The question Mike McConnell refused to answer
By John Amato Sunday Feb 24, 2008 4:20pm
John King filled in for Wolf Blitzer on Sunday's Late Edition and the director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell joined him to talk about the dust up over the PAA bill. King begins by trying to confuse the audience over the squabble by stating:
Download | play 
Download | play
KING: To most Americans out there, and to a guy like me who's spent most of his time, in the past several months, out covering a presidential campaign, this is highly detailed stuff that's pretty hard to follow.
Why do all of C&L readers understand this issue, but apparently a guy like John King---a man with 20 years in the news business finds it so hard to follow?
At the heart of the controversy is that Bush and Cheney want retroactive immunity for the Telecoms that broke the law by illegally wiretapping Americans and Congress does not. King paints McConnell as a person who isn't interested in politics---he just wants results. If he is so non-political then why didn't he answer the most basic of all the questions King asked? If the Protect America Act is so important to our national security then why not extend the period of time that Congress has to work out a solution? Simple, right? That is---if it's actually a matter of life and death.
KING: To most Americans out there, and to a guy like me who's spent most of his time, in the past several months, out covering a presidential campaign, this is highly detailed stuff that's pretty hard to follow.
So, the FISA -- the Protect America Act expires. One thing, let me ask you right off the top, Congress says it offered a 21-day extension. Why not just sign on to the 21-day extension and give it three more weeks to try to sort this out?
MCCONNELL: Well, John, since it is so complex, let me just start with the fundamentals, and then, maybe, we can build from there.
No Mike, just answer the question. Read the full transcript of his full answers and you tell me why McConnell played politics with it if he isn't ---you know the only man who doesn't "like to get involved in the politics of all this." Why didn't John King, the seasoned and very serious reporter follow up and make him answer the simplest of all these highly complicated questions to the very complex situation? Why not give Congress a 21 day extension period to work on the PAA?
And the latest news coming from the Hill is that:
The Bush administration said yesterday that the government “lost intelligence information” because House Democrats allowed a surveillance law to expire last week, causing some telecommunications companies to refuse to cooperate with terrorism-related wiretapping orders.
But hours later, administration officials told lawmakers that the final holdout among the companies had relented and agreed to fully participate in the surveillance program, according to an official familiar with the issue.
What say you know, Mr. McConnell?
Login or Register to post comments.
The question Mike McConnell refused to answer
When did you stop buggering your pool boy's dog?
Again, I say if they can't produce documentation that intelligence was truly lost, then they lied to Congress and committed another crime.
Push that issue more...
"Why do all of C&L readers understand this issue, but apparently a guy like John King—a man with 20 years in the news business finds it so hard to follow?"
He's dumbing himself down to the level he assumes his viewers to be at. He thinks if he seems more sympathetic to them, he'll be more likable which will translate into bigger ratings for him, which means more money for him. Considering the level of CNN's content. I'd say he's probably right.
If what the telecoms did was never illegal, then why does Bush want retroactive immunity?
If whatever the telecoms were asked to do was legally questionable, why not go for the immunity before the program was to start? That would have made sense, what they are trying to do now does not.
John King probably knows less about this story than most of us here do. A knowledgeable reporter would have wiped the floor with this guy. Let Dan Rather question him next.
Simple: King is insulting his viewers. What he really means is,
"Hey, my viewers are a bunch of dumbasses who couldn't possibly have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Just tell us in a few simple words why you're right and why the Democrats hate America and we'll call this thing a wrap and get back to why Obama doesn't say the pledge and how he'll put prayer rugs facing Mecca down in the White House chapel right after he melts down the cross and opens up the borders. Lou Dobbs is next."
JC @ 2:
Crime number.....1,200,357,452? Why would Congress do something now? With Bush almost out of office and the sheer amount of paperwork required to impeach him for everything, and the easiness of the Republican noise machine in pointing to an impeachment as treason, it would hurt more than help. A better time to impeach Bush would have been 2006 or 2007.
General_Rennenkampf @ 7:
And a better time to start combatting global warming would've been 1990. But the band sure sounds nice!
General_Rennenkampf @ 7:
Using the "trying to convict for crime X would be treason" defense is going to be the standard argument if the Dems ever get a real chance to go after any of the crimes that have happened over the last 7 years. By not really doing anything for all these years, the Congress has set itself up for this. Not to mention that a lot of them voted to support Bush at some point or another, that won't help either.
I'm also really tired of those lame fear ads on CNN for the FISA bill. Those are just awful.
Like I said this morning, if I were even a half wit "bad guy" I would have switched my phone service over to the telecom that hasn't participated in this tapping service since the very beginning. The only bad guys they can track now are the ones too stupid to switch services, so I doubt they are all that dangerous.
How important is it really? They have always had the ability to apply for court authorization for wiretaps. How many have been refused?
And they continue to talk to the American public as though they had the IQ of crisco.
ohdave @ 6:
++
Exactly two years ago, I dissected the Bush administration's dubious legal justification for its illicit program of NSA domestic surveillance. Then, I argued that the President's twin claims that his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief and the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) allowed Bush to operate outside the legal mandate of FISA were specious. As it turns out, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey apparently agree.
For the details, see:
"McConnell, Mukasey Confirm Bush Domestic Surveillance Was Illegal."
These guys are criminals. Even when they are subpoenaed they don't answer questions. We have a long way to go as a society if we are ever going to hold these guys responsible. I hope we do.
kaybee @ 11:
" Through the end of 2004, 18,761 warrants were granted, while just five were rejected (many sources say four)."
From wikipedia
IF they didn't do anything wrong, why is immunity for the telecoms needed?
You know, like they keep telling us, if you haven't done anything wrong, why do you care if they spy on you, as laughable as it is to hear that archaic falsity in this day and age.
The subject is exceedingly simple:
Bush and his administration wantonly and willfully broke the law, over and over again, starting BEFORE 9/11.
Bush and his criminal administration continued to willfully, knowingly, break the law even after it was reported.
Now Bush and his mayberry machiavellies want the lawbreaking that they encouraged and engaged in to be, retroactively, made legal.
A very literal get out of jail free card.
So that they can continue to spy on citizens and their political rivals without going to jail for the rest of their lives for perpetrating the single largest fraud on the American people (outside of one day in September that isn't supposed to be brought up) in the history of this country.
I totally agree- this issue is pretty hard to follow, especially if you depend on these crooks and liars to inform you.
The lack of journalist questions is at the heart of this problem.
The recent spy sat shoot down is a simple example.
Q-Why shoot it down?
a-Because is has dangerous rocket fuel aboard.
(unasked)Q- WTF is rocket fuel doing on a sat? and why wouldn't they use this mysterious rocket fuel to reestablish orbit?
a-ummmm
An obvious lie is exposed with the simple act of thinking and asking a simple question.
Q-Why would the Admin have a problem with retro-immunity if this wasn't illegal?
a- ummmmm
cg @ 12:
The majority has continued to prove them right.
You know what I'm stupid enough to believe? That the telecom companies would defy a lawful order from the U.S. Government upon which they are totally dependent for licensing and regulation. I'm sure that their failure to comply with a lawful warrant would have no repercussions whatsoever especially if the result was 'lost' intelligence gathering which might have prevented an attack. Yeah, I'm that stupid.
The expression "playing politics" is idiotic and contrived. To attempt to demean a person who fulfills the capacity of a political position by accusing him of "playing politics" is absurd - and comes off as about as meaningful and clever as a Pentacostal Christian that accuses a Stem-Cell researcher of "playing science"...
Bush spoke about this bill earlier today and they are showing it on c-span now. He said, speaking of the telecoms, they were doing something they thought was perfectly legal and now they are getting hit by law suits and they don't want to do it any more.
