President Bush's Speech today

[Ignatius J.]

We can work out the details as we go.

The president seems to believe that he has already worked out the details. I know that he is doing what he thinks is best, but I think he is wrong. If you don't have time to get a warrant, then get the warrant later, we have courts with the appropriate clearance more than willing to grant post-facto warrants. But if you KNOW that the warrant will not be issued because you are not spying on a legitimate target, then don't do it.

To me, that is more than a detail. I think the president did what he did to make us safer. I can understand that, and I don't blame him for it, but I do think he needs to be stopped, because there are some things more important than safety.

[DCRunner]

Or just skipped it entirely because we already know what he thinks. :laugh:

So Grant... How about you answer Bush's question. If he wanted to break the law with the wiretaps, why would he inform congress?

He didn't inform congress. He told a handful of people - what 4 or 5. And they were forbidden from consulting with anyone else to discuss their concerns about its legality. And we still don't know exactly what they were told. I need to know exactly the words used to so "inform" the few chosen. I'll bet they were as clear and unambiguous as a Bush press conference. They probably walked away thinking Bush was getting a kegger tapped.

It's really easy to tell someone something and not really tell them anything.

[Sarge]

It would be nice if he could answer the questions...

-Grant

You honestly want the President of the United States to waste time answering a stupid question from some pimple faced kid asking about a homosexual movie?

[CrabR]

You honestly want the President of the United States to waste time answering a stupid question from some pimple faced kid asking about a homosexual movie?

Why not

The president is not above the people

[Major Harris]

Why not

The president is not above the people

if he told the truth and said no, the left would come out and say he's anti-gay.

[Mad Mike]

because there are some things more important than safety.

Really? The worst possible violation of your rights is for someone to kill you. You have no more rights after that. Done. Finished. THE END.

So are you going to argue that a variation of method to tap a phone call between a suspected member of al Qaeda outside the country and someone in the US is somehow worse than the potential death of thousands or maybe millions?

[Mad Mike]

He didn't inform congress. He told a handful of people - what 4 or 5. And they were forbidden from consulting with anyone else to discuss their concerns about its legality. And we still don't know exactly what they were told. I need to know exactly the words used to so "inform" the few chosen. I'll bet they were as clear and unambiguous as a Bush press conference. They probably walked away thinking Bush was getting a kegger tapped.

It's really easy to tell someone something and not really tell them anything.

He told those with the clearence to know. There is a select committee for just that purpose. This is standard procedure for national security issues. Always has been and there are damn good reasons for it. So the first part of your argument is based on ignorence. The rest is simply your conjecture and it's rather simplistic at that. Do you really thing those members of congress did not ask questions? Do you really think that's the way a high level national security meeting works? Do you really think it went down as you said? You can't be that stupid. I'm going to assume you are just trying to make up an argument at any cost.

[RabidFan]

if he told the truth and said no, the left would come out and say he's anti-gay.

and the Left would be correct for once. :laugh:

[DCRunner]

He told those with the clearence to know. There is a select committee for just that purpose. This is standard procedure for national security issues. Always has been and there are damn good reasons for it. So the first part of your argument is based on ignorence.

The rest is simply your conjecture and it's rather simplistic at that. Do you really thing those members of congress did not ask questions? Do you really think that's the way a high level national security meeting works? Do you really think it went down as you said? You can't be that stupid. I'm going to assume you are just trying to make up an argument at any cost.

I know what the procedure is. But Bush and those trying to justify his actions keep repeating that he "informed Congress" as if he got Congress' approval. The reality of the "informed" part is just a handful of people who can't really do anything with the info they got. Especially if they can't consult with legal counsel and security experts who might be able to advise how to properly debrief the president's people when they are so informed and what to do after.

There needs to be a way that the few people who get "informed" can properly perform their oversight duties. That's what informing them is all about. It isn't just a chitchat. The committee cannot be responsible to the American people - which is their duty and our right - if they are so badly hamstrung.

And yes I believe that Members of Congress do not always know what questions to ask in every given scenario. It's not enough to just ask questions. They have to know what questions will uncover issues the executive branch may be minimizing or skirting or plain lying about. You can't possibly think that the executive branch is always forthcoming during these meetings. You can't possibly think that Congress hasn't been misled in the past. You can't be that naive.

Before you call someone stupid you should spellcheck.