Why isn't this on EVERY news channel today? B** BLATANT lie??

[Laura PourMeADrink]

This has been posted here and on DKOS, but it is worth repeating. Please send this to every media person you have time to send it to:

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

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 20, 2004
President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall
Buffalo, New York
9:49 A.M. EDT
“So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means.

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.

Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those are very important. I see some people, first responders nodding their heads about what they mean. These are a common tool used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It requires a court order. It requires protection under the law. We couldn't use these against terrorists, but we could use against gangs. “

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. If this system was so effective.... then there should not be

illegal drug traffic on the streets.... </sarcasm>

[HereSince1628]

2. Here is the reason...Bush isn't lying. Really

The NSA is not wiretapping. It is collecting information by direct access to the telecommunications companies'equipment. It's another case of parsing the meaning of words.

The Bush administration is nothing if not masterful in misdirection.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

4. You have got to be kidding ! Is that their official response?

Or your interpretation?

[HereSince1628]

6. It's part of their defense. It was revealled just after Christmas

And I've heard it repeated several times on All Things Considered.

Sad, I agree, but true.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

9. Well, I must have been busy taking the tree down, because I

have not heard this until yesterday. Are you saying that anyone in the news media has actually confronted the WH with these statements? And that their reply was what you said before. Yikes.

[HereSince1628]

11. It wasn't initiated by a question. It was offered up as a distinction

of sorts (because it didn't get deep into details) to suggest why FISA/FISC weren't relavent.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

12. Sorry to be so dense, but who "offered it up as a distinction"?

Am I totally missing something? My point is, shouldn't the major press be quoting this speech and asking the direct question to the WH about why B** said these things. Because, he says, in general terms that "chasing down terrorists require warrants."

[HereSince1628]

13. Yes, Of course the press should be on this like white on rice,

like stink on a skunk. But, that isn't how info-tainment is done in the US. s.

I am sorry I do not remember who it was. Shoot me if you wish.

IIRC, what I heard emerged from a discussion about Bush's press conference defense of his programs. In the same discussion their was a segment about the distinction being made between "detecting" and "monitoring." Apparently, Bush and the legal mob around him also think detection requires different ability and falls under different legal requirements.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

16. bang

just kidding. Thanks ! You are very good at describing the lunacy of it all.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. fyi, on C-span this morning (Mon 2-6), a constitutional law atty

read excerpts from B**'s speech.

[patdem]

3. But...but..but..did he have illicit SEX? That is the only lie to care

about! Where have you been mon?

Lies About Blowjobs, Bad.... Wars? Not So Much

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x188673

[unblock]

7. even this is wrong. let's finally tell it like it is:

lies by DEMOCRATS are heinous and unforgivable.
lies by REPUBLICANS are necessary and good for the country.

[kurth]

8. Democrats are rank amateurs in the Big Lie department

[Sydnie]

5. they really are word masters

Notice, he doesn't say that it is important for us to know that it requires a court order, but rather says it is important for us to think that it does. Every word these speak should be parsed for true meaning not assumed or implied meaning. They really are saying it, we just aren't hearing it clearly. Our mind wants to give them the benefit of the doubt that we didn't just hear what we really heard.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. Yes, but even with that, I have read this a couple times. I can not

believe they could have weaseled out of these statements. And if it is some ultra subtle wordsmith gotcha, then I say, bullshit. And these are the mockers of "depends on what your meaning of is is."

[HereSince1628]

14. You know, weasely begins with W

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. That should be played more often than the Dean Scream tape!

Look at how may times the corporate media played Dean screaming. The Bush tape exposes him as the LIAR he is and we don't hear a freakin' word about it. We know why. CORPORATE media whores.

[leftchick]

18. Read Carefully how the slime specter handles the question....

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11160479/page/3/#storyContinued

(Videotape, April 20, 2004)

President GEORGE W. BUSH: Now, by the way, anytime you hear the United States government talking about wire tap, it requires—a wire tap 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.

(End videotape)


<snip>

MR. RUSSERT: Was that misleading?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, it depends on what the President had in mind. I think it’s a fair question for the President. If the President was talking about what goes on domestically in the United States, I think it is accurate. If he had in mind the entire program, including what goes on when one of the callers or recipients is overseas, it’s incorrect.

MR. RUSSERT: He said, “A wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. We’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”

SEN. SPECTER: Well, it depends, as I’ve just said, on what he had in mind. If you’re talking about a wiretap in the United States, he’s accurate; if you’re talking about the broader program, he’s inaccurate. That’d be a good question to pose to the President, Tim, at his next news conference. Can’t ask me, because I’m not the President.



.... providing an out for the chimp? :argh: