The New York Times"

[shavonfan]

"NY Times Lies to Undermine War on Terror,
Bush Didn't "Secretly" Allow Spying on Anyone"

What has been reported today by the New York Times is outrageous. It is false. It is misleading. It is deceitful -- and it is part of an ongoing effort within our country at the highest levels of the Democratic Party and the American media to destroy our ability to wage war against this enemy. I don't know if you've seen it. You probably have heard about it. Here's the headline of the story: "Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in the United States After 9/11, Officials Say." Bush secretly lifted some limits on spying in the United States after 9/11? The story is about how the National Security Agency was secretly told by George W. Bush to go ahead and start spying on domestic Americans as they made international phone calls and sent and received international e-mails. The only problem with the story is that Bush didn't do anything "secretly." There were all kinds of people in on this, including members of Congress and the special secret court that gets involved in these kinds of things. If you read very carefully, there's a couple of key paragraphs in this story. Here's one of them -- and, by the way, let me say this.

By the way, there are a lot of details about this. The writer of the story is James Risen. James Risen has a book coming out! The New York Times in this story claims that the White House asked them not to print this and that they held off for a year. They held off for a year out of concerns for the White House. That's absolute bunk. It is BS. They've been sitting on this story for a year. James Risen, the author of the story, has a book coming out. This is part of his book. The book is published by Simon & Schuster, the same editor that Richard Clarke's books have been published by and edited, Hillary's publisher -- and of course there will be a 60 Minutes appearance by Mr. Risen when his book comes out because Viacom owns both CBS and Simon & Schuster. So we've got the same synergy that we had during the 9/11 Commission hearings and that aftermath. So they haven't been sitting on this because of the White House. They've been sitting on it to promo a book. They've been sitting on it for a year. Why does it come out today? Because they want to cover up the great news that happened in Iraq yesterday. They want this and the Patriot Act and McCain's torture bill to be the subjects on the Sunday shows.

They're trying to switch the template here and take the great news happening in Iraq off everybody's mind, off the front page, and instead, focus efforts on the secret dealings of George W. Bush. Well, try this paragraph: "According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said." Well, how in the world can this be secret if Rockefeller knew about it and if the special court and the judge presiding over it -- it's the FISA court, by the way -- how can it possibly have been secret? It wasn't secret. The lead of this story starts this way: "Months after the September 11th attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the US to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying."


Bush did no such thing. He did nothing secretly. Rockefeller knew about it. The special judge and all kinds of members of Congress knew about it. Try this paragraph: "The officials said the administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the foreign intelligence surveillance court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues." How in the name of heaven can this be secret when the -- and this is from the story. The story headlined "Bush secretly lifted," and then the opening sentence, "President Bush secretly authorized," and then later on in this story, we learn that Rockefeller knew about it! That means a lot of members of Congress did, and that officials said the administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program. There was nothing secret about this. It was after 9/11, for crying out loud. I am telling you there is an organized effort within our country at the highest levels of the Democratic Party and their media accomplices to destroy our ability to wage war against this enemy. Can I tell you how this story would have been written, had this happened during the Clinton administration, assuming it would have been written at all?

Let me tell you how it would have been written: "Months after the September 11th attacks, the government authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the US to search for evidence of terrorist activity in order to ensure that another 9/11 attack doesn't happen," thereby approving the whole thing because the key words would have been "the government authorized the National Security Agency." In this case, the government didn't do diddlysquat, see? According to the New York Times George Bush -- the evil George Bush – secretly, secretly, called the NSA and said, "I want you to start spying on Americans. They're the real problem here." This is so bogus; this is so outrageous; it is so irresponsible, and it is so indicative of the absolute fear that the left finds itself in today. They cannot succeed and triumph in an up-and-up, open-and-honest debate about anything. They have to deceive. They have to lie. They have to twist. They have to turn. They can't even stand the good news that came out of Iraq yesterday. No, no, no, no, no! Not at all!

