Everyone knows Bill Clinton's big lie of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", but while browsing Newsweek last week, I learned (buried on p. 41) that President Bush said this on April 24, 2004 in Buffalo, New York:
"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."
I couldn't believe our beloved President would lie to us like that. (At least until I found the statement on the official White House web site - it's about halfway down).
Someone please explain to me why lying about sex is sooooo much worse than lying about violating the Fourth Amendment? And why hasn't the "liberal media" covered this story like they jumped all over Clinton? I would like to have the facts reported so that I could decide.
.jpg)
2.09.2006
I Don't Understand
Everyone knows Bill Clinton's big lie of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", but while browsing Newsweek last week, I learned (buried on p. 41) that President Bush said this on April 24, 2004 in Buffalo, New York:
"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."
I couldn't believe our beloved President would lie to us like that. (At least until I found the statement on the official White House web site - it's about halfway down).
Someone please explain to me why lying about sex is sooooo much worse than lying about violating the Fourth Amendment? And why hasn't the "liberal media" covered this story like they jumped all over Clinton? I would like to have the facts reported so that I could decide.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Barry, you decided long ago....before you ever "uncovered" your story.
We all lie. Bush is not perfect. Clinton is not perfect. You are not perfect. I am not perfect.
I will NEVER see the good you see in Clinton. My opinion only, but he and Howard Stern have the same morals. NONE!!
Amen to that. Also, it should be beneath(pardon the term) ANYONE who occupies the Oval Office to stoop(pardon the term) so low as to compromise the office of President of the United States with tawdry sex--and with an employee. Common sense dictates someone that young and vulnerable WOULD NOT keep it quiet.
I'm a conservative Republican, but I do view all of this as VEEERY INTERESTING! What concerns me is that many of our national politicians (especially the long-term ones) lose their sense of reality in Washington, regardless of their party affiliation. I also think that the pressures of national responsibility tend to breed an "ends justifies the means" mentality, which must be quite a temptation to them. Anon 10:10 said it very well--nobody is perfect.
Gee Barry, have you never changed your mind on something you thought almost two years before. As I grow, as situations change, I find that the way I've done some things change from the way I thought I should do them a few years ago.
It's one thing to say "I did not have sex with that woman" (or something to that effect) when he knew he did. It's something different to say "We should not do this or that" and two years later decide that it might be necessary to do something a different way. Intelligence on our enemies has changed in two years and it may be necessary to change the way our enemies are dealt with.
Oh, shush, Barry.
You say "shush"...I say, "PREACH ON MY BROTHA FROM ANOTHA MUTHA!!!"
Just goes to show how many people want a double standard, both in their lives and their government, as long as they get their way. They have no regards for others or right or wrong. The vast conservative citizens in this country seem to all have adopted the same philosophy: " My minds made up, don't confuse me with the facts."
The facts are that there are some very strange people among us who desire to kill and maim as many innocent people as possible, who would try to destroy our way of life (not that it's all good) and cause damage and harm.
Bush thinks it's a good idea to try and find them and stop them. I tend to agree. That's the facts.
are non US citizens even protected by the 4th amendment,
just curious
Long live the Committee for Public Safety! (Where is Robspiere when you need him!)
...what is the problem here?
...Bush has the backing of every evangelical Christian nut in America to pray for forgiveness for his sins.
...Clinton didn't have that priviledge. His sin was, by golly, just too unforgiving.
:-)
Evangelical Christian "nut"? My, my, aren't you the picture of tolerance.
8:45 learned tolerance from the evangelical right.
Or maybe he/she is the intolerant one in the first place.
gofish 10:41 pm Bush did not change his mind on how to handle the terrorists. He ordered the non-court-ordered wire taps and spying right after 9/11. So, when he made that statement in 2004, he knew he was lying.
gofish am Most people agree with going after the terrorist and spying on them, as most polls show. But most people also agree that warrants should be a part of the spying. What's so hard about getting the warrants? The system is set to obtain them 24\7. And if 'time' is the argument, read the section of Bush's speech right after Barry's quote. He talks about 'delayed notification warrants'. Takes the 'time' argument away.
Let's go after the terrorists but not butcher the constitution in the process.
Newsweek had a recent article on how many DOJ lawyers took exception to many aspects of the NSA taps and torture and other legal issues. They were marginalized and forced out. Selective opinions were used to justify these acts. This is all part of the slippery slope into total executive power. Big Brother will take care of your security. Just trust 'em.
Thanks, but I prefer the rule of law - not political hacks and anonymous advisers (puppeteers?).
