rb, I don't think it's disappointment that I am feeling....I never had high expectations about Obama. I shared hope with some here that change had begun after election night' 2006. Now, I read what Obama said lasr week in reaction to the fealty for Bush policy from Hoyer and Pelosi, then the reactions posted to my posts on this thread.....and finally, I read this: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa.../26/olbermann/ ...and I feel like my effing head is gonna explode. There are possibly four of us here who think US politics are dominated by two right wing parties....and the rest are politically, in denial...

i don't know if you can say denial, really.
for example, i don't at all see dc as being "in denial" about much of anything--but his view tends to be shaped by a particular relation, a particular space of activity which i generally find to be interesting. at the same time, the question of how one positions stuff at a more general level continually crops up in my mind as i read his posts--but this seems an ongoing trade-off, not something wherein the position he writes from precludes a wider view. and there is something to be said for operating within the realm of what seems possible....its the old social democratic line, in the left tradition. and it can function to make peoples' lives materially better.

my basic position is that all such positions, in the micro-level and at the macro-level, would be helped alot with sustained, coherent pressure from positions to the left of what currently exists. in that respect, putting stuff up in a space like this is at best a type of practicing---what we really ought to be doing is figuring out how to get information out into the wider world.

but i keep wandering off into ontology and salt marshes lately.
i think there's a linkage (undermine the philosophical suppositions that enable what i take to be the dominant ideology/-ies)...but sometimes i think it'd be better to shift back into the trenches more.
but this artsy stuff is fun.
who can say what's the best way to do anything?

I disagree in the denial as well.

I'm in full acceptance that politicians are going to waffle on issues, lie, cheat, steal, cronyism, nepotism, war and all that comes with it.

I think that we somehow were sold a bill of goods that the forefathers put forth a system that isn't corrupt or fallible. People are, and until there's a major change in the human condition, will continue to be so.

host are there any politicians that are acceptable to you? In my view for me, there are no politicians that are acceptable, most are just tolerable.

Host,

I am not clear on some things about your point of view.

Did you or do you believe the rhetoric from Democratic Party leaders regarding their sentiments against the actions and decisions made by the Bush administration? How much of their rhetoric do you think was based on principles compared to politically grandstanding?

I always found it interesting how you would call Bush a lier, when anyone paying attention knew what Bush wanted, what he was going to do and when he was going to do it, but up until now you have given Democrats a pass for saying things like: we did not know that authorizing the use of military force would lead to war, that continually funding an occupation of Iraq would mean troops would continue to be in Iraq, that approving the appointment of a General who supported a surge would lead to a surge, etc, etc, etc. Why all of a sudden are you surprised. Democrats have had a pattern over the pass 8 years of saying one thing and doing another. I am surprised people have not been outraged by that.

"acceptable, Cynthetiq?" Yes....some politicians are even praiseworthy, IMO. There is a subcommittee hearing taking place this AM as I'm posting this... some of the named congressional reps at that hearing, are to be lauded:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/20...-yoo/#comments I still am an admirer of Sen. Russ Feingold. I lost some regard for him....I posted about it two months ago....when he went off in a taped Q&A on one of his constituents who asked him if his strong support for Israel was really in the best interests of the US....

Frank and Conyers?

ace....plenty of examples of president's lies about the gravest issues....his justifications for war with Iraq and for abridging our fourth amendment protections:
Did They Hand this MF Decider the Wrong Script, or Is this "Ground Hog Day"?
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=121564

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ip#post2461896
You answered your own question, here....IMO, ace:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ce#post2461594
...and I think the following, knocks the shit out of your statement that,
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ce#post2352737
stop challenging me to defend democrats, ace....on a day when I don't seem to have much use for a lot of them. Lets look at the last 7-1/2 years....
First few months...2001" Republicans control house, senate, presidency
next 18 months...democrats control senate to a slight degree.... 50 dems, 49 repubs, 1 independent, Cheney serves as senate VP and tie breaking vote.

next 4 years, Republicans control house, senate, presidency

last 17 months, dems have control of house, slight control of senate....51st dem senator incapacitated by TBI, early in term, cannot vote....Cheney is still tie breaking vote....Bush, a president who set a record by not vetoing a single bill in first six years....vetoes and/or attaches signing statements to nearly every bill passed and sent up to him. Republicans in senate rename their filibustering tactics, but set a record for filibuster type blocking of senate attempts to engage in the legislative process....yeah, ace, those lying democrats have really screwed up the government these last 7-1/2 years....

Visit the linked page in my last post....actual hearings that resemble attempts to make executive branch officials are taking place, ace....after six years of the congress abandoning the practice......

Near the top of the page that I linked to:
....and the negative reference was towards republican rep, "Trent" Franks:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...22&btnG=Search

What is your objection to Conyers....vs. the "stuff" he's been doing, like this:


Most of these asshats are flawed in the ethics dept.... Conyers certainly is....but he is one of the few bright lights, when it comes to any challenge to the operational, official misconduct...who to invade, who to torture, who to "out" for purposes of political payback....

I don't object to Conyers very much, again, I see it as tolerable. I didn't see the longer list of contributors, I just saw the transcript names.

host..I assume that puts me in the denial crowd since I am more open to compromise and not as accepting of the ACLU/Greenwald rhetoric that IMO exaggerates the impact of the FISA Amendments.

rb....thanks for understanding, even if you dont agree.

So, for the record:

My Personal Resolution of Deniability
Whereas the accomplishments of the Democratic majority to expose and correct many of the abuses of the Bush Administration are numerous and comprehensive (see accomplishments), and

Whereas Uber Conservatives will deny such accomplishments and proclaim all Democratic actions to be political motivated by persons who don’t get it or are dishonest, and

Whereas Uber Liberals may declare such accomplishments insufficient and ideologically impure for not going far enough , and

Whereas, by most measures, a majority of American reject an extremist agenda, either uber conservative or uber liberal, and support or lean towards supporting a left-center domestic agenda and more mainstream center foreign policy/national security agenda , and

Whereas the Democratic party has expanded its tent and grown in the last six years to be more diverse and represent a broader spectrum of such policy positions, and

Whereas the leadership of the Democratic party recognizes that building a lasting and effective Democratic majority requires compromise, consensus building and a pragmatic and flexible approach to governing rather than a rigid ideological response.

Be It Resolved that many in the Democratic party in Congress and in Internet Political Forums will continue to pursue a pragmatic progressive agenda that has the support of a majority of Americans in order to achieve the goal of a more transparent and open government and respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.

Be It Furthered Resolved and speaking solely for myself, I have chosen such a practical and solutions oriented approach of my own free will and that I am in full possession of my faculties and not in denial.

DC_DUX

More for the record:
host....I couldnt do what I do w/o those of you further to the left of me doing what you do....all in support of preventing the aceBush uberConservatives from continuing to do what they would do.

