HUME: When did you first begin to attend or to receive at least the briefings that were given on this program?
HARMAN: In 2003. I became ranking member on Intelligence...
HUME: OK, so...
HARMAN: ... in early 2003, so I was not there at the initial briefings.
HUME: Right, OK. But you've been on it -- you've been in on some since, correct, so there...
HARMAN: Oh, yes.
HUME: And there you are, sitting down there at the White House, and you know who's...
HARMAN: You bet.
HUME: ... in the room. It's just the eight of you. And you're getting this briefing -- more than one.
HARMAN: Right. More than one.
HUME: You're now saying, however, that those briefings were insufficient. Why did you not, if you didn't, say so at the time and...
HARMAN: Well...
HUME: ... take the matter to the president or whatever?
HARMAN: Fair question. And my answer, in hindsight, is that I came into an ongoing process. I believed that the legal framework was set, and the briefings were about the detail of the ongoing program. Remember, I support the program.
And perhaps I should have had more information at the time. But now that I have been able to discuss this program with legal scholars -- not the details of the program, but the existence of the program -- since it was disclosed by the president, I now believe that under the National Security Act of 1947 the full committee should have been briefed. And that's what I'm asking for.
And I believe that that is what the law requires. I also believe that members of Congress should exercise oversight over programs like this. And there are questions about whether this program complies with the domestic laws we have. And if it doesn't, either it should be changed or they should be changed.
HUME: Do you think, then, that perhaps this program, which you say you support -- are you suggesting that it may, indeed, be illegal?
HARMAN: Well, the foreign collection program that I know about I believe is legal and necessary. If in fact, as some of the newspaper stories allege, there is a domestic surveillance program going on, my view is that the law requires that domestic surveillance only be done pursuant to a court order, either with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or the criminal court.
(snip)
HUME: All right. So what you're saying, then, is that in addition to your concerns about the nature of the briefings, that they were insufficient under the law, that it is your belief as well that while you've known about these programs for two years, you now believe that they require the authorization of the so-called FISA -- that's the Foreign Intelligence Security Act, if I'm not mistaken.
HARMAN: Surveillance Act. Yeah. I...
HUME: Surveillance Act, I'm sorry.
HARMAN: ... I think the administration...
HUME: Surveillance Act.
HARMAN: ... needs to answer that question.
HUME: Well, what is your -- I know, but you're...
HARMAN: Well...
HUME: ... a member of Congress and...
HARMAN: ... I've asked the question of the administration...
HUME: When?
HARMAN: ... and I don't have the answer.
HUME: But when did you ask it?
HARMAN: Recently. Recently, as soon as...
HUME: Well, why didn't you ask it two years ago when you started getting briefed about this?
HARMAN: Well, perhaps I should have, Brit.
In hindsight, I believe I maybe should have asked more questions, hem, haw, waffle waffle waffle...
Now let's see how it's done by a pro. Howard Dean goes medieval on Wolf Blitzer:
BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?
DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.
BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.
DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...
BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?
DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.
BLITZER: Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, we got to leave it right there.
Bravo, Dr. Dean. No quarter asked, none given.
3 comments:
This site is extremely partisan. how shocking!
Dean was good!
WASHINGTON, DC -- Doctors report little success in getting the left shoe of Howard Dean removed from its current location deep inside Wolf Blitzer's rectum, where Dean had lodged it during an interview with the CNN anchor early Sunday morning.
According to several million witnesses around the world who watched on live TV, Dean, the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, former Vermont governor and firebrand presidential candidate in 2004, gave Blitzer what one witness described as "a kick in the butt so hard I think the tip of Dean's shoe connected with Blitzer's back teeth".
Chairman Dean, reached at a Famous Footwear shop shortly after the interview with Blitzer, offered to send the right shoe of the pair into Blitzer's rectum as well, "to give him a matched set".
[UPDATE: Wolf Blitzer's former boss, Pat Robertson, has apparently offered to pray the shoe out of Blitzer's body.]
Post a Comment