42 Pages of Silly
42 Pages of Silly
Yesterday, the Department of Justice released a 42-page defense of President Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program. It’s full of impressive sounding citations, legal jargon and footnotes. But all of that is just ornamentation for two – and only two – fundamentally unserious legal arguments in defense of the program:
1. The program was authorized by Congress in the September 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).
2. As Commander-In-Chief, President Bush has the “inherent authority” to do whatever he wants.
As to the first point, the administration’s argument isn’t even internally consistent. On the one hand the Justice Department is saying the AUMF authorized this program. On the other hand, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales argues that they didn’t ask Congress for the authority because they knew Congress would reject it:
We have had discussions with Congress in the past — certain members of Congress — as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible.
Legally, it’s impossible for the AUMF to give the President the authority to conduct warrantless domestic wiretapping. Congress has comprehensively regulated all electronic surveillance and federal law designates specific statutes as the “exclusive means by which electronic surveillance…may be conducted.” The AUMF is not one of those statutes. (For legal citation fans it’s at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f)) Moreover, it specifically contemplates warrantless surveillance “during a time of war” and says “notwithstanding any other law” such surveillance cannot “exceed 15 days.” (50 U.S.C. § 1811) The program has been going on for four years now.
I’ll deal with their second (and last) argument in an upcoming post.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
ttp://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06020/641039.stm
Pittsburg Post Gazette: President has no respect for the law.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:52 amhttp://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06020/641039.stm
Pittsburg Post Gazette: President has no respect for the law.
better link!
January 20th, 2006 at 10:52 amI read in this morning’s SF Chronicle that Jonathan Turley even found the AG’s report wrong.
C’mon now, Jonathan Turley? He’s as republican as you get.
Why does bushco advocate torture, take away constitutional protections for it’s citizens and the bushies still act like bushco is protecting us from something?
We ALL need protection from bushco. I can’t wait to see how you swiftboat Turley.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:53 amRightpunch, brought this up on the CRS post yesterday, ; Did the President use this wiretapping BEFORE, 9/11? great question.No AUMF, before that date. This is better than the next episode of CSI.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:57 amI know, I know Judd just printed that the AUMF doesn’t grant that authority to wiretap
January 20th, 2006 at 11:00 amlegally but when you strech out the Article II thing this point, IMHO, ain’t even close to being resolved. Tracy, were waiting, Bring it on BIG FELLA!
#4 Fly-man, the LeftCoaster has a post up about the wiretapping done before 9/11
January 20th, 2006 at 11:01 amKing-George-gate: More on illegal spying on Americans prior to 9/11
2. As Commander-In-Chief, President Bush has the “inherent authority†to do whatever he wants.
Yale and Harvard need to revoke some diplomas…
January 20th, 2006 at 11:01 amWhich c*** just deleted my post?
Comment by Angry — January 20, 2006 @ 11:01 am
Remember that saying that nothing is free? It’s been expanded to include free speech these days… unless you post something conservative and angry.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:03 amRoger that& gracias, Amy I just found Jason Leopold’s article here. Thanks again!
January 20th, 2006 at 11:07 amhttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml
Here is the updated article http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011706Y.shtml
January 20th, 2006 at 11:11 amSen Conyers is holding a hearing right now on C-Span. In the basement room again…
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS
January 20th, 2006 at 11:14 am2. As Commander-In-Chief, President Bush has the “inherent authority†to do whatever he wants.
Simply unbelievable. Again, GWB is the president (ouch), not the KING. If this idiot can do whatever he wants, then why do we bother having Congress and the Judiciary? Looking forward to your post on this, Judd.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:21 am#12-
January 20th, 2006 at 11:33 amWhy bother having elections? Obviously, they believed JK was a risk to the US.
Inherent authority, huh? If this thing ever gets to the Supreme Court, I guess we’ll get to see if Scalia and Thomas are truly “strict constructionists” or if they are hypocrites that will construe the constitution broadly as long as it covers their buddy’s ass.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:38 amWhat if a Liberal was a war time President .. hmm is that possible
January 20th, 2006 at 11:39 amMr bush will have a hard time fighting wars, when the people, of both countries, whom have nothing to gain whatsoever, simply say screw you mr bush, if you want us to kill each other, then you and your friends can go to the Desert, using all that fancy equipment you have purchased, the jets, planes, tanks, whatever.
Then you can have your beautiful war Mr Bush. Become that sunshine warrior and have your children sing great songs that you spoke of.
Can you Bring it on Mr Bush?
January 20th, 2006 at 11:40 amGood work Judd. Thanks for the info.
Bush’s justification for this war has, after 3 futile years, come down to one thing: protecting & promoting “democracy”, whatever that is by his definition. At the same time, he is subverting democracy and freedom with every action he takes. There is no need to detail those actions here; they’re quite plain for all to see. (This new bin Laden tape is the latest tactic. No change in the DHS alert? Come on. Wouldn’t it be more convincing if it were upped?) It shows how willfully blind the American public is that it can’t recognize this. Judge Bush by his actions, not by his false claims.
Gonzales sounds like a teenager justifying to his parents why he didn’t ask them if he could use the car.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:42 amCan you Mr. Cheney, or any of the Book writers such as Perle, Kristol, Mr Norquist? Thinktank Ideologues? Are you ready to fulfill your ideas to the fullest extent and TRULY test your political theory by being that man being killed?
I would very much like to see the “Weekly Standard set” and the Round Table business groups, and their fat fleshy weak Children go out and be that MAN thats being killed, and TRULY test your inane political ramblings.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:45 amThey speak a great many words for war
January 20th, 2006 at 11:49 amyet the cower from it under the one word of fear
Gonzales sounds like a teenager justifying to his parents why he didn’t ask them if he could use the car.
Hilarious, Mass Liberal.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:51 amSpeaking of silly… did you hear the one about the congressman (John Sweeney) that called for sweeping changes to all House leadership including the Speaker (well… except… upon further review… maybe not speaker)… and began circulating a petition to effect that change so that the House Republicans could distance themselves from the bribry and corruption scandal their close relationships with lobbyists has gotten them into?
Yeah… he started the petition circulating then jetted off to a “Skiing with Sweeney” fund raising weekend in Utah (he’s from a bigtime skiing area in New York) featuring dinner at the home of his big pharma lobbyists buddy.
click to enjoy the story and a good chuckle from the video released by his Democratic challenger Kirsten Gillibrand.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:53 amSign the petition:
http://political.moveon.org/ruleoflaw/?id=6686-4194786-bTOQDF0gROIR.SINpXpTwA&t=3
January 20th, 2006 at 12:05 pmThis thread is silly if not suicidal. It doesn’t matter who is in office, the government is going to do whatever they deem necessary to protect the country (and themselves).
Where were you guys when Bill Clinton set up his infamous “Free Speech Zones”. Where were you guys when McCain-Feingold prevented us from political speech just prior to election time? Where were you guys when the Liberal Supremes decided they could steal my land if somebody else wanted it for a tax base? Where were you guys when they went after the tax exempt status of our churches if they dared to have a political opinion? Where were you guys when……
Where were you?
January 20th, 2006 at 12:19 pmIt doesn’t matter who is in office, the government is going to do whatever they deem necessary to protect the country (and themselves).
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
That’s as close to a rational comment as you’ve come… just eliminate the ‘the country (and’ part.
Federal government tends to attract those who want power. We need less of it. Much less.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:27 pmIRI – We were there, but they were not crossing that legal boundry just the moral one, and it was not raised by the WHOLE COUNTRY like it is now. Now it has gone to a place that is trashing the Constitution beyond what the average person will allow.
I hope one day that the police barges in your house and begins searching it because they suspect you as being involved in something that someone determines you to be a threat. I hope that you are held for days, months, or even years because someone feels that you are something that you are not. I hope that you are torcherd to get information that you don’t know about.
Then, maybe then, you might realize that the President does not have supreme power. Until that day comes, I doubt you will realize this.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:28 pmDamn, is there anything that AUMF doesn’t cover or allow? Gonzo sure makes it sound like a “get out of the Hague/impeachment hearings free” card.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:29 pmWhere were you guys when they went after the tax exempt status of our churches if they dared to have a political opinion?
As well they should.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:35 pmFrom the report “As the Supreme Court has explained, “[t]he President is the sole organ of the nation…”
LOL, an organ he is indeed.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:39 pm#17, exactly the timing of the tape was perfect, and to paint him as a dem supporter is pretty damn funny, where is the extra security, or raising the teror level, all they can say is that the dems caused him to offer a truce, but no actions regarding his threat of attack, the government has not shown any ways the country is safer (with any basis – Iraq doesn’t make me feel safer, wire taps don’t make me feel safer)in light of 9-11 or this tape, it will take more than a few new departments to stop terrorist, unless the terrorists are there simply as straw men which seems to be the case more and more
January 20th, 2006 at 12:42 pm#28…isn’t that the vice president??
January 20th, 2006 at 12:44 pmThe DOJ props junior up.
How many hundreds of times will this be the ‘top story’ on headline news, fox, cnn, etc. over the next couple of days.
Their ’say it enough times and the public will believe it’ strategy is having an opposite affect on me.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:45 pmI now don’t believe one single solitary thing any of them say at anytime. No credibility, none, zero, zilch.
If the President had the authority to do “whatever he wants” wouldn’t it just be easier to call that fat narcissistic, hedonist, Ted Kennedy out on the lawn and challenge the “swimmer” to a duel?? Or better yet, have him invite that loud mouth medical wizard, Howard Dean to a hunting game called “target practice”. Judd knows the President can’t do “whatever he wants” – but throwing “red” (pun intended) meat to progs is his job.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:50 pm# 27 #
As well they should.
Comment by David — January 20, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
Exactly what I was going to say.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:58 pm#32 – That would be to obvious to the no brain public like you. Bush and his commandos do things under the guise of protecting you and the country. While all the time they are stripping this country of honor, and civil rights.
