Bush goes Nixonian--invokes Executive Privelege

Americans are not in harms way. Honorable Soldiers are fighting a war on terrorism abroad, so that we do not deal with it here at home. I just wish others were thankful for that.

It saddens me that some actually believe this is an honest comparison. I don't see it as representative of anything, other than a call for defeat. Though terrorist death tolls are very infrequently reported, I remember last year the military actually release a number for one month. It was twice the US total in years....in one single month.

I find it difficult to believe anyone can "honestly" suggest this, given reality. The reality is, we have not been attacked on our soil since. The reality is, that we have twarted numerous plots TO ATTACK us on our soil since, because Bush is taking his responsibility seriously. Contrast that with the 90s.

Because of things like the "Patriot Act," we have been able to cut off terrorist financing, track terrorists, prevent terrorist attacks, share information between branches and other countries. It simply boggles my mind that someone would suggest these things have not made us safer.

It's like someone who is overweight, deciding to do what is right. They eat well balanced meals, cut back on portions, exercise, cut back on sodas and drink more water, take their vitamins and over the course of a year, they lose 50 lbs. Then come out and say that doing all those things was not the reason they lost weight.

Sorry, I just don't accept false reality. I can understand blind hatred for the president. I've said it before and I believe it's worth mentioning again...blind hatred does not justify dishonesty. In other words, admitting that we have not been attacked, that we have thwarted terrorist attacks, that we've cut off terrorist financing, that we have gone after unscrupulous charities operating to fund terrorists and have succeeded, does not mean that you suddenly have to support Bush. Bush is not America and America is not Bush. It's ok to observe that somethings have worked and worked well, without fear that someone *might* perceive you as a "Bush supporter."

 

I'd need to see what you are referring to, in order to formulate an opinion. I haven't seen anyone suggest other ways to fight terrorism. I have seen some that just want to pull out. I'm more than willing to provide feedback, if you have something specific.

I didn't see this. I do recall hearing about a report that suggested such, then something that countered it as well. So I'm not entirely sure.

Let me ask this...if in fact al qaida is as strong today and has recently gained momentum, is now the best time to surrender?

 

I see. So it is an acceptable trade-off that we send people to die far away so we don't have to deal with it at home? An American is an american no matter where he or she is in the world. And you're overlooking the honorable (in all seriousity) civilian contractors.

Again, this is eye for an eye stuff. For everyone one of us, we'll kill one of you. And where in this life math do the Iraqi civilians factor?

How many times has America been attacked on our own soil? And contrast that with how many attacks occur weekly on foreign soil. These plots that have been thwarted, it's great for propaganda. I don't believe that they don't exist or haven't been stopped, only that it helps fuel the F.U.D. that allows people to endorse and allow legislation like the Patriot Act.

Because of the Patriot Act, habeas corpus has been eroded. We've sacrificed civil liberties to the government, which is so damn unconstitutional, it should be impeachable.

Is it ok to observe that somethings have not worked or worked terribly and not be a Bush hater?

America has not been attacked again. But Americans have. Whether you like it or not, citizens are giving their lives daily to preserve your tenuous freedom. Just because you deem it honorable, or out-of-sight-out-of-mind, doesn't make it any less so.

You want to credit GWB because we look like busy bees, fighting here, and fighting there. We're spending money, we're transporting troops, we're talking tough. And the terrorists are scared.

Or maybe, they understand the most basic of military concepts. Divide and conquer. They are still attacking the USA every single day. And can you honestly say we are winning on any front?

Or has the loss of civil liberties and life put us in a position where the game must be played out, even if it is a situation with diminishing returns?

 

GTech:

I'm gonna take some time to copy the NIE report comparing al queda's strength at 9/10 and today and see if I can pick up a wide variety of alternative suggestions.

I disagree w/you on Iraq (duh).

There is al-quada in iraq and elements of a civil war between sunni's and shiites, shiite on shiite fighting, sunni's versus al-queda and non iraqi's, etc.

In the spectrum of disagreement with President Bush there are:

Those who want immediate pull-out. (I'm not one of those)
Those who want a reduction in forces
Those who want a different direction of mission.

