Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

107 | 108 | 109

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

MAR 24, 2007 11:54 AM

George Bush is king. It happened yesterday, while we were all going about our business. Tony Snow broke the news to us on almost every news show and even during a White House press conference.


Snow to MSNBC: “There’s another principle, which is Congress doesn’t have the legislative — I mean oversight authority over the White House.”

Snow to MSNBC: “First, the White House is under no compulsion to do anything. The legislative branch doesn’t have oversight.”

Snow to Fox: “Congress doesn’t have any legitimate oversight and responsibilities to the White House.”

Snow to NBC: "Congress doesn't have any legitimate oversight and responsibilities to the White House."

Snow to NBC: "First, the White House is under no compulsion to do anything. The legislative branch doesn't have oversight."

Snow to ABC: "The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability."

MR. SNOW: Congress…does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we're doing something that we're not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we're doing.


Um. Okay. Now I’m not sure what to do. When someone tells you everything you learned as a child about your government is wrong – and that person is IN CHARGE, what do you do? This is quite simply freaky and disturbing.

The president has declared himself above the laws of our country and has said he will not be a part of our system of government. I don’t give a shit if you are conservative or liberal or moderate, you should understand we are walking into some very strange territory and anyone who supports this bullshit should be cast into the sea. (Do we do that?)

Oversight is real. The Supreme Court has ruled on it, on more than one occasion.


In affirming Congress' oversight powers, the Supreme Court in McGrain v. Daugherty stated that "the power of inquiry – with process to enforce it – is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function." In Watkins v. United States the Court described Congress' oversight power by stating that the "power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad." The Supreme Court also observed that "a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change."


Don’t sit back and think, wow, this is so out of character. We have been heading toward this for quite some time. Bush lied to get us into a disastrous war, he has been illegally tapping our phones, illegally looking at our internet exchanges, he broke campaign funding laws, he is writing his own little additions on laws passed by Congress, he has violated the anti-torture statute, as well as international torture laws, he has suspended habeas corpus and outed a CIA agent. Representative John Conyers believes Bush has broken 26 laws.

Put aside the fact that this makes the White House seem like it really has something to hide, that they are so guilty and have committed such crimes that they have to defy the Constitution.

Ask yourself this: What does happen when a sitting president decides he’s not going to play by the rules set forth by our Constitution? What happens when a President just says, “I’m not going to do that?” Not follow laws, just going to do what he wants to do. Welcome to scary territory.

JackCrowder

jackcrowder

Baytown, TX
August 2005

MAR 24, 2007 02:05 PM

Jesus wept.

fake111

fake111

Bushkill, PA
October 2002

MAR 24, 2007 02:07 PM

one day when theres no more oil to be had, people will drag them from the streets like Mussolini

hope Im there to see the day

attn_ho

attn_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

MAR 24, 2007 02:14 PM

great sobering article.
now lets wait for our conservative/ libertarian underdogs to make absolutely no points, but lots of bluster.
wait: i got some!

1. its not a big deal.
2. clinton did it too!
3. you guys wouldnt be complaining if a democrat did this.
4. you know, in a way, this is the right choice.
5. god, you liberals are such losers.

DyeWhiteGirls

DyeWhiteGirls

Madison, WI
December 2003

MAR 24, 2007 02:16 PM

You know what's funny? If someone said this 5 years ago, they would have been called a conspiracy theorist. Today, they'll be called a liberal. In a year, we'll just be called inmates.

Welcome to the New World Order in which none of us ever has a say in anything. Go read "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars" and wonder just how insane (because he was at least a little insane) Bill Cooper was.

DyeWhiteGirls

DyeWhiteGirls

Madison, WI
December 2003

MAR 24, 2007 02:20 PM

attn_ho said:
great sobering article.
now lets wait for our conservative/ libertarian underdogs to make absolutely no points, but lots of bluster.
wait: i got some!

1. its not a big deal.
2. clinton did it too!
3. you guys wouldnt be complaining if a democrat did this.
4. you know, in a way, this is the right choice.
5. god, you liberals are such losers.