They have to try to cover that up and make it sound like this country, this administration, is spying on you. You're the enemy. Then we got McCain's idiotic, foolish, stupid, dangerous torture bill to deal with, and that will be on the news all weekend long. I'm telling you, folks, this is getting serious. It's not just so much that the left imploding, which is a sure sign of what this is, but the bottom line is this is an all-out effort to tie our hands in dealing with this enemy. It is exactly what this is. I read this last night and I saw it being blurbed all over everywhere and I said, "Ah, jeez! Would people read the story. Stop just reading the headlines and read the story!" (interruption). Well, I know your pot (interruption). Did your pot boil when you (interruption). Livid at what, though? Snerdley's (interruption). Well, I'm going to get to that in a second.

I'm going to get to that. Snerdley is upset about the people that leaked this stuff, and you know something? This is putting the silliness and the absolute irrelevance and the childishness of this Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson thing in perspective. If we need a special counsel, if we need an independent prosecutor, we need to find out who in the hell it is that is leaking this rot-gut lying, stinking garbage to the newspaper of the Democrat National Committee, the New York bleeping Times -- and we need to find out where they are and we need to find out who they are and we need to stop this. The CIA needs to call for one of these referrals to the justice department, and we need to find out who's leaking automatic this rot-gut, folks. The Valerie Plame stuff is still in the minds of the media and of the Democrats much bigger than any of this. I have to take a quick break but I want to expand on all of the incestuous, synergistic, maniacal ties that exist between this story, major publishing, a major network, CBS, and the Democratic Party.

You notice also in this New York Times story, "Bush secretly lifted some limits on spying," and I want to make another point about this. Bush did not "secretly" do anything. All kinds of people knew about it, as this story later on in its content alludes to and mentions. Bush alerted Congressional leaders. Jay Rockefeller knew about it. The special court, the FISA court, the judge there knew. But we're not told who the judge is, and there's no reporting at all on when Rockefeller knew about this or what other members of the Senate knew about it, or who the judge was. There's no curiosity at all about the involvement of others in this program on the part of Mr. Risen at the New York Times. In fact, they gloss over all of that in order to protect those people, to protect members of Congress, to protect Rockefeller, and focus all attention on Bush -- and I can't help but remind you again of this lead. Just to show you the difference and to illustrate it, this lead starts this way: "Months after the September 11th attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop."


Had this been written during the Clinton administration, there's some question in my mind whether the story would have been written at all, but had it been, it would have been written in a way as to applaud the Clinton administration. It would have been written this way: "Months after..." "Only months" -- to imply quickness and concern. "Only months after the September 11th attacks, the government secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on potential terror suspects in America." That's how it would have been written, to support the Clinton administration. It wouldn't have said "the Clinton administration," wouldn't have said Bill Clinton personally. It would have said "the government," because the government is good! The government is the be-all-end-all. Government is daddy and mommy and nanny and everybody. The government is Santa Claus. Well, you can't say Santa Claus. They don't like Christmas. So that's how it would have been written, had it been written at all -- and today we had this little conference at the White House. They had McCain up there, President of the Media, and Vice President of the Media Lindsey Graham. All these senators and they were asked about this and McCain's on there, "Well, you know, I'm very troubled by this."

Let me tell you what's going to happen here. Bush has led the nation into a great geopolitical victory, and right now John McCain is getting all the attention. The "torture" issue is the top issue. Bush is attacked with this phony story about secretly spying on Americans. The book that is tied to this, James Risen, the same guy that wrote the story has got a book coming out. This is just part of a book. They've been holding it for a year. Why publish it today? They say in the story, "The government asked us to hold it." BS! This is the New York Times. It just recently ran a fake story about forged ballots getting into Iraq prior to the election. It's the same New York Times of Jayson Blair and Maureen Dowd, the same New York Times of Howell Raines, the New York Times of "Pinch" Sulzberger. The New York Times that ran a bogus year-old story on the Monday prior to the election, a week before the election last year, in order to indicate that Bush was incompetent in disarming terrorists in Iraq. So we find out this book has the same editor as Richard Clarke, somebody at Simon & Schuster which is part of Viacom, which is part of CBS.

