Do some homework. Stop regurgitating MSNBC headlines.
I recently read the statements with dashes in front of them on the blog of a friend of a friend. I don't want to be a bad house guest on his blog and wouldn't respond here at all if he hadn't been so superciliously dismissive of the response I did make there. This is my house though, and unlike his place, I welcome **informed** dissent. I also don't see the need to suffer fools gladly, so if you are sincere and have citations and an informed opinion feel free to post, but if all you've got is hysterical half-truths and emotionally unstable rants, you're asking for it.
-The case for impeaching the President
- Imprisoning persons, both citizens and foreign nationals, without charge for long periods, with no recourse to courts for redress simply on basis of nationality, ethnic or national ancestry or type of surname
Unlawful combatants on the battlefield. It used to be that cowards who hid behind women and children, as well as spies that fought while wearing civilian clothing or the uniform of the enemy were shot without trial, or compunction, on the spot. Now we give them three squares, heat, light, and exercise, and a Koran.
------------------------------------------------------
- Suspending the writ of habeas corpus, which has been the foundation of law in all civilized societies at least since the signing of the Magna Carta
Apparently you want us to read each unlawful combatant his rights and assign him a lawyer. By the way, wasn't Lincoln around after the Magna Carta was signed. He suspended Habeas Corpus too. You should look that up, and study it a little.
-----------------------------------------------------
- Spying on the private communications of law-abiding citizens without warrants having been obtained beforehand as required by law
The communications that are monitored are to overseas locations suspected of being terrorist locations or communications points.
International communications, especially of enemies, have always been fair game for the military to listen in on, even under Carter and Clinton.
The local call's information doesn't include who made the call or what was said. It only records what number called which and for how long. It helps computer programs show connections to terrorists. It does not eavesdrop on the conversations. Besides, it's still being worked through the courts. You remember them doncha? I know that pesky 'innocent until proven guilty' thing should only apply to politicians that YOU like, but for now we'll just have to keep applying it to everybody.
-----------------------------------------------------
- Refusing to comply with lawful requests for information from Congress, the press and government agencies, even under threat of contempt, citing "executive privilege"
This is a lie. The requests are unlawful. The 3 branches of government are separate and equal. The Legislative branch is trying to micromanage the Executive branch by looking at internal documents. Additionally, Congress is doing that for partisan political reasons, so they can find something they can twist to make people look bad. Sorry we can't just rubber stamp your argument, but it's bogus. This sort of thing is exactly what executive privilege is for.
If there is a finding of contempt of congress then you may have a leg to stand on, but it won't happen 'cause they know they're wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------
- Refusal to obey the will of the people who elected him, as expressed through their elected representatives in Congress
The President does what he feels is best. If people don't like it they can elect another President. If he breaks a law Congress can impeach him. The President and Congress know secrets and support the war against terrorists. Revealing all of the military and intelligence secrets so the people of the US can make informed decisions would also inform all of our enemies of intricate details about our capabilities. The will of the people is that their elected officials perform the duties and make the decisions for which they are qualified and upon which qualifications they were elected.
-----------------------------------------------------
- Defying portions of legislation he has signed by the use of "signing statements" citing his refusal to comply with those portions
You'll have to actually cite something particular to have a discussion instead of a rant but generally, signing statements say how he interprets the law. The Supreme Court has the job of interpreting the Constitution and the law. They need to weigh in if the President is misinterpreting something. Someone can sue if the "misinterpretation" is hurting them. It's often referred to as checks and balances, but you knew that didn't you?
-----------------------------------------------------
- Invasion and occupation of another sovereign nation, with no real provocation, no actual threat to our shores or people and no end in sight, or even considered
He had the approval of Congress. Saddam was paying terrorists and had used chemical weapons on Iraqis and Iran. The bulk of the Intelligence community, both in the US and in Europe, including France, believed Saddam was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. If you'd like to begin an exhaustive comparison of sources and a actual, factual debate, then I say, "Lay on MacDuff". Sadly, what I think you got is "Bush lied, troops died" and then you're stumped.
