PRESS THE NEWS

"...Dan and Nicolle did a great job of getting the President out more, talking to the pool nearly every day and answering all those questions from the good red-blooded, red-stated Americans who come to our events...we need to make it a priority... I know the President was reluctant to do the questions from the general public, concerned that he would say some tiny thing that the press would blow it up into some huge deal. But he has nailed nearly every one of these outings, and I know he now enjoys them...

...Truly nasty questions, ones the President can't defuse with his quick wit, are rare. And when we DO get asked them, we get brownie points for openness....

Similarly, the President should take questions from the pool all the time....batting practice. With all due respect, all press corps are predictable. And when we give them two questions, I'll go back to my radio show if I can't usually predict what they're going to be. But it makes it harder for the press to rag on the President when they're in close touch with him, and it's an opportunity for us to remind people of our message." (all emphasis added)

Snow makes it look like, and seems to truly believe, that the press "rags" on the President. Here's a view quite disparate from Snow's. Alternatively, where has the press been on the Constitution, the environment, terrorism, secrecy, the '04 election, WMD's and Kerry, etc. But Snow is right on the media predictability (see the letter below for a prediction on Snow), and shows political shrewdness in focusing on questions from "good, red blooded, red stated Americans who come to our events," and the concerns of others that the President "would do some 'tiny thing' that the press would blow into some huge deal." Just like the foregoing examples.

And these:

REPEATING THE WHITE HOUSE SPIN

[As sent April 29 to reporter Jim Vandehei, and Ombudsman Deborah Howell, of the Washington Post. All Links were included in the original. There was no response back]:

Nice of you to recite the administration's talking points (April 27, "Snow Pick May Signal Less Insular White House," p. A1, at p. A8 therein):

"The strategy worked well for a long while [witness the 2004 election results] but aides said it eventually undercut their credibility with reporters and impeded the administration's ability to receive fair treatment from the media when Bush's popularity began to fade."

You mean this perception of unfair treatment, where a good article that did not sugar coat the White House spin was called "reckless, irresponsible," and "indefensible"?

What about the administration's obsession with secrecy (prior to and separate from the NSA wiretap issue). "Secrecy, and free democratic government, don't mix" (Harry Truman, nailing it). Or how about on the Bush environmental record (environmental groups have generally given the Bush Administration the worst environmental rating of any U.S. presidency in history); the media has really ripped into the administration on this one, too, right?

((Or, "Activist Judges," The appointment of ideologically extreme judges, the preposterous "Nuclear Option" in support thereof, the State of the Union yellowcake representation, the complete lack of attention to al-Qaida prior to Sept. '01 -- a lack of attention in contrast to even the previous administration, despite the increase in our knowledge, despite the large increase in the threat level, and despite being specifically warned by the outgoing administration (then National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, ominously, to Condi Rice, as reported in TIME here), or these glaring dots. See here, here, here, and here for more on the matter.

.....or the President's statement to [the Joint Sessions of] Congress in Feb. '01 that his plan will pay down an "unprecedented amount" of the federal debt, the federal budget numbers the past five years, actual spending on the military as a percentage of GNP relative to other decades, and the extent of the economic recession and economic growth being touted as excuses for the deficit... the lack of proper equipment for our troops.....Or how about this rendition of the Iraq war issue.. .The list goes on and on......))

Yet, more importantly, how about the unfair treatment on the NSA wiretap program, where (you, being a member of the media, probably still aren't convinced) the Executive Branch unambiguously violated FISA, and violated the two most basic purposes of the Constitution -- to create a separation of powers and to prohibit unchecked government power - and did so secretively. The ABA, for example -- after all, they are lawyers, and it is a legal issue -- I think almost unanimously, reached the same legal conclusion. Yale Law School Dean Howard Koh, also in testimony before the same Senate Judiciary Committee, called the program "blatantly illegal"...

Given the facts of this case, were it reversed, Clinton would not only be impeached, he would have been tarred and feathered and hung upside down from a pole on a crater on Mars somewhere (although some of the same group of currently dominant right wing conservatives that seem to like large government power would still probably have liked the program).

Yet the right wing conservative spin machine, receiving such "unfair treatment," has gotten the media, on this seminal issue of our times, to report this issue as if there are two separate reasonable sides to a legitimate controversy. A sampling of the reality, in contrast:

It is repeatedly asserted that the AUMF resolution of 2001 supersedes FISA. This is illogical based solely upon the fact that the U.S. Patriot Act amended FISA, and came after the AUMF resolution (October 26, v. September 14, of 2001). Timing aside, the argument that the AUMF, unlike any other piece of legislation in our 200 plus year history, somehow authorizes violations of other laws without otherwise expressly or implicitly so stating, from a legal perspective, is preposterous. Conservative Robert Levy of the Cato Institute before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

'A settled canon of statutory interpretation directs that specific provisions in a statute supersede general provisions. When FISA forbids 'electronic surveillance without a court order' while the AUMF permits 'necessary and appropriate force,' it is bizarre to conclude that electronic surveillance without a court order is authorized.'

Conservative George Will mocked it as ridiculous. Conservative Levy called it 'Bizarre.' The more liberal New Republic labeled it 'absurd.'

Yet it is the exact Argument that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been making to the public, and that the media (including the Washington Post) has been repeating as if it is just one of two equally valid sides to an ambiguous issue.

The larger issue with respect to the constitutionality is also clear cut. As noted here:

Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution, states; "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress." This clause, along with the Article II, Section 3 requirement that the President "take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and Article II, Section 1's "executive power" clause, denote the Constitution's most basic purpose; to establish a clear separation of powers between the branches of government, and serve as a check upon the powers of the federal government . Not one, but both of these fundamental purposes of the Constitution -- to prohibit unchecked powers, and to establish a clear separation of federal government power and function -- were violated by the executive branch's unilateral action to "grant" itself (via the NSA program) sweeping authority to engage in warrantless -- that is unchecked -- electronic surveillance on American citizens, in direct contravention of FISA.

The article II, Section 3 requirement that the President "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" is not magically suspended (particularly when it is the executive branch itself that is not following the law), by the commander in chief clause, simply because the executive branch can make an argument that it somehow relates to a war effort. To do so would render the separation of powers concept virtually meaningless in any time of war, stated or implied. This is also something which clearly would have been noted -- were this our Founders' bizarre intent -- by some constitutional reference beyond "Commander in Chief."

Contrast all of the foregoing points, with your recitation of the Bush Administration talking points above, that something (a good relationship with the press, ostensibly) has "impeded the administration's ability to receive fair treatment from the media."

I'm sure you feel you have to reflexively disagree, but I think the reality is that the administration received exorbitantly lenient treatment on many issues. Currently, on a few issues (such as on WMD's, where, as the fist link above points out, the administration may no longer receive the benefit of the doubt), this is no longer the case, but on many of the more important issues, it still is.

And no doubt Snow will help, because he can spin with the best of them, his often contorted logic goes largely unchallenged (and will likely continue to go unchallenged -- I write this line specifically for future reference) and he seems like a pretty genial, good natured, and articulate, likable guy.

Sincerely,

Ivan Carter