Congress Explicitly Said War Resolution Did Not Expand Executive Power
Congress Explicitly Said War Resolution Did Not Expand Executive Power
President Bush claimed at yesterday’s press conference that he did not have to secure warrants because “after September the 11th, the United States Congress also granted me additional authority to use military force against al Qaeda.â€
And Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave a lengthier legal explanation:
Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.
It might be news to Congress that they authorized the President to carry out what might be illegal spying on American citizens. Many members of Congress specifically said the resolution did not expand Presidential powers:
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK):
Some people say that is a broad change in authorization to the Commander in Chief of this country. It is not. It is a very limited concept of giving him the authority to pursue those who have brought this terrible destruction to our country and to pursue those who have harbored them or assisted them and conspired with them in any way. [Congressional Record, 9/14/01]
Rep. James McGovern (D-MA):
The body of this resolution is appropriately limited to those entities involved in the attacks that occurred on September 11th…It reiterates the existing constitutional powers of the President to take action to defend the United States, but provides no new or additional grant of powers to the President. [Congressional Record, 9/14/01]
More below:
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE):
In extending this broad authority to cover those ‘planning, authorizing, committing, or aiding the attacks’ it should go without saying, however, that the resolution is directed only at using force abroad to combat acts of international terrorism. [Congressional Record, 9/14/01]
Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ):
The resolution is not a blank check. We do this with our eyes open and in fervent prayer, especially the prayer that President Bush and his national security team will be lavished with wisdom from God above to use only that force which is truly necessary and only that force which is truly appropriate. [Congressional Record, 9/14/01]
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX):
The tension that we face tonight is to provide the President with enough authority to eradicate wrongdoing without wronging the carefully crafted systems of checks and balances so essential to our democracy. … As we vote for this important resolution with the lives of so many at stake in this important endeavor against terrorism, we cannot let the executive branch become the exclusive branch. [Congressional Record, 9/14/01]
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
77 Responses to “Congress Explicitly Said War Resolution Did Not Expand Executive Power”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The only thing you can say in defense of the president today is that his assault on the constitution and the rule of law was bold, audacious, and competently executed - for a change.
Imagine if Clinton had initiated spying on US citizens without a warrant, in violation of the law which created the FISA court in 1979 to handle exactly these kinds of wiretaps. He would have been impeached at gunpoint before the end of the week.
Bush, by stating that he has approved this pattern of abuse of power over thirty times in the past and will continue to do so, has struck the kind of note that will ring authentically among his paranoid supporters. Rather than hide from questions about this obvious felony he’s committed numerous times, Bush acts as if this were a debatable course of action about which reasonable minds can differ. It’s almost as if the cat burglar has appeared at the front door, stating, “I robbed you last year, last month… I robbed you last week three times, and the minute you turn your back, I’ll rob you again… I can do this because I disagree with the law and, after 9/11, laws guarding property are, in fact, quaint and obsolete. If you have privacy, the terrorists will use it to their advantage.” The success of this kind of argument depends wholely on its audacity and the appearance of absolute conviction on the part of the criminal.
We can’t be swayed by Bush’s haughtiness and apparent self-confidence. His assertion of this privilege must be carefully examined by cool heads on both “sides.” We can’t fall prey to the “Bold Leader Syndrome.” History teaches us that once a nation of laws becomes a nation of boldly audacious individual leaders who place themselves above the law, we descend into nationalism, fascism, and brute force as the only law. Mussolini, Hitler, Gengis Khan perhaps, but not our leaders.
In the U.S. the power to lead is derived from the consent of the governed, not from legalistic rulings from the attorney general, or from scripture, the Living Jesus, or Dick Cheney. In America, the president is a civil servant, and we the people are his boss. It will always be this way. Bush the First knew this. Somehow he failed to teach it to his son. Oh the damage a C-Minus despot can do!
Whether or not the congress and the media will do their duty and expose this bold crime, insist on an investigation, and then pursue a legal remedy (which can only be an impeachment, if I understand the facts correctly) remains to be seen. More information is needed: did the White House in fact obtain consent from Congress and, by extention, the public, for this program? If not, what consequences will they suffer?
This is the new Republican way of doing business: do whatever the Hell you want and ignore anyone who gets in the way. “We are the true Americans, patriotic and moral enough to follow our own law, written in our heads and behind our closed doors, and the laws we swore to protect and defend don’t work anymore, so we won’t bother even paying them lip service… they’re worse than an inconvenience, since so called ‘American’ civil liberties work to the advantage of terrorists even as we speak. When you’re protecting absolute good from absolute evil, you can’t abide by written laws.”
In short, our leaders have rejected Democracy. Does anyone doubt that, if he could, President Bush would try to dissolve Congress and achieve the dictatorship he famously wished for years ago?