So we know what's coming. We have the usual route. It appears in the New York Times, and then there will be a 60 Minutes interview, and a big focus on the book when it comes out -- and then Congress will pretend that they didn't know anything about it. Then they will demand investigations led by, no doubt, the President of the Media, Senator McCain, even though the story makes it perfectly clear that members of Congress were told by President Bush and the administration about the program. This whole thing is cast as a story with grave, grave concerns about civil liberties and privacy and that's not at all what this story is. This is an assassination. This is a journalistic assassination, the latest of many attempts against George W. Bush and his efforts to win this war against this current enemy. The reference to Rockefeller and the FISA judge and court makes clear that the other branches of the government were in on this. What we need to know is a lot of things that the Times story conceals, that the Times story doesn't say. The Times story doesn't say that this is a chapter in a book.

The Times story doesn't admit that it's a year old. The Times story doesn't say that all this is, is an attempt to promote a book. We need to know what kind of book deal Mr. Risen has. We'd like to know how much money he's been paid to write the book. We hear that about every other author, what's the advance? Will he be investigated the way other reporters have for receiving leaks of national security information? Was Senator Rockefeller told, and when, and what was he told, and what were the other senators told, and who were they? Who leaked the information presented to this secret FISA court? Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general, should take this opportunity right now. It's time to fight back against these people instead of bowing over and letting McCain have what he wants and so forth. It's time to fight back on this stuff. Gonzales needs to take this opportunity to expand the jurisdiction of Patrick Fitzgerald, the independent counsel. He's investigating CIA leaks. Well, hey, there's a whole boatload of them that have unfolded here that make the Valerie Plame leak look like Romper Room in a sandbox!


So Fitzgerald's jurisdiction needs to be expanded to include this leak, and all the other leaks. The secret prisons, you name it. He is, after all, "a prosecutor's prosecutor." He's beloved by the media -- when he's chasing Rove, anyway, when he's chasing Libby. Well, let him chase some legitimate leaks! Let him chase some legitimate, damaging-to-our-national security leaks. Whatever happened with Valerie Plame there was not a national security concern there. Our national security, folks, has become completely politicized, completely politicized now by Democrats, by Senator McCain, and a handful of gadfly Republicans, too. From the Patriot Act to dumbing down the definitions of "torture" to open borders that allow anybody to pile into this country at any time they want. It's a disgrace what's going on. Any Republican who thinks that he's going to win an election to any office on this agenda is sadly mistaken. If there's any of you Republicans out there thinking that you are going to win a national election or a big election by saying you were for sabotaging the Patriot Act, that you were for McCain's new definitions of torture, that you were for all of these things, open borders that allow any number of people to come into this country, if you think that's a winning agenda, then you go ahead and run on it and you see what's going to happen to you.

The Democrats are voting and the New York Times is publishing purely to embarrass Bush, and their purpose is to attempt to derail everything that he is doing, even as commander-in-chief. In my mind, they are loathsome. They are beneath contempt. But the Republicans who help them out are much worse, because we know who the Democrats are. We expect this from them. We expect the Democrats to be lower than low. When they look up, they see the gutter. We know what they're all about now. They've made it clear. We once had higher expectations of the press, but we no longer do. We know who they are, but the Republicans are another story. These gadfly Republicans signing on to all this -- and in some cases, like Senator McCain, leading all this -- need to be sent a message. Look what's happened this week. The greatest election we've had in Iraq after three in a row that have been successful, a stupendous story, and in the midst of all of it Congress passes a Bill of Rights for al-Qaeda: the McCain anti-torture bill, a Bill of Rights for al-Qaeda. Now they're weakening Patriot Act protections, and now we come out with a story that's designed to totally eliminate our ability and destroy our ability to conduct war and national defense against this enemy.

