Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
ace--i really do not understand the point of your entire line of argument.
if all you're trying to show is that the democrats in congress fell down--repeatedly--in the face of an administration which they assumed (apparently) to be operating in good faith until around 2006, then there's no argument. there really isn't. so what's your point?
|
The point of my last response to your point was that a "unitary executive" does not in this context have an advantage over Congress because they have to deliberate.
Quote:
|
but what you seem to want to erase is the fact that the republicans controlled both houses AND the administration was operating in a clandestine fashion (signing orders, for example) EVEN IN THAT CONTEXT--and the source for this trajectory was the unitary theory of the executive--cheney/addington.
|
Bush did not act in a clandestine fashion. Anyone paying attention knew what he was doing. I have been arguing that point, and presenting evidence supporting it.
Quote:
|
since 2006, there has been a certain amount of recalibration of power, but even so (a) the bush administration is still is power and the game ain't over yet, and (b) the numbers in congress are tight enough and republican "party discipline" only recently having imploded to some extent, any meaningful, serious investigation is difficult to mount.
|
Every vote on ever issue matters. I have been arguing that the word and actions by Democrats are inconsistent. If we were in a crisis, I would thing they whould act as if we were.
Quote:
|
there is no argument about any of this---you keep going back to this "well, congress did x.." thing----it really makes no sense---you seem to be fighting an imaginary battle.
|
People saying it is "Bush's war" makes no sense. People saying "Bush acted unilaterally" makes no sense. People saying "Bush lied" us into a war makes no sense. Many keep going back to those points and I keep responding to them.
Quote:
|
the problem that i keep pointing out is that the existing system enables actions like those of the administration, and that is *in itself* a problem of the structure of the system. i've laid out a couple of historical frames which i think explain why these particular people have exploited these system weaknesses for their own purposes--but they *are* weaknesses. changing them--getting rid of them--requires a redesign of at least some basic features of the system itself---and as i keep saying, in a **different** type of constitutional system, this would already *be* a constitutional crisis--note the tense of the verb ace--it's in the subjunctive.
|
I have stated our system is not perfect. I gave the reason why I think it is imperfect. I also believe this President has been true to his word and that anyone who listened would not be surprised by what he did. Again, I ask are you? And, if you are not surprised and others are not, why did they let it happen and why do they let it continue? My answer is because they support him and their words are B.S. That point is not complicated.