Bush thinks spied-on Americans should ‘suck it up’?

A reporter at this morning’s White House press conference asked the president an interesting question I haven’t heard Bush respond to before: “You can get the Congress to protect telecom companies from lawsuits, but then there’s no recourse for Americans who feel that they’ve been caught up in this. I know it’s not intended to spy on Americans, but in the collection process, information about everybody gets swept up and then it gets sorted. So if Americans don’t have any recourse, are you just telling them, when it comes to their privacy, to suck it up?”

Bush protests, saying he “wouldn’t put it that way … in public,” before effectively agreeing with the premise of the question.

This is actually quite helpful. First, Bush avoids the question, which makes sense given that he can’t answer it. Second, he goes on to repeat bogus talking points, such as his baseless insistence that the illegal surveillance “was legal,” effectively because he says so.

But I’m especially interested in the “suck it up” angle. Bush didn’t want to “put it that way,” but in effect, that’s what he believes, and he conceded as much this morning.

Consider the implications here. The Bush administration, with no legal authority, asked the telecoms to open up their data streams to the NSA. Intentionally or not, law-abiding Americans’ communications were subjected to illegal surveillance, in a scheme that preceded 9/11, and went on for years afterwards.

According to Bush, what are Americans entitled to in response? Absolutely nothing.



Indeed, he means that quite literally. He obviously opposes Americans bringing their concerns to court for a fair hearing, but he also opposes compromise measures that would let the telecoms off the hook and allow these Americans to seek recourse against the Bush administration instead.

Telecoms and the administration teamed up to break the law and violate your privacy. The only appropriate response, Bush believes, is to change the law and make those crimes legal several years after the fact, ending reasonable lawsuits that already before the judiciary.

And if you don’t like it, you should suck it up.

For the record, knowing that some of you can’t watch video clips online, here’s the full transcript of the president’s wholly unsatisfactory answer.

THE PRESIDENT: I wouldn’t put it that way, if I were you, in public. Well, you’ve been long been long enough to — anyway, yes, I — look, there’s — people who analyze the program fully understand that America’s civil liberties are well protected. There is a constant check to make sure that our civil liberties of our citizens aren’t — you know, are treated with respect. And that’s what I want, and that’s what most — all Americans want. Now let me talk about the phone companies. You cannot expect phone companies to participate if they feel like they’re going to be sued. I mean, it is — these people are responsible for shareholders; they’re private companies. The government said to those who have alleged to have helped us that it is in our national interests and it’s legal. It’s in our national interests because we want to know who’s calling who from overseas into America. We need to know in order to protect the people. It was legal. And now, all of a sudden, plaintiffs attorneys, class-action plaintiffs attorneys, you know — I don’t want to try to get inside their head; I suspect they see, you know, a financial gravy train — are trying to sue these companies. First, it’s unfair. It is patently unfair. And secondly, these lawsuits create doubts amongst those who will — whose help we need. I guess you could be relaxed about all this if you didn’t think there was a true threat to the country. I know there’s a threat to the country. And the American people expect our Congress to give the professionals the tools they need to listen to foreigners who may be calling into the United States with information that could cause us great harm. So, on the one hand, the civil liberties of our citizens are guaranteed by a lot of checks in the system, scrutinized by the United States Congress. And secondly, I cannot emphasize to you how important it is that the Congress solve this problem. The Senate has solved the problem. And people say, would you ever compromise on the issue? The Senate bill is a compromise. And there’s enough votes in the House of Representatives to pass the Senate bill. It’s a bipartisan bill. And the House leaders need to put it on the floor, let the will of the House work. In my judgment, it happens to be the will of the people, to give the professionals the tools they need to protect the country.

If there’s a shred of honesty in this response, it’s hiding well.