Manhattan, KS — President Bush on Monday vigorously defended the war in Iraq, and warrant-less eavesdropping on communications of individuals within the United States during his speech at Kansas State University.
After the 50-minute speech, a man yelled out "You've done good Mr. President," as approximately 9,000 people cheered at Bramlage Coliseum.
The moment typified the warm reception Bush received during the Landon Lecture. About 150 people demonstrated outside, carrying signs opposed to Bush.
"I oppose everything he does," said Chris Snyder, a 73-year-old grandmother from Lyons. "He lives in a bubble and has no relationships with common people."
After his speech, Bush spent approximately an hour taking questions from the audience. During one answer, he revealed that he speaks weekly on the telephone with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
After he left, many of those attending were surprised at how long the president stayed to speak.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius who traveled with the president by vehicle from Forbes Field in Topeka to Manhattan, said, "He was very gracious and easy to talk to."
Bush spent much of his speech defending his policies in the Middle East as necessary to protect Americans against Al Qaida terrorists.
He defended his administration's controversial surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency that was disclosed last month.
Bush has signed orders allowing NSA to eavesdrop, without warrants, on telephone calls and e-mails of individuals within the U.S. who have received communications from people Bush said are Al Qaida suspects.
"If they're making phone calls into the United States, we need to know why, to protect you," he said.
Progress was being made in Iraq, he said, describing the situation there as "a magical moment in the history of liberty."
After the terrorist attacks on the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, Bush said his primary concern has been in thwarting future attacks and taking the offense against terrorism.
He described terrorists as relentless ideologues who want only to destroy freedom and liberty.
"These folks cannot be appeased," he said.
More than 800 soldiers from nearby Ft. Riley attended the lecture. One of those, Army Spc. Cathleen Legare, said she was ready to go to Iraq.
"That's what we are trained for," she said.
Bush was the third sitting president to deliver a Landon Lecture, a series started in 1966 and named for former Gov. Alf Landon. Presidents Reagan gave the Landon Lecture in 1982 and Nixon in 1970.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
Bush said: "If they're making phone calls into the United States, we need to know why, to protect you,"
I imagine the rest went as follows: "Doesn't matter if its against the law, doesn't matter if we failed to use the congressionally-mandated court established for just this purpose. We need to protect you."
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Well heck, if the president claims the right, it can't be illegal, can it?
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
Bush is a right-wing liberal and knows no restraint. True conservatives should be (and are) horrified.
CalGal (anonymous) says…
>
Hm. Bush to a tee. Guess it takes one to know one.
Jay_Z (anonymous) says…
True that Porkribs!
All liberals have is "Bush is a liar" or "Bush is a terrorist" or "Bush wants to take away our rights". Very well thought out arguments. Get over yourselves and just be glad Bush has the cajones to stand up and take on the threat of terrorism, unlike Kerry, who if elected, wanted to hold hands with the rest of the world and sing kumbaya in hopes that the terrorists would just go away and leave us alone.
Liberals: what are your solutions to take care of the threat of terrorism? You b*tch and moan, but never have any solutions to take care of these evil people. Please enlighten us.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
It's not illegal, it's unconstitutional per the 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
And it would seem that in violating his oath to uphold the constitution, Bush has committed an impeachable offense.
In addition to the lies he told the American people to get us mired in a civil war in another country which he has instigated, that would seem to be a much more serious offense than lying about an extramarital affair.
But you all don't care about that-- he's the leader of your team, and the refs are all blind.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
No, I think it's unreasonable to trash the consititution merely because it's a bother to adhere to it.
average (anonymous) says…
No. It is entirely reasonable to search Al-Qaeda. It would also be reasonable to prosecute them in court. But, because Bush refuses to go through the warrant process (even the "post-facto" warrant), the wiretaps would be inadmissable in court.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Bush was such a phoney today...
meggers (anonymous) says…
It's not illegal if a warrant is obtained. If a warrant is NOT obtained and the subject of a search happens to be a US citizen, it is in fact, illegal. Warrantless searches are covered extensively under FISA. Clinton signed an amendment to FISA, in order to expand search techniques and capapabilities. Get it? Rather than violating the law, he asked to change the scope of the law.
Bush, on the other hand, violated both the spirit of the law and the technical aspects by circumventing the FISA court. He could actually do a bit of damage control, by disclosing to the FISA court the individuals that have been subject to warrantless searches, and why. Failure to do so leaves one to assume that the motives for circumventing the FISA courts are dubious at best.