(Part 1 of 2)

[shavonfan]

The Senate Democrats today attempted to filibuster an extension of the Patriot Act. It's sort of a complicated thing. There was an offer to extend the current Patriot Act by three months, since they couldn't come to an agreement on reauthorizing it. That was rejected. There was no filibuster. They didn't succeed with that. The vote was 52 to something to defeat the revision to the Patriot Act, but here's the bottom line. I mean, this is what you need to know. The bottom line is that as of December 31st, the Gorelick wall comes back up as strong as ever. If nothing is done -- and it doesn't look like it will be -- the Patriot Act is dead. The Gorelick wall will come right back up and we're back to where we were before 9/11, and Durbin and Schumer in citing the reason for their votes on the floor of the Senate cited this bogus New York Times story today as the reason why.

So we have a multiple-purpose story. Destroy Bush, destroy our ability to wage war against this enemy, and destroy the Patriot Act -- and all of it comes under the umbrella of simply destroying this administration and anything it's done and anything it stands for, and this is what the Democrats think is going to launch them back to power. They have another think coming. All this is doing is making George W. Bush look all the more heroic. It is making it obvious to the people paying attention just who he's up against. He's got foreign enemies and he's got domestic enemies, and the domestic enemies have ties to the foreign enemies. They are invested in our defeat. I know this may sound a little bit harsh to some of you, but they have invested in our defeat. They've been out there for the last three weeks saying, "We can't win. Bring the troops home. It's hopeless. Bush has screwed it up." Don't try to tell me that they're not invested in defeat.


So if they're invested in defeat, and so are the terrorists -- the foreign enemies we have -- then there is a congruence there. There is an alignment. I'm not saying that there is an association. I'm saying that there is an alignment on policy and position. The Democrats have chosen sides and it's not their president. The Democrats have chosen sides and it's not their country, and that's where we are today after this successful election yesterday. There's also something out there called the Barrett Report, folks. We've talked to you about the Barrett Report. Independent counsel that started with Henry Cisneros and it blossomed and it apparently contains bombshell after bombshell after bombshell about the Clinton administration's abuse of the IRS in going after political enemies and other things and we know that the release of the Barrett report's being covered up by Senate Democrats, led by Byron Dorgan and others -- and as I say, the information that has been gleaned in whatever ways possible includes details about the Clinton administration's abuse of the IRS.

Now, I don't recall once seeing the New York Times express any interest in the Barrett report and I don't recall much of the rest of the media doing so either. Doesn't this involve civil liberties? If an administration is using the IRS to abuse citizens, isn't that the abuse of civil liberties? You're going to sit out there and you're going to be all worried your phone calls and your e-mails that are sent and received internationally are being inspected by the National Security Agency, or monitored and you're going to be all worried about that. "I can't have that!" But you don't care the IRS might be abusing you or an administration might be using it to target its political enemies? That's a civil rights issue as well, but seems like the people who profess to be so concerned about all this have little or no concern about it in truth. We know how the New York Times acts. Patriotic senators could not break the filibuster of the watered down version of the Patriot Act. It's going to lapse on December 31st at midnight, which means we have to hold accountable every senator who voted against allowing an up or down vote on the act, because the Jamie Gorelick wall is back now in full force.

This New York Times story, I'm not through with this, because I really believe that Gonzales needs to expand Pat Fitzgerald's jurisdiction to include this leak and find out what has gone on. We have a completely politicized national security now. The Democrats, voting purely to embarrass Bush, are trying to derail everything that he's doing. Republicans -- some Republicans -- are helping out. We have Congress passing the Bill of Rights for al-Qaeda in McCain's torture bill, now weakening the Patriot Act and now putting out this bogus story that led, in part, to this disastrous Patriot Act vote today, but a bogus story! By the way, the James Risen book is due in three months. I just found out the Risen book is due to hit in three months. So this is all part of a synergy here. Of course, the news today is all McCain all the time. Not the election, not Bush's tremendous leadership, but McCain. McCain saving the day here; McCain saving the day there. Speaking of that, there's a story here in the Los Angeles Times: "McCain Held All The Cards so Bush Folded." This is about the torture bill.