By now you know that, prior to Gerrymandering Texas to death, Republicans were informed by every meaningful and thoughtful bipartisan review of the plan that it was not legitimate, and was in fact in violation of the law. They chose to go forward anyway. Don’t blink - it’s happening again, on a far grander scale. And there’s more to come.
This is the way of gangsters and fascists, people, and the fact that these frauds hide behind the tattered, blood-soaked, and discredited Stars and Stripes only insults and harms us that much more. The young Americans dying overseas to protect our rights have been used and betrayed.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:24 pmNot looking too good for chimp - all of his excuses are disolving before his very eyes…
December 20th, 2005 at 1:30 pmBush World: I want to do what I want, and since I want it, it was granted to me. *stamps foot on ground, runs from room with a snotty nose*
December 20th, 2005 at 1:32 pmNice work TP/Payson!
December 20th, 2005 at 1:35 pmI finally have hope that those who walk the halls of Congress will wake up and defend We The People against George W. Bush’s outragious attacks on the liberties and freedoms of people here at home and around the world.
This will be a test for them.
Will those in Congress do the needful? Are they capable of setting aside their petty differences to form a solid cohesive block against the Radical Ruling Elite? Will they stop the drain of men, women, money and resources currently being consumed by the insatiable jaws of this “war time presidency?”
And if they don’t, who will?
Keep the pressure on your elected officials. Make your voices heard.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:36 pmWhere is Tom Clancy’s Striker Force when you need it to stop terrorists?
Oops, sorry. We are not at war with the terrorists. Sorry again.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:38 pmThe terrorists have taken control of the WhiteHouse. It’s time to remove them.
Impeach Bush NOW! And prepare for him a flight to the Hague.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:40 pmI got my way as a child by stamping my foot and throwing a tantrum, so I’ll do it now too. GW
December 20th, 2005 at 1:41 pmMore Bush World: I got righteously elected and have a mandate to kill terrists. Anyone who hates freedom is a terrist. Anyone who hates how I kill terrists is a traitor. I can spy on terrists and traitors as much as I want. You’re all terrists and traitors, and I will spy away.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:45 pmHuey Long, governor of Luisiana and a politician of relevance until his assassination in 1935, once said: “Of course we will have fascism in America, but we will call it Democracy!” Now his prophecy is on the verge of fulfilment.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:48 pmA REAL AMERICAN IS BACK. Respect, people. The Prez is in complete compliance with FISA. He has the ability under the law to gather electronic intelligence from foreign entities with which we are at war. Of course, we are not officially at war with the terrorists, but the above-mentioned war resolution did the President the appropriate authority to conduct the surviellance. The Senators quoted above may have lost their nerve, and think the President was overstepping his bounds, but you will see that when push comes to shove, the great majority of Senators and Respresentatives will most likely back the President’s claims, a few wackos aside. Because most Congressmen are level-headed, and clear-thinking, and realize that this whole story is nothing more than a partisan attempt by Liberal Democrats, who no longer have the power to win elections, are simply trying to succeed the only way they know how: by scandalizing their opponents and obstructing everything they can, no matter how hurtful to the country. True jackasses, they are.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:55 pmBush on dictatorship now:
Bush on dictatorship then:
December 20th, 2005 at 1:59 pmImagine if Clinton had initiated spying on US citizens without a warrant, in violation of the law which created the FISA court in 1979 to handle exactly these kinds of wiretaps. He would have been impeached at gunpoint before the end of the week.
I can’t say I disagree with your point, BUT if Clinton was president post 9/11 he’d have more leeway (than the pre 9/11 Clinton) on this issue, at least with the people.
Rather than hide from questions about this obvious felony he’s committed numerous times, Bush acts as if this were a debatable course of action about which reasonable minds can differ.
The key is reasonable … find someone that you respect that’s a conservative and ask them … if they disagree with you, then you can assume that your stance that this action is not debatable is incorrect.
More information is needed: did the White House in fact obtain consent from Congress and, by extention, the public, for this program?
Pelosi’s already on the record that she was informed “numerous times”.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:01 pm#14-
Way to take quotes completely out of context, A.Angel. Typical liberal smear technique. Do you work at the NY Times?
December 20th, 2005 at 2:01 pm#13
Hello - he was monitoring U.S. citizens… Probably Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, Howard Dean and the Clinton household for starters.
If it’s legit, he could have gotten a FISA order retroactively. If it’s not legit, he hides it. He hid it. Capisce?
December 20th, 2005 at 2:02 pm“A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it.â€
- President George W. Bush, July 26, 2001.
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.â€
- President-elect George W. Bush, December 18, 2000.
“You don’t get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier.â€
- Texas Governor George W. Bush, July 1998.
Uhmmmm ……………….. context?
December 20th, 2005 at 2:02 pm#15
I can’t say I disagree with your point, BUT if Clinton was president post 9/11 he’d have more leeway (than the pre 9/11 Clinton) on this issue, at least with the people.
