| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
The Prez fires back
Here’s the text of his 10:30 press conference from this morning. (Thanks for the link, Bak)
I’ve not had a chance to read anything outside of the news reports of it, and from the sounds of things, he is (thankfully) not backing down on criticizing those who leaked to the press the gov’t monitoring of international communications made from calls here in the US post- 9-11.
Check out this ridiculous question from one of the reporters in attendance (emphasis added):
I wonder if you can tell us today, sir, what, if any, limits you believe there are or should be on the powers of a President during a war, at wartime? And if the global war on terror is going to last for decades, as has been forecast, does that mean that we’re going to see, therefore, a more or less permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive in American society?
See, that’s how our beloved liberal media frames the debate. THEY decide what’s “checked” or “unchecked” power and frame their questions accordingly, and you watch – it doesn’t matter that the President said he disagreed with the assertion that the power was “unchecked” (nor does it matter to the press that the power actually IS checked) – they’ll continue to run with the “unchecked” assertion anyway.
On a related note, here’s the transcript of Bush’s speech he made last night from the Oval Office, in which he implored the American people not to give up on the mission in Iraq and vowed once again not to leave until the mission is completed.
I like this more aggressive side of the President. I hope he keeps it up, instead of backing down everytime a Democrat or the liberal media (but I repeat myself) starts whining about how the President either ‘isn’t doing enough’ or is ‘overdoing it’ in his attempts to make this country safer.
Related Toldjah So posts:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
40 Responses to “The Prez fires back”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
That’s bullsh*t Sister Toldjah. The good news over here in the states is that we have civil libierties. George Orwell’s 1984 ain’t going to happen in my america. Bush 43 can huff,puff and try to re-write the constituation but they will fail…….. long live the USA.
Tommy, you are so sadly misinformed and mistaken. You take a headline from ScamAmerica and think that Bush is scrapping the Constitution. Last I looked, it was a number of Supreme Court justices who weren’t paying attention to the Constitution, substituting their personal agenda and legal nostrums from foreign countries for Constitutional law.
The Democrats are Orwellian in their constant rewriting of the Dictionary and of History. Next you’ll tell us is that Bubba didn’t stain Monica’s dress.
I loved the President’s response to that question:
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I disagree with your assertion of “unchecked power.”
Q Well —
THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, please. There is the check of people being sworn to uphold the law, for starters. There is oversight. We’re talking to Congress all the time, and on this program, to suggest there’s unchecked power is not listening to what I’m telling you. I’m telling you, we have briefed the United States Congress on this program a dozen times.
The president during this press conference told the press that the White House has breifed the Congress a dozen times a BUNCH of times. For the Congress to now act outraged due to a NY Times article is now laughable and suggests the Congress folks have amnesia.
Tommy, where were your civil liberties lost? Let’s hear it? Maybe you can educate me…. Pretend I’m clueless. Where have you Tommy lost civil liberties?
“We’re talking to Congress all the time, and on this program, to suggest there’s unchecked power is not listening to what I’m telling you. I’m telling you, we have briefed the United States Congress on this program a dozen times.”
Why does he always sound like a teenager and you just don’t get it DAD!
Well bush 43 would have more street cred in my my book if he wasn’t talking trash and balking against basic human rights that the left has to break his balls and argue with the freakin Texan tooth and nail just to get him to do the right thing for once in his sorry-ass life.
Because he’s asked the same question over and over? I’d put it this way. He sounds like a father responding to a teenager asking the sme irrelevant question over and over.
Is there something in the statement of the president’s that you are asserting is false andrew?
tommy, all liberals do is talk. They stand for nothing but empty words and paying their bills from someone else’s hard work.
You can’t hack being treated as you are asking to be treated.
“Is there something in the statement of the president’s that you are asserting is false andrew?”
I think its misleading when he says his power is checked because congress is briefed. Even if congress is briefed with all the details, there is nothing they can do to stop the president from stepping beyond the bounds of FISA. If he did, however, use the FISA court, then his power would be ‘checked’ by both the laws that congress has written and the judiciary that makes up the FISA court.
Tommy lied when he wrote, “he wasn’t talking trash and balking against basic human rights
Inaccurate accusations. Is this the never ending pattern of the left? Where was Bush “talking trash” or “balking against basic human rights”?
