Of course, but you don’t expect to reach Brutus with that, do you? Abstract concepts, such as the necessity for the defense of civil liberties for the security of all, are difficult for him to grasp, whereas correcting him on a more concrete topic is a more practical proposition.
How many American citizens are locked up in Guantanamo again?
Not a one. Nor have I claimed otherwise. Nor has anyone else, to my knowledge, which begs the question of why you’re ASKING this particular question.
Admittedly, the guys in Guantanamo don’t seem to have much in the way of rights, as last we heard, nobody wants to declare them POWs or criminals, or much of anything else which would require the administration to take any action with them.
But they ain’t citizens of the USA, nor has anyone claimed otherwise.
I do seem to remember saying something about how the administration was seeking to do to American citizens the same thing it’s done to the inhabitants of Guantanamo… WAAAAY back in the OP.
Perhaps this is what has confused you into asking a completely irrelevant question.
kaylasdad99, you are evil. I had that song(with the original words, not the Shrubya version running around my head for HOURs last night. Short repetitive, catchy tunes should not be used for parodies!
Do you mean that ONLY American citizens should be allowed freedom and due process and the right to trial and the right to face their accuser and the benifit of innocent until proven guilty?
Whether they ARE American citizens or not what is being done to them is truly evil.
And yet, one of your major gripes is the Patriot Act. An Act which 357 members of the House of Representatives voted in favor of - 145 of which were Democrats. Even tho’ I think the Act exceeds any reasonable interpretation of the powers of the federal government, the fact is, this Bill enjoyed broad bi-partisan support. It is far from an example of “one guy RUNNING the relentless wheels of government.”
I fervently hope that at least part of that broad bi-partisan support was a combination of:
-The immediate post-9/11 mindset
-The fact that it’s called the “patriot act”
-Spineless politicians wondering how their constituents would react to the previous two points
This goes for Republicans as well as Democrats, by the way. Given that principled and honest Republicans on this board (among other places) have criticized the Patriot Act, I see no reason why Republicans in congress shouldn’t oppose it.
In any case, the fact that some Democratic congresspeople were spineless, stupid, corrupt, or unprincipled enough to vote for it doesn’t mean that we should stop criticizing and blaming Bush for having proposed it in the first place.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
The Constitution allows the President to appoint judges when the Senate is not in session. I suspect that this exception in the Constitution was intended as an emergency measure – not as a way of getting around the will of the Senate./QUOTE]
Well, since the Dems won’t let the judges be voted on by the entire Senate, how do we KNOW that he is getting around their will?
Yes… but considering the sweeping powers the Act GIVES the executive branch, I can’t help but think I’ve got a bit of a point, here. Especially considering that Bush has already made it clear he’d like the Act to be made permanent… as opposed to letting parts of it expire, like they were designed to do.
You forgot Ashcroft telling Congress to hurry up, that if another terrorist attack happened while they were still debating the bill the blood would be on their hands.
Isn’t it wonderful how our system of democracy works?
Yes . . . but the reality of the situation, no matter with whom the power now lies, is that it required majority votes of both bodies of a bi-cameral legislature to grant those powers to the executive branch. This is hardly the man acting alone you imply it to be. And further, the powers, as I said, have been granted to the executive branch - a vast body of people - not the president alone, nor the office of the president alone. If you think George Bush knows everything that’s going on within the executive branch and has condoned it, let alone is directing those activities, you’re sorely mistaken. The man, actually no man, has neither the time, nor the ability, to manage, or even oversee, such a massive array of activities. And we all know that Bush is a complete and utter dumbass, right? Surely this would be well beyond his capabilities.
Not that any of that, mind you, relieves him of culpability; I’m just taking exception to your argument that Bush is one man acting alone. He’s not and cannot be.
You are, of course, quite correct.
I never meant to imply that Bush was acting alone. Far from it; he’s benefited immensely from his father’s advice, connections, and so forth. Even he would admit that.
I also never meant to imply that he and he alone was what was behind everything going on right now in the government that irritates me. But, by the same token, I don’t believe Bush is a hayseed dumbass, either.
Bush would make a fine CEO. Everything he’s done so far, the way he has his administration running, has indicated that when it comes to furthering the interests of a single, goal-directed organization, he’s got the right stuff.
He is not, however, a statesman. Far as I can tell, he’s not really even a leader. His sole claim to leadership is that he can make quick, solid decisions that further the goals and agenda of the organization.
Unfortunately, running a country isn’t that simple.
A corporation has but one goal: keeping the stockholders happy. Generally, this goes hand in hand with making buttloads of money. Most corporations that can do one generally prove adept at the other.
A government, on the other hand, is a far different beast, particularly a government that is supposed to represent ALL the citizens, not just the ones willing to contribute to your administration or campaign funds in a significant way. Far as I can tell, Bush has failed miserably there, at least in part due to his dogged determination to carry through with his administration’s primary agenda: serving the segment of the population most likely to respond positively to his policies, goals, and agenda.
No, Bush is not acting alone. He has put together quite a team to help him there, notably his Veep, a former Halliburton crony, and a gaggle of assorted lobbyists and former corporate bigwigs. Anyone remember how Enron helped him put together his energy policy?
So, yes, we can agree that Bush Doesn’t Do It Alone.
But he hand-picks those who serve in his administration. And so far, they seem to be exactly what he wants them to be.
Happy to have been of service.
Well, except Paul O’Neill…
Oh, and by the way, most of the senior folks in his administration may be picked by him, but they are either voted on by the American people (Cheney) or confirmed by the Congress (all the Cabinet officers). And you look at the record, the following Nazi-fellow travelers voted to confirm that Nazi John Ashcroft:
John Breaux (D-La.)
Robert C. Byrd (KKK, I mean D-W.Va.)
Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.)
Russell Feingold (D-Wis.)
Zell Miller (D-Ga.)
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)
Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)
Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.)
And I don’t recall any fillibuster attempt there either.