_dux, I am surprised that I agree with you as often as I do, because I reject most of what you are saying, mostly because I don't see the "moderation" in the politics and core beliefs of the majority that you believe that they hold and exhibit, and, probably more so, because, even if your are correct about the broadbased American consensus, if "Middletown" is a "canary in the coal mine", there isn't time for your process of political progress, to get us where I think that we need to be.

There isn't time for the economy, for the supply of affordable oil, for the "war on terror", for the problem and effects of inequitable power and wealth distribution trends to "fix themselves".

This tells me:

...and so does this excerpt, that...."the people" need to be led, and Obama is following, not leading, and in his winning the approval of the "power elite", insuring that nothing of any substance, will change. I've highlighted in yellow, what I think is a condensation of what you say you stand for, and what the results of your principles/pragmatism, are....below that, are a near realtime description of the results:
...and "Middletown", in 2008...I found the comments, linked at the bottom, to be especially telling about where we are, and where we're likely to be going....this America in 2008:

I can appreciate all of this. I do have a sneaking suspicion that you're just as left as host and I on most things, but I think your pragmatic approach is different than ours. Your pragmatic approach includes a taste of centrism. Ours not so much. For me, pragmatism in politics is absolute honesty as I see the biggest problem with politics as being politics itself. Not only that, but I think that you may see compromise in a better light than host and I. To me (and probably host) compromise in the House and Senate right now is a really, really bad thing. It's yet another way in which we're let down by those we hope to step up and be heroes. This is made clear in my appreciation for politicians like Kucinich who are unwilling to compromise even when it means fighting an impossible battle. I believe that, for you, compromise is about living to fight another day.

BTW, a post like yours would make for a really interesting way to introduce one's self on a political forum.

Host,

Your response to my question suggests that you insist that Democratic party leaders and others who were paying attention had no awareness of Bush's agenda to invade Iraq prior to the invasion.

That the Democratic party leaders and others paying attention had no awareness of Bush's intent to occupy and to spread democracy in Iraq after the initial invasion, as they continually funded the occupation and provided funds for the spreading of democracy in Iraq.

That that key Democratic party leaders in particular had no awareness of Bush's aggressive interpretation of his war powers that he used to justify what many call violations of the FISA legislation.

That key Democratic party leaders and anyone paying attention had no awareness until the recent Supreme Court ruling that enemy combatants at Guantánamo Bay were being held without the writ of habeas corpus as afforded to US citizens under the US Constitution.

Given the above and some other items, you actually want me to believe that by simply saying Bush lied absolves Democratic party leaders and anyone paying attention of any responsibility - making them victims and that it allows them to say one thing and do another or do nothing?

I got it. And, I am not the one in denial.

They're not absolved, but they don't share in the same responsibility.

For the sake of clarity and for the record, this "Uber Conservative" has not denied accomplishments by members of the Democratic Party. For example, they accomplished passing the Farm Bill. It is just that the Farm Bill is not really a "farm" bill, it is a welfare bill. It supports poor people needing food assistance and wealthy farmers. The bill has unintended consequences including driving up food costs and is inconsistent with the stated goals of Party leaders. This "Uber Conservative" was critical of Bush's and Republican support of the previous bill and will be if Bush signs the current bill. Many of the "accomplishments" you often point to have real and legitimate objections. Heaven forbid, anyone challenge something supported by Democrats, question their motives, our ask them to reconcile their rhetoric with their actions. Those questions are considered offensive and go unanswered.

I have been consistently pointing to rhetoric that can not be reconciled with actions from Democrats. Seems the knee jerk response is - well we had to do it, or, we were forced to to do it, or, those mean old Republicans made us do it. And let's not forget, the "Uber Liberal" response - Bush lied, therefore...

Again, I get it. I think I will post something else showing how Democrats say one thing and do another - see the Countrywide thread if interested.

"...endeavor to preserver." - Lone Waite, Outlaw Josey Wales

Care to elaborate? Host's position is clear, Bush lied, therefore...what? If I believe a person is a lier, I don't believe them...ever. I never act on what they say...ever. I always do my own homework. Saying Bush lied over and over is B.S. Perhaps you can say it once.

Then we have DC, well we did not do A, B, and C but we did E, F and G. Oh, the A, B, and C things are the most important issues of the day. But we will just complain about A, B and C. O.k., maybe I don't get it. If you can elaborate I will listen.

You have hit some hard facts there, but true, very true. On the other hand, some disagree and say its the Republicans:

http://hypocrisy.com/2008/06/25/welc...ergy-solution/

Bush and/or those he is directly responsible for misrepresented the situation with Iraq by omitting intelligence that would have put the operation in question and by hyping information that supported it. In that way they are responsible.

Congress voted to declare war, so they are responsible.

There was no Declaration of War, but rather two separate Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) ...one the week after 9/11 to invade Afghanistan in pursuit of al Queda and one, 13 months later, to invade Iraq, sold in large part, on misinformation, cherrypicked information and information withheld from Congress.

In any case, an AUMF authorizes a president to use the Armed Forces of the United States.....

It does not give a president the authorization to direct the NSA to wiretap citizens w/o warrant as Bush attempted to claim.

It does not give a president the authorization to direct the CIA to use "enhanced interrogation techniques" that are recognized in international treaties as torture, as Bush attempted to claim.

The CIA and NSA are NOT part of the Armed Forces of the United States.

And it does not give a president the authority to ignore the Uniform Code of Military Justice or Geneva Conventions as applied to the rights of detainees in military prisons....as Bush attempted to claim and the USSC overuled on three separate occasions.

Thank you for that clarification and summarization. It made it really easy for me to understand all the points that I had wrong.

It comes down to this....the AUMFs authorize the use of military force...there is NO etc, etc.

There was no sweeping "war authority" that is limited solely to a formal Declaration of War and there was no "open ended" authorization to use the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc outside of existing law.

Testimony from Alberto gonzales in 2006 demonstrate how this administration operated:
...alll the while knowing that he and Bush had already unilaterally determined that the AUMF gave the president the authority to go beyond just the use of military force and authorize warrantless wiretapping by the NSA for the four previous years.

First what does this mean to you from the AUMF?

Second, are you saying this did not give Bush the authority to do just about whatever he wanted to do regarding the "...threat posed by Iraq..."

Don't you agree that in hindsight Congress gave Bush too much authority? And given they did not really declare war that the wording of this resolution was too vague? And then how do you conclude there is no "etc." regarding this issue alone?

In my view of this Congress gave Bush an open ended opportunity to do whatever he wanted to do regarding the "Iraq threat". O.k., let's assume that was a mistake and Congress felt Bush lied and was abusing his open ended authority. What happened next? A series of funding authorizations, in spite of the rhetoric? At no time did Congress ever redefine Bush's authority, in spite of the rhetoric? At no time did Congress revoke the open ended authority, in spite of the rhetoric? At no time did Congress seriously take up the issue of impeachment for perceived crimes and abuses by Bush, in spite of the rhetoric? Perhaps, it is not that extreme to conclude the rhetoric is and was B.S.

