From DKos: Bush's "Lewinsky" moment on wiretapping, from a 2004 speech

2004-Bush tells group: Wiretaps require Court Order
by JLFinch
Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 11:59:27 PM PDT

Look what George Bush said in a speech in New York in April 2004:

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.


Wish someone in the corporate-controlled press had the guts to publish this side-by-side with his quotes from Sat.

Link?

http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040421-26.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."

but if you look at Dailykos.com, under recommended diaries, you'll see the full quote and link and everything.

It's chilling everytime he uses it. He used it in yesterdays speech..

ve mus protect ze homelan - Heil Bush

anyway. Flippity floppity flip.

Notice how he assures people that nothing's changed, and of course the government has to get a court order. If that's not a bald-faced lie given what we know now, then what is??

nm

Kicked and nominated!

Not alqaeda, who couldn't care less, but the domestic enemy. Moore, Kerry, Clinton.....you know.

this speech coincided with the initial discovery of the story.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

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.

Makes it seem like B*'s lie is no big deal.

This is a BIG DEAL!!

eom

gossiping and making bad jokes only they laugh at, journalists would have immediately researched this and asked Bush about it.

But looking good on TV, smiling a lot, and reading the monitor ARE today's TV journalists.

This is georgie boy blatantly lying ot his adoring public.

He has admitted his crime and in this speech he admits and acknowledges it was illegal and unconstitutional.

how he uses the word ROVING wiretaps.....

:kick:

I want to play that over and over and over again...

bush on wiretaps in 2004:
“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.”
george w. bush, New York, April 2004

bush on wiretaps yesterday:
bush: “The second part of the question is? Sorry — I gave a long answer.”

Question: It was, why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?

bush: “First of all, I — right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack. That’s what the American people want. We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. And that’s important. We’ve got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent.

We use FISA still — you’re referring to the FISA court in your question — of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.

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. ”