Was He Lying Then or Is He Lying Now?

On 4-20-04

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

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.

On 12-19-05

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-2.html

Now, having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so? I am -- I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely. As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress. . .

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Getting back to the domestic spying issue for a moment. According to FISA's own records, it's received nearly 19,000 requests for wiretaps or search warrants since 1979, rejected just five of them. It also operates in secret, so security shouldn't be a concern, and it can be applied retroactively. Given such a powerful tool of law enforcement is at your disposal, sir, why did you see fit to sidetrack that process?

THE PRESIDENT: We used the process to monitor. But also, this is a different -- a different era, a different war, Stretch. So what we're -- people are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And we've got to be able to detect and prevent. I keep saying that, but this is a -- it requires quick action.

And without revealing the operating details of our program, I just want to assure the American people that, one, I've got the authority to do this; two, it is a necessary part of my job to protect you; and, three, we're guarding your civil liberties. And we're guarding the civil liberties by monitoring the program on a regular basis, by having the folks at NSA, the legal team, as well as the inspector general, monitor the program, and we're briefing Congress. This is a part of our effort to protect the American people. The American people expect us to protect them and protect their civil liberties. I'm going to do that. That's my job, and I'm going to continue doing my job.

Or is this just a Flip-Flop?

I guess I'm a Terrorist

This guy made me laugh. I guess I'm a terrorist!

You might be a terrorist if God tells Bush you are.
You might be a terrorist if after 14 months of torture you admit you are.
You might be a terrorist if you live in the US.
You might be a terrorist if you're Muslim and live in Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, etc, etc.
You might be a terrorist if you're dating someone in a foreign country.
You might be a terrorist if you are calling anyone outside the US.
You might be a terrorist if you own a bank account that has overseas transactions.
You might be a terrorist if you are a Quaker opposing the war.
You might be a terrorist if you are any race and object to the war.
You are a terrorist if you protest the war.
You might be a terrorist if you are Muslim and live anywhere (except Iraq, then you are an insurgent)
You might be a terrorist if you question any part of this administrations intentions.
You are a terrorist if you question the above vocally.
You might be a terrorist if you have ever visited a website from the Middle East.
You might be a terrorist if you have ever talked to a Muslim person.
You might be a terrorist if you object to the violations of your civil liberties.
You might be a terrorist if you have ever .......well let's admit it we probably all are terrorists, it's just that the Pentagon hasn't gotten around to starting a file on us yet.

Bush's Spying

David Sirota gets it exactly right.

And that gets us right back to the most important question: why would the President deliberately circumvent a court that was already wholly inclined to grant him domestic surveillance warrants? The answer is obvious, though as yet largely unstated in the mainstream media: because the President was likely ordering surveillance operations that were so outrageous, so unrelated to the War on Terror, and, to put it in Constitutional terms, so "unreasonable" that even a FISA court would not have granted them.

Like, say, conducting surveillance on perfectly innocent Americans who protest against Bush administration policies?

This is all weighing me down. I can't seem to think of anything else but what a disaster he is and the huge damage he's doing to all of us. The absolute most depressing thing is that the Senate and House will become his appologist and let him get another pass. It seems to me there's only two courses of action -- crown him dictator and go home or impeach. But they'll go along to get along. This is so depressing to watch my fine country go down the drain and it seems no body cares.