I think Bush is lying about victory. To me victory means disarming all of Iraq so there is nobody who can take shots at Americans.

We simply don't have close to the force levels to achieve that. We can't close the borders. That would take thousands of extra soldiers. We would need thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands to disarm all of Iraq.

We probably are close to agreement on the danger of Islamic fundamental terrorism. (I can't believe I'm saying that )

How it is combatted is one of the big problems.

The other big problem is that the administration puts down all alternatives in its inimical--"you are a terrorist supporter style". That breeds disillusionment which grows to hate. In terms of people being against the administration--in many ways they are their own worst enemies.

But I'll see what I can turn up w/ regard to alternatives. In fact I need to read up on that.

 

The role of our military is to protect our country. Unless you are aware of something I am not?

Again? Actually this was me pointing out what you are doing. You indirectly suggested that because the death toll in Iraq is close to that of 9/11, we should pull out. It is not I that is asserting an eye for an eye here, but rather my pointing out that you were doing such.

Propganda? Then there is really no point in continuing forward, is there? Denial of the facts and simply sweeping under the carpet of "propaganda." This is why democrats are never taken seriously on national security. Probably why Ron Paul will not either. Pretending the threat doesn't exist, in light of all that has taken place.

This is incorrect. I'm surprised you would try to pawn this off. Let's review, shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

Now, unless you are admitting to being an alien and have participated in or engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the US, I'd be very interested in knowing what civil liberties "you" have given up?

Let's keep it honest. This is in direct relation to those wanting to harm our country. Not you, me, the average America citizen who loves our country.

You bet. But again, I stress, that blind hatred of a president doesn't preclude anyone from noting success either, and without the fear of being labeled the oh so fearsome "Bush supporter."

So you agree it's silly to suggest we are no less safer today, when in fact, everything in reality suggests otherwise?

You want to credit GWB because we look like busy bees, fighting here, and fighting there. We're spending money, we're transporting troops, we're talking tough. And the terrorists are scared.

I suspect they do understand it quite well and I also suspect they have influenced *some* in our own country. Sure, I can honestly say we are winning. Every time a terrorist organization is caught trying to send funds out, every time a plot is thwarted, every time a group is caught in the midst of planning. Every terrorist group thwarted in Iraq, every time terrorists are killed in Iraq, is a win.

No point in arguing this, I corrected your assumption above on civil liberties. Unless of course, you are admitting to being a terrorist. I do not believe you are, nor do I believe you support them, nor do I believe that is the case. So I'll presume that now you know the truth about the supposed civil liberties you believe you lost, we can move forward from this failed argument.

 

GTech, read this and then tell me about how civil liberties have not been compromised,

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php

 

Bye Bye civil liberties.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/index.html

Bill Lets U.S. Citizens Be Held as Enemy Combatants

They talk out of both sides of their mouths. Trust us, we're the Bush administration--have we ever lied to you?

 

i agree wholeheartedly

gtech

please read this again

http://www.conservative.org/about/principles.html

can you show me something like this for neocons? couldn't find a link in the wiki !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon

which conservative are you? neocon or a real conservative

 

I read the first few paragraphs and saw several things to take issue with. In summary, no, I'm not going to sit down and read short stories that require considerable time to go through. I liken this to the same technique that lazy "troofers" use when they bust into a thread, copy and paste dozens of questions that have not been vetted to be true in the first place, and then demand that everyone spend their time debunking them. Then when finished, present a new batch. Let's be reasonable in our requests.

You claimed:

I do believe I was successful in demonstrating this is simply not true. I don't mind an open discussion on ideas and assumptions, but to openly request that I do all the work is not conducive to a constructive debate.

If you believe you can counter the facts I presented, I welcome that. Feel free to show your example of where you lost habeus corpus. Unless you are a terrorist or plan on being one (as previously mentioned), it's just not accurate to state what you claimed. Additionally, if there is a "civil liberty" you believe you have personally given up, I'd like to know that too. I am not aware of any single liberty I have, that has been taken away from me.