I’d say the liberal’s pattern is torture. Where’s my basic human rights?
Andrew, you make the assumption that Bush couldn’t have followed the law because Bush got his way. That is stupid, myopic, and just shows how much of a blind Bush hater you are.
Andrew wrote, “I think its misleading when he says his power is checked because congress is briefed.
He also said he’s sworn to uphold the law. He hasn’t broken a law. For you to assert so is a “lie”. Sorry. just is.
Andew lied again when he wrote, “Even if congress is briefed with all the details, there is nothing they can do to stop the president from stepping beyond the bounds of FISA.
They can impeach and then try him. They wouldn’t be successful though because he hasn’t broken the law.
Step away from the talking point accusations….
Listening to Michael Medved right now. He’s on fire. “We are in a war” says Michael within the first few sentences of his program. He asked for callers who don’t believe we are in a war. Andrew, I suggest you call.
Your rights Andrew wouldn’t be violated. Are you part of Al Qaida? No. These wiretappings were only done on Al Qaida.. not you talking to your grandma. Read the transcript.
“In mid-2004, concerns about the program expressed by national security officials, government lawyers and a judge prompted the Bush administration to suspend elements of the program and revamp it.
For the first time, the Justice Department audited the N.S.A. program, several officials said. And to provide more guidance, the Justice Department and the agency expanded and refined a checklist to follow in deciding whether probable cause existed to start monitoring someone’s communications, several officials said.
A complaint from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the federal judge who oversees the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, helped spur the suspension, officials said. The judge questioned whether information obtained under the N.S.A. program was being improperly used as the basis for F.I.S.A. wiretap warrant requests from the Justice Department, according to senior government officials.”
That sure sounds like his power was being checked to me.
My favorite, though, is the Democrats reaction to it, especially those who were briefed about the program. It seems to be a “Yes, we knew about it, but that doesn’t make the President right” WHAT?!?! Can they take no responsibility for ANY of THEIR actions??
No personal responsibility NC Cop…
“He also said he’s sworn to uphold the law.”
I thikn you’re misunderstanding the idea of a ‘check’
“For you to assert so is a “lie”. Sorry. just is.”
The problem is that there is no doubt he went beyond FISA. He’s claiming the got the general authorization from congress. Which isn’t quite ‘just is.’
“They can impeach and then try him.”
Not with republicans controlling the house.
‘That sure sounds like his power was being checked to me.’
Going through FISA was good. The problem is the stuff that didn’t go through FISA.
“t seems to be a “Yes, we knew about it, but that doesn’t make the President right” WHAT?!?! Can they take no responsibility for ANY of THEIR actions??”
What actions could they take once they knew? Pelosi objected to the president. She did it in secret, but she did.
I’ll be interested to find out how Alito feels about Americans spying on other Americans. Today bush said “I am not a Dictator”, Nixon once said “I am not a crook”. Two peas in a pod only Nixon was smarter. Peace
I’ll be interested in seeing how Democrats get themselves out of the weak on national security box they’ve put themselves in. Republicans are smarter. Peace (will only be present through strength).
Andrew wrote “Not with republicans controlling the house.”
It looks like you don’t realize how many republicans it takes to get a motion on the floor. Only a very few.
If someone broke the law there would be plenty of people not wanting to cover up a crime Andrew. You are asserting things you don’t know of what you speak of.
Just keep on your mantra of Demcrats good Republicans bad and you’ll get far…
Said Andrew “What actions could they take once they knew? Pelosi objected to the president. She did it in secret, but she did. ”
Andrew, I have been around the block a time or 2 to know when someone is stretching the truth just a bit. Pelosi, IMO, came out and said that today to cover her a@@. Pelosi has never kept her contempt for this POTUS private on any matter. Why would she start now? Could it be that she believed in what he was doing until the press leaked it?
When the next attack on the US occurs, the MSM and Dems will still be congratulating themselves on the low level of peril to the homeland. Midway followed Pearl Harbor but the old version of the NSA provided a warning.
Let’s all just resolve now to tell the enemy all of our secrets about what we are doing to detect them. Geez.
“If someone broke the law there would be plenty of people not wanting to cover up a crime Andrew. You are asserting things you don’t know of what you speak of.”
The FISA Act is pretty clear, and we have gonzales saying they were acting under the generic authority of the authorization for use of force. And also saying they couldn’t get from congress the specific authority to do what they did.