Besides, it sure seems that way. Hell, he is demanding that Google turn over their database while at the same time refuses to provide information to the American People. Seems a little one sided to me. But then again, I think for myself.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:58 pmHi, I,m New here.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:06 pmBut I am puzzled
January 20th, 2006 at 1:06 pmdont know WHY i am here. Just am i guess.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:07 pmby the way, Whos Juggs?
Mohaahaaahaaaaa. No freedom, HOT TIP
January 20th, 2006 at 1:09 pmNow the Justice Dept. is saying that according to a new Bush doctrine that before an American man can marry an American woman the woman must first sleep with and be impregnated by someone from the K-Street gang. I had something to do with demographics and nationaly security…
January 20th, 2006 at 1:13 pm15. FDR was a war time president and before the war started we was constantly hounded by the republicans as being a communist that was destroying America.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:15 pmPuzzled, try to make some sense. You can do it, I know you can.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:20 pmwe need to open 12 ounces of Whoop-Ass on the JoD…
January 20th, 2006 at 1:22 pm#40 – Yeah, but he didnt try to rip the Constitution up in order to become KING. Sure there were other scandals and crimes, but not against the Constitution.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:25 pm“If the President had the authority to do “whatever he wants†wouldn’t it just be easier to call that fat narcissistic, hedonist, Ted Kennedy out on the lawn and challenge the “swimmer†to a duel?? mighty aphrodite”
I think he should get a lesson from Laura on how to commit vehicular manslaughter and get away with it entirely. Laura seems to have the goods on breaking the law and murdering without consequences – which seems to be bush’s highest goal. I’m sure she was afraid of her boyfriend when she killed him, just like bush is afraid of the ‘turrurists’. But when you consider that an order of magnitude more people die each year from handguns in the united states – it’s a pretty silly thing to be a scared and throw out the constitution. Unless that’s your goal. I’m sure an old woman like you wouldn’t want the constitution to be thrown out now would you? Maybe you need to up the dosage on those pills of yours, it might help you think more clearly sweetie. And you know we only want the best for our elderly!
January 20th, 2006 at 1:29 pm43. No FDR was a champion of the people. I was making the point that a liberal president lead us through the largest war ever…and he didnt claim to have unlimited powers. Though as you mentioned bad things did happen like the internment of the Japanese Americans. He also tried to have the number of judges on the supreme court raised so he could appoint judges that would approve his “New Deal” which was good for America but bad for capitolists. This was going too far and even his own party wouldnt support it.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:29 pm“Where were you guys when they went after the tax exempt status of our churches if they dared to have a political opinion? I-RIGHT-I”
You speaking donkey, flat earthy silly people can have any opinions you want. You just can’t use the pulpit to organize political events – because then you’re not a church but a political organization. Surely you know the difference don’t you pumpkin? I mean most adults can tell that a church is where people to hear fairy tales, not to discuss politics. That’s what bars and barfights are for :)
January 20th, 2006 at 1:31 pm“If the President had the authority to do “whatever he wants†wouldn’t it just be easier to call that fat narcissistic, hedonist, Ted Kennedy out on the lawn and challenge the “swimmer†to a duel??”
Bush would find someone else to fight for him – it’s worked for him since Viet Nam, so why mess with success?
January 20th, 2006 at 1:33 pm#44
January 20th, 2006 at 1:35 pmYou sound like you’re PMS-ing, and ready to scratch someones eyes out. Take a Midol and stop bitching.
#23 Where were you guys when the Liberal Supremes decided they could steal my land if somebody else wanted it for a tax base?
I agree with you here… I signed that petition to have the homes of the judges that voted for this to be rezoned…
Then again I would agree with this decision if China ends up buying most of NewYork and tries renaming it to NewChina… then we should just rezone NewYork and sell it to Bill Gates.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:35 pm#45 – I agree, and I was supporting your statement. Hence the KING statement.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:38 pmHey, Gerald #49, no rezoning of New York, that’s my state! :-)
Aphrodite, the topic is about Bush thinking that he can do whatever he wants, not about Bush fulfilling your Ted Kennedy fantasies. ;-D
Hate to hit and run, but Wayne and I have to go to a wake. Everybody have a great weekend!
January 20th, 2006 at 1:51 pm#49 – Actually, if China ever decides to call in the debt they have with us, I saw we should give them Texas and call it even.
That way, we could get rid of any future radical-right-wing freak before they get started in politics.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:54 pm#49/23 the government alread had that right. The Supremes just put it in writing pulling it all together. Is it right? Hell no. But take many of these same people bitching about the abuse of power and I’ll bet not one of them would have been willing to stand up in any blighted area, say the west side of Chicago, and say the government can’t take private property to build a new stadium. Or in the 355 corridor west of Chicago, the government seized property to build a highway. Not too many howls of protest there. My uncle lost his house in that one. My point being that the government has been doing this for years…seixzing property for what they feel is a better use, be it highways or ball parks. It’s jsut that the supremes are easy targets to shoot at, so people knock them under the false idea that the supremes created the situstion. The situation has existed for years and will continue to exist regardless of what rulings the court makes.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:59 pmCongradulations irighti – you actually put up a couple of paragraphs w/o flaming any of us.
tiny aphrodite, you on the other hand have issues. You won’t admit that taking away our rights without our consent, expressly counter to what the Senate gave bush43 in 10/02 is exactly against what conservative republicans USED to believe as a libertarian paramount and basis of thier idea of a federal government. Could it be that you don’t mind totalitarianism when it’s your guy taking away your rights? I suspect that any grandchildren that timy appendage of yours could produce will curse you for your lack of trying to protect their future.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:01 pm53 .. taking land for a highway that is owned by the public is one thing … stadiums and walmarts are another. Has it been going on? Well I dont know how often it has for the benefit of a private business, hopefully not much ..but it will alot now that the supreme court made it a supreme court precident. It is a good idea to let it be done for things like highways and dams … but just so the mayors buddy who owns a business can do it is wrong.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:02 pm“Laura seems to have the goods on breaking the law and murdering without consequences – which seems to be bush’s highest goal.” – RyaNNe – AKA RightSlap
***** I don’t remember Laura leaving the scene of the accident, contacting friends and PR people to help her think up a “plausible” story, and contacting authorities 10 hours after to help retrieve the body. I’m sure you have that information – please share. In short, there’s a world of difference between and accident and negligence. But I guess it all depends if you’re caught in a compromising situation with a young, attractive woman who is not your wife – and your name is Kennedy.
Back on thread, expected President Clinton to protect our country from barbarian Islamofascists – I’m sorry he handled this as a law enforcement issue (i.e. first attack on the WTC). But what can one expect from squishy, wimp, progressives? Oh, that’s right – he did some bomb lobbing between his extra-marital activities.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:10 pm[...] If your legal arguments aren’t working, start a propaganda campaign: The Bush administration is opening a campaign to push back against criticism of its domestic spying program, ahead of congressional hearings into whether President Bush has the legal authority to eavesdrop on Americans. [...]
January 20th, 2006 at 2:11 pm#56 – yeah, and when he missed killing Osama binLaden, the radical fundies excoriated him for ‘trying to distract from his impeachment’. Of course, it had NOTHING to do with killing a terrorist. (Sarcasm, for those who are wearing their ‘fundy’ blinders.)
I guess only a Republican could be happy that Osama binLaden got away from Pres. Clinton, and Pres. Bush allowed him to kill American citizens. Could you imagine what life would be like right nor, if Pres. Clinton was allowed by Republicans to kill a terrorist? Well, Pres. Bush wouldn’t have been able to go get the oil in Iraq quite as easily as he did.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:14 pm#56 – You Republicans are like a broken record. It’s Clintons fault….. Everything is Clintons fault….. 10 years from now when we no longer have a Constitution, thanks to Bush, you will still be blaming Clinton (”It’s Clintons fault, he should have known what Bush was going to do and done something about it” Oh wait, he’s a “squishy, wimp, progressives?” Sorry)
January 20th, 2006 at 2:17 pm#59 – You’ve got that one right!
I took money from Abramoff and sold my soul to the devil because Pres. Clinton had sex!
I went to war to get oil, er. . . um. . . I mean to ‘liberate’ (yeah, that’s it!) the Iraqi people because Pres. Clinton had sex.
Man, Pres. Clinton must be some kind of sexual stud-muffin if his indiscretions caused Republicnas to do all that!!
January 20th, 2006 at 2:21 pmWhat use is talk? What use is reporting, discussion, laws, a Constitution? As if what the people think matters at all! As if you will ever have anything even close to democracy again! Congress is in the pocket of the PACs, Bush is King, and the Courts have been brought to heel. Welcome to the new reality. So we can all just go home and shut up. Do something useful; read up on celebrities and recipes. Don’t waste your time trying to change the system. It is what it will be because no incumbent politician raking in the dough is going to change it. No way. So the money from the corporations will continue to rule us and the Congress will continue to sell their votes and the president will just have to take complete power because who else will do it? Courts? Just stacked successfully. You can kiss the whole American Democratic ideal goodbye.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:27 pm#58
January 20th, 2006 at 2:27 pmWould you mind showing some proof that President Bush is actually benefiting financially from the war in Iraq. I know you can’t provide any but I just had to ask. On the other hand, Clinton attempted to divert attention from the Lewinsky scandal by bombing Bosnia and we are still there. How is that exit strategy working? I guess we almost had Clinton out of office.
#60 – Trying to talk sense to Woody Allen’s ‘Mighty Aphrodite’ is like trying to talk sense to “Right between the I’s”.
It wastes your time, and disturbs the mind control that the radical-right-wing is exerting to keep them in-line.
It also makes it more difficult for them to spout the “party line” if you disagree with them, especially if you’re an honest conservative. Unlike the current incarnation of the ‘never take personal responsibility, and always blame Pres. Clinton’ Republicans, they are not conservatives. They are ‘neo-cons’, which means they have to vilify anyone who doesn’t drink the kool-aid, they have to blame everyone else for their failures, and if you don’t agree 110% by saying “ditto†to everything they spout, then you are un-American.
