Monday, December 19, 2005

White House press corps...sigh

Well someone asked the question that needed to be asked. Tellingly it was the last questions and perplexingly the reporter made it the first of a disjoint two-part question -- haven't you learned that if you don't ask simply worded short questions he's going to go way off into left field?!??!!!!

QUESTION: Mr. President, in making the case for domestic spying, could you tell us about planned attacks on the U.S. that were thwarted through your domestic spying plan? [Oh why couldn't you just stop here. Sigh...]

And also, on the issue of race, since you brought up the issue of Katrina, 2005 gave us your defense of yourself on race. And some are still not sold on that. In 2006, what are you giving to the nation on the issue of race, as we're looking to the renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 2007 and things of that nature?
Guess which question Bush "answered" first?

Here's the non-answer to the first part

QUESTION: Sir, the other...

BUSH: You asked a multiple-part question.

QUESTION: Yes, I did.

BUSH: Thank you for violating the multiple-part question rule.

QUESTION: I didn't know there was a law on that.

BUSH: There's not a law.

It's an executive order.

In this case, not monitored by the Congress.

Nor is there any administrative oversight.

QUESTION: Well, without breaking any laws, back on domestic spying. Making the case for that, can you give us some example...

BUSH: Oh, I got you. Yes, sorry.

No, I'm not going to talk about that, because it would help give the enemy notification and/or perhaps signal to them methods and uses and sources. And we're not going to do that.

It's really important for people to understand that the protection of sources and the protections of methods and how we use information to understand the nature of the enemy is secret.

And the reason it's secret is because, if it's not secret, the enemy knows about it, and if the enemy knows about it, it adjusts.

And, again, I want to repeat what I said about Osama bin Laden, the man who ordered the attack that killed 3,000 Americans.

We were listening to him. He was using a type of cell phone -- or a type of phone. And we put it in a newspaper -- somebody put it in the newspaper that this was the type of device he was using to communicate with his team. And he changed.

I don't know how I can make the point more clear that any time we give up -- and this is before they attacked us, by the way. Revealing sources, methods and what we use the information for simply says to the enemy: 'Change.'
Blah blah blah blah blah. This has little to do with sources and methods. This is the new equivalent of "Saddam was a bad guy" answer. The question can be answered without revealing sources and methods by simply saying "we've stopped x attacks using these wiretaps. We overheard y plots being made and these plots in z nonspecific countries were stopped." Could someone please give the White House press corps a brain for Christmas?

# posted 9:34 PM