With a Republican majority in the House and Senate, I seriously doubt that. They impeached him over oral sex… no way they’d allow his to violate the law. And, we have to remember that they have the choice here NOT to abuse their powers. Would Clinton in this case? I don’t think he is that naive or ignorant, honestly. He has valid degrees in law as well. Bush only knows about the law what his hand picked attorneys tell him. Not the same.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:05 pmIf it’s legit, he could have gotten a FISA order retroactively. If it’s not legit, he hides it. He hid it. Capisce?
A casual relationship does not speak to causality, unbelievable. To say that A reason to not comply with FISA is the illegality of the request … is fine. To say THE ONLY reason to not comply with FISA is the illegality of the request … not so much.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:06 pm#15-
Pelosi’s already on the record that she was informed “numerous timesâ€.
Excellent point. The Dems knew exactly what was going on from the beginning of this whole thing. They simply chose to have the NY Times publish the story in conjunction with the Patriot Act vote. They were also faced with the fact that Bush’s polls numbers are starting to climb back up.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:06 pm#14
#14-
Way to take quotes completely out of context, A.Angel. Typical liberal smear technique. Do you work at the NY Times?
Comment by A REAL AMERICAN — December 20, 2005 @ 2:01 pm
Under what circumstance would those quotes EVER be valid? Do you see the gaping missing link here between your statement and reality?
December 20th, 2005 at 2:08 pmGiacomo - every member of the House and Senate that the administration “informed” have all said the WH told them about it but also tols them they couldn’t discuss this with any one else. No other Senators, House members, CIA, FBI or any other person period. Every democrat informed has so far said they objected to the program but weren’t allowed to discuss it.
That isn’t consent. And really, since the secret tribunal wiretapping through NSA has only turned down 4 warrant requests since the 1990’s, this argument doesn’t hold water.
Why does this administration feel they can act above the law? They haven’t addressed that yet, they are still trying to convince others they were within the law.
That point is what will eat up the next month in DC. Good people on both sides of the aisle want to know how this came about and why.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:08 pmThis little ditty is for Bush and (hopefully very soon) Cheney: When a Republican is caught red-handed breaking the law and is nabbed by the feet he’ll grope at anything, at any lie, as he is dragged up the temple steps to face justice.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:10 pm#22-
I guess we’ll never know, since we can’t see the rest of the text from which these quotes were taken. He may have been joking, for all we know.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:10 pm#24-
Sort of like Bill Clinton, eh?
December 20th, 2005 at 2:11 pmreal american is a synonym for hitler youth nowadays, eh?
I guess I need a new theasaurus. Mine doesn’t work right.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:11 pm#27-
Here we go with the liberal Democrat name-calling and smearing. So typical.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:12 pm#20
Giacomo - seriously - you’re trying to complicate something that isn’t that complicated. The law is clear. He broke it. There are no excuses to get around it. There are only two choices in this case. A he broke the law. B he did not break teh law. That’s the extent of it in this case. A period.
Most things in life are simple. It’s humans that complicate them.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:12 pmThey impeached him over oral sex… no way they’d allow his to violate the law.
The issue then (with Clinton) is, as some assert, the issue now (with Bush) … a prediliction for being fast and loose with the truth.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:13 pmThe Truth About Bush’s Warrantless Spying
December 19, 2005
On Saturday, President Bush acknowledged that he had personally authorized a secret warrantless domestic surveillance program more than three dozen times since October 2001. Bush’s actions run contrary to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which forbids “unreasonable searches” and sets out specific requirements for warrants, including “probable cause.” They demonstrate a dangerous disregard for the basic liberties that serve as our nation’s guiding values. They are also in violation of federal law. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conduct electronic surveillance, except as “authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order.” Moreover, since 1978, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(f) has directed that Title III and FISA “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance…and the interception of domestic wire and oral communications may be conducted.” The President’s actions were not necessary; if he had legitimate concerns about FISA, “the appropriate response would have been to go to Congress and expand it, not to blatantly violate the law.” Below, we debunk the administration’s attempts to justify Bush’s actions.
FACT: BUSH PROGRAM WOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS: Vice President Cheney said of the surveillance program, “It’s the kind of capability, if we’d had before 9/11, might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11.” This claim is false and sensational. The secret surveillance program authorized by President Bush did not provide the government with any new “capability.” The government “already had the capacity to read your mail and your e-mail and listen to your telephone conversations. All it had to do was obtain a warrant from a special court created for this purpose. The burden of proof for obtaining a warrant was relaxed a bit after 9/11, but even before the attacks the court hardly ever rejected requests.” Indeed, from 1979 to 2002, the FISA court issued 15,264 surveillance warrants. Not a single warrant application was rejected.