In other words, it’s easier to ignore their bloviations than it is to attempt to show them the errors of their ways. By the way, I was like you in that I just assumed everything my Southern Baptist preacher told me. Then I started reading and thinking for myself, and I quickly left the Republican party, and I haven’t looked back since. Not being a lemming is a great thing, Gerald Gibson!
January 20th, 2006 at 2:30 pmRemoveBush – “But then again, I think for myself.”
Wow, what a waste of your time. You should only be following books written by certain people like “The Conservative Mind: from Burke to Eliot (1953)” or the bible or anything written by an evangelical christian. They will tell you how and what to think. The sooner you do this the more you can accept your life and the life your leaders choose for you. People like IRI seem to have no problem with this.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:32 pmWhere were you guys when they went after the tax exempt status of our churches if they dared to have a political opinion?
Maybe they should start with Pat Robertson and James Dobson.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:32 pm#55 it happens all the time when it come to building sports stadiums around the country. But usually the local government claims they own the stadium and rent to one client, but in actuality the one client is the nominal owner of the property.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:33 pm#58 – Pres. Bush is garnering “brownie points” (pun intended) with all the companies that he’s allowing to fleece iraq.
http://www.why-war.com/news/2004/10/13/bushspec.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1326037,00.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/cloughley05032005.html
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=9514&fcategory_desc=The%20Bush%20Crime%20Family
Basically, Pres. Bush is going to find it hard to justify war, so eventually he’ll have to leave office. once he does, who do you think he’ll go to so he can keep raking in the money? It won’t be Physicians wihtout borders, I can tell you that!
So, since I provided proof, will you admit that Pres. Bush is financially empowering himself and his family by the war?
January 20th, 2006 at 2:36 pm#63 – Of course we can’t show how Bush is benefiting from this. He and Cheney have this so well hidden that that would be practically impossible. But if you were to actually think and place the peices together you too could see where the money trail leads.
Even if it’s not all about the money, it is ABSOLUTELY ABOUT THE POWER.
If you don’t think its about money, then you might want to do some research then and tell me and everyone else where has all those billions of dollars that are missing gone? Just before the “War”, got I hate that word because we are not at war, the DOD somehow lost billions. Where did it go?
What company(s) have benefited the most from the conflict? How about all of the companies that the Administration has interrests in?
Perhaps, and I know I am asking a lot here, you should do some more research?
January 20th, 2006 at 2:37 pmIt’s a lot easier to knock down a straw man of your own making than to deal with the issues on their merits. Judd demonstrates this by mischaracterizing these two arguments, then calling them “silly:”
1. The program was authorized by Congress in the September 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).
2. As Commander-In-Chief, President Bush has the “inherent authority†to do whatever he wants.
Interestingly enough, within days of the NYT’s illegal disclosure of the NSA program, liberal Professor Cass Sunstein, of the University of Chicago Law School, identified these as the two principled arguments on which the NSA program might be justified. [see his comments at http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2005/12/presidential_wi.html
So these arguments are not “silly.” They are, in fact, at the heart of a very serious constitutional debate. Such debates are rarely won by mischaracterizing the other side’s arguments.
As Professor Sunstein’s comments indicate, the arguments go the other way around. First, there is a legitimate issue as to whether the President possesses inherent constitutional power to pursue surveillance on enemy communications during wartime (not “to do whatever he wants,” as Judd misleadingly puts it). It makes sense to me that he does. Lincoln did it; FDR did it; Clinton did it – Bush can do it too. He does not need congressional or judicial approval to do so.
Second, there is an issue as to whether the Presidents’s inherent powers in this case were augmented by the AUMF resolution. The issue is not (as Judd misleadingly suggests) whether the AUMF explicitly authorized the NSA program, but whether its authorization “to use all necessary and appropriate force” against terrorists and terrorist organizations implicitly includes this kind of electronic surveillance. Again, given our long and honorable use of warrantless communications surveillance during wartime, I believe that the AUMF resloution must be read as ugmenting, not limiting, the President’s inherent constitutional powers. Otherwise the resolution would either be (a) unconstitutional, or (b) superfluous.
Would Judd really argue that the President has the power to bomb an al-Qaeda hangout in Waziristan, but not to intercept communications between that location and a U.S. operative? Or does Judd argue that, because Waziristan is not part of Afghanistan, the President had no authority to bomb al-Qaeda there?
This all just shows how much the Left has forgotten. They have willed themselves back into a Sept. 10th mindset, and they are throwing rocks at the President (who works hard every day to protect their ungrateful butts) as though Sept. 11th never happened. Judd’s dishonesty here is just a symptom of the deeper dishonesty that infects the entire anti-war Left. Here’s the truth:
We are at war.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:38 pmThey started it.
We will finish it.
Whatever it takes.
Wherever it takes us.
#70 – When did Iraq attack us?
Or are you still operating under the misapprehension that they are mysteriously responsible for Sept. 11th?
January 20th, 2006 at 2:39 pm#70 – By the way, when you say “We will finish it” you actually mean “our military will die for the oil in Iraq as long as Pres. Bush wants to sacrifice their lives”, don’t you?
I’m one leftie that overcame my ‘right indoctrination’ after I ETS’d from the US Army. It was great to use my mind for something other than keeping my head from caving in, and it opened my eyes to the corruption that has taken a death-hold on the Republican party currently in power.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:43 pm#
#58
Would you mind showing some proof that President Bush is actually benefiting financially from the war in Iraq. I know you can’t provide any but I just had to ask. On the other hand, Clinton attempted to divert attention from the Lewinsky scandal by bombing Bosnia and we are still there. How is that exit strategy working? I guess we almost had Clinton out of office.
Comment by Bill — January 20, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
Well there is this here, as well as Cheney’s old company winning no bid contracts as well as the rise in oil prices supporting many of Bush’s family members/colleages.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:45 pm#70 Being at War when your home land is not at risk is not an open invintation to do what the hell ever you want. That is exactly how Rome was destroyed. The emporers never stoped having wars…for hundreds of years they wouldnt stop and they were the invaders. This kept them in power and allowed them to do whatever they wanted to anyone because they were in a constant state of war. This is where Nero Caesar came from… He is the one most known for killing large numbers of christians. He was able to do things like that because of this argument that a state of war gives absolute power… This is wrong. This is unAmerican. This is against the written law of the land in FISA. This is stupid from a humanity point of view since to repeat bad history is dumb. And it is scarey from a christian point of view. Even if Bush wouldnt feed the liberals or christians to the lions dont bet the future of America that a president (emporer) 80 years from now will not. This precident must NOT stand.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:49 pm#23
Nice try, there were more conservatives that voted for it. And ‘where were we’ We were here screaming about how fvcking wrong it is and I will bet we were arguing against you.
Any church with a political agenda SHOULD lose there tax exempt status.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:50 pmJudd has misled you about why Congress and the Bush Administration didn’t think the FISA could be ammended.
Here’s the real reason, per Gonzalez:
January 20th, 2006 at 2:52 pmWe’ve had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of
Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA,
and we were advised that that was not likely to be — that was not
something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing
the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program.
BSR – Have you EVER served this countries military? You sure seem to want to put other peoples lives in danger for a needless cause. Besides the elections, what other GOOD has come from this conflict? The Iraqis want us out. Bush has said, like all of the other lies he has told us, that if the Iraqi people ask us to leave we will. They have done just that, but Bush has refused.
If you and all of the other Republicans, who by the way I find the number who have or are serving to be less than any other party, should put on your boots, grab a weapon, and head on over to Iraq to help with this mess that your president put us in. Since you seem to know so much coaching from the chair, why don’t you put your money where your mouth is?
January 20th, 2006 at 2:54 pmSteed, you high lighted the wrong portion of that paragraph. Let me help you.
We’ve had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be — that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program.
Because they know that Congress would have laughed at them. That is why dumbass.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:56 pmIt Takes 60 Votes to
January 20th, 2006 at 3:01 pmStop a Filibuster!! There are 55 Republicans in the Senate. If the Democrats Filibuster, Alito is OUT.
Alito is a Follower of the Legal Doctrine of Carl Schmitt, the Crown Jurist of Nazi Germany. The man who made Hitler’s Murders and Dictatorship, “legal.” Americans fought WW II against Hitler and his minions. Someone is trying to bring Hitler here!!
This DEFINITELY MUST BE STOPPED.
All Democrats and Any Moral Republicans will ACT NOW to KEEP ALITO OUT. Your life and the future of posterity depends on EVERYONE ACTING NOW!!!
#71
#72
#74
#77
This is par for the TP course. As ususal, no one addresses the issues surrounding the NSA program (inherent power, AUMF, 4th amendment) on their merits. Just evasions, ad hominems, snide remarks, and irrelevant babble. Wake me up when Judd, or some other member of the fever swamp, wants to discuss these issues in an adult fashion.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:03 pmIt’s a lot easier to knock down a straw man of your own making than to deal with the issues on their merits.
Great, let’s deal with yours:
Lincoln did it; FDR did it; Clinton did it – Bush can do it too.
Actually Clinton didn’t do it so you can drop that line. Lincoln was in the middle of a civil war, FDR was fighting a war in two theaters, while George invaded a country without provokation.
He does not need congressional or judicial approval to do so.
Actually he does legally.
but whether its authorization “to use all necessary and appropriate force†against terrorists and terrorist
And that is where the debate stands: how much power does he have to do this and does it trump the bill of rights and the right to privacy of the American people?
Either way he had the FISA court (which rarely reject warrant applications) to make it legal and he didn’t use it.
given our long and honorable use of warrantless communications surveillance during wartime
Please elaborate…
I believe that the AUMF resloution must be read as ugmenting, not limiting, the President’s inherent constitutional powers
Once again truth battles fact. What you believe is irrelevant. Just as what the administration believes is irrelevant. That law is the law and no man is above it. Period.
Otherwise the resolution would either be (a) unconstitutional, or (b) superfluous.
No one is arguing about the resolution. Please stay on topic. What is argued is that he took liberties with the resolution.
