.. do you still support all of that presidential power that Bush has amassed now that Hillary will have it? Be honest.
You had too much Koolaide today Dan... First, Hillary has not been coronated as of yet. Second, Bush has not amassed any power he did not have the day he was elected. What extra power are you speaking of?
If Bush has acquired and exercised new powers (whatever they may be), Danr acts as if the very existence of civilization is threatened. But when Hillary Clinton is leading in the national polls for the Democratic nomination, he is positively giddy about her exercising those powers. If such powers are a threat in the hands of a man Danr has called stupid and whose moral system Danr dislikes, then what will a woman without a moral base whom even I will admit is intelligent (however distasteful I may find her) do with those powers?
take a few minutes and listen to Bush's Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. It seems like you are unfamiliar with current events http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14236608
I was just pointing out that many (most) right wingers were more than happy when their guy went outside of established norms of presidential power, but they will balk when Hillary has the exact same power. Listen to the link above and see how far this presidential power grab has gone.
Although I am not a big fan of cut-n-paste, this article says it better than I could possibly explain it to you. I will underline a few of the high points though to save you the time of reading such a long article. This is pretty much what Danr is saying: "You have to imagine this power in the hands of the person you most don't want to see as president, whether it be Dick Cheney or Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michael Moore or Ann Coulter." Unchecked Presidential Power In the weeks after 9/11, while America and the world were grieving, President Bush built a legal rationale for a dictatorship. Then he started using it to avoid the law. By Bruce Schneier Minneapolis Star Tribune December 20, 2005 This past Thursday, the New York Times exposed the most significant violation of federal surveillance law in the post-Watergate era. President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to engage in domestic spying, wiretapping thousands of Americans and bypassing the legal procedures regulating this activity. This isn't about the spying, although that's a major issue in itself. This is about the Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search. This is about circumventing a teeny tiny check by the judicial branch, placed there by the legislative branch, placed there 27 years ago -- on the last occasion that the executive branch abused its power so broadly. In defending this secret spying on Americans, Bush said that he relied on his constitutional powers (Article 2) and the joint resolution passed by Congress after 9/11 that led to the war in Iraq. This rationale was spelled out in a memo written by John Yoo, a White House attorney, less than two weeks after the attacks of 9/11. It's a dense read and a terrifying piece of legal contortionism, but it basically says that the president has unlimited powers to fight terrorism. He can spy on anyone, arrest anyone, and kidnap anyone and ship him to another country ... merely on the suspicion that he might be a terrorist. And according to the memo, this power lasts until there is no more terrorism in the world. Yoo starts by arguing that the Constitution gives the president total power during wartime. He also notes that Congress has recently been quiescent when the president takes some military action on his own, citing President Clinton's 1998 strike against Sudan and Afghanistan. Yoo then says: "The terrorist incidents of September 11, 2001, were surely far graver a threat to the national security of the United States than the 1998 attacks. ... The President's power to respond militarily to the later attacks must be correspondingly broader." This is novel reasoning. It's as if the police would have greater powers when investigating a murder than a burglary. More to the point, the congressional resolution of Sept. 14, 2001, specifically refused the White House's initial attempt to seek authority to preempt any future acts of terrorism, and narrowly gave Bush permission to go after those responsible for the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. Yoo's memo ignored this. Written 11 days after Congress refused to grant the president wide-ranging powers, it admitted that "the Joint Resolution is somewhat narrower than the President's constitutional authority," but argued "the President's broad constitutional power to use military force ... would allow the President to ... [take] whatever actions he deems appropriate ... to pre-empt or respond to terrorist threats from new quarters." Even if Congress specifically says no. The result is that the president's wartime powers, with its armies, battles, victories, and congressional declarations, now extend to the rhetorical "War on Terror": a war with no fronts, no boundaries, no opposing army, and -- most ominously -- no knowable "victory." Investigations, arrests and trials are not tools of war. But according to the Yoo memo, the president can define war however he chooses, and remain "at war" for as long as he chooses. This is indefinite dictatorial power. And I don't use that term lightly; the very definition of a dictatorship is a system that puts a ruler above the law. In the weeks after 9/11, while America and the world were grieving, Bush built a legal rationale for a dictatorship. Then he immediately started using it to avoid the law. This is, fundamentally, why this issue crossed political lines in Congress. If the president can ignore laws regulating surveillance and wiretapping, why is Congress bothering to debate reauthorizing certain provisions of the Patriot Act? Any debate over laws is predicated on the belief that the executive branch will follow the law. This is not a partisan issue between Democrats and Republicans; it's a president unilaterally overriding the Fourth Amendment, Congress and the Supreme Court. Unchecked presidential power has nothing to do with how much you either love or hate George W. Bush. You have to imagine this power in the hands of the person you most don't want to see as president, whether it be Dick Cheney or Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michael Moore or Ann Coulter. I don't know how anyone could miss that Bush and Cheney have consolidated power into the Executive Branch and away from both Congress and the Judiciary Branches. There are just too many examples of this behavior to point out in one posting. Bush is above the law in his opinion and he doesn't pretend to believe otherwise. Something frightened people always forget is: Laws are what give us security against the actions of the majority and the powerful. If we discard our constitutional protections against tyranny in an attempt to protect us from terrorism, we're all less safe as a result.
