President Bush must know he would be better off if the American people would forget the federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina. That may be why, as Emily Messner of The Washington Post pointed out, Bush only referred to Katrina three times in his State of the Union address, and never by name. She writes: “For such a huge disaster — one that destroyed an entire city, killed more than a thousand people and displaced hundreds of thousands more, and exposed a big pile of underlying societal problems that this country must address — eight sentences and two clauses out of a 5,000-word speech seems a bit slim.”
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
93 Comments
The majority of dead New Orleans residents would have voted Democrat, so why would Bush care if they’re gone? The guy has no business being a dog catcher, let alone president.
J M Walker,
Agreed. It is agonizing to watch the politically calculated euthanizing of an American city. Unforgiveable. Absolute deriliction of duty. And we’re supposed to trust this guy with the authority to suspend the law? I wouldn’t trust him with my car keys.
Heh, CF, neither did HW.
Remember the famous drunken W. brawl with Daddy Bush after Jr. took his younger underage brother out for chugalugs?
Wow! Now we critique how much time and how many sentences were spoken towards a particular subject?
Oh well! Politics as usual. Have they found the hurricane making machine or the proof of the bombs that blew up the leeves? I’m still waiting for the partisan commission report on this.
That is about the size of it, Joe. If he had spent half his speech on it, he would be accused of “spinning”.
There is such hatred toward GW that people are going to attack him no matter what.
I am not saying I support things he has done, either. But this total “Bush is evil” mentality is senseless.
I despise shrub almost beyond words but to blame him for the Katrina disaster is a reach. The natural disater was excerbated by a low iq, largely criminal black underclass and an incompetent and corrupt black municipal government.
The worst part of all this is that the relocated negroes have brought their crime and filthiness to other parts of the country.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
I liked what Barak Obama had to say on this. When asked if he thought the Bush Administration’s response to Katrina was slow, he said the Bush Administration has the ability to respond quickly to crises…… of public relations.
No, the administration didn’t cause the natural catastrophe, but just like pre-9/11; they didn’t pay attention to proper warnings.
The State of the Union address is supposed to address topics of national scope and interest in a limited time. Plenty has been said about New Orleans, probably too much.
I agree with Ray Thomas’s observation about the continuing level of vitriol toward Bush. I expect silly accusations from CF, but not usually from Walker.
And from Outlander, I expect defenses of the indefensible and attempts at deflecting blame from the bumbler in chief. I have yet to be disappointed.
Given all the lies and doubletalk emanating flatulently from the Bush White House, I think it’s a far more intellectually sound position to blame Bush for everything than for nothing.
Republicans: incompetent at home, incompetent abroad.
Between Iraq and Katrine, prove me wrong, Repukes. Dare ya.
Prove you wrong?
Once again you fail to grasp the concept of having to prove your attacks first.
It is not our job to provide a defense against attacks that are not true and yet to have any substance to them.
You can call him a liar all you want and talk about this double talk all you want, it doesn’t make it any more true the more you say it.
Sound familiar, Repukes?
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
“We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
“You’re doin’ a heckuva job, Brownie.”
Two lies, one bumble. Repukes: incompetent at home, incompetent abroad.
Shifting the burden of proof . . . an old ploy, but good enough for Nathan.
Okay, well, here’s a nice compilation of the major lies the Bush administration has racked up in sending us into an illegal and immoral war:
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/wilkerson.html
Colonel, U.S. Army (Retired) Larry Wilkerson joined General Colin L. Powell in March 1989 at the U.S. Army’s Forces Command in Atlanta, Georgia as his Deputy Executive Officer. He followed the General to his next position as Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, serving as his special assistant. Upon Powell’s retirement from active service in 1993, Colonel Wilkerson served as the Deputy Director and Director of the U.S. Marine Corps War College at Quantico, Virginia. Upon Wilkerson’s retirement from active service in 1997, he began working for General Powell in a private capacity as a consultant and advisor.
This is from his interview that aired this weekend:
DAVID BRANCACCIO: We’ve been talking grand policy. The then director of the CIA, George Tenent, Vice President Cheney’s deputy Libby, told you that the intelligence that was the basis of going to war was rock solid. Given what you now know, how does that make you feel?
LAWRENCE WILKERSON: It makes me feel terrible. I’ve said in other places that it was– constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life.
I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council. How do you think that makes me feel? Thirty-one years in the United States Army and I more or less end my career with that kind of a blot on my record? That’s not a very comforting thing.
DAVID BRANCACCIO: A hoax? That’s quite a word.