Would Judd really argue that the President has the power to bomb an al-Qaeda hangout in Waziristan, but not to intercept communications between that location and a U.S. operative?
If they have information about that I have no doubt they can get a warrant for this.
Or does Judd argue that, because Waziristan is not part of Afghanistan, the President had no authority to bomb al-Qaeda there?
Didn’t you start this argument by denouncing strawmen?
(who works hard every day to protect their ungrateful butts)
We all know how hard he works
Judd’s dishonesty here is just a symptom of the deeper dishonesty that infects the entire anti-war Left.
I think I missed the part where he made this case.
We are at war.
They started it.
Who is they? Are you referring to al Qeada? Or Iraqis? Please be more specific so that I can shoot down this as well.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:04 pm44- Pickles is a piker. Bush’s actions have killed tens of thousands.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:05 pmWake me up when Judd, or some other member of the fever swamp, wants to discuss these issues in an adult fashion.
Comment by Blue State Red — January 20, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
Yeah, that was very adult of you, BSR…
January 20th, 2006 at 3:05 pm[C]ertainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program = Because they know that Congress would have laughed at them.
And 5+1 = 10. As usual your swiss cheese arguments are very convincing. That’s why you had to resort to name calling.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:09 pmBSR – First of all, one, and I will repeat that ONE, person stating that Bush has authority to do this does not make it so. There are HUNDREDS of other experts who are saying that he does not.
I have read the Amendments of the Constitution and the Authorization for the president to use the military. NO WHERE DOES IT STATE THAT HE HAS ABSOLUTE POWER. On the contrary, it still states that ALL LAWS must be followed. Using the FISA court is LAW, therefore the president broke the LAW.
Since you are an expert on Constitutional law or what the Authorization to use the military grant says, please show me the line that says that the president can break the LAW?
By the way BSR, “use of force” does not mean to wiretap. When does the military do electroinic survielence? They don’t, and his authority was with the MILITARY, not anywhere else. I will say it real slow for you so you can understand this…..
He Does Not Have The Authority To Break The Law!
January 20th, 2006 at 3:11 pmHas it been going on? Well I dont know how often it has for the benefit of a private business, hopefully not much.
Worked in Arlington, and made the President a very rich man in the process.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:13 pm51 – “Aphrodite, the topic is about Bush thinking that he can do whatever he wants, not about Bush fulfilling your Ted Kennedy fantasies.” – Jane E Schneider
*****You’re absolutely right, Jane!! I forgot – this is the official “bash Bush” site – so what was I thinking exercising my freedom of speech to respond to the moronic mental “slight of hand” of RyANNe Punch?? Perhaps if he/she would let go of “it’s” Laura Bush fantasies – probably no positive or loving mom influence.
Jane, seriously, don’t you think the sentence “Bush thinks he can do whatever he wants” is a little….how should we say it?….general….vague….?????
January 20th, 2006 at 3:13 pmJane, seriously, don’t you think the sentence “Bush thinks he can do whatever he wants†is a little….how should we say it?….general….vague….?????
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 20, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
You are concerned about the semantics of that sentence but not the general language proclaiming George can do whatever he want? Come on, be consistent.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:15 pmEverybody be very quiet, so BSR doesn’t wake up.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:18 pm#80 .. I directly responded to you with reason and examples from history …what else do you want?
January 20th, 2006 at 3:19 pm#88 – It’s the Republican way…… Make an issue out of the way a problem is presented, rather than what the problem is.
Thats why the REAL AMERICANS will have to move to another country when Bush finishes destroying the Constitution.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:20 pm#84
Do I need to repost what I posted, no. You’re still a dumbass.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:20 pmI forgot – this is the official “bash Bush†site – so what was I thinking exercising my freedom of speech to respond to the moronic mental “slight of hand†of RyANNe Punch??
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 20, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
You can exercize your freedom of speech anywhere you want, yet you pick a liberal blog and then wonder why no one agrees with you.
Bush is his own poster boy for bashing him. We don’t have to do anything but sit back and watch it happen. It would be amusing if it weren’t for the fact that people are dying because of it?
So, when are your spwan enlisting in the artillery division of the Army? You know, to support your President like obedient little lemmings?
January 20th, 2006 at 3:23 pmI tell you, you bushies are sniffin’ glue again.
Nov 2001 Bush went to the Senate to get additional powers. At the last minute they asked to have warrentless searches of phone & internet included. The Senate specifically balked at giving them that kind of power and said so in no uncertain terms. Look at Tom Daschle’s Washington Post (12/23/05) article titled Power We Didn’t Grant.
Give it up guys. Your lies are just that, lies.
Don’t blame us because we haven’t swallowed bushco lies like you all seem to have. From your logic, you would call the fish on the end of the hook the “smart” one, eh?
January 20th, 2006 at 3:25 pmWould you mind showing some proof that President Bush is actually benefiting financially from the war in Iraq.
Well, his VP is making a killing via Halliburton, and Carlyle seems to be doind quite well, thank you.
No direct link? It’s all in the family. See also, Sprectrum Oil, Arbusto, etc.
How is that exit strategy working?
About 2200 less dead GI’s than your boys “exit strategery.”
January 20th, 2006 at 3:27 pmDuh, October, not November. My bad.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:28 pmExcellent find kindness… Here’s the gist for the trolls who refuse to read links
On Tuesday, Vice President Cheney said the president “was granted authority by the Congress to use all means necessary to take on the terrorists, and that’s what we’ve done.”
As Senate majority leader at the time, I helped negotiate that law with the White House counsel’s office over two harried days. I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:29 pmWould you mind showing some proof that President Bush is actually benefiting financially from the war in Iraq.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:30 pmBut there is a direct link.
“BSR – First of all, one, and I will repeat that ONE, person stating that Bush has authority to do this does not make it so. There are HUNDREDS of other experts who are saying that he does not.” – ReBush
January 20th, 2006 at 3:36 pm*****So, it’s a numbers game for you??? And what if those hundreds of people are….(hard to believe)…wrong?? You should stop trying to read into the Authorization what you want it to say. And of course, you would be the first to jump on the “criticism bandwagon” if critical intelligence was missed or “poorly scrutinized” – but you know the old saying….”Some people can – others can only talk”….
We are at war.
With whom, exactly?
They started it.
So, why haven’t we attacked Saudi Arabia? It certainly wasn’t Iraqis on those planes that you conveniently conflate with the occupation of Iraq .
We will finish it.
Who’s we? Are you in Tikrit?
Whatever it takes.
As long as someone else is paying the costs, right?
Wherever it takes us.
Onward, 101st Keyboard Commandoes. King Bush has crusades to fight, and “God wills it.”
If the AUMF gives Bush this authority, why doesn’t it say so?
January 20th, 2006 at 3:38 pmthis is the official “bash Bush” site – so what was I thinking exercising my freedom of speech to respond to the moronic mental “slight of hand†of RyANNe Punch??
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 20, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
That you post here and don’t get banned is evidence that you can excercise your freedom of speech. So there’s no need to fret over that.
It’s very ironic you should mention “freedom of speech” right after you accuse Think Progress of bashing Bush. Don’t you like it when others excercise their freedom of speech?
January 20th, 2006 at 3:40 pm“FDR was fighting a war in two theaters” BuckleyBob
January 20th, 2006 at 3:40 pm*****And Bush isn’t???? Another piece of wishful or wistful thinking.
#102 – No “Mission Accomplished!” Remember!
January 20th, 2006 at 3:41 pmSo numbers matter when he has his “mandate” but not when American’s want warrants for spying.
I’m off topic too because this was never about numbers: it’s about the number of experts. I’d base my evidence on expert opinion especially in numbers.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:43 pmWe may be fighting groups in the world.
We are not at war. Please list when congress specifically declared war.
They haven’t. You can’t find it in any archive of the last 5 years of congress.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:45 pm#
“FDR was fighting a war in two theaters†BuckleyBob
*****And Bush isn’t???? Another piece of wishful or wistful thinking.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 20, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
Are you comparing a loose organization of terrorists and an invaded country with Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. I think you better rework this argument. Can you honestly say this is the magnitude of the WW2 theaters?
January 20th, 2006 at 3:46 pmThat AP-ipsos poll is flawed buckly. Heavily weighted down with democrats. Try again.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:46 pm#
That AP-ipsos poll is flawed buckly. Heavily weighted down with democrats. Try again.
Comment by Steed Lankershim — January 20, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
Methodology please
January 20th, 2006 at 3:48 pmWe are at a crossroads here.
The President of the United States has broken US Law, openly and defiantly.
The Department of Justice, headed by a Bush supporter, has chosen to defend this crime.
The Bush Administration is actively out trying to convince Americans that they make the laws, and therefore cannot break them.
Our Constitution literally dangles by a thread.
Whether America is to be a Democratic Republic, or become a Monarchy, will be decided on this one issue.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:48 pmIf you are going to say something is flawed please make your case with facts
January 20th, 2006 at 3:48 pmYou should stop trying to read into the Authorization what you want it to say.
Kettle, meet Pot.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:49 pmSo, it’s a numbers game for you???
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 20, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
It’s not about simple numbers. It’s about the fact that there is consensus among experts that Pres Bush does not have the legal authority to order wiretaps.
When most experts agree on a specific subject, it is wiser to go with their opinion -isn’t it?
January 20th, 2006 at 3:50 pm#
You should stop trying to read into the Authorization what you want it to say.
Kettle, meet Pot.
Comment by David — January 20, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
I know what we can do to settle the debate: have an independent investigation!!!
January 20th, 2006 at 3:51 pmCheney’s & dumbya’s income just went up.
(The new phaux) CNN just posted that Major gauges sink late in session with blue chips erasing all of the year’s gains. It went on to say that the price of oil jumped another 2%.
So much for my Mutual Funds under King dumbya.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:52 pmThat AP-ipsos poll is flawed buckly. Heavily weighted down with democrats.
Prove it. Debunk their methodology.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:53 pmI know what we can do to settle the debate: have an independent investigation!!!
