Carl Jones, a reporter at the DBR, was kind enough to email me the DBR's response to Marcos Jimenez's letter:
Editor’s reply: The article prominently noted that Jimenez defended the warrantless eavesdropping program and quoted him saying that the president’s conduct is “plausible and defendable.” It also explained that Jimenez was responding to a question about the appropriate penalty if the Bush administration went too far. The piece quoted Jimenez’s exact language that if the spying program monitored purely domestic communications, “the remedy if he exceeds his authority is impeachment.” The full nature and scope of the monitoring program has not been disclosed.
My response to the Editor is simply this: anyone listening to the tape will agree that the DBR misconstrued my remarks in a sloppy and disingenuous fashion just to create an attention-grabbing opening. This made for such a confusing introduction that the DBR felt obliged in the third paragraph to notify the reader that I was actually defending the Bush administration during the debate. The Editor's response likewise selectively quotes my statements in order to downplay my defense of the administration's actions.
ReplyDeleteThese attempts to twist what is said on these issues are obviously slanted and somewhat humorous. It reminded one of my colleagues about a recent ABC Stephanopoulous show interview of Sen. Specter:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, if the president did break the law or circumvent the law, what’s the remedy?
SPECTER: Well, the remedy could be a variety of things. A president - and I’m not suggesting remotely that there’s any basis, but you’re asking, really, theory, what’s the remedy? Impeachment is a remedy. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the principal remedy, George, under our society is to pay a political price.
You know what the headline was the next day in the LA Times? You guessed it: Arlen Specter: "Impeachment is a remedy"