Do you need any more proof?
Straight from the horses-asses mouth:
""Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam, both during the 1970s, served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area," Cheney told reporters traveling with him on Air Force Two."
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-spy21dec21,1,5224791.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true)
Let me get this straight: Watergate was when the President of the United States blatently and criminally abused his powers to spy on political rivals. He's saying that the oversight that resulted from this dispicable episode in our history IS A BAD THING!
This Bush administration and its neo-con cronies hate the restrictions of law and the Constitution.
- Vox
""Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam, both during the 1970s, served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area," Cheney told reporters traveling with him on Air Force Two."
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-spy21dec21,1,5224791.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true)
Let me get this straight: Watergate was when the President of the United States blatently and criminally abused his powers to spy on political rivals. He's saying that the oversight that resulted from this dispicable episode in our history IS A BAD THING!
This Bush administration and its neo-con cronies hate the restrictions of law and the Constitution.
- Vox
posted by VoxInfo at 9:08 AM
7 Comments:
"This Bush administration and its neo-con cronies hate the restrictions of law and the Constitution."
Um, no. Our President hates seeing planes crashing into buildings and the islamo-facist murders that STILL - EVERY. SINGLE. DAY, are trying desparately to find ways to kill you, me, your family, my family, your friends, my friends, their friends, and any other American they can.
This Bush administration and its neo-con cronies are working to protect America and Americans every single day - despite fighting both the terrorists, who are committed to either killing us or forcing us to live under islamic law AND democtats dedicated to nothing more than assuming power in the congress and the Presidency.
G. Gordon,
"...despite fighting both the terrorists, who are committed to either killing us or forcing us to live under islamic law AND democtats dedicated to nothing more than assuming power in the congress and the Presidency."
So aspiring to the office of the Presidency and controlling the congress is akin to terrorism. Gee, how did the republicans end up in this position, by accident?
But I understand your logic: In America, being a country GOVERNED BY THE RULE OF LAW, it is necessary for the highest office to break the law to uphold the law. Take away basic rights and freedoms to maintain a free society. Right. I see. And war is peace. And ignorance is knowledge. Secrecy is openness. Hey, this is easy. I like this game!
Simply, it would be easier on EVERYONE if we lived in a dictatorial society. But we don't. Maintaining a free republic is a little more complicated than that. I think this administration has show their distaste for thiat complexity.
I think there are two things happening here.
The first is the wiretapping itself. The second is the way in which it was done.
I have no problem with wiretapping (in its broadest sense) people who may be invoved in terrorist activity. Most Americans are completely unaware of this, but since 9/11 Interpol (specifically the French, I might add) have thwarted a handful of very serious plots. That's not some right-wing conspiracy - that's from the BBC Horse's mouth.
We ARE under threat. And until that threat goes away, our Civil Liberties are going to have to make room for things like wiretapping and surveilance. That's how you catch people who are plotting to blow things up.
The only issue I have with all this is that the Pres should have run this by Congress. 99% of what Congress does is done in secret anyway, so why not do it the right way. It's only "illegal" for the Pres to act unilaterally; and since there's a great deal is precidence for secret operations of this kind - especially under Patriol I - I'm not sure why he didn't get the support of Congress in the first place.
Seems to me like he figured it was all part of Patriot I and then later, someone pointed out that he was supposed to have had Congressional sign-off. So he fessed up and then the Partisan Machine got hold of it like a dog with a chew toy.
I consider myself pretty left wing on a lot of issues, but I think it's getting a little out of hand. It goes both ways (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth springs to mind), but Congress would have approved the plan. I'm quite sure of that.
BUT: I have to disagree with "G. Gordon". I don't think the Democrats are democrats are trying to grab power any more than the republicans are. That's what is so disheartening about our political system in the first place - it's designed to be mano a mano fistucuffs (originally, this was supposed to provide a check against anyone assuming too much power, but sadly, it doesn't seem to have worked that way). We need more parties, more voices, and hopefully more cooperation. There's a LOT of very serious issues that are not being looked at because everyone's too busy trying to score points.
I know I'll get slammed for this, but that's why I like John McCain. I disagree with him on a lot of issues, but I just like that he exists. I would vote for him if he ran as an Independent.
"We need more parties, more voices, and hopefully more cooperation. There's a LOT of very serious issues that are not being looked at because everyone's too busy trying to score points."
I agree.
"99% of what Congress does is done in secret anyway."
Can you justify the Congress doing 99% in secret? I mean WTF? Doesn't that take power out of the hands of the people and concentrate it in the federal government? The Congress may function to execute decisions on behalf of the people, but doing it without the knowledge of the people -- or deliberately witholding knowledge from the people -- is a slippery slope toward totalitarianism.
"The only issue I have with all this is that the Pres should have run this by Congress. It's only "illegal" for the Pres to act unilaterally...I'm not sure why he didn't get the support of Congress in the first place."
Me neither. Shouldn't he have known better? If not, WTF is he doing in office? He doesn't even know the basics of how our government works! But if he did it while knowing that he is supposed to get the support of Congress, why didn't he do it?
"Seems to me like he figured it was all part of Patriot I and then later, someone pointed out that he was supposed to have had Congressional sign-off."
What bothers me is that he presumed to go ahead and do things on his own initiative WITHOUT the people's knowledge and WITHOUT the consent of Congress. What in the world could he have been thinking?? We are supposed to be living in a DEMOCRACY for crying out loud!
"I think this administration has show their distaste for thiat complexity."
I think our politicians in general aren't used to thinking in very complex terms. They're used to thinking like technobureacrats, along the lines of prescribed policy, or within the bounds of sharply defined black-and-white partisan interests. Throw a complex real-life situation at them and they don't know what to do with it.
Hello Ken.
Just wanted to clarify: My comment about Congress acting in secret 99% of the time wasn't an endorsement but an observation.
- Magpie
Post a Comment
<< Home