Gary Gross goes on yet another tirade whenever anyone liberal says anything even remotely against the Bushies.Mr. Bernstein doesn’t offer any proof that President Bush is a habitual liar.
You need some examples as proof? Okay: 1)
Saddam had WMD. 2)
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." 3)
By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt.
Shame on Mr. Bernstein for that litany of unfounded accusations
When the president ignores the Constitution and its implied and specific powers, he is in fact hurting the country and everything for which we stand. What, exactly, do you call "signing statements" if not a defacto line-item veto? Do you recall the Supreme Court saying that
the line-item veto was unconsitutional? Take a look at the second paragraph of that piece, which clearly states:
The 6-3 ruling said that the Constitution gives a president only two choices: either sign legislation or send it back to Congress.
Notice that it doesn't say, "but can add a signing statement saying he's not going to abide by the law?"
So, we have proof -- and this is just one example -- that Bush is behaving outside his Consitutional authority.
Now, let's look at Cheney, who it is commonly known that he believes the power of the president was eroded greatly after Watergate (although he fails to see the due cause).
Vice President Cheney attempted to defend the Administration's eavesdropping on American citizens by saying that if it had conducted this program prior to 9/11, they would have found out the names of some of the hijackers.
Tragically, he apparently still doesn't know that the Administration did in fact have the names of at least 2 of the hijackers well before 9/11 and had available to them information that could have easily led to the identification of most of the other hijackers.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0116-34.htm
So, Cheney is and supports conducting unconstitutional activities.
Attorney General Gonzalez says that
"there is no right of habeus corpus in the Consitution". Need I say more?
Finally, I can see that we're back to blaming Clinton for everything. Amy Proctor keeps banging the "Clinton signed Iraqi Liberation" thing; you kep bringing up the search of Aldrich Ames' house, as though these two events have anything to do with the wild abuse of power Bush is conducting. Look, I have no issue with the President and his administration doing what they have to do to keep the country safe. What confounds me is that they have to do it outside of the law. If they want to listen in on private telephone conversations, or break into a purported Al Queda safe house, go before the FISA court and get a warrant. They only turn down something like 3-tenths of a percent of all requests placed before them. If they don't have the capacity to approve what the administration wants to do, what's stopping the administration from appointing even more judges and expanding the system? It certainly isn't the cost of the effort, given that we're spending $2 Billion a week in Iraq... you think we could spend a couple million a year on a few more judges and new or expanded FISA courts? If its secrecy you're worried about, put yourself at ease and realise that we've had very few security leaks of this type; its actually a system that works, a rarity for government.
You're defense of the indefensible is truly amazing. You find the rationale for trashing our Constitution and wholesale dismiss the damage that Bush has done. Fortunately, the American People have seen through this president and his corrupt cronies. Bush's approval rating is now in the Nixon-range. Maybe Bush can take a hint and do the honorable thing that even someone as corrupt, despicable and vile as Nixon did, and resign.
I guess when Saddam does it, he's "ruthless and brutal" and when we do it we're just kind, benevolent visitors to a foreign land.