I've not read it in the first place to have needed to read it again. Please refer to my comment above about putting the load of a debate on one person. I don't mind open discussion, with the limited time I have available these days, but I'm not going to read everything that everyone wants me to. Present your argument, source it if you wish, and I'll be happy to provide an appropriate response, and/or present evidence to counter it, as I have done with guerilla above.

I believe these to be reasonably fair requests. I would ask nothing of either of you that I would not ask of myself.

 

Thanks briant. I had no illusion that you do not have the ability to logically participate. Especially given your history and who you let do your thinking for you. I believe you have the right idea...stand behind and cheer for the real men that can.

 

I'm not the one who refuses to look at the evidence. I guess when you're trying to defend this administration, the evidence is best viewed from afar--if at all.

 

read it when you got a chance. we are at a very important junction this is not about a b---j-- it is a matter of life and death
maybe this guy fein can write one of the articles of impeachment
that would be ironic

 

We were doing so well. You dismiss points and when called on it, claim the burden of argument is placed solely on you.

That's fine. I'll do the work for you so we can carry on the discussion. I wouldn't want to give you an opportunity to play the victim card.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

Gee, unconstitutional legislation. Care to defend that?

And now we're living an Orwellian novel, Fahrenheit 451 to be precise.

This is one of my favorite sections
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Enforcement

Ah yes, using the act as a shield to charge for other crimes. Those expanded powers sure do come in handy.

And then there is the stuff like this that is what riles up the folks you call truthers, but are probably just enlightened citizens with serious concerns about liberty.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Bush_declares_immunity_from_Patriot_Act_oversight

That's right. Bush is even so arrogant as to sign into law articles he will openly declare that he will defy them if they are put into practice. I particularly like this part, "the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties"

Basically, if the law gets in the way of what he wants to do, he will do it anyway, without oversight, without accountability, and without congressional authority.

There is a certain irony in that he would claim that wartime powers permit ANYTHING as Congress has never declared war.

One has to respect that Ron Paul, following the constitution proposed granting letters of marque, so that America proper would not have to engage in war on nations that may or may not harbor terrorists. This was generally laughed off, mostly by the (once again) arrogant neo-cons, oblivious to the fact that it would be cheaper both financially, and in the blood of the American people to do so. And everyone knows that outsourcing is where it is at. But I digress...

GTech, curious to know how you feel about the things I posted. Curious to know if you think it is constitutional for the government to wield so much power, specifically the President.

This is why AGS refers to Bin Laden as Bush's buddy. Without Bin Laden, Bush would have to deal with social domestic issues, an area he has already shown himself to be overmatched at. See economy, education, security, crisis response...

But now he has near absolute power and a war to make his primary activity, day in and day out. While people die, he exploits new ways to garner power.

 

Actually, you always refuse to look at evidence. Your mission is one and only. We all know what that is. I wasn't asked to look at evidence, I was asked to read an opinion. A rather lengthy one, after having put forth considerable effort debunking previous assertions.

Like I said, you're better off as a cheerleader. Lying and cheering, coupled with hatred for all things America are par for the course.

 

Actually, "we" as in you and I, are doing well. I've not dismissed anything. I believe I've put forth considerable effort in a reasonable discussion and for YOU to dismiss my points by simply responding with "here, read this." is rather lazy. I'm not a victim here, nor do I seek such. But if you want civil discourse, I'd like to think we can keep it honest.

You are doing no work for me. I'm taking care of my part. I simply ask that you do the same. When I present solid facts that discredit your claims (as I did), I don't expect a short whip answer that simply says "here, read this opinion" and get back to me.

That's not unreasonable to ask. I treat you with a different level than I treat others (such as boo hoo briant, gags, and gstring) because you normally put forth effort to have a civil discussion and elicit thought provoking responses.

Why would it be necessary? "Opponents" of the patriot act declare it such? Wow! So just because a critic says so, you believe it? I ask, very specifically, for you to list any particular freedom/right you believe you have given up. You don't need an exerpt from wiki stating there are opponents of the patriot act to present such. I believe everyone knows there are opponents of this act. That does not make it illegal or unconstitutional.

