Comments on: Lindsey Graham: ‘The Inherent Authority Argument…Seems To Have No Boundaries’ http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:25:15 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Bush Crime Family http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-2/#comment-441572 Bush Crime Family Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:07:00 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-441572 King George and the neocon foot soldiers claim that because he is the commander and chief in a time of war he can do anything. Well, I wonder if the country would allow a Dem. President all this power? And would the rightwing allow it without squawking? Probability not. The <strong> needs to swear in anyone that comes before them </strong>. People in power always lie, there needs to a way to hold them to there word exspecially the <strong> Bush Crime Family</strong> <strong>WE NEED TO RISE UP, "WE THE PEOPLE"</strong> King George and the neocon foot soldiers claim that because he is the commander and chief in a time of war he can do anything. Well, I wonder if the country would allow a Dem. President all this power? And would the rightwing allow it without squawking? Probability not.
The needs to swear in anyone that comes before them . People in power always lie, there needs to a way to hold them to there word exspecially the Bush Crime Family

WE NEED TO RISE UP, “WE THE PEOPLE”

]]> By: Willrayu http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-1/#comment-440716 Willrayu Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:28:07 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-440716 The bottom line is that the hearings are nothing but a show. Otherwise Gonzales would be under oath. Sen. Specter has proven that he's a hypocrite and a liar by claiming to be a pro-choice Republican and then voting to confirm Alito. This is more of the same. You have Hatch, Cornyn, Sessions acting as cheerleaders for Gonzales and Bushco. The Republican actors are Specter, Graham, and Brownback pretending to care about the separation of powers. The Democrats are trying their best but they only have secondary parts in the play. It's an example of the theater of the absurd because the Republican's only desire is power at any cost which they have now with them controlling all branches of government. When it's all done, Bushco will continue doing what they want when they want and nothing will change. The only hope to save our democracy is to take back congress in November, try the criminals, and put them in prison. The bottom line is that the hearings are nothing but a show. Otherwise Gonzales would be under oath. Sen. Specter has proven that he’s a hypocrite and a liar by claiming to be a pro-choice Republican and then voting to confirm Alito.
This is more of the same. You have Hatch, Cornyn, Sessions acting as cheerleaders for Gonzales and Bushco. The Republican actors are Specter, Graham, and Brownback pretending to care about the separation of powers. The Democrats are trying their best but they only have secondary parts in the play. It’s an example of the theater of the absurd because the Republican’s only desire is power at any cost which they have now with them controlling all branches of government. When it’s all done, Bushco will continue doing what they want when they want and nothing will change. The only hope to save our democracy is to take back congress in November, try the criminals, and put them in prison.

]]> By: sofia http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-1/#comment-440668 sofia Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:48:02 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-440668 I believe that Bush WILL say that because we are "at war" (The Long War!!) he must stay in power (didn't Roosevelt? There's the precedent). All he needs is the Air Force, which is inundated with evangelicals waiting to do his bidding. Are people aware that NORTHCOM (created right after 9/11)is ready for martial law and not just in America but in Canada, too? The Patriot Act II is a very dangerous law, expanding government powers and reducing our civil liberties to dust. We are being governed by a bunch of thugs. Who will stop them? We, the People, MUST stop them if America is to be saved. I believe that Bush WILL say that because we are “at war” (The Long War!!) he must stay in power (didn’t Roosevelt? There’s the precedent). All he needs is the Air Force, which is inundated with evangelicals waiting to do his bidding. Are people aware that NORTHCOM (created right after 9/11)is ready for martial law and not just in America but in Canada, too? The Patriot Act II is a very dangerous law, expanding government powers and reducing our civil liberties to dust. We are being governed by a bunch of thugs. Who will stop them? We, the People, MUST stop them if America is to be saved.

]]> By: Audrey http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-1/#comment-440664 Audrey Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:36:00 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-440664 Power without limit, inherent power. These are frightening words at any time but particularly with this gang in charge. What's the next thing George will do with his absolute power - declare the next presidential election invalid? Power without limit, inherent power. These are frightening words at any time but particularly with this gang in charge. What’s the next thing George will do with his absolute power – declare the next presidential election invalid?

