Dec 19 2005

The President’s Press Conference

Published by at 12:15 pm under 2006 Elections,All General Discussions,FISA-NSA

There is not much to say on this really. Bush is knocking this one out of the ballpark. The press tried the angle we are spying on Americans, and Bush pointed out that we are connecting known Al Qaeda agents overseas to their contacts here in the US. Just as we should have done prior to 9-11. There is no getting around this argument. But the press tried.

They asked why not follow the FISA process? Bush said we do follow the FISA process, but he will not let a process get in the way of monitoring a possible attack. Just like the Gorelick Wall was stupid, myopic process, being tied completely to a process when Al Qaeda is contacting someone here in the US is not going to fly with the public. But it does expose the left who feel process is paramount to freedom.

Bush slammed them down with more points as well. Beyond following FISA as much as possible, and only going to this extraordinary path when it becomes necessary, Bush reminded them it is a legal process and is reviewed by people who have taken an oath to uphold the laws. The people reviewing this process are concerned about civil liberties, and Congress has been briefed. As he pointed out to one fool, this is not ‘unchecked power’. So the left has been challenged to come up with a case in point where the power has been misused.

Bush did let slip one thing, this process has apparently not been used with internal communications within the US (where both parties are in the US). Now this doesn’t include conference calls and multi-address emails, but it is clear they have not seen the need to use this for activities solely in the US.

When asked why they felt it OK to US FISA inside the borders and not outside, Bush pointed out they would use it inside the US if conditions warrented. He reiterrated is position he is doing his constitutional duty to protect us by establishing a process that is reviewed constantly and has many eyes on it (this is not a one person order).

Bush is just knocking the liberal media senseless. He keeps reminding these people he has answered the details, the process is legal, and he will continue to use it.

He does expect there is a leak investigation and this is excellent news. Maybe Fitzgerald can learn how it is really done.

We will not be leaving Iraq either, for obvious reasons. He pounded the left on this. We will stay until it is stable and it will be a while before the government is established (2/3rd votes required for leadership positions).

On the Patriot Act, he pounded Reid for bragging about killing the Patriot Act which tore down the idiotic processes that allowed 9-11 in the first place. Sen Reid took a major hit. Just killing the dems about not connecting dots pre 9-11, but now killing the Patriot Act. He called on Senators from NY and LA to explain how these cities are safer without the Patriot Act (and the NSA program).

Michelle Malkin has a round up here.

Ended at 11:20 during the Q&A period. Will update if necessary.


Bush keeps circling back to Hamdi and Midhar who were in San Diego early and coordinating with the 9-11 terrorists constantly – and how this activity would have been detected under the NSA program under question and stopped 9-11.

Bush is hammering home how the exposure of this program has now been crippled by the news about the methods of monitoring. He goes back to the problem with Bin Laden’s sat-phone when it was leaked in the press that was how he was being tracked. Bin Laden read this and adjusted his behavior and became impossible to track. This was in the mid 1990’s during the WTC 1 trial.


The question on polls came up and Bush simply answered his job is to lead this country and protect it. He went back to the political games on the Patriot Act and simply reminds the country this is not in the best interest of the country. He recalls all the other successes (e.g., budgets, etc) as if to point out better targets for playing politics.

And that is the end. Smashing!


Don’t miss Lori Byrd’s live blogging here. Bulldog at Ankle Biting Pundits did a great blow-by-blow here.

21 responses so far

21 Responses to “The President’s Press Conference”

  1. Snapple says:

    I posted about this too, but then you updated about it here. This is what I said:

    I am watching Bush discuss pre-war intelligence on Iraq. I wish he would speak out more.

    Some turkey just asked how long we would have “unchecked power of the president.”

    Bush really let him have it.

    He is just telling it like it is.

    He is explaining that the terrorists were dangerous before we went into Iraq. They didn’t become dangerous because we went into Iraq.

    He is saying that people complained because the government didn’t “connect the dots” before 9-11. And he is saying that the Patriot Act lets them “connect the dots.”

    He is doing a great job. He should do this all the time.

  2. Told You So….

    Now when the President of the United States “presumes the process had started”, you can bet ur ass it’s well underway!

    Let the “Frog Marching” begin!

  3. This was the best press conference of his presidency. Amazing. Do we all have to go on vacation or can we keep doing this?

  4. smh10 says:

    This was absolutely the President at his best. Perhaps he has finally had enough of the constant badgering and mud slinging.
    I truly hope this is just the beginning of so many big things to come.

  5. Iowa Voice says:

    Bush Press Conference

    I just finished watching the press conference, and then I channel surfed to see what the talking heads were saying. Not surpisingly, each network had a different take on things, and for the most part seemed to ignore some things he said, and in other c…

  6. And Then There Was a Press Conference…

    President Bush is holding a press conference as a write this.  Apparently the White House is embracing a new strategy …

  7. MerryJ1 says:

    Looks like our Prez is stoking a nice little flame with one hand, and dragging some deserving feet toward it with the other.

    I had to grit my teeth when some of the reporters’ questions simply had to be deliberately obtuse. These people can’t possibly be that … (“Dense? Love to.”)

    But a NY Times reporter became straight man for a couple of Bush zingers. This President is pretty good most of the time, but he’s absolutely great when he gets ticked.

