Bush Alters Radio Address For Democrats

WASHINGTON (CNN) — One sentence in President Bush’s weekly radio address was deleted overnight after some Democrats privately complained that it was overly partisan on the explosive subject of reforming the administration’s warrantless wiretap program, White House officials confirmed Saturday.

In the initial radio address, which was taped Friday, Bush charged that the country is less safe because of Democratic delays in passing legislation that would reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

“Every day that Congress puts off these reforms increases the danger to our nation,” the president originally said.

White House officials say that line of audio was deleted after Democrats saw a transcript of the remarks distributed Friday afternoon.

The extremely rare change to a taped address comes at the end of a week in which the White House faced a blizzard of questions about whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales committed perjury in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the surveillance program.

White House officials have vehemently denied that Gonzales gave misleading testimony, and say Bush still wants his Attorney General to stay on the job.

A senior White House official suggested Saturday that the administration wanted to turn the temperature down on all the controversy and get reform legislation passed.

“We’ve been making good progress with the Democrats on this legislation,” a senior White House official told CNN.

“Some of them felt the sentence sounded too political. Our sole objective has been to get the law changed — not to seek partisan advantage. So we were happy to make the requested change, particularly in light of Democrats’ expressed determination to make necessary changes in law.”

CNN White House Correspondent Ed Henry


  1. daredevil92103

    “Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither”
    -ben Franklin

  2. illa morales

    EXXON MOBIL’S INCOME FALLS TO $10.26 BILLION! Tears Flow At Headquarters

    Please join all compassionate people in conveying our sincerest best wishes to Exxon Mobil during this very trying and difficult time. The repercussions of their second quarter net income falling to $10.26 billion dollars are unimaginable. Two large bouquet of flowers said to be from Dick Cheney and GWB were delivered to company headquarters and rumors are circulating that all employee yacht payments and country club memberships have been suspended. A fund is being established for their executives; please stay tuned for further details.

  3. illa morales

    Bush Asserts a King’s Prerogative
    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

    Wednesday 25 July 2007

    In theory, President Bush is sworn to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. In reality, he has treated federal law as a menu from which he picks and chooses those laws he likes, while ignoring those that do not suit his taste.

    That royalist attitude may soon inspire a constitutional confrontation unrivaled in U.S. history.

    At the moment, the president’s penchant for ignoring laws he finds inconvenient is best displayed in the standoff with Congress over subpoenas. Congress has demanded the sworn testimony of White House officials as part of an investigation into the Justice Department; the White House is refusing to allow that testimony, citing executive privilege.

    In itself, that conflict is hardly unusual; it continues a traditional contest of wills between presidents and Congress that goes back to the earliest days of the Republic. The conflict is so standard that federal law lays out a clear process for resolving it. If witnesses refuse to honor congressional subpoenas and are found in contempt, the matter is referred to the U.S. attorney from Washington, D.C., “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.”

    The wording of that law doesn’t give the U.S. attorney any leeway. It doesn’t say that he or she “can” or “may” bring it before the grand jury. It says he or she “shall” bring the matter to the grand jury, so the courts can resolve the conflict between the other two branches of government.

    Bush, however, claims the right to ignore that law. He not only refuses to allow his aides to testify, he refuses to allow the U.S. attorney to refer the matter to the grand jury, as the law says he must. In essence, Bush is denying Congress access to the courts as an impartial arbiter of their dispute.

    Now, in most other eras in American history, that would be the making of a serious confrontation between the congressional and executive branches. But in the Bush administration, it’s a minor prelude to what may be coming next.

    For months now, Congress has been debating ways to force a change of course in Iraq. Under the Constitution, the president is commander- in-chief, but Congress has the power of the purse – the right to fund or refuse to fund government activities. That means that the most obvious means of forcing a change of policy in Iraq is through the appropriations process. Congress could chose to fund military operations in Iraq only until a certain date, or only under certain conditions.

    The Bush administration argues strongly against taking that course, as is its right. However, the White House also claims that any provision that sets a date certain for withdrawal would “infring[e] on the president’s constitutional authority as commander-in-chief.” In other words, the White House believes that any law telling the president what to do in Iraq would be unconstitutional, and thus could be ignored.

