Obama & Dem Leaders Act Same As Bush: Lying Corporatist, Stealing Our Bill of Rights - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dc_dux · 06-27-2008, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

Willravel · 06-27-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

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?

aceventura3 · 06-29-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

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.

dc_dux · 06-29-2008, 02:34 PM

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.

ratbastid · 06-29-2008, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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

dksuddeth · 06-29-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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.

aceventura3 · 06-30-2008, 07:43 AM

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.

roachboy · 06-30-2008, 08:07 AM

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.

dc_dux · 06-30-2008, 08:19 AM

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!

ottopilot · 06-30-2008, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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.

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.

roachboy · 06-30-2008, 08:26 AM

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.

ottopilot · 06-30-2008, 08:33 AM

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

aceventura3 · 06-30-2008, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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?

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.?

Quote:

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.

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?

Quote:

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.

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?

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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."

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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!

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.

dc_dux · 06-30-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

How is a post a "sham"?

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!

host · 06-30-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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!

aceventura3 · 06-30-2008, 12:19 PM

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".

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

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".

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.

host · 06-30-2008, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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....

....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....

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Post #90 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2461896
....Bush stated that he never said there was an operational relationship. I think he came to the conclusion there was a relationship based on circumstantial evidence. I accept the fact that there may have been occasions when he did not make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence and other times when he did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Post #107 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2461896
Here are the relevant Bush and Cheney quotes, ace....can you single out the one(s) where either official "make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence", or come up with a relevant quote that I might have missed?:

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=112
I responded to what you posted, in your post directly before your most recent one:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Bush stated that he never said there was an operational relationship. I think he came to the conclusion there was a relationship based on circumstantial evidence. I accept the fact that there may have been occasions when he did not make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence and other times when he did. ......

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Here are the relevant Bush and Cheney quotes, ace....can you single out the one(s) where either official "make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence", or come up with a relevant quote that I might have missed?:

....and you ignored my question...... the list of Bush and Cheney quotes is in the lower portion of my last post....waiting for you. Feel free to cite your own quotes of occasions where either Bush or Cheney, "make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence", when it came to assertions that "Saddam had relations with al Zarqawi"....

If you believe this, it should be a simple exercise to point out when and where, before September 15, 2006....Bush "make[s] it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence", when it came to assertions that "Saddam had relations with al Zarqawi"....

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Post #90 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2461896
....Bush stated that he never said there was an operational relationship..... I accept the fact that there may have been occasions when he did not make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence and other times when he did.

ace, I asked you to provide one example....not from an editorial....where Bush:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

[made it] clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence...

...an example where Bush qualified this oft repeated assertion:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
August 15, 2006
.....Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. .....

You haven't provided an example of when Bush "made it clear" about al Zarqawi's relationship with Saddam and his government, ace....

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

[made it] clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence...

....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,

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

....I accept the fact that there may have been occasions when he did not make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence and other times when he did.

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?

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...6/14/matthews/
Thursday June 14, 2007 13:33 EDT
Chris Matthews on Fred Thompson's sexiness and smells

(updated below - updated again)

I've written a fair amount recently about the media's obsession with the faux-masculinity of GOP candidates in general, and the tough-guy military persona of Fred Thompson in particular, and don't have all that much to add about that specific topic at the moment. Still, this dialogue last night about Fred Thompson from Chris Matthews -- who is really just the slightly less restrained id version of most media stars -- is simply too extraordinary not to note:

Does [Fred Thompson] have sex appeal? I'm looking at this guy and I'm trying to find out the new order of things, and what works for women and what doesn't. Does this guy have some sort of thing going for him that I should notice? . . .

Gene, do you think there's a sex appeal for this guy, this sort of mature, older man, you know? He looks sort of seasoned and in charge of himself. What is this appeal? Because I keep star quality. You were throwing the word out, shining star, Ana Marie, before I checked you on it. . . .

Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of -- a little bit of cigar smoke? You know, whatever.

What can even be said about that? And nobody really seems to find this odd or disturbing or objectionable at all -- that night after night, one of the featured "journalists" of a major news network goes on television and, with some of our most prestigious journalists assembled with him, speaks admiringly about the smells and arousing masculinity and the "daddy" qualities of various political officials, and that this metric is, more or less, the full extent of his political analysis.