Would that work for you or me? If we did something we thought was perfectly legal and then people began to file law suits against us for what we did, could we apply for immunity from the law we may have broken so we could continue to do what it was that we were doing? I doubt it very much. Last I heard, ignorance was no excuse for breaking the law.
The only reason the telecoms did what they did is because the administration told them they had their asses covered for them, when in reality, they did not. This is why I say that if there was a legal question within the white house, they should have taken care to define try to correct it before they made promises to these companies.
I hope they plan on payin' their bill this time.
CNN - Comedy News Network. My favorite comedians are on CNN. Wolf Blitzer cracks me up and Lou Dobbs is just ca-rayzee!
pete @ 18:
You beat me to it, that is the part that is always left out of the argument, if it is framing the question or answering the question the FACT that this spying started before 9/11/01 and was not a reaction to 9/11/01 always needs to be added.
Hello, Operator. Could you please tell the guy listening in on this conversation to kiss my white ass.
"administration officials told lawmakers that the final holdout among the companies had relented and agreed to fully participate."
what company are they referring to? had one of the companies who had previously "cooperated" stopped cooperating (for some reason other than that the administration hadn't paid the last bill) or is this a reference to the one phone company that DIDN'T cooperate in the first place (sorry i can't give a shoutout to said company, can't remember the name other than it might have "south" in it and provides service in the western half of the united states)?
anybody know?
inquiring minds are wanting to know!
Tell Chimpy Mc Fuckup he can have his immunity if he goes on live TV ,hooked up to a lie detector, and explains why he was tapping phones half a year prior to 911 anyways. Then get him to demonstrate how to get kerosene to melt steel.
Hey, John King, if this stuff is hard to follow, perhaps your talents would be better spent interviewing Britney and Paris. You should leave the honest journalism to journalists who aren't afraid to ask the tough questions and who, upon getting those tough questions answered, are willing to provide a thorough and truthful analysis of today's difficult issues.
simple explanation:
the fascists administration of bushco want it all their way
or no way.......a bully is always a bully
and did i fail to mention bush is a fucking bastard fascist.
Read more history.
this is highly detailed stuff that’s pretty hard to follow.
he's giving the folks "out there" permission to be stupid...
even excusing it...
It's just sick how these assholes, and yes I mean you Mr. McConnell, manipulate this whole "We've missed intel but we can't talk about what that entails" bullshit. They hide any evidence (if they have any at all) under a blanket of supposed national security. They just expect us to believe any story they tell us, or follow their answers that are so convoluted that people like King, who are totally engrossed in their own lives, cannot (or will not) pay attention. King works in a different world, where relentless competition to get some ridiculous scoop is their reason for existence. But I work too, and have a family. And I feel that I have the time and more importantly the inclination to get a pretty good grasp of WTF is actually going on here. And it stinks like like week's garbage.
But someone once said: Ignorance is bliss.
Perfect circle
TV makes you dumb, and the dumber you are the more likely you are to like TV
Sorry Last week's garbage
My brain is rotting in the situation room right now . . . . Obama dressed in islamic garb as a boy . . . . Hillarymart fighting for the Merican people . . . . oh jeezz . . . not again . . . ahhh . . . . b a r fffffff
I've got the Loose Change brothers on the Uncle Nasty show on my blog. My foundational mythology was ruptured years back . . . if you still worship Chris Columbus . . . you may not be ready for what's up next for the land of American Idol
redestructionist @ 32:
I've read plenty of history, but thanks Mr. Smarmsalot.
Blue Lensman @ 20:
19%.... smallest! majority! ever!
It's not complicated if you have a few functioning brain cells. Who the hell is bankrolling these fear ads? SBC? And why is no one doing anything to get the truth out about this bill? Why aren't Democrats and civil liberties groups running ads to deal with these? If you don't say anything it's like saying you agree with this bullshit fear mongering.