    The administration has already refused to abide by numerous other provisions of law that it considered an unconstitutional assault on its powers, with the law regarding congressional subpoenas only the most recent. And within the administration, that a hard-nosed approach toward executive power has been championed most strongly by Vice President Dick Cheney.

    Cheney did not come to that position lately. He expressed similar opinions 20 years ago, when he was still a member of Congress from Wyoming and vice chairman of a committee investigating the Iran-Contra scandal.

    The heart of that scandal involved the Boland Amendment, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. That provision – a clear case of Congress exercising its power of the purse – barred the U.S. government from sending financial or military aid to the Contra guerrillas, who were trying to overthrow the Communist government of Nicaragua. When a cabal inside the Reagan White House arranged secret means to fund the Contras anyway, in clear violation of federal law, a scandal was born.

    Most congressmen, Republican and Democratic alike, believed the White House had broken the law by funding the Contras. Cheney did not. In a minority committee report, he and others argued that the right to conduct foreign policy belongs exclusively to the president, and the Constitution “does not permit Congress to pass a law usurping presidential power.”

    “Congressional actions to limit the president in this area therefore should be reviewed with a considerable degree of skepticism,” the 1987 report argued. “If they interfere with core presidential foreign policy functions, they should be struck down.”

    “The power of the purse … is not and was never intended to be a license for Congress to usurp presidential powers and functions,” the report concluded.

    That attitude clearly animates the Bush administration in its dealings with Congress on lesser issues, and if applied to Iraq could have enormous ramifications. It provides the philosophical foundation – a foundation poured, set and cured over the previous six years – for the administration to continue trying to fight in Iraq no matter what restrictions Congress may choose to enact. And that would set the stage for a whole range of nightmares, up to and including impeachment.


    Jay Bookman, for the editorial board.

  4. illa morales

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet
    Wednesday, July 25, 2007

    Loose Change producer and Iraq and Afghanistan veteran Korey Rowe has been arrested and handed over to military officials without bail for allegedly “deserting the Army”.

    According to a report in the New York Daily Star, Rowe was arrested on Monday night at a county Route 47 residence in Oneonta.
    Rowe was arrested on a “military warrant” that Devlin said was brought to the attention of deputies by the Oneonta Police Department, who received information from a source outside of that department.

    Rowe was living at the Route 47 home, Devlin said.

    City police officials who were able to comment on the case were unavailable Tuesday night.

    After deputies received the information from Oneonta police, they reached out to the Army, and officials from Fort Knox faxed a copy of the warrant, deputies said.
    Arrests and court martials for deserters are incredibly rare and this appears to be an obvious case of political persecution as the Loose Change crew prepare the cinematic release of the final version of their popular documentary.

    Rowe enlisted in the Army in August 2001 and left in June 2005. He has been out of the Army for over two years. He was previously arrested under similar circumstances but was immediately released.

    Alex Jones interviewed Rowe at a conference in Chicago last year (watch above), during which he exposed how CNN and the military would stage photo-ops to make it appear as if Al-Qaeda members were being killed in Afghanistan, along with a host of other cover-ups and atrocities.

    We will continue to update this story with new developments as they come in.

  5. illa morales

    Don’t miss Arundhati Roy…love her!!

  6. Prison Planet has a new article based on a conversation with Korey Rowe stating:

    “According to Rowe, Army officials at Fort Drum, where Rowe was held for a day and a half, seemed uninterested in the case until their phone lines were incinerated by a barrage of calls from listeners who responded to our call to action yesterday morning.

    It was at that point that officials checked into Rowe’s record and immediately confirmed that he had received an honorable discharge and told Rowe he was free to leave, and even offered to pay his way to get back to New York. They were baffled as to why a warrant would be out for his arrest when he had clearly been given permission to leave the Army in 2005.”

    The rest of the article is at http://prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/260707dischargepapers.htm

  7. illa morales

    US government funds social network snooping


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: