Bush Lied - Proof

[Chadman]

So, considering that George just admitted to authorizing secret wiretaps without a warrant, I submit the following from this conversation placed on the Whitehouse Web site. Here is the direct link:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

Here are the appropriate lies:

------------------------------------------

So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means.

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- 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. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.

Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those are very important. I see some people, first responders nodding their heads about what they mean. These are a common tool used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It requires a court order. It requires protection under the law. We couldn't use these against terrorists, but we could use against gangs.

---------------------------------

Would love to hear you conservatives spin this one. Go ahead.

 

[djv]

Yes just saw that of all places. He's giving a speech and states we always follow law and get warrants. Super secret he said and then stands there in public and talked about it. Then gets pissed at New York Times for same thing. OH Boy what a cow boy.

 

[Clem D]

ouch that appears to be a fib.. but hey he doesn't write this stuff, so you cant blame him for just reading it cmon you liberal punk asses

 

[djv]

Maybe he should fire the writer. Or maybe he didn't think it was secret. Boy thats a long stretch. He had to know. Dam he had to.

 

[Chadman]

Not only that, he called the writer of the NY Time story into the Oval Office to try and suppress/delay the story. I think we all know why that was. Rocket Science is not an issue very often with this President.

 

[spibble spab]

perfect time to put that on front page of LA times one day after Iraqi elections. what a perfect destraction. how about the release of a new book by a NY times reporter timed perfectly. If bin laden phones the US, should we cut in and and ask him to hold on while we get a warrant?

 

[spibble spab]

perfect time to put that on front page of NY times one day after Iraqi elections. what a perfect distraction. how about the release of a new book by a NY times reporter timed perfectly. If bin laden or any al qaeda bitch phones the US, should we cut in and and ask him to hold on while we get a warrant?

Known fact:
9-11 highjackers used US phones to communicate overseas.

 

[Clem D]

So why lie about it Spibble? the point of this thread is not whether it was right or wrong, the point is that he lied.

 

[ferdville]

And he is the only president that has ever lied as far as I can tell. All presidents lie. All politicians lie. Why would you expect anything else?

 

[Chadman]

Perfect. Conservative analysis on this important issue: What if Bin Laden called the US? All Presidents lie, why would you expect anything else.

But of course, if any liberal ever mentions one word about Bush lying about anything, conservatives scream...show proof he lied!!!! And when given proof, the spin comes out about all Presidents lying.

To answer your questions. If Bin Laden called the US, then, yes, we should get a warrant to wiretap the call. At least retroactively, which has always been a common practice, used by many that are not trying to hide something or consider themselves above the law and constitution.

Why would we expect anything else from our President, other than a blatant and outright lie to our face? Although we may not expect anything else, we certainly have a right to hold him accountable for it, for crissakes. Are you saying that since all politicians lie, they should not be responsible for the lies? Terrific analysis, ferdville. So, Clinton should not have had to go through what he did? Nixon? It's all ok, because we know Bush lies? Except when we are arguing for him?

This is unreal. Trust me...it gets a lot easier if you just admit things are wrong and move on. I had to do it with Clinton, and you will have to with Bush, if you haven't already.

The fact that he is being proven to have lied about more and more - which is what many conservatives were babbling about for so long - can only undermine everything he and his cabal stand for. Every single thing he claims has to have a tinge of worry for anyone not sniffing his political jock.

Not only that...it does matter WHAT people lie about. And we're talking major stuff here. Whether you apologists want to stand up and admit it or not.

 

[kosar]

I'm not sure if John Dean, Nixons White House Counsel, is the foremost authority on ethics, but he said that it's an impeachable offense. And of course Barbara Boxer is running with that.

I don't think it's a big deal, but I find it interesting the hypocrisy of those that screamed bloody murder when Clinton lied about a blow job and now about this? Ho hum, all presidents lie. No biggie.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I am still trying to figure where lie was--I am sure it must be in there somewhere.

Matt--If GW gets on TV and scowls and shakes his finger--knowing absolutly without a doubt that he is lying and then do same under oath I'll be 1st to concede I was naive as the liberals under Clinton.

 

[kosar]

Wayne, i'm always here to help. I think W's quote below has been proven to be a lie. And he clearly knew 'absolutely without a doubt' that it was a lie.

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.

As far as being 'naive' regarding Clinton, personally I just didn't give a shit about whether he did or did not receive oral sex or whether or not he lied about it.

 

[Chadman]

His comment, shown above, actually a few of his comments, were proven to have been a lie with his comments of late last week/early this week that this kind of thing was authorized by him, as he tried to get out on the attack with the issue. Pretty black and white, this one.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Ok I see where your coming from on wiretap.

I agree with you partially Matt. I don't care if he got Bj or not--however it with other accusations of people (including rape)from Jones-Flowers-Broderick ect would make mequestion his character.
--and unless one is naive and thinks he and Hilliary were only ones innocent in Whitewater deal and others--and the coup de grace no one including him has ever attempted to explain--pardoning the 7th most wanted criminal for cash.--and Iv'e yet to see anyone get multiple felonies and disbarred for consenual BJ so at some point in time even the most adamant supporters will have to realize
that BJ come under lewd and lesivious (spl) codes and lieing under oath is pergury.

---and on subject of lieing what about failing to recall in testimony that happen in last 3 years--if indeed Hilliary 250 times and Bill 267 times--either they are lying are need to be in Alzeihmers wing
FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1

 

[Palehose]

Really this is not even an issue its soooooo stupid !

We going to arrest Clinton for having the NSA monitor Strom Thurman in Britain?

Didnt think so !

This is a leagal act in fact the attorney general was notified before it was done just to be sure it was leagal !

Now for a fact the Liberals worst nightmare !!!!

Conducting NSA secret wire tapping of international phone calls into and out of the United States is authorized secretly by law for the last thirty years !

Good god is their a Liberal here that understands how the US government functions ???????????????????

Really this is sooooo comical to read this crap !!! I am starting to understand how the Dems get so many votes though thats for sure ! The average American is completely clueless about how our government operates !!! Truley amazing !!!

 

[kosar]

Wayne,

While Clinton is always a unique topic, does it appear to you that Bush lied on TV to the American people? In your Clinton rant, somehow you forgot to comment on that.

 

[Chadman]

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans

The top of the Drudge Report claims ?CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER?? It?s not true. Here?s the breakdown ?

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: ?The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order?

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve ?the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.? That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush?s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton?s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: ?Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.?

What Carter?s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain ?the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.? So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Not sure on your--
Quote:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.
--Matt

appears to me he's trying to distinguish between wire tap and roving wire tap????
especially in light of paragraphs that follows---

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- 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. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

--thought this article from might be of interest-
by John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.

President had legal authority to OK taps

By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005


President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.

The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.

But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power."

FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.

Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.

But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

 

[ferdville]

Chadman - Don't remember you or many other dems ever admit that Clinton did anything wrong other than get a bj in the White House. I always thought the problem was that he lied under oath. Of course, my analysis never breaks water with you. As per my first comment - all politicians lie. Bush being a politician would likely fit in that category. In addition to lying under oath, as you can see in DTB's post, Clinton's memory was also a little off. Maybe from all that pot he didn't inhale. Does this excuse Bush? Only an idiot would think so