So was I incorrect? This is a law dealing with terrorists. You present information that terrorists have been arrested with the law. And you are disappointed in this?

Indeed. Apparently I jumped to conclusions earlier when I noted I believed you did not support certain groups/people. Is this an admission that I was false? What do you believe this actually proves? That terrorists were arrested and charged and America was kept safe? Or are you disappointed in that too?

Yeah, right! I'm sure it has nothing to do with blind hatred and catering to terrorists Actually, I call them "troofers." "Truth" is not part of what they stand for.

The responsibility of the POTUS is to protect the American people. Despite that democrats do not want our country protected. As I read your comments, you seem to be quite concerned about the feelings of terrorists. I had originally thought that was not you, but considering that everything keeps pointing back to one thing...going after terrorists, and you continue to raise objections to do that, I'm left wondering what it is that really has you upset?

To recap, you claimed something that was not true.
I corrected that.
Your response? "here read all this opinion and get back to me."
Now we have a new level of disappointment that Bush is going after terrorists.
Who voted the Patriot Act into power?
Who are being taken off the streets because of it?
What freedom have you lost because of it? I continue to ask this question and you continue to ignore it. Since clearly you have not come up with anyone who has been falsely charged under the Patriot Act and apparently it seems to be working well for going after terrorists, I fail to see what you objection is, unless in fact, you are disappointed that terrorists are being caught.

I don't believe he's going to let democrats willfully do harm to our country, despite their apparent desire to do so.

I certainly don't respect paul. Everytime I see him speak, he sounds like a little girl complaining. He sounds like a battered wife. Fortunately, he rates in at a big whopping 0% in polls where his supporters cannot willfully and repeatedly vote in order to make him appear more popular than he is. But I do wonder...if America were attacked with RP in power would he:

1) Blame America first, like he does now?
2) Say that we deserved it because we've been bad boys?
3) Tell Americans that it would be wrong to counter such an attack?
4) Blame it on a government conspiracy?
5) All of the above?

Let's get real here. RP couldn't stand up and defend a fly. He comes across as such every time he speaks. Maybe that's why people like you support him? Because if America were attacked again, he'd do absolutely nothing about it?

How do I feel? I feel like you discounted what I debunked earlier and instead of addressing it, move on to new issues. I feel like you are hesitant to list a freedom you feel you have lost. I feel like you are disappointed in our country for going after those that want to attack it. And those are very disturbing things. I would have thought you a better man that that. I'm not attack you here, just being observant of what you are saying. It's really quite alarming.

I disagree with this assessment. AGS has clearly admitted numerous times that he doesn't believe al qaida is a threat and actually defends them. The economy is great. Not much to take issue with there. Though I have seen those who have a blinded hatred for Bush try to assert such, then when countered with real hard evidence, suggest the MSM is to blame. Heh!

I disagree with this assessment. I believe the president saw clearly what happened on 9/11 and vowed that it would never happen again. Some people are grateful for that, others wish we would be attacked again because of some twisted mental disease.

Terrorism existed before Bush. It will exist after Bush. We saw how democrats dealed with it (virtually ignored it) during the 90s. We saw how Bush dealt with it (remarkably well, though some wish terrorists had better odds). I can't even fathom what would happen if RP were elected. My God, this country would be open target practice and RP would do everything in his power to do absolutely nothing about it. That...is scary.

 

The more I see from you defending the current Administration the more I think that you should get off your sorry arse, forget DP and get out there to Eye Rack and fight for this "BS war on terror (TM)" GTech.

You're just a warmongering hawk.

Be brave buddy, GO GET DEM TERRRRISTS.

 

LMAO! That was good!

Good lap dog! Avoid discussing the issue, like boo hoo briant and do what you do best.

BTW, alex jones does your thinking for you. You are not authorized to have an individual thought.

 

Are you familiar with the constitution?

Apparently you missed this part of my quote

Apparently the Act did contain elements that were unconstitutional.

Back to laziness, please bother to read before you dismiss casually or refute without evidence.

Returning to the subject at hand...

