Pressthenews

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, at a press briefing on April 12, 2006, engaged in what has become a frequent tactic when the media fails to gloss over the underlying facts - make the media the culprit, rather than the issues of the story itself (the host of the popular "O'Reilly Factor," as an example of parts of the "media" itself even engaging in this tactic, often does the same).

As noted, while the Post, having often given the administration more than the benefit of the doubt in the past, in this instance, on WMD issues, did not. Yet on the now more relevant issue of defining the war on terror, particularly in the context of using it as a rationale to lend credibility to what have been specious arguments in favor of expansions of federal government power, the Post has been far less responsible.

Pressthenews believes that we are not doing enough in the "war on terror." Yet if calling it a "war," helps demark its seriousness, that is fine. But since we don't think the U.S. is doing enough, and that the term seems to have done more to simply help rationalize a non conservative, and non constitutional, expansion of the reach and scope of the U.S. federal government, it is important to define what is meant by it.

On Feb. 17, Pressthenews wrote David Ignatius, a moderate and gifted editorial page writer and an associate editor of the Washington Post newspaper:

You write, as does almost everyone, seemingly, that we are "a nation at war."

But who are we at war with? We're not at war with Iraq. (And suppose we are; what does this have to do with spying to uncover Al Qaida and other terrorist operatives against us here?) We are in Iraq protecting and stabilizing the evolving Iraqi government from insurgents. We are at "war" with the terrorists as a term of art, not as likely envisioned under Article II of the Constitution, or as the phrase has, until now, commonly been interpreted in terms of a sovereignty's military engagement with another.

Despite hope otherwise, we may have this terrorism problem for decades. So are we now "perpetually at war,'" just as Orwell suggested, as a reason to expand the powers of the government?

Mr. Ignatius wrote back: "On whether America is at war, obviously I disagree with you," without answering what was perhaps a difficult question, but the relevant question nonetheless.

On March 26, Pressthenews wrote to both reporter Jim Vandehei, who has covered the Iraq war extensively, and Ignatius (also slightly edited for clarity):

Your newspaper (March 22) notes that the President envisions us in Iraq past 2008. He also reportedly states that "Nobody likes war. It creates a sense of uncertainty in the country." (Side note; although the President is technically correct, I would submit that uncertainty is not among its worst features.)

[Vandehei], therein, writes "with a series of polls showing Bush and the war less popular than ever..."

Is the above phrase, "the war," used for simplicity, or, as the President seems to suggest, is this "the war" that we are in? One could cite countless articles that suggest the latter, and countless others that imply that this is somehow, "the war on terror," rather than one very broad based strategic aspect to it [see accompanying to Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt].

If the attacks of 9/11, ushered in said "war time," then the questions I have raised to you regarding the near perpetuity of it, must be answered.

By instead calling Iraq, "the war," that messy little inquiry is deftly sidestepped. Yet war was the reason given for the administration, clandestinely, without consulting most of Congress, to not only expand the unchecked secretive eyes of government, 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment questions aside, but expressly violate the law [FISA] in so doing.

The reason was a highly questionable and apparent belief that FISA did not allow the necessary spying which battling the terrorists requires, and a [highly erroneous] "belief" that the Executive branch could not only take action as Commander in Chief in the absence of Congressional Statute, but, additionally, could pick and choose (clandestinely, no less) which laws of Congress were valid and invalid during war time.

I suggest that people assume that the war is Iraq, and so accept that we are "at war," when otherwise there would be a more obvious issue with respect to exactly what marks its end, and more public concern over citing "war powers" as an ongoing rationale to expand government powers, with no foreseeable end in sight. This is avoided by the President, and I submit, the media, as well, by labeling Iraq, "a," or, more frequently, "the," war...But even if not the case, the above issues must still be addressed.

Still unanswered, on April 13, Pressthenews wrote to Ignatius again regarding the matter and the underlying Constitutional issue: