Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, October 28, 2016

In an interview with CNN in Tanzania, where George W. Bush and his wife Laura are helping to renovate a health clinic, the former president demonstrated his characteristic certitude in defending mass surveillance by the National Security Agency (NSA) and rendering a judgment on former-NSA-contractor-turned-leaker Edward Snowden.

“I think there needs to be a balance, and as the president explained, there is a proper balance,” Bush said, defending the NSA’s activities.

“I put that program in place to protect the country,” he added. “One of the certainties was that civil liberties were guaranteed.”

Bush’s praise won’t do much to reassure those who are critical of the bulk collection of metadata that has caused an uproar since Snowden first released classified documents to The Guardian. Democrats dramatically opposed Bush’s NSA surveillance program when it was first revealed in 2005. A slight majority of the president’s party approves of the NSA’s activities now, according to a Pew poll released last month.

However, those programs were conducted without warrants and outside the jurisdiction of any court. The programs, which are broadly authorized under the PATRIOT Act, have since been covered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the telecoms that participated in the extra-legal program were granted retrospective immunity.

Congress has twice voted to keep details of these programs secret. A bipartisan group of senators has sent a letter to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper asking for details of how information is collected under the PATRIOT Act.

The former president wouldn’t go as far as his vice president Dick Cheney, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) or Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who have all called Snowden a “traitor.”

“I think he damaged the security of the country,” Bush said, when asked if he would use that word to describe the 29-year-old, who is said to have asked for asylum in Russia.

Snowden’s leaks have now documented far more than the domestic surveillance. He has released documents that reportedly suggest U.S. spy activities against Russia, China and even the European Union.

Asked about former South African president Nelson Mandela, who has been hospitalized for nearly a month, Bush said, “His legacy will last for a long time.”

The former president didn’t hedge his respect even when CNN’s Robyn Curnow pointed out that Mandela was very critical of Bush during the Iraq War.

“He wasn’t the only guy,” Bush said. “It’s OK. I made decisions that were the right decisions. History will ultimately judge. I never held someone’s opinion against him; I didn’t look at him differently because he didn’t agree with me on an issue.”

Africa is the site of the Bush administration’s most lasting success. The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief likely saved as many as five million lives.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The National Memo
  • ObozoMustGo

    Does anyone actually care what Bush thinks anymore? If he was president and some other “Snowden” blew the whistle on the NSA snooping on Americans, you hypocrites on the left would be justifiably in a non-stop collective freak out over it. But since you’re messia, Obozo, is the one that took Bush’s plan and put it on steroids, all I hear out of you is….. crickets….. crickets……. crickets…… crickets…….. For Pete’s sake, you all spazzed out endlessly because some terrorist that orchestrated 9/11 got water poured on his face. Now your own government is collecting all of YOUR communications data, and probably recording all of our conversations, and nothing is said about it except defending it by using the words of a has-been that instituted the plan that was only used against suspected terrorists, not ALL Americans. Besides, Bush is irrelevant. It’s Obozo that has turned Bush’s plans on us. Bush has been gone nearly 5 years. When are you leftist freaks going to stop buying Obozo’s lies and attempts to blame everyone else? When?????

    What a bunch of hypocrites you leftists are. Look at your own messiah’s hypocrisy found in the quote below.

    Have a nice day!

    “This Administration [the Bush Admin.] also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

    “That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

    “This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not.” – Barack Hussein Obozo, August 2007

    • Mary Ann Hoogeveen

      Please get on some meds or check into rehab,you are getting crazier by the day.

    • Chuck Lantz

      Obozo: This sentence from the article makes both the article, and you, moot:

      “However, those programs (under Bush) were conducted without warrants and outside the jurisdiction of any court.”

      In other words, the NSA surveillance then and now are administered very differently.

      • ObozoMustGo

        Chuckie, you’re a hypocrite and you know it. What Bush did was against FOREIGN communications with known or suspected terrorists or on a restricted basis AND it absolutely was warranted where applicable for domestic communications. Why on earth would you leftist freaks be pissed off about Bush targeting specific communications of specific people that are potential threats, whether domestic under warrant or foreign without warrant, and then NOT be pissed about Obozo expanding the NSA to spy on ALL Americans’ communications with blanket warrants that violate the 4th Ammendment requiring specificity in warranting??? Because you are rabid hypocrites. That’s why!!! And you are right.