I prefer action. Granted, it would be nice to file all the documents to get wiretaps but these cells change quickly while our courts of law do not move with the swiftest of speed in many cases. I realize I'm in the minority thinking that criminals have a few too many "rights" as it exists today. I realize there are people who abuse their legal abilities. When it happens, these people need to suffer as a criminal also. Yet, in the meantime give me action over rhetoric any day.
Fish, Just 2 points:
1. Bush LIED when he said warrants were obtained for any eavesdropping within the US. NSA was doing so at his authorization when he said this.
2. The FISA law provides for immediate tapping as long as they get the court order within 72 hours in time of war. All they needed to do is follow the law. Yes, get after the bad guys - but follow the law. If the law is too confining, ask Congress for modifications to it (FISA has been amended several times).
Bottom line, they lied AND broke the law. I'd say more impeachable than lying about some form of sex with an intern.
"give me action over rhetoric any day."
Like in shoot first, ask questions later?
The mindlessness of the 4:56 comment is indicative of the philosophy that has gotten us into the mess in Iraq. Folks, a little thinking and honest analysis BEFORE acting might serve us all a little better. In other cases (Katrina relief) the same guys sat around on vacation wondering if or what they might do to make themselves look better. Shameful.
Bush=Lies over and over and over again.
.....and the press once reported that our President thought he was doing God's will by getting us into this war.
.....go Bush!
The conservative talk boys on the radio are spinning this by saying because this statement was relative to the Patriot Act he was talking about domestic phone calls only, that originate in and end in the US. Not international phone calls. Not sure about?
I can't and won't say that Bush has done one thing while saying another. I'm just really tired of reading people sounding horrified that Bush has said something untrue as if it hasn't happened with Clinton or Kerry or a number of Democrats.
If you want to debate methods, great. I think Bush is having to clean up the issues Clinton was too afraid to address. Some of you disagree. Understood. Just don't tell me that Democrats are righteous and ever honest and Republicans aren't. Please, please, please don't tell me that. They are no different. Unfortunately, politics seems to corrupt everyone.
To gofish: I'd like to explain to you that I know I have sounded like a liberal democrat with this issue, but I'm not. I'm conservative and a registered republican and have voted for Bush in the last two elections.
It's just that he has disappointed me in so many ways and this deal with the wire tapping was kinda like the straw that broke the camels back. He has not performed to be aligned with the republican and conservative agenda and platform.
Examples:
1.The medicare drug bill. Spending more tax dollars.
2.Immigration and the border. Hello, stop illegal immigration and don't just give those that are already here amnesty.
3.He threatens congress and they call his bluff and he gives in like a spineless jellyfish. Two examples: He said if the transportaion bill was over a certain amount he would veto it. It was over that amount and he signed it. He said if the energy bill didn't contain drilling in Alaska etc. he wouldn't sign it. It didn't contain it and he signed it. He has yet to veto a bill.
4. Government is bigger than ever.
5. Spending is more than ever, although I have to admit his new budget has reductions in spending in a lot areas that I agree with.
6. He had just given his speech after 9\11 about other countries helping us catch the terrorists and twice, Israel had Arafat cornered with their tanks etc. and could have taken him out, and Bush told them to back down.
The list goes on and on, how he has not acted like conservative republican and I've had it. I certainly would not want Clinton or Kerry or Gore for sure. (cool rhyme) But I have not liked a lot of what Bush has done and not done.
Sorry for the rambling.
As a side note....the FISA courts have reviewed over 19,000 request for warrants in the past 4-5 years. Only 4 have been denied. So it can't be hard to get these request done legally. You either follow the law or you have it changed through legislation. Otherwise you might as well take the Consitution and throw it in the trash. One must think beyond today and consider how these actions will impact the rule of law in the future. Let's say you trust Bush (that a stretch), but do you know for sure you will trust our future leaders?
Same approach to the "anti-torture" law congress recently passed. Bush can claim we're at war so he will do whatever he wants. This is NOT constiutional law. It's reverting to an effective monarchy. BTW, this current "war" against terrorism is never-ending (like the war on poverty, drugs, etc). So the president could pick and choose what laws he will observe. I respectfully disagree.
M&M...bravo.
Now, I still stick by my 'shush' to Barry..he's so biased...drives me crazy sometimes. [wink]
BUT, I'm in that same corner you're in presently. Conservative, Repub...voted for George both times, campaigned for him. However, I'm terribly disappointed in his lack of judgment on this whole wire-tapping thing. Good gosh, it's so obviously WRONG.
I'm in full agreement on closing those borders...forget amnesty. Let's make some rules that we make immigrants STICK to...and, Big Government will be the US's ruin. I loathe Homeland Security. It even sounds like Orwell's novel.
Post a Comment