Comments are working again!!

Not to mention the fact that Alberto Gonzalez, at his confirmation hearing in 2005, refused to answer a question on these types of tactics claiming the "hypothetical" nature of the question. Even though it was activity that was ongoing AND which Gonzalez had approved as counsel to the president.

I think you're missing a couple of key points.

1) In general, it doesn't seem to matter what GWB says, because he's never held to account.

2) In the speech he was very specific. He said that "wiretaps" require a court order. If they don't call them wiretaps, or any other term that is specifically mentioned in law, then he can do whatever he deems appropriate.

It's hard to see how bugging someone is an application of "any necessary use of force" as there is no force required, but again, this administration has absolutely no issue with changing terminology, making up terminology or flat out lying. In the mind of this administration and its supporters they know best and therefore can do no wrong.

And now there's another Supreme Court Justice to make sure the precedent will be set to allow it-- that is until a different president who has the desire to use his power for all the people comes along and then the Supreme Court will shut him down for "abusing" his power by not supporting their causes.

As always, excellent post, Steve. I posted a related issue on my site that you may find relevant (link below). I tend to use humor because without it, after 5 years of the Bogus Administration I'd have jumped off a cliff long ago.

http://thetavernguy.blogspot.com/2006/01/quick-loser-says-what.html

The Tavern Guy

The truth matters-eventually: Recent discussion on this blog has centered around whether to try to make a bi partisan stand on important issues or whether to "draw a line", the merits of a filibuster have also been discussed both strategically and morally, and whether it really matters that the President and key members of his Administration have been lieing for over 5 years. The answer of course is yes, it does matter, but there will be no end to it while the propaganda continues, which it will because to stop now requires admissions that are not likely to come from this administration, even the "good ones" that Steve insists exist.

In my opinion we need to keep our powder dry, sooner or later the extent of the lieing becomes evident. Most Americans know precious little about foreign policy, or bankruptcy law, or global warming, or even the intracies of health care finance, but if it is truly as bad as we say it is then the train wreck will eventually occur i.e. an actual event, not just the fear of an actual event, and that is the time to "go to the mattresses". Katrina wa san example of an event that people could understand, and more are on the wya. In the mean time we can be the conscience of a great nation, put down our markers for that day by repeatedly if futilly pointing out the untruths, the half truths, the essential dishonesty and greed of the arrogant power elite.

The answer is not to shade the truth even if the unvarnished truth results in losing even more elections, it does not (sorry Steve) involve providing political cover for those of good will trapped in the hall of mirrors which is this administration. If we can ask thousands of young men to give their lives for their countries cause, rightly or wrongly, surely a few of our leaders can risk politcal defeat in the service of truth, We have to keep our message simple, and honest, come what may:

1) Respect for religion and faith does not include the "Church of Divine Violence" of any denomination, we have to be against fundamentalism" of all and every stripe, without being against fundamentalists, and we can not give extremist religious views a pass. Fundamentalism may well be the "ism" that pervades the new century just as communism, socialism and capitalism did the last.

2) Science is apolitical, always, even when it hurts business and even if it hurts businesses or interests that support our side. When science impacts a moral judgment such as abortion law we have to acknowledge it, otherwise we authorize the other sides curruption of science and scientific theory. Roe v Wade, for example, is an important indicia of the right to privacy, but its science is dated and even if you agree with the result, (and I do) an honest reading shows that it is exactly the "judicial activism" that it is purported to be. The winning question for "progressives" is not "when does life begin", but who decides when life begins.

3) International Law actually exists and we need to encourage it. We can not seek a Pax Americana.

4) There are some things that government does quite well, thank you, such as set standards and regulate industries which are beyond the reach of free enterprise competition such as health care, the defense industry and mass transit. We have to draw our own principled limits as to what we acknowledge government can not or should not do.

5) Globalization is a Reality: If we are ever going to harvest the benefits of globalization then we have to set international standards on things like labor, environmental protection, and the value of 3rd world currency. We can not do that and maintain complete control of international finance and we can not preach free trade and practice protectionism.

6) Foreign Policy: We have to acknowledge that for 40 years we traded justice for stability, those who were traded for our stability will not soon forget or forgive that. We are also not going to be able to impose Jeffersonian democracy from the point of a gun, we need a combination of cold eyed realism and high minded idealism. Domestically the worst excesses of capitalism were trimmed by the labor movement around the turn of the century, asa result capialism got stronger not weaker, but internationally no such limitations have ever been imposed, as a result most of the world sees capitalism as "vulture capitalism" which would make our own period of unbridled undustrialism look very very tame.

We don't need to prostrate ourselves but we need to lead the way, and as a start, we can selflessly try to rebuild a country we have sacrificed in the past, Haiti comes to mind, let the world see what can be done, I bet we make some money at it anyway, in the long run.

Steve, McClellan was asked about this during a briefing on December 20 of last year. He responded by saying that Bush was referring only to wiretaps conducted in connection with the PATRIOT Act. He had his fingers crossed on FISA. So I don't think the speech will go away; it's not as though the administration have any shame.