        The NSA IS being administered very differently… it’s MORE NAZI-like than ever before! And it’s your boy, Obozo, doing it. Saying one thing out of one side of his mouth, and saying and doing something else out of the other side. Typical Obozo. Make a speech saying one thing, accusing the other side of doing the opposite, and behind the scenes doing exactly what he said he was against.

        Did you read Obozo’s quote I put up? I suppose not. Here it is again.

        Have a nice evening!

        “This Administration [the Bush Admin.] also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I
        will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

        “That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than
        protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

        “This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not.” – Barack Hussein Obozo, August 2007

        • AMADAL

          You are nothing more than a fornicating idiot that twists everything to fit your warped mind. Be gone, fool

    • ChristoD

      Yo Mr. Einstein, it is spelled Messiah NOT messia…..(Excuse me while I face east and say my prayers to Allah thanking him for making MR.. Obama President rather than one of your right wing whackos)…..I’m baacckk ! I am NOT a leftist, whatever the f— that is, and NO ONE has proven that ANY of this DATA being collected by MY government is being used for any reason other than tracking terrorists. So MR. OBAMA (thank you very much) is guilty of NADA, ZILCH, ZERO….nor is the IRS, Benghazi or any other ‘scandal’ a ‘scandal’. I bet that really pisses your sorry ass off eh, Mr. Einstein ?

      • ObozoMustGo

        Christo… you’re a muzzie? I knew there was something wrong with you.

        • ChristoD

          Actually Mr. Einstein, I am just a plain ole chuch going Baptist from Maine who would rather spend time with MOST Muslims than someone who is as clueless as you.

          • ObozoMustGo

            until they cut your head off and put it on youtube! hehehehehe

          • BillP

            Bozo you have called this site a sewer numerous times but you spend a inordinate amout of time on it. I guess you are true sewer rat. Have a nice 3 1/2 years

    • Sand_Cat

      Idiot. I see you’re still useless.

    • ThomasBonsell

      Can you not read, or is it understanding the information that gives you trouble?

      It has been stated over and over again then repeated some more that the “collected” metadata does NOT contain any content. That means there are no emails to read and no phone conversations to listen to. What is collected is done electronically; meaning no human eyes ever see the data, which is run through computers to detect suspicious patterns and to eliminate any communication that is totally domestic.

      Only then is communication with a foreign element considered and when all the unsuspicious contacts are eliminated does the government seek a court warrant too monitor the few dozen that remain, and they ALL contain a foreign connections and possible terrorist intentions.

      Unless you re communicating with a foreign entity that is suspected of being a hostile force, you are not important enough for NSA to look at you.

      Why is that so hard to understand?

      • idamag

        I think obozo might be a member of a subversive white supremist group.

      • Kurt CPI

        If you think honestly think computers can filter that amount of information with that kind of granularity you’ve been misled. Those filters are basically spam filters in reverse. Instead of flagging stuff that “looks like” spam for quarantine, it flags stuff that “looks like” subversion for scrutiny. The only way that can happen is to consider content – yes, by a computer until flagged – but who decides and how do you think they go about coming to a conclusion? The only way to find out what an text, email or phone call says is to read it or listen to it. Don’t be fooled.

        • ThomasBonsell

          It seems you are the one being fooled.

          Try reading carefully. Most stories on this “data mining” or “metadata” keep telling you there is NO CONTENT involved. That means no emails to read and no telephone conversations to listen to. There are only lists of calls made with only the phone numbers and time and length of calls. Nothing else.

          Since each foreign nation has a numerical prefix for its telephone system, computers can identify which numbers are foreign and which are totally domestic. Computers then concentrate on only those with a foreign component. And it looks for those with a suspicious pattern or those going to or coming from a known hot spot of terrorist activity.

          Only when those have been identified does the NSA get a court order to monitor those suspicious few. In monitoring, NSA can intercept CONTENT that can be reviewed for terrorist material. There is a proper procedure involved here and it comports precisely with the demands of the Fourth Amendment.

          • Kurt CPI

            So someone can orchestrate a terrorist plot using cell phones as long as they don’t dial any country code other than 1?

          • ThomasBonsell

            Ah; now you can see the problem created by the coward Snowden by revealing to terrorist groups how they are tracked.