Don't forget everyone's favorite: 6. You're all a bunch of granola eating, sandal wearing, patchouli smelling hippies who live on communes and don't eat animals.

freshprncebelair

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD
June 2004

MAR 24, 2007 02:22 PM

DyeWhiteGirls said:
You know what's funny? If someone said this 5 years ago, they would have been called a conspiracy theorist. Today, they'll be called a liberal. In a year, we'll just be called inmates.

Welcome to the New World Order in which none of us ever has a say in anything. Go read "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars" and wonder just how insane (because he was at least a little insane) Bill Cooper was.



Now is a great time to buy a gun, if you haven't already.

bedukay

bedukay

Endicott, NY
March 2003

MAR 24, 2007 02:23 PM

attn_ho said:
conservative/ libertarian underdogs to make absolutely no points, but lots of bluster.
wait: i got some!



Well considering that strict adherence to the Constitution is the basis of Libertarian thought its completely ignorant to think that a Libertarian would defend this.

OpticNerve

OpticNerve

Arlington, MA
November 2003

MAR 24, 2007 02:24 PM

I wonder how long it will be before the White House starts using a variation of the Divine Right of Kings to justify its policies?

attn_ho

attn_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

MAR 24, 2007 02:30 PM

bedukay said:

attn_ho said:
conservative/ libertarian underdogs to make absolutely no points, but lots of bluster.
wait: i got some!



Well considering that strict adherence to the Constitution is the basis of Libertarian thought its completely ignorant to think that a Libertarian would defend this.



hey i cant keep the real and fake libertarians on this site straight.

optimusmime

optimusmime

Campbell, CA
December 2006

MAR 24, 2007 02:33 PM

attn_ho said:

bedukay said:

attn_ho said:
conservative/ libertarian underdogs to make absolutely no points, but lots of bluster.
wait: i got some!



Well considering that strict adherence to the Constitution is the basis of Libertarian thought its completely ignorant to think that a Libertarian would defend this.



hey i cant keep the real and fake libertarians on this site straight.



+1

Belllla

Belllla

Houston, TX
February 2004

MAR 24, 2007 03:09 PM

xfinitex

xfinitex

East Lansing, MI
August 2005

MAR 24, 2007 03:12 PM

I already had a headache. This just made it worse.

I think the unfortunate thing is that if congress tries to do anything about it, Bush can say 'Weren't you listening? You don't have oversight'

DeadGuyPerez

DeadGuyPerez

Denver, CO
January 2003

MAR 24, 2007 03:14 PM

It's good to know Bush can't run for office again but the scary thing is this may be setting a future status quo in the way the White House functions. The entire basis for the way our government was set up was a notion of freedom from tyranny and the ability for us to govern ourselves. If whoever is President throws all of that out the window, there may be a second American Revolution in years to come. I think it would take a lot of time and serious denial of liberty before the majority of the population get pissed off enough to get to that point but this is starting to sound like some serious 1984/Big Brother shit.

thatoneguy23

thatoneguy23

Ewa Beach, HI
October 2005

MAR 24, 2007 03:41 PM

Then again, if you really think about it, who knows if he really would have to leave in '08? He is the commander and chief, and I know from personal experience that a lot of the people in lower end of our military have a tendancy to be easily manipulated, conservative in nature, and follow the orders given to them to the T. Who's to say that he couldn't just stage his own little coup... just decide, maybe 8 years wasn't enough, who wants go for a second round. A lot of America simply believes things that are shown on TV... hell when Giligans island was airing, the coast guard and navy had quite a few calls stating "why wont someone help those poor people on the island". Shit, look at Iraq... someone provided a bunch of obveously false information and people ate it up. They couldn't even keep their lies straight... "umm it weapons of mass destruction"... "no we mean its Al Quida"... "His people are oppressed". Yet people supported it. Who in america would really DO anything... who would stand up and protect our rights...congress? Because the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act were approved. Hell the redneck gun-toting backwoods psychos that consider themselves the supports of "true american freedoms" (de-de-duh) happen to be the percentage that still support this jackass and his illegal regime.

LoL, woohoo did that not sound paranoid or what!!

Of course these are just some ramblings...

Peace... lol lets hope.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAR 24, 2007 03:52 PM

thatoneguy23 said:
Then again, if you really think about it, who knows if he really would have to leave in '08? He is the commander and chief, and I know from personal experience that a lot of the people in lower end of our military have a tendancy to be easily manipulated, conservative in nature, and follow the orders given to them to the T. Who's to say that he couldn't just stage his own little coup... .



Isn't that what just happened?

MschfMayhemSoap

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ
April 2006

MAR 24, 2007 03:57 PM

I currently have 3 prime thoughts on this:

1:

Bella303 said:



I figure Bush knows this and thinks "Hell, Im gonna be outsed either way..."

2.

FearTheReaper said:
Representative John Conyers believes Bush has broken 26 laws.



And do any of these laws fall outside his presidential immunity, so he can actually be charged for it?

and 3.

OpticNerve said:
I wonder how long it will be before the White House starts using a variation of the Divine Right of Kings to justify its policies?



As soon as the Ministry of Truth shuts down this article wink

JekyllAndHyde

JekyllAndHyde

Baltimore, MD
April 2005

MAR 24, 2007 04:08 PM

It's weird; I just started rewatching my DVDs of Babylon 5 a few days ago and this all sounds uncomfortably similar. Unfortunately for us, we don't have a Captain Sheridan with a fleet of White Stars to kick the tyrant out of power.

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

MAR 24, 2007 04:28 PM

Just read an article by John Dean, of Nixon Watergate fame. It's a very good read. He breaks down the power struggle that is going on and why.

Here's an excerpt.


Fielding was White House Counsel, however, during one of the more thrilling episodes involving executive privilege -- one that could parallel the current situation, with Congress calling for testimony by White House aide Karl Rove and former aide Harriet Miers. In explaining what happened back in 1982, I've drawn heavily on -- paraphrasing, greatly abbreviating, and then quoting -- Mark Rozell's report:

Two House committees issued subpoenas to EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, directing her to appear before Congress with certain documents. Gorsuch was prepared to turn over the documents, but the Justice Department urged President Reagan to assert executive privilege. When he did so, White House Counsel Fielding assured Gorsuch that "the administration would stand solidly behind this claim of executive privilege."

When Gorsuch invoked the privilege, both committees voted to hold her in contempt, and on December 16, 1982, the House of Representatives voted 259-105 to find her in contempt of Congress. Immediately following the House vote, however, the Justice Department filed civil suit against the House of Representatives. Then, rather than follow the language of the contempt statute, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia -- obviously after being instructed by the Justice Department regarding this matter- refused to "bring the matter before the grand jury for their action" while the suit against the House was pending. (It was a delaying ploy.)

The House requested that the federal district court dismiss the civil lawsuit, which the court did. The court also encouraged the two branches "to settle their differences without further judicial involvement" and warned that "f these two co-equal branches maintain their present adversarial positions, the Judicial Branch will be required to resolve the dispute by determining the validity of the Administrator's claim of executive privilege."

Two weeks later, the Administration made a deal with one of the congressional committees, agreeing to a limited disclosure of the requested information. Again, EPA administrator Gorsuch pushed for full disclosure, but the White House disagreed. Meanwhile, the other congressional committee would not agree to a limited release and continued to press for full disclosure, advising the White House that the investigations would continue until the documents were provided.

Having had enough, Gorsuch resigned her position as head of EPA when the White House finally agreed to release its documents Congress wanted. Following the contempt statute, the U.S. attorney presented a contempt citation to a grand jury, which unanimously declined to indict Gorsuch.

Rozell concludes, "Although the administration initially had taken a strong stand on executive privilege, it backed down in the face of mounting political pressure. The decision to compromise did not settle the executive privilege controversy. The House Committee on the Judiciary further investigated the Justice Department role in the controversy and concluded that the department had misused executive privilege by advocating the withholding of documents that had not been thoroughly reviewed. T bghe committee also alleged that the department withheld documents to cover up wrongdoing at EPA. The administration's compromise served as a temporary political expedient which eventually allowed Congress to examine previously withheld documents and draw broader conclusions about the exercise of executive privilege. Reagan may have won a temporary reprieve from political pressures, but he had lost ground in his effort to re-establish the viability of the doctrine of executive privilege."