FACT: BUSH PROGRAM DID NOT IMPROVE SPEED OF OBTAINING WARRANTS: Another claim made by members of the administration is that President Bush needed “to skirt the normal process of obtaining court-approved search warrants for the surveillance because it was too cumbersome for fast-paced counterterrorism investigations.” This argument has several flaws. For one, the New York Times notes, “government officials are able to get an emergency warrant from the secret court within hours, sometimes minutes, if they can show an imminent threat.” More importantly, Section 1805 of the FISA Act states that the government can begin a wiretap as soon as it determines a need and can wait up to 72 hours before obtaining a warrant. The Bush administration “did not seek to do that under the special program.”
FACT: DISCLOSURE OF PROGRAM DID NOT UNDERMINE NATIONAL SECURITY: After the New York Times published its story, President Bush and other top administration officials refused to confirm the existence of the surveillance program, arguing that doing so would endanger the American people. Bush said on Friday he wouldn’t “comment about the veracity of the story…because it would compromise our ability to protect the people.” Press Secretary Scott McClellan and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice both repeated this line. Within hours, however, President Bush not only confirmed the existence of the program in a Saturday morning address, but provided details about how it worked. In other words, the administration’s initial refusal to comment was motivated by public relations, not security, concerns. The scope of surveillance under FISA — which has long been public — is the same under President Bush’s secretive program.
FACT: RICE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN WHAT GAVE BUSH AUTHORITY TO EAVESDROP WITHOUT WARRANT: Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice was asked a simple question: what is the specific statute or law that gives President Bush the authority to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant? She had no answer. Instead, Rice referenced unspecified “authorities that derive from his role as Commander in Chief and his need to protect the country,” then explained she was “not a lawyer and I am quite certain that the Attorney General will address a lot of these questions.” Indeed, Rice said several times that she is “not a lawyer.” That fact is irrelevant. Rice was the National Security Adviser when President Bush authorized the NSA program, and said today that she was aware of Bush’s decision at the time. Shouldn’t she know why it was legal?
FACT: SOME CONGRESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS NOT TOLD OF PROGRAM: Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice defended the eavesdropping program by arguing that congressional leaders — specifically “leaders of the relevant oversight intelligence committees” — had been briefed on the NSA activities. This is apparently not true. At the time the program was initiated, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL). On Friday’s “Nightline,” Graham made clear he had never been briefed by the administration about the program: “There was no reference made to the fact that we were going to…begin unwarranted, illegal, and I think unconstitutional, eavesdropping on American citizens.” Additionally, in a letter issued last night, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she had been “advised by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Ranking Democrat on House Intelligence Committee, that the Bush Administration reversed its decision to brief the full House Intelligence Committee on the details of the activities.”
FACT: IN CONFIRMATION HEARING, GONZALES DENIED BUSH WOULD ACT BEYOND CRIMINAL STATUTES: In a classified legal opinion, the administration argued the President had the power to order the warrantless search pursuant to his authority as commander-in-chief to wage war against al-Qaeda. During his Attorney General confirmation hearings in January 2005, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) asked Gonzales specifically whether the president “at least in theory [has] the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he’s commander in chief?” After trying to dodge the question for a time, Gonzales issued this denial: “Senator, this president is not — I — it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.” Later, Feingold asked Gonzales to “commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision and not wait two years until a memo is leaked about it.” Gonzales replied, “I will advise the Congress as soon as I reasonably can, yes, sir.”
By the American Progress Action Fund
December 20th, 2005 at 2:14 pmrealmerican/hitleryouth - you do a good enough job of smearing without my help.
Did redstate boot you?
December 20th, 2005 at 2:16 pm#25
#22-
I guess we’ll never know, since we can’t see the rest of the text from which these quotes were taken. He may have been joking, for all we know.
Comment by A REAL AMERICAN — December 20, 2005 @ 2:10 pm
Even then, it’s well known that there is always a basis of truth in humor… And as someone in such a serious position, he should know that you don’t joke about things like this. How would you feel if yor boss joked about firing you on a regular basis? Or your wife joked about sleeping your your best friend? Or your kid joked about robbing a bank? You wouldn’t like it, because it’s not funny to laugh about the power you have over someone else.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:16 pmThe nightmare that is junior’s administration is drawing to a close. Finally. I guess J. Conyers doesn’t take kindly to being ignored.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:16 pm26-Real American: Bill Clinton walked out of office after completing his second term. He was not “dragged out” as Bush will soon be.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:19 pmThe law is clear. He broke it. There are no excuses to get around it. There are only two choices in this case. A he broke the law. B he did not break teh law. That’s the extent of it in this case. A period.
Most things in life are simple. It’s humans that complicate them.
I have a couple thoughts … 1) Appearantly, the law is not clear. The constitution gives the President the broadest leeway (of the 3 parts of government) on decisions of national defense. From my reading, I think Bush acted in keeping with the Constitution, but perhaps not with FISA. Do you honestly think they went into this without legal counsel? Without congressional counsel? 2) I agree with your two choices … I don’t believe Bush would be so bold about this NSA policy (to the public) without some serious legal opinions as to his mandate from Congress re. the war on terror.