Here's the exchange:Q Scott, in April of 2004, President Bush delivered remarks on the Patriot Act, and he said at that time, "any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it require -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." Was the President being completely forthcoming when he made that statement?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think he was talking about in the context of the Patriot Act. Q And in terms of the American people, though, when he says "nothing has changed" --
MR. McCLELLAN: I would have to look back at the remarks there, but you're clearly talking about it in the context, as you pointed out, of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is another vital tool. That's why the Senate needs to move forward and get that reauthorized now. We cannot let that expire -- not for a single moment, because the terrorist threat is not going to expire. Those tools have helped us disrupt plots and prevent attacks and break up terrorist cells. We need those tools for our law enforcement and intelligence community. And we urge the Senate to stop the delaying tactics by the minority of senators, to stop their delaying tactics, to stop filibustering, stop blocking this legislation and get it passed. Q So you don't see it as misleading in any way when the President says, "nothing has changed"? MR. McCLELLAN: You're asking me to look back at something that is in relation to the Patriot Act. And it's in relation to the Patriot Act -- Q But he's talking about wiretaps -- MR. McCLELLAN: -- and I'll be glad to take a look at his comments. I think you're taking them out -- I think the suggestion that you're making, I reject that suggestion. And I'll be glad to take a look at those comments.I don't know who asked the question. But there you have it. Scott is the love child of Ron Ziegler and Chevy Chase.

Interesting comments, wmccreedy. I hope we get a chance to "to the mattresses" before it's too late.

After five long years of Bush obscenities, I am losing faith that anyone in a leadership position has the courage to pack a musket with that saved up dry powder and shoot.

I admire the urbane Mr. Clemons because he approaches problem solving with such fair-minded and balanced determination. However, I think that placing our hope in a group of port sipping gentlemen who gather around a beautifully carved table in a richly panneled drawing room while working toward mutually agreeable solutions is a big waste of time.

If we are going to take back our country, I think it is the outraged rabble armed with pitchforks and torches that we need to look to.

But, but, but Bush said he didn't need no stinkin' court orders to spy on Americans. But, but, but Bush said America should just trust him. But, but, but Bush said...wait, I'm thinking Bush isn't telling America the truth. COULD IT BE THAT OUR PRESIDENT IS LYING TO AMERICA??? Storm the damn gates!!!

Great post!
Great comment wmccreedy!
If I could write like that my book would be out already. Yep!
"America: Hypocrite Nation"
Sadly the face of America abroad is that of GWB and the high rollers who hold his hand. I don't claim to be expert and I will not detail for you here the laundry list of hypocritcal government actions. Too often the Repugnicans slight of hand is effective and fools it's audience. I expect it is integral to the Foxification of the nation.
Hypocracy, lies, corruption, incompetence and ignorance are all evident and boy oh boy if you could shed the proper light on it all what a helluva tale it would be.

Great post and comment.

On “Democracy Now” today:
Gore Vidal Delivers State of the Union: "Let the Powers That Be Know There is Something Called We the People of the U.S. and all Sovereignty Rests in Us."
Well worth reading.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/31/1532246

Let's not forget that the President indicated that the FISA law that was passed in 1978 was out of date, therefore he felt the need to ignore it.

So, a 28-year-old document is out of date? Then what about the Constitution? Or, for that matter, what about the Bible? If FISA is out of date, then does he think the others are out of date, as well? He should, based on his position on FISA.

I am a resident of Buffalo, NY. The only people who showed up for that event were heavy Kool Aid drinkers. There is no way around this, he broke existing law in relation to wiretapping american citizens and has brazenly said he will continue to do so.

Tom Daschel made an interesting comment a couple of weeks ago regarding the post-9/11 resolution authorizing military force the republicans have referred to as authorization for the wiretaps. Its relevant to this discussion as another classic example of say one thing, do another.

Daschel pointed out that the Administration sought to include language authorizing the very thing they are doing. It was not agreed upon by resolution negotiators, apparently bipartisan, and was dropped. They didn't get it, but took it anyway.

I am afraid until media conglomerates are broken up and the public has access to objective reporting, the dumbing of america will continue. Our shady history of hypocritical, selfish foreign policy will be relegated to dissident forums, incomprehensible to the average american.

Gen Hayden also lied to congress about the same things, about the same time.

Al Franken has been playing the tape for a couple of weeks to different guests. I am shocked at the number of people who had not heard the tape. It seems like a lie to me about something pretty relevant. Once wonders if they are willing to now admit that they eavesdrop on communication that crosses international borders who else are they eavesdropping on. It won't surprise me in the least if in 2 years we are talking about eavesdropping on the media or those who disagree with Mr. Bush. There is no check and human nature will keep looking for more.

