Re: 2/6/01 Interview on MSNBC Live 10: 30 am PST with Contessa Brewer
Dear Mr. Matthews:
Please correct the record. Ms. Brewer said that the Democrats were playing hardball citing Dianne Feinstein’s statement quoting Bush in 2004. Contessa told you he said it in 2004, but you nevertheless dismissed it as pre-9/11. Here it is from Bush’s now well-known address from Buffalo, New York in APRIL of 2004.
“Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”Adding…
“The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those are very important. I see some people, first responders nodding their heads about what they mean. These are a common tool used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It requires a court order. It requires protection under the law. We couldn't use these against terrorists, but we could use against gangs. “
The President’s clearly inaccurate statement was made more than 2-1/2 years AFTER 9/11/2001 and at least 2 years into the program.
Apparently Contessa Brewer’s interview technique's don't require any registry of the interviewee's response. It's enough read the prompter. She read that this was a bipartisan concern and claimed that Specter was going after AG Gonzales too along with the Democrats, but overlooked the fact that Specter, as committee chair, REFUSED to allow Gonzales to testify under oath. There are questions about the AG’s answers to Russ Feingold in his confirmation hearings, all democratic senators insisted he be sworn in and Gonzales agreed to be sworn in, but Specter said, “No.” This, I understand, means he can’t be charged with perjury for what he says today.
Matthews then went on to say that the majority of Americans supported the program. Not exactly. Americans agree that it’s okay with them if it’s LEGAL(Rasmussen?). You failed to mention that a margin of 42 to 43 percent (Zogby) believe he should be impeached if what he did was ILLEGAL.
This is why public opinion of the media is so low. We can tell when we're being manipulated and won't tolerate it. We have Tivos, we have Google and the 'Net has roots. We check facts. We want the truth the whole truth and nothing but. If you won't sell it to us, we'll find it elsewhere.
I have a bachelor’s in business, not political science. I’m a substitute teacher and a Mom. Here’s the glaring question. If someone who knows as little about Washington and politics as I do knows this so easily, why don’t you?
P.S. Now that I see your internet poll does NOT support your assumption, will you correct yourself publicly?