Given that the FISA court has traditionally accommodated the executive branch well when issuing warrants, one is left to assume that those folks being spied upon are folks who wouldn't muster a warrant. With that said, if you still believe that ONLY known al qaeda members and their associates have been illegally wiretapped, I've got a bridge to sell you- real cheap.
memoirs_of_a_sleepwalker (anonymous) says…
Pork Ribs,
You are such a blind, spewing idiot! You are a fundamentalist terrorist who hates America. You are equivalent to those who fly planes into building. You are the coward and traitor who needs to quit calling yourself an American.
memoirs_of_a_sleepwalker (anonymous) says…
How do you know anything about whether I think abortion is right or wrong, you f--in' idiot, Pork Ribs? Why do you assume this is a "liberal" thing?
You sick, deluded, ignornant f--k. Go join Osama in a cave.
countROCKkula (anonymous) says…
"a magical moment in the history of liberty." Hahahaha. I'm glad pappy isn't spinning fairy tales. He means business. And by business, he means magic. Magic! He's a magician.
OmegaPaiN (anonymous) says…
The president undergoes more scrutiny than any man alive or dead in the known universe. If you can't trust HIM to use his judgement to smudge the lines of the law a bit if he thinks it's necessary (if he even did anything that could be considered illegal) in the name of stopping terrorism, who are you going to allow to protect us? Bush isn't the leader of a conservative team fighting against the liberals, he's the leader of the American team, and our true enemy is ruthless. Everyone, regardless of political affiliation, better realize that before it's too late.
Do you really think Bush tapped some phones of the innocent? Maybe to get the better of a few Democrat campaign donors, or do you think he did it to help destroy Roe vs Wade? No, I don't think anyone thinks that. Remember the difficulty in dealing with Bin Laden's sympathizers who just so happen to be citizens. They constitute an extreme threat, and it should be understood that some drastic measures will have to be taken at some point, before it's too late and we become like Israel and have to start picking pieces of charred children out of the flaming hulls of buses.
Individual liberty and freedom from government intrusion is a sacred concept in this country, and I wrestle with the inevitable contradictions this situation creates. I just don't want that liberty and freedom to cause our own demise. Be alert, and be a watchdog, but have a little more faith in Bush.
jayhawk2000 (anonymous) says…
Nixon, now he achieved a lot with wiretapping, didn't he?
shanefivedyes (anonymous) says…
The post @ 5:16 A.M. makes more sense then most of the tormented, biased, seething, hurtful, hateful, post's that I have read over the last few months on this site. I almost feel ashamed for the bozo's who have lost sight of what America is facing. I for one can say Im glad President Bush is the one in office @ this time in history. Thank you and have a great day
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
To paraphrase all the Dubya supporters: "Baaaahhh!"
meggers (anonymous) says…
PorkRibs,
You're asking ME who the Bush administration has been wiretapping?!? If the FISA court doesn't know, I think it's safe to assume that I don't, either. Just like YOU don't know. Again, if he's only conducting surveillance on al qaeda members, or those with known al qaeda ties, why hasn't he obtained warrants from FISA, as the law dictates?
Arminius,
I appreciate your interest in my education. How thoughtful.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Sharing the information" doesn't make violation of the 4th amendment any more acceptable.
meggers (anonymous) says…
Arminius,
Providing 8 members of Congress with highly classified information that can't be shared with other members of Congress, staffers or even attorneys, due to it's highly classified status, hardly constitutes a checks and balances approach. And democratic leaders who were briefed DID express their concerns and request clarification from the White House. Not surprisingly, their requests fell on deaf ears. If they had gone public with their concerns, they would have been accused of violating national security, so what options were they left with?
As Suzanne Spaulding wrote in the Washington Post:
"Even assuming that these classified briefings accurately conveyed all relevant facts, it appears that they were limited to only eight of the 535 senators and representatives, under a process that effectively eliminates the possibility of any careful oversight.
As a former legal counsel for both Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees, I'm well aware of the limitations of these "gang of eight" sessions. They are provided only to the leadership of the House and Senate and of the intelligence committees, with no staff present. The eight are prohibited from saying anything about the briefing to anyone, including other intelligence panel members. The leaders for whom I worked never discussed the content of these briefings with me."
Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
And here is Sen. Rockefeller's letter of concern and inquiry to Dick Cheney, which went unanswered:
July 17, 2003
Dear Mr. Vice President,
I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the dci, dirnsa, and Chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.
Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.
As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance.
Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or technical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.
I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.
I appreciate your consideration of my views.
Most respectfully,
Jay Rockefeller