Bush Fisks Feingold
Hat Tip to Little Miss Chatterbox on this one. I hadn't had a chance to watch the President's press conference today, or read the transcript until just now.
LMC let me know about Bush giving it to the Democrats on the suveillance program, so I check the transcript, and sure enough, he calls them out. I noticed this was completely absent in the Washington Post and NY Times coverage other than the transcript.
(From the Washington Post Transcript, I put the line in red that should make many smile):
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. On the subject of the terrorist surveillance program, not to change the (OFF-MIKE) bipartisanship, but there have been now three sponsors to a measure to censure you for the implementation of that program.
The primary sponsor, Russ Feingold, has suggested that impeachment is not out of the question. And on Sunday, the number two Democrat in the Senate refused to rule that out pending an investigation.
QUESTION: What, sir, do you think the impact of a discussion of impeachment and censure does to you and this office and to the nation during a time of war and in the context of the election?
BUSH: I think during these difficult times -- and they are difficult when we are at war -- the American people expect there to be an honest and open debate without needless partisanship. And that's how I view it.
I did notice that nobody from the Democratic Party has actually stood up and called for the getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say, "The tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used." They ought to take their message to the people and say, "Vote for me. I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program."
That's what they ought to be doing. That's part of what is an open and honest debate.
__________________________________________________________
Senators Feingold and Durbin, are you going to take the President's advice? Are either of you willing to say we shouldn't have a program of surveillance against terrorists and their accomplices here?
Followup- Dana Milbank, in his Washington Sketch column ignores this passage also. One would almost think the MSM is conspiring not to push Bush's challenge to the Democrats.
Technorati Tags: Russ Feingold 2008 Presidential Authority FISA Bush Censure Dick Durbin, Washington Post, New York Times
LMC let me know about Bush giving it to the Democrats on the suveillance program, so I check the transcript, and sure enough, he calls them out. I noticed this was completely absent in the Washington Post and NY Times coverage other than the transcript.
(From the Washington Post Transcript, I put the line in red that should make many smile):
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. On the subject of the terrorist surveillance program, not to change the (OFF-MIKE) bipartisanship, but there have been now three sponsors to a measure to censure you for the implementation of that program.
The primary sponsor, Russ Feingold, has suggested that impeachment is not out of the question. And on Sunday, the number two Democrat in the Senate refused to rule that out pending an investigation.
QUESTION: What, sir, do you think the impact of a discussion of impeachment and censure does to you and this office and to the nation during a time of war and in the context of the election?
BUSH: I think during these difficult times -- and they are difficult when we are at war -- the American people expect there to be an honest and open debate without needless partisanship. And that's how I view it.
I did notice that nobody from the Democratic Party has actually stood up and called for the getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say, "The tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used." They ought to take their message to the people and say, "Vote for me. I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program."
That's what they ought to be doing. That's part of what is an open and honest debate.
__________________________________________________________
Senators Feingold and Durbin, are you going to take the President's advice? Are either of you willing to say we shouldn't have a program of surveillance against terrorists and their accomplices here?
Followup- Dana Milbank, in his Washington Sketch column ignores this passage also. One would almost think the MSM is conspiring not to push Bush's challenge to the Democrats.
Technorati Tags: Russ Feingold 2008 Presidential Authority FISA Bush Censure Dick Durbin, Washington Post, New York Times
posted by Crazy Politico at 7:05 PM
9Comments:
Thanks, I'm glad you liked that. I heard it on Rush and I just loved it!! I took a mental note of it because I'm preparing a post on Bush and the war and I thought it was awesome.
The transcript seems to be the only place to find it. No one in the msm seems to be covering.
He's only a threat to them because he's keeping them from the White House. :)
Repack, the problem with your thinking is that half the legal scholars that have testified to the Senate committees on this believe it to be perfectly legal.
Poser, If you read Duggan, you find that the courts have found (for years) that in the arena of National Security, when someone is dealing with a foriegn entity or terrorist (they are mentioned there, too) some of the 4th Amendment issues become moot.
I'm sure poser was calling for Clinton's head on a pike during filegate then, as that was blatantly illegal.
Good for you, Poser!!
Thanks for brining this to our attention, CP!
I just, I don't know what to say to people that don't understand the fact that it was a classified program, if the entire of Congress was briefed it would have been leaked that very same day.
If I hear one single more Senator on the left shrug their shoulders and say "well it was classified, there was nothing I could do about it." Then it is out and they are all over it. They applaud the people on the inside that leak classified material as whistleblowers, they write laws to protect them.
If this was such a huge violation of our rights, why did not a single Senator or Representative stand up? They were not willing to put their neck on the line. That leaves you with 3 conclusions:
1) It is legal, and now they are solely going for political points.
2) They didn't say anything because they are not worried about your rights.
3) They place their job and place in society above YOUR rights that are being “violated.”
If you want to charge POTUS you must be ready to charge every single Congress Member (current and past) that was briefed; therefore must be considered complicit in this! Note that includes just as many Democrats as Republicans. BTW, the answer is 1.
Poser, I suggest you read a few of the court decisions where that determination has been made, and why it was.
A good starting point would be the recent (2002) case involving wiretaps and FISA. It's a 56 page read, but has some fascinating history in the arena of national security, the 4th Amendment, etc.
here is the link
As for the "coward" comment, I'm not a coward, and since I don't make or receive phone calls from overseas terrorists, none of my rights (a right to plot to kill??) are infringed on.
MDC, I agree with your assessment.
Poser, read the in re:sealed case 02-001 issue from the FISA Court of Review (the guys who review FISA).
They site all the case law that states a USP working with a foriegn power/international terrorist can be tapped without a warrant.
ACLU filed an amicus brief on that case, which the FCR found FISA ruled wrong, & the 4th amendment rights of a USP weren't violated, in accordance with a ton of settled case law.
The supreme court refused to hear further appeal, basically settling the issue.
Now, if they want to tap a USP, without evidence or knowledge they are working as or with a foriegn agent, then they need a court order from a regular court.
Poser, what happens in the cases where the executive branch orders the taps without FISA (or an Art. III) court order is that the trial court becomes arbitor of what is and isn't admissable.
For instance, if they used a "whatever we can find" means of tapping lines, then those communications, and any "fruits" bore because of them would become inadmissable.
However, if they said "No, we tapped that number because it was in Bozo The al Qaeda bombers PDA", then it would probably be allowable.
The Aldrich Ames case is a good one to look at for what the Executive Branch can do in these cases.
Post a Comment
<< Home