I understand that in the ace gonzales interpretation of the AUMF, there is a pretense that critical phrase..."is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States"... does not exist or is open ended to give the president unlimited powers.

And I agree that for the first six years of those AUMFs, the Republican Congress completely abrogated its oversight responsibilities to ensure that Bush did not exceed the authority granted.

And I even agree that in the last 18 months, the Democrats have not acted as aggessively and thoroughly as they could have ..given that their hands were tied by the lack of cooperation by their Republican colleagues (blocking legislation) and the Bush administration (ignoring subpoenas)...and yet still exposed, and with the concurrence of the federal judiciary, prevented many of those abuses from continuing.

Doesn't that mean that stop-loss is illegal right now? Not to get this too far off track, but the Armed Forces Enlistment Contract which says: "In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless the enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States."

We're not at war (we've not technically been at war since WWII), therefore stop-loss is illegal, no?

You call my interpretation of the AUMF and events surrounding the AUMF pretense, when it is not. Here is a short recap of my interpretation for the record.

Congress gave the President authority to use the military against the "Iraq threat". Republicans and Democrats supported the authorization. Congress had a major responsibility to understand all the issues prior to giving the President the authority to wage war. Saying the President lied or that he exaggerated is not justification for them not fulfilling their responsibility.

The authority given to the President was not a formal declaration of war but was the equivalent to a declaration of war in my view. The President was given open ended authority to use the military as he saw fit, his judgment. This in my view gave him the same power a President would have when war is formally declared. Congress with power of the purse, further validated the actions and judgments made by the President. Minority party or not, each vote on the Iraq invasion, occupation, and democratization mattered. Under no circumstances can I accept member of Congress being unclear on the issue of waging an offensive war.

Congress created a constitutionally vague situation by not formally declaring war, and giving Bush "war" authority in a manner that was not specific.

Bush used his judgment and in some cases tested the limits of his authority as laid out by Congress.

As is appropriate when there is a dispute between branches of government or when laws are unclear, the judicial branch was called in to clarify issues in question. I see this as a normal part of our government working. There have always been power struggles between governmental branches and there will be in the future. I don't think this means Bush acts unilaterally or makes him the most corrupt/worst President in our history. If there are issues not being resolved, it is a failing on the part of Congress. Congress has a responsibility to check the President. We can agree or disagree on the decisions and judgments made by the President, but I do not fault the President for making decisions and exercising his judgment in accordance with the power given to him by Congress. Talking about how he is abusing power while not doing anything about it is inexcusable.

I think there are lessons Congress can learn from what has happened over the past 7 years, other than simply saying the minority party had no choice, they had to compromise, they were forced, or that they simply were not as aggressive as I would have been.

In my view these are very real issues and very real lessons are to be learned. However, that assumes I give Democrats the benefit of believing that they are interested in understanding how they failed. I actually doubt Democrats in Congress believe Bush's judgments and actions were that far off of the mark.

ace....an AUMF is vague only if you want it to be vague. The language is clear...refering ONLY to the use of military force not broad "war" authority....not NSA illegal syping and not CIA illegal torture....but I dont expect you to accept that.

And to characterize the Democrats actions in the last 1-1/2 years as doing nothing and inexcusable is simply ignorant of the facts.

The most egregious of Bush's abuse of power were stopped. Within the first two months after assuming the majority, Bush's illegal "terrorist surveillance program" was dead in its tracks as a result of Congressional oversight. Within the year, Bush's illegal treatment of prisoners was significantly curtailed as a result of Congressional oversight and judicial decisions.

But I dont expect you to accept those as reasonable and responsible actions by the Democrats either...you can continue to call those actions inexcusable.

The only inexcusable action was the failure of Congress between 2001 and 2007 to exercise any oversight responsibility of the Executive branch and to give Bush a blank check to do whatever he wanted, despite the explicit limitations of the AUMFs.

And I still believe there is a possibility that Obama will ask his AG to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate further potentially criminal acts by the highest officials in the Bush administration over the last seven years that the current AG refuses to pursue or blocked.

Fortunately for all of us, your view is different from what the law says.

The constitution is extremely specific in who, where, and how war is declared. An AUMF order from congress is in no way, shape, or form even close to that constitutionally specific issue.

I quoted the law. It says what it says. Congress cited its Constitutional power to declare war to authorize Bush to use military force against the Iraqi threat as Bush saw fit. I agree that is pretty clear, and perhaps vague is not the right word. If I think of a better word I will let you know.

Regardless of the "word", what we ended up with, was pretty much equal to a herd of sheep giving open end authority to a wolf. I am a wolf and I understand what the wolf does with the authority a herd of sheep will give a wolf. After being abused by the wolf, the herd of sheep occasionally employed a guard dog, but more too often, given their baaaaa'ing, they gave the wolf more of what the wolf wanted.

I find it amusing to point out how the herd of sheep put themselves in a untenable position and then blame the wolf for being a wolf. The rationalizing is off the charts. Why can't you folks simply admit that your Democratic party leaders either screwed up monumentally or they are simply full of B.S. in their empty rhetoric.

this is really a funny line of argument that you're pursuing, ace.
say one were to concede it, in all it's self-evidence---because the
"shocking" center of your position is self-evident, at least in its surface features: yes congress capitulated. yes, congress acted in an appalling fashion by giving bush such authorities as it gave, and in language that arguably opened onto even more authorities, which the administration simply took. and yes, there is an element of backtracking in the responses of congress since the last elections.

EVERYONE KNOWS THIS ACE DARLING---but *you* seem to be under the impression that this self-evident fact of the matter is a great revelation. where the hell have you been?

the bush administration has generated what ought to be by any rational standard a series of problems for the entire american political order.
this is crisis management.
duh.


but that's not what is interesting in your last post.
here's another version:

you are now have decided to glamorize bush administration impunity with your "sheep/wolf" opposition.

so presumably you, like any number of other fascist opponents of democracy in whatever its form, do not find debate or multiplicity to be sufficiently "manly" and prefer the erect Will of an Individual Leader to it.

i doubt seriously that you have the faintest idea of the extent to which your argument harkens back to the extreme right of the 1920s...but no matter: it seems that many who fall for the neocon line operate in a historical vacuum such that wholesale recapitulation of extreme rightwing critiques of democracy as a whole from the 1920s shangri-la of germany (you know, the "good period" of fascism before things got too ugly) is not a problem.

rightwing extremists have always opposed their theories of manly dictatorship to the weak-kneed vacillation of the legislative.

turning back to the bush people, it seems that your position is now reduced to approval on sexual-aesthetic grounds, as one who cheerleads for the Dominant, but who thinks there's no fun to be had as cheerleader of the Dominant unless the Submissive says "I am Submissive."

so this isn't about law, it isn't about an interpretation of law--it isn't about much of anything except the above.

but the funniest thing of all is that you don't seem to be aware yourself of the nature and lineage of your own argument.

we can play this little game for a while, ace.

damn, ace....your sham of a post about wolves and sheep has me humming the old Sam the Sham and the Pharaoahs classic..