Again GTech, you should check the Constitution specifically for the powers that are granted to the three branches and understand the system of checks and balances.

I have no objection to going after terrorists. I have a problem with how it is being done. And how this administration continues to subvert the law and checks/balances along the way. Going after terrorists is the umbrella under which they operate.

But is it his absolute and divine right to do so? I voted for this guy the first time out. You tell me. Are our enemies the democrats, the people who question the government, Ron Paul, Alex Jones or are they the people who are still free, roaming where we do not know, plotting their next attack? Focus friend, focus. Not hocus pocus like the executive privilege Bush uses for everything he won't allow scrutiny upon like the firing of attorneys or covering up for the Pat Tillman lies.

Working backwards, Paul may come off as wimpy, but Bush comes off like a wannabee cowboy. An extra from the cast of Dallas.

And on whose watch did the WTC get attacked? Bush? Giuliani?

Paul has clearly and repeatedly stated his position both on pursuing terrorists (Letters of Marque and Reprisal), voted to go to Afghanistan, and is willing to back any war that Congress declares legally.

Paul has NEVER blamed the American people, and I challenge you to find one source for such. He has challenged policy and the actions of past administrations. Now for someone like you, who has a hard time differentiating between government and citizenry, that may be hard to comprehend, but it is what it is. The 9-11 report backs his assertion that the US may have kindled or fanned the fire of terrorist attacks.

Familiarize yourself with the term blowback. Rudy didn't know it, and made an ass of himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wtc_bombing#Connection_to_Mujahadeen_and_US_training

Do I feel guilt about this? No. I feel anger. I'm angry that foreign policy helped to train and equip radicals. And I'm angry that it is continuing (see the missing weapons thread). You'll probably come back with some nonsense about how I hate America because I think we brought the attacks on ourselves. Not at all. It's your unique perspective that everything the government does is synonymous with public disclosure, support, or understanding.

The things you feel are incorrect. And yet you continue to post them in a passive/aggressive response to facts. A right we've surrendered? Search and seizure. Privacy. And in the event you are picked up without ID, there is an opportunity to incarcerate you without habeas corpus.

Well, I disagree with AGS in that Al Qaida is a threat. A damn serious one. Which begs the question why we are fighting on one front militarily when this is a known global organization? That MSM stuff is soft and baloney, it's akin to the weak crap lorien looks for like a squirrel putting away nuts for the winter. It's irrelevant, because you will never see me take up for such idiotic ideas.

And the economy is not great pal. Industrially, we're losing massive ground to Asia. Our dollar is on the verge of sinking to the value of toilet paper. The housing market is depressed, and the deficit keeps skyrocketing. You're either uninformed, or naive on that issue.

The president will be out of office in 2 years. No one can control what the next administration will do. Unless a situation was created where elections would be suspended. But even then, my impression is that you would just nod your head in agreement, as the ideals of democracy are lost, because a prevailing point you make, is that the ends justify the means. In some ways, you would probably make the perfect Al Qaida operative. You call loss of life in an unwinnable war, honorable (not that I do not have tremendous respect for those who serve their country and risk their lives), instead of finding an honorable way for them to come home and be parents, and enjoy the benefits we do each day.

Again, you are wrong. The WTC bombing under Clinton saw the terrorists captured and tried in the judicial system, without having to setup a gulag at Guantanamo Bay or suspension of basic human rights. It didn't require breaking international treaties or laws. In that aspect, Clinton was infinitely superior to Bush. He acted swiftly and achieved a measure of closure.

If Paul were elected, none of us could fathom what he might do. His greatest value now is being a spoiler, a voice in the wilderness. Someone who splits the vote and questions convention. Our leaders could do with some fire under their asses, at least in my opinion. I'm not interested in being a human whoopee cushion for George Bush's brain farts, or those of Obama, Clinton or Giuliani.

 

That is quote of the week, I am still LMAO at it!

Whereas we might slightly differ in how we perceive things guerilla I agree with a lot of what you say and I tip my hat to you for the fact you are willing to spend time and effort debating these sheeple in a calm and reasoned manner.