistically significant sample from which to draw conclusions. But hey, most of you have seen chemically altered behavior.
Do you see what I see?

"It's in our national interest because we want to know who's calling who from overseas into America."

I thought Bush had been arguing the FISA update was needed because of foreign-to-foreign calls being routed through equipment on US soil. Is this a new admission by Bush or have I not been keeping up?

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe
Tip Line

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Zachary
Roth

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address