Our Disappearing President

[CG6468]

Our Disappearing President
JUN 24, 2013, VOL. 18, NO. 39 • BY STEPHEN F. HAYES

One might expect Keith Alexander to advocate on behalf of the two programs at the center of our national debate about terrorism and surveillance. He is, after all, the head of the National Security Agency, which runs them. “It’s dozens of terrorist events that these have helped prevent—both here and abroad—in disrupting or contributing to the disruption of terrorist attacks,” Alexander testified last week.

And it’s not entirely surprising that the four leading members of Congress on intelligence matters would argue on behalf of these programs, known as “215” and “702,” for the sections of the laws that authorize them. Last Thursday, Dutch Ruppersberger and Mike Rogers, the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told reporters that the programs are critical components of the government’s efforts to prevent terrorist attacks. One day earlier, Saxby Chambliss and Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made a similar case, as each has done repeatedly since the controversy broke.

House speaker John Boehner weighed in several times, too. “These programs have helped keep America safe. They have enhanced our ability to go after terrorists who want to bring harm to the American people. .  .  . And we are also aware of many examples where they have helped us eliminate terrorist threats.”

At press time, even former vice president Dick Cheney was planning to strip off his waders and put down his fly rod in order to explain and support the surveillance in an appearance on Fox News Sunday. Virtually every public official with detailed knowledge of these programs has spent time over the past two weeks touting their reported successes and arguing for their continuation.

But not Barack Obama.

The man most responsible for the continued existence of those programs has spoken just once publicly about them since the recent leaks that brought additional scrutiny, and then only in response to a reporter’s question. 

The invisible wannabe