McCain held all the cards so Bush folded, and the theory behind this is: Well, McCain had the sense to attach this to the defense appropriations bill, and Bush couldn't afford to veto that because that would be de-funding the troops at the end of this year. The troops wouldn't have had any money, and the story says -- and this is a quote from Marshall Whitman, who is a former McCain aide, who is now "a senior fellow at the centrist Democrat Leadership Council." (Choking back laughter) There's nothing centrist about a Democrat today! I don't care who you're talking about. Maybe Lieberman now and then but the rest of them, forget that. But anyway, Marshall Whitman used to work for McCain, and is now at the Democrat Leadership Council and here's what he said: "When John McCain feels passionately about an issue, there are very few forces, if any, that can stop him, including the White House." Well, I'll tell you how he could have been stopped. The president could have stopped him by saying this:


"Congress today did something I never thought it would do. It attached an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that weakens our ability to interrogate al-Qaeda terrorists and stop attacks on our homeland, and they told me to either sign this bill with this provision or our armed forces on the battlefield will go without funding. This is utterly irresponsible. I cannot, as president, allow this kind of recklessness, so I will veto this bill and ask Congress to come back and fund our military." Do it and let the chips fall. Put the pressure on these clowns in Congress to come back and fund the military. Don't fall for this kind of stuff. It's absolutely absurd. There was a way to stop this. It's called a veto. My buddy, Andy McCarthy, National Review Online today, wait 'til you hear this. "Politicizing defense appropriations? Why, that's disgusting. Why did Senator McCain have so much leverage as he imposed on the president his al-Qaeda Bill of Rights? Because he succeeded in attaching it to the defense appropriations bill, meaning a veto would have slashed provisions for our troops in wartime.

"Well, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who chairs the appropriations committee, obviously sees this as a pretty effective tactic. So Stevens is now attaching to the defense appropriations bill his own amendment to allow oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. What does McCain think of this? Well, from today's Washington Post: 'Senator McCain sharply criticized Stevens' effort as "disgusting," but how he would vote on such a bill, McCain said, "That's the dilemma. I'd have to look at the whole bill. I think it's disgraceful I have to be put in that position,"' unquote. It's disgraceful. Poor little John McCain has to be put in this position when that is precisely what he did to George W. Bush. He attached his own personal selfish little amendment, redefining torture to include practically any of you who have gone through a security line and waited for an airplane for over an hour at an airport anywhere in this country. Standing around, being sniffed by dogs. This is how McCain defines torture."

Max Boot had a great piece on this in the LA Times this week and I'm going to get to that in mere moments to put this McCain torture bill, the al-Qaeda Bill of Rights, in perspective. So Ted Stevens sees what McCain did. "Hey, I want drilling in my state. I'm going to attach that to this bill. The president just showed me he isn't going to veto this." McCain says, "The position this has put me in, it's disgraceful! It's disgraceful to be put in this position. I -- I -- I don't know what I'm going to do!" It's Twilight Zone time. I mean, it's utterly Twilight Zone time. It's insane asylum time. We are commenting here on people that are nuts or so egomaniacal that they do not realize how absolutely confoundingly selfish and egotistical they sound. It's got to be one or the other.

I erred. The Risen book was turned in three months ago. It's even better than this. The Risen book comes out in 10 days. This bogus, phony, fraudulent, plastic banana good-time rock n' roller, dope-smoking FM type of a story is a precursor for the guy's book that comes out in 10 days, ladies and gentlemen. Shortly after that, we will have the interview on 60 Minutes, and then all the synergy will be -- and then Congress will demand hearings. Congress has already cited this bogus story as a reason for voting against the Patriot Act today, and now Arlen Specter has called for a probe of spying by the National Security Agency. Well, you better go talk to your buddy Jay Rockefeller and you better go talk to the FISA judge, whoever the hell he is, and the court and find out everybody else who knew about this. The real thing you should do, Senator Specter, is find out who the hell is leaking all of this. Now, it's completely predictable, completely contemptible. Specter is swallowing it all up, reacting to the liberal media, doesn't get any facts, can't resist having his name in print.