I’m taking a wait and see approach … you sound as if your mind is already made up at a point where we really know nothing other than international correspondance of suspected terrorists was monitored. I can see how you arrive at your conclusion, but feel it’s premature.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:21 pm#30
The issue then (with Clinton) is, as some assert, the issue now (with Bush) … a prediliction for being fast and loose with the truth.
Comment by Giacomo — December 20, 2005 @ 2:13 pm
You will never hear me claim that Clinton was without flaws. We all have them (flaws), and they are all pereceive differently by people, depending on what each values.
Clinton cheated on his wife. I will never defend that no matter how bad their relationship might have been. Get a divorce, or go to marital councilling or work on the relationship within the relationship. He had a weakness for sex. But it was not illegal.
Bush on the other hand, believes so strongly in the absolute rightness of his views that he blindly violates the law (he probably believes he was justified). But that is illegal.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:22 pmEven then, it’s well known that there is always a basis of truth in humor… And as someone in such a serious position, he should know that you don’t joke about things like this.
While I disagree with the first part of your statement (not ALL humor), I do agree that as the POTUS, he should be more careful with his jokes.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:23 pm” 1) Appearantly, the law is not clear.” GeoMetro
The law IS clear, only your delusional nonsense and lack of personal clarity on the law is murky.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:24 pmconvenient constructionism
December 20th, 2005 at 2:26 pm#36
He admitted he did it. What more do you need? A confession is the smoking gun. Confess to a crime, and you get a conviction and some form of punishment - even if it’s probabtion.
I do think that the laws are very clear. I do think the Constitution is very clear. I’ve read them both and logically thinking, he’s in trouble.
Unlike most other liberals, I do think he violated the law without intent. I think his ignorance and obliviousness for considering other possibilities is his weakness here. He can’t admit mistakes, how could he think he was doing anything wrong? And unfortnateluy for him, that flaw caused him to admit his actions. He’s cooked his own goose. There’s nothing left for me to debate. He broke the law. What should the consequences be? Well, that’s where the subjectivity and perspective of those interpreting the consequences will come into play. That’s where it will get complicated…
December 20th, 2005 at 2:30 pm#38 Tell me a joke that isn’t based on reality. We have no other reference for our jokes…
December 20th, 2005 at 2:32 pmFirst you said it’s well known that there is always a basis of truth in humor and I disagreed … now you’re saying Tell me a joke that isn’t based on reality changing the qualifier from “truth” to “reality” … I agree with your re-phrase.
Truth - in this case, taken to mean that all jokes are really passive aggressive attempts to relay what the joker actually thinks. I disagree.
Reality - in this case, taken to mean that all jokes are bound to human experience and perception. I agree.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:41 pm#43 GeoMetro,
You’re passive aggressive, of course you’d disagree.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:44 pm#43
Giacomo - you’re debating definitions? Come on, truth and reality are the same thing. So, tell me a joke not based on the truth. Try that.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:45 pmGia,
First of all the POTUS does have additional powers during a time of war. But please don’t confuse a real war with this “war on terror”. First of all you don’t have a “war on…” anything. You can have a “War against…” nations and countries. But a war on an idea (terrorism) just does not give the Prez to do you he wants. PLease don’t use the term so losely or we might be filled with morons who believe in let’s say a “war on Christmas’ or “war on drugs”….ooops too late.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:45 pm#44
Ryan,
I think I will start defending your name calling now too… the frustratiiion in trying to have a straight conversation is overwhelming.
I guess I wanted to debate the conservatives in here to see how it felt from this side. And I now understand why there were people who used to call me an idiot and walk away. The focus doesn’t not stay on the subject. It wanders off into typos or debating semantics or some other unrelated issue.
Question, have you ever met a conservative who was a reasonable debater?
December 20th, 2005 at 2:49 pmGeoMetro,
Here’s a helpful guide to passive aggressive. It will help you to understand your own behavior, and how it sabotages the relationships in your life.
http://www.passiveaggressive.homestead.com/Prevention.html
December 20th, 2005 at 2:49 pmEven IF Congress explanded Executive Power…Bush said it was only in relation to fighting AL Qaeda. But he has spied on a large number of people with aboslutely no connection to Al Qaeda. And to continue with the confusion between Al Qeada, Iraqi insurgents, and so on only further proves Bush abused his power. He simply can’t just label anyone he wants as being Al Qaeda and then spy on them.
Maybe Bush can explain why PETA and GreenPeace were contacting Al Qaeda agents. Or any other number of people they spied on that probably hasn’t come out yet.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:58 pmI wonder if anyone remembers that Patriot Act expanded privlidges have been used for many things other than national defense, things like spying on drug and other crimes which are domestic in nature.
