PPublic Relations Strategy of bush's speech today

[AnnInLa]

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/17/protect-the-people/

Yesterday, Bush Said Confirming NYT Story “Would Compromise Our Ability To Protect The People”

For 24 hours, Bush and other top administration officials refused to confirm the existence of their secret domestic spying program, arguing that doing so would endanger the American people:

President Bush, 12/16/05

I know that people are anxious to know the details of operations, they– people want me to comment about the veracity of the story. It’s the policy of this government, just not going do it, and the reason why is that because it would compromise our ability to protect the people.

Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 12/16/05:

This relates to intelligence activities and ongoing intelligence operations that are aimed at saving lives. And there’s a reason why we don’t get into discussing ongoing intelligence activities, because it could compromise our efforts to prevent attacks from happening.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, 12/16/05:

Well, I’m, again, not going to comment on intelligence activities because intelligence activities, by their very nature, are activities that are sensitive and that should not be compromised.

This morning, President Bush not only confirmed the existence of the program but provided details about how it worked.

This demonstrates that the administration’s initial refusal to comment was not motivated by security concerns. If that was the case Bush still wouldn’t have been able to comment this morning. Rather, the refusal to comment was a public relations strategy. When they decided it wasn’t working, they scrapped it and tried something else.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/17/protect-the-people/

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. It lends credence to the idea that anything they say is a lie, directed at

PR spin and nothing else.

Hitler did very well with that approach. So did stalin. And Mao. And more than a few African leaders.

[thefool_wa]

2. I don't understand

Why there is such a need for secrecy when tracking the movements/activities af suspected terrorists within the US. It seems to me that the more the public knows about where they are and what they are doing then we are safer for the knowledge and their "terror" is emasculated. Worse comes to worst, those who have warrants issued get wise and leave the country. Good riddance.

The idea of not needing a warrant to track ANY person's communications should be abhorrent to anyone who calls themselves an American. So I say why all the secrecy, if you have the stuff to get what you need and do it right (as they are claiming they have) then lay it on the table for all of us to see, convince a judge that someone needs to be monitored, and GET A WARRANT!

Checks and balances are a wonderful thing, maybe GW needs the concept explained to him.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I'm ready to confront any idiot who thinks they can "trust"

Bush to only wiretap "terrorists". The fact that it has come out this week that the FBI had infiltrated a Quaker group - little old ladies baking cookies and discussing peace- shows that they are interested not in terrorists but controlling Americans and taking away their rights.

[thefool_wa]

4. That's 2 birds with 1 stone

They managed to violate the 1st AND 4th amendments there. And they say that government work is inefficient.