LAWRENCE WILKERSON: Well, let’s face it, it was. It was not a hoax that the Secretary in any way was complicit in. In fact he did his best– I watched him work. Two AM in the morning on the DCI and the Deputy DCI, John McLaughlin.
And to try and hone the presentation down to what was, in the DCI’s own words, a slam dunk. Firm. Iron clad. We threw many things out. We threw the script that Scooter Libby had given the– Secretary of State. Forty-eight page script on WMD. We threw that out the first day.
And we turned to the National Intelligence estimate as part of the recommendation of George Tenent and my agreement with. But even that turned out to be, in its substantive parts– that is stockpiles of chemicals, biologicals and production capability that was hot and so forth, and an active nuclear program. The three most essential parts of that presentation turned out to be absolutely false.
****Lots more at the source****
The show also PROVED, Nathan, PROVED beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt, that Team Bush continued to link Saddam and Al Qaeda after they were told and they KNEW that Saddam had no contact with Al Qaeda.
PL, you better be watchin’ the damn game.
Democrats: watching AND posting.
Yup, I’m watching Seattle GET ROBBED!
Geez, these refs must work for Diebold . . .
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Not a lie.
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
“We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
How could this be a lie?
“You’re doin’ a heckuva job, Brownie.”
Don’t even know where this is from.
Lib..
Your verbiage is getting insulting. Your terminology of “repukes” is childish in the extreme, and ridiculous in usage.
You cannot in any way shape or form hold all Republicans personnaly responsible for every single action of the President. Not all Republicans support or endorse what has developed.
If that were true, we could hold you personally responsible for Clinton’s adultery. Ridiculous, isn’t it? Unless, of course, you support and defend his lies and actions.
You have had some thoughtful insights and occasional intelligent comments. Those rare lucid moments, however, are overshadowed by your universal blame, accusations, and childish tone.
Okay, I realize that arguing with Nathan is like hitting your head against the wall, but for the sake of people who aren’t idiots . . . saying that “British intelligence believes something” when YOU KNOW IT’S NOT TRUE AND YOU DON’T BELIEVE IT IS DELIBERATELY MISLEADING, I.E. A LIE.
Wilkerson discussed that very point today on “Now.”
That’s RICH, Ray. Your people play SMASH MOUTH politics, take no prisoners, kick ‘em in the nuts when they’re down . . . and you say that I don’t play fair.
Look what the Swift boat pack of liars did to Kerry, what the REPUKE delegates did when they wore their “purple heart” bandaids (demeaning the sacrifice of every service person who ever got injured in combat) just to smear Kerry’s medals.
And you have the unmitigated gall to say that I DON’T EXHIBIT ENOUGH FOREBEARANCE.
Go CHENEY YOURSELF, jerk.
I sure wish Galahad would contribute his wisdom to this thread. How are we all getting along without him?
Gee Proudlib if you actually read the text you see that most of Wilkerson’s angst was with the intelligence community not a
“compilation of the major lies the Bush administration has racked up in sending us into an illegal and immoral war”
as you try to insinuate this text says which it did not.
Yeah he had some legitimate claims, but not anywhere near the accusations you make about an immoral war or an illegal war.
You seem to be much more adept at stretching things to mean what you want to than you accuse Bush of doing.
BTW, it was CF who used the term “Repukes,” but I heartily second the motion.
OMG, Nathan, you’re absolutely right.
Wilkerson backed up every rationale Bush had for going in.
The Al Qaeda links, the WMD’s, the reconstituted nuclear program . . . damn, Saddam WAS a grave and gathering if not imminent threat.
Okay, you win, Nathan.
My people? Excuse the hell out of me, you insufferable jerk, these are not MY PEOPLE.
You are generalizing about everyone you don’t agree with and lumping everyone together. I, nor anyone one this blog that I know of, was part of the swift boat campaign, yet you lump everyone who doesn’t agree with you in one group.
You are insulting to people on this blog who have never “kicked anyone in the nuts”. You are personally attacking people here because they do not agree with you, and you ascribe behavior of others to people here.
Your gross generalizations and innacurate accusations are tiresome. Your immature rants and untrue attacks detract from the rare insight you provide.
You are an immature little bore.
Proudlib,
So you are calling all those swiftboat vets liars?
Men like this man:
Rear Admiral Roy F. HoffmanCommander of the swiftboats in Vietnam, 1968-1969
There are many more men who served just as honorably if not more so than Kerry in vietnam in high ranking posistions…
All liars?
Ray–
Have you been talking to my ex-wife?
Nathan–
I gotta go.
But let me say for the record, that the Swift Boat crew are despicable lying bastards of the worst ilk.