Press Secretary McClellan is being grilled on the New York Times story today. The entire election yesterday is already old news. Replaced with the media's priorities and it's time to be blunt. If we are hit again, we know now who to hold responsible, folks. The senators who voted against reauthorizing the Patriot Act. The senators who voted to dumb down the definition of torture. We know who you are and you are on record, and we are going to never let anybody forget who you are. This absolute joke of a torture bill, the al-Qaeda Bill of Rights, now this Patriot Act snafu today. Wait 'til you hear. There are 16 provisions, essentially, of the Patriot Act that expire December 31st because they were not renewed today, and when I have time in the next hour I'm going to go through these 16, or some of them. It's welcome back Jamie Gorelick's wall, essentially. So apparently we have reached a point in our country where the routine and continual violation of our national security secrets by the New York Times Corporation, is acceptable to Americans in the middle of a war.

Is that what we're to assume here? Are we to assume here that Americans in the middle of a war are fully in compliance and accepting of the routine and continual violation of our national security secrets by the New York Times organization, corporate and occasionally the Washington Post? Is that where we are? I ask this because, my friends, every damned one of these leaks is intended to harm our ability to win. When is the last time you heard of a positive leak? When's the last time you read of or heard a leak that was positive about our effort, about our troops, about our ongoing effort to defeat this enemy? I ask you, is the New York Times really any different from Al-Jazeera at this point? Are they? It's not a propaganda outlet for the enemy, is it? It certainly seems like it is to me. New York Times may as well be called the DNC Times. It has become a propaganda outlet for the enemy. You know, we need to build another prison. I don't think we have enough prisons.

I know the Reverend Jackson and all these people say we got too many prisons. We got too many people in them. We got too many CIA prisons. We need to shut these prisons down, shut down Abu Ghraib, shut down Club G'itmo. We need to build another prison and this one doesn't need to be secret, and you know who needs to go in it? Every damned one of the leakers who reveal real national security secrets. I don't care if they are members of Congress. I don't care if they are CIA officials. I don't care if they are officials of the justice department. I don't care if they are members of the administration who have an ax to grind for some stupid reason. We need a prison and we need to name it the serial leakers prison and detention center. We will put the serial leakers who are systematically undermining our war effort in this prison after they are duly convicted, after the ongoing investigation by the prosecutor's prosecutor, Pat Fitzgerald, who is investigating CIA leaks.

It's time for another prison, and it's time to demand a federal investigation into all of these leaks now. This is the last straw. This is the bottom line, because this is bogus to begin with. This is a fraudulent story. It's deceitful. It is not published honestly. It's not described honestly. The author is not portrayed honestly. Why would it be? It's the New York Times. The precedent has been set to look into CIA leaks. We have it. It's out there. It's ongoing. The phony little Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson case, a couple of irrelevant schlubs when it comes to all of this stuff that really matters. The Plame leak, cocktail circuit entertainment for the media -- these leaks endanger the country and the New York Times cannot set national security policy for this country. They must not be allowed to do so, and they only are allowed to do so with the incessant disgruntled members of Congress, Justice, CIA, State Department, wherever the hell these people are. The New York Times is a willing receptacle for them. The New York Times is trying to set national security policy and it's time to find out who is leaking to them, and build that prison and put these people in it.
(Part 2 of 2)

[shavonfan]

"Bush Says NSA Surveillance Necessary, Legal"


By TERENCE HUNT
AP White House Correspondent
Dec 19 11:56 AM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON - President Bush, brushing aside bipartisan criticism in Congress, said Monday he approved spying on suspected terrorists without court orders because it was "a necessary part of my job to protect" Americans from attack. The president said he would continue the program "for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens," and added it included safeguards to protect civil liberties.

Bush bristled at a year-end news conference when asked whether there are any limits on presidential power in wartime.

"I just described limits on this particular program, and that's what's important for the American people to understand," Bush said.

