Posted on 07/01/2013 8:30:29 AM PDT by USS Johnston
Former President George W. Bush has weighed in on the Edward Snowden saga, telling CNN the former National Security Agency contractor threatened the security of U.S. citizens by leaking information about the surveillance program his administration created after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.
"I know he damaged the country," Bush said in an interview from Zambia, where he and his wife, Laura, are on a humanitarian mission. "The Obama administration will deal with it. I think he damaged the security of the country."
Like President Barack Obama, Bush deflected criticism of the spy program.
"I put the program in place to protect the country, and one of the certainties is civil liberties were guaranteed," Bush said in the interview...
Bush also refused to criticize his successor. "It doesn't do any good," he said. "It's a hard job. He has plenty on his agenda and it's difficult. [A] former president doesn't need to make it harder."
The White House said Obama will meet Bush on Tuesday in Tanzania...
He added: "You know, ultimately history will judge the decisions that I made. And I won't be around because it's going to take a while for the objective historians to show up. So I'm pretty comfortable with it. I did what I did."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
That’s the problem in this faltering nation today.
You’ve joined our president in an attempt to muzzle dissent and ridicule those who believe that an examination of facts will lead us to the evil regime that’s destroying America today.
It is you, Driftless (appropriate) who need to get as far above yourself that you can see how the present dilemma was abetted by previous administrations.
There is an unholy love affair amongst those presidents still living and laughing together and up their sleeves at what has happened here.
America has become so weakened that it will be an easy task to fold it in with the New World Order.
Yeah, that G.W.Bush was just a liberal in disguise. Let’s attack him for not being a real conservative. Let’s eat everybody who is not the “perfect” conservative. My own observation is you’re never going to have the perfect conservative. Reagan was not the perfect conservative. Palin would not be either, although I’d crawl through barbed wire to vote for her. But after a while, people like you would find fault with her, and then you’d be attacking her. Because she wasn’t the perfect conservative. Which doesn’t exist.
Well, who amongst us is a real Conservative?
We need to discover that person and get a third party formed. Those phonies who pat each other on the back should be buried under a Conservative Party landslide.
This is the only hope of an embattled decent, polite society.
Now, back to GWB, who you believed was attacked for not being a ‘real conservative’. He told us what he was ‘a compassionate conservative’. His father told us what he was all about when he openly suggested that a ‘new world order’ should be our goal.
Unfortunately these two represented the difference between dying a slow death or a more rapid demise. I, along with millions of others, donated money to both of them. It only bought us a few years even if the economic turmoil and the intervention in world affairs continued unabated.
Since the politicians and judges have made a dog’s dinner out of our Constitution perhaps America needs a Franco or Pinochet.
Now go away, sir. Far, far away.
You and the rest of the lot that bear the name "Bush". Just as far away from my G.O.P. as possible.
You asked me a question that is a classic version of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" fallacy.
I pointed that fallacy out.
I'm sorry that I presumed you were familiar with these fundamental principles of argumentation.
An America where thieves who sell military secrets to foreign powers are recognized as traitors rather than fawned over as heroes.
It sounds as though your saying, “Yawn, the governments gonna collect what they collect, gonna snoop...get over it.”
There are two totally separate issues here, connected to be sure.
First, did Snowden commit treason or was his actions constitutional provided the government violated the constitution?
Second, if the government setup a secret shadow government to spy and collect data on law abiding citizens from tweets to financial records w/o probable cause...are they violating the constitution and denying Americans their liberties guaranteed under the constitution?
I submit to you that if the government is indeed violating the constitution and Snowden witnessed multiple violations, this would make him a whistleblower, not a traitor.
If Snowden traveled out of the country and gave classified intelligence to a foreign country, this would be a treasonous act.
For me, it all comes down to the ol cliche, well Uncle Sugar, if you didn't do anything wrong, what’cha got to hide? They do it to us, so what's good for the goose...
