From an editorial in the St. Petersburg Times, May 21, 2006:
Bush taught, Obama learned, as evidenced by recent events. Like the expansion of the FBI's investigative powers:
Like ignoring the advice of the Attorney General, the Pentagon general counsel, and the head of the Office of Legal Counsel on the president's convoluted definition of "hostilities":
But the Executive's ability to expand power and ignore existing law becomes easier with idiots like Lindsey Graham ready, willing, and able to lend a helping hand with statements such as this:
Pull out that copy of the Constitution that I'm sure is in your coat pocket, Sen. Graham. See what it says about Congress' responsibilities and duties relating to the declaration and funding of war. I don't think "shut up" is among them.
"[T]he changes that George W. Bush has made to our nation's constitutional firmament may not depart with the first family's bags. His disregard for the separation of powers has so dramatically distorted the office of the president that he may have engineered a turning point in American history.
...Bush has taught tomorrow's leaders that, if there are no consequences for ignoring legal constraints on power and if no one stops you from conducting the nation's business in secret, you don't have to be accountable. He is ruling through the tautological doctrine of Richard Nixon, who told interviewer David Frost that as long as the president's doing it "that means it is not illegal.''
...Holding the executive branch to account for its actions, demanding that it respect the law and insisting that it fully report to Congress on its activities - these are nonnegotiable duties of Congress, because they are key part of our inheritance.
Being answerable to another is humbling. It makes you more careful in your actions. It requires that you consider how you will defend your decisions. George Bush has freed himself of this constitutional imperative and is showing the next president, and the next, how it is done."
Bush taught, Obama learned, as evidenced by recent events. Like the expansion of the FBI's investigative powers:
"The Obama administration has long been bumbling along in the footsteps of its predecessor when it comes to sacrificing Americans' basic rights and liberties under the false flag of fighting terrorism. Now the Obama team seems ready to lurch even farther down that dismal road than George W. Bush did.
Instead of tightening the relaxed rules for F.B.I. investigations -- not just of terrorism suspects but of pretty much anyone -- that were put in place in the Bush years, President Obama's Justice Department is getting ready to push the proper bounds of privacy even further."
Like ignoring the advice of the Attorney General, the Pentagon general counsel, and the head of the Office of Legal Counsel on the president's convoluted definition of "hostilities":
"President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.
Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military's activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to "hostilities." Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.
...Other high-level Justice lawyers were also involved in the deliberations, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. supported Ms. Krass's view, officials said."
But the Executive's ability to expand power and ignore existing law becomes easier with idiots like Lindsey Graham ready, willing, and able to lend a helping hand with statements such as this:
"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday that Congress should not interfere with U.S. operations in Libya. "Congress should sort of shut up and not empower Qadhafi," Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Pull out that copy of the Constitution that I'm sure is in your coat pocket, Sen. Graham. See what it says about Congress' responsibilities and duties relating to the declaration and funding of war. I don't think "shut up" is among them.
I think it was Erlichmen who said the toothpaste was out of the tube. It is a lot easier to take then it is to give back. You start giving back rights and you are soft on terrorism. Of course, it would help if Congress wouldn't give it to them.
It appears that Linsey Graham is forcing the 'maverick' back out of McCain. Clearly a foreboding sign of things not to come.
By all means! Get it done, carguy!
I just can't b eleve we could not CONVINCE that guy to step down. We spent $112 MILLION in the first week of the bombardment on missiles alone.
We sure didn't learn a DAMN thing from VietNam, Lebanon, Iraq, the Oiler debacle in Buffalo.....should I go on?
Actually, there are a few more titles that could be applied to the Libyan situation:
"How to fund a NATO military exercise without consulting with the GOP"
"Military R&D for All"
"Arab Allegiances Unmasked"
"Incursions or Excursions? You be the Judge!"
"The Right President, the Wrong Congress"
"M16's or AK47s? Who is winning the firearms export contest?"
