Comments on: On Duty

By: VJB

VJB — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:12:28 +0000

I’m surprised nobody has quoted this particularly strong statement from Adam Cohen’s piece in the NYT today
Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution’s framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called “the foetus of monarchy.”

The attack of the Monarchist Fetus People!

By: cynic

cynic — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:02:17 +0000

The question is, who has what on Pelosi? She probably has some sort of a BS reason for not doing her mandated job, to defend and protect the Constitution, but she’s not doing it. By the way, I am not too young to remember Elizabeth Holtzman’s speech. And she practices law in Brooklyn. A book is not enough. Ms. Holtzman. We are in your debt for Watergate, but sometimes saving the democracy onece is not enough.

There are plenty of young men and women to give those speeches. That’s what the king is afraid of, that’s why he’s given the order to confiscate the property of anyone who speaks against him….which is basically the way it is going to be used. Someone is going to have to take that chance, and someone with enough muscle is going to have to help them. Excuse me, Mr. Kennedy. Now is when you can prove to us that as horrid as it might have been, the death of Mary Joe Copecnie (I didn’t spell that right) and its subsequent dismissal from the msm was a sacrafice that would pay off. You owe America a debt, Mr. Kennedy. We quickly forgave you for the death of a young woman who should be alive today. It is time to pay us and her back.

[Mod Note; personal information removed from public view.]

By: mui

mui — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:02:23 +0000

msmolly @ 148

mui @ 92

I am not always sure what I think of the content. As for her actual physical voice issues, I never, never make fun of persons with illness or disability. And quite frankly, the voice issue never occurred to me. I find disability discrimination as repulsive as Rush Oxymoron.

I did not intend to imply that you were making fun of her disability, and if my comment came across that way, I apologize. I just figured that there may be people who listen to her show, but are unaware of her physical problem. And the video of Rush making fun of Michael J. Fox’s tremors is one of the more sickening things I’ve seen.

I just find Diane to be a very insightful interviewer, and her guests are usually interesting.

I have heard Diane do good interviews. I guess I have gotten annoyed with NPR sometimes falling into MSM terroritory coverage-wise.

By: iburl

iburl — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:30:28 +0000

I agree, too bad nobody else who has any power in our castrated congress does. Reid and Pelosi are flushing our future down the toilet every day they fail to act against Bushism. IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACE

By: Get Tough

Get Tough — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:09:01 +0000

I know I am late to the party, but this post, and the links accompyning the post, including, but of course not limited to, Adam Cohen’s and Bruce Fein’s pieces, should be forwarded to every single person who votes in this country. It is basic US civics, and exemplifies what this country stands for, political affiliation notwithstanding (Bruce Fein the perfect example).

This posting and the linked editorial comments is preciously why I love the United States.

By: j.cro

j.cro — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:54:42 +0000

Ghostman @ 44 - The group name you’re looking for is Queen… They performed/recorded that song with David Bowie, I believe.

This is great and I hope you don’t mind but I think I’ll paste your post on my blog.

http://i8pixistix.blogspot.com

Cheers! and let the PRESSURE begin!!

By: Christy Hardin Smith

Christy Hardin Smith — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:28:25 +0000

La Deluge at 152 — I think that is from Kagro X’s post today. It’s a great find.

By: La Deluge

La Deluge — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:12:46 +0000

I’m not sure where (this morning) I came across this post, but it’s worth noting here:

An article in the journal Military Law Review:

FUNDING “NON-TRADITIONAL” MILITARY OPERATIONS:
THE ALLURING MYTH OF A PRESIDENTIAL POWER
OF THE PURSE
Colonel Richard D. Rosen

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Mili.....6C75~1.pdf

Not sure which blog picked it up, but thanks to that person.

By: Technicolouryawn

Technicolouryawn — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:54:29 +0000

A letter writer to the SF Chronicle put our predicament succinctly today-he said he feels like a frog in a stockpot and the temperature is being raised 1 degree every day. Before we know what happened, we are already cooked.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:54:50 +0000

wigwam @ 56

Re SAIC from my scandals list:

217. More how it gets done. Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) is the 9th largest defense contractor and is an integral part of the military-industrial complex. Its board and upper ranks are filled with heavy hitters from the military and intelligence communities who use the revolving door to cycle back and forth between the company and government. It is a convenient arrangement. Not only does the company have easy access to contracts with either little or no bidding but it has inbuilt protection against its failures and misdeeds. The result is no matter how badly a job is bungled penalties vary from minimal to non-existent. The costs to the nation’s security as a result of such boondoggles are large but unquantifiable. A few examples:

The NSA needed a computer system to process and manage the huge number of communications it monitors. SAIC got a $280 million contract and 26 months to develop the system called Trailblazer. 4 years and a billion dollars later with no program in sight, the NSA finally pulled the plug it. But since it still needed the system, the NSA relet the contract which was again won by SAIC this time for $361 million.

SAIC was also behind the FBI’s disastrous program to computerize its case and filing system into a single integrated database. The contract was worth $124 million. After 3 years the Virtual Case File as it was called didn’t work and was abandoned.

From 1993 to 2002, David Kay was at SAIC where he became director of its Center for Counterterrorism Technology and Analysis. He was a major promoter of the idea that Iraq had large WMD programs and championed the case for the Second Gulf War. In 2003-2004, he ran the hunt for WMD in Iraq. When none were found, he said on January 28, 2004 that “it turns out that we were all wrong.” But it really wasn’t “we”, but those like Kay who had pressed the case so hard by ignoring what evidence there was and relying instead on highly dubious sources produced by the likes of Ahmed Chalabi. When Bush appointed a commission to investigate what had happened, three of those on the commission had ties to SAIC. Naturally no fingers were pointed SAIC’s or Kay’s way and no conflict of interest concerns were raised.

The SAIC story emblematic of so many companies represents the problems and dangers of outsourcing essential services to private contractors. The results are sweetheart deals, cost overruns, delays, systems that don’t work, and very, very little accountability. Companies that do this kind of work and those that run them wrap themselves in a patriotic flag even as they loot the nation’s treasury and weaken its security with shoddy products that don’t work.