Bush Caught in LIE: Says He WOULD Wiretap Domestically?

[Dr. Jones]

During Bush's January 26 news conference, a reporter (I believe it was Martha Radditz of ABC) caught Bush in a serious lie regarding his authorization for the NSA to spy on American citizens here in the U.S. without court warrants. Nevermind that Bush can wiretap IMMEDIATELY and THEN go to the FISA court up to 72 hours later to get the legal authorization to do so, AND nevermind that FISA was amended several times after 9/11 to meet current threats. So Bush's two main arguments - that 1) He was FORCED to wiretap without court warrants because it takes too long to get a court order, and 2) FISA is from 1978 and is therefore obsolete - are NULL and VOID.

QUESTION: Members of your administration have said that the secret eavesdropping program might have prevented the September 11th attacks. But the people who hijacked the planes on September 11th had been in this country for years having domestic phone calls and e- mails.

So how specifically can you say that?

BUSH: Well, Michael Hayden said that because he believes that, had we had the capacity to listen to the phone calls from those from San Diego elsewhere, we might have gotten information necessary to prevent the attack.

BUSH: And that's what he was referring to.

QUESTION: But they were domestic calls...

BUSH: No, domestic -- outside -- we will not listen inside this country. It is a call from Al Qaida or Qaida affiliates either from inside the country and out or outside the country in, but not domestically.

See the entire transcript at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600853.html

Classic Bush obfuscation!

The reporter's point is this. Bush makes the claim that 9/11 could have been prevented IF we were wiretapping before that time. But since the hijackers had already been in our country for a number of years, that would mean Bush would have had to wiretap DOMESTICALLY to catch the guys. So what is Bush saying here? His next statement may give us the answer.

I could not find this on any transcript, but I did make a note of it during this press conference. Perhaps some of you remember it as well. After Bush's reply to the reporter's question, the reporter asked, "So if you needed to wiretap domestically, would you do so?"

"Yes, I most certainly would, we would not hesitate to do so," Bush replied.

That's right...Bush just admitted he would spy domestically without court warrants if need be! Actually he probably already does. So why was there no outrage over this? And why has every transcript I've read had Bush's admission SCRUBBED??

If anyone has videotapes or audiotapes of this press conference, I would be grateful for your input here.

[johnaries]

1. One thing I still can't wrap my brain around,

Bush asked Congress to change FISA laws, and they granted his every wish. And he STILL ignored FISA? The only answer I can think of is that he isn't spying on who he says he's spying on. That's the only thing that makes any sense at all.

[Dr. Jones]

2. yep.

Imagine how much power one could wield if one can tap the phones of every member of Congress and every reporter in this country. Not much of a stretch to believe that this is Bush's true intention.

[Dr. Jones]

3. Anybody?

Does anyone want to comment on this? I found it very important that Bush would say he WOULD DEFINITELY spy domestically within the U.S. if he felt it necessary.

Again, if anyone has a video or audio of Bush saying this I would be grateful...

[slaveplanet]

4. are you sure he said it?

lots of people tivo now, and something as serious as this would probably make crooks and liars, or dkos...someone in the blogosphere would surely note it.
you may want to e-mail C&L

[Dr. Jones]

5. Thanks...

Maybe I'll do that.

Yes, I KNOW I heard this. I was shocked! I took notes on it and everything...my problem is that I cannot cooberate it with a link. It happened pretty fast, and the comment by the reporter was a follow-up question, sort of off-the-cuff. Maybe that's why it didn't get into any transcripts.

To me it was overt, that's why I'm hoping somebody here at DU either remembers it or has audio/video of it.

Hmph.