That ordinarily honorable men who’ve served their country would demean themselves for partisan gain like John O’Neill et al. did is one of the most painful realizations I’ve ever had to make about my fellow Americans.
These people are scum. They are what’s wrong with America.
Johnk Kerry was the one who came back accusing his fellow serviceman of war atrocities, threw his medals( or whatever he is saying today) away, joind anti-war movements that made fun of and dishonored our military and you are calling the swift boat vets scum?
You are truely unbelieveable.
Okay, I REALLY gotta go. But I remember those anti-war rallys.
I didn’t go to them because I was too young, but I remember them.
And people held up signs that read, “Support our troops, bring them home.”
Ordinary fighting men were seen by the counter-culture as the same blue-collar folks who were getting shafted by the “establishment,” the man. Nobody made fun of them.
But then what do I know. I only lived through it.
You served our country at war?
Ray Thomas,
I was indeed the one who called y’all Repukes. And to the extent that you countenance whatever Bush does just because he’s your guy, Repukes ye shall remain. I’ll go on doing it until various Repukes on this board stop acting like suck-up shills and start acting like Americans who value good government. I ain’t holding my breath.
When Clinton got caught for lying about consensual oral sex, I didn’t defend him. But I did deny that lying about sex is a matter that warrants impeachment. I still feel that way. Oral sex; who cares? The only ones who cared were the Repukes who weren’t getting any themselves.
When you Repukes stand behind this President, despite his overtly unconstitutional power grab, lies, and incompetence, you’re complicit. Notice that not all members of the GOP go along with this; Specter and Hagel have issued warnings to the White House.
Nathan,
Factcheck mentions the Butler report. Oh, that must mean the report that occasioned a heavy leaning-on by Downing Street, denounced by Robin Cook here:
http://www.selvesandothers.org/view302.html
It’s also been recently reported by Murray Waas that even after the CIA reported in June 2003, that the Niger accusations were baseless, that Cheney went on making them anyway:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11778.htm
As for the Senate Intelligence Committee report, here’s a nice link from Raw Story that implicates Pat Roberts in a cover-up and whitewash of the Administration:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/HowSenate_Intelligence_chairman_fixed_intelligence_and_diverted_blame_fromWhite_House__0811.html
George Bush lied and knew he was lying. Otherwise, why all the effort after the fact to vindicate the claims about Iraq’s effort to acquire uranium?
As for John Kerry, Nathan, he’s obviously not your kind of war hero. I imagine you’d prefer another famous Vietnam vet: Lt. William Calley.
These days I have respect for people who have protected my country, who are honest, wise, and humble. The previous messages sound self-serving. I don’t pretend to know a lot about anything, but I recognize egotism.
Gentle people,
I personnaly know some of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I also personaly know some other swift boat vets.
I would be proud to claim them as “my people”. Most of the money that I donated to political causes in the 2004 election went to their organization.
They, more than anyone I know, have a right to criticize John Kerry about his service in Viet Nam. When you call them a liar and other names without any proof or motivation other than to make a cheap political comment you only demean yourselves. You make any other comments that you might make meaningless.
If you ever get a chance to meet one of these heros, just humbly say “thankyou”. You’ll never be able to repay them for their sacrifice.
Hank
The stories and accusations made by the Swift Boat Pantloads didn’t pan out. And most of them had no direct experience of the events cited in Kerry’s awards.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html
They received large sums of money from major contributors to the Republican Party. They also were connected to big-time Republican attack strategist Merry Spaeth. And John O’Neill had been selected by Nixon to go after Kerry back in 1972.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/05/04/swift/index_np.html
The fact that someone is a veteran doesn’t excuse their decision to act as character assasains. Their actions were the very embodiment of all that is ‘cheap’ and ‘political.’
Hank–
I would say “thank you” to George W. for his sacrifice, except he didn’t make any.
Kerry did.
Dear ProudLiberal,
Yea, I hear ya! During the Viet Nam conflict I hid in a submarine. I never thought of hiding in a fighter plane like GW.
I’m sure he was a lot safer than I was!
Love ya,
Hank
Hank–
I thank YOU for your sacrifice.
GW most certainly did NOT sacrifice when he got flying lessons on the taxpayer’s dime, protected Houston from the commies.
Daddy’s pals got him moved to the top of the list for the TANG “champagne unit” so he wouldn’t have to actually fight in a hot war.
He hasn’t sacrificed since then either.
You’re welcome! Had a blast, wouldn’t trade those years for anything!
