I suppose Bush & Co think LBJ and Nixon had Constitutional powers to keep the Vietnam war going forever too.

Lovely.

From her statements, her policy stances, I believe the RW WANTS us to think they hate Hillary.

Personally, I find her an enemy of the Great America Liberal Philosophy, and a whole-hearted endorser of Cheney/Bush policy.

But hey, if we can make the left THINK we hate her, we can’t lose, no matter who is elected.

Call me a crazy fool, but it is what I see.

Who Benefits from Billary siding with the zionist/neocaon/ positions of foreign intervention? I think I answered that already.

Redd…

could you address John Schmitt’s column?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/…..entary-hed

I’m not a legal scholar, but the wording of his column strongly suggests that he is taking a number of court opinions out of their proper context. One big warning sign (in reference to a 1972 case) is this phrase “The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation.” Generally, statutes don’t “alter the constitutional situation.” But what FISA did was specifically prohibit statutorily warrantless evesdropping on domestic targets for intelligence gathering that was not done through FISA.

I try hard not to be amazed by the total load of McKrap TM and other effluent emerging from Cheney’s mouth. Conjecture, fantasy and opinion hurl out of his mouth and are called “facts” with no connection to mere reality. History is either smudged or re-written. The dog let loose from his leash chews the neighbor’s child beyond recognition and we are told the dog must have the run of the neighborhood. A new hue most dark shadows the land.

Or something.

How many times has Bush made the claim that we are a nation of laws, and that the law must be respected?

Maybe I am hallucinating (wow, this could just be a bad dream), but it seems like he has said this at least 100 times.

I think Bush thinks he is a CEO. CEOs have dictatorial powers, relatively. Enron and WorldCom are not the biggest CEO-caused bankruptcies. Bush is running his own little “Fat Boys,” “Death Stars,” “NSAs”, and “Abu Graibs.” The guy has balls….no ethics…but he sure has balls.

Here is what we need to do. Every progressive website can remind their readers to email their representatives in the US Senate and the House to investigate. Must repeat and phone if it does not happen. The investigation will force king george to cooperate. And how many of us believe he will? Nothing gets the people more pissed off than a president that does not cooperate with an investigation. Saturday Night Massacre is what brought Nixon down. I lived through it. I remember reading the headline and the anger I felt. I got home and wrote my senators and representative. I still have their responses.

Actually, Cheney is right about the loss of presidential power. You have to remember, he came up in the Nixon White House. Nixon is arguably the last US President to wield significant personal power. After him, the people and congress subjected everything to much greater scrutiny (current regime excepted). Nixon killed the nation’s blind trust in the office. Rightfully so, IMHO. Cheney looks back to his glory days, and wants all that and then some. We know he’s already absolutely corrupt, he wants the absolute power to go with it.

Infantile, dufus, bravado supported by machiavellian/criminal opportunism = “kleptocracy” = one hell of a lot of hard work for conscientious souls who want to save the world.

Jeralyn’s post re: admissibility of evidence from illegal surveillance:

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013495.html

L’état est nous le peuple. That’s what the constitution says. All laws emerge from “We the people”. In the end even the US Congress is not the ultimate legislator because the people can force the Congress to change every law and the constitution itself.

There is a letter dated today from the Justice Department to Congress intelligence leaders discussing the legal authority question. I found it on Glen’s Instapundit, but couldn’t grab the link for some reason.

new thread: “Oborama”

John C. – How about a link to the MSNBC poll? Make it easy for us to vote.

Just voted at the WSJ poll and posted this:

Alaskans have the right to privacy explicitly enshrined in our constitution. Thanks Sen. Murkowski for honoring your constituents and your state constitution.

I did ask some conservativs I talk to online if they’d be perfectly happy if Hillary used these same powers.
They were aghast. “Oh, so it’s ok for her to do it?”
They’re a little slow…

From the E&P article linked above “When chief Washington Post pollster Richard Morin appeared for an online chat this week, a reader from Naperville, Ill., asked him why the Post hasn’t polled on impeachment. “This question makes me mad,” Morin replied. When a second participant made the same query, Morin fumed, “Getting madder.” A third query brought the response: “Madder still.”"
Note to MSM and WH. Do not anger Jane or ReddHedd. Morin’s bluffing last week led to Jane excoriating him in an FDL article. Evidently a lot of influential types read FDL, because suddenly, that bastion of the far left, (and a WaPo affiliate) MSNBC, is running an impeachment poll.

I do not agree that the goal is to create a cult of personality around Chimpy (I do like the KGB moniker as though) – to create a monarchial all powerful Chimp King.

I believe the Chimpy cult of personality is just a tool being used to try and achieve a larger, more dangerous and potentially long lasting goal – the creation of a one party Repug State, which obvioulsy would extend beyong the “rule” of any one person (even a super genius warrior poet messiah type like Chimpy).