Raising his voice, Bush challenged Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton _ without naming them _ to allow a final vote on legislation renewing the anti-terror Patriot Act. "I want senators from New York or Los Angeles or Las Vegas to go home and explain why these cities are safer" without the extension, he said.

Reid represents Nevada; Clinton is a New York senator, and both helped block passage of the legislation in the Senate last week.

"In a war on terror we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment," Bush said.

The legislation has cleared the House but Senate Democrats have blocked final passage and its prospects are uncertain in the final days of the congressional session.

On another issue, Bush acknowledged that a pre-war failure of American intelligence _ claiming that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction _ has complicated the United States' ability to confront other potential emerging threats such as Iran.

"Where it is going to be most difficult to make the case is in the public arena," Bush said. "People will say, if we're trying to make the case on Iran, `Well, if the intelligence failed in Iraq, therefore, how can we trust the intelligence on Iran?'"

The news conference ran just shy of an hour. It was the latest in a series of events _ appearances outside Washington, meetings with members of Congress and an Oval Office address on Sunday night _ in which the president has sought to quell criticism of the war in Iraq and reverse his months-long slide in the polls.

In opening news conference remarks, Bush said the warrantless spying, conducted by the National Security Agency, was an essential element in the war on terror.

"It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is discussing the enemy," he said.

The existence of the program was disclosed last week, triggering an outpouring of criticism in Congress, but an unflinching defense from Bush and senior officials of his administration.

The president spoke not long after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Congress had given Bush authority to spy on suspected terrorists in this country in legislation passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Bush and other officials have said the program involved monitoring phone calls and e-mails of individuals in this country believed to be plotting with terrorists overseas.

Normally, no wiretapping is permitted in the United States without a court warrant. But Bush said he approved the action without such orders "because it enables us to move faster and quicker. We've got to be fast on our feet.

"It is legal to do so. I swore to uphold the laws. Legal authority is derived from the Constitution," he added.

Domestic issues were scarcely mentioned during the news conference.

But at one point, Bush responded to criticism of his record on racial issues, exacerbated by the images of thousands of blacks stranded in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

"One of the most hurtful things I can hear is, you know, Bush doesn't care about African-Americans," he said. "First of all, it's not true. And secondly, I am _ I believe that _ obviously, I've got to do a better job of communicating, I guess, to certain folks." He urged Congress to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act and promised to sign it.

Despite the weighty issues Bush addressed, the president bantered with reporters at times during the news conference.

"So many questions, so little time," said one, and the president had a ready quip. "Ask a short question," he said.

But the session was dominated by national security issues _ principally the newly disclosed spying program by the NSA.

Bush emphasized that only international calls were monitored without court order _ those placed from within the United States and going overseas, or those placed from other countries to individuals living in this country.

He stressed that calls placed and received within the United States would be monitored as has long been the case, after an order is granted by a secret court under the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

One of the principal provisions of the Patriot Act permitted the government to gain warrants in cases involving investigations into suspected terrorists in the United States _ an expansion of powers previously limited to intelligence cases.

[ocelot]

I find as far as newspapers go there are ones that are left, ones that are right and ones that give attention to both sides. The important thing that we have to do is figure out which side they are coming from. I think there's alot of newspaper stories that are written for more things than just a story and this happens more when the newspapers have more stocks in books and television shows. If you want the truth you have to search for it, just because it's in a newspaper doesn't mean it's true and it doesn't mean there's no motive to the story being there.

[shavonfan]

While I completely agree with you, Leona, in that if you want the truth you have to search for it, and that just because it is in the newspaper doesn't mean it's true, I still very much hold a newspaper accountable for what it prints. Too many people expect to get the truth from reporting, whether it be TV, radio, or or the printed page. And too many people trust them to BE telling the truth. Censorship is flat out wrong, and every media outlet makes a stink out of it when it is threatened. But just as dangerous is distortions and lies in the reporting. Lying is a way of "censoring" the truth. The media needs to be exposed for their actions, just as much as they would expose anyone themselves to get a lead story. I just think it is a real shame when the media becomes the "dirty laundry" rather than finding it and reporting it.