During the last week, when I was traveling, I spent substantial time driving in a rental car, and thus had the opportunity to listen for large chunks of time to The Rush Limbaugh Show, which I hadn't actually heard in several years. Virtually the entire show is now devoted to an overt celebration of masculinity -- by Rush Limbaugh -- and to claims that Democrats and liberals lack masculinity.

As but one example, Rush claimed that the New York Times buried the story of the JFK terrorist plot on page C30, immediately prior to the Sports Section, because nobody would see it there, because the "wimps and sissies who read the New York Times don't read the Sports section, because it's too macho for them."

And just as Glenn Reynolds has done, Rush has developed a virtual obsession with the book The Dangerous Book for Boys, geared towards teaching "boys how to be boys." Rush spent the week hailing it as the antidote to what he calls the "Emasculation of America."

Identically, Reynolds on his blog has promoted the book a disturbing 17 times in the last six weeks alone. When doing so, he routinely proclaims things such as "maybe there's hope," and -- most revealingly -- has fretted: "Are we turning into a nation of wimps?" It is the identity of the "we" in that sentence where all the meaning lies. Perhaps if "we" torture enough bound and gagged prisoners and bomb enough countries, "we" can rid ourselves of that worry.

Republicans have long tried to exploit masculinity images and depict Democrats and liberals as effeminate and therefore weak. That is not new. But what is new is how explicit and upfront and unabashed this all is now. And what is most striking about it is that -- literally in almost every case -- the most vocal crusaders for Hard-Core Traditional Masculinity, the Virtues of Machismo, are the ones who so plainly lack those qualities on every level.

There are few things more disorienting than listening to Rush Limbaugh declare himself the icon of machismo and masculinity and mock others as "wimps." And if you look at those who have this obsession -- the Chris Matthews and Glenn Reynolds and Jonah Goldbergs and Victor Davis Hansons -- what one finds in almost every case is that those who want to convert our political process and especially our national policies into a means of proving one's "traditional masculine virtues" -- the physically courageous warriors unbound by effete conventions -- themselves could not be further removed from those attributes, and have lives which are entirely devoid of such "virtues."

This is notable not merely because this pervasive and insecure craving for artificial masculinity supplants rational and substantive political considerations, though it does do that. Nor is it notable merely because it is so unpleasant, even cringe-inducing to behold, though it is that, too. Instead, this topic is unavoidable, really at the center of our political discourse, because it leads directly to some of our most significant and controversial political decisions....

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn Greenwald

...this pervasive and insecure craving for artificial masculinity supplants rational and substantive political considerations, though it does do that. Nor is it notable merely because it is so unpleasant, even cringe-inducing to behold, though it is that, too. Instead, this topic is unavoidable, really at the center of our political discourse, because it leads directly to some of our most significant and controversial political decisions.....

(From post #127)

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

....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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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. ....

...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?

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ism/index.html
Friday June 29, 2007 10:09 EDT
Tucker, Jonah, Elizabeth and Jillian

On Tuesday, Tucker Carlson invited Jonah Goldberg onto his show so that they could both giddily share their deep personal affection for Dick Cheney while debating which of Cheney's strong and manly attributes are their favorite ones. In just two minutes of chatty, giggly Cheney worship, the following tough-guy cliches flew from their mouths:

* Cheney "doesn't bother talking the talk, he just walks the walk";

* he's "a politician who doesn't look at the polls. . . another Harry Truman";

* "love to have a beer with the guy";

* "a smart, serious man in American life";

* "Have you ever seen Dick Cheney give a speech? I mean, the contempt for the audience is palpable" -- "I know, I -- see, I love that. He looks like he should be eating a sandwich while he's doing it, eating lunch over the sink . . I love that";

* "I can just see him yelling, hey you kids, get off my lawn. I love it."