The Repug power grabs extend beyond the Executive – they exist in Congress as well as the judiciary. In Congress it is changing the rules to end dissent by the bothersome minority parties, in the Judiciary there are “litmus” tests – all campaigns meant to extend the authority of the all powerful “party.”

In this sense the Repugs can be compared to any totalitarian regime – you need not limit yourself to fascism. Personally, I think analogies to communist regimes are more apt b/c 20th century fascistic movements were cults of personality (Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy and Franco in Spain for example). Cults of personality have inherent instabilities for longevity or lasting power or change do to mortality, the instability of the cult figure, etc.

For communist movements – be it the Soviet Union or China for example – the important/primary goal was the establishment of the Party itself as the cult and thus the supreme arbiter of power, and what was important was the consolidation and continuation of the Party’s absolute power by having “party” men and women enforce the Party’s will through the “legitimate” organs of state power (be it the executive, legislature or judiciary).

And there are certain advantages to having the Party, rather than an individual, be what the cult worships. For one, it allows for purges – the Party is never wrong, only false party prophets who weren’t true to the cause; the Party is eternal, whereas any political leader is mortal.

So the answer to Redd’s question about whether it is OK only b/c Chimpy is in power is: It is only OK so long as the Preznit is a “party” man.

froggermarch:
lmao, Especially when I misread the Scotty McLielen quote as:
“We use FISA in a number of instances. I’m one important tool.”

It’s as if they think they’ll never lose the White House or the Congress. Which means, as Brad DeLong reasons, they’re either
1) stupid or, 2) they’ve got it wired.

Yeah, and the NSA’s really into it now that Rockefeller’s giving them hell!

‘Impeachment’ Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last”

Link to this Editor and Publisher article:

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp…..1001736558

I am with

Impeach the fucker!
rwcole

“We use FISA in a number of instances. It’s one important tool.”

– Scott McLellan in yesterday’s press briefing, echoing President Bush’s remarks in his press conference.

You know, they may be on to something…

“Yes, officer, I know I exceeded the speed limit and I think the speed limit is a very important tool. I use it quite often. In this particualr instance, however, I needed to move quickly. You see, my employer is lurking. He lurks. And because he lurks, I must move quickly. As I said, I have great respect for the speed limit. But I have an order from my Executive Vice-President to be on the job and it is a job that requires that I be there very soon. He is vigilant, so I must be vigilant. So in this case, I have been issued an Executive order that made it necessary for me not to use the speed limit tool. But I understand you’re position. If I were in your shoes, I’d be stopping me to ask me the same questions. Because, the speed limit is one important tool in maintaining order, and I use it quite often. So if we can both be on our way, I’m sure you’ll agree that we both have important jobs to do.

Good day, offficer.

For the record, the term “boogeymen” comes from the Bugi men of Indonesia, feared pirates of the high seas.

The Bugi men will getcha if you don’t watch out!

Folks, we’re in it now…the powers behind George the Pretender’s throne have made their play. If we survive the Xmas season without a declaration of martial law, then they have decided to let Baby George hang out and deal with the whirlwind by himself. When this is done, we are gunna hafta go after all of ‘em, root and branch, like we shoulda done 140 years ago. But I am afraid that we may end up with a crippled political structure on top of a broken economic engine…we will look much like1930 Weimar Krautland. This is crunch time…I don’t think the grand American experiment will get another chance if we don’t get it right in the next 12 months.

For the children and our history…
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION!!

Yes, Teddy SanFran, permanent republican majority – their delusion that such a fairy-tale is not far off is what prevents them from fearing the same power in a “Prez Hilary.” This came up with the nuclear option as well.

They wouldnt go for this kind of stuff if they actually thought the Dems might re-take power someday.

The people who jump hoops to justify this bullshit are Leninists. And totally, absolutely, without qualification, traitors to the most basic values of the American Revolution.

Their agenda cannot, by definition, be accomplished within the confines of the Constitution.

Period.

from the last thread: AMEN!

This just in:

In a move that caught Wall Street insiders and Beltway pundits by surprise, a major financial institution has quietly merged with a government surveillance program. Building off their existing customer data base, Wachovia Securities will now cooperate in warrantless searches and data mining. The new joint venture will retain the corporate name, but with a subtle twist: it will be pronounced Watch-Over-Ya.

I don’t think the administration is worried about the admissibility of evidence in a court of law from a warrantless search, not when they’re willing to skip that entirely via rendition or Guantanamo or military prison (the Padilla case).

Wow, Redd. Well done. And special thanks for the links. The Greenwald piece is stunning, but also chilling. I think he’s got the right line of attack and you’ve captured it well.

He and you have laid the foundation for the line of questions that should be asked/answered in the investigating hearings. In the meantime, the press should pick up on these same questions at every Adminstration press conference and talk show. Hello, Andrea? Hello Blitzer? The Administration shills will, of course, not answer these questions directly, because they can’t, but the public needs to hear the questions, over and over, and watch the shills dodge and not answer them. Repetition till it sinks in that we have a wannabe King. (”KGB”)

As scary as it is, even Greenwald’s stunner doesn’t describe the over-reach of the Bush argument. As I read it, Greenwald is describing the reach of Executive Power as it relates to his commander-in-chief/war authority in Article II. The only thing he might have missed is the question: who defines what consitutes a “threat” requiring the President’s exercise of these powers?