As long as Pat Roberts is nowhere in vicinity, hell yes.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:56 pm#101 – My Dear Gregor – As usual, fine points of constitutional law leave you in the dirt. The Constitution protects OUR freedom of speech from government censorship…period. And even then, oh wise one – you can not say ANYTHING you want. If Think Progress were a PRIVATE business, they could censor me all they wish. But being the “non-profit” taking advantage of a tax-exempt status, they can only censor the vulgar and profane.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:59 pmI notice you haven’t touched my link from Tom Daschles article tiny aphrodite? Is that because you hate to be wrong so bad you are willing to play the fool for all to see?
It’s your stage.
January 20th, 2006 at 4:01 pmyou can not say ANYTHING you want.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 20, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
Sure you can. It just depends on how much money you have and who your Daddy knows to get you off the hook for yelling FIRE! in a crowded room… Google “Laura Bush and manslaughter” to see a fine example of this theory justified with a realistic example.
January 20th, 2006 at 4:05 pmthe Constitution protects OUR freedom of speech from government censorship…period. And even then, oh wise one – you can not say ANYTHING you want.
sigh, if only this were still the case.
January 20th, 2006 at 4:06 pmMy Dear Gregor – As usual, fine points of constitutional law leave you in the dirt. The Constitution protects OUR freedom of speech from government censorship…period.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 20, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
Thanks for dazzling me with your profound sapience.
But for all your wisdom and knowledge, fact remains you mentioned freedom of speech when talking about this blog.
Who has problems with the fine points of constitutional law again?
January 20th, 2006 at 4:10 pmThe AP-IPSOS poll that liberals are so fond of is heavily weighted down with Democrats:
52% democrats to 40% republicans.
Giacomo has also provided some comments on this poll in the past.
1. Party Leanings – The poll is slanted 52-40% towards Democrats, even though the voters in the 2004 election were split evenly at 37% between Republicans and Democrats.
2. Religion – 19% of respondents had “no†religion, while in 2004 only 10% of voters had “no†religion, and they voted overwhelmingly for Kerry (+36%).
3. Income Level of Respondents – In this poll 15% of respondents made under $15,000 per year. In 2004, only 8% of voters were in this income bracket, and voted 63-36% for Kerry.
4. Marital Status – In this poll, only 56% of respondents are married. In 2004, 63% of voters were married, and voted 57-42% for Bush.
5. Geography – In this poll, only 17% of respondents were from “rural†areas. In 2004, 25% of voters were from rural areas, and voted 57-42% for Bush.
6. Race – In this poll, there were 71% white respondents and 12% Hispanic respondents. In 2004, 77% of voters were white, and only 8% Hispanic. Bush won the white vote 58-41% and Kerry the Hispanic vote 53-44%.
Your sources are biased, buckley. Try using some evidence that’s a little less partial to liberals.
January 20th, 2006 at 4:22 pmIf they can take Cheney too, send that mofo (Bushiva) to the Hague by way of the nearest federal penitentiary…
January 20th, 2006 at 4:24 pmWell things like this do come down to numbers. If there are 100 people looking at the exact same document and 99 agree that it says one thing and the 1 person is a nut case and says he believes it says another…but that one person has power over the others. Quite a dilemma. Power or the overwhelming majority agreement….I don’t know but my “Americanism” in me doesn’t quite like power grabbers. Stinks like fascism to me.
January 20th, 2006 at 4:30 pm1. Party Leanings – The poll is slanted 52-40% towards Democrats, even though the voters in the 2004 election were split evenly at 37% between Republicans and Democrats.
Did you forget to mention independents that frequently vote Democrat? Looks like it
2. Religion – 19% of respondents had “no†religion, while in 2004 only 10% of voters had “no†religion, and they voted overwhelmingly for Kerry (+36%).
If we are going to use this as a factor I say let’s use education level. This analysis supports the right so use education level analysis for the left. Only fair.
3. Income Level of Respondents – In this poll 15% of respondents made under $15,000 per year. In 2004, only 8% of voters were in this income bracket, and voted 63-36% for Kerry.
Certainly you have to take into consideration America’s falling wages and income bracket changes.
5. Geography – In this poll, only 17% of respondents were from “rural†areas. In 2004, 25% of voters were from rural areas, and voted 57-42% for Bush.
Only about 20 percent of the population is rural so…
Either way the percentage points for the margin of error don’t come close to covering the spread. And you don’t address the issue that more Americans are disallusioned with the President and his policies in light of what has gone on in the past year. Issues not addressed in the http://www.gopblogger.com article you copied and pasted.
January 20th, 2006 at 4:50 pmThe Chimp is desperate in his attempt to fight the NSA bit. He has let his shit eating dog, Rover, out to play.
Both are shaking like a dog shitting peach seeds.
January 20th, 2006 at 4:58 pmAlberto Gonzales and the other authors of this work mention September 11th thirty seven times
January 20th, 2006 at 5:17 pmPerhaps it would be important to look for other reasons why the administration might want to wiretap US citizens? This is NO joke! I was in a family for more than 26 years who joined Organized Crime, but this isn’t any ordinary Organized Crime System. It’s a very wide criminal system with many different criminal activities that include Very Wide Scale Political Corruption, Wide Scale International Drug Distribution and Wide Scale Fraud. Being deep in the belly of a corruption Laundromat, I had access to important information coming from the top part of our Federal Political System. The communication channels are very well tuned, believe me. Wiretapping is very important to this criminal system as it allows them to maintain security with their criminal activities. Plus there’s much more than wiretapping that is going on as well. If you feel wiretapping is shocking, wait till you learn what else has been going on! There are other criminal levels above wiretapping that are far more serious and concerning than wiretapping. There’s a great deal more behind this than what you think!
January 20th, 2006 at 5:21 pmAs #71 through #128 demonstrate, the fever swamp Left has some kind of collective ADD/ADHD. They never can stay focused on the larger issues. They always disappear down the first intellectual rabbit hole they find. No wonder they wind up yelling “Off with his head!” so often.
Let’s try a multiple choice test:
1. Does the President have inherent powers to conduct wartime activities as Commander in Chief?
a. Yes.
b. No.
c. Don’t know.
2. Can the courts limit the President’s inherent powers by judicial fiat?
a. Yes.
b. No.
c. Don’t know.
3. Can Congress limit the President’s inherent powers by statute?
a. Yes.
b. No.
c. Don’t know.
4. If the Congress authorizes the Presdient to use force does that add to the President’s inherent powers?
a. Yes.
b. No.
c. Don’t know.
5. If there is a conflict between the constitution and a congressional statute, must the President follow the constitution first?
a. Yes.
b. No.
c. Don’t know.
Hint: There are three “yesses” and two “noes” here. I’ll let you figure out where they go. For those who answered “don’t know” to any of these, it’s okay to call Cass Sunstein for the answers.
January 20th, 2006 at 5:29 pm#106 – “I think you better rework this argument. Can you honestly say this is the magnitude of the WW2 theaters?”
- Comment by BuckRoberts
*****IF you have a thought, does it just fall out of your mouth – I apologize for asking – I’m just not seeing any thoughtful analysis. WAKE UP!! The rules of engagement have changed!! This is a more committed and insidious enemy than the majority soldiers and sailors we engaged in WWII. During WWI and II we were “fortunate” to be fighting a defined enemy with uniforms and boundaries. In addition, and hordes of spies – who would be shot if they engaged in the “no uniform” dress as those at Guantanamo Bay.
Greg Parser- Since I knew this web-site was tax-exempt and you …. Yawn…..Zzzzz.
Unbelieved – The only fight I can see you engaging with the enemy is who gets to take their revenge on Bush first – ***NOTE**** be prepared to lose “the fight” – they don’t like you, either.
January 20th, 2006 at 5:36 pmReally? Bush doesn’t like us? I’m so dissappointed.
January 20th, 2006 at 5:47 pm122- I thought we were talking about a poll, not election rolls. Apple, meet orange.
January 20th, 2006 at 5:50 pmLOL, an organ he is indeed.
A horse’s ass is, technically speaking, not an “organ”.
Cheers,
January 20th, 2006 at 6:06 pm#118 – Dear Kindof – You mean your link to the “non-partisan” regurgitation of FORMER Senate MINORITY Leader, Tommy “Whisper” Daschle? I haven’t had the time or Maalox to access your link to Daschle’s insight. BTW, is his wife Linda still the aerospace lobbyist??
January 20th, 2006 at 6:17 pmBSR, remember during the Alito hearings when the conversation revolved around President Reagan’s redlining his authority, I’m sorry I don’t recall what law he needed to ignore, and Alito made the comment that he thought it prudent to come in under the limit, not to push the authority to a weaker defensible position basically. I’m sure all of your questions and answers are valid but the Question what ever form it comes in will be answered. If the left seems hysterical and under educated on the scope of the President’s power I don’t think this is one is going away, say like Valerie what’s her name. Some one’s focus will be organized to clarify something before the next elections. After all have you thought about Who would want to finish the job for this administration. Iguess the GOP will have to go with Cheney, huh?
January 20th, 2006 at 6:19 pm“*****IF you have a thought, does it just fall out of your mouth – I apologize for asking – I’m just not seeing any thoughtful analysis. WAKE UP!! The rules of engagement have changed!! This is a more committed and insidious enemy than the majority soldiers and sailors we engaged in WWII. mighty aphrodite”
Oh please. The enemy was very determined, and an old lady like yourself should know better than to be so fearful of such a weak adversary. Covert sabotage was attempted by Germany and Japan, and Japan invaded Alaska in addition to attacking Japan and many other territories. Your fear of Al Qaeda borders on hysteria and just silliness. In the course of almost 20 years, Al Qaeda only attacked us twice on our soil, and a handful of targets elsewhere. If you believe this is worth giving up your civil liberties for, then fear has made you insane.