However, my dear, you are sadly mistaken. There is absolutely no evidence that his daddy’s pals did anything. Furthermore, there is no evidence that there was even a ‘list’ to move to the top of.
Although there was a waiting list for the national guard and for the air national guard, the requirements for flight school and the pilot programs had no such thing.
And, actually the air national guard was protecting us from the commies! We were stretched pretty thin in those days as we were still in the middle of a cold war. The Texas Air National Guard was actually an important part of our So called ‘Three Leg Defense’ against the nasty Ruskies. It consisted of the Air Force fighters and long range bombers, the ballistic missle sites and the Polaris submarines.
I like to think that I was a small part of the ‘Third Leg’!
Hank
CF–
Then you are also an immature little punk like your buddy Lib. You resort to labelling and lumping people together just because they do not agree with the holy word according to you.
For the record, Clinton was not impeached for lying about sex, he was impeached for lying under oath. Big difference. For someone to lie under oath is to undermine the foundation of laws in this country and is inexcusable. So, you are therefore personally liable for his actions.
Most people on this blog attempt to have a rational, reasonable and adult discourse. However, you and your alter ego PL resort to 3rd grade tactics of generalizations and grouping everyone who doesn’t bow down to your holy wisdom.
Grow up and recognize a few facts. First, not everyone who voted for Bush is supportive of the way things have turned out. Much like many Democrats were upset with Clinton lying under oath. Voting for someone once does not (and I repeat, since you can’t seem to comprehend this) does NOT mean endorsement of every action, thought and word since election.
However, he is still the President of the United States. All your whining and moaning is not going to change that.
And Bush has learned well from Clinton – If you never testify under oath, you never have to be accountable for your actions. And hide behind executive privilege, so you don’t show how immoral and incompetent your office is.
Ray Thomas,
Bill Clinton lied under oath–about sex. He received consensual oral sex. That’s what has you so hot–and bothered.
As for you, do you support the President’s power grab, or don’t you? Do you think he has been forthcoming with the American people, or don’t you?
To say that ‘things haven’t turned out’ the way you thought is different from holding Bush accountable for his actions, whether of omission or comission. Do you hold him responsible for precipitating an avoidable war in Iraq, or don’t you? Do you hold him responsible for letting Osama bin Laden escape, or don’t you? Do you hold him responsible for a $400 billion deficit caused by tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, or don’t you? Do you hold him responsible for dereliction of duty in the aftermath of Katrina, or don’t you? And, finally, do you hold him responsible for breaking the law and asserting powers not granted him in the Constitution?
‘Ignorant little punk,’ eh? I’ll take that over ‘lapdog’ and, yes, ‘traitor to the Constitution,’ which describes how the majority of Repukes are behaving when they deny that any of the President’s actions need to be checked.
“Immature.”
You’re only young once, but you can be immature forever.
Ray Thomas has a point. I find Ray a fairly reasonable and moderate conservative. He’s the kind of conservative we should be building consensus with, not blasting at every turn because he’s not a Lib Fanatic.
I’d like to remind my fellow Libs that we won’t win elections by alienating anyone who’s beliefs fall to the right of Trotsky. Some of you guys are so far to the fringe left end of the spectrum that you scare even me.
Ray, we may not see eye to eye on all the issues, but I can at least see your point. Some of us of the Liberal persuasion don’t agree that every issue has to be an ideological bloodbath.Respect,XXX
Of course Clinton lied about sex; everybody lies about sex! It’s what you do when somebody demands an answer about something that’s none of their business.
Jed,
GREAT answer. I wish I’d said it.
XXX,
Judging by Gonzales’ non-answers before the committee today, I’d say we’re long past the point where we should be worried about making nice.
Ray Thomas is generally a reasonable voice for his particular slice of the ideological spectrum. But at the moment he’s an ostrich, and if I’d voted for this scary, messianic Christo-fascist who’s in the White House, I might be sticking my head in the sand, too.
But we’re at the point, Ray Thomas and other folks like him, where it isn’t going to help you how you voted. Today it’s people like me; if this President gets his way, everybody is going to be under suspicion, and your loyalty won’t help you.
XXX, the ‘bloodbath’ that’s coming is going to be bi-partisan. Whoever stands up to the absolute authority asserted by the group of thugs in the White House will have his or her legs cut out from under.
Just becuase I’m kind of bored, I will answer or at least respond to your questions CF:
As for you, do you support the President’s power grab, or don’t you? Do you think he has been forthcoming with the American people, or don’t you?
“Do you hold him responsible for precipitating an avoidable war in Iraq, or don’t you?”
I don’t think it is any more of an avoidable war than any other war we have ever fight.