Howwwwllllll....you big bad wolf!

For the sake of my neocon friends operating in a historical vacuum, would you mind identifying these 1920's rightwing fascists? They seem to be under the impression that these supporters of the german shangri-la and good-fascism were primarily the progressives of the time.

you could start with my favorite, carl schmitt.
there are a number of books that you could read of his---i think political theology is a good place to start.
i was also thinking about ernst junger's novels of the same period.
storm of steel--but that's a bit more futurist.
you could also try any number of a host of books written by historians concerning early german fascism and the ideology of masculinity--start with george mosse's work and move sideways.

have a look and get back to me: i'd be happy to provide more titles, otto.

this is not a hostile post, btw--i really find it odd to see this stuff circulating from time to time amongst neocon folk-not so much at the center of the ideology, but as a way of talking about power, the aesthetics of it.

Thanks for the references, I'll take a look.

Are you saying that everyone knows that Democratic party leaders have been duped by the administration or that their rhetoric against the administration has been empty B.S.?

If what you say is true and so obvious, why isn't congress doing more? Why aren't the American people demanding more? Our current state of affairs regarding Iraq seems to be far from a crisis to me. Seems like the reported FISA violations by the administration is not at a crisis level, hell, Congress may even pass legislation to forgive the telecoms. And they have not taken any action against Bush for his alleged crimes. Oh, and let's not forget the latest spending bill for the continuation of the occupation in Iraq. You think these actions/inactions are managing a crisis?


I was more mocking Congress than glamorizing the administration. I clearly expected Bush to do what he did, I am just surprised others did not. and I know that if I was given unchecked power I would use it. Perhaps I am one of the few who would, but tell me to do what I see fit and to use my judgment and I will.

Rule #1 on managing wolves, never give a wolf an opportunity for unchecked power. Isn't that a lesson to be learned?

We speak two different languages when it comes to power and control issues. I advocate democracy, but like my quote below says, if a sheep and two wolves vote on lunch...I truly believe those who thirst power/control need to be checked. I think democracy is the best form of government for controlling those who thirst for power and control.

Rule #2 regarding managing wolves - never show weakness.

Perhaps you can specify which argument. Currently I am arguing that Democrats don't act in a manner consistent with their rhetoric. I think it is because they are dishonest.

I actually think our legislators generally support the actions taken by the administration, starting with the authorization to use force, continued funding, supporting the surge, rebuilding Iraq, democratizing Iraq, detaining terrorists, monitoring the communications of terrorists, etc., and that the rhetoric (from Democrats) is not consistent with their support of Bush.

When Bush ran for re-election he said he was going to "stay the course", he was re-elected on that basis. I voted for him on that basis. It is not more complicated than that.

I simply pointed to the law when it suited my argument. Generally, you are correct. And I do agree, and have said, that Bush tested the limits. I agree, that there are some who would not have tested the limits. However, we knew after Bush selected Dick Chaney that his administration was going to be an administration that was going to test the limits. Chaney had a clear track record of moving more power to the executive branch of government.

Rule #3 regarding managing wolves - never give power that you will want back, there will be a fight.

You can razzle, dazzle with lengthy explanations of my issues, my flaws, etc., but at least I knew what we had and what to expect. Are you suggesting there was anyone paying attention that did not know? And if they knew, how do you explain them letting him go unchecked? I stated that I had some respect for Democrats like Kucinich - he has been consistent, it seems like he understood his responsibility, and it seems he acted in ways consistent with his stated principles.

Rule #4 regarding managing wolves - be consistent, stand firm, deliver consequences quickly, decisively.

Generally, the nature and lineage of my argument is in the Socratic method. However, I am often in the position of asking and answering my own questions. I am somewhat impatient and this forum is not conducive to some of the subtleties in the arguments presented. Or again, perhaps it is in my weakness in communication - because I get the feeling you think I am presenting an argument on subjects that I am not making arguments on. I have always had difficulty when communication with people who see things in shades of gray or those who put effort into reading between the lines.

Rule #5 regarding managing wolves - know the language.

I wonder if this means I should know your language or if you should know mine? I guess it depends on the circumstance. But, are you saying that everyone knew what Bush was saying and what the implications of his words would be?

How is a post a "sham"?

By the way, I once tried a demo of that game in your video on XBOX, the controls lacked precision and the game seemed to lack a point. Reminds me of...never mind.

Sham

–noun
something that is not what it purports to be; a spurious imitation; fraud or hoax

- examples
Bush unilaterally exceeding the authority granted under the AUMFand members of his administration covering it up ---> excusable (the wolf defense)

Six years of Republican Congress failing to perform its oversight responsibility at even the most basic level to keep the administration in check---> excusable (no defense offered)

One and half years of Democratic Congress exposing and attempting to correct Bush abuses through oversight and legislative initiatives ---> inexcusable (the sheep offense)

Thats one hell of an objective set of standards and analyses!

Lemme get this straight, ace....you're posting on a thread authored by a progressive who is objecting to and challenging the presumed democratic nominee for acting "just like them"....for "standing for nothing".

Your posts on all threads on this forum maintain that "Bush doesn't lie", but democrats "are dishonest".

You post here that you voted for Bush, but he doesn't lie.... why, he even fooled his own wife:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ay#post2144242

The point is that Bush has become very similar to the enemies he "protects us from". He advocates a reduction of rights and concentration of his own power that looks more like the Kremlin than the Capitol. Just as I accuse Obama of doing, (vs. the Bush admin...) )I accuse Bush of becoming "just like them"....what is he fighting to "uphold", when he's taken it all....destroyed what our constitution once stood for?

I am challenging signs of Obama doing the same thing....you won't even admit that Bush is a liar!

Don't think anyone has ever asked what I thought was and was not excusable regarding what Bush has done, I simply explain what he did and tried to give an explanation of why he did it. I gave insight to those interested in knowing how to deal with people like Bush. The nature of a wolf makes it behavior predictable, Bush's behavior was predictable. I even tell you what my behavior would have been or would be. I never said if these behaviors/actions/decisions were right or wrong, it simply is what it is. I am the first to know when I cross a line, and I know why I cross it. I am also a person who would admit crossing the line and will tell you why. There is no wolf defense. I made the analogy to further illustrate how either Democrats had no clue or that they actually endorse many of the actions taken by Bush. Sorry, if I can not explain the point in a manner that you can understand.

The Republicans supported the actions take by Bush regarding Iraq, as did I. I have stated several times that Bush has made some mistakes, so have Republicans. However, I don't think he lied, I don't think Bush has done anything rising to the level of an impeachable offense. I do think he used hyperbole in his case for war, but I have stated all of those things.

The actions taken by Democrats don't match the level of their complaints. I asked for help reconciling that in my earliest posts on this issue, never to get any kind of response other than the common themes of Bush lied, they had no choice, or they accomplished some items on the fringes of what is important relative to their rhetoric.

