David W. Bartoo @ 222

I think you are correct, the military are on their own and so are the people. Those who enabled this situation to develop are as culpable as the author(s)of the overall assault on reason and democracy as well as the Constitution itself and therefore equally criminal, in intent, in execution, and in fact.

Cover for sure…the question is why Congress went along with it. Especially Hillary Clinton

HRC went along because she and other Democratic ‘leaders’ WANT TO HAVE POWER. They want an all-powerful Presidency. Our mistake was in thinking that they felt the same way that we did. Most of us, at least the ‘us’ here on FDL and other ‘Progressive’ Blogs were absolutely appalled at the notion of an IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY. However, considering the behavior of the Democrats and their total unwillingness to move IN ANY FASHION whatsoever, to curtail or even to challenge the blatant power grabs of this administration, we must conclude, frightening and depressing as the idea may be, that those in leadership positions simply did not and do not agree with us. Their concerns, apparently are different. We may only speculate, really, as to what those ‘concerns’ might be. It is clear, however, that the Democrats fully intend, barring evidence to the contrary, to embrace and possibly extend the paradigm of the unitary executive. We have no compelling reason, at this time, to assume otherwise.

Were we essentially not powerless, we might insist that EACH and EVERY candidate for the office of the Presidency be REQUIRED to answer, explicitly and at length, the question:
Do you intend to use the powers with which the Presidency now appears invested? If the answer is ‘NO,’ then the follow up question is; ‘will you seek to legally diminish such powers and how will you do so?’ A line of questions would follow. Since I doubt that scenario is the likely one, we need not bore ourselves with considering those follow-up questions. Should the answer be ‘Yes,’ then the only real question is; ‘How bad will it get?’ Such a question, for all intents and purposes is merely rhetorical and of use only in measuring our personal despair and the depth of whatever response we feel, in all conscience, we might make.

Since we shall NOT be allowed to ask ‘the’ question, it is already, as far as I am concerned, a matter of conscience. The only real question facing us as citizens and as human beings is this: ‘What do WE intend to do about the IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY?’

I guess we will have to wait and see. What do you think?

Someday, when Charlie Savage wins a second Pulitzer, he’ll be equal to Bill O’Reilly and *his* two Pulitzers! (Er, I mean “Polk Awards”, which are just as prestigious! Really!)

selise @ 221

i don’t think these bills (and h.con.res.21 and s.amdt.2073) make it possible for bush/cheney to order an attack on iran, their probably going to do whatever the hell they want anyway.

what the bills do, imo, is to provide bushco with political cover and make it very difficult/impossible for the military folks to say “no”.

I think you are correct, the military are on their own and so are the people. Those who enabled this situation to develop are as culpable as the author(s)of the overall assault on reason and democracy as well as the Constitution itself and therefore equally criminal, in intent, in execution, and in fact.

Cover for sure…the question is why Congress went along with it. Especially Hillary Clinton

General Strike would not be good fer the ‘mericun economi.

Great work, Mr. Savage.

George Bush has been able to pursue an agenda of truly radical executive power theories with impunity because most American journalists Washington Democrats have not only stood meekly by and expressed no interest in investigating or exposing any of this conduct, but worse, they have actively defended it

as Glenn Greenwald points out, by enacting changes to the FISA law that the (R) controlled congress would not pass.

What planet is this? How can ANYONE read the unambiguous text of the Constitution and claim so much power for the President? How can Cheney seek to “restore” the majesty of the Presidency when the Presidency has NEVER EVER had, nor was it EVER intended to have, the powers he seeks to “restore”?

A good question. But it’s not uncommon for a presidency to claim they have these powers. What is uncommon is for Congress to not only keel over on specific issues, but actually legislate general language delegating their article 1 powers to the president. As they have done with the military commissions and FISA. By specifically stating that the president shall have the opportunity to determine what a term in the law means.

You talk a lot about restoring the branches and all – but this particular point describes how the administration’s claims of executive power is put down in law, technically in line with what the constitution suggests. And that’s a much bigger problem than, for instance, Charlie Savage tends to suggest when highlighting the precedent set by merely allowing the president to get away with their lawbreaking. (Which of course is atrocious by itself).

Kitt @ 147

Oklahoma kiddo @ 122

Some might argue that Pelosi, with the “impeachment off the table business” is setting a very dangerous precedent.

No, she’s not setting a “precedent”. That word has legal ramifications. She screwed up by stating that ass-kissing but covering statement. It will be poison in the future…as it is now.

Why is this somehow still taken as truth? What she said at the time, before the election, was that she would not set impeachment as an election- promise. That with the agenda currently in place, impeachment was off the table. She never said impeachment should never happen, or that there were no possibility of it happening while she was Speaker.

And after that – did democrats and their supporters say: “no, impeachment should definitively be on the table – and here’s why..”? Or did they say: “outrageous, is Pelosi now backing the president’s lawbreaking practices?”. Or: “does this mean Pelosi will not accept these carefully drafted articles of impeachment to even be debated in the House”?

Of course not. The huge majority said they did not want to put the country through another traumatising event for no reason other than for a political retribution. Really, they said, what is the actual benefit of even discussing impeachment now – after all, we have so many other important things to do (like appropriate money for our military contracts in our home state, for which we harvest great and general support).

So don’t come suggesting now that somehow Pelosi cheated you out of an impeachment. Grow yourselves some spine instead, and confront Congress. On any of the million specific and extremely worrying issues of the day. I mean – it’s the only way.

Kathleen @ 215

Can’t wait to read…scary stuff. Sounds as if our country is in lock down. Still pushing for millions out on the streets on Oct 27th. Some say that with the Kyl/Lieberman admendment and HR 1400 in place they could strike Iran at any time.

i don’t think these bills (and h.con.res.21 and s.amdt.2073) make it possible for bush/cheney to order an attack on iran, their probably going to do whatever the hell they want anyway.

what the bills do, imo, is to provide bushco with political cover and make it very difficult/impossible for the military folks to say “no”.

I think you are correct, the military are on their own and so are the people. Those who enabled this situation to develop are as culpable as the author(s)of the overall assault on reason and democracy as well as the Constitution itself and therefore equally criminal, in intent, in execution, and in fact.

Can’t wait to read…scary stuff. Sounds as if our country is in lock down. Still pushing for millions out on the streets on Oct 27th. Some say that with the Kyl/Lieberman admendment and HR 1400 in place they could strike Iran at any time.

i don’t think these bills (and h.con.res.21 and s.amdt.2073) make it possible for bush/cheney to order an attack on iran, their probably going to do whatever the hell they want anyway.

what the bills do, imo, is to provide bushco with political cover and make it very difficult/impossible for the military folks to say “no”.

After reading Charlie’s depressing tale of how we got here, as he said above, Chimpy believes that all it takes is his say so to start another war. Darth has coddled his brain into megalomania. If he does it, it is legal. That seems to have been Darth’s goal all along. Why? hard to tell.

well, since it looks like only the military folks could stop it – by refusing to follow an order they thought was illegal… it would be nice to give them some reason to be able to say they think it’s an illegal order – which they might be able to do if congress had passed something like the defazio amendment (or possibly the webb bill).

instead congress has, apparently, closed off that option.

stupid congress.