“Do you hold him responsible for letting Osama bin Laden escape, or don’t you?”
He did not let Osama escape. Loaded question.
“Do you hold him responsible for a $400 billion deficit caused by tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, or don’t you?”
I don’t think the tax cut caused the deficit. You loaded your question.
“Do you hold him responsible for dereliction of duty in the aftermath of Katrina, or don’t you?”
No.
“And, finally, do you hold him responsible for breaking the law and asserting powers not granted him in the Constitution?”
He has borken no law and is using powers granted to him in the Constitution.
Learn how to ask a question without making it part of your same old failed arguments.
Nathan,
Learn how to understand a question by taking into account all of the relevant facts, and by contesting those that don’t accord with your interpretation. Things you disagree with aren’t unsound just because you disagree with them.
Why is the Bush/Kerry campaign still an issue? Half the voting population plus 4 million people voted for Bush. They either voted for him because they liked him or they disliked Kerry. I not only dislike Kerry, I do support Bush, because he’s an excellent leader that we need at this time. He is honest and doing the best job that can be done and he has been forthcoming with the American people. There has been no power grab by the President. Thats just in your disillusioned mind. He has the same powers the previous presidents had and has used them accordingly. It was necessary to go to war in Iraq, which has been explained to you on multiple occasions, you choose to ignore the necessity. There has been no tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. Anyone who earns a taxable income has received tax cuts. There was no dereliction of duty in the Katrina aftermath. The governments responses were more in a timly manner than previous disaster responses. Just because you want to make issues out of them and we don’t agree with you doesn’t make us lapdogs. It does show you are a very disgruntled person. You insult those who disagree with you that the President should be checked to the point of not being able to protect us. If you don’t let the President do his job, then you support the terrorist.
get it,
So, you think that shrub is an excellent leader? You obviously don’t “get it”! rotflmosao
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Glad to see you getting some exercise IAN/ED. But rolling on the floor in your own mosao can’t be healthy. It’s easy to understand what and why the president is doing what is necessary to protect us from you terrorist supports. What I don’t get is how far you go to twist the truth to your warpped perspective. Keep up the exercise Ian/ED your other personalities need it too.
Answer me this coconut; if shrub is doing such a great job in the “war on terror” then why is our MF southern border wide open?
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
I am not ED, I am Ian Santiago!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Like all the things that Bush is doing you ignore, Ian/ED, we do have border patrol in place and it is being increased. Here a site that will give you some insight into their efforts and activities.
http://www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/
Any more insults from any of your personalities and I’m not going to bother to acknowledge you.
King George wants state taxpayers to bear burden of open border
“President George Bush’s 2007 budget proposal will chop federal financing of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which funneled federal payments to states to help allay the massive costs associated with jailing illegal aliens. Bush has long attempted to scrap the program, but Congress has so far refused to go along.
For fiscal 2006 the program will give out a measly $405 million to state governments. In contrast, the price of jailing only California’s huge illegal alien convict population costs over a whopping $750 million per annum. State taxpayers are forced to pay the considerable price of federal refusal to enforce its own laws.
Bush’s plan underlines his ongoing commitment to an open-border policy which forces local people to cope with the devastation wreaked on living standards, community education and healthcare resources, and wage scales by Third World immigration.
The wealthy people who profit from Bush’s policy are able to afford to live in enclaves far from the chaos.”
Source: V-News Readerhttp://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=7799
X, I don’t think we need to carry water for Ray. He’s a big boy (I think–he rides a motorcycle anyway!). He can presumably take care of himself.
Right, Ray?
Rage, I don’t think we need to shoot him in the head, either. I don’t call being in favor of reasonable discussion with reasonable people carrying somebody’s water.
Some of us on the left are a little quick on the trigger. I don’t see that as a good thing.
And incidently, I’m a Harley rider myself, and I really am a big boy. That’s why they call me
XXX
And Ray isn’t? Are we talking about the same Ray?
Gentle people,
The demonstrated ignorance of the Constitution on this BLOG is unbelievable!
Do you people have any idea of the power that the Constitution gives the president? The mere thought that the President doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to conduct electronic intercepts on our enemy during the time of war is ludicrous! Congressional oversight, are you serious? Does anybody know why Leahy is no longer on the Senate Intelligence committee? Judicial oversight in the time of war, really? Do you really believe the founding fathers are going to make the President the Commander-in-Chief and then handcuff him with a bunch of old ladies in black robes second-guessing every move he makes?
The president in peacetime has the Constitutional authority to trump the legislative and the judicial branches of the government at the mere stroke of a pen! And when we are at war, he doesn’t even need to use his pen.