I WILL get back on this when time allows. However, do not forget File-gate, IRS audits for opponents in the Clinton Administration. Also, The Minneapolis Star is one of the most Liberal leaning papers in the country. If we are to do our job right, we must examine both sides, not just political talking points from a biased source. This will be a good discussion I hope. See ya's, have a great Saturday
A. Past misdeeds do not excuse currents ones. B. It is widely known that whenever a source doesn't agree with your strongly held opinion, it is biased. C. If we do our job right, it is unlikely to convince anyone of anything they didn't already believe beforehand. It is probably more productive in the long run to just go have a nice Saturday.
Those are literally nothing in comparison. Listen to to link, it is one of Bush's lawyers telling what happened (and is still happening).
So, you are speaking for Danr now? You might as well, you both are kooks! Has the U.S. been attacked since 9/11? The only attacks the U.S has had since 9/11 are from Danr and Muhhamed MOEN. Bush has the power to do WHATEVER it takes to protect even the 2 of you morons. List just one power Bush has gotten that affects your current way of life Muhhamed MOEN.
Let's see if I got this right! If we do it right, we won't convince anyone of anything. Does that mean that if we do it wrong, or not at all, the matter will be resolved and the person will change their minds? I guess I don't understand this line of reasoning/and or it's purpose.
put aside the ego nonsense and listen to Bush's own lawyer talk about it. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14236608
I have read the NPR transcript of this interview ( I don't have sound on my puter ). I think this gentleman should get a job with the ACLU, he would be an awesome defense lawyer for Al Quieda, Sadamm, hell, he probably could have gotten Tim McVie probation and an ankle electronic braclet instead of death. Perhaps it was him advising Bill Clinton not to take OBL from Jordan because there was no legal controlling authority to hold him.
Has the U.S. been attacked since 9/11? The only attacks the U.S has had since 9/11 are from Danr and Muhhamed MOEN. Dont forget Jack Murtha !!!The Marines have now been exonerated that he accused of murdering ( in a time of war no less ) the enemy, lets hope NPR will transmit his apologie.
It is my oppinion that you have described this individual correctly. I read it as just another out of work lawyer who has 'flipped' in order to make some money from the Dems for repeating such garbage as this. Who else would pay for such trash?
Yes sir! Old Senator Murtha, when ever his name is mentioned at the local VFW hall, everyone spits. I don't believe he would be welcome at a dog fight any more
It just means that people here are pretty much stagnant in their opinions and not open to hearing anything that may convince them otherwise. You know, the closed mind syndrome. I'm always looking for a good counter argument that will make me stop and think about my own opinions and every once in awhile I see someone making a good point or at least gives me some insight into their line of reasoning. I don't think anyone is suddenly going to be a born again Democrat or a born again Republican. I think anyone that went through that kind of sudden convergence would probably be unstable anyway and by no means a result of anything I or anyone else said here.
In this I think you are quite right. Sometimes I read things and it just don't make sense to me and I get to thinking there just has to be some hidden meaning that I'm not seeing. Thanks for the insight.
I don't think I'm nearly that suspicious of people's motivations. People aren't very good at hiding their real feelings about most issues and I can't say that very many of them even try. I think it's safe to take people at their word but sometimes what people say isn't always what they mean to say. That is more difficult to interpret for me anyway. I guess it takes some experience with the same person to figure out where they are coming from.
