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.

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

– United States Constitution, Amendment IV”

The constitution trumps the patriot act, or presidential power – PERIOD!

And yet this exactly what you do daily. You’re a hypocrite, a liar and a fool.

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 …

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

I really dig your writing. Thanks to you and the other clear-thinking commenters I so enjoy.

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!

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.

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.

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.