Is This An Argument Or A Demonstration of Irony?

George Bush on the tracking of bank records:

1) It was legal
2) The NYT shouldn't have revealed it.

This is a very strange sort of defense. He could make the case that under the Patriot Act (boo!) the President has the authority to conduct surveillance of private bank records in order to obtain information on terror cells. That's fine. As a general matter, it's no secret - I remember when there was discussion about it when the Patriot Act was up in the first place. Of course, the last time I checked you were supposed to get a warrant before doing so - which as usual the President has not done.

But if this program was legal and authorized by the Patriot Act, why keep it secret? The law is a matter of public record - anybody can look it up. If spying on bank records were in accord with the law, then it wouldn't matter if the NYT talked about it. Bush's reaction in this instance could have been "so?" and left it at that.

The fact that Bush attacks media organs that revealed the existence of the program is an implicit concession that it is illegal. Papers aren't supposed to reveal the details of military and intelligence tactics, but this was neither of them. They weren't "burning a source" - they were presenting a general strategy in the war on terror.

No, I think Bush & Co. know that the program of warrantless data collection against American citizens is illegal. They are lashing out at the NYT in order to change the subject. This is their basic - in fact their only - political tactic: attack, attack, attack. Trampling on civil liberties? Undermining the Constitution? Hey, to them that's just part of the fun.