]]> By: dave http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-1/#comment-440657 dave Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:26:49 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-440657 Alberto Bush was not under oath so he can't be accused of lying under oath [PERJURY].This is another smoke screen to cover up some other big lie from bushco.About the time these so called representitives of the people wake up we will be headed to Iran due to intel gathered by this administration.These guys are always a day late but never a dollar short when it comes to the smoke screens Rove & co put up. Alberto Bush was not under oath so he can’t be accused of lying under oath [PERJURY].This is another smoke screen to cover up some other big lie from bushco.About the time these so called representitives of the people wake up we will be headed to Iran due to intel gathered by this administration.These guys are always a day late but never a dollar short when it comes to the smoke screens Rove & co put up.

]]> By: sofia wilder http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-1/#comment-440644 sofia wilder Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:07:02 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-440644 I became very angry when Gonzales repeatedly said that the Gang of 8 was informed. No one, until very late in the day, spoke to this - that they were told that they COULD NOT talk to anyone, could not even consult a lawyer about this program. And then, when that was finally said, Gonzales said, "Well, they should have spoken out if they thought it was against the law. They have that requirment" (not an exact quote but pretty close). And why, why, why did he not speak under oath? I'm readying myself to leave this country. Not much difference between the two parties, members in both parties worship the corporate god. The slippery slope to fascism is frighteneing. I became very angry when Gonzales repeatedly said that the Gang of 8 was informed. No one, until very late in the day, spoke to this – that they were told that they COULD NOT talk to anyone, could not even consult a lawyer about this program. And then, when that was finally said, Gonzales said, “Well, they should have spoken out if they thought it was against the law. They have that requirment” (not an exact quote but pretty close). And why, why, why did he not speak under oath? I’m readying myself to leave this country. Not much difference between the two parties, members in both parties worship the corporate god. The slippery slope to fascism is frighteneing.

]]> By: dawg96 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-1/#comment-440585 dawg96 Tue, 07 Feb 2006 07:39:34 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-440585 Why isn't anyone contrasting this "inherent authority" argument with the "strict constructionist" arguments? They are completely inconsistent. Why isn’t anyone contrasting this “inherent authority” argument with the “strict constructionist” arguments? They are completely inconsistent.

]]> By: Jay Randal http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-1/#comment-440557 Jay Randal Tue, 07 Feb 2006 05:00:16 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-440557 Senator Graham was once a judge, but he voted with the other 9 GOP Senators to NOT have Alberto Gonzales testify under oath, which means Lindsey was NOT a good judge! Any judge worth there salt knows that someone who is NOT under oath can fabricate their answers, and their testimony is worthless in a court of law! Graham has seriously damaged his reputation and integrity by allowing Alberto NOT to be sworn in under oath! Senator Graham was once a judge, but he voted with the other 9 GOP Senators to NOT have Alberto Gonzales testify under oath, which means Lindsey was NOT a good judge! Any judge worth there salt knows that someone who is NOT under oath can fabricate their answers, and their testimony is worthless in a court of law! Graham has seriously damaged his reputation and integrity by allowing Alberto NOT to be sworn in under oath!

]]> By: Jodi http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-1/#comment-440423 Jodi Tue, 07 Feb 2006 01:26:48 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-440423 President Bush, the Facist who thought he was King. President Bush, the Facist who thought he was King.

]]> By: gene campbell http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-1/#comment-440417 gene campbell Tue, 07 Feb 2006 01:18:15 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-440417 Looks like the "Unitary Executive" does whatever he wants.. this simple-minded moran (Emperior Dumbya) should be called the "Urinary Executive"...he pisses on everybody or anything that gets in the way..! When is Congress going to get some courage..and get PISSED OFF enough to do something about this illegal power grab ? Hasn't this DUMMY done enough damage to this country, both here at home, and our reputation abroad? When are these congress-people going to take back thier lawfully given power from these power-mad imperial loonies who reside in the Executive Branch..? Gene Campbell Central Florida Looks like the “Unitary Executive” does whatever he wants.. this simple-minded moran (Emperior Dumbya) should be called the “Urinary Executive”…he pisses on everybody or anything that gets in the way..! When is Congress going to get some courage..and get PISSED OFF enough to do something about this illegal power grab ? Hasn’t this DUMMY done enough damage to this country, both here at home, and our reputation abroad? When are these congress-people going to take back thier lawfully given power from these power-mad imperial loonies who reside in the Executive Branch..?

