Mickey Kaus says that Congressman Murtha saved Bush's Presidency. How? By taking the subject off the crap about how Bush "lied" to get us there, and forcing the country to think about the implications if we did like stupid Murtha suggested and pulled out of Iraq. Most people when they think about that question know that's insane both for us and Iraq. So Murtha inadvertantly brought the important question into sharp relief.
Ha. I think he may be right! Probably the same exact way that the "exposing" of the "warrantless wiretaps" brought Bush's popularity numbers way up. Why wouldn't they? Most people are smart enough to know they aren't a civil rights violation but are a very smart way to find and kill terrorists.
It's almost like the Democrats are working for Rove isn't it?
R.I.P. Steven Malcolm Anderson
Minion
of the Week
Also, keep an eye on that Judge Richardson that "resigned" in protest. Has the resignation gone through? Rumor has it he may be involved in the leak... JMO
I really can't wait until we find these treasonous bastards who are willing to sell out national security just to score cheap political points. Jail's the nicest thing they'll get.
Bottom line: you have to stand for what is right. And Murtha is right.
Furthermore, if Murtha's position allows Bush the political cover to end the war (something I said on Day One, despite the jeering and catcalls, Pam) then so be it.
Besides, once we've ended this war, the country can get back on the right track — and voters favor Democrats overwhelmingly when it comes to domestic issues.
Dean:
find these treasonous bastards who are willing to sell out national security just to score cheap political points. Jail's the nicest thing they'll get.
If I thought you had a sense of humor, I'd say you were joking. But you don't and you're not.
So I think the issue breaks against you:
“None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a former judge and close ally of the president who sits on the Judiciary Committee.
“Give me liberty or give me death,” said Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who has led a bipartisan filibuster against a reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Voters can smell this one a mile away: Cornyn is the whiny appeaser; Feingold is the fiery patriot.
Any questions?
As for Murtha, the man is unhinged at best, a liar and a despicable excuse for a marine at worst. No matter what he did in Vietnam does not give him free reign to attack and degrade the Corps or the US Army at will, and then insult the Commander in Chief because he and the troops don't agree with the 'esteemed' Sentator.
Dissent is a blessed right, but with all rights comes responsibility, especially when using it to trash the very men and women that keep that right for you, and defend you every day of your measly little life.
Murtha is probably one of the best things to happen for Bush so far, but I'm sure the dimicrits can yet again find more 'shit' to throw at the fan...in which case they will and they'll come out stinkin' to high heaven. Hope they have a good drycleaner...because they have a pisspoor party management system.
All evidence is that you don't believe that. For example: As for Murtha, the man is unhinged at best, a liar and a despicable excuse for a marine at worst. No matter what he did in Vietnam does not give him free reign to attack and degrade the Corps or the US Army at will, and then insult the Commander in Chief because he and the troops don't agree with the 'esteemed' Sentator.
You seem to have a low opinion of a dissenter there. As he didn't do so in a disrespectful way, I fail to understand your venomous opinion of the man except in response to him failing to have the same opinion of the Iraq war as the POTUS.
By the way, it sounds as though your bookmarks are in error. I'm able to access both sites without problem, and if you're able to access them through Google, then that indicates the same. Try re-bookmarking them from their main pages.
During wartime, what is the President's most important job -- protecting the American people or protecting the US Constitution?
Pam, Rose, Wince, John Irving -- chime in.
And by the way, if you're a Canadian, why don't you shut up about US politics. We all know YOU don't have OUR best interests at heart, you have YOUR best interests at heart, and you can't vote in our elections. Just as I don't tell Canadians how to vote, I don't take kindly to being TOLD what to do by a Maple Leaf from up north. American politics are AMERICAN business, unless you want US to tell YOU what to do too.
Oh my god! I can't believe you typed that! Hilarious!
What domestic issues? Welfare and abortion? Classic!
And by the way, if you're a Canadian, why don't you shut up about US politics. ... Just as I don't tell Canadians how to vote, I don't take kindly to being TOLD what to do by a Maple Leaf from up north.
When did I tell you to do anything? All I've done is expresse my opinion. Surely that is permitted in your world view, is it not? And, for the record, it's generally considered impolite to tell another commenter that they aren't welcome ON SOMEONE ELSE'S BLOG. If Rose asked me to do the same, I would do so instantly. Her house, her rules.
Until then, I'll just keeping having opinions, thank you very much, despite your presumptive suggestion.
Carry on.
False question, Ara. The 4th amendment protects only against unreasonable search and seizures. Monitoring the communications of enemies is extremely reasonable.
Right now the President is doing both, regardless of your feelings to the contrary.
Then stop reading my comments. It's not hard, my tag is at the top of the post. Just scroll down to the next comment.
I asked you a very basic question with regards to Canada and you couldn't answer it.
I asked for clarification of your question, which was fairly ambiguous, and you didn't give it.
Besides, at one point I was able to clear up the confusion in your mind about the entry of the US into WW II. So at least you're able to pick up a bit of American history from a Canadian.
Both and there has been no evidence that he hasn't done both.
If you are going to suggest that warrantless wiretaps are proof, I will ask you to provide the names of those US persons that have been arrested because of information obtained via warrantless wiretapping.
Do you have your list of those that have been violated ready to go?
Didn't think so.
I agree, and can point to other comment sections as evidence.
Thanks Rose. And for the record, I know your statement doesn't imply agreement with my lame socialist Canuuckistani commentary.
I'm glad we understand each other so well!
I've already read what Murtha said, and that's why I'm asking her to back up her statement with a quote. I've seen nothing from Murtha that would indicate any disrespect for the military. If Rhianna is not simply making stuff up or hallucinