Bush Using Straw-Man Arguments in Speeches – Yahoo! News
Bush Using Straw-Man Arguments in Speeches
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer Sat Mar 18, 12:52 PM ET
WASHINGTON – “Some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day,” President Bush said recently.
Another time he said, “Some say that if you’re Muslim you can’t be free.”
“There are some really decent people,” the president said earlier this year, “who believe that the federal government ought to be the decider of health care … for all people.”
Of course, hardly anyone in mainstream political debate has made such assertions.
When the president starts a sentence with “some say” or offers up what “some in Washington” believe, as he is doing more often these days, a rhetorical retort almost assuredly follows.
The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents. In describing what they advocate, Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position.
He typically then says he “strongly disagrees” — conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making.
Bush routinely is criticized for dressing up events with a too-rosy glow. But experts in political speech say the straw man device, in which the president makes himself appear entirely reasonable by contrast to supposed “critics,” is just as problematic.
Because the “some” often go unnamed, Bush can argue that his statements are true in an era of blogs and talk radio. Even so, “‘some’ suggests a number much larger than is actually out there,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
A specialist in presidential rhetoric, Wayne Fields of Washington University in St. Louis, views it as “a bizarre kind of double talk” that abuses the rules of legitimate discussion.
Democrat wants Bush censured on eavesdropping – Yahoo! News
Mon Mar 13, 2:21 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Congress should censure President George W. Bush for ordering domestic eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without a warrant, a Democratic senator said on Sunday.
Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record) of Wisconsin told ABC’s “This Week” that he intends to push for a resolution that would censure the president for what he considers an unlawful wiretapping program authorized by the White House after the September 11 attacks.
“It’s an unusual step,” Feingold said of the measure he plans to introduce in the Senate on Monday. “It’s a big step. But what the president did by consciously and intentionally violating the Constitution and laws of this country with this illegal wiretapping, has to be answered.”
I just watched his pathetic performance at his press conference where he tried to justify his domestic spying program and stonewalling investigators with the lamest of rambling excuses.
Bush: Bin Laden Should Be Taken Seriously
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer 15 minutes ago
FORT MEADE, Md. – President Bush, defending the government’s secret surveillance program, said Wednesday that Americans should take Osama bin Laden seriously when he says he’s going to attack again.
Statement by Former Vice President Al Gore
2 hours, 46 minutes ago
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ — Following is a statement by former Vice President
Al Gore:
“The Administration’s response to my speech illustrates perfectly the need for a special counsel to review the legality of the NSA wiretapping program. The Attorney General is making a political defense of the President without even addressing the substantive legal questions that have so troubled millions of Americans in both political parties.
“There are two problems with the Attorney General’s effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration’s behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.
“Second, the Attorney General’s attempt to cite a previous administration’s activity as precedent for theirs — even though factually wrong — ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.
“The issue, simply put, is that for more than four years, the executive branch has been wiretapping many thousands of American citizens without warrants in direct contradiction of American law. It is clearly wrong and disrespectful to the American people to allow a close political associate of the president to be in charge of reviewing serious charges against him.
“The country needs a full and independent investigation into the facts and legality of the present Administration’s program.”
Not like you could expect the DOJ which is filled with Bush cronies to actually step up and stop the illegal activity.
ACLU Sues to Stop Domestic Spy Program
10 minutes ago
NEW YORK – Civil liberties groups filed lawsuits in two cities Tuesday seeking to block President Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program, arguing the electronic surveillance of American citizens was unconstitutional.
The U.S. District Court lawsuits were filed in New York by the Center for Constitutional Rights and in Detroit by the
American Civil Liberties Union.
The New York suit, filed on behalf of the center and individuals, names President Bush, the head of the National Security Agency, and the heads of the other major security agencies, challenging the NSA’s surveillance of persons within the United States without judicial approval or statutory authorization.
It seeks an injunction that would prohibit the government from conducting surveillance of communications in the United States without warrants.
The Detroit suit, which also names the NSA, was filed with the ACLU along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Greenpeace and several individuals.
Gore Assails Domestic Wiretapping Program
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago
WASHINGTON _Former Vice President Al Gore asserted Monday that President Bush “repeatedly and persistently” broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant and called for a federal investigation of the practice.
Speaking on Martin Luther King Jr.’s national holiday, the man who lost the 2000 presidential election to Bush only after a ruling by the Supreme Court on a recount in Florida, called Bush’s warrantless surveillance program “a threat to the very structure of our government.” Gore charged that the program has ignored the checks and balances of the courts and Congress.
Gore said that Bush’s actions — which the president has defended as indispensable in the war against terrorism — represented a “direct assault” on the special federal court that considers, and decides whether to authorize, administration requests to eavesdrop on Americans.
Gore said the concerns are especially important on King’s birthday because the slain civil rights leader was among thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government.
Gore said that there is still much to learn about the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program: “What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently,” he maintained.
Poll: Americans Want Warrants for Spying
By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
WASHINGTON – A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if those calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows.
Over the past three weeks, President Bush and top aides have defended the electronic monitoring program they secretly launched shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, as a vital tool to protect the nation from al-Qaida and its affiliates.
Yet 56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism.
Homeland Security opening private mail
Retired professor confused, angered when letter from abroad is opened
By Brock N. Meeks
Chief Washington correspondent MSNBC
Updated: 5:17 p.m. ET Jan. 6, 2006
Brock N. Meeks
Chief Washington correspondent
WASHINGTON – In the 50 years that Grant Goodman has known and corresponded with a colleague in the Philippines he never had any reason to suspect that their friendship was anything but spectacularly ordinary.
But now he believes that the relationship has somehow sparked the interest of the Homeland Security Department and led the agency to place him under surveillance.
Last month Goodman, an 81-year-old retired University of Kansas history professor, received a letter from his friend in the Philippines that had been opened and resealed with a strip of dark green tape bearing the words “by Border Protection” and carrying the official seal of the Department of Homeland Security.
Surveillance Court Is Seeking Answers
Judges Were Unaware of Eavesdropping
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 5, 2006; Page A02
The members of a secret federal court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases are scheduled to receive a classified briefing Monday from top Justice Department and intelligence officials about a controversial warrantless-eavesdropping program, according to sources familiar with the arrangements.
Several judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said they want to hear directly from administration officials why President Bush believed he had the authority to order, without the court’s permission, wiretapping of some phone calls and e-mails after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Of serious concern to several judges is whether any information gleaned from intercepts by the National Security Agency was later used to gain their permission for wiretaps without the source being disclosed.