Gene Campbell
Central Florida

]]> By: mighty aphrodite http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-1/#comment-440272 mighty aphrodite Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:32:01 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-440272 #22 - "That is EXACTLY what I keep arguing with everyone. I ask them to show me the Declaration of War. " *****It's the same declaration that Truman and Kennedy would show you, were they alive, of course. "Of course then their reply is that this is not a traditional war. I say, OK….. Then what country are we at war with? Then they can’t answer that." *****Are you as stupid as you are pretending or has an evil lib hijacked your name just to make you look (more) foolish? Non-traditional war = war with Islamofascists. P. S - The capital of Islamofam is IslamoBAD - look it up. This “war” will never end. We have had terrorists since the creation of this earth. *****But not with airplanes and cell phones. - by RemoveBush — February 6, 2006 @ 3:31 pm #22 – “That is EXACTLY what I keep arguing with everyone. I ask them to show me the Declaration of War. ”
*****It’s the same declaration that Truman and Kennedy would show you, were they alive, of course.

“Of course then their reply is that this is not a traditional war. I say, OK….. Then what country are we at war with? Then they can’t answer that.”
*****Are you as stupid as you are pretending or has an evil lib hijacked your name just to make you look (more) foolish? Non-traditional war = war with Islamofascists. P. S – The capital of Islamofam is IslamoBAD – look it up.

This “war” will never end. We have had terrorists since the creation of this earth.
*****But not with airplanes and cell phones.

- by RemoveBush — February 6, 2006 @ 3:31 pm

]]> By: mmcfarren http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-1/#comment-440249 mmcfarren Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:18:16 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-440249 speaking of presidents being elected.. as far as i am concerned the last legal presidential election was in '96. See also: Supreme Court Decides 2000 election, and GAO report on Electronic Voting Machine irregularities in the 2004 election speaking of presidents being elected.. as far as i am concerned the last legal presidential election was in ‘96.
See also: Supreme Court Decides 2000 election, and GAO report on Electronic Voting Machine irregularities in the 2004 election

]]> By: mighty aphrodite http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-1/#comment-440247 mighty aphrodite Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:16:50 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-440247 Dear Wondering Girl - No, it's a one way street. There hasn't been a Dem I'd trust with national security since JFK...Dems love to tell us why we need to fall on our sword. Dear Wondering Girl – No, it’s a one way street. There hasn’t been a Dem I’d trust with national security since JFK…Dems love to tell us why we need to fall on our sword.

]]> By: Amy http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-1/#comment-440205 Amy Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:56:51 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-440205 #37, Wondering Girl, you probably already know the answer to your rhetorical question. If there is ever a president elected who is a Democrat and Dems ever have a majority again in Congress, republicans will revert back to their whiney, cry-baby, victim-mentality ways and develop a whopping case of Alzheimers as they have in the past 5 years forgetting all of the lies and trouble they caused when Clinton was president. Such hypocrites. Oh, wait, they won't have to revert back because even though they are in the majority they still act like whiney, cry-baby victims... #37, Wondering Girl, you probably already know the answer to your rhetorical question. If there is ever a president elected who is a Democrat and Dems ever have a majority again in Congress, republicans will revert back to their whiney, cry-baby, victim-mentality ways and develop a whopping case of Alzheimers as they have in the past 5 years forgetting all of the lies and trouble they caused when Clinton was president. Such hypocrites.

Oh, wait, they won’t have to revert back because even though they are in the majority they still act like whiney, cry-baby victims…

]]> By: Wondering Girl http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-1/#comment-440157 Wondering Girl Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:31:10 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-440157 If the Democrats were in power, would the Republicans give them unchecked power? That's what I'm wondering - is it a one-way street or a two-way street? Can a Democratic president use this "unchecked power" to, let's say, outlaw the Republican party beause of its contribution to terrorism, i.e., the entire Iraq debacle and the creation of more terrorists than you can shake a stick at? If the Democrats were in power, would the Republicans give them unchecked power? That’s what I’m wondering – is it a one-way street or a two-way street? Can a Democratic president use this “unchecked power” to, let’s say, outlaw the Republican party beause of its contribution to terrorism, i.e., the entire Iraq debacle and the creation of more terrorists than you can shake a stick at?