-----------------------------------------------------
- Arranging for the public exposure of a covert government agent in vindictive retaliation, not even for any action of hers, but for her husband's criticism of official policy
A lie. President Bush had nothing to do with it, Valerie Plame was not a covert agent according to the law, and she and her husband committed perjury. BTW, no one who had any business doing it sent that Bozo to investigate anything. His wife finagled it and he is an utter punchline to everybody involved, except in public where they need him as a tool for attacking the current administration. If Valerie looked like Linda Tripp, she never would have got into congressional chambers, leave alone on TV.
-----------------------------------------------------
- Ordering or condoning the mass firing of U.S. Attorneys whose records were without malfeasance, for the "crime" of refusing to ignore the law and its fair application in favor of his political agenda
US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. You seem to have no problem with President Clinton firing over 90 US attorneys when he was President.
-----------------------------------------------------
-These are not the actions of a President, a wise and just leader elected democratically by and responsible to the people. These are the actions of a tyrant, a dictator, who believes in his own infallibility and rules by what he sees as divine right, who spits on the very Constitution he swore an oath to uphold.
If he has broken the law then sue him. He is representing my will quite well, except that I wish he would have done more to secure the borders from illegal aliens.
Allowing Saddam to continue when Democrats knew in 1998 that Saddam was seeking nuclear and chemical weapons would be unconscionable.
==================================================================
-This man must go-NOW. It is time, and long past it.
-Yours for seeing Bush and Cheney perp-walked out of the White House in handcuffs,
-TCC
Anything you'd like to back up with facts and citations I will gladly answer in kind. Same goes for any more uninformed, vituperative, pusillanimous, rhetoric against people you don't even know and whose decisions you are wholly unqualified to judge.
One more thing.
-If the "liberal media" (never mind the huge corporations that own most of it, which tend to be anything but liberal - cf. "What Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman) are so deviously keeping The Real Truth from us, where, pray tell, are YOU getting it? From Rush, Sean, Bill and Ann et al. on talk radio and Faux News?
It's typical projection for you to accuse me of using what you consider biased and discreditable sources since that's generally how those who sound like you do it, but actually I'm a minor historian, and the internet has opened up sources of every ilk for the true open-minded researcher. I no longer have to go to CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, or BBC to get my opinions drip fed to me. I can actually 'look stuff up' for myself and form my own opinions instead of regurgitating headlines that I don't understand. BTW, from your comment about Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge and the Hanoi Hilton, it's obvious that you didn't even read the speech that you were trashing. That might have been your first choice if you wanted any credibility. You might want to actually crack a history book too. Just sayin'
-The case for impeaching the President
- Imprisoning persons, both citizens and foreign nationals, without charge for long periods, with no recourse to courts for redress simply on basis of nationality, ethnic or national ancestry or type of surname
Unlawful combatants on the battlefield. It used to be that cowards who hid behind women and children, as well as spies that fought while wearing civilian clothing or the uniform of the enemy were shot without trial, or compunction, on the spot. Now we give them three squares, heat, light, and exercise, and a Koran.
------------------------------------------------------
- Suspending the writ of habeas corpus, which has been the foundation of law in all civilized societies at least since the signing of the Magna Carta
Apparently you want us to read each unlawful combatant his rights and assign him a lawyer. By the way, wasn't Lincoln around after the Magna Carta was signed. He suspended Habeas Corpus too. You should look that up, and study it a little.
-----------------------------------------------------
- Spying on the private communications of law-abiding citizens without warrants having been obtained beforehand as required by law
The communications that are monitored are to overseas locations suspected of being terrorist locations or communications points.
International communications, especially of enemies, have always been fair game for the military to listen in on, even under Carter and Clinton.
The local call's information doesn't include who made the call or what was said. It only records what number called which and for how long. It helps computer programs show connections to terrorists. It does not eavesdrop on the conversations. Besides, it's still being worked through the courts. You remember them doncha? I know that pesky 'innocent until proven guilty' thing should only apply to politicians that YOU like, but for now we'll just have to keep applying it to everybody.
-----------------------------------------------------
- Refusing to comply with lawful requests for information from Congress, the press and government agencies, even under threat of contempt, citing "executive privilege"
This is a lie. The requests are unlawful. The 3 branches of government are separate and equal. The Legislative branch is trying to micromanage the Executive branch by looking at internal documents. Additionally, Congress is doing that for partisan political reasons, so they can find something they can twist to make people look bad. Sorry we can't just rubber stamp your argument, but it's bogus. This sort of thing is exactly what executive privilege is for.