"Secret Treaties and Their Consequences"
And on, and on... But I'm still awaiting the manual describing how to mount an M60 in the Lamborghini.
Well, remember, Gore won the election. He just didn't get the job. ;o)
Actually, I agree, "Csamelot" died when Bobby did and the party really had the wind taken out of it's sails. The democratic party did not recover until 1992 with the help of Bush 41 who didn't know the price of a gallon of milk.
But, as much as Clinton did FOR the country and the party,the democrats were unable to maintain the momentum in 2000 with Gore, bless his heart. The rest is history. BAD history.
Shit. I've gone and gotten old and started repeating myself. (Don't know how that happened - the first time it said my post didn't go through because I had posted too many posts too fast - so I reposted and - yep - now both show up!)
LOL. Thanks Carguy. I needed that laugh! Altho, I think you got the Kennedy wrong - it started going to shit when Bobby was killed...He was the one who was interested in poverty, causes and effects, and making government OF the people and FOR the people. Just my 2 cents. The Lion of the Senate is solely missed tho.
LOL. Thanks Carguy. I needed that laugh! Altho, I think you got the Kennedy wrong - it started going to shit when Bobby was killed...He was the one who was interested in poverty, causes and effects, and making government OF the people and FOR the people. Just my 2 cents. The Lion of the Senate is solely missed tho.
I don't care who you are, that's funny!
Well you got that right! Although, I think it's somewhat more simple than that.
I think there's the "stupid" wing and the "chicken" wing. They seem to make up about 90% of the party. Then there's people like us "Hurricaners" who make up about 10%. IMO we lost our compass when Ted Kennedy died.
Heard a good joke this morning....
What do Nancy Pelosi and Lorena Bobbit have in common?
...
...
...
They both threw a weiner out of the house.
My apoligies to Des.
IMO, Not as "off topic" as it might seem is this assessment I found: "today's Democratic Party has two wings to it. One wing is progressive, anti-corporate, and distrusts the free market. The other wing is neoliberal, pro-corporate, and trusts the free market. ... The only reason these two antithetical groups share a political party is because the Republicans won't have either one." [Robert Cruickshank]--- ergo, every advance of the DLC-corporate agenda is automatically a loss for progressives; and every progressive victory on taxes, or civil liberties, for example, is always a loss for neoliberals. These are babies that can't be split. Alan Grayson, at Netroots Nation, said he has come around and now believes progressives should primary corporate Dems. The Dem party needs to be excised of its corporate "hoes".
As quoted above: "President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department"
--------------
Actually that is a deviation from Bush. BUsh kept asking different people the same question until he got the answer he wanted.
Apparently, Obama is just ignoring the experts. That IS a "change".
So glad to have you back contributing regularly concerning the ongoing disaster that is the United State of America.
First, I think the overall mindset that has has been the underlying justification for several presidents dates back to aa little interview, circa, I don't know, but her it is:
"If the president does it it't NOT illegal."
Reagan certainly followed that doctrine. Bush 43 PERFECTED IT.
Lastly, every time I see Lindsey Graham on Sunday I am amazed at the way his brain works.
Well, you know that just on general principles I'm going to have to ring a note of disagreement, really, not disagreement, just a point to ponder (to steal from the venerable reader's digest).
Traditional Presidential power has indeed gone down the rabbit hole, but perhaps black hole might be a more appropriate metaphor. Beginning in Eisenhower's era as we all know the "military-industrial complex" has wielded cudgel-like influence over international and domestic policies with virtually no accountability. What they have done in service to their own personal and selfish aims has nearly destroyed the world. Consider why we are at war in literally every corner of the globe. It's not likely because America is that shining beacon of virtue that the propagandists try to sell us on a constant basis.
It don't find it impossible to believe that these encroaching Presidential power grabs are a not so subtle attempt to wrest that power back into more accountable and appropriate hands.
Yep, we have officially fallen down the rabbit hole.