I think the can of worms that just got opened, is gonna keep us fishin for a long time.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:05 pmHere’s a helpful guide to passive aggressive. It will help you to understand your own behavior, and how it sabotages the relationships in your life.
Thanks, Ryan … your concern is obviously very heart felt.
Giacomo - you’re debating definitions? Come on, truth and reality are the same thing.
No, re-read what I wrote. Here’s the progression. 1) Someone accuses Bush of espousing dicattorships 2) Someone else says he was joking 3) You say ALL jokes are actually truthful comments said in a joking way to enhance the liklihood that the comment will be recieved well (or something to that effect). 4) I took issue with this theory … which amounts to “Freudian slips” brought into the humor realm … my issue is that part of your argument is predicated on the “all jokes contain a basis of truth” … which isn’t neccessarily the case. Anyhow, it doesn’t matter much now.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:09 pmThe United States of America is not at war….not officially, Congressionally authorized or anything else that wuld legally give the POTUS expanded powers. Its all in his head…hubris basically.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:17 pmIt seems possible that Bushco cannot open up their “books” on their spy activities because they have gone beyond terrorists and used it on persons, groups, or organizations with whom they do not agree. It certainly fits the bush/cheney personality profiles of total and uncontested control. If Congress looks at the list, they may, in fact, find they have fallen into the terroritsts catagory. What is likely is that both Dem’s and Repubs have been victims and they are just now realizing it.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:28 pmGeoMetro,
You’re being dishonest again - a hallmark of passive aggressive tactics. All jokes do contain a ‘basis of truth’, but not necessarily the ‘truth’ that the person telling them believes. Sometime the joke is funny because the person telling them is in fact reflecting on their own ignorance (think archie bunker - a perfect example of how conservatives are ‘unintentionally’ funny). The ‘truth’ that is the basis often stems from their own idiocy in not recognizing that they are the joke (in this case you).
December 20th, 2005 at 3:29 pmYou know Giacomo, as much as you probably hate to think about it, Bush is a man, like anyone else.
And “Freudin slips” are a fact with us all.
In fact, satire is one our primary ways of getting points across.
So just what was Bushes motivation for saying a “Dictatorship would be easier”?
It’s is apparent to me, even if it is not to you, that his own feeling was evident in this statement, and based on his “my way or the highway” reign, and his “I can do anything I deem necessary to protect the country without anyones approval” actions, merely reinforce that fact.
I am sorry that you are either too dense, or too brainwashed to see it, but about 150 Million Americans, and a few BILLION travellers on this big blue marble can see it.
And see it clearly.
But hey, were all left winged nuts, right?
December 20th, 2005 at 3:31 pm#51
I understand, you took exception with my premise. I’m ammenable to that, So, give me a joke where there isn’t truth as it’s basis and you will have refuted my argument. This is how debate works.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:31 pmHere’s a little quiz for GeoMetro and the other ‘passive aggressive’ republican trolls. Now answer these questions honestly - you can’t get better until you admit you have a problem!
…make excuses to avoid routine social or work obligations?
never sometimes often
…fail to keep promises, resulting in problems for you or others?
never sometimes often
…complain of being misunderstood or unappreciated?
never sometimes often
…complain about and exaggerate his own misfortune?
never sometimes often
…have a pessimistic outlook even when things are going well?
never sometimes often
…make attempts at humor that are laced with hurtful gives and sarcasm toward you? never sometimes often
…blame his failures on the behavior of other people?
never sometimes often
…agree with you, then go off and side with others against you?
never sometimes often
…perform a task so slowly and inefficiently that it’s tempting to stop asking him to do it? never sometimes often
R E S U L T S: Give 0 points for each never, 1 for sometimes, 2 for often
December 20th, 2005 at 3:34 pm· 0 Oh come on, nobody’s that perfect!
· 1-4 Few passive-aggressive tendencies here.
· 5-8 Some passive-aggressive habits. Is it having a bad impact on you?
· 9-12 A strong passive-aggressive streak here.
· 13-16 Extreme passive-aggressive tendencies. If we’re talking about a partner or loved one — or you — consider getting counseling
.
Ryan and WORFEUS
Thanks. I wish I could express why, but I hope you’ll just understand. I had conservative friends who did not support me like this, and I don’t really even know you guys aside from cyber space. They really don’t know how lonely they all are over there. That just might have been the worst part of that side. Anyway, thanks.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:37 pmYou’re being dishonest again - a hallmark of passive aggressive tactics. All jokes do contain a ‘basis of truth’, but not necessarily the ‘truth’ that the person telling them believes.
What I was trying to say is what you just said … given the situation, I felt that unbelievable was judging the veracity of Bush’s sentiments about dictatorships through the “lens” of his humor. THAT’S ALL - Sheesh people.
I understand, you took exception with my premise. I’m ammenable to that, So, give me a joke where there isn’t truth as it’s basis and you will have refuted my argument. This is how debate works.