For example I don't understand your behavior. If I thought I was reading a "sham", I might enjoy reading it but I certainly would not put time and energy responding to it, after all a "sham" is a "sham".

Host,

You never really address the question - was Bush's behavior a surprise to you? When Bush made his case for war - did you not consider the fact that he was over-selling his case? Did you not know that his intent was to allow no tolerance for Saddam's defiance prior to him becoming President? Did you not know that Chaney had a crusade going on in his mind regarding executive power? Did you not know that the administration would use it power against those disloyal (i.e. - Plame)? Did you not know the CIA was going to be authorized to do "more" to fight terrorism than they did under the Clinton administration? Now are you saying that Obama's inconsistencies are a surprise to you?

If someone would answer these questions honestly, I would gladly move on and perhaps you folks might understand what my views are based on.

Hell, Kerry was for the war and against it, Obama is for the second amendment meaning individuals have a right to own firearms and against it. Gee, Obama is nothing like most Republicans.

ace...I've been waiting since June 5th for you to answer one question:


I asked you to provide just one quote, preferably from the white house website, before Sept. 15, 2006, where Bush

ace, I asked you to provide one example....not from an editorial....where Bush:
...an example where Bush qualified this oft repeated assertion:
You haven't provided an example of when Bush "made it clear" about al Zarqawi's relationship with Saddam and his government, ace....

....because there is no direct quote of Bush "making it clear" that the evidence was circumstantial. There is much evidence that he did the opposite of making it clear, but you choose to hide behind your unprovable assertion that, before Martha Raddatz cornered Bush on Sept. 15, 2006,
al Zarqawi was Bush's last "smoking gun", his example of "al Qaeda in iraq", "before we got there"..... where and when did bush EVER qualify his "evidence" of this assertion....a "relationship" between Saddam and al Zarqawi, as circumstantial?

When I can't support something I've said, ace, I stop saying it !

ace...roachboy touched on it, but I don't think he quite captured the irony of a conservative mindset that "worships" a perceived masculinity that looks upon chickenhawks as virile and assertive, and decorated combat veterans like....John Kerry...as "wimps".

This is what your repeated assertion that "Bush is a wolf", reminds me, of...and you posted that you are a "wolf", too? What is up with that?

Isn't this an accurate description ace, of what you're doing in the quotes in the two boxes that follow the Greenwald's description?
(From post #127)

...then, why....ace...is it so important for you to cling to the ridiculous assertion that Bush did not lie to all of us about al Zarqawi's "relationship" with Saddam and his government?

"There is no wolf defense"....and there is no potential for a serious, political discussion with you, ace....but you're in good company... with Chris Mathews, Limbaugh, Carlson, and Goldberg....sheesh ! Why don't we just get it over with, and defer to "dick size", instead of to the will of the people and to their constitution?

I am confused by what you want. Can you simplify it.

For the record:

I have not seen any evidence of an operational relationship between 9/11, Iraq and Saddam. I have not seen any quotes stating there was an operational relationship between 9/11, Iraq and Saddam. I have seen quotes, linking Iraq and al qaeda, Saddam and al qaeda, Iraq and terrorists, Saddam and terrorists. As far as I know Iraq and Saddam have always operationally acted independently of al qaeda and visa versa. However, I act independently of you and through TFP we have been interacting with each other, there is no evidence that I have provided you with aid and support - but if there was evidence that you were in my house, people could easily make a circumstantial case that we have a relationship and that I may have provided you with aid and support.

I did provide information where Zarqwai was reportedly in Iraq. I have not seen any information showing that Zarqwai had direct communication with Saddam.

Any case made, given the available data made public, regarding a relationship between al queda, Zarqwai, and Saddam, Iraq is circumstantial. I am not sure a person needs to say that every time or any time they make an argument based on circumstantial evidence. To me it becomes self evident when I evaluate the argument.

To try to address you question I did a google search typing in the following:

"Bush statements regarding relationship between iraq and al qaeda"

The first item listed was the following, from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/Bush.alqaeda/

How much clearer can Bush be in addressing this question?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/

this link take you to a frontline program on cheney/addington and their legal theory of de facto dictatorship, which they reference as the "theory of the unitary executive."---again, this is straight carl schmitt, but with the rhetorical references stripped away.

that it is permissable within the existing system is a problem within the existing system.

one thing i think the bush people have taught us is that the power of the executive can be a Problem if the right right group of neo-fascists get access to it. another thing they *may* have taught is that this possibility--the "unitary executive" tipping toward a theory of dictatorship--is enough a problem that a basic rewrite of the rules might be in order.

in a more rigid type of constitutional system, like you see in continental europe, the bush administration would have already triggered a constitutional crisis. i am not at all sure that the inability of the american system to register crisis is a good thing. i am not at all sure of that.

I saw the Frontline documentary when it aired. I am not sure if people really underestimated Bush and his administration ( remember all the comments about how dumb he was) or if they simply wasted their time and energy talking about how dumb he was while he played them like a fiddle. Perhaps it was a combination of both. Either way, when one component of our government is not putting up a fight, our form of democracy can surely fail.

Oh, and I know it was the Republicans in Congress who are to blame at first and now that Democrats are in control they have accomplished a lot, and more is to come.

Couldn't it be reworded that it doesn't matter if the leader is righ right, neo-fascits, it just matters that the group is exploiting a weakness?

Again, the only thing that I see that this is covered by the original framers is that in 4 years you can vote the guy out of office and the new guy can overturn the previous 4 years...

The system works when it is allowed to play out and when each of the branches act as the framers envisioned to "check" the others....better than any parliamentary system, IMO.

In this case, Congress failed to perform its function for six years (and were voted out) and the Courts were not asked to become involved (they cant' do so voluntarily) or cases`had to work their way through the levels of the federal judiciary to be finally resolved.

What I think is unrealistic, once Congress and the Courts starting doing their job, is to expect immediate results or to have an immediate impact. The process of checks and balances takes time...the goal is to do it right, not do it fast.

Look back at the last example of gross abuse of power by a president. It took two years, from when the first abuses were exposed, to get red of Nixon.

add:
Congrats to rb and cynth (and the others)....well deserved!

I see at least two tracks on the concept of "immediate results". I agree that the legislative and judicial processes take time and that it is far more efficient to maintain control than to try to regain control that was lost. The second track involves on going issues, like Congress being able to use the power of the purse. At no time since Democrats have had control of both the House and Senate have they used this power to set the Iraq war agenda. Bush has continued to execute the war as he sees fit.