I forgive you for your hysteria and irrationality and chalk it up to the dementia that often overtakes the elderly. Just try taking a few breaths, and put this in perspective. Last year 10 times as many americans were killed by firearms in the us, than were killed by Al Qaeda in 20 years in this country. So try putting some reality and perspective in your statements, and put away the nonsense and hysteria.
Come on there sweetie, get with the program, I’m sure you’ve got enough fuel to fire at least one of those antique cylinders you have left.
January 20th, 2006 at 6:20 pmMighty Aphrodite:
You should stop trying to read into the Authorization what you want it to say.
Ummmm, aren’t you posting on the wrong blog? I’d think that was intended for “blogs.whitehouse.gov”…..
Cheers,
January 20th, 2006 at 6:22 pm“Dear Kindof – You mean your link to the “non-partisan†regurgitation of FORMER Senate MINORITY Leader, Tommy “Whisper†Daschle? I haven’t had the time or Maalox to access your link to Daschle’s insight. BTW, is his wife Linda still the aerospace lobbyist?? mighty aphrodite”
At least Daschle didn’t need to hire a male prostitute to spread lies and propaganda in order to ‘win’ the seat. Republicans consistently prefer lies, corruption, deception and fear over american values. Poor things, you all seem so easily deceived by your hate based values that prevent you for thinking for yourself. You have my sympathy. I forgive you for your failures to live up to basic morality – clearly your fear, hatred and desperation has made you incapable of acting maturely or as americans.
January 20th, 2006 at 6:23 pmSo does Attorney General Gonzales get taken out to the wood shed for losing “Gonzales, attorney General ETAL. V Oregon? This was the tree that fell and no one heard it. What if The President hadn’t nominated Harriet Meiers? Oh Well, 3 more years of never a dull moment.
January 20th, 2006 at 6:32 pmUnbelieved – The only fight I can see you engaging with the enemy is who gets to take their revenge on Bush first – ***NOTE**** be prepared to lose “the fight†– they don’t like you, either.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 20, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
You must have an unusually large trust fund to build such expansive bridges between my comments and your incoherent responses. You should hook up with Ted Stevens…
Since when does someone not liking someone else equate to losing a battle? You know, ‘like’ has nothing to do with it – as it’s all about strategy. And with the way your side argues, I could win blindfolded wearing rollerblades…
Put down the theaurus and pick up the dictionary, a third grade math book, second grade science book, couple of first grade readers, and some fifth grade history. Then get back to us when you’ve worked you way through college courses…
January 20th, 2006 at 6:36 pmDear Kindof – Asking me to put any stock in Tom Daschle’s observations would be a little bit like having me ask you to trust the observations of Newt Gingrich.
Dear Cynical – We know Bush doesn’t agree with progs – when I said “they don’t like you” I meant bin Laden, AlZawahiri, AlZarqawi and Co.
Dear SlapSilly – “Your fear of Al Qaeda borders on hysteria and just silliness.” Tell that to my cousins’ family – he worked at Cantor Fitzgerald. The operative word – “workED”.
January 20th, 2006 at 6:45 pmBlueStateRed:
Let’s try a multiple choice test:
1. Does the President have inherent powers to conduct wartime activities as Commander in Chief?
a. Yes.
b. No.
c. Don’t know.
No. If you disagree, point to the place in the Constitution that gives him such “inherent” powers. He is designated as “[C]ommander in chief of the Army and Navy”, true, and may command these bodies to do or to not do something (albeit consistent with the Constitution and laws of the nation; he couldn’t set their pay scale, for example). But anything beyond that is hardly in the Constitution.
2. Can the courts limit the President’s inherent powers by judicial fiat?
a. Yes.
b. No.
c. Don’t know.
You assume there are such “inherent powers”. But in fact, even that question, and the subsidiary pne of what any such powers might be, is a judicial question.
3. Can Congress limit the President’s inherent powers by statute?
a. Yes.
b. No.
c. Don’t know.
See last response.
4. If the Congress authorizes the Presdient to use force does that add to the President’s inherent powers?
a. Yes.
b. No.
c. Don’t know.
Yes. I’d note that 5 + 0 = 5, though. I’d also note that an authorisation to use force is harldy an authorisation to wiretap U.S. citizens without a warrant. When you can produce a Congressional authorisation to wiretap without warrant despite laws that prohibit such, out with it.
5. If there is a conflict between the constitution and a congressional statute, must the President follow the constitution first?
a. Yes.
b. No.
c. Don’t know.
Irrelevant. But I’d note that the usual course of action is to challenge the law in court, and for the courts to sort out the fight. Unlike Dubya, I don’t believe that “it is the executive branch’s job to interpret law” (and I certainly hope that your civics education leads you to that proper conclusion as well). And if the president does choose to skip this stage and embark on a course that he thinks is lawful, but which is found to be against the law by courts subsequently, then he — just as would be the case for Officer Obie or any other law enforcement officer — would have broke the law.
Hint: There are three “yesses†and two “noes†here. I’ll let you figure out where they go. For those who answered “don’t know†to any of these, it’s okay to call Cass Sunstein for the answers.
Hint: You’re an arrogant ass (and a legal ignoramus). See above.
Cheers,
January 20th, 2006 at 6:46 pmMighty Aphrodite:
This is a more committed and insidious enemy than the majority soldiers and sailors we engaged in WWII.
You’re a panty-wetting historical ignoramus. Why don’t you start reading a bit? I’d think you’d have a least a little sense of shame in demeaning the millions of people who fought that great world-wide conflagration and the many millions that died in it.
Cheers,
January 20th, 2006 at 6:50 pmGreg Parser- Since I knew this web-site was tax-exempt and you …. Yawn…..Zzzzz.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 20, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
*sigh* I knew this is a non-profit and nonpartisan web site… do I have to spell my point out for you? If you think any mention to freedom of speech when talking about Think Progress is irrelevant -don’t do it.
As for me being a parser, I really don’t care for posting -let alone replying to- everything in your inane comments.
January 20th, 2006 at 7:12 pmWell, Karl Rove came out today and said that republicans were going to run their 2006 elections on fear (they said security, they mean fear).
Just look at the posts from our bushies. They eat it up. They love the fear SOOOOO much they are willing to sacrafice away rights and liberties that our ancestors fought long and hard against.
You swallow the hook, line and sinker….you’re still just the fish on the end of the line getting pulled in for dinner. Why don’t you send them a check so they can dine in style.
January 20th, 2006 at 7:15 pmDear Arnie – Weak personal attacks are often lobbed by boys with weak arguments. Did you get beat up on the school yard?
I am more appreciative than you could possibly know for the defeat of Nazism, Communism and Tojoism. That being said – you did not dispute the real differences on todays’ “battleground”, did you?
January 20th, 2006 at 7:30 pmRightPunch,
I really don’t know how old Mighty Aphrodite is; all I know is that she has mentioned being a lawyer in San Diego.
You’d think she should be able to produce more substantial and articulate posts.
January 20th, 2006 at 7:40 pmGregor,
She’s clearly elderly, as she said she has adult children the other night when I was chatting with her. I told her that I guessed minimally she was in in her late 50s, but probably early 60s – and she didn’t deny it. She just sounds like one of those old ladies that has such a simplistic and out of touch with reality fear of the world. It often happens as people with poor social skills grow older. They become even less grounded and in touch with the real world. Poor old thing is probably a shut in who pretends to still be young and vital, as opposed to someone who’s clearly failed to meet the goals of their poor lives.
I really do feel sorry for her, because it’s clear she suffers, fears and hates more than an old lady should. It’s just not good for her mental health to fixate on such ugly and unhealthy emotions.
January 20th, 2006 at 7:48 pm“I am more appreciative than you could possibly know for the defeat of Nazism, Communism and Tojoism. That being said – you did not dispute the real differences on todays’ “battlegroundâ€, did you? mighty aphrodite”
Were you on the front lines with your corsett and golden lasso? It would explain a lot of why you’re no so filled with resentment and irrational hatred.
January 20th, 2006 at 7:52 pmRightPunch,
She has adult children? She always talks about her “beautiful four little Republicans”… to me that sounds like they are kids, 10-12yo at most. She has mentioned that several times, so I always thought she was 40yo tops.
Interesting… but then she has no problems agreeing with I-RIGHT-I’s misogynistic comments so I guess consistency is not her forte.
January 20th, 2006 at 8:09 pmI doubt she(he?) ever served, coming from a family where my dad, uncles, all my brothers and sisters, my daughter, and I all served; we don’t agree with giving up the rights that some of us ( my dad, Korean war, me, desert storm, my daughter, Iraq) fought for, and my youngest gave his life for.
January 20th, 2006 at 8:19 pmMightyAphrodite:
Dear Arnie – Weak personal attacks are often lobbed by boys with weak arguments. Did you get beat up on the school yard?
Hmmmmm. Why do these words keep floating around the periphery of my thoughts …. “pot” … “chinacup” … “black”….
The answer to your (hopefully) serious question, of course, is “no”.
I am more appreciative than you could possibly know for the defeat of Nazism, Communism and Tojoism.
Wasn’t the point. I am as well (and I’d hoep we could at least agree on that). But to think that the feeble efforts of a terrorist organisation could begin to equate with the risks to humanity of the combined forces of several of the world’s greatest industrial and military powers of the time is sheer stoopidity.
That being said – you did not dispute the real differences on todays’ “battlegroundâ€, did you?
Not explicitly, but I’d note that the 3000 lives lost in NYC that day was, proportional to population, on the same order of magnitude as what Israel was losing on a weekly basis during the height of the intifada. And it was, on a per-attacker basis, roughly the same as was lost that horrible day on April 19th in Oklahoma City. In neither case did democracy and freedom crumble. Even if you were unlucky enough to have known someone who lost their life that day (and I’d note that personal loss to you hardly makes for a rational argument, heartbreaking as it may be).