It Seems Likely Bush, with Fielding, Will Go to the Wall on Executive Privilege

This time, it is my belief that Bush -- unlike Reagan before him -- will not blink. He will not let Fielding strike a deal, as Fielding did for Reagan. Rather, Bush feels that he has his manhood on the line. He knows what his conservative constituency wants: a strong president who protects his prerogatives. He believes in the unitary executive theory of protecting those prerogatives, and of strengthening the presidency by defying Congress.

In short, all those who have wanted to see Karl Rove in jail may get their wish, for he will not cave in, either -- and may well be prosecuted for contempt, as Gorsuch was not. Bush's greatest problem here, however, is Harriett Miers. It is dubious he can exert any privilege over a former White House Counsel; I doubt she is ready to go to prison for him; and all who know her say if she is under oath, she will not lie. That could be a problem.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

MAR 24, 2007 04:33 PM

this is the path Bush has been heading on since, at least, 9/11 (i'm sure i'm not the only one who didn't pay much attention to politics before that). the number one rule in Bush's book is, Bush gets to do what Bush wants to do. every major move he makes confirms this, from the invasion of Iraq to the wiretapping to the firing of the US attorneys. and every step of the way, the reasoning he's presented has been "i am the president, you can't stop me."

the problem is, he's setting precedents, and we loves us some precedents. no matter who succeeds Bush as presiden--even Obama bin Laden, the One True Dyke Joke, or Our Lord and Savior Al Gore (pbuh)--i have hard time seeing any of 'em willingly giving up the power that Bush has collected within the Oval Office. their presidency will be a living hell, because if Congress does the right thing, it will fight them tooth and nail on every issue for the sole purpose of putting the presidency back in its place.

scylis

scylis

USA
November 2004

MAR 24, 2007 04:34 PM

JekyllAndHyde said:
It's weird; I just started rewatching my DVDs of Babylon 5 a few days ago and this all sounds uncomfortably similar. Unfortunately for us, we don't have a Captain Sheridan with a fleet of White Stars to kick the tyrant out of power.



could be worse. it could be the Post Office.

Greybeard

Greybeard

Los Angeles, CA
December 2006

MAR 24, 2007 04:45 PM

It's just a replay the the Nixon "Imperial Presidency." It didn't work then, and it won't work now, for pretty much the same reasons. When push comes to shove, the Congress will assert itself, if for no other reason than protecting its own privilege and prestige.

Investigations will continue, more people will be jailed, and the President's largely imaginary base will be exposed and weakened.

It may not go as far as an impeachment, but it will do a lot for discrediting "Executive Privilege."

JekyllAndHyde

JekyllAndHyde

Baltimore, MD
April 2005

MAR 24, 2007 04:49 PM

scylis said:

JekyllAndHyde said:
It's weird; I just started rewatching my DVDs of Babylon 5 a few days ago and this all sounds uncomfortably similar. Unfortunately for us, we don't have a Captain Sheridan with a fleet of White Stars to kick the tyrant out of power.



could be worse. it could be the Post Office.



Heh. Indeed. I had forgotten about that.

phrogg

phrogg

Greenville, SC
August 2005

MAR 24, 2007 04:56 PM

OpticNerve said:
I wonder how long it will be before the White House starts using a variation of the Divine Right of Kings to justify its policies?



Already have.

HarManic

HarManic

Urbana, IL
March 2005

MAR 24, 2007 05:30 PM

I really do think, more and more, that this guy is the rebirth of Nixon, only trading Nixon's quite brilliant mind for charisma and folksiness. (And truthiness.)

It's probably in equal proportion.

Nixon Bush
ST 3 ST 5
WI 3 WI 2
INT 15 INT 2
DEX 12 DEX 6
CH 2 CH 15

Although they both appear to have equally dismal stats when it comes to Constitution.

(I also can't believe I'm making an RPG joke. I haven't played those in close to fifteen years.)

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next