            If they have any smarts (and they seem to have more than many Americans) they will go to cell phones and regularly change the phones so their numbers change almost daily so satellites cannot get a clear picture of who is who.

          • Kurt CPI

            If I were attempting to get away with something that required international communications, I think I’d figure out, without Snowden’s revelation, that I should avoid traceable international phone calls. Terrorists, I think, would also know better. I also believe that the NSA knows this and in order to have any efficacy, their surveillance program would have to involve domestic calls. Plenty of people make anonymous international calls on a daily basis using freely available VPN technology and Voice over IP (internet phone calls). It’s just not a believable scenario that only phone calls using non-US country codes are monitored. It would be virtually futile. I suspect the NSA understands the futility of such a limited program. They’d only catch stupid terrorists.

          • ThomasBonsell

            Monitor has a specific meaning. It means the communication link is tapped to record phone conversations and emails. That is done only with a court warrant obtained after showing “probable cause”why communication should be read and listened to.

            That is done after the list of communication (that has no content) is surveyed to detect unusual suspicious patters that might indicate a need for monitoring.

            There at billions of phone connections every day and it would be impossible for any group to even begin examining that load. That’s why computers are used to sift through data that no human eye has seen and narrow posibilities down to dozens or hundreds.

            Of course NSA knows what lengths suspected groups go through to avoid detgection. That’s why militaries at war change their radio call letters and frequencies daily and extremely intelligent analysts work to figure out what system is used.

      • ObozoMustGo

        TB… you are ingorant by choice. If you think that highly detailed and accurate conclusions cannot be made by analysis of metadata, you have no idea what you are talking about. Metadata, in many circumstances, is more valuable than content. You’re just choosing to believe the same old lies that the Obozo regime makes up, and his lap dogs in the media repeat like the good useful idiots that they are. If Bush was the one collecting metadata on ALL Americans’ communications, you and the leftist media would be in a justifiable non-stop tizzy. And you know it. Clearly, the NSA data collection on All American’s is outright violation of the 4th Amendment which requires SPECIFIC charges and SPECIFIC information on SPECIFIC people before authorizing a warrant. The only difference for you is that the guy perpetrating the violation is your messiah, Obozo, who can do no wrong in your eyes.

        Have a nice day!

        “The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency…Blaming the prince
        of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” – Czech Republic newspaper Prager Zeitung

        • ThomasBonsell

          Sorry, but it is you who is ignorant. I have been here, done that, speak from expeience. You have done nothing, know nothing.

          Try a tad bit of logic and grade-school math. With 3 billion telephone connections a day in America alone (and we are only 5% of the world’s population), how much paper would have to be involved DAILY to record all that metadata? Are you such a nonthinker that you believe it can be handled in one agency by a few hundred analysts, let alone how is it to be transferred to Fort Meade? Do some thinking.

          If you have done any math so far, now turn to thinking. All that data has to be computer disks, where NO PERSON’S EYES WILL EVER SEE IT. That can be ruin through as computer programmed to eliminate all domestic traffic and concentrate only on connections with a foreign element. Do some thinking.

          Further computer analysis will reduce the list to a handful, which then will need a 4TH AMENDMENT WARRANT FOR PHYSICAL MONITORING.

          To get that warrant before eliminating almost all connections would open every phone in the world to legal wiretapping.


          • ObozoMustGo

            Do some thinking???? You saying that to me? bwwwaaaaaaaahahahahahahahhahaha!!!!! ROFLMAO

            You are completely ignorant of technological capacities. Witness this: The NSA Utah Data Center, the largest, by far, of any in the world. Go to this link:


            If you think that there is not enough capacity to capture billions of phone records and process them every minute of every hour of every day, you are fooling yourself. You are lulled into a sense of trust of your government that is completely unjustified. So while you may trust your messiah, Obozo, the fact is that political winds shift, politicians come and go, and one day you will find that all the excuse making you have done for Obozo will come back to haunt you. Would you like it if Dick Cheney were president and had authority over the NSA and their spying apratchik? I don’t think you would. You’d be screaming like a stuck pig about it. My point is that you and I should have no disagreement on the fact that NO side, Republican or DemonRAT should have this sort of access to ALL Americans’ communications records. I’m not saying they should not pursue SPECIFIC possible threats. But I am saying that collecting ALL Americans’ communications data IS a threat. What happens one day when some right wing group is in charge and they decide that anyone that supports leftist groups or visits sites like Truthout, is a potential terrorist? They can go back into all of your data and create a scenario that would paint you in whatever negative light they so choose. Then you are EFFED!!!! My point is that you should have a longer view of this program instead of just seeing this as a knock on your messiah Obozo. Don’t be so quick to trade your liberties for the false perception of security, Thomas. The cure IS always worse than the boogieman.