Wrong question to ask. Don’t you realize that sometimes wives pull those false allegation stunts when they want to win custody of the kids amidst bitter divorce proceedings? That’s a weird question to ask to win an argument. What does accusing someone of wifebeating have to do with defending or arguing against the merits of Snowden’s decision to flee to Russia? I’m aware wifebeating is rampant in Russia, but I don’t think Snowden has been accussed of wife beating either. And even if you’re argument has nothing to do with this particular deed, it doesn’t make sense. It reminds me of the time I debated a Libertarian about government financing of public education. The Libertarrian kept talking about going to Wal-Mart to buy oranges, I responded by saying we are debating the issue of public education not how to shop at Wal-Mart, so please stay on topic. The Libertarian was stumped and had little else to say for the rest of the debate.
Lets not forget that Jorge continued to damage Americas security by not shutting down the border before or after 9/11.Screw him.
He is trying to cloud the issue by pointing out the NSA's domestic surveillance capabilities - capabilities which have been known for quite some time.
The facts remain: there are legal ways to gather personal information about people (in fact it is a multibillion dollar business) and the NSA can gather quite a bit of information using completely legal means. Self-appointed 4th Amendment experts wish this were not so, but it is the case.
The OP is absolutely right that the precedent for this was set with The Patriot Act which had bipartisan support under the previous administration. Isn't it remarkable how "bipartisan" all sides become when it comes to matters of expanding state power at the expense of liberty and privacy.
People who deserve to be dismissed as "so-called conservatives" aren't the enemies of the surveillance state. It is the advocates of Big Brother such as yourself, those who prefer promises of "security" to liberty.
Again, governments do not have "rights" - they have powers.
And we are not discussing warrantless wiretaps. We are discussing entities like phone companies and search engines sharing data they have legally collected with the NSA.
It is the advocates of Big Brother such as yourself, those who prefer promises of "security" to liberty.
Personal attacks are not a substitute for rational discourse.
And dismissing your ideological opponents as "so-called conservatives" isn't a personal attack?
I submit to you that if the government is indeed violating the constitution and Snowden witnessed multiple violations, this would make him a whistleblower, not a traitor.
BINGO.
More than that, the Kenyan and his Texan "predecessor", AND several past and present members of Congress are and have been complicit and guilty of treason, violating the US Constitution at will, AND violating their respective oath of office.
THIS IS THE CRUX AND IRREFUTABLE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.
Q: When do We The People get to redress these violations and how?
Ever-expanding powers, one might add, facilitated by those on the Left who demand cradle to grave social services in the name of "social justice", and those on the Right who want a police state in the name of "security."
Defending unconstitutional violations of the US Constitution by a government which has demonstrated NO respect of the USCON nor WE The People is not a substitute for any "patriotism" by ANY definition.
You Sir, are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the US Constitution, and the wrong side of the principles from which this Republic was Founded -- that is BY the People, and FOR the People. Secret Stasi have no place in our Constitution.
Amen!
The "simplicity" of the matter has already been distilled for your edification:
1) The government has NO authority to trash the 4th Amendment.
2) "Treason" is being committed by those who routinely violate their oath...TO the US Constitution.
3) Snowden exposed unconstitutional surveillance and illegal police state, activities that could well be considered treason against We The People, and treachery against We The People without justification -- ALL of which are committed and executed without the authority and consent OF We The People.
To whom do YOU swear alliance and loyalty? To Men OR the US Constitution?
While supposedly conducting a so-called "War on Terror."
The damage to US security has now come to fruition as 50 million Mexicans thru "chain immigration" are about destroy the Republic every way imaginable via "Amnesty."
And neither you nor Snowden have made a coherent argument that it has.
2) "Treason" is being committed by those who routinely violate their oath...TO the US Constitution.
So we return to the arguments of "two wrongs make a right" and "but Mom, he's doing it too so you have to let me." Pretty weak stuff.
So he says. Why it's unconstitutional is something that has yet to be explained.
Fact: Snowden is a traitor because he has openly supplied foreign powers with US military secrets that he stole.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.