Finally we have President with the will to carry the fight to the terrorists!
Thank God!
Hank—–
Hank,
Has Congress made an official declaration of war and if so against whom? If not then we are not offically at war as per the constitution!
V.L.R.B!!
What an incredibly silly proposition. The idea behind the American system is a series of checks and balances, one branch upon the other. The “Hank” system dispenses with all that. Maybe Hank should read up on dictatorial democracy.
Well Ed/Ian or whatever,
What does the Constitution say about the declaration of war? Do we need to declare war to be at war?
You sir, will have to take a crash course on the Constitution just to get to the level of ignorance!
Hank
Dear Brian,
Maybe you should study the Constitution so that you can add something meaningful to the debate.
Like most liberals I’m sure you think that the Constitution is “an incredibly silly proposition” when it does not agree with your secular progressive agenda.
Hank
Hank,
You just keep on drinking that neo-con kool aid.
I am not Ed, I am Ian Santiago.
V.L.R.B!!
Brian have you heard of the seperation of powers?
Nathan, yes, I have heard of the separation of powers.
Hank, is there any limit on what the president can do in your world?
Dear Brian,
Of course, don’t be ridiculous!
Hank
Hankest Dear,
What are these limits?
The Framers of the Constitution believed that history amply testified to the executive’s penchant for war. As James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson, “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.”
Yikes, it seems as if the shrub regime is sending up a trial balloon and trying to lay the groundwork for domestic assassination! ROTFLMOSAO
Newsweek
“In the latest twist in the debate over presidential powers, a Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States.
Steven Bradbury, acting head of the department’s Office of Legal Counsel, went to a closed-door Senate intelligence committee meeting last week to defend President George W. Bush’s surveillance program. During the briefing, said administration and Capitol Hill officials (who declined to be identified because the session was private), California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the extent of presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this, at least in certain circumstances.
Current and former government officials said they could think of several scenarios in which a president might consider ordering the killing of a terror suspect inside the United States.”
Newsweek
In the latest twist in the debate over presidential powers, a Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States.
Steven Bradbury, acting head of the department’s Office of Legal Counsel, went to a closed-door Senate intelligence committee meeting last week to defend President George W. Bush’s surveillance program. During the briefing, said administration and Capitol Hill officials (who declined to be identified because the session was private), California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the extent of presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this, at least in certain circumstances.
Current and former government officials said they could think of several scenarios in which a president might consider ordering the killing of a terror suspect inside the United States.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=7796
V.L.R.B!!
—–
WAR HAS COST EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA 3000 DOLLARS–SO FAR
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucrr/20060203/cm_ucrr/iraqscivilwarhascost3000perusfamilysofar
Clip:”If you remember, the White House’s own economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, was fired for predicting, in September 2002, six months before the invasion, that the total cost of the war might reach between $100 billion and $200 billion. What I (and perhaps others who questioned the wisdom of the war before it began) remember is the hundreds of e-mails and letters I received after I quoted Lindsey and used the higher figure as more likely. “Moron” and “traitor” were among the more polite epithets of the day.
“But the exact figures are not the issue. The Washington issue is that the Bush administration has been lying from day one about the cost of this “preventative” war of choice. The original White House estimate of the total war cost was $75 billion, including the destruction of all Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction.” Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, whose fiscal acumen won him the presidency of the World Bank, even offered the theory that the war would be self-financing, paid for by Iraq’s oil production. That’s rich. And so are oil producers everywhere.
“The war, in fact, is a factor in the escalating cost of petroleum products here and everywhere else in the world. Leaving that aside as you watch the gas-pump digits rise to Super Bowl numbers this weekend, two anti-war research institutes, the International Relations Center and the Institute for Policy Studies, estimate that the war’s cost per citizen has reached $727 — or close to $3,000 for a family of four. By the end of this year, those figures should reach about $1,300 per citizen, or more than $5,000 for that family of four.”
Ah yes, my friend Brian,
Congress can declare war, but it is left to the President to wage war. The declaration of war was meant to define the relations between two states. It triggers certain rights, privileges and protections under the laws of war. It triggers certain statutory laws.
If, however, we are attacked, the Constitution in Article II gives the President the responsibility and the authority to respond without a declaration of war. For all practical purposes we were at war when the Twin Towers were hit.
The United States has only ‘declared war’ five times. Kennedy’s Viet Nam, Truman’s Korea, Reagan’s Granada, GHWB’s Desert Storm, Clinton’s Samalia and GW’s Afganistan and Iraq; all conflicts, wars, or whatever fought without a declaration of war.