            Have a nice day!

            “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H.L. Mencken

          • ThomasBonsell

            I know what the Utah facility is for. And I know why it is importanr. You apparently know nothing.

            Try this. The CIA recruits an insider from al-Qaeda, who tells of a restructuring of that terrorist group. He says that with the death of Osama bin Laden al-Qaeda had to find a new source of finances and discovered an unlimited source of money. Al-Qaed used that money to recruit thousands of suicide bombers and jihadists, who are training in secret bases inYemen for massive attacks on the United States and Great Britain. He knows that the detailed plans were discussed by telephone with all related terrorist groups, and that occurred last year during Ramadan. That’s all he knows.

            When the CIA tells the White House of this, the President sends a note to NSA asking it to scan its backlog of unread and unexamined material in Utah for that time period to see what information it has.

            But the NSA director must send back a note saying, “Sorry, no can do. We don’t have any such material because some fool who calls himself ObozoMustGo
            “thinks” keeping track of terrorist groups or hostile nations is improper.

            It’s your type of rationalizing that allowed Imperial Japan to attack Pearl Harbor undetected because “gentlemen do not read other gentlemen’s mail” and numerous other disasters because fools don’t think.

          • ObozoMustGo

            Tom, you must be having a hard time with reading comprehension. This is a common affliction of the leftist freaks. Go back and find where I wrote that the NSA should NOT be tracking terrorists. Go ahead. Find it and reply with my own quote. How long should I give you? You have 1 choice from 2 possiblities. You can lie about what I said, a common method for leftist freaks, or you can spend the rest of your life searching for a statement that I did not make. Aparently, you’re too stupid to make a distinction between AMERICAN CITIZENS IN AMERICA, and your made up scenario of a terrorist informing the NSA about terror cells in Yemen. I never said anything about foreign communications, nor did I say anything EXCEPT that warrants MUST be specific and focused with reasonable suspicion. The collection of ALL Americans communications data is NOT the same and focusing on specific potential terror threats. Spying on ALL Americans is going over the top. And you know I’m right. You’re just in defensive mode because the offender this time is your messiah, Obozo. I’ll be you screamed like a stuck pig over waterboarding 3 known killers involved in 9/11, didn’t you? Of course you did. Oh… but that was Bush. This is Obozo and he gets a pass from you, doesn’t he.

            Have a nice day, fool, and remain oblivious!

            “The difference between being stupid and being a fool: A stupid person at least has an idea about their own inadequacies. The fool is oblivious to them, and is more inclined to believe their own fantasies and lies as truth.” – ObozoMustGo

    • Polana

      Who cares??!! Go on a Facebook and people tell all about themselves and others. Who needs NSA??? Only somebody who have something to hide will object to that. I don’t care, they can listen to my calls overseas anytime, any day. I do business all over the world for the past 10 years and nobody yet knock on my door. LOL U R idiot.

      • ObozoMustGo

        Hey Po…. one of the hallmark qualities of being a leftist freak is that you are unable to understand history and place it into the context of today and the future. You fail to understand the basic concept that laws survive politicians. While the current political ruling class may not use such technology and information against American citizens, some future politician with less than admirable intentions can push the envelope even further. Maybe to the point of using the power of government against his/her political opponents….. wait…… kind of like Obozo did with the IRS against the Tea Party and other conservative groups…. hmmmmm…..

        So while you may be a leftist and I may be a Classic American Liberal (known as conservative today), both you and I as Americans should agree on at least this one single point about individual liberty and a health distrust of government and politicians.

        Seems to me that you, with your head in the sand, and overt ignorance, are the idiot!

        Have a nice day, and remain oblivious!

        “The difference between being stupid and being a fool: A stupid person at least has an idea about their own inadequacies. The fool is
        oblivious to them, and is more inclined to believe their own fantasies and lies as truth.” – ObozoMustGo

    • Dominick Vila

      Actually, OMG, what I hear from most on the left is robust criticism of President Obama’s decision to continue the NSA intelligence gathering activities put in place by former President Bush.