If there is a finding of contempt of congress then you may have a leg to stand on, but it won't happen 'cause they know they're wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------
- Refusal to obey the will of the people who elected him, as expressed through their elected representatives in Congress
The President does what he feels is best. If people don't like it they can elect another President. If he breaks a law Congress can impeach him. The President and Congress know secrets and support the war against terrorists. Revealing all of the military and intelligence secrets so the people of the US can make informed decisions would also inform all of our enemies of intricate details about our capabilities. The will of the people is that their elected officials perform the duties and make the decisions for which they are qualified and upon which qualifications they were elected.
-----------------------------------------------------
- Defying portions of legislation he has signed by the use of "signing statements" citing his refusal to comply with those portions
You'll have to actually cite something particular to have a discussion instead of a rant but generally, signing statements say how he interprets the law. The Supreme Court has the job of interpreting the Constitution and the law. They need to weigh in if the President is misinterpreting something. Someone can sue if the "misinterpretation" is hurting them. It's often referred to as checks and balances, but you knew that didn't you?
-----------------------------------------------------
- Invasion and occupation of another sovereign nation, with no real provocation, no actual threat to our shores or people and no end in sight, or even considered
He had the approval of Congress. Saddam was paying terrorists and had used chemical weapons on Iraqis and Iran. The bulk of the Intelligence community, both in the US and in Europe, including France, believed Saddam was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. If you'd like to begin an exhaustive comparison of sources and a actual, factual debate, then I say, "Lay on MacDuff". Sadly, what I think you got is "Bush lied, troops died" and then you're stumped.
-----------------------------------------------------
- Arranging for the public exposure of a covert government agent in vindictive retaliation, not even for any action of hers, but for her husband's criticism of official policy
A lie. President Bush had nothing to do with it, Valerie Plame was not a covert agent according to the law, and she and her husband committed perjury. BTW, no one who had any business doing it sent that Bozo to investigate anything. His wife finagled it and he is an utter punchline to everybody involved, except in public where they need him as a tool for attacking the current administration. If Valerie looked like Linda Tripp, she never would have got into congressional chambers, leave alone on TV.
-----------------------------------------------------
- Ordering or condoning the mass firing of U.S. Attorneys whose records were without malfeasance, for the "crime" of refusing to ignore the law and its fair application in favor of his political agenda
US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. You seem to have no problem with President Clinton firing over 90 US attorneys when he was President.
-----------------------------------------------------
-These are not the actions of a President, a wise and just leader elected democratically by and responsible to the people. These are the actions of a tyrant, a dictator, who believes in his own infallibility and rules by what he sees as divine right, who spits on the very Constitution he swore an oath to uphold.
If he has broken the law then sue him. He is representing my will quite well, except that I wish he would have done more to secure the borders from illegal aliens.
Allowing Saddam to continue when Democrats knew in 1998 that Saddam was seeking nuclear and chemical weapons would be unconscionable.
==================================================================
-This man must go-NOW. It is time, and long past it.
-Yours for seeing Bush and Cheney perp-walked out of the White House in handcuffs,
-TCC
Anything you'd like to back up with facts and citations I will gladly answer in kind. Same goes for any more uninformed, vituperative, pusillanimous, rhetoric against people you don't even know and whose decisions you are wholly unqualified to judge.
One more thing.
-If the "liberal media" (never mind the huge corporations that own most of it, which tend to be anything but liberal - cf. "What Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman) are so deviously keeping The Real Truth from us, where, pray tell, are YOU getting it? From Rush, Sean, Bill and Ann et al. on talk radio and Faux News?
It's typical projection for you to accuse me of using what you consider biased and discreditable sources since that's generally how those who sound like you do it, but actually I'm a minor historian, and the internet has opened up sources of every ilk for the true open-minded researcher. I no longer have to go to CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, or BBC to get my opinions drip fed to me. I can actually 'look stuff up' for myself and form my own opinions instead of regurgitating headlines that I don't understand. BTW, from your comment about Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge and the Hanoi Hilton, it's obvious that you didn't even read the speech that you were trashing. That might have been your first choice if you wanted any credibility. You might want to actually crack a history book too. Just sayin'