[shavonfan]

"President Bush Is Honoring His Oath"
by David Limbaugh
Posted Dec 23, 2005

Are critics of President Bush’s electronic-surveillance practices concerned with the Constitution? Or are they just using any excuse they can find to accuse him of abusing his power?

If they are concerned with constitutional issues, why didn’t they object to President Clinton’s advocacy of warrantless searches -- even for physical searches as opposed to electronic surveillance -- for national security reasons? Other presidents have also defended the Commander in Chief’s inherent authority to conduct such searches.

But the critics are acting like the mere suggestion of a search without a warrant is tantamount to the establishment of a police state. What they don’t tell you is that the Fourth Amendment itself primarily guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Courts have always recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.

That warrants are not absolutely indispensable is also clear by the very terms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act itself, which expressly dispenses with the warrant requirement in certain defined circumstances. Some scholars maintain those exceptions apply to the president’s NSA surveillance of Al Qaeda, though the administration doesn't appear to be relying on that position. Instead, President Bush finds his authority in the Constitution and in Congress’ de facto declaration of war following 9/11.

He is not challenging the validity of FISA but merely saying it does not limit his inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief under Article II to conduct such searches, when necessary, to protect national security. Congressional action, in other words, never trumps the Constitution.

But as for statutory authority, the president relies on Congress' passing its declaration of war following 9/11 to give him the authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against the terrorist enemy. Warrantless surveillance of Al Qaeda operatives, President Bush argues, is within the meaning of "necessary and appropriate force."

Some have objected that "necessary and appropriate force" cannot be construed to permit such surveillance of the enemy. There is no specific authorization for electronic surveillance in Congress’s "declaration," and so Congress did not authorize it.

But as Attorney General Albert Gonzalez pointed out, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Hamdi case that the government could detain an American citizen captured on the battlefield for the duration of the war even though Congress’ authorization to use force never mentions the word "detention."

Detention, according to Justice O’Connor's opinion, is a fundamental incident of waging war. And the NSA electronic surveillance of Al Qaeda, argues Gonzalez, is "even more a fundamental incident of war" than detention.

While reasonable people can debate whether President Bush is correct in his interpretation of the law, it is extreme to conclude that he deliberately violated the law or usurped authority with his NSA surveillance program.

The president made clear that he established his surveillance program only after studied advice of legal counsel. He also briefed members of Congress, from both parties, at least a dozen times on the program. And when the practice was publicized through a despicable, nation-damaging leak, President Bush did not deny engaging in the practice but heartily defended it.

The president’s critics would be well advised to understand the distinction between constitutional criminal procedure and wartime powers. In the situation of the NSA surveillance program, as well as a host of other wartime activities undertaken by the government, the critics want to confer full-blown constitutional rights on our enemy. President Bush was adamant that his surveillance is not targeting U.S. citizens but only members of Al Qaeda or those affiliated with or supporting it.

Thank God we have a president who is mindful of his dual and sometimes conflicting obligations of protecting our civil liberties and our national security. The absence of attacks on our soil and the absence of major civil-rights encroachments of U.S. citizens since 9/11 show that he has negotiated a finely tuned balance between the two concerns. The president’s critics, by contrast, seem to be concerned with civil liberties -- for our wartime enemies no less -- to the exclusion of national security concerns.

Seriously: Why do they always seem inclined to sympathize with the enemy?

The president reminds us that he took an oath to protect and defend the United States, and that is precisely what he is trying to do. His critics seem determined to handcuff him from honoring his oath in every way possible while simultaneously castigating him for not doing enough.

In the end, their concern is neither civil liberties nor national security but the personal destruction of a president dedicated to defending the United States of America and her citizens. In their pursuit to recapture power, all other interests must be sacrificed.

Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Absolute Power and Persecution.

** I thought this was a very interesting editorial on this subject from a man that I respect very much. I have read his book, "Persecution" and it is a great book.**