      • ObozoMustGo

        Good Sunday morning to you, Dommy! I hope your 4th of July holiday was pleasant and you celebrated with family. I have been gone for a few days and just made a couple of quick hit posts, so sorry it’s taken a while to respond.

        Actually Dom, an interesting dynamic has occurred where the lines between R and D have become blurred on this issue. In fact, just by listing who suports the NSA spying on all Americans and who does not, it would be impossible to draw party lines from it. However, my commentary is mostly directed toward the media and traditional news outlets that have acted outraged for only a moment, and then turned a blind eye because the offender is their messiah, Obozo. Like I contrasted, the media for months on end, even years, assailed Bush for waterboarding what turned out to be 3 terrorists directly involved in the 9/11 massacre. And now, while Obozo has been proven to be spying on ALL Americans as well as using the IRS to target political opponents, where is the ongoing investigations and outrage by the main stream media? It is nowhere to be found. The treatment of Bush by the media, and I am no defender of his, contrasted to the treatment of Obozo are in NO WAY similar or equivalent. Obozo get’s a free pass all the time. That’s my point. And I am 100% correct on this, and you know it if you are intellectually honest, Dom.

        Have a nice Sunday afternoon!

        “The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerousto the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.” – Charles de

  • dadhoover

    “I think there needs to be a balance, and as the president explained, there is a proper balance,” Bush said, defending the NSA’s activities.

    “I put that program in place to protect the country,” he added. “One of the certainties was that civil liberties were guaranteed.

    Someone needs to inform DUBYA that this current president (yes the one I voted for) approved of its Justice Dept. making SECRET RULES, for the SECRET EXPANDING OF THE NSA SNOOPING PROGRAM.

    THESE GUYS ARE LYING TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Currently there is absolutely no recourse under current law in the case that a government official abused the NSA against a private citizen. If damaged a Citizen would get no where if he attempted a suit because of the catch 22 presented by the secrecy of the program. THIS THING HAS GOT TO BE TURNED AROUND

    • Isabel Herron

      what Harold replied I am impressed that someone can profit $7770 in 1 month on the internet. did you look at this site link w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

      • Mark Forsyth

        Get gone Izzy.

      • idamag

        If I tell you I live in Nigeria and they will not let me take my money out of the country. I”ll send you a check for $5000 and you put it in your account and keep 1000 dollars for doing that for me, you will do that? Now get off this board.

    • Sand_Cat

      These were probably in place before Obama took office, but yes, you are quite right to condemn his continuance of his predecessor’s criminal activities.

  • Kurt CPI

    One man’s traitor is another man’s whistleblower. The article states that Democrats vehemently opposed much of the civil liberty trampling of the patriot act. This implies that Republicans supported it. It’s true that Republican _politicians_ towed the company line. But rank and file citizens who identify themselves as Republicans were largely opposed to many (most) of the patriot act’s provisions. An even greater number of them are now opposed to this kind of thing – even those who originally supported it are now having buyer’s remorse. Democrat, Republican or Independent, we should never condone domestic spying without the due process it legally requires. The very idea that government somehow has the right to declare an act or institute a program that circumnavigates the Constitution should be met with outrage on the part of the people (we, after all, are the governing body, right?). Anyone and everyone in Congress who support this ought to be summarily ousted at the next election.

    • RobertCHastings

      To put this SOMEWHAT into perspective, ALL of us who support Obama and loved Bill Clinton should remember that Clinton proposed something very similar to The Patriot Act around 1998, but was roundly criticized by (understandably) Democrats AND (surprisingly) Republicans. The history of surveillance of private citizens is long, as long as the history of this country. The first legislation which violated our Constitutional rights was John Adams’ “Alien and Sedition” Act, which made it illegal for (among other things) newspapers to print anything derogatory about the government.

      • Sand_Cat

        Well, I don’t know about you, but – while I voted for the man twice – “love” is not the word I would use to describe my feelings for the guy who signed welfare “reform,” NAFTA, and a lot of other Republican stuff. He was at best a moderate conservative, and not a particularly noble or honest one.

