Bush got caught in a HUGE lie...re: illegal spying

Here is what George Bush said in Buffalo, New York on April 20, 2004 at 9:49am:

[ 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. 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a man with no respect for the citizenry of the US. He is on a power-grab that surpasses Nixon in terms of decieving the American People and contempt for the constitution.

[jba]

yeah that's pretty red handed

can you source that?

This is a pretty good source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html (halfway down, lets see if they change it or remove it)

This is where I found it:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/20/132439/46

And for the heck of it:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/20/152310/83

[elwoodblues]

From the publication Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents:
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

State department press release April 20, 2004:

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, Ashcroft's testimony before the 9/11 commission speaks a little to this point:
[ QUOTE ]
ASHCROFT: Let me comment that in large measure, the Patriot Act extended powers in the fight against terror that were already well- understood powers in the fight against drugs and organized crime, so that we weren`t treading down new constitutional territory. The multi-point wire tap or the roving wire tap had been in existence for 14 years and 15 years. And the ability, for instance, to subpoena business records from grand juries had been in existence for a long time.

Now the FISA provisions that relate to it are different from grand juries. A grand jury, frankly, operates with the U.S. attorney or an assistant U.S. attorney reaching over on a stack of forms and filling it out, and taking it out and serving it. It`s never seen by a judge unless someone resists it or protests it.

Under FISA, you can`t have an order without first seeing the federal judge. Or unless it`s an emergency order, and then it has to be brought before a judge within 72 hours. So there`s a lot of safeguards here. I`d like to talk to you about it. It is important to our national security

[/ QUOTE ]

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Nice, the more credibility he and his men loses, the better the future looks for all of us.

[ QUOTE ]
Here is what George Bush said in Buffalo, New York on April 20, 2004 at 9:49am:

[ 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. 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a man with no respect for the citizenry of the US. He is on a power-grab that surpasses Nixon in terms of decieving the American People and contempt for the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you still dispute the simple, majestic truth of the statement: "Bush lied." ?

[canis582]

I see this thread isnt very popular.

I mean that quote is the smoking gun that shows that he is a pathological LIAR!

BUMP since I see Beer and Pizza is actually on and replying to other threads.

[Beer and Pizza]

Where is the lie?

Trying to match a quote about domestic spying to international spying authorized by the Patriot Act does not create a lie. Bush was making a truthful statement when viewed in context.

Once again you guys are claiming a lie where no lie exists. Big surprise. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the lie?

Trying to match a quote about domestic spying to international spying authorized by the Patriot Act does not create a lie. Bush was making a truthful statement when viewed in context.

Once again you guys are claiming a lie where no lie exists. Big surprise. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

This is great!

So, Bush says "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."

But now he admits engaging in domestic wiretaps without "a court order", completely outside the FISA context, AT THE TIME HE MADE THIS STATEMENT, and you say it was "truthful" "when viewed in context"????

Please explain, this should be absolutely fabulous. /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[jba]

thanks for the sources guys I am going to read them.

It seems ashcroft is better at the CYA politician speak, it doesn't appear that he lied at all in that quote ("Under FISA," qualification)

[censored] scumbag politicians

edit: HOW THE [censored] does Sen Rockefeller and Nancy Pelosi let this slide? why the hell did they not go public with the information that they had about this TWO YEARS AGO? it is totally inexcusable and they bear responsibility for this as well! how can they complain about this with any credibility if they did absolutely nothing to stop it??? I think there may be a lot more to this story than any of us will ever know and it makes me sick to my stomach.

Sorry, Beer, Elliots got you on this one. But I'll do you all one better. This is from Salon's War room (the emphasis is mine):

[ QUOTE ]
Warrantless spying reached domestic calls, too

Can you say "slippery slope"?

In its initial attempts to limit the political damage from news that the president has authorized warrantless spying on American citizens, the Bush administration insisted that all of the monitoring involved calls and e-mails in which one of the parties was outside the United States. "I can assure you, by the physics of the intercept, by how we actually conduct our activities, that one end of these communications [is] always outside the United States," said Gen. Michael Hayden, George W. Bush's second-ranking intelligence official. Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general, chimed in: "People are running around saying that the United States is somehow spying on American citizens calling their neighbors. Very, very important to understand that one party to the communication has to be outside the United States."

You'll be shocked to know that it isn't true.

The New York Times reports today that the warrantless spying program Bush approved -- and repeatedly reapproved --sometimes captured communications that were entirely domestic. Officials familiar with the program tell the Times that the warrantless domestic spying occurred because the National Security Agency sometimes had a hard time determining whether a communication began or ended in the United States or somewhere else.

But never fear. In every instance, the spying you thought -- the spying Bush insisted -- was being conducted pursuant to a warrant obtained from a court was in each and every case approved by a "shift supervisor" at the NSA.

A shift supervisor? We suppose that's more or less the same as having warrants approved by a federal judge nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate and granted a lifetime appointment in order to ensure freedom from political pressures. In other news today, the White House announced that it has increased the "agility" of the federal regulatory system by transferring the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission to a radio talk show host in Sacramento, Calif., and that it has authorized individual FBI agents to decide the guilt or innocence of criminal defendants when jury trials would "take too long."

[/ QUOTE ]