  8. Larwyn says:

    “He called on Senators from NY and LA to explain how these cities are safer without the Patriot Act (and the NSA program).”

    They don’t want the Patriot Act and the NSA program but they
    want all the HOMELAND SECURITY $$$$$$$ they can get their
    greedy hands on for what?
    Jobs programs and pork projects IF terrorism is not a “real”
    threat to them. Not wanting means to pre empt attacks – means
    they must not be afraid of attacks.



    How’s that?

  9. LuckyBogey says:

    Well, I see it did not take long for Reuters to write a comment:

    …. With a slip of the tongue, U.S. President George W. Bush briefly turned Osama bin Laden into Saddam Hussein on Monday….The Bush administration sought to convince Americans before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein’s government had links to bin Laden’s al Qaeda. No such links have been proven….

    I have lost all respect for Reuters and AP! Do they have no shame?

  10. Versus the Press

    Silvio Berlusconi (at “Porta a Porta”) and George W. Bush (at the year-end news conference) hit hard against the Italian and the American press. They both seemed to us in a very good shape, even if they are two leaders on the edge of sunset. As the p…

  11. Snapple says:


  12. The President’s Monday Morning Press Conference — Welcome back Dubyah!!!

    … Welcome back Dubyah!!! The only line I didn’t hear that I wish I had is “We don’t tell the whole damned Congress every move we make because we know a lot of ’em can’t keep a secret.” …

  13. The President’s Press Conference

    All I have to say his Bush opened up a can of whoop ass on the reporters and the left today

  14. […] Sister Toldjah Ankle Biting Pundits Michelle Malkin Joe’s Dartblog Blogs For Bush Instapundit The Political Teen Small Town Veteran Mike’s America The Strata-Sphere The Political Pitbull Kokonut Pundits Macsmind The World According To Carl Robert Mcnickle Donkey Stomp Ace of Spades HQ Technorati Tags: Bush Iraq Politics Press Conference War On Terror Filed in: The Iraqi War, War On Terror, Politics | No Comments » […]

  15. smh10 says:

    I saw the same post at Drudge earlier and returned to see if he had updated and the post was removed. Makes you wonder just Drudge being Drudge or a problem at NYT.

  16. Snapple says:

    Maybe the White House explained the facts of life to the NYT. Who can tell.

    Here is the link to that law.

    I wonder if some in the Congress are worried they might show up on Candid Camera, and that’s why they are carrying on.

    I don’t know if what Bush did was legal or not; but I know he is trying to protect me from terrorists, and the NYT is trying to take down Bush.

    The NYT better watch it. People are going to get mad at them.

  17. Snapple says:


    The Drudge notice is up there now.

  18. Snapple says:

    Here is the article. The NYT is evidently getting a lot of this from the Colorado ACLU. I suspect that has something to do with that Professor Ward Churchill. His lawyer David Lane is a big Colorado ACLU lawyer, I think. Remember I said that he came to Cynthia McKinney’s conference on Able Danger???

    Stay tuned. This is it.


    F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show
    WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 – Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show.

    F.B.I. officials said Monday that their investigators had no interest in monitoring political or social activities and that any investigations that touched on advocacy groups were driven by evidence of criminal or violent activity at public protests and in other settings.

    The documents, provided to The New York Times over the past week, came as part of a series of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. For more than a year, the A.C.L.U. has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored.

    The F.B.I. had previously turned over a small number of documents on antiwar groups, showing the agency’s interest in investigating possible anarchist or violent links in connection with antiwar protests and demonstrations in advance of the 2004 political conventions. And earlier this month, the A.C.L.U.’s Colorado chapter released similar documents involving, among other things, people protesting logging practices at a lumber industry gathering in 2002.

    The latest batch of documents, parts of which the A.C.L.U. plans to release publicly on Tuesday, totals more than 2,300 pages and centers on references in internal files to a handful of groups, including PETA, the environmental group Greenpeace and the Catholic Workers group, which promotes antipoverty efforts and social causes.

    A.C.L.U officials said the latest batch of documents released by the F.B.I. indicated the agency’s interest in a broader array of activist and protest groups than they had previously thought. In light of other recent disclosures about domestic surveillance activities by the National Security Agency and military intelligence units, the A.C.L.U. said the documents reflected a pattern of overreaching by the Bush administration.

    “It’s clear that this administration has engaged every possible agency, from the Pentagon to N.S.A. to the F.B.I., to engage in spying on Americans,” said Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the A.C.L.U.

  19. Snapple says:

    Pay special attention to this:

    “F.B.I. officials said Monday that their investigators…..were driven by evidence of criminal or violent activity at public protests and in other settings.”

    I believe the FBI.

    The terrorists are using these groups as their cover. Now they will pretend they are being targeted for their views instead of for their crimes.

    Maybe if the NYT hired some detectives and infiltrated some of these groups, they’d see what was going on.

    Instead the NYT is an ACLU mouthpiece. A terrorist mouthpiece.

  20. Snapple says:

    Some know-it-all at Newsweek has a story called “Bush’s Snoopgate.”
    He says the source of Risen’s NYT expose was some “patriot” inside the government.

    “The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times’ eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper’s editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn’t just out of concern about national security.”

    “We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator.”

    “I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting,
    but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.”

    “The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference.”

    “Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.”

    “This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.”

    “the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason—and less out of genuine concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.”