PDA

View Full Version : Bush fillets McCain



Ian McColgin
01-04-2006, 10:17 AM
President Bush quite bluntly believes that there are no Constitutional constraints on his power.

Published on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 by the Boston Globe

BUSH COULD BYPASS NEW TORTURE BAN

Waiver right is reserved

by Charlie Savage WASHINGTON - When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.

A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security.

''We are not going to ignore this law," the official said, noting that Bush, when signing laws, routinely issues signing statements saying he will construe them consistent with his own constitutional authority. ''We consider it a valid statute. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment."

But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a ''ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack.

''Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case," the official added. ''We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it's possible that they will."

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit.

''The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' " he said. ''They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on."

Golove and other legal specialists compared the signing statement to Bush's decision, revealed last month, to bypass a 1978 law forbidding domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without a court order starting after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The president and his aides argued that the Constitution gives the commander in chief the authority to bypass the 1978 law when necessary to protect national security. They also argued that Congress implicitly endorsed that power when it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators of the attacks.

Legal academics and human rights organizations said Bush's signing statement and his stance on the wiretapping law are part of a larger agenda that claims exclusive control of war-related matters for the executive branch and holds that any involvement by Congress or the courts should be minimal.

Vice President Dick Cheney recently told reporters, ''I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it. . . . I would argue that the actions that we've taken are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president."

Since the 2001 attacks, the administration has also asserted the power to bypass domestic and international laws in deciding how to detain prisoners captured in the Afghanistan war. It also has claimed the power to hold any US citizen Bush designates an ''enemy combatant" without charges or access to an attorney.

And in 2002, the administration drafted a secret legal memo holding that Bush could authorize interrogators to violate antitorture laws when necessary to protect national security. After the memo was leaked to the press, the administration eliminated the language from a subsequent version, but it never repudiated the idea that Bush could authorize officials to ignore a law.

The issue heated up again in January 2005. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales disclosed during his confirmation hearing that the administration believed that antitorture laws and treaties did not restrict interrogators at overseas prisons because the Constitution does not apply abroad.

In response, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, filed an amendment to a Defense Department bill explicitly saying that that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody is illegal regardless of where they are held.

McCain's office did not return calls seeking comment yesterday.

The White House tried hard to kill the McCain amendment. Cheney lobbied Congress to exempt the CIA from any interrogation limits, and Bush threatened to veto the bill, arguing that the executive branch has exclusive authority over war policy.

But after veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress approved it, Bush called a press conference with McCain, praised the measure, and said he would accept it.

Legal specialists said the president's signing statement called into question his comments at the press conference.

''The whole point of the McCain Amendment was to close every loophole," said Marty Lederman, a Georgetown University law professor who served in the Justice Department from 1997 to 2002. ''The president has re-opened the loophole by asserting the constitutional authority to act in violation of the statute where it would assist in the war on terrorism."

Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, called Bush's signing statement an ''in-your-face affront" to both McCain and to Congress.

''The basic civics lesson that there are three co-equal branches of government that provide checks and balances on each other is being fundamentally rejected by this executive branch," she said.

''Congress is trying to flex its muscle to provide those checks [on detainee abuse], and it's being told through the signing statement that it's impotent. It's quite a radical view."

2006 Boston Globe

###

Keith Wilson
01-04-2006, 10:24 AM
This is absolutely bizarre, and potentially extremely dangerous. Could somebody explain where in the Constitution it says that the president's authority as commander-in-chief ever allows him to ignore any law passed by Congress?

[ 01-04-2006, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

LeeG
01-04-2006, 10:30 AM
It appears that Cheney has done with legal counsel regarding executive powers what was done to raise the proof of WMD in Iraq being given to Al Qaeda. They looked for the experts who will provide that opinion. Here JohnYoo gained importance because he provided the necessary legal opinon justifying presidential infallibility.
Oh well, maybe the next democratic president can use this power for the Homelands best interests,,,if there's a Democratic Congress,,and a new War On... is in play.