I certainly see merit in investigating CIA leaks, justice department firings, more clearly defining torture, etc.,( I have never stated being against investigations and holding people accountable for their actions) however, the primary issue of the day is the war. Congress, in particular Democrats, have not sent a clear and consistent message on the war issue. Are we at war, is the war failed, should we bring our troops home, should we support the surge, should we give Iraq time tables, these and other questions are not being answered, and can be.

cyn--that's in a sense the problem---the administration *can* get away with this because the possibility is itself allowed for in the context of the "checks and balances" of the system.
and like dc says, the advantage necessarily accrues to the "unitary" executive in this context because the executive can "act" where congress has to deliberate--and the judicary is only really involved at a further remove when cases work their way through the system.

so the problem seems to me to be this structural feature of the american constitutional system as enframed by a particular (neocon) ideology and acted upon by cheney/addington and the neocon cabal within the bush administration.

at one level, this seems to me to be the logical extension of the doctrine of the national security state itself---which was built around these same types of assumptions concerning the need for manly unified swift action --as over against time-consuming pusillanimous deliberative process. but in the late 1940s, this doctrine was developed as a response to stalinism, and was basically understood as a necessary counter-dictatorship that could respond to the actions of a dictatorship.

so in this case, it appears that the cheney-addington crew have made the us into a kind of terrorist state so as to be able to respond to "terrorism"...

and i think the motivations are to some extent what i thought they were for the iraq war--prolonging a cold-war type arrangement, using nationalism to justify a very reactionary political order, all in the interests of maintaining conservatism in the way it had been since world war 2--and since the 1970s in particular.

but the unitary executive doctrine seems to go beyond that into something else that i'm not sure about--i think it really is a theory of dictatorship dressed in american pseudo-democratic language, and is a manifestation of a weakness in the republican form of government (as over against a more democratic form)--which in the historical sense you see in the drift of plato from the republic to the laws, which is a very reactionary text in which the show of the republic is run by "night committees."

what i'm not sure about is the motivation. it seems then to be about power for its own sake...but sometimes i am not sure that's adequate.


a constitutional crisis comes about when the actions of a particular government reveals design problems in the framework itself. like i said, in a more rigid type of system, we'd be in a crisis now. and like i said, i'm not sure that the inability of the american system to register crisis is a good thing at all.

===

dc--thanks...

rb....a large part of the failure may be attributed to a subset of the "checks and balances".....that has occurred within Exec Branch.

Bush's three Attorneys General have repeatedly acted to attempt to provide legal justification for his policies and actions rather than to perform their mandated role "to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law...." The AG is NOT the president's attorney...he/she is the "peoples" attorney.

One possible solution? Remove the AG from the Exec Branch and make it an independent position that transcends one president's term to ensure some level of non-partisanship.

i think that is a fine idea, dc--would it follow that the executive would no longer be able to appoint the ag and/or olc offices? i would think it does. would these offices therefore become aspects of the legislative branch? would that complicate or alter relations between the 3 branches?

what do you make of the motives behind the cheney/addington crew?

Who would appoint them? Or would there be a vote?

On one level, for example the President could not act without the authority given to him by Congress to, in essence, go to war. Congress clearly failed to address the needs of reporting, time tables and controls. They just talked about it. Congress furthered the problem by continued authorization of funding to conduct the war in a manner that Bush wanted. They just talked about all of the problems.

On issues such has detaining enemy combatants and questioning techniques - Bush clearly let it be known what he was doing long before Congress seriously addressed these issues (I know Republicans fault). I imagine they were to busy investigating steroids in baseball and other weighty matters.


Every vote mattered in Congress on every issue. Why make excuses for the people who did not support the war and the actions of Bush, yet either implicitly or explicitly gave him the authority. So again, I question were the words B.S. or did they actually support Bush? I don't see this as a Constitutional crisis.

Votes matter. Some Democrats voted for Gonzales. Gonzales was clearly a Bush man. Who were these Democrats? Why did they vote for Gonzales? I know you will tell me about those who did not vote for him or why others had to vote for him, but this is an example of were actions need to be consistent with words.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895355/

Clearly all of these issues were on the table in 2005 and earlier. No real action was taken, why? Why didn't Congress confront Bush right then and there? Why didn't they use their power then?

Here is another thing I found, Bush had the support of Congress and was not acting unilaterally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/12/na...se&oref=slogin

And as we sit today, is Congress acting on the issue of what to actually do with these detainees? Has any Senator volunteered their state for holding these people while we wait for their trials? Has Congress given any legislative guidelines to our military on how they are supposed to carryout criminal investigations on a war time battle field? Everything Bush has done is wrong, perhaps now is the time to present an alternative, rather than just complaining. Perhaps our Presidential candidates can tell us what they would do, rather than wasting time on who is a patriot.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 think that in this particular situation, the amorphousness/flexibility of the american system functions to erase structural problems. you might confuse this with stability--or you might argue that it enables a form of denial. i am agnostic on this at the moment.

my point is that the seam that the neo-cons have been working, which enables the de facto formation of a bizarre type of executive branch-as-collective-dictatorship for a period of 4 years *is* a problem--and it is a problem raised by these particular people, but is not specific to them. so while the situation is a matter of fact, and involves the right, the preconditions are not specific to the republicans--the bush people did not invent this. just to be clear.

it's curious, though, that in many ways the administration seemed to want to disable the functioning of government (remember fema?) while in others they want an executive which operates with NO accountability (signing orders)...

strange business.
shame you're so obsessed with this non-point you've been making for a *long* time that you can't see this as problematic.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't know how any of you will react to this, but it doesn't inspire any confidence in Obama, as a candidate of principle, when I read quotes from one of his campaign's advisors that try to advance the same lies about FISA "expiring", as Bush has communicated to us for months now:

At most, all that needed to be passed was a change to the FISA laws that adjusted surveillance warrants procedures in response to this:


FISA itself was never set to expire if no new law was passed, it would simply revert, this August to the language, "modernized" at least 50 times over the last 30 years....that FISA contained before temporary changes passed in congress in August, 2007:

Rat bastid, MUST READ: new court ruling about FiSA law breaking: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ain/index.html "Our political elite is guilty of doing what it habitually does....letting rhe political and corporate elite off the hook for it's intentional lawbreaking." .....Rat bastid, IMO, only one of two things can be going on with Obama's reversal on passage of this FISA bill....either he is participating in 'letting the political and corporate elite off the hook for it's intentional lawbreaking'....or, he is clueless as to what this is about. Either way...he is not worth your barely questioning support. You can vote for him, as I am resigned to hsving to do, but you donlt hsve to like having to do it.

Host....a federal court ruling yesterday may have an impact as well. The judge ruled, in effect, that Bush acted illegally by circumventing FISA.
As the article goes on to note,the civil suits against the telecomms would still likely be dismissed if the immunity provision remains in the bill.....but it is my understanding that this ruling could open to the door to criminal prosecutions of Bush officials as well as telecomm offiiclals by the next president, if he directs his AG to pursue a criminal investigation.

dux... the linked piece in my post is about Bush '41 appointee, Judge Walker's ruling, as well. This is the third federal judge, of judges actually ruling on the merits of plaintiff's arguments, to rule in very similar manner, and against the warrantless surveillance. All of this opinion from judges will probably be moot after next tuesday's senate vote. But, that is a prime reason for the passage of the bill....toke the lawbreaking determinations away from the pervue of the courts to better protect the political and corporate elite from any consequences of their knowingly breaking the law. Abetting that goes against the image and rhetoric of s candidate of "hope, reform, and unity", IMO. If this isn't something to recoil at, what would be?