Bush addressed this issue, he said the wiretaps he is utilizing are granted to him by wartime presidency powers, therfore he is not violating any policies. Hmmmmmmmmm.
Raymond B
www.voteswagon.com

Mr C- Great post! However I have to point out that AA and others have been presenting this clear law breakers' comments for a while now. The tragedy is that there has been just about zero posting by the MSM and the cable garbage makers. Until this blockade is broken, we don't stand a chance in hell of getting out the info to the rest of the citizenry.I realize that there is no denial that can alter the clear and simple statement and I might point out to all that this comment was not in direct response to anything that the chimp was asked about. HE CHOSE TO OFFER THIS COMMENTARY ALL ON HIS OWN and what we see here is that when he is let off his extremely short leash he simply is incapable of staying on message because he obviously has no idea where he is and what he stands for. It is the greatest tragedy in the history of this country.
This is our leader?
billjpa@aol.com

And let's all remember that the Bush administration continued to submit thousands of warrant requests to the FISA court while it simultaneously was going around the court - and the law - on others. So was that just a diversion? Were they trying to deceive the court into not getting suspicious if, all of a sudden, the warrant requests dropped to zilch?

President Bush authorized the breaking of a law. If he didn't like the law, there is a process to change laws in this country. He didn't do that. He broke the law. He deserves to suffer the consequences that anyone else would face for breaking a law.

That speech will stay up there on the WH site. This is old news. It's already been around the circle in the blogs, the major newspapers, Jon Stewart, McClellan's comments, Bush's comments. I'm surprised this is new for you, Steve, but I think it proves the point: If most Americans didn't catch it then, they'll never catch it.

Steve, any inside info on who picked Kaine to do the rebuttal??? Was it Rove???

And if you talk to anyone that might know, try to find out who did Kaine's embalming. It was very lifelike, one could almost imagine he was breathing.

Concerning McClellan's comments on this being the Patriot Act and not FISA, the Patriot Act did in fact modify FISA, so the two are intertwined.

See the brouhaha about minimisation of low threshold FISA information ending up in criminal cases and Ashcroft's attempts to fudge the lines between information obtained via low threshold FISA and higher threshold criminal court warrants.

The FISA appeals court decision seemed to hand a lot of stuff to the Bush team by overturning a unanimous FISA court opinion, but apparently that still wasn't enough to keep them in court.

And let's all remember that the Bush administration continued to submit thousands of warrant requests to the FISA court while it simultaneously was going around the court - and the law - on others. So was that just a diversion?

I don't think so. The FISA judges were reportedly worried, after the NSA details emerged, that their court was essentially used as a sigint laundry; i.e. the evidence presented in order to get a warrant to surveil was actually obtained from warrantless -- illegal -- surveillance.

Anyway, the Feingold-Gonzales exchange showed that Bush wasn't simply referring to a precise point of law. He was lying. He was lying deliberately without being prompted into a lie. It was a big, fat lie.

He is a liar and a lawbreaker by his own admission, and should be impeached.

hi, great post. i've been wondering all the time: what was so special about the 4 requests FISA turned down back in 2003? Did they have anything to do with the eavesdropping?

Can this be used to get him out of office? Will the Dems be smart/strong enough to pursue it?

"Wiretaps" require a court order, according to President Bush.

The NSA intercepts are likely electronic data mining, trawling through the data flow looking for tidbits to string togather.

Wiretaps are specific to a person or place, data mining hits everything. These people like to play word games. Someone should ask if datamining, a la Carnivore and TIPS, is covered.

From the context of the President's comments, "wiretap" appears to refer to a traditional tap of an American's land line within the US. He then contrasts "wiretap" to "roving wiretap" of cell phones.

What is being done by the NSA undoubtedly is technologically far beyond old technology wiretap and roving wiretap. While no one knows precisely the facts and exactly what NSA is doing, it appears to be mining huge volumes of conversations from phones overseas looking for key words that indicate terrorism. Some of those conversations may be between the overseas person and someone in the US.

Bottom line to answer your question, the "wiretap" does not appear to be the same as the NSA activities, so the President did not lie in his speech in Buffalo. He was simply talking about a different issue which requires a different response under the Constitution.

Cheers.

sigh. you JUST heard this today??? It's been broadcast on progressive blogs and airamerica for about three weeks now.

Yet another reason why this party is so dysfunctional. The commoners have more information than those with "political connections."

No wonder you folks don't experience the level of outrage that we do. You're simply uninformed. Jeeze, this is depressing.

This guy has always talked out of both sides of his mouth. That's why his credibility is zilch.

Earlier in his April 20 2004 speech, Bush said "...when the President says something, he better mean it." and " When the President speaks, he better mean it." It's true that he then went on to talk about the military action he intended to take, but it's unlikely that he meant it to be taken in that context alone or that the need for the President to mean what he says is anything other than a general principle.

donailin,
What are you doing to help spread the word? Are you outside of the big media studios demanding they cover the stories? Do you have a political blog? If not, get off your high horse. Quit being depressed and judgmental and GET TO WORK trying to get this man out of office.