Osborne Russel
01-04-2006, 12:16 PM
"Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case," the official added. ''We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it's possible that they will."

And there you have it. Long live King George.

emichaels
01-04-2006, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
This is absolutely bizarre, and potentially extremely dangerous. Could somebody explain where in the Constitution it says that the president's authority as commander-in-chief ever allows him to ignore any law passed by Congress?Keith: This may answer your question, see at top 'Purpose and Policy' sec 2(b) also see sec 8 (d)1
Powers (http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html)

Edited to add: Don't know if its in the constitution but your answer may be in this ACT.

Eric

[ 01-04-2006, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: emichaels ]

Keith Wilson
01-04-2006, 12:29 PM
emichaels: the War Powers Act was passed after Vietnam to limit the president's ability to put US troops into combat short of a declared war without congressional permission. As far as I can tell it grants no power to circumvent any other law at all:


SEC. 8. (d)
Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties. It seems to me that Bush's claim would mean an enormous enlargement of Presidential power, and is profoundly at odds with every principle of democratic government. Can anyone explain to me what possible legitimate justification this could have?

[ 01-04-2006, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

ljb5
01-04-2006, 12:38 PM
This seems like the type of issue Hyde knows a lot about.

I wonder if there are any historical precedents of leaders trying to assume extraordinary powers and refusing to acknowledge any checks on them?

I wonder how that worked out in the past?

I wonder why Hyde hasn't posted anything about it?

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-04-2006, 12:47 PM
Say goodbye to the Powell Doctrine. Their ain't no fun in it.
Welcome the Bush Doctrine:

Get elected president.
Start a war.
Assume the emperial crown.

Perfectly simple. Simply perfect.

Charlie

"Constitution? We don' need no stinkin' constitution!"

[ 01-04-2006, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Cuyahoga Chuck ]

Chris Coose
01-04-2006, 12:48 PM
It is a war if he said it is.
He will do what he has to to protect the citizens.

Over and over and over again......

If the senate or the judiciary do not step in to check and balance this MF we are on a slope that will surely slide into some real danger.

Goosebumps found here.Bush's High Crimes (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060109/editors)

emichaels
01-04-2006, 12:51 PM
Keith, That is what I meant. the war powers act does not allow the pres to circumvent the laws. In other words the pres doesn't have a leg to stand on when he says he can do anything he wants to because we are at war. The Act, I think, expressly states he can't bypass the laws.

Eric

emichaels
01-04-2006, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Donn:
<img src= "http://www.bjacked.net/LuvToHunt/forums/phpBB2/modules/gallery/albums/album01/Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg">Release the masses man ! We've only just begun !

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-04-2006, 01:11 PM
"Silently Flows the Donn."

Chris Coose
01-04-2006, 01:11 PM
Don'd like to think this was a dead horse and in thinking it is a dead horse proves once again that he hates America in direct proportion to the ware in the knees in his trousers.

[ 01-04-2006, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Chris Coose ]

John of Phoenix
01-04-2006, 02:00 PM
Don't make this more complicated than it is.
All authority flows from the Constitution -Legislative, Judicial and Executive.

If the legislature passes a law that circumvents the big C, the courts deem it "UnConstitutional" and it's thrown out.

If the president exceeds his Constitutional authority, hes reined in by the legislature. Oops. I forgot were counting on a bunch of spineless worms to honor their oath to uphold that Constitution in the face of that big bad Rove fellow.

Keith Wilson
01-04-2006, 02:07 PM
I really wish it were a dead horse, a minor historical footnote only of interest to those studying neo-fascism in the early 21st century United States. The historical parallels are numerous, and not pleasant. Assumption of "temporary" extraordinary powers by the executive under a state of emergency has been a route to the replacement of republics by dictatorships since the beginning of imperial Rome. I don't think that's what Bush wants to do. However the combination of a executive who doesn't go into complex questions in detail, surrounded by advisors who tell him what he wants to hear, in an atmosphere of intolerance of dissent; "if you're not with us you're against us" well, its not likely to produce good results.

