"If somebody from al Qaeda is calling you, we'd like to know why"

After visiting wounded soldiers at Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas, President Bush stopped to answer some questions from reporters. No reporter asked about the condition of any of the soldiers.

No, what was on their minds was the topic du jour in Washington; the fact that he ordered the NSA to intercept calls from al Qaida to American citizens.

Q    Mr. President, with this program, though, what can you say to those members of the public that are worried about violations of their privacy?

THE PRESIDENT: Ed, I can say that if somebody from al Qaeda is calling you, we'd like to know why.

Me too. And since the Government is acting as my agent in this (and all such matters) I want them to find out and deal with it appropriately.

Many Democrats and some Republicans seem concerned about privacy. They seem to be concerned that the government is listening in on their phone calls. You don't suppose.....

Nah, that couldn't be it. Perish the thought. Forget I brought it up.

It is in reality just another instance where hatred of the President and all things Republican blind people to common sense. If al Qaeda is calling you, worry.

The problem of course is that if al Qaeda is calling you, we would have preferred that you weren't worried. But that would only have been that case had the NY Times not revealed the existence of the operation to begin with.

And that wouldn't have happened if someone had not decided that they could reveal classified information with impunity. But they did, and with luck, they will now pay the price which will prevent it from happening in the future.

Of course some who are arguing against the President think that the leaker should be protected as a whistleblower.

The investigation into who leaked information about a National Security Agency secret wiretapping program on potential terror suspects needs to focus on the motivation behind the leak, a Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday.

Um, no. The motivation doesn't matter. Either it was a legal program and the leaker is a criminal, or it was an illegal program and the leaker had an obligation to reveal the information and didn't need to do so anonymously.

 

"There are differences between felons and whistleblowers, and we ought to wait 'til the investigation occurs to decide what happened," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., told "FOX News Sunday."

Yes there are. A whistleblower acts within the law and has done nothing illegal. A felon has. But since the Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into the leak, it seems pretty clear at least someone thinks a law was violated.

Of course, Sen Schumer, speaking for most Democrats thinks the President overstepped his authority despite the fact that when President Clinton went much further during a time when the country wasn't at war, Democrats remained silent.

"The president thought that there was a problem, instead of coming to the people and saying he needs changes in the law; he just did it on his own," Schumer said . "It calls into question the way the president and the vice president change things."

Yet the President claims he did consult with Congress. And who in Congress would he have consulted with? Why the Intelligence Committee of which Senator Schumer is not apart. And interestingly, the members of the Intelligence Committee are not carrying the water on this.

I wonder why?

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he welcomes the investigation, adding that members of Congress were briefed on the program and didn't reject it.

"Thank goodness the department is investigating who is leaking this information that could threaten our safety," McConnell told "FOX News Sunday." "We need new techniques in the wake of 9-11."

It seems clear to me that the program was (is) legal and as such the whistleblower is a criminal.

And it seems clear that Congress agreed.

Sen. Schumer, you have a phone call. Better take it on a secure line...