You may insist that the al Qaeda attackers are “more committed and insidious” than our foes during WWII (but that would alse be ignoring history, such as the horrors of the Japanese defences of such as Iwo Jima, Peleliu, Okinawa, etc.), but I’d say that even were your point to be true (which is arguable), that hardly makes such “committed” foes more dangerous necessarily. A complete madman might be completely and unalterably “committed” to whaever “cause” or hallucination they’re beholden to, but without means or capability to do any serious damage, they’re hardly a mortal threat (unlike Hitler and company).
I really think you do a disservice to all those that fought in WWII with your ridiculous statement, and for that you should apologise.
Cheers,
January 20th, 2006 at 8:48 pmGregor,
She mentioned one of her adult children recently, so either she’s lying about her children in order to propagandize (it was one of those heart wrenching stories where she had to correct her adult child for having bad judgement) that made me ask her why her child was having bad judgement if she’d been the parent? I mean isn’t that one of the hallmarks of republican ‘values’, that proper raising of a child prevents them from having bad judgement?
And here she was confessing that she had ‘correct’ this adult person for having an opinion contrary to her own. I was really sad to see how hateful she was about her own child’s independence. It made me really feel sorry for the upbringing she obviously inflicted on the poor children – if they exist. I forgave her for being such a bad mom – but I don’t think she liked by generosity very much. She just called me nasty names – poor thing.
January 20th, 2006 at 9:04 pmRight Punch. You kill me. Your posts are hilarious.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:05 pmPresident George W. Bush has broken the FISA Law, and he admits doing so repeatedly, which means impeachment NOW!!!
January 21st, 2006 at 12:30 amYou know, when I first started visiting this site, I thought comments about the rightwingers getting their talking points from RNC and then parroting them here was only a snipe. But the more I read, the more I think you are completely right about this. Question: why even respond to the inane, and in some cases insane comments from the right (not all, but most)and occasionally from the left? Just ignore them so we can discuss the topics more effectively. Sure they’ll say something to the effect that we’re afraid to respond. But who cares? Tell them we’ll respond when they have something intelligent to say.
January 21st, 2006 at 12:59 amAnd here she was confessing that she had ‘correct’ this adult person for having an opinion contrary to her own. I was really sad to see how hateful she was about her own child’s independence.
Comment by RightPunch — January 20, 2006 @ 9:04 pm
RightPunch,
Since I’m a teacher, she regularly gives me her two cents about the public education system, even though she says her kids don’t attend. One of her kids was a ’surprise’, so while it is possible to have both adult children and a kid in school, I’ve never heard about the adult child(ren) before. Just goes to demonstrate the flexibility of their ‘lives’ as needed to defend their ideology…
And I do feel sorry for her. I once told her that I expected her children to become liberal to avoid being anything remotely like her (my father was a hate filled conservative, and after he died, I questioned everything he believed, and found it all lacking. And look where I am now :). Her progeny will probably do the same, if they haven’t already).
I figure we are all ahe has, and how much more pathetic does it get than that?
January 21st, 2006 at 9:08 amlily – you’re right of course. Sometimes it’s easy to blow ‘em off. Sometimes, not so much.
January 21st, 2006 at 12:31 pmRightSlaps projects much!!! If I don’t respond to assumptions it’s only because I am dismissing inferences and assumptions as ignorant or boring – often I find them both. Perhaps RightSlap perception of my age reflects his/her disdain for the elderly so common in the self-absorbed and disposable mores of the day? Or maybe his “humour” is a reflection of his/her own grinding immaturity – who knows, or for that matter, cares?
My four little Repubs attend two different schools due to their various grade levels. As a taxpayer, neighbor and friend of people whose children attend public schools I know there are decent schools out there along with the opposite. If public schools are SO fantastic, please explain the following: Of the eight industrialized nations compared, American math students felt they had done the best – but in actuality, they had performed the worst. Korean students felt they had done the worst and in reality, had done the best. Could it be that the “faux” self-esteem movement has produced medicre students who FEEL FANTASTIC about their results???
Happy week-end!!!
January 21st, 2006 at 2:22 pmRightSlap – If a parent has a younger child in 2nd grade and an oldest child in 12th grade would they have a child who is possibly an adult? Your progressive protestations, yet revealing “inside the box” thinking is humourous. An associate at a firm I went with after the service had the same problem – he assumed MUCH, KNEW little, and analyzed poorly. He didn’t win too many cases.
January 21st, 2006 at 2:37 pmmighty aphrodite,
You’re the one who ‘used’ your daughter in a story to insult someone, and called her an adult. Don’t blame me because it gave everyone the wrong idea about your elderly state. As for an age bias – why sweetie, anything but that’s true. I always worry about the elderly in this country – and you just come across as such an abandoned old lady I can’t help feel compassion for you. You seem so cold, bitter and disconnected from your community, how could one not have compassion for such a poor tortured soul as yourself?
And I didn’t assume anything except out of necessity. I asked, but you wouldn’t respond leaving one to have to assume the answers based on what flimsy evidence you had presented. It’s kind of like the march to war, you don’t always get to make an argument with all of the evidence, only the evidence that a republican pre-filters in order to try to shape and produce propaganda. Well dealing with you is much the same affair. I’m sure you have good intention, just like bushie did (somewhere deep inside), but you’re so busying managing your image and your outcome, that you forget to be human and to engage others as such. Don’t worry, I forgive you for the hatred, anger and fear that make people do such stupid things. I know it’s not really you, but instead your ‘hate’ and lack of ‘analysis’ that makes you this way.
And the schools are an easy thing to answer, it’s because are too afraid to pay taxes and provide equal opportunity to poor people – that’s why the schools are bad. After all, if everyone’s educated – who would clean their toilets? I bet you have maid for instance, and aren’t you glad you have public schools and a flimsy border so you can order someone around who hasn’t been fortunate enough to go to private school? Well sure you do.
And no matter what your age, clearly you’re just a miserable old lady inside who’s forgotten what it means to be young, to love, and to forgive. Religion has a way of doing that to people, all of the guilt and hate and all. You really should rethink your life there sweetie, because your postings show you aren’t happy with it, or the world. I feel pity for you. So much apparent ’success’, and so much unhappiness. You’re american beauty one handgun away from the evening news.
January 21st, 2006 at 3:04 pm“If a parent has a younger child in 2nd grade and an oldest child in 12th grade would they have a child who is possibly an adult? mighty aphrodite”
This is like one of those Rove ‘questions’ where the question implies this person is you, but you’ve never actually said it – therefore you can ‘lie’ with impunity without having lied. Were you raised catholic? Because this kind of lying technique takes practice. Although you say you’re a lawyer, so clearly you’ve had post-religious training on the subject.
Now when you’re not afraid to lie anymore, and would care to share the truth, I’d love to hear what you have to say. How many grandchildren do you have?
January 21st, 2006 at 3:06 pmCould it be that the “faux†self-esteem movement has produced medicre students who FEEL FANTASTIC about their results???
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 21, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
People with high self-esteem are never arrogant or overly confident… only those with exceptionally low self-esteem who are trying to project an appearance of success. And it’s one of the biggest problems we have in this nation today. It’s why we’re called Prozac Nation. We’re a country filled with people who feel so worthless that they pretend to be successful in order to feel better about themselves. Why is this the case? Organized religions that call people ’sinners’ and make them beg for forgiveness for merely being human to some non-existent diety…
Wanna fix the problem with public schools? Raise salaries to a living wage for parents so they can spend more time nurturing and developing healthy self-esteem in the children they produce. Since the cultural indoctrination of a child occurs in the first 5 to 6 years of life – well before they ever arrive at the thresholds of the public school system.
January 21st, 2006 at 3:29 pmunbelievable,
I think you just in a nutshell described how the rightwing recruits. They draw in people with low self esteem who want to feel superior. That’s why there’s all of this pseudo babble from the rightwing about the ‘elitist’ left. Unless you have very low self esteem, you’d never see another group as elitist – only as selfish or self absorbed as a characteristic that you might not identify with.
Is that correct?
January 21st, 2006 at 3:37 pmRightPunch,
I think so… not that that seems to count for much these days for either one of us :). Fear is such a powerful weapon for the right that in return for providing people unrealistic returns, they can get just about anything out of them. The kool-aid drinking, suicide pact cults are riddled with people who will do anything and everything to take away their feelings of worthlessness. And when the promises fail to come true, these ’spiritual leaders’ simply blame the congregation for not praying enough or not being good enough. It’s a perpetual cycle of sado-masochism that seems to have only one real menace – reality. And I agree that it’s why they continue to attack those of us who think for ourselves. We are a threat to the power they hold over others. Wasn’t it Tom Cruise who was spouting the evils of therapy? His whacko religion brainwashes them from any possible chance of recovery by making medical science ‘evil’…
Just wants to make you rush out an join up, eh? :)
January 21st, 2006 at 4:15 pmunbelieved – “People with high self-esteem are never arrogant or overly confident… only those with exceptionally low self-esteem who are trying to project an appearance of success.”
****Do you regularly use the word “always” when discussing a group of people?? It has been my experience that those who often make such sweeping statements are consistently wrong 50% of the time.
Unbelieved – “Raise salaries to a living wage for parents so they can spend more time nurturing and developing healthy self-esteem in the children they produce.”
****And when an assembly line worker or janitor makes $50K a year, what should we pay our teachers, secretaries, bakers, etc.? Your solution flies in the face of a capitalist system. How about giving people wage relief through tax relief? Wouldn’t that help working people by letting them keep more of their wages? According to your psycho-babble, more wages = higher self-esteem for kids. When I quit the liberal movement, there were 187 (!!) programs to assist “at risk youth”. Translation: there were 187 sets of administrators to battle for their portion of the “at-risk” pie. By cutting redundant and overlapping programs, more could be achieved with less.
To achieve fantastic public schools, I propose the following:
a.) get rid of the “dead weight” at the top of school hierarchies – too many chiefs and not enough Indians.
b.) STARTING salaries for elementary school teachers would be $75,000.- / year. Inner city (or other poor districts) elementary teachers would have starting salaries of $100,000.-/ year.
c.) NO social promotions – children’s educational development will fall farther and farther behind.
d.) NO TENURE – this protects burned out and lazy teachers waiting to collect their pensions – children deserve better than that.