That takes a not very ’strict constructionist’ attitude towards that general authorization.
Isn’t that the truth Bak! Cause we know we all need an open and honest debate
Can you explain why AlQaeda isn’t being more forthcoming with their info though
“What actions could they take once they knew? Pelosi objected to the president. She did it in secret, but she did.”
Wow, that’s classic!! So Pelosi is in front of every news camera in the country bashing Bush about every decision he makes, but on THIS issue, which Democrats see as a violation of the Constitution, illegal, immoral, and a power grab by the President, she decidies to quietly object and go on her way. Makes perfect sense!!!!!!!!
Brilliant!!!!!!!!
“So Pelosi is in front of every news camera in the country bashing Bush about every decision he makes, but on THIS issue, which Democrats see as a violation of the Constitution, illegal, immoral, and a power grab by the President, she decidies to quietly object and go on her way. Makes perfect sense!!!!!!!!”
Remember how the program was secret? Of course she’s going to quietly object.
“Brilliant!!!!!!!!”
Someone certainly is.
Until she sees that she can gain traction NC….
They think they have an issue… They are only cementing their inability to have a Democrat president for the next decade. They aren’t serious about national security. They are only serious about bashing Bush.
Which is funny because to conservatives we don’t care if Bush is in office or not. We care that any of the goons that are making noise now don’t get in because they’ve demonstrated whose side they are on…. That’s the way a lot of folks see it you liberals…. That’s a perspective that you better understand…
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”– James Madison
Pelosi and the other few in Congress who had been “briefed” are constrained by law not to disclose the information. President Bush is already calling the release of this information a “a shameful act” – what kind of firestorm – legal and political – would he and his camp followers have started if a Senator stood up in Congress and publicly condemned what the President was doing?
Don’t try to hang this on the Dems. Once again this President has shown us the “Arrogance of Power” this administraion will be known for in history. NO respect for our constitution or our laws. Like the little boy who cried “Wolf” too many times, hopefully the people and congress will soon wise up to his constant “we’re at war” refrain/excuse. Did I hear anyone say “impeachment”?
Ken G
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Osama’s winning. He’s already scared us so much we’re turning on ourselves. He has stampeded us into tearing up and trampling asunder the very thing that for two-hundred years has made this country special: Freedom of thought and conscience. The security of knowing that we can speak our minds and not have to worry about a knock at the door in the middle of the night; disappearing without any explanation; being thrown into an unknown dungeon somewhere with no benefit of trial or hearing.
We know it’s already happening; we just don’t know if it’s quietly happening here, in the U.S., to U.S. citizens. I have no doubt that this President already feels he has justification and is not far removed from exercising all of the above right here in America – if indeed he hasn’t done so already. We really have no way of knowing; it’s already coming out that in his “briefings” he hasn’t been telling the Congressional oversight committe the whole story of what he’s been up to. What’s being left out? How are we to know?
Are all of you who support what the President is doing ready to start learning what it’s like to live in a police state? Hope so, because you’re telling him it’s ok with you…
Ken G
Am I the only one who has grown a bit more than annoyed at the Old Media’s credentialed “journalists” (read Hacks) who attend White House Press Conferences and Briefings, only to ask the same question over and over?
Until they can get a fragment of an answer that can be trimmed erroniously into a Headline…
Just curious.
Jack.
Listening to Michael Medved right now.
Let’s all just resolve now to tell the enemy all of our secrets about what we are doing to detect them.
Yeah, those Quaker peace activists were a real “threat” to national security.
I guess the real question with this domestic spying issue is where do you draw the line? It seems to have been determined to be illegal for the most part and, moreover, completely unecessary (despite all the excuses about needing a more expeditious process.)
Ken, a police state is what you have when you have the PC Police like you running things. You govern on your feelings, not facts. You didn’t read anything but the NYTimes headlines to come to your wrong conclusions.
Red, determined by who? A media determined to bring down a Republican President? A bunch of Democrat hacks who are trying to surrender in the face of victory?
What the Democrats are doing is good for Republicans in the short run but bad for America in the long run. We do need two parties–but not one that gets things done and protects America and one that only prevents things from getting done and blocks or complains about whatever President Bush does to protect America. If the way the Democrats are acting now is what their base wants, their base is going to get steadily smaller and loonier.