High C
01-04-2006, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by John Teetsel:
...All authority flows from the Constitution -Legislative, Judicial and Executive.If this were true, you wouldn't recognize this country.

Very little of what the Federal government does is Constitutional.

Keith Wilson
01-04-2006, 02:18 PM
High C, that is, shall we say, decidedly a minority opinion. The Supreme Court has disagreed with you for a very long time.

What do you think about Mr. Bush's argument that his duty to defend the US trumps the laws passed by Congress?

[ 01-04-2006, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

High C
01-04-2006, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
High C, that is, shall we say, decidedly a minority opinion. The Supreme Court has disagreed with you for a very long time.Indeed they have, but iyou'd be hard pressed to find the language in the actual document which explicitly allows for most of today's government's activities and programs. Much as you can't find the language which grants the powers numerous Presidents have claimed, and used, throughout most of this nation's history.

Which standard applies, anyway? Strict interpretation, or "reading between the lines"? Whichever standard we use, it must be applied equally.

The government, including the Supreme Court, has read between the lines for a very long time now.

[ 01-04-2006, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

Keith Wilson
01-04-2006, 02:55 PM
HighC, my question was about Mr. Bush's argument that his duty to defend the US trumps the laws passed by Congress. Can I assume from your reply that your opinion is that since the federal government is mostly unconstitutional anyway, a little more usurpation of power hardly matters? So do you think it's a good thing? Might even those who don't loathe Mr. Bush see even a teensy possibility of abuse, if the president can ignore the law whenever he wants?

[ 01-04-2006, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

John of Phoenix
01-04-2006, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
What do you think about Mr. Bush's argument that his duty to defend the US trumps the laws passed by Congress?Well you didn't ask ME but I'll butt in anyway. He frequently says that his first duty is to protect Americans.

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He's wrong but so what, it makes the base feel good and it gets votes.

The 9/11 commission ripped him a new one for what he *hasn't* done. Start by doing what was recommended in the first place.

He has FISA and can't seem operate legally within its very loose constraints. If there is a problem, fix it. Simply change the law and do it in the light of day for all to see. He owns both the House and Senate, it ought to be a snap.

Now to the issue of the article - torture and breaking the law. Dubya is stupid. Genuinely dumb. Of low intelligence. The only way he's going to get the message is impeachment.

Lotsa luck with the bunch of worms we have in Congress.

Osborne Russel
01-04-2006, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by High C:
The government, including the Supreme Court, has read between the lines for a very long time now.The government, including King George, has read between the lines for a very long time now. What lines is George Bush reading between?

Osborne Russel
01-04-2006, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by High C:


Which standard applies, anyway? Strict interpretation, or "reading between the lines"? Whichever standard we use, it must be applied equally.Neither. The standard depends on the question. If a standard is applied "unequally", and this is somehow objectionable, the remedy is a constitutional amendment; unless and until then, the inequality is irrelevant.

But more importantly, the President does NOT have the power to interpret law, authoritatively, ever, by any standard, "equally applied" or not.

Meerkat
01-04-2006, 05:14 PM
Seems like, under this theory, El Presidente could suspend elections and Congress itself "in the interests of national security."

Just a conveniently timed "terrorist attack" as pretext...

High C
01-04-2006, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
HighC, my question was about Mr. Bush's argument that his duty to defend the US trumps the laws passed by Congress. Can I assume from your reply that your opinion is that since the federal government is mostly unconstitutional anyway, a little more usurpation of power hardly matters? No, you can assume that we cross posted. ;) I didn't see your question until a moment ago.

I think my stance on Constitutional questions is pretty clear, that I support a strict reading. As a practical matter, I also acknowledge the fact that we don't operate that way. As a nation, we very much "read between the lines". I would be happy to see strict limits on Presidential powers, back to what is Constitutional, if that standard was applied to all that government does.

No picking and choosing.

