Did Bush lie, or did he lie?

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What a lot of distraction to draw attention away from bush lying about spying on Americans without a warrant.

It was classified information protecting national security does not equate to lying and guess what else the taps were totally legal under the inherent war powers of the president.

 

[steen]

It was classified information protecting national security does not equate to lying and guess what else the taps were totally legal under the inherent war powers of the president.

Bush claimed that in all cases, a warrant was necessary, and then he goes on to do the surveillance without warrants. So he lied.

Say something is absolute and then going on to do what he said wasn't going to be done, THAT IS LYING.

Your evasions of this are becomming PATHETIC!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Bush claimed that in all cases, a warrant was necessary, and then he goes on to do the surveillance without warrants. So he lied.

Say something is absolute and then going on to do what he said wasn't going to be done, THAT IS LYING.

Your evasions of this are becomming PATHETIC!

Apparently I have to spell it out for you:

National Security - The territorial integrity, sovereignty, and international freedom of action of the United States. Intelligence activities relating to national security encompass all the military, economic, political, scientific, technological, and other aspects of foreign developments that pose actual or potential threats to US national interests.

Classified - Any information that has been determined to require protection against unauthorized disclosure to avoid harm to US national security. The classifications TOP SECRET, SECRET, and CONFIDENTIAL are used to designate such information, referred to as "classified information".

 

[steen]

Apparently I have to spell it out for YOU:

When shrubbie claims that he is going to use warrants and then don't, then he is LYING!

 

[oldreliable67]

steen,

Read the whole 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.

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.

There is no lie in this Bush statement, other than in the minds of those who see Bush lies in chicken entrails, in the clouds, in tea leaves, etc.

 

[steen]

Are you guys DAFT?

Bush has ADMITTED that he has allowed wiretaps WITHOUT a warrant.

Perviosuly, he stated that warrants were necessary. That means that his eariler statement was a lie.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I'm so sick of you people besmirching a good mans name through slanderous lies of the highest order the truth of the matter is that Cheney is a good man who has taken a huge pay cut in order to serve the public interest you all should be ashamed of yourselves!

Using the word - Good Man and Cheney in the same sentence is an oxymoron. :mrgreen:

I'm glad to see that Cheney is donating his stock in Haliburton to charity in an irrevocable trust. I stand corrected. That doesn't mean his trust didn't go up 3,000 %last year. I stand by my statement. "I wish I had bought stock in Haliburton back in 2004"

Also Cheney, at the point of the article's writing had received $398,548 in deferred compensartion. But ask yourself the question - Why did Haliburton want Cheney to be their CEO? Certainly not because of his ability to run a company. It was because of his ties to government while in politics. He cleaned his tracks after becoming VP, yes. But I'm concerned more about the slippery slope politicians take from being in office to working with corporations.

A great example of this is former FEMA head , and current Haliburton lobbyist Joe Allbaugh. He's now sucking of the teet of the taxpayers down in Louisiana.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Tom Daschle's op-ed on the subject is very interesting.

Power We Didn't Grant

By Tom Daschle

Friday, December 23, 2005; Page A21

In the face of mounting questions about news stories saying that President Bush approved a program to wiretap American citizens without getting warrants, the White House argues that Congress granted it authority for such surveillance in the 2001 legislation authorizing the use of force against al Qaeda. On Tuesday, Vice President Cheney said the president "was granted authority by the Congress to use all means necessary to take on the terrorists, and that's what we've done."

As Senate majority leader at the time, I helped negotiate that law with the White House counsel's office over two harried days. I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance.

Complete story here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201101.html

 

[oldreliable67]

steen,

You're clearly more intelligent than that; you're just being obtuse.

 

[KCConservative]

Apparently I have to spell it out for YOU:

When shrubbie claims that he is going to use warrants and then don't, then he is LYING!

Keep us posted on that impeachment thing, okay? :smile:

 

[cnredd]

Are you guys DAFT?

Bush has ADMITTED that he has allowed wiretaps WITHOUT a warrant.

Perviosuly, he stated that warrants were necessary. That means that his eariler statement was a lie.

No...Not if the discussion was about something other than national security or some other difference...