If the President can define when his powers are triggered, without juidical or legislative limit or oversight, then we literally have “limitless power.” And everything and anyone who opposes the President is a threat against whom the powers can be triggered. The power is literally absolute, and Lord Acton’s phase would follow absolutely.

“she (Hilary) does seem to be the GOP bogeyman du jour.”

In the interest of political correctness, would that be ‘bogeywoman,’ or perhaps, ‘bogeyperson?”

Well, the answer is that Digby’s right (of course) for the rank-and-file, and Brian above is right about those who actually run the show.

I keep getting the willies thinking about how Bush said flatly that he would use quarantines in the case of a flu pandemic, and wondering if that wouldn’t be a perfect excuse to just go ahead and declare martial law.

Of course, if he did that, he’d have to kill the second amendment too, so he better have all his ducks in a row before the gun-totin’ rednecks find out it’s THEIR constitution as well.

Thanks GMF:
WSJ Poll
Would you feel more vulnerable to terrorism if the Patriot Act expires?

Yes
1786 votes (40%)

No
2709 votes (60%)

4495 people have voted so far

Redd-Wouldn’t any evidence derived from the unauthorized surveillance be inadmissible in court?

We all know what a great track record the administration has prosecuting the evil terrarists.

What’s their next excuse? Bush’s authority was expressly implied in the constitution?

Their idea of a permanent Rethug majority goes hand in glove with expanding the executive’s powers — if I never plan to hand the reins of power over to the opposition, endless expansion of the executive is okay! Their worldview is whole and entire.

There was a wonderful bit of snark from an “expert” of some sort consulted on BBC News a couple of nights ago. The anchor, playing devil’s advocate, asked something like “surely there are now extraordinary threats, and wouldn’t you agree that perhaps they require extraordinary powers?”

The guy answered “Well, back in the 1970s when the FISA law was written, we had this thing called the Soviet Union…” It was glorious.

I watched George Wills object to the unqualified spying by this administration on Sunday morning. This morning on the Today show, I watched Pat Buchanan, who went so far in defending the President’s right to do whatever he wants that he actually twisted the 72 hour provision to mean that they had to wait for 72 hours before they could get warrants under FISA. I know he’s not that dumb, so I can only assume he deliberate tried to mislead, and of course, that’s just when they ran out of time. So there we are. Both supposedly conservative Repubs.

We need Jimmy Carter back in the White House.

scarecrow | 12.22.05 – 8:56 am |
Thanks for your kind words on the previous thread.
OT I am simply wowed by your ability to carry a single metaphor through in a post. I can appreciate the skill in others, but am unable to duplicate it in mine.

Mark – KGB, how true. I think I’ll drop his other nicknames and start calling him that.

Reddhedd – Keep em coming.

This is tough for some of them. Since the 80s, at least, Republicans seem to have made the political calculation that their best bet for grabbing and holding power was to develop a cult of personality around their current leader. (How they managed to do that with Commander Codpiece is still beyond me.) Now they have to choose between that cult of personality and whatever principles they have left. If they choose principles, that doesn’t leave them much time to develop a new scheme to manipulate their base with before the next election.

Impeach the fucker!

Line them all up for some smackings and whackings.

I’m with you reddhedd…spot on as always…

Amen, Redd.

KGB = King George Bush

Lewis Lapham in last month’s Harper’s likens this amoral crew running the show to a bunch of rich, spoiled frat boy adolescents — all the partying fun, the PBR, the guns and big macho army toys with none of the moral reckoning and consequences. I think he — and Digby with the babies analogy — are spot on.

WSJ online’s got a poll up on the patriot act – interesting results.

Also have a comment section!

http://discussions.wsj.com/n/m…..8;msg=3737

I guess, like the Geneva Convention, niceties such as privacy and due process have been rendered “quaint” by the exigencies of the post- 9/11 Code-Brown-Forever reality. We gotta have Cheney’s Strong Executive to keep everything in line.

Y’know, like a Saddam.

Freedom’s too messy.

—

This is not conservatism.

This is facism wrapped in a cloak of patriotism, as it always is.

Facism– Concentrating power, diminishing the importance of the individual, or the idea that the individual has any equality with those who govern him.

This is facism.

“A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”

From Wikipedia:

Realm is an old term still used as an alternative word for kingdom. It is particularly used for those states whose name includes the word Kingdom (for example, the United Kingdom), to avoid clumsy repetition of the word in a sentence. (For example, “The Queen’s realm, the United Kingdom…”.)

See also: Reich, Rike

now I’m actually gonna read the post…

holy mackerel! fitz!