So apparently John King is a moron and assumes most Americans are as dumb as he is. There isn't anything complex about the issue at all - Bush/Cheney, et al want telecom immunity in order to immunize themselves against possible prosecution. If the telecoms cannot be prosecuted for breaking the FISA laws, then neither can the criminals currently in the White House. If Mr. King doesn't see the intentions here, then maybe he needs to get another job where his mental capabilities will not be taxed.
if Mike McConnell just answered the question then everyone would see that his BS doesn't hold water!
King is just another corporate shill. "So the FISA--Protect America Act expires..." WTF?
Quit listening to your corporate masters by trying to blend them together for the ignorant masses. Some of us know the differences between the two, fuckwit.
I understand that John King is part of "the best political team on television."
At least that's what Wolf Blitzer tells me several times an hour.
So if HE doesn't know much about it, it can't be too important, right?
Maybe we should ask Wolf himself. Or Candy Crowley.
Surely THEY must know SOMETHING.
Damn this makes me mad.
So wait, let me get this straight, McConnell gives a brief historical view of FISA by saying that the law was enacted to curb past abuses that the intelligence agencies committed. Then he advocates for a law that allows them to commit those same abuses without any judicial oversight? That doesn't really track too well for me.
here's a question....
If the government gets a LEGAL wiretap order, why are they dependent upon the 'cooperation' of the telecom. Why isn't it then mandatory that the telecom comply with the LEGAL order?
Does the telecom have an option to ignore a LEGAL court order? Is Bush saying the government is dependent on the kindness of strangers here? WTF?
Del Tweed @ 47:
This is so all so much bullshit....
I don’t understand why the telcos who were instrumental in creating the original FISA with all its protections would even consider PAA as a viable alternative to this original law.
Since they were the framers of the original FISA (with the government) the telcos would know the broad ramifications of PAA and they themselves would be vulnerable to warrantless wiretapping because of their unique position and compromised relationship with this particular program.
I’ve been told that well the telcos are just “owned” by the Bush administration. Maybe that is true. Because the only telco that said no to this program was Qwest and look what happened to its ceo. (Joseph Nacchio insider trading charges). http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:-Lt45XVUA-sJ:blog.wired.com/27bstro...
I believe the only way we can get to the bottom of this situation is to hear in a court of law from the telcos as to why, when, and exactly what was the contract agreement with the government regarding this whole warrantless wiretapping.
But then again I’m dreaming because that will never happen, huh?...
"The Bush administration said yesterday that the government “lost intelligence information” because House Democrats allowed a surveillance law to expire last week, causing some telecommunications companies to refuse to cooperate with terrorism-related wiretapping orders."
Oh really? Couldn't have anything to do with those beloved telecommunication companies cutting off wiretaps because of the bureau's repeated failures to pay phone bills on time.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/fbi.unpaid.phone.bills.ap/index.html
"In at least one case, a wiretap used in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation "was halted due to untimely payment," the audit found. FISA wiretaps are used in the government's most sensitive and secretive criminal investigations, and allow eavesdropping on suspected terrorists or spies.
We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence," according to the audit by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine."
> But hours later, administration officials told lawmakers that the final holdout among the companies had relented and agreed to fully participate in the surveillance program
You know, a side issue I think is going unnoticed here is that it appears that yet another telecom company has agreed to let the government spy on Americans.
Or am I just reading the above quote wrong?
kaybee @ 11:
It is the paper trail. THE leader does not want impartial eyes seeing the nefarious spying going on. Like listening to congresspeople or wall street. With no warrant they can listen to anyone for any reason.
Please pardon Mr. King. He's newly engaged to Dana Bash and when he's not buried ears deep in her snatch, is taking Hebrew lessons to convert from Catholic to Jewish. Welcome aboard, bro. Do you think the nuns will forgive you?
Maybe put the whole interview up instead of the cut off version? I wouldn't defend the slimy bastard but that was one question and one evasion. Does he follow up? Come on, now.