If you hear me say "basballs aren't used" one day, and you see me the next day using a baseball, that doesn't make me a liar if my original statement was discussing hockey...:roll:

 

[steen]

No...Not if the discussion was about something other than national security or some other difference...

But he WAS discussing national security. He WAS discussing the Patriot Act. Did you miss my very first post here? Did you miss the post at the beginning of the tread?

But let me help you:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040420-2.html
(April 20, 2002)
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.


Now he admits not using the warrants. So he lied, right? Even per YOUR definition, bush lied.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Tom Daschle's op-ed on the subject is very interesting.



Complete story here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201101.html

Dashle's full of **** I'd like some more corraborating evidence that the reason why the congress didn't allow the words; "in the U.S." to enter the joint resolution was to stop wire tapping other than his or Pelosi's word for it; furthermore, it doesn't matter anyways the Joint Resolution doesn't specify that it can only be done outside of the U.S. :

Joint Resolution Authorizing The Use Of Force Against Terrorists
September 14, 2001
This is the text of the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists, adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives:

To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements


Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.


Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Are you guys DAFT?

Bush has ADMITTED that he has allowed wiretaps WITHOUT a warrant.

Perviosuly, he stated that warrants were necessary. That means that his eariler statement was a lie.

No that means he was protecting national security and guess what else whoever released or published this information is subject to a ten thousand dollar fine and not more than ten years in prison, I say lock up the editors, owners, and writers of the New York Times, you people don't realize that you've opened a pandoras box with the Plame case, I assure you, people are going to jail on this one and it's not the president either, he was well within his legal rights the New York Times and the people who leaked the information, on the other hand, were not; furthermore, the president was not under oath when he made this statement so just what exactly is your point??? . . . a politician lied? Well holyshit stop the presses! :roll:

 

[cnredd]

I saw Tom Daschle and heard his little speech, but it was on Fox, and it's very clear that some Libs don't consider them legitimate and believe that they are nothing but liars, so the speech never happened and I am assuming that this Daschle character doesn't really exist...

 

[steen]

....... furthermore, the president was not under oath when he made this statement so just what exactly is your point??? . . . a politician lied? Well holyshit stop the presses! :roll:

FINALLY. Why did it take THAT LONG for a conservative to FINALLY admit that the president lied. :roll:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

FINALLY. Why did it take THAT LONG for a conservative to FINALLY admit that the president lied. :roll:

nice out of context quote if I do say so myself, the president lied to protect national security I would be pissed if he didn't lie about it.

 

[steen]

nice out of context quote if I do say so myself, the president lied to protect national security I would be pissed if he didn't lie about it.

So he lied. Yes, that is what I said, so your blabbering nonsense about being out of context is just pathetic.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
nice out of context quote if I do say so myself, the president lied to protect national security I would be pissed if he didn't lie about it

For someone that holds lying in such high regard, what does that say about you?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

For someone that holds lying in such high regard, what does that say about you?

For someone who puts partisan politics over national security what does that say about you?

 

[steen]

For someone who puts partisan politics over national security what does that say about you?

Ah, so you are STILL trying to pretend that lying is just normal repugnican behavior!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Ah, so you are STILL trying to pretend that lying is just normal repugnican behavior!

Protecting national security is not lying.

 

[steen]

Protecting national security is not lying.

Yeah, conservatives have tried that one before. Funny how "flexible" your views of lying is, when the fundie shrubbie decides to lie. How dishonest of you.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yeah, conservatives have tried that one before. Funny how "flexible" your views of lying is, when the fundie shrubbie decides to lie. How dishonest of you.

This is like asking the president during the Cold War if we tapped the Soviet Cable under the Atlantic Ocean and then he says no and then someone turning around and calling him a lier . . . you people are freaking ridiculous and really grasping at straws; furthermore, the wire taps weren't illegal so just what the hell is your point?

 

[steen]

This is like asking the president during the Cold War if we tapped the Soviet Cable under the Atlantic Ocean....

Nope. We are talking about the US president pushing the spying on Americans without warrants after saying that he needed a warrant.

furthermore, the wire taps weren't illegal so just what the hell is your point?

Ah, but per the very first post here, I documented that the president stated that warrants were legally needed. So the president disagrees with you. The president stated that it was illegal.

The president really must be a dumb idiot according to you, eh?