America... Spying on Americans

31 Similarities Between Hitler and President Bush

When a President tells you it would be easier if it were a dictatorship...

How is it you can believe the president is serious about a joking cooment like this, but refuse to believe him when he makes a serious comment about who is being wiretapped and why.

It seems to be a flaw in the liberal mind. It certainly explains a lot though.

McGentrix wrote:

Is it more idiotic to believe comments made in jest?

When someone tells you what they are, no matter the delivery method, believe them.

When a boyfriend jokingly says "I'm a cheapskate," he's telling you what he is. Don't marry him and then wonder why he won't spend a penny to take you out to dinner any more.

When a woman tells you "I'm a real B!tch sometimes," believe her. Even if she says it in retreat from a confrontation to try to smooth things over, she is telling you who she is.

When a President tells you it would be easier if it were a dictatorship...

Is it more idiotic to believe comments made in jest?

McGentrix wrote:

Is it more idiotic to believe comments made in jest?

"The truth is often said in jest."

DrewDad wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Is it more idiotic to believe comments made in jest?

"The truth is often said in jest."

So are jokes.

31 Similarities Between Hitler and President Bush

Well, I would just like it to be noted that I have never compared Bush to Hitler...

October 11, 2001

Lieutenant General Michael V. Hayden, USAF
Director
National Security Agency
Fort George G. Mead, Maryland 20755
Washington, D.C. 20340-1001

Dear General Hayden:

During your appearance before the committee on October 1, you indicated that you had been operating since the September 11 attacks with an expansive view of your authorities with respect to the conduct of electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and related statutes, orders, regulations, and guidelines. You seemed to be inviting expressions of concern from us, if there were any, and, after the briefing was over and I had a chance to reflect on what you said, I instructed staff to get more information on this matter for me. For several reasons, including what I consider to be an overly broad interpretation of President Bush's directive of October 5 on sharing with Congress "classified or sensitive law enforcement information" it has not been possible to get answers to my questions.

Without those answers, the concerns I have about what you said on the 1st can not be resolved, and I wanted to bring them to your attention directly. You indicated that you were treating as a matter of first impression, [redacted ] being of foreign intelligence interest. As a result, you were forwarding the intercepts, and any information [redacted ] without first receiving a request for that identifying information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Although I may be persuaded by the strength of your analysis [redacted ] I believe you have a much more difficult case to make [redacted ] Therefore, I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting. Until I understand better the legal analysis regarding the sufficiency of the authority which underlies your decision on the appropriate way to proceed on this matter, I will continue to be concerned.

Sincerely,

NANCY PELOSI
Ranking Democrat

How is it you can believe the president is serious about a joking cooment like this, but refuse to believe him when he makes a serious comment about who is being wiretapped and why.

It seems to be a flaw in the liberal mind. It certainly explains a lot though.

In order to overturn the system established by FISA in 1978, and bring the NSA back into domestic wiretaps without court approval, administration lawyers have issued a series of secret legal opinions, similar to those written in support of the harsh interrogation tactics used on detainees captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush administration legal opinions that supported the use of harsh interrogation techniques on al Qaeda detainees have, of course, proven controversial, drawing complaints from allies, objections from civil liberties advocates, and court challenges. The administration faced its first serious legal rebuke in June 2004 when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the administration's effort to hold "enemy combatants" without a hearing. The court warned that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president." The same could be said about the Program. Yet the NSA domestic spying operation has remained secret, and so the legal opinions and other documents related to the NSA program are still classified. The administration apparently has several legal opinions to support the NSA operation, written by lawyers at the White House, the CIA, the NSA, and the Justice Department. They all rely heavily on a broad interpretation of Article Two of the Constitution, which grants power to the president as commander in chief of the armed forces. Relying largely on those constitutional powers, Congress passed a resolution just days after the September 11 attacks granting the president the authority to wage a global war on terrorism, and Bush administration lawyers later decided that the war resolution provided the legal basis they needed to support the NSA operation to eavesdrop on American citizens.