Love to hear your thoughts….
January 21st, 2006 at 7:49 pmUnbelievable,
And when the promises fail to come true, these ’spiritual leaders’ simply blame the congregation for not praying enough or not being good enough.
Comment by unbelievable — January 21, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
Unfortunately, I think it’s more like not giving them enough money.
January 21st, 2006 at 8:11 pmTo achieve fantastic public schools, I propose the following:
a.) get rid of the “dead weight†at the top of school hierarchies – too many chiefs and not enough Indians.
b.) STARTING salaries for elementary school teachers would be $75,000.- / year. Inner city (or other poor districts) elementary teachers would have starting salaries of $100,000.-/ year.
c.) NO social promotions – children’s educational development will fall farther and farther behind.
d.) NO TENURE – this protects burned out and lazy teachers waiting to collect their pensions – children deserve better than that.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 21, 2006 @ 7:49 pm
I can’t argue with this. Teachers are underpaid.
January 21st, 2006 at 8:13 pma.) get rid of the “dead weight†at the top of school hierarchies – too many chiefs and not enough Indians.
Lily,
Oddly enough, MA and I agree on this point – too much weight at the top of our government and governmental institutions…
When I was an architect in California, my clients were the Boards of Education for different school districts in the area. Few to none of them had ever been in the classroom, and they governed on self-congratulatory theories that were so out of touch with reality and humanity that it’s no surprise the public school system is so inept at education.
We’ve fallen from #1 to #7 in terms of most educated countries. The kids in my classes routinely tell me how much they’ve grown to hate – yes, hate – school because they are treated appallingly (discipline and standardized test scores are the highest priorities) and are learning nothing interesting or relevent to the real world. I ask them what they want to learn, but my hands are still tied by those hierarchical administrators… it’s frustrating.
b.) STARTING salaries for elementary school teachers would be $75,000.- / year. Inner city (or other poor districts) elementary teachers would have starting salaries of $100,000.-/ year.
While this would be nice – if you do the math, and consider where the money comes from (property taxes of mostly the middle class), it’s not that simple. Salaries are not high enough to attract the most intelligent people most of the time. But as long as we put $360 billion into military and only $50 billion into education, raises are not in the future. Though, in exchange for some salary increases, I would prefer smaller class sizes. One teacher teaching 32 kids in the same room is almost impossible some days.
c.) NO social promotions – children’s educational development will fall farther and farther behind.
I’ve tried to explain this to her before… Failing students in middle or higher grades is ineffective. Plus, few parents want 17 year old boys in 7th grade with their 12 years old daughters…
d.) NO TENURE – this protects burned out and lazy teachers waiting to collect their pensions – children deserve better than that.
I might agree with this if the rest of the bugs were removed. At present, it’s compensating for all the other deficiencies, and if you remove it, the teacher shortage will become even worse…
January 21st, 2006 at 8:40 pmDo you regularly use the word “always†when discussing a group of people??
I didn’t use the word always…
It has been my experience that those who often make such sweeping statements are consistently wrong 50% of the time.
Wrong 50% of the time would be a 50% improvement for you…
And when an assembly line worker or janitor makes $50K a year, what should we pay our teachers, secretaries, bakers, etc.? Your solution flies in the face of a capitalist system.
I know, I abhor Capitalism. Wanna trade it in for Humanism. And that number you assigned was yours.
How about giving people wage relief through tax relief? Wouldn’t that help working people by letting them keep more of their wages?
Tax relief as in no taxes? So who pays them? Clearly not the rich… not in your trickle down economic fairytale scheme…
According to your psycho-babble, more wages = higher self-esteem for kids.
Again, Magda, quit building bridges between two points that aren’t connected that simply. But in a Capitalistic society where sociao economics is the prevailing means for perspective, they are tied together, yes. Its’ why private schools have uniforms. To hide the socio-economic status of its students and prevent discrimination (only you can’t hide a $200 hair cut or diamond accessories)
When I quit the liberal movement, there were 187 (!!) programs to assist “at risk youthâ€. Translation: there were 187 sets of administrators to battle for their portion of the “at-risk†pie. By cutting redundant and overlapping programs, more could be achieved with less.
This conflicts with your other statements…
But, 187 programs where? How many kids? What were their functions? A broad statement like this is nonsensical… but I wouldn’t expect anything less from you.
January 21st, 2006 at 8:50 pmWasn’t the church that got in trouble an Episcopalian one and the pulpit message against the Iraq war? I wonder who got the IRS after that preacher–sounds like retaliation or at least a form of pressuring the pulpit into silence. Invading and occupying Iraq was and is morally wrong, and saying that murder, greed, and wholescale deception–and torture–are wrong is not a “partisan statement” in my view. No matter what a human being’s political beliefs–Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian–he or she should outspokenly and actively oppose torture as an inhuman activity.
Strangely enough, though, Pat Robertson can ruffle the waters of international politics, for instance, by his foolish and unknowledgeable statements about Hugo Chavez and Ariel Sharon.
Think of the cowardly churchmen in history who buckled under to corrupt regimes. Open your eyes and see our corrupt administration, which is behaving like many of those infamous regimes we Americans so deplore. There is an old maxim, “What you resist, you become,” and that seems to be manifesting in our high-level warmongers.
January 21st, 2006 at 11:45 pmCheck this out for a complete denounciation of the second point raised in the incredibly insipid justification of domestic spying. But remember, this isn’t about domestic spying. It’s about Bush saying, “yeah, I broke the law, and what are you going to do about it?”
Visit The Schapira Blog
“… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”
l
January 22nd, 2006 at 3:38 amAlberto Gonzalez, Attorney General of the United States, has transmitted to the Senate Majority leader, Bill Frist, a 44 page defense of the President’s illegal program of domestic spying. It raises no new arguments that were not raised in the 5 page justification offered by Wm. E. Moschella, which I dissected in The President and Article II of the Constitution.
Fundamentally, the AG’s argument boils down to this one sentence:
“The President has the chief responsibility under the Constitution to protect America from attack, and the Constitution gives the President the authority necessary to fulfill that solemn responsibility.â€
But is it true? Let’s just take a peek at the Constitution of the United States.
Article 1 § 8 states:
The Congress shall have Power To … provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; …
• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; … And
• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
From the foregoing, one could conclude that the responsibility for protecting America from attack is really Congress’s. The President has a role to play, to be sure. He shall faithfully execute the laws that Congress passes.
Look. When a guy named Big Mitch tells you that bigger is not necessarily better, you gotta believe it.
visit: http://schapira.blogspot.com
“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!â€
January 22nd, 2006 at 3:41 amRightPunch,
Thanks for taking the time to find and post this information. Like you, I do my homework before I start espousing opinions. When I was 25-27, I dated a guy whose father was an attorney. He said that it is ompossible to win an argument unless you not only know your position, but also the opposing position. Made sense. MA being an attorney does not.
January 22nd, 2006 at 8:56 amUnbelieved – I am curious how your sense of “purpose” and “social responsibility” was not fulfilled in your life as an architect. Building schools with the dead weight bureaucracy?? Several architects I know enjoy the contemporary challenges of new and improved “mixed use” development. Your thoughts??
Please explain the economic theory of humanism – I must have missed it in my last economics class.
As an attorney, we must always know the opposition argument – we don’t have to agree with it.
January 22nd, 2006 at 2:46 pmUnbelieved – I am curious how your sense of “purpose†and “social responsibility†was not fulfilled in your life as an architect. Building schools with the dead weight bureaucracy?? Several architects I know enjoy the contemporary challenges of new and improved “mixed use†development. Your thoughts??
Sense of purpose? What religious nonsense is that?
The architects you know must not be very good architects. The school Districts tell you what and how to design… there’s no creativity or room for ingenuity even if you can do it within the budget. It’s the most boring type of projects I have ever worked on. And most other architects consider school architects to be the C students…
And you do know that they name the schools after past and present board members, right? Don’t you get it? Are you that blind?
Please explain the economic theory of humanism – I must have missed it in my last economics class.
No, you just missed it period. There’s more to a society than economics. They are called ‘people’.
As an attorney, we must always know the opposition argument – we don’t have to agree with it.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 22, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
I never suggested you had to agree with it. Just that you don’t understand it. You don’t. And it’s very obvious to those of us who do.
January 22nd, 2006 at 3:24 pmAs an attorney, we must always know the opposition argument – we don’t have to agree with it.
Comment by mighty aphrodite #177
Puny Hermaphrodite,
You’re an attorney?
Hell, no wonder Bushites don’t respect the Constitution and rule of law…
…with ignorant inbreds like yourself practicing “justice/jurisprudence” REALLY are cruel jokes…
January 22nd, 2006 at 7:51 pmThe Bush Administration needed 42 pages of baloney to justify George bypassing the FISA laws, but only one sentence is needed to challenge his illegal activity!
George > you broke the law bud, so resign, or be impeached!
January 22nd, 2006 at 8:05 pm[...] DeWine’s solution completely overlooks the major problem with Bush’s illegal domestic spying program. The administration has argued that FISA doesn’t apply to its program, and DeWine simply wants to embed that viewpoint into law. By doing so, the DeWine legislation would grant authority to the administration to continue to conduct its program without any legal checks or safeguards on its powers. [...]
February 15th, 2006 at 2:16 pm[...] DeWine’s solution completely overlooks the major problem with Bush’s illegal domestic spying program. The administration has argued that FISA doesn’t apply to its program, and DeWine simply wants to embed that viewpoint into law. By doing so, the DeWine legislation would grant authority to the administration to continue to conduct its program without any legal checks or safeguards on its powers. DeWine should know better. His efforts to reform FISA were disingenuously rejected in 2002 by the Justice Department. The administration clearly has no problem misleading Congress about its program, and DeWine now wants to reward Cheney and other administration officials by giving them a legal blank check. Explore posts in the same categories: Illegal Surveillance [...]
February 16th, 2006 at 3:55 pm