As always, the pulsating need among the strain of individual represented by Tucker Carlson and Johan Goldberg to search endlessly for strong, powerful, masculine figures so that they can feel those attributes and pose as one who exudes them (Jonah Goldberg: "love to have a beer with the guy") is its own stomach-turning though vitally important topic. The same is true of the fact that the movement of which they are a part virtually always venerates as Icons of Courageous Sandwich-Eating Masculinity precisely those figures who so transparently play-act at the role but whose lives never exhibit any such attributes in reality. That, too, is its own rich and abundant topic.

But I want to focus on one specific exchange between Tucker and Jonah as they explored the Greatness of Dick Cheney:

CARLSON: But I'm bothered by Cheney's -- but does -- Cheney's secrecy, his penchant for secrecy. I mean, this is a cliche, a stereotype, but it's rooted, apparently, in truth. The guy really is secretive to a degree we haven't seen in a while. That is -- I mean, we do have a right to know what our government is doing, don't we?

GOLDBERG: Yes, sure, although I think you would concede, even though you and I disagree about some foreign policy stuff, you and I would agree that there are some things that should be kept secret. We might disagree about what they are.

CARLSON: Right.

GOLDBERG: And you know, but I do think that what Cheney has learned after a lifetime in Washington as a power player, is that the person who holds the secrets has power. And he is using that for what I would say, or probably what he believes to be certainly good ends. A lot of people disagree on that, but he's trying to do best as he can and he sees holding onto power as a tool to do that.

That, of course, is the defining mentality of the Authoritarian Mind, captured in its purest essence by Jonah. Our Leaders are Good and want to protect us. Therefore, we must accept -- and even be grateful -- when they prevent us from knowing what they are doing. The less we know, the more powerful our Leaders are. And that is something we accept and celebrate, for our Leaders are Good and we trust that the more powerful they are, the better we all shall be.

No inferences or interpretations are required to describe Jonah's mentality this way. That is precisely -- expressly -- what he said.....

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/09/...ush-monologue/
August 9th 2007
In A Three Minute Monologue, Matthews Gushes Over Bush’s ‘Great Neo-Conservative Mind’

...Bush’s comments today, which contained at least one untrue assertion, were nothing more than a rehashing of his tired old rhetoric. Yet somehow, Matthews, who is labeled a liberal by partisan conservatives, only saw it through rose-colored glasses.

Matthews’ monologue is unsurprising, however, given his long record of hero worship for Bush and his supposedly “powerful” presidency:

– “We’re proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who’s physical.” [5/1/03]

– “Sometimes it glimmers with this man, our president, that kind of sunny nobility.” [10/25/05]

– “I like him. Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left.” [11/28/05]

– “A little bit of Lincoln there, I think,” referring to Bush finally admitting that telling Iraqi insurgents to “bring it on” in 2003 “sent the wrong signal to people.” [5/25/06]

Given the president’s track record with the truth on Iraq, Matthews should check his uncritical awe at the door.

UPDATE: Media Matters catches Matthews lamenting over the lack of “big, beefy” and “every-way big” guys in the Democratic presidential race.

"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?

aceventura3 · 07-01-2008, 07:02 AM

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:

Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Thursday said that there were "numerous contacts" between Iraq and the terror network.

Bush, in a brief appearance before reporters, was asked why the administration insists that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had a relationship "when even you have denied any connection between Saddam and September 11, and now the September 11 commission says that there was no collaborative relationship at all?"

The president answered:"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

Bush reiterated that the administration never said that "the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda," he said.

He referred to meetings in Sudan between Iraqi intelligence agents and al Qaeda and said Saddam had connections with organizations considered by the United States to be terror groups -- including Abu Nidal. That group is a spinoff from the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

In the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, Bush had made stronger statements alleging cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. In a October 2002 speech, he said, "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

The initial report from the 9/11 commission, which held a public hearing Wednesday and Thursday, said Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to (Saddam) Hussein's secular regime."

It says the contact was pushed by the Sudanese "to protect their own ties with Iraq." After bin Laden asked for space in Iraq for training camps, the report said, "Iraq apparently never responded."

It also said:"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

"I always said that Saddam Hussein was a threat," Bush said. He was "a threat because he provided safe haven for a terrorist like (Abu Musab al-) Zarqawi, who is still killing innocents inside of Iraq."