        • RobertCHastings

          As far as NAFTA is concerned, George H. W. Bush did all the work on that one and a Republican senate passed, Clinton’s signature being merely obligatory. Welfare “reform” actually was reform, in the best sense of the word, that cleaned up much of the opportunity for fraud in the agency and created pathways for those on welfare to actually get into the workforce, reducing the rolls significantly. Like Obama, Clinton was required by the makeup of the Senate and the House to seek compromises that both sides could live with, rather than being free to pursue a strictly Progressive agenda.

          • Kurt CPI

            Hear, hear! Clinton performed a near miracle in passing welfare reform. His fiscal policies should be the envy of Presidents, former and pursuant. If Sand_Cat considers providing a path for people to earn a living to be deficient, there’s little hope for the working class that pays for the welfare subsidies.

          • RobertCHastings

            Apparently he is simply ignoring the uproar over Welfare reform just last year. So many Republicans were claiming what Obama did with welfare was a step backwards when he was merely responding to the requests of two REPUBLICAN governors to streamline the process of welfare to work.

      • Kurt CPI

        Almost 2 full years before the final ratification signatures, with politicians looking for ways in which the Constitution did not apply to them, it was the conservative wing led by a Virginian, George Mason, that fought hard for the bill of rights. The final State to ratify (Rhode Island) was not until May, 1791. The Bill of Rights was proposed much earlier and in fact the final that was ratified included the first 10 amendments. It has been the clear and decisive language of the bill of rights that has kept the ambitious nature of politics in check for the last 250 years. As Americans, we must insist that the rights spelled out in our Constitution are adhered to. Anything less invites the inevitability of tyranny.

        • RobertCHastings

          As many in authority to do something about the political process have noticed over the past 230 odd years, times change. A Second Amendment written at a time when the only weapons available to the average man required reloading to be fired a second time perhaps needs clarification and updating. A Constitution that said very little about voting needed updating in the 19th century with the 14th Amendment. A very clear process was delineated in the Constitution for changing when changing times made it necessary. It’s not an easy process, requiring even more than a super majority, to change, but it can and has been done, many times. By the time the original Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified, fewer than 10% of the population met the qualifications for voting, and the electoral college could override even that small group. Amendment 14 and Amendment 19 changed that enormously. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 should, at the time, have been enshrined as something that could not be so easily nullified by the Supreme Court.

          • idamag

            I really feel that is the founders could have foreseen what is happening, they would have plugged loopholes and put in safeguards.

          • RobertCHastings

            Because this country was, essentially, an experiment, the Founders made provisions for change. The Fourteenth Amendment changed what the Constitution originally had to say (or not say) about voting, as the 19th dealt with women voting. All changes to the Constitution have occurred because the need for change was seen, even in the case of Prohibition. Millions of people in this country see a need for change in the Second Amendment, but I doubt that anything will happen until the NRA and its lackeys simply disappear.
            Glass – Steagall and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were not parts of the Constitution, but the results of their repeal MAY cause Constitutional changes in the future, both of which could not have been foreseen by the Founders.

          • Kurt CPI

            The Alien and Sedition Acts, especially the sedition acts, were very much like what we’re seeing now. The difference is that there was no precedence (either way) at the time. There surely is now – IRS targeting of conservative groups was done with the complete knowledge that it was illegal. The Alien and Sedition Acts were all repealed or allowed to expire before the constitutionality was tested. There’s no question but that they would be declared unconstitutional today. Since that time, the judiciary has made it clear that rights apply equally to all citizens – the Voting Rights Act that you referred to IS constitutional. It has also made it clear that “sedition” is a guaranteed right under the 1st amendment (we’d probably say “dissent” today). Both constitute clarification of the Constitution in a way that Americans are in complete agreement with. Even “hate speech” is legal to a point. Virtually all journalists would contend that ANY censorship is a violation of their rights – the same hard line that second amendment advocates take toward gun ownership. Isn’t it interesting how publications that editorialize in favor of limiting second amendment rights quickly take up journalistic arms against an incursion on first amendment rights – limiting other people’s rights is OK, but don’t limit mine! Ideologies, even those we don’t like, are still equally valid in debate and reliance on the Constitution has been the acid test for all legislation from federal acts to voter-introduced referendums. BTW, had the Alien and Sedition acts been brought before the supreme court during the tenure of Adams, most historians agree that they would not have been declared unconstitutional. Partly due to lack of precedent, but mostly because the bench was heavily weighted to the Federalist side. Sound familiar?

