After September the 11th, I vowed to the American people that our government would do everything within the law to protect them against another terrorist attack. As part of this effort, I authorized the National Security Agency to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. In other words, if al Qaeda or their associates are making calls into the United States or out of the United States, we want to know what they're saying.

The existing FISA statute already gave the government the tools it needed to intercept phone calls related to terrorism. Under that law, calls can be intercepted first, and a warrant obtained later. The prez's authorization of the NSA's wiretapping program was not only illegal, but nnecessary.

Today there are new claims about other ways we are tracking down al Qaeda to prevent attacks on America. I want to make some important points about what the government is doing and what the government is not doing.

First, our international activities strictly target al Qaeda and their known affiliates. Al Qaeda is our enemy, and we want to know their plans.

This is irrelevant. The USA Today story is talking about NSA activities within the US — not what it's doing internationally.

Second, the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval.

The USA Today story didn't say that the feds are listening to phone calls — just that the NSA has been obtaining the records of who placed and received phone calls. Dubya is trying to protect himself by responding to a charge that (at least in this case) hasn't been made.

Third, the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful and have been briefed to appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat.

Dubya is repeating his 'it's legal because the president did it' defense. The legality of both his authorization and the NSA's activities are a matter of hot contention.

Fourth, the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities.

This statement would carry more weight if Dubya addressed the question of whether the NSA really is getting its hands on billions of phone records. Since his press statement evades this question, how can anyone trust his assertion that the 'privacy of ordinary Americans' is being protected?

We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates. So far we've been very successful in preventing another attack on our soil.

Since Dubya doesn't define what he means by 'mining' or 'trolling,' there's no way to know whether he's lying or telling the truth. A reasonable person could conclude that the prez is playing semantic games about the meaning of 'trolling' and 'mining' so that he can make his denial with a straight face.

Dubya's reference to the lack of terrorist attacks on the US since 9/11 is another attempt to change the subject. The lack of attacks has nothing to do with whether the NSA is compiling a database of phone records or whether such action is legal. In addition, there could be any number of reasons why there haven't been any attacks, many of them having nothing to do actions taken by the Dubya or his administration.

As a general matter, every time sensitive intelligence is leaked, it hurts our ability to defeat this enemy. Our most important job is to protect the American people from another attack, and we will do so within the laws of our country.

The first sentence is the most important part of Dubya's statement and, in my opinion, the real reason why he went in front of the press today. Not only does the prez continue to evade the question of whether USA Today told the truth about what the NSA is doing, but he attempts to change the subject by accusing the press and leakers of being in league with terrorists. This accusation works on two levels:

• First, it's an attempt to prevent future leaks by intimidating the leakers, the reporters to whom information is leaked, and the media that print or broadcast that information — none of whom want to face a federal prosecution.
  
• Second, Dubya's reference to how leaks of 'sensitive intelligence' affect his administration's ability to protect the country is a direct appeal to his hard-core supporters and, very likely, a talking point that's going to appear with a vengeance in the right-wing echo chamber. The prez is facing huge political problems right now, even without the latest revelations about the NSA's illegal domestic surveillance. Whipping up the base against the traitors in the press is a desperate move to recoup at least some of Dubya's flagging political support.