It’s not the point but OK. Situations where the joker uses sarcasm to make a point in no way indicates that the sarcastic comment is actually the truth (it would be the exact opposite) but without hearing the comment, and merely reading it, one wouldn’t know that.
Saying that Bush is Freudian when he made comments about dictatorships isn’t really a fair comment to make … that’s what I took issue with.
OK Ryan … I’m game for your poll.
1) …make excuses to avoid routine social or work obligations? Never
2) …fail to keep promises, resulting in problems for you or others? Sometimes
3) …complain of being misunderstood or unappreciated?
Sometimes (but only here)
4) …complain about and exaggerate his own misfortune?
Never
5) …have a pessimistic outlook even when things are going well?
Never
6) …make attempts at humor that are laced with hurtful gives and sarcasm toward you?
Never
7) …blame his failures on the behavior of other people?
Sometimes
8) …agree with you, then go off and side with others against you?
Never
9) …perform a task so slowly and inefficiently that it’s tempting to stop asking him to do it?
Never
Looks like I got a 3. Thanks, I’m glad to put that to rest for you.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:58 pmIt’s is apparent to me, even if it is not to you, that his own feeling was evident in this statement, and based on his “my way or the highway†reign, and his “I can do anything I deem necessary to protect the country without anyones approval†actions, merely reinforce that fact.
That’s one take on it, albeit one that is somewhat tainted by your other opinions of the man.
I am sorry that you are either too dense, or too brainwashed to see it, but about 150 Million Americans, and a few BILLION travellers on this big blue marble can see it.
Well I’m not dense … perhaps my conservatism predisposes me to lean toward believing Bush is acting in my best interest … but like I said on another thread. If this NSA thing turns out to be for personal (and not the US population) gain, I’ll lead the charge for impeachment. How’s THAT for passive aggressive.
But hey, were all left winged nuts, right?
Nah … you aren’t nuts. Just a product of your environment and experiences.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:03 pm#59
It’s not the point but OK. Situations where the joker uses sarcasm to make a point in no way indicates that the sarcastic comment is actually the truth (it would be the exact opposite) but without hearing the comment, and merely reading it, one wouldn’t know that.
That’s not a joke, it’s a complicated theory about a joke (which is still based on the truth according to how you explained it). I meant, give me an actual joke.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:06 pmNah … you aren’t nuts. Just a product of your environment and experiences.
Yes, the environment of those parts of the country with the most contact with the outside world, and the experiences of travelling the world and meeting different people and living in different cultures.
I’m sure people who live in a homogeneous environment and only experience one culture seem a lot less “nuts” to you.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:07 pmWhat’s even worse is that there are actual terrorists whom Bush’s sneaky-peek maneuvers on domestic, legal dissidents have completely missed. Who even knows what they’re up to? Bush had the tools he needed to find them and hasn’t been able to accomplish that.
Team Bush’s theories about the world are based on ideology, not observation. Extremist Islam does not flourish in environments of liberalism and dissent, much as Bushco. wants to think that by cracking down on protest groups they are weakening terrorists.
Another example is Iraq: they are actually stupid enough to think the terrorists are all going to move into Iraq, stay there, fight the US, and all get themselves killed off. I guess they were shocked by the news that Zarqawi is expanding his operations to launch even more attacks on Israel and Jordan. Who would have ever thought the terrorists would just use Iraq as a training ground and recruiting center, then branch out through the world to launch more attacks?
That’s almost as crazy as thinking a bunch of Saudis would ever fly hijacked jetliners into our office buildings!
December 20th, 2005 at 4:11 pmWORFEUS,
I really dig your writing. Thanks to you and the other clear-thinking commenters I so enjoy.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:15 pm#13. Wow. Are you kidding?
A simple reading of FISA will tell you that the President was not in compliance with it. He admitted so himself on Saturday and Monday. He just doesn’t think he needed to be.
As far as the Senators quoted above losing their nerve, look at the dates of the quotes. They were made by the Senators and Representatives when the resolution was passed, not over the past few days since the story broke.
I’m tempted to believe your writing is satirical because I find it hard to believe that someone would honestly hold such beliefs about their rights being trampled. But, if you’re comments are honest, and you’re a conservative Republican (I’m basing that on your liberal Democrat comment), then how would you feel if the President decided that the 9/14 resolution and the Constitution granted him the power to suspend the Second Amendment? Would you willing give up your guns and your rights to ever have them again?
December 20th, 2005 at 4:18 pmAppearantly, the law is not clear. The constitution gives the President the broadest leeway (of the 3 parts of government) on decisions of national defense. From my reading, I think Bush acted in keeping with the Constitution, but perhaps not with FISA.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The law is only “apparently, not clear” to Bush apologists and none of them have made clear where exactly this “leeway” ends. One could just as easily say that Bush’s cocaine use was in keeping with the Constitution, but not the Narcotics Act. Not a defense I would go with.
