OT: Bush quote

Page 4 of 4  

George wrote:

Think further. This is the same President who thinks American citizens can be incarcerated without trial indefinitely.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe Barta wrote:

Hey Joe Just so you can put that sentence into the context it was used I included that part of the speech for ya. Make little more sense eh!! Your cite is in the 3rd para
Let me talk about one other program -- and then I promise to answer questions -- something that you've been reading about in the news lately. It's what I would call a terrorist surveillance program. After the enemy attacked us, and after I realized that we were not protected by oceans, I asked people that work for you -- work for me, how best can we use information to protect the American people? You might remember there was hijackers here that had made calls outside the country to somebody else, prior to the September the 11th attacks. And I said, is there anything more we can do within the law, within the Constitution, to protect the American people. And they came back with a program, designed a program that I want to describe to you. And I want people here to clearly understand why I made the decision I made.
First, I made the decision to do the following things because there's an enemy that still wants to harm the American people. What I'm talking about is the intercept of certain communications emanating between somebody inside the United States and outside the United States; and one of the numbers would be reasonably suspected to be an al Qaeda link or affiliate. In other words, we have ways to determine whether or not someone can be an al Qaeda affiliate or al Qaeda. And if they're making a phone call in the United States, it seems like to me we want to know why.
This is a -- I repeat to you, even though you hear words, "domestic spying," these are not phone calls within the United States. It's a phone call of an al Qaeda, known al Qaeda suspect, making a phone call into the United States. I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had all kinds of lawyers review the process. We briefed members of the United States Congress, one of whom was Senator Pat Roberts, about this program. You know, it's amazing, when people say to me, well, he was just breaking the law -- if I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress? (Laughter and applause.)
Federal courts have consistently ruled that a President has authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance against our enemies. Predecessors of mine have used that same constitutional authority. Recently there was a Supreme Court case called the Hamdi case. It ruled the authorization for the use of military force passed by the Congress in 2001 -- in other words, Congress passed this piece of legislation. And the Court ruled, the Supreme Court ruled that it gave the President additional authority to use what it called "the fundamental incidents of waging war" against al Qaeda.
I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell you what it means. It means Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American people, but it didn't prescribe the tactics. It's an -- you've got the power to protect us, but we're not going to tell you how. And one of the ways to protect the American people is to understand the intentions of the enemy. I told you it's a different kind of war with a different kind of enemy. If they're making phone calls into the United States, we need to know why -- to protect you. (Applause.)
And that's the world in which you live. I view it as a chance for an historic opportunity to make this place better for your children and your grandchildren -- "this place" being the world. I'm just confident that if we don't lose our will, and stay strong, and that as that liberty advances, people may look back at this lecture and other speeches by people who profess the same devotion to freedom that I've had, and say, you know, maybe they're just right. Maybe America, that was founded on natural rights of men and women is a ticket for peace. Maybe that kind of view -- that every person matters, that there are such things as human dignity and the basic freedoms that we feel, that becomes a huge catalyst for change for the better.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No, it made sense all by itself. Just thought the way he worded it was kind of amusing.
Joe Barta
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe Barta wrote:

OK Joe just try to keep it real. Your OP said he says the dumbest things and others might be amused
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What a dastardly trick. Posting facts. Putting information in context. How dare you! Have you no compassion or feeling for those who hate Bush? I implore you to stop confusing the Bush bashers with facts when their heads are made up.
John -- You end up as you deserve. In old age you must put up with the face, the friends, the health and the children you have earned.

Deleted text goes here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Flatley wrote:

Oh settle down. I'm not a Bush basher, I'm not a Bush hater, I can help myself to the facts thank you and it's not necessary to see the quote in context. I have no quarrel with WHAT was said... just in the WAY it was said. Am I the only one that thought it was funny? Geez.
Joe Barta
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

;~) This is how Texans talk. Proud to be a 51 year old Texan fer 51 years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A few things that you may want to look into:
United States Constitution: Fourth Amendment.
"Writs Of Assistance".
"...unreasonable searches and seizures..."
"Entick v. Carrington".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is that the same thing as "plantation talk?"
--
"New Wave" Dave In Houston
>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Trying to triple Keeter's commentary?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita (in snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com) said:
| On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:20:51 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| || | | Trying to triple Keeter's commentary?
Well, I was going to respond - then realized that I didn't have anything good to say about the person being discussed; and so decided to say nothing as loudly as I could. You did notice that my comment was all-caps, yes?
Perhaps I should provide some background for my original commentary: I've posted the text of "The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America" at http://www.iedu.com/mrd/07041776.html ; and the text of the "Constitution of the United States" at http://www.iedu.com/mrd/Constitution.html .
I would guess that you, and most of the US citizens (and many of the others) posting/reading here are at least familiar with both documents - the second paragraph of the first document as a statement of the most fundamental principles required for the existence of a benevolent state - and the entire second document an attempt to define a government constrained to operate according to the principles set forth in the first.
My perception is that the object of discussion has no appreciation of or for those principles; and that he chafes at the constraints implicit in the Constitution.
He has said in several news conferences that promised in his Oath of Office to protect the people of the United States (sorry, no cites) but anyone who's interested in seeing the oath he _actually_ took can find it at the end of Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution.
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Joe Barta" wrote in message

A troll by another other name ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

Yeah, I suppose it casts a bit of a troll-like shadow. But it wasn't meant that way. I did have a feeling the post might generate some strong opinions on the matter, but I figured it was all good.
Interestingly, this group is frequented by some pretty bright and knowlegable characters that have some very interesting things to say on off topic matters. Of course, such a post would be more "appropriate" for any one of a dozen other groups, but unfortunately those groups are mostly populated by a various assortment of juvenile delinquents and head cases, most of whose ramblings aren't worth a warm bucket of spit.
At least here I can learn a little about woodworking AND hear a little intelligent OT chatter.
Joe Barta
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Joe Barta" wrote in message

That's good ... or would be if it weren't for:

So I was right the first time.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Lets do a bit of analysis. Joe, exercising his "rights" gives an opinion, and then someone for whom the information was not intended jumps on his case calling him a troll, which is the newsgroup equivalent of a subversive.
Wouldn't it be better to have a broader base of information upon which to make such a decision? Of course, you might have to read a bit more.
Wonder if the civil liberties types, after overhearing a conversation in the next booth at the coffee shop about killing grandma, would sacrifice the old gal on principle rather than use the information so infamously gathered to prevent the assassination.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"George" wrote in message

case
A post with private "information", "not intended" for everyone, on Usenet? You know better, George. Forego the "analysis" and look up the Internet definition of "troll".

An act with which you obviously haven't bothered.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.