[ 01-04-2006, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

botesbabe
01-04-2006, 05:22 PM
I'm waiting for Bush's 2007 speech that ends, "and so, in the interest of National Security, and completely in line with my Constitutional Powers, which I can only assure you that I have, I have decided to indefinately postpone the 2008 Election. I will continue in my capacity as President until that time when I deem that the United States is secure enough to withstand a change of power. Thank you and Gawd Bless Umericuh."

Doug

Oops- I just noticed that I stole Tonya's first post on the Forum. I didn't know she had got her confirmation and apparently signed on today. Sorry Babe. Welcome and I Love you.

[ 01-04-2006, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: botesbabe ]

Keith Wilson
01-04-2006, 05:27 PM
But HighC, neither you nor I you are empowered to decide directly what is constitutional. There are nine people with spiffy black robes who we pay to do that, and who presumably know a lot more than we do. All we can do is vote for the folks who appoint them. None of those on the Supreme Court for the past 100 years and more have agreed with you. They could all be wrong, I suppose.

However the point is not the constitutionality of activities of the federal bureaucracy. The point is Bush's contention that he can ignore the laws passed by Congress when he sees fit. Doesn't this seem kind of - well, unusual, to you? Overreaching perhaps?

[ 01-04-2006, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-04-2006, 05:29 PM
I'm going to beat this dead horse one more time.
The FISA court is arm of the Judicial Branch of government. By thumbing his nose at it Bush is doing the same to that entire Judicial Branch.
The Judicial Branch does not have an army but it is jealous of it's constitutional prerogatives and will fight the President with whatever means it has to keep him his side of the line.
This is a classic "constitutional question". It automatically goes directly to the Supreme Court. As I said before, Clarence Thomas may pay his debt to the Bush family by taking the Presidents's side but, I can't imagine any of the other justices allowing the President to kick the Judicial Branch around like a rolled up armadillo.
Bush is, essencially, making an assertion of unlimited war powers and that is big, big, big. And the fact that the President's orders were carried out, unreported, for numerous years may mean that felonies have been committed.
For those unbelievers who think miracles can never happen, keep your eyes on this dead horse. It may yet be reborn and help bring the guilty to their just reward.

Charlie

"The Constitution of the United States is whatever the Supreme Court says it is."

[ 01-04-2006, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Cuyahoga Chuck ]

ljb5
01-04-2006, 05:51 PM
Donn, this is about the U.S. Constitution.

That's not a horse -- and it's not dead.

Grow up.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
01-04-2006, 05:52 PM
No, I think the horses ass is still livin... he's drinking wine and insulting people. ;)

High C
01-04-2006, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
...However, you DO seem to be skirting the question:

1) Does your belief also lead you to conclude that since the 'strict interpretation' standard isn't bein met, that it is OK 'liberally' interpret the rest of the Constitution? (you did say 'no picking and choosing')...Indeed I am skirting the question. Idealistically, I'd like to see this nation operate more strictly within Constitutional guidlines. Presidents, Congress COURTS, and all. But I don't want to be the only guy playing by the rules.

I'm torn between a) wanting to strip our Presidents, and the entire Federal government, of much of the power that has been assumed over the years, and b) the practical reality that if one party was to do that, it would be handicapped by the fact that the other party will continue to play by the lenient "read between the lines" rules.

I'm tempted to say that President Bush should not have these powers, as a matter of principle. But previous Presidents have had, and used, these same powers for many years. None of this is new.

N. Scheuer
01-04-2006, 06:07 PM
Impeachment is beginning to look more likely with each passing day!

Moby Nick

John of Phoenix
01-04-2006, 06:08 PM
Yeah, dead just like Abu Gharib.

Just like Scooter and Valerie.

Just like Delay and Abramoff.

Bush and his buddies are up to their asses in alligators and the swamp ain't half drained.

:D Right, dead. :D You only wish. :D

High C
01-04-2006, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
But HighC, neither you nor I you are empowered to decide directly what is constitutional. Exactly! But I see a lot of armchair judging going on here! You've levied some pretty strong "guilty" verdicts yourself lately. We unempowered types can only let the judges decide. So far, they don't seem particularly interested.

