Bush launching aggressive defense of eavesdropping

[sabra]

http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nN20177106

Bush launching aggressive defense of eavesdropping

WASHINGTON, Jan 20 (Reuters) - The White House is launching an aggressive effort to defend a domestic eavesdropping program prior to congressional hearings that are to delve into whether President George W. Bush overstepped his authority.

White House officials said on Friday that Bush will visit the National Security Agency next Wednesday as part of the effort. Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, former head of the NSA, will give a speech at the National Press Club on Monday and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will speak on Tuesday.

The highly classified program allows the government to bypass warrant requirements and monitor communications, such as e-mail and telephone calls, into and out of the United States by persons linked to al Qaeda or related terrorist groups.

Disclosure last month of the program sparked an outcry by Democrats and Republicans, with many lawmakers questioning whether it violated the U.S. Constitution. Civil liberties groups filed lawsuits challenging the program's legality.

Me thinks, BushCo is feeling the heat!

[blm]

1. And thus we have a new Usama video ..... just to make SURE.

.

[ClassWarrior]

2. Good. Let's hope he makes lots of indictable statements.

NGU.

[baby_mouse]

3. Power-bleating.

Perhaps someone with a giant hockey stick should jsut follow him around and bash him in the nose whenever he does something stupid.

[bluedog]

4. hide the paper shredders

[BrotherBuzz]

5. And how did that aggressive Social Security reform thing go?

I have no doubt his pie hole will torpedo the ship.

[MissB]

14. Exactly.

I welcome his "aggressive" defense.

[gratuitous]

6. He'll get some traction, temporarily

As Bush and his minions fan out (again) to spread a bunch of lies and half-truths (again), the media will dutifully report all of it with a straight face (again), and people will be duped into thinking that nothing so very bad has happened (again).

All the while, we will be saying that it's clearly corrupt, clearly illegal, and clearly unconstitutional (again).

Then, when the analysis of Bush's crooked behavior isn't run and dictated by the accused, some people will finally say that maybe the "eavesdropping" isn't quite so legal as Bush said. We'll keep saying of course it isn't. Some other will allow as how maybe it's not wise to let the accused set the parameters of the discussion, and in fact, the law and constitution say pretty clearly that Bush is in the wrong.

At some point it will be conventional wisdom that Bush broke the law, but that was oh so long ago, just move on you bunch of whiners, and look, Britney's dressed like a tramp!

[HuffleClaw]

7. basic republican strategy, attack the attackers

and its only gonna serve to convince all but the kool aid drinkers that he's got something to hide.

[BadGimp]

8. not properly notifying the Senate Intel Comittee...

Not properly notifying the Senate Intel Comittee... just might turn out to be the thing that trips them up. There is no waiver he gets from not properly notifying the Intel Comittee as reauired by a 1947 law. This is not debatable. Nothing Congress did in any waived their oversight role.

Members of the comittee have spoken publically on this and stated that they were not briefed. Only the GOP members were.

[madmark]

9. An aggressive defense of their disregard for the 4th amendment

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. But, but, but........

I thought that he doesn't pay attention to the polls or what other people think if he thinks that he's doing the right thing? All I can say is, turn up the heat, baby!!!

[Mithras61]

11. Is an agressive defense sort of like...

a smashing frontal assault on the enemy's rear?



just asking...

[dysfunctional press]

12. Democrats should be repeating the words of Benjamin Franklin ad nauseum:

Benjamin Franklin:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

and they could top it off with a little Grand Master Dwight Dee-

"...Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together..."

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

[HereSince1628]

13. Sic cado res publica

[superconnected]

15. eavesdropping? How bout felony spying...

What a farce our failure in thief is.

I can't believe this is America and we have to defend our legal rights from the gov daily now.

If we weren't so awesomely close to losing them, this would be sickeningly funny.

[cmdrzog]

18. felony spying works

same offense at the word eavesdropping, I was typing as you posted.

[leftchick]

16. bring it on baby!

this will go over as well as his social security blitz! What pisses me off is we are paying for this dog and pony bullshit. :grr:

[cmdrzog]

17. Call it spying, illegal wiretapping, or domestic espionage;

not eavesdropping. Eavesdropping has too soft a connotation, it is almost neutral; just kinda overheard they were planning a surprise party, was just sitting on the bus and these two people just happened to be talking about ... What was done here was a deliberate violation of a citizen's right to privacy, a deliberate breaking into a private communication, a deliberate legality be damned information stealing on a grand scale and it should be called that; not a word that images a much softer behavior.

[bemildred]

19. Is "aggressive defense" like "increasing decline"? nt

[IndianaGreen]

20. Impeach Bush!

There is no excuse for Bush breaking the law and putting himself about the Constitution. No amount of spin or Rovian propaganda can alter the fact that Bush is a law breaker and should be impeached.

[Straight Shooter]

21. You wouldn't have to defend what you did if it were legal, george. n/t