The kind of reasoning we see coming from the right wing could have saved Nixon. After all, all he did was authorize a warrent-less search in the interest of national security (national security naturally requires keeping the “defeatist” opposition party out of power).
December 20th, 2005 at 4:18 pmYes, the environment of those parts of the country with the most contact with the outside world, and the experiences of travelling the world and meeting different people and living in different cultures.
I’m sure people who live in a homogeneous environment and only experience one culture seem a lot less “nuts†to you.
You didn’t get what I meant. EVERYONE is a product of their environment and experiences (OK, I’ll add genetics as well). It wasn’t a dig. He was asuming I think all liberals are nutballs … I don’t (why would I). As for your assertion, I’m from NY … so it’s not ALL about outside contact.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:20 pm#15, OK, wow, you’re for real. Congress folks who were briefed, whether fully or not, were legally bound to not disclose the information or they could have been indicted for releasing classified information.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:22 pmBush’s Weekly Radio Address confession may turn out to be the “I did not have sex with that woman” nail in his coffin.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:26 pmThat’s not a joke, it’s a complicated theory about a joke (which is still based on the truth according to how you explained it). I meant, give me an actual joke.
I thought you would’ve understood my issue by now … it wasn’t so much that you spoke of the presence of “truth” in all jokes as it was that you built your contention (Bush is Freudian joking) upon that concept.
I’ve already explained the concept the best I can (with the sarcasm line). Can’t you see if I said “Unbelievable … she’s a real conservative” in a sarcastic way, you’d get the joke, but someone reading it would recieve the opposite. That’s why to create a hypothesis based upon an out of context quote is dangerous … that’s the only point I was making.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:27 pm#67
Giacomo,
How often do you travel outside the United States?
I pointed out earlier that you can live in New York and still avoid contact with diversity.
And there’s a huge difference bewteen the experiences within a limited realm, intentionally segregated to like mindedness, and those of broad diversity. You being here is definitely getting outside your comfort zone, but it’s still far safer than going to another country and experiencing a different way of life.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:02 pmShhh! Big Brother is watching.
Recently the New York Times brought to light a secret order signed by President Bush in 2002 authorizing secret domestic spying by the National Security Agency (NSA). However the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 strictly prohibits …
December 20th, 2005 at 5:12 pm“That’s why to create a hypothesis based upon an out of context quote is dangerous … that’s the only point I was making.”
Comment by Giacomo AKA GeoMetro
And yet this exactly what you do daily. You’re a hypocrite, a liar and a fool.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:32 pm“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
– United States Constitution, Amendment IVâ€
The constitution trumps the patriot act, or presidential power - PERIOD!
December 20th, 2005 at 5:58 pmTHE JOKE
THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT ajoke so why does Bush play it like one? I’m not a lawyer, so it’s kind of hard for me to kind of get bogged down in the law. (Applause.) I’m not going to play
December 20th, 2005 at 7:34 pmAbove the Law
December 20, 2005
Bush’s hand been caught in the cookie jar and the apologists are up and running. In “Concentrated decisiveness vs. arbitrary power†by George F. Will is his attempt to minimize President Bush’s illegal surveillance charges on American citizens by supporting attorney John Yoo’s memorandum on presidential authority in conducting military operations against “terrorists†is to be considered “plenary.†As Will explained, “plenary†means: complete, entire, not deficient in any element or respect. Translation: When a president deems necessary he can go above the laws to “protect†the nation; apparently, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter weren’t afforded such a privilege, thanks to partisans such as George F. Will. But Will’s position on plenary isn’t so off the track. Plenary is what Bush been living on since 2001. How was the president allow the bin-Laden family to skip the US just a few days after 9/11 and then had other Arab-Americans arrested, not involved in downing the Twin Towers? Why was the president been allow to hold hands with the Saudis whose philosophy and money had fueled the terrorists who attack the U.S. on September 11? How was Bush allow to stifle further an investigation on Iraq’s prewar intelligence as promised after the 2004 Presidential Election? And why was he allow to lied about invading Iraq and would it again despite the revelation of falsified intelligence? Answer: Plenary, a president above accountability. What Will offering is an apologist, not an apology.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:50 amWhat are the odds that DeLay used these sort of un supervised spy tactics during the infamous Texas redistricting battle? We know he misused other Federal assets for political purposes. At this point I would believe that he would misuse this power too.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:48 amClinton should have been convicted on impeachment. Anyone who voted against this to protect the presidency did us a great disservice. Employees having sex on company property on company time would be fired in a private company. Why should our employee, Bill Clinton, be different? If he had been put out of office, perhaps our current president wouldn’t be so fast to ignore the fact that he is obligated to obey the law always, not just when it is convenient to do so.
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:25 amyou suck
November 17th, 2006 at 4:54 pm