The Supreme Court has never intervened to stop a war that a president has started without congressional approval. Never.Hank
PS That’s Hank Dearest, not Hankest Dear.
That’s a rather generous reading of Article II Hank. It says:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
It merely states he is the Commander-in-Chief. It does NOT state, no matter how much you wish it did, that the Commander-in-Chief has a carte blanche in his prosecution of any war.
The purely military aspects of the Commander- in-Chiefship were those that were originally stressed. Alexanser Hamilton said the office ”would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the Military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy.” 106 Story wrote in his Commentaries: ”The propriety of admitting the president to be commander in chief, so far as to give orders, and have a general superintendency, was admitted. But it was urged, that it would be dangerous to let him command in person, without any restraint, as he might make a bad use of it. The consent of both houses of Congress ought, therefore, to be required, before he should take the actual command.
In the storm of response to the Vietnamese conflict, here, too, Congress reasserted legislative power to curtail what it viewed as excessive executive power, repealing the Trading with the Enemy Act and enacting in its place the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 153 which did not alter most of the range of powers delegated to the President but which did change the scope of the power delegated to declare national emergencies. 154 Congress also passed the National Emergencies Act, prescribing procedures for the declaration of national emergencies, for their termination, and for presidential reporting to Congress in connection with national emergencies. To end the practice of declaring national emergencies for an indefinite duration, Congress provided that any emergency not otherwise terminated would expire one year after its declaration unless the President published in the Federal Register and transmitted to Congress a notice that the emergency would continue in effect.
Now FISA
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was first enacted in 1978 (Public Law 95-511) and later amended by the Patriot Act. It is at the center of the controversy concerning domestic spying by the NSA. It was passed after revelations of massive domestic spying abuses by the FBI, CIA and NSA were documented in reports issued by the Church Committee in the 1970s. In 1972 , the United States Supreme Court had reviewed some of those abuses and declared that warrantless wiretaps of domestic groups for national security reasons were a violation of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. United States District Court (Keith), 407 U.S. 297 (1972).
The FISA provided special procedures for conducting electronic surveillance of telephones, etc for foreign intelligence purposes including setting up a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to authorize such surveillance. 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/toc.html. The Act provides for surveillance of AMERICAN CITIZENS AND OTHERS for whom the court determines that there is probable cause that they are “agents of a foreign power” as defined in the statute.
So, while presidents have tried to extend their powers, it is clear that legal precedent and Congressional statute have severely limited any president’s claim that he can act unfettered in time of war or national emergency.
Brian sure must have an easy job. Where’s that guy on the roof when we need him?
CF has an easy job, too.
Yeah, it’s an easy job, but someone has to do it. After all, if how much you toil was the yardstick by how much you’re rewarded, then illegals should be millionaires and most CEO would have to take tremendous pay cuts.
Dear Brian,
I love it when a liberal chastises a conservative for his ‘generous reading’ of the constitution!
You can’t go by the original wording of the Constitution, and you are smart enough to know that. You have to consider the many laws and court cases since then. In every case where the President has exercised his authority to commence hostilities, the courts have supported his constitutional right to do so.
Congress has blustered and fumed and enacted a multitude of inane laws, but every President has ignored them when he determined that the Constitution gave him the responsibility and the authority to do so. Every one.
FISA is a perfect example of this. Every president since its inception has violated FISA. It is now not even suitable for the situation we are in. To get a FISA warrant it takes days and weeks to prepare. For the Attorney General to authorize an ‘emergency wiretap’ for 72 hours he must ensure with a reasonable confidence that a warrant will be issued. In other words, he must have the paperwork complete! Then of course we are dealing with terrorists overseas that call cells in the United States that are using throw away cell phones. They use them once and then throw them away.
But, the liberal protector’s of terrorists rights, say if the FISA law is inadequate for the job just tell us, we’ll change it for you! This is the same bunch that can’t even get together to renew the Patriot Act and even cheer in public when they ‘kill’ it!
No Brian, my secular progressive friend, continue to search the Constitution for the right to abort babies and for the right of perverts to diddle little boys and leave war to the grownups. You and the rest of the country will be safer
Hang in there; we’re pulling for ya,
Hank
So Hank, the standard is if I have balls enough to violate the law then it’s OK? So, I guess I should just start running those stop signs and red lights.
You see, eventually, I WILL get caught, and at that point I will be dragged before a court to answer for my actions.
The fact that presidents have violated statutes with regularity does not by implication make this legal. Let’s wait to see what a court says.
