Here's my favorite, from the official White House press release:

3. MYTH: If any new surveillance needs to begin, the FISA court can approve a request within minutes.  In the case of an emergency, surveillance can begin immediately and FISA approval can be obtained later.

My comment:  This so-called "myth" actually (1) lies about empirical evidence and (2) tracks the language of the existing FISA statute.  
The empirical evidence:  one of the judges on the FISA court approved a warrant request from (IIRC) the FBI while he was stuck in traffic around the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11.  IIRC, he got a call on his cell, heard the application orally, granted it, and told them to follow up with the paperwork.  From his car.
As to the language of the statute:  The existing (since 1978) statute explicitly provides a three-day period (72 hours) within which the government can intercept and monitor and during which the paperwork can be prepared to get the necessary warrant retroactively.

FACT: Reverting to the outdated FISA statute risks our national security.  FISA's outdated provisions created dangerous intelligence gaps, which is why Congress passed the Protect America Act in the first place.

My comment:  Another outright lie.  Congress passed the so-called PAA last August after Bush and his co-conspirators buffaloed the Congress into believing the Capitol was the target of terrorists who wanted to blow it up while they were to be off on their August vacations.  A non-existent plot, BTW.  

FACT: FISA applications are lengthy, detailed documents that typically require many hours of preparation.  Once the application is submitted to the FISA Court, there is no guarantee that it will be approved.

My comment:  Another outright lie.  In all the history of the FISA court, something less than 10 of thousands of applications were denied.  And, IIRC, the ones denied were denied, because the FBI CI agent making the application ... lied in his affidavit (and was barred by the Court from making another one to the Court).  
Anyway:  there are no guarantees in life, George.  Even for someone so insulated from being responsible as you.

FACT: Reinserting the FISA Court into our efforts to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists overseas makes no sense.

My comment:  Damn courts, always getting in the way of Bushie being a dictator, demanding "Facts" other than Bushie being the decider, not being reliable rubber-stamps.
And, if you were monitoring only "furriners overseas", why were your machines in places like Room 641A copying the whole of internet traffic.  Every last bit?

About 2003, there was an election coming up in Germany and it looked like it would be very close.  The then-sitting justice minister, a member of Chancellor Schroeder's governing SPD party, was reported to have told a meeting of local party functionaries (i.e., she was talking to their base) that "Bush is using Hitler-methods" to build support for the Iraq War he wanted.  There was a huge outcry in diplo circles over the alleged comment, which ultimately led to the minister being sacked, but not before the comment (the making of which was never admitted to formally) helped keep Schroeder and the SPD in charge of the government for a couple years more.

Growing up in America of the late 60s and early 70s, I had the advantage of schoolteachers who'd lived as (young) adults in the thirties and forties - veterans of WWII or the Home Front and, perhaps more importantly, of the buildup to the war and the revelations that came afterward.  

They remembered Hitler's repeated lies - about his ambitions, objectives, methods and policies - having heard them in their press pre-war.  

They remembered what the war and aftermath revealed as the truth.  

They were actually pretty assiduous about making clear the lesson of The Big Lie.  

One of the lessons I picked up was that of The Big Lie.  

For those who never got the lesson, or were daydreaming when it was taught - get it now:  Politicians (and others) tell The Big Lie when they want to do something they know they never could get away with, were they to tell the truth.  Tell a big enough whopper with enough conviction, force and repetition, and you might just get away with creating a new reality - where your lie is accepted as truth.

Here it is, reprinted above in this comment.  The President of the United States, telling The Big Lie (again), this time to insulate himself and his co-conspirators against their criminal and civil liability for having broken the law.

The former German Justice Minister was right.  She was right then, right repeatedly since then, and right now.  And that press release proves it.

Learn from the past: whenever this sort of thing was done, it was phony fearmongering. The way you can tell there is an actual threat is that you'll know about it before Bush does, unless the Democrats have really stood up to him (fat chance), in which case he may send The Terrorists a personal invitation, with live coverage on television of him licking the envelope and putting a stamp on it.

1. It's been widely reported that Hezbollah has announced a more open conflict on Israel in particular, and the West in general

2. Why do you think we need warrants to surveil foreign nationals?

I would estimate .0000000000000000001%

How many would have criticized Bush/FBI et al if these warnings had not gone out?