I’m easily confused, and I vote

From his Monday speech at KSU:

“First, I made the decision to do the following things because there's an enemy that still wants to harm the American people. What I'm talking about is the intercept of certain communications emanating between somebody inside the United States and outside the United States; and one of the numbers would be reasonably suspected to be an al Qaeda link or affiliate. In other words, we have ways to determine whether or not someone can be an al Qaeda affiliate or al Qaeda. And if they're making a phone call in the United States, it seems like to me we want to know why.”

But. . .wait a minute. . .if we “have ways to determine” who “they” are, and “they” are making phone calls “in the United States,” why don’t we just arrest them already?

“This is a -- I repeat to you, even though you hear words, ‘domestic spying,’ these are not phone calls within the United States. It's a phone call of an al Qaeda, known al Qaeda suspect, making a phone call into the United States.”

Oh. . .I guess I misunderstood. . .Sorry. Please disregard my first question. So the US government is not monitoring the outgoing international phone calls and emails of its citizens but only incoming phone calls from terrorists abroad? Well, that’s different! I wish you’d said so in the first place!

And thanks for clearing up my confusion over the term “domestic spying”: Now whenever I hear the objections of anti-American liberals, I’ll know that what they’re really complaining about is "incoming international phone calls from known terrorists spying." Poo on you, Michael Moore! Go back to France!