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

How much clearer can Bush be in addressing this question?

roachboy · 07-02-2008, 06:17 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 07-02-2008, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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.

Cynthetiq · 07-02-2008, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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.

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...

dc_dux · 07-02-2008, 06:59 AM

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!

aceventura3 · 07-02-2008, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

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.

roachboy · 07-02-2008, 07:41 AM

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...

dc_dux · 07-02-2008, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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.

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.

roachboy · 07-02-2008, 08:10 AM

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?

Willravel · 07-02-2008, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

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

aceventura3 · 07-02-2008, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

... the advantage necessarily accrues to the "unitary" executive in this context because the executive can "act" where congress has to deliberate--...

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

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.

Quote:

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Thursday to confirm White House counsel Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, setting aside Democratic complaints he helped craft questionable U.S. policies on the treatment of foreign prisoners.

Gonzales, 49, a longtime friend who was President Bush’s legal counsel when he was governor of Texas, became the first Hispanic to be the nation’s top law officer when Vice President Dick Cheney swore him in shortly thereafter in the vice president’s office in the West Wing of the White House.

The vote was 60-36, with all the opposition coming from Democrats. The “no” votes were the second most ever lodged against a successful nominee for attorney general. John Ashcroft, whom Gonzales succeeds, was confirmed 58-42 on Feb. 1, 2001.

Quote:

Other Democrats opposed Gonzales, accusing him of being evasive in his answers to their questions about White House policies in the war on terrorism.

“He was so circumspect in his answers, so unwilling to leave a micron of space between his views and the president’s, that I now have real doubts whether he can perform the job of attorney general,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

“In short, Judge Gonzales still seems to see himself as counsel to the president, not attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer of the land,” Schumer continued.

Opponents cite interrogation memo
Senate Democrats have used the nomination — as they did with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — to criticize the war in Iraq and the treatment of foreign prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

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.

Quote:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 - Democrats who had voted previously to prohibit abusive treatment of detainees in American custody provided the margin of victory on Thursday for a Republican-backed measure that would deny prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detention in federal courts.

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.

roachboy · 07-02-2008, 10:45 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 07-02-2008, 10:58 AM

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.

host · 07-02-2008, 10:59 AM

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:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us...yt&oref=slogin
Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity

By JAMES RISEN
Published: July 2, 2008

....Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer who advises the Obama campaign, said Tuesday in an interview that Mr. Obama had decided to support the compromise FISA legislation only after concluding it was the best deal possible.

“This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip,” Mr. Craig said. “Obviously, there was an element of what’s possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire.” ....

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/28/bush/
Thu February 28, 2008

Bush: We're in a slowdown

.... Bush also urged House leadership to pass legislation that would provide legal immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the intelligence community eavesdrop on suspected terrorists after the September 11 attacks. Video Watch Bush urge Congress to move ahead with FISA »

"The law expired; the threat to America didn't expire," Bush said in reiterating a push to permanently update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that regulates wiretapping.
Don't Miss

A temporary extension of the law expired February 16, days after the Senate had passed a more permanent version. That bill included a provision that would provide retroactive immunity to any telecommunications companies that helped the intelligence community eavesdrop on suspected terrorists.

The House version did not include that immunity, and it failed to pass another 21-day extension.

The Bush administration says the expiration of the temporary measure has left the United States vulnerable to terrorists, but Democrats say that provisions remain in effect allowing the government to institute wiretaps as long as they get FISA court approval within 72 hours.

Bush has often said that the law is outdated and needs to be changed to account for modern technology.

Telephone and Internet companies face as many as 40 lawsuits related to their compliance with government requests to tap into that traffic......

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

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...702221_pf.html
Agency Seeks Greater Surveillance Power Overseas

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A04

....The underlying question hinges on modern technology: When communications between one foreign-located source and another foreign-located source travel through a U.S.-located terminal or switch, can they be intercepted without a warrant?...

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:

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802190005?f=h_latest

....In fact, FISA did not lapse or expire. What expired http://mediamatters.org/items/200802160001?f=s_search was the Protect America Act (PAA), which amended FISA and, among other things, expanded http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/wa...erland&emc=rss the government's authority to eavesdrop on Americans' domestic-to-foreign communications without a warrant. Indeed, Pelosi noted http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0533 in a February 13 statement that "the underlying Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides for the surveillance of terrorists and provides that in emergencies surveillance can begin without warrant, remains intact and available to our intelligence agencies."