I've already read that article, host. I'll go on record right now saying I'm not happy with how Obama is handling (or, actually, not handling) this issue. His shift "toward the center", whatever that means, over the last week or two is troubling.

I still believe he's a strong candidate, and I suspect he's being pushed around by party bigwig handlers who have strongarmed the last several Democratic presidential candidates toward the center, costing us the white house in every case. Bubba did it in '92 and it worked, so now it's hammer to be used on any old bolt or screw. Never mind it's a losing strategy. I only pray there's enough wind under Obama's sails to weather it.

We're currently on the eve of the Senate vote which will replace existing (and perfectly functional) FISA law with a bill that expands executive power, grants retroactive community to telecoms who illegally cooperated in spying on Americans, and that will continue to destroy the constitutional right to privacy (it includes spying on Americans). Here's the kicker: 70 senators still haven't even been briefed on the bill. They don't even know what they're being asked to grant immunity for.

Based on precedence, several Democrats will cross the divide and support this legislative garbage. It will pass, and the telecoms will be given retroactive immunity. Nothing short of a Fight Club-esque "project mayhem" will be able to hold anyone accountable for anything when it comes to wiretapping.

Bush committed a felony at least 30 times and he's going to get a pass.

i'm not going to get into this deeply, but I did want to comment on the "unitary executive" theory. People are confusing this with the scope of executive power, which is a different issue.

First sentence of Article II of the Const says (in paraphrase) the executive power of the US shall be vested in a President. The "unitary executive" theory says this sentence means that whatever executive power of the US is, it resides in the president and not elsewhere. Only one executive. That's the unitary executive theory. It tells you nothing about the content of the executive power and it tells you nothing about the scope of the executive power. It tells you only who has it. So, for example, Congress can't administer the Dept of Transportation because that's an executive function.

The real argument that has been going on is not over the unitary executive, but over the content and scope of the President's power. Different issue. Using the wrong label for it confuses the analysis.

loquitor.....here's a legal question for you. Is there a sovereign immunity issue protecting Bush after he leaves office? Would it extend to persons beyond Bush...like Gonzales

If, as the next president, Obama authorizes his AG to investigate Bush's terrorist surveillence program and finds reasonable cause to believe it was illegal....can an indictment of Bush (and/or Gonzales) be presented to a grand jury on the basis of:

with the telecomms CEO's as unindicted co-conspirators to compel their testimony?

thanks for the clarification, loquitor---addington et al compress their position into the longer-term question you raise as if they're just working this area---but it's not the case, i don't think.

what do you see as the similarities or differences, though (between the addington/cheney theory of the executive and the prerogatives of the president in more traditional language)?

actually, Addington was pretty straight about this when he was grilled last month, I forget by whom. He has a real attitude problem - even over the videotape you could smell his contempt. But the answer he gave was on the money: all the executive power, one president. The questioner wasn't smart enough to ask the next question, which is, "how broad is that executive power and what oversight ability/responsibility does Congress have?" But Congresscritters not being smart enough is not a new development.

In actuality it's not quite as clean as I was suggesting - there are certain executive functions that can be split off in certain circumstances (see, e.g., Morrison v Olson) - but as a general proposition it is absolutely true that the president is the repository of the executive power. How that fits with, say, independent regulatory agencies (as opposed to regulatory agencies that are in the executive branch) is a different question. And of course all this tells you nothing about the content and scope of that power.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...vote=00168#top

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...q/fisavote.png

Politics, seems to be business as usual as far as I can tell, which isn't very much.

In terms of the roll call vote, McCain hasnt voted on any bill in the Senate since April....that way he can take credit for bills that pass that he opposed..like the recent GI Bill.

In terms of the FISA bill...as bad as it is with the retroactive immunity for telecomms, it still is an improvement over the Protect America Act by:

codifying the fact that FISA provides the sole legal authority for wiretaps (no more claiming that an AUMF provides that authority)

providing greater standards of "reasonable cause" for the FISA court to issue warrants for wiretaps

providing greater oversight of the FISA warrant process

provides far more restrictions on "reverse targeting" of US citizens

IMO, the 30-40 civil lawsuits against the telecomms would never have seen the light of day under any circumstances. I believe criminal sanctions against the major perpetrators (Bush/Gonzales) is still a possibility.

And my friends farther left than me are over reacting and are assuming that the next president will show the same blatant disregard for the law as Bush and the next Congress will be as negligent in its oversight as the Republican Congress was between 2001 and 2005 when the illegal warrantless wiretaps occured.

In the end, I pretty much agree with Feingold's conclusion, the most outspoken opponent of the bill in the Senate, although I think he is over reacting as well (for the reasons I noted above):

Don't piss down the back of my fucking neck and then tell me it;s raining, _dux.... bullsheeeeeet!!!!!!!! (If that kinda treatment is what I want, my buddy Obama is more than willing to whip it out !)

I'll slice and dice this, two ways for you.....

Let's call this what it is...._dux, it's a naked, fucking "power grab" by the cynical elite who control the "other" right wing party.....in tended to manipulate the fanatical main right ring party into handing new "lawful" anti fourth amendment rights to the presumed presidential campaing victor in november. It shows that there is not respect for the people and the limits delineated in their bill of rights, in either of the elite party leader groups.

We "got" nothing _dux....democrat leaders think they did, but it makes them look weak, vaciliating, unprincipled, untrustworthy, and not different enough from republicans for it to matter much!

host...I am not trying to bullshit you or anyone.

But I think Greenwald is....by playing on the fears of the worst possible scenario (mimicking a Bush tactic) of having the next president being as corrupt and unethical as Bush and a Congress as unresponsive and irresponsible as the 107th-109th

I recognize the shortcomimngs of the bill, particularly the retroactive immunity. But even some leading Democratics who voted against it -- Leahy, Boxer, Schumer, Whitehouse -- have acknowledged it provides better oversight and more safeguards against abuse than the PAA.

And, IMO, a fallback to the orginal FISA law would be a greater loss for the Democrats by playing right into Bush/Republican hands that the Dems "are weak on national security."

My goal is to elect a Democratic president, expand a Democratic Congress....and then FIX IT!

If the cesspool that is/was the "crowd" assembled on Jupiter Island, the group that gives us both Bushes....the most underreported "assembly" of bankers, arms merchants, intelligence apparatus movers/shakers, media owners, cabinet level "advisors", world's richest, in the history of modern journalism....that the "system" is what they've designed it to be....unchangeable without them signing off on the changes.....is an indication of the challenge....the hopelessness of your mission....what you seek is not possible to achieve, _dux.....