BTW, I’d ask Nixon about violating laws with impunity, declaring presidential prerogative with regard to holding back evidence, etc.
Yea Brian,
Go ahead and speed if you want to.
However, in this particualr case, (using your analogy) the president is running the stop signs in an emergency vehicle and has Constitutional authority to do so.
You don’t have to wait and see what the courts say. There are volumes of judical decisions supporting this authority already.
I’m not sure you’re Nixon example is relevant in this particular discussion, however, if Nixon is in Heaven I’ll ask him. If he isn’t, then you can.
I still love ya,
Hank
Hankiest Hank,
How about citing any one of those “volumes of judicial decisions”?
What you’re relying on is a deliberate confusion of what the Executive power actually is. Congress doesn’t specify the number of post-it notes the White House purchases. But they could certainly set rules for it if, say, the White House bought $10 billion worth and his Chief of Staff just happened to hold stock in 3M. Since the Executive is the “action branch,” Congress can’t possibly–and shouldn’t–specify everything the Executive is allowed to do, but that’s not the same thing as saying that the President has the “inherent power” to ignore inconvenient laws like FISA.
Dear Rage,
I continue to be amused when impotent little secular progressives attempt to beat the President over the head with the FISA act! Its unconstitutional because its secret according to the ACLU! They have been fighting it in court from the very beginning!
However, its not just an ‘inconvenient law’. Its an unconstitutional intrusion on the powers of the President and every president since its inception has ignored it when matters of national security were at stake. Every one.
So don’t try and use that ridiculous FISA law as an example. That dog won’t hunt. Neither side thinks its constitutional, just for different reasons!
Keep ranting and raving, we’ll protect you. The adults are in charge.
Hank
Hello, friends:
I’m what’s left of the Steve-troll’s good nature.
Even though I’ve atrophied from decades of disuse, there’s still a kernal of decency beneath the cheap-shotting degenerate I’ve become.
I just wanted to apologize for being such a colossal ass****.
It started years ago when I realized that I was born with male and female genitalia–both non-functioning.
When you see names like “Galahad’s Daddy” and “CF’s Daddy” know that the dark side has won out in me once again.
I apologize for being an uncontrollable jerk. Perhaps now you can bear with me.
Wrong on both counts, Hank. But if it’s unconstitutional. . .why hasn’t there been a court challenge? That’s how you strike down unconstitutional laws, you know.
Sheesh. Civics 101.
. . .and by the way, we were talking about the supposed encroachment on Executive powers. If the ACLU challenged FISA way back when (did they?), then that just proves it met consitutional muster with the courts.
. . .and by the way, we were talking about the supposed encroachment on Executive powers. If the ACLU challenged FISA way back when (did they?), then that just proves it met constitutional muster with the courts.
Rage,
The reverse also holds true.
If what the President has done is illegal/unconstitutional then why have the courts not struck it down yet either?
Dear Rage,
The War Powers Authorization Act that was originally vetoed by Nixon and then passed with an override by a petulant democratic cnogress has been violated with impugnity by every president since.
The FISA act passed in 1978 during the Carter administration has been ignored with impugnity by every president since, including Carter.
Only when a republican president ignores these laws does the Terrorist’s rights legislators get their panties in a wad. Watching the hearings yesterday you would think the democrats were lawyers for al Qaida! The effect and content of their questions were the same.
Hank
Hank,
As Lucifer said, it’s better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven. Enjoy your stay.
I thought that Milton said that
Viva la Raza Blanco!!
Lucifer said it in Milton’s Paradise Lost.
LOL
Dear Brian,
I know the Master that I serve, and I’m truly blessed!
Hank
Yes! George is the way the truth and the light !!
Better George than your saints, Michael Moore and George Soros.
Hank
“If what the President has done is illegal/unconstitutional then why have the courts not struck it down yet either?”
We just found out about it in December, Nathan. Give it time.
Also, wingnut propaganda notwithstanding, courts don’t just rule official actions unconstitutional on their own–they can’t! There are two lawsuits filed at present, by people who think they might have been spied upon (since we don’t know who WAS spied on, that’s as close as we can get).
Hank, I think we’re done. You admit you the president ignored the law, and that’s okay with you. The courts will have a different opinion.
Dear Rage,
Want to make a bet or two on how all of this turns out? Want to bet on Carl Rove ever being indicted? Want to bet that poor ol’ Scotter never goes to court?
Want to back any of your left wing hysterical rants with any money?
Of course GWB ignored a bunch of laws, they don’t apply to him!
As far as us being done, you’ve never posted anything yet that actually advances the discussion. You have to start to be done!
Hank