The Washington Post reported http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021403920.html in a February 14 article headlined "If the Law Expires," that if the PAA expired, "[t]he government would retain all the powers it had before last August under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires the government to obtain court approval for surveillance conducted on U.S. soil or against U.S. targets." Further, a February 14 New York Times article reported:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/wa...sq=fisa&st=nyt

"The lapsing of the deadline would have little practical effect on intelligence gathering. Intelligence officials would be able to intercept communications from Qaeda members or other identified terrorist groups for a year after the initial eavesdropping authorization for that particular group.

If a new terrorist group is identified after Saturday, intelligence officials would not be able to use the broadened eavesdropping authority. They would be able to seek a warrant under the more restrictive standards in place for three decades through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

host · 07-03-2008, 09:19 AM

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.

dc_dux · 07-03-2008, 09:38 AM

Host....a federal court ruling yesterday may have an impact as well. The judge ruled, in effect, that Bush acted illegally by circumventing FISA.

Quote:

A federal judge in California said Wednesday that the wiretapping law established by Congress was the “exclusive” means for the president to eavesdrop on Americans, and he rejected the government’s claim that the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped that law.

The judge, Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge for the Northern District of California, made his findings in a ruling on a lawsuit brought by an Oregon charity. The group says it has evidence of an illegal wiretap used against it by the National Security Agency under the secret surveillance program established by President Bush after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The Justice Department has tried for more than two years to kill the lawsuit, saying any surveillance of the charity or other entities was a “state secret” and citing the president’s constitutional power as commander in chief to order wiretaps without a warrant from a court under the agency’s program.

But Judge Walker, who was appointed to the bench by former President George Bush, rejected those central claims in his 56-page ruling. He said the rules for surveillance were clearly established by Congress in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to get a warrant from a secret court.

“Congress appears clearly to have intended to — and did — establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence activities to be conducted,” the judge wrote. “Whatever power the executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities and it limits the executive branch’s authority to assert the state secrets privilege in response to challenges to the legality of its foreign intelligence surveillance activities.”

Judge Walker’s voice carries extra weight because all the lawsuits involving telephone companies that took part in the N.S.A. program have been consolidated and are being heard in his court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/wa...ef=todayspaper

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.

host · 07-03-2008, 10:32 AM

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?

ratbastid · 07-03-2008, 11:43 AM

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.

Willravel · 07-09-2008, 10:04 AM

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.

loquitur · 07-09-2008, 02:34 PM

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.

dc_dux · 07-09-2008, 02:51 PM

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:

Quote:

§ 1809. Criminal sanctions
(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.
(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.

US Code

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

roachboy · 07-09-2008, 03:04 PM

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)?

loquitur · 07-09-2008, 03:27 PM

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.

06-29-2008, 02:34 PM	#124 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	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. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-29-2008 at 04:32 PM..

06-30-2008, 07:43 AM	#127 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	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. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

06-30-2008, 08:07 AM	#128 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-30-2008, 08:19 AM	#129 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	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! __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

06-30-2008, 08:26 AM	#131 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-30-2008, 08:33 AM	#132 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	Thanks for the references, I'll take a look. __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

07-02-2008, 06:17 AM	#139 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-02-2008, 06:59 AM	#142 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	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! __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-02-2008 at 07:20 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

07-02-2008, 07:41 AM	#144 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-02-2008, 08:10 AM	#146 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-02-2008, 10:45 AM	#149 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-03-2008, 09:19 AM	#152 (permalink)
host Banned	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. Last edited by host; 07-04-2008 at 05:57 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

07-03-2008, 10:32 AM	#154 (permalink)
host Banned	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?

07-03-2008, 11:43 AM	#155 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	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.

07-09-2008, 10:04 AM	#156 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

07-09-2008, 02:34 PM	#157 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	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.

07-09-2008, 03:04 PM	#159 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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)? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-09-2008, 03:27 PM	#160 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	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.