]]> By: John Moltz » Blog Archive » What’s wrong with a little spying? http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-1/#comment-440143 John Moltz » Blog Archive » What’s wrong with a little spying? Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:24:27 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-440143 [...] Think Progress nails it (link via AMERICAblog): The problem isn’t that the administration is monitoring communications with al Qaeda. That is not only appropriate, it’s essential. The problem is that the legal underpinnings of this particular program, if accepted, would allow for unchecked executive authority. [...] [...] Think Progress nails it (link via AMERICAblog): The problem isn’t that the administration is monitoring communications with al Qaeda. That is not only appropriate, it’s essential. The problem is that the legal underpinnings of this particular program, if accepted, would allow for unchecked executive authority. [...]

]]> By: kaiser http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-1/#comment-440053 kaiser Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:51:51 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-440053 Unfortunately, Graham is only half way there. He later said that he did not want to question whether or not anyone had violated the law, but rather he only wanted to see how the law could be changed. I sure wish we could do that. "Oh, you mean it's illegal to rob banks? Well, why don't you just make it legal so I can be on my merry way?" That works for the shepard but not for his flock. Unfortunately, Graham is only half way there. He later said that he did not want to question whether or not anyone had violated the law, but rather he only wanted to see how the law could be changed. I sure wish we could do that. “Oh, you mean it’s illegal to rob banks? Well, why don’t you just make it legal so I can be on my merry way?” That works for the shepard but not for his flock.

]]> By: progressive and proud http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-1/#comment-440043 progressive and proud Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:48:58 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-440043 #25 How do you know they are enemy communications? Were they labeled E or T in the phone book? You sound really ignorant to what folks are actually thinking. No one believes you when you speak of this site being a republican gift. She dost protest too much. #25 How do you know they are enemy communications? Were they labeled E or T in the phone book? You sound really ignorant to what folks are actually thinking. No one believes you when you speak of this site being a republican gift. She dost protest too much.

]]> By: Solitaire http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-1/#comment-440003 Solitaire Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:35:36 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-440003 Power without limits. Well, I guess ANYBODY who is willing to ignore the law can claim that, now can't we? Me too. I claim that power for myself. I can ignore the law if Bush does. I proclaim myself the final arbiter of law in my sphere. Anyone who comes inside my home and says something I don't like is history. That's going to be my law, ok? I feel empowered already! Uncle George had better look out! Power without limits. Well, I guess ANYBODY who is willing to ignore the law can claim that, now can’t we? Me too. I claim that power for myself. I can ignore the law if Bush does. I proclaim myself the final arbiter of law in my sphere. Anyone who comes inside my home and says something I don’t like is history. That’s going to be my law, ok? I feel empowered already! Uncle George had better look out!

]]> By: Gregor Samsa http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/comment-page-1/#comment-439981 Gregor Samsa Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:25:18 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/no-boundries/#comment-439981 The US is no more at war now then during the years of the "War on Drugs", or the "Cold War". During those times, the US also sent its troops to invade, and exact "regime change" on those countries whose leaders failed to comply with the whims of the White House. With the current administration full of the same people who set foreign and domestic policy back then, it is not surprising Bush & Co are following the tried and true: govern through fear, overwhelm the public with misinformation and half-truths ("catapult the propaganda"), and always strike first. Now, in addition, they are seeking power with no limits for one of their own. The US is no more at war now then during the years of the “War on Drugs”, or the “Cold War”.

During those times, the US also sent its troops to invade, and exact “regime change” on those countries whose leaders failed to comply with the whims of the White House.

With the current administration full of the same people who set foreign and domestic policy back then, it is not surprising Bush & Co are following the tried and true: govern through fear, overwhelm the public with misinformation and half-truths (”catapult the propaganda”), and always strike first.

Now, in addition, they are seeking power with no limits for one of their own.

]]>