What you witness yesterday in the senate is Obama going through the vetting process,,,,seeking the approval of those who are actually "in charge".

host....I agree with you on many issues. I even accept the undue influence of the PTB.

But here is where we part ways.....I believe in a pragmatic approach to affecting change by working the system where you believe in a "people's revolution" to take the power back from the PTBs.

host...the problem with your approach is that you cant have "people's revolution" without the people...and the fact is, you dont have them on your side.

What you might accomplish is the reverse of your goal...driving many moderate Independents back to the right. What I am trying to accomplish is to act on those growing number of policy issues where those moderate Independents will ally with progressives and build on that foundation.

dc dux,
My concern driven question is.....what if you're engaged in the only venue and process THEY have relegated you and the other actors who believe in and operate in that arena ....out of THEIR way unless/until you and your process are useful to them, like yesterday, in the FISA fight that wasnlt? Who gained....the PTB, with their penchant for intelligence gathering and control...or the people? You're right about the indifference related ignorance of the people, but somebody has to fill the role I am trying to fill. It used to be filled sometimes in the congress....it took depression as the catalyst, but in the 30's, Dickstein McCormack, Gerald Nye, and TNEC rattled the PTB's cages. No one in congress continues to question the PTB, or even it's errand boys...the sitting and past presidents. I think the PTB had already become too international in scope, in the decade before WWI, for what you advocate doing now, and for what Nye and TNEC tried to raise awareness obout...to have an effect....a transfer of appreciable power away from the PTB, for it to be worth your effort/devotion. From what I am seeing, the German Dye Trust's relationships of neccessity....the intellectual property related arrangements, made the PTB 's allegiance, extranational:

(Consider that all of Time's reporting was mocking of efforts to investigate and uncover the secrets of the PTB, if inquiry was undertaken by elected officials....)
The background is that, as early as in 1908, Northeastern US arms manufacturers were "gearing up" production for war. The record shows that US government officials neither requested nor encouraged this private "enterprise"..... Marcellus Dodge borrowed/invested $62 million in 1914, 3 years before US involvment in WWI, to turn Remington Arms and United Metal Cartridge into a huge armament manufacturing powerhouse, raising employment in a year, from 5000 to 50,000. By 1916, the bankers took control of Remington/UMC, under the management of it's VP and director, Samuel Pryor. Pryor bought Jupiter Island in Hobe Sound, Fl, about 1930. His daughter Permelia and Brown Bros. Harriman partner husband, Joseph Reed, decided who could buy property on the island.

In 1933, Walter S. Carpenter, head of the Du Pont Corp. finance committee, and by 1940, first outside the Du Pont family president and later chairman of the company, negotiated the sale of Reminton/UMC to Du Pont. Walter Carpenter was permitted to buy property on Jupiter Island. Du Pont bros. attorney during Sen. Nye's investigations of the WWI armament and explosives indiustry (took place in 1934...) was Col. Wild Bill Donovan, WWII director of OSS. Jupiter Island homeowner, Paul Mellon, son of Treas, Sect'y Andrew.... had a daughter, Ailsa who was married to the head of OSS in London, David Bruce. When his by then, ex-wife and Mellon daughter died in 1969, she was the wealthiest woman in the US.

Even in 1968, only 153 people in the US, were worth over $150 million, according to Fortune Mag.... and I posted in another thread that Jupiter resident and Yale bonesman, Robert Lovett headed the committee that dersigned the CIA....as asst. secretary of war, under Roosevelt's successor, Truman, Lovett always had been a proponent of massive bombing of civilian urban centers....what do you think his advice to Truman was, as far as using the A-Bomb, developed by his Jupiter Island neigbor, Walter Carpenter's company, Du Pont?

Call me crazy, but I think the PTB only permitted Nye's investigation because they were worried about revolution at the depths of the 30's depression, and investigations were permitted as safety valves....to let off steam.....

The point.....the PTB may simply have you in an elaborate "day care center", where they feed you "crumbs", and you view it as "consensus building pragmatism"....."progress" which they dangle in front of you, but, you will never have....as the way this FISA "op" went down...since June 20th, clearly shows....the PTB deciding to flex it's muscles....and shit in all of our little peon, faces!

I've posted a sequel to the post above, here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...17#post2484817

host....do you think a Church Committee-style investigation would demonstrate a commitment by the Democrats to address the abuses of the Constitutional and US and international law by the Bush administration?
I think it would be invaluable and I would even go so far as grant immunity to some of the "lower" players in order to get at the truth.

If the impact (20 months into democratic control of the house....) of the numerous investigations led by Conyers and Waxman, are any indication, _dux, I would have to say, I doubt that a "Church Committee-style investigation", would have any appreciable effect on public opinion.

On a side note.....

If there was a truly beneficial difference between the "two parties" in the struggle over the distribution of power and wealth resulting from the achievements of one party vs. the other, would we see "results", like these?


If only those running for president who are approved by the wealthiest and most powerful do become the major party nominees, would the results be any different than the ones described above? If the top one percent own 33 percent of total US wealth, do the results of the study described above, show that their wealth has been dimnished by anything happening in the American political system?

host...the difference would be that such a Committee or Commission would have enforcement powers to compel testimony and documents - something that standing Congressional committees do not have. Bush has effectively stalled testimony of key officials and documents to the point that he can now run out his term w/o compliance, even if ordered by the courts in the next few months.

So much has been withheld from Congressional oversight inquiries in the last two years that there needs to be a means for such information to be exposed....not for retribution, but for reform.

While it may not result in punishment in and of itself, it could result in enactment of additional legislative safeguards to prevent the types of Executive Branch abuses that have occurred over the last eight years.

And it could refer alleged criminal acts to the DoJ for further investigation and prosecution.

Another example for why I don't expect change to come "through the system", dc_dux. If it comes at all, it will be in spite of "the system", not via it. It's reduced to something of no more consequence, that would actually benefit most of us....than say....NASCAR, only it has much poorer ratings and lower viewer, share.....

Complicit enablers, or idiot enablers.....and it doesn't really matter which.....SHEESH !

Background:

host...I think its unfortunate that you have no faith in the system.

It may not be perfect and I certainly dont agree with every policy or action that results, but IMO, there is no better and more accountable system anywhere in the world...particularly when the Constitutional checks and balances work as envisioned....which, I think we would agree, has not been the case over the last eight years.

I honestly dont know what you think might be a better system or how you think you can make things better by working outside the system.

I think there will be attempts, when the economic pain that is is the process of planting itself, really gets going....like this, by Upton Sinclair, in 1934,

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...ml#post2407157

....to go around the system, within the framework of political organizing and the voting process,

but, I don't think it will even be tolerated to the level that Sinclair attempted, if the events of this weekend are an indicator;

Federal government involved in raids on protesters - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

....I think the folks in charge of the emerging police state will provoke the spilling of blood which, once it begins to flow in earnest, won't be easy to end, as the atrocities accumulate, but.... maybe the people will just sit there and take it, no matter the height of the level of corruption, oppression, and injustice.