"causing some telecommunications companies to refuse to cooperate with terrorism-related wiretapping orders"
Refusing a LEGAL GOVERMENT ORDER or 'cooperating' with illegal requests from the Fascists bastards to undermine our way of life??
Had they made LEGAL requests in the first place would they need imunity now?
The court was good enough to put Bush in office but not good enough for the telcoms? I say give them thier day in court.
Love the news stories on putting your medical records on line by Google and others - Will they get retroactive imunity when they give all that to the Goverment as well??
If hanging was right for Sadam - What's right for Bush???
.
R E M E M B E R:
THEY(sic) HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS
One of the defining characteristics to what it means to be an American:
Is the FREEDOM from a form of Government that pries into People's daily and private lives.
The FREEDOM OF TYRANNY!
Why does McConnell hate that FREEDOM so that he argues for it's destruction?
How did the Founders get the Fourth Amendment wrong; Warrantless is legal?
Usurpation of the People's Right to the FREEDOM OF TYRANNY is NOT Patriotic but instead; TREASON to the State.
.
.
Oh,
And I suppose that 9-1-1 made all the warrantless wiretapping done prior to 9-1-1 irrellivent, too?
.
Bush is Ossama @ 54:
IMPEACHMENT? WAR CRIMES CHARGES?
Followed by, say, drawing and quartering? He's afraid of horsies, ya know...
John King's such a hairdo.
"Hard to follow?"
Follow this, you tool:
-- They started illegally spying on Americans in January 2001 (Per the declassified NSA 2001 Transition Report). Amazingly, snooping on Joe Bob's pizza order in Wallacoochie Georgia did nothing to stop the terrorists on 9/11.
-- In order to do that illegal spying (in contravention of both the 4th Amendment and the CIA's/DIA's/CIFA's/NSA's own charters which prevents them from engaging in domestic surveillance), they got corporate America to betray the country they profit from by installing splitters that scoop up ALL data (not just IP addressing, but content as well) and send it to a NARUS server that sifts through 2.6 petabytes per DAY of calls and emails of average Americans, NOT "terrorists".
-- This data is then going to be used to populate the RAHS database being set up with the Singapore gov't by Iran-Contra felon John Poindexter.
-- That data will then be shared without the American people's consent with other corporations like Choicepoint (whose subsidiary Database Technologies helped rig the 200 elections) in the worst case of intelligence "mission drift" in the history of the world.
-- It will then become the perfect marriage of corporate and state interests to deny people credit, housing, jobs, bank loans, health insurance, etc., etc., etc....
It's FASCISM.
I think the really frightening thing is that there is no decent voice of the people on TV News. There's just newsroom gossip and preening clowns. It's a frightening thing. Everybody worries that nobody reads anymore, but if our news people had a sense of responsibility to the public, that would help. If John King can't follow a news story like that, get some researcher on camera who understands it, or let the researchers feed the idiot King questions that put this guy on the spot. Or fire the idiot.
Plus, why not some longer form of story to show what people are concerned with. There's lots of footage of the Church commission. FISA could be explained. The issues could be explained in depth.
Instead, all we get are ill-informed anchors asking stupid questions of people who spout the spin they've prepared, meant to obscure the facts, or we get two "sides" yelling at each other at the top of their lungs, yielding heat but no light.
McConnell : I am being paid alot of money to avoid saying anything on this issue.
Jim H @ 59:
That is called "The Goal".
5by5 @ 58:
Yes it is. It's so blatant that I can't imagine this move without a "back up plan". I mean, they are caught, and if they people get balls they could be tried for Treason, Warcrimes, High Crimes and Misdemeanours, Genocide and lots of other things they chop off your head for.
It's overt fascism and it means that you are no longer a democracy unfortunately. I would assume since 2000 you have not been since UN election officials have not been allowed to verify your elections since then.
Login or Register to post comments.