          • RobertCHastings

            Except for one very salient feature of the IRS “scandal”, that BOTH conservative AND progressive groups were targeted, thus putting the whole “scandal” to rest because the IRS was doing what it was legally required to do, vet applications for such organizations for tax-exempt status. The Voting Rights Act in its entirety was NOT deemed Constitutional, and at least one section (preclearance) was declared UNConstitutional. As for the absolute right of the press to print anything, the laws against libel prohibit certain speech.

          • Kurt CPI

            People use the “changing times” argument in the context of your point and indeed, in that context, it defines a rational position. However, the rationale for the bill of rights was precisely to define the right of the people to assert their power – the power granted to them by the Constitution – in the event government leadership fell into the mistaken mindset that the people served them instead of the other way around. This is as much a part of the balance of power as the three branches of government. The second amendment is only one example, and it is used because the consequences of maintaining that balance can be tragic. But we’ve seen recent abuses in the homeland security act under Bush, the continuation and condoning under Obama. We have IRS-gate and the attempt to silence the press in the forefront of public scrutiny. These are all gross violations of the bill of rights. As times change, as technology changes, it is incumbent upon us to keep up, not to slide into complacence or be coerced into the trap of allowing our rights to be systematically dismantled – with our permission.

          • RobertCHastings

            The usurpation of our rights has been slowly happening over the past 2 1/2 centuries. However, for every right the Constitution and the Bill of Rights grants us, we are obligated to responsibly employ those rights in the bettering of life for everyone. Those who insist on specific rights as being God-given or divinely bestowed are simply delusional. In previous posts I have mentioned Adams’ “Alien and Sedition” Act as being one of the first intrusions of the Federal government upon our Constitutional rights. This Act was not enacted by John Adams alone, but with the compliance of a consenting Congress. The Patriot Act was NOT enacted by Bush, it was just signed into law by him. In both cases (and in all similar cases between Adams and Bush) Congress has been responsible for the erosion of our rights, and a complacent and confused electorate who allowed such travesties. After all, we are all in this together, and when our elected representatives do something we disapprove of, we put them there in the first place and allowed them to do what they did.

  • Mary Ann Hoogeveen

    Who gives a rats butt what any of the Bushes think?

    • bhaggen

      Obviously a lot more folks than give a rat’s ass what your sorry ass thinks

      • Mary Ann Hoogeveen

        Obviously you are a republican which means your are a fucking asshole.

        • bhaggen

          Thank you, but no, I’m a Libertarian, but the fact that you’re a cunt has absolutely nothing to do with your party affiliation. You’re just a cunt, & a dumb one at that!

          • Mary Ann Hoogeveen

            Your brain has to be the size of your dick which means it is not to be seen.As for calling me a cunt you must be getting me mixed up with your wife,daughter and mother.I take great delight in being a bitch.Good Riddance little dick!

  • DurdyDawg

    That’s sounds like some good information from our ex.. Now what does Alfred E. Neuman have to say?

  • RobertCHastings

    Of course he feels the program is doing what it was meant to do, simply because he and his cohorts designed it to do exactly what it does. His assessment does not indict the NSA surveillance program as being intrusive toward civil liberties because, as a Republican ideologue, he has little or no concern for the civil liberties of most of the citizens of this country. I feel the only problem Cheney has with what Snowden did is that Snowden’s revelations will wake people up to who is actually responsible for the surveillance in the first place, which is what this discussion is doing. Cheney should have been smart enough to keep his mouth shut, and to warn Bush to keep HIS mouth shut.

    • idamag

      The NSA was the Bush administration’s baby.

  • SibyllasStuff

    It is really hard to listen to that voice – it makes my skin crawl.

  • Budjob

    Why is this stupid bastard war criminal/liar entitled to any opinion AT ALL!!!

    • bhaggen

      At least he had 2 involved parents in his life whereas Obama’s abandoned his sorry ass. It’s no wonder he’s such a prick; can’t even throw a baseball…Sad

  • Sand_Cat

    God, listening to this cretinous war criminal was bad enough when he was president. Why would anyone want to hear anything from him, or see his imbecilic smug grin when he finishes uttering some nonsensical blather?

  • Ford Truck

    Snowden is a traitor! God I hate knowing that I agree with anything Cheney says!!

  • Mike Ewald, Coral Gables

    Another library.

  • Jeff Bottaro

    We all learn what is most important too late for it to matter, except to an audience we will never live to see.