Let the parsing begin: McClellan on "nothing has changed"

As I predicted yesterday, Scott McClellan tried to defend President Bush's most damning previous statement about wiretapping by parsing what the President said as only referring to the Patriot Act. Here's the transcript from his press briefing:

Q Scott, in April of 2004, President Bush delivered remarks on the Patriot Act, and he said at that time, "any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it require -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." Was the President being completely forthcoming when he made that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think he was talking about in the context of the Patriot Act.

Q And in terms of the American people, though, when he says "nothing has changed" --

MR. McCLELLAN: I would have to look back at the remarks there, but you're clearly talking about it in the context, as you pointed out, of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is another vital tool. That's why the Senate needs to move forward and get that reauthorized now. We cannot let that expire -- not for a single moment, because the terrorist threat is not going to expire. Those tools have helped us disrupt plots and prevent attacks and break up terrorist cells. We need those tools for our law enforcement and intelligence community. And we urge the Senate to stop the delaying tactics by the minority of senators, to stop their delaying tactics, to stop filibustering, stop blocking this legislation and get it passed.

Q So you don't see it as misleading in any way when the President says, "nothing has changed"?

MR. McCLELLAN: You're asking me to look back at something that is in relation to the Patriot Act. And it's in relation to the Patriot Act --

Q But he's talking about wiretaps --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and I'll be glad to take a look at his comments. I think you're taking them out -- I think the suggestion that you're making, I reject that suggestion. And I'll be glad to take a look at those comments.

Here's a similar White House defense reported by the Boston Globe:

The White House said the president's comments -- two years after approving the domestic surveillance program -- applied to the kind of roving wiretaps the Patriot Act allows for law enforcement, not eavesdropping for foreign intelligence.

It's crucial not to get bogged down in semantic debates about whether or not Bush's words technically pertained only to the Patriot Act. That's arguable, but it's also irrelevant. What's important is that President Bush said "a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so" at a time when the United States was engaging in domestic wiretaps without court orders. His statement was certain to leave a misleading impression with the public.

Comments

[Declan]

Saying that Bush was referring only to the Patriot Act is a lot like defending Clinton by arguing that "he meant no vaginal intercourse" -- the stakes, of course, are immensely higher here. Future generations will be incredulous that Clinton was impeached and Bush was not.

[C.P.T.L.]

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order," – Bush It is a bungled statement with a clever significant omission – since the U.S. government was not talking about those particular wiretaps then the lack of court orders for those instances of skipping F.I.S.A. for overseas wiretaps do not apply. Since we citizens don’t speak in slippery language full of laywer’s intricacies it cannot be interpreted as anything but misleading considering that Bush had direct knowledge of wiretaps that were taking place without court orders. ‘Any time’ has no other definition than ‘at all times.’ He cannot claim to have been speaking only of the Patriot Act when he, entered into a general context with the emphatic ‘any time’ to strengthen his assurances.

[LaurenceB]

I think I detect a pattern in these arguments:

1. We don't wiretap without a court order.
2. OK, we do. But its not technically illegal because we notify Congress.
3. OK, it is illegal. But its for a greater good.

1. We don't condone torture. Torturers are just the "bad apples".
2. OK, we do condone torture in some cases. But our "extraordinary interrogation methods" are always legal.
3. OK, they're not always legal. But it's the right thing to do to keep the US safe.

1. Saddam has WMDs.
2. OK, he doesn't. But we didn't technically lie - we just had bad intelligence.
3. OK, we may have stretched the truth on several well-documented occasions. But isn't it great that Saddam is gone?

1. Saddam is tight with the terrorists.
2. OK, he's not. #*%&*% intelligence!
3. OK, there was no intelligence linking Saddam to 9/11 - a link we suggested many, many times. But isn't it great that Saddam is gone?

In all of these, argument #3 gives the nod of approval to criminal and/or unethical behavior that was vehemently denied in arguments #1 and #2. It's a strange, strange world this people live in.