Meerkat
01-04-2006, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
But HighC, neither you nor I you are empowered to decide directly what is constitutional. I SO disagree with this! "We the people" and all that jazz!

Meerkat
01-04-2006, 06:12 PM
<font color= "purple"><marquee>DONN IS BAD! DONN IS BAD! DONN IS BAD! DONN IS BAD! DONN IS BAD! DONN IS BAD! DONN IS BAD! DONN IS BAD! DONN IS BAD! DONN IS BAD!</marquee></font>

ljb5
01-04-2006, 06:13 PM
I think Donn is starting to catch on.

High C
01-04-2006, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by N. Scheuer:
Impeachment is beginning to look more likely with each passing day!

Moby Nick:D Yeah! Let's carry that thought into next year's elections, shall we? Please?

ljb5
01-04-2006, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by High C:
Yeah! Let's carry that thought into next year's elections, shall we? Please?I will if you will!

LeeG
01-04-2006, 06:32 PM
enough about Donn ideas, what about Donns responses, what about Donns wit, is Donn having regular dumps, is Donn touching where it works,,push the button,,push the button,,push the button

Jagermeister
01-04-2006, 06:35 PM
[ 01-04-2006, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Jagermeister ]

Meerkat
01-04-2006, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by High C:
:D Yeah! Let's carry that thought into next year's elections, shall we? Please?Ahem - what about this year's elections? ;)

LeeG
01-04-2006, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Donn:
<font size= -7>Psst. The horse is dead.</font>Start your own dead horse thread.

High C
01-04-2006, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
:D Yeah! Let's carry that thought into next year's elections, shall we? Please?Ahem - what about this year's elections? ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Dang! And I wrote '05 on a bunch of checks today, too! redface.gif

ljb5
01-04-2006, 06:46 PM
Jager, my understanding is that the President must obey the laws as written.

If he thinks they are unconstitutional, he may seek to have them overturned by the courts.

Until then, they are the law.

I'm pretty sure that applies to all of us.

Feel free to test it, if you like. Let us know how it goes.

[ 01-04-2006, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

Jagermeister
01-04-2006, 07:07 PM
[ 01-04-2006, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Jagermeister ]

Chris Coose
01-04-2006, 07:13 PM
Indeed, it shows no disrespect for law to violate a statute on the ground that it is unconstitutional and then to submit one's case to the courts with the willingness to accept the penalty if the statute is held to be valid. This is clearly not dubbya's intent.

ljb5
01-04-2006, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Jagermeister:
and then to submit one's case to the courts with the willingness to accept the penalty if the statute is held to be valid.

Well, it sure would be nice to see Bush submit himself to the court and be willing to accept penalty.

I'm not familiar with the case, but I did note that was a dissenting (i.e. losing) opinion.

Also, they are talking about people who violate the law with the intent to gain standing to have it overturned.

This is not Bush's situation at all. He apparently violated the law, insists he did not, had no intention of making it known and will probably try to keep it out of court.

While this opinion speaks of activism, Bush has engaged in secrecy. Very different situation.

[ 01-04-2006, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

ljb5
01-04-2006, 07:45 PM
Jager, I just read a very little bit about Walker v. Birmingham.

Very interesting case. It was about a civil rights era protest march. The city tried to stop it and the protestors announced in advance, in public that they were going to disobey.

That's very different than Bush trying to hide what he did.

In the end, the court decided that, if you think a law is unconstitutional, you really ought to try to work that out before violating it.

Violating a law in an attempt to get it overturned is activism.

Violating a law and hoping nobody finds out is sneaky.

Jagermeister
01-04-2006, 08:03 PM
[ 01-04-2006, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Jagermeister ]

LeeG
01-04-2006, 08:03 PM
tricky

Chris Coose
01-04-2006, 08:12 PM
Jager, I hope you apply to be on the dubbya defense team. He'll be seeking minds who think outside the box.

What, with the rewriting of torture standards it shouldn't be a big stretch to rewrite the constitution. You've made a fine stretch with the opinion you site. Thing is, you even believe it relative.

[ 01-04-2006, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Chris Coose ]

LeeG
01-04-2006, 08:14 PM
I've noticed a sad irony when faithbasters bend to justify relativistic morals when their king does wrong.

Jagermeister
01-04-2006, 08:24 PM
[ 01-04-2006, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: Jagermeister ]

Chris Coose
01-04-2006, 08:28 PM
Where is the irony Jager?
The people you describe may be better called neocons.

Meerkat
01-04-2006, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Jagermeister:
It is a sad irony when people who decline to be absolutist in their thinking and opinions are caricatured and lambasted by others whose prejudices predetermine their every communication.A good self-description of you, Jager. :rolleyes:

LeeG
01-04-2006, 08:32 PM
Jager, the president is infallible, K street is providing market efficiency to an inefficient political process.

Jagermeister
01-04-2006, 08:42 PM
[ 01-04-2006, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Jagermeister ]

LeeG
01-04-2006, 08:46 PM
speaking of Hunter Thompson

Hunter S. Thompson, in the October 10, 1974 Rolling Stone: "But the climate of those years was so grim that half the Washington press corps spent more time worrying about having their telephones tapped than they did about riskign the wrath of Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Colson by poking at the weak semas of a Mafia-style administration that began cannibalizing the whole government just as soon as it came into power. Nixon's capos were never subtle; they swaggered into Washington like a conquering army, and the climate of fear they engendered apparently neutralized The New York Times along with all the other pockets of potential resistance. Nixon had to do everything but fall on his own sword before anybody in the Washingotn socio-political establishment was willing to take him on."

ljb5
01-04-2006, 08:58 PM
What did I miss?

What happened to Jager?

I step away from the computer for a couple of minutes and he starts writing in invisible ink?

ssor
01-04-2006, 09:11 PM
I fear for our country. :(

uncas
01-04-2006, 09:13 PM
ssor...so do I...I am provisioning my boat for an extended stay beyond the 12 mile limit....

John of Phoenix
01-04-2006, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by uncas:
ssor...so do I...I am provisioning my boat for an extended stay beyond the 12 mile limit....Say here's a question - What happens out there when he triggers Armageddon? And then where do you go? Or does it matter?

Anyway, I'm thinking May, probably late May to start Armageddon. Plenty of time to finish things up before the mid terms in November but it'll still be fresh in everyone's mind.

Wanna start a pool?

ssor
01-04-2006, 10:31 PM
I would bet on an impeachment but for Cheney as VP. :eek:

Meerkat
01-05-2006, 12:47 AM
Take them both out, but then we get the senator from Alaska and he's a horror too, but for different reasons.

High C
01-05-2006, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by ssor:
I would bet on an impeachment but for Cheney as VP. :eek: What's the difference? We'll probably install Cheney as the next President anyway.

Meerkat
01-05-2006, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ssor:
I would bet on an impeachment but for Cheney as VP. :eek: What's the difference? We'll probably install Cheney as the next President anyway.</font>[/QUOTE]Ain't gonna happen. Sorry.

High C
01-05-2006, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
Ain't gonna happen. Sorry.Ehh, we'll let you know....

Meerkat
01-05-2006, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Meerkat:
Ain't gonna happen. Sorry.Ehh, we'll let you know....</font>[/QUOTE]we'll prefer charges... tongue.gif

Osborne Russel
01-05-2006, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by High C:
I'm torn between a) wanting to strip our Presidents, and the entire Federal government, of much of the power that has been assumed over the years, and b) the practical reality that if one party was to do that, it would be handicapped by the fact that the other party will continue to play by the lenient "read between the lines" rules.And so, like Bush, the necessity of defeating "the other side" -- i.e. Americans who disagree -- is more important than obeying the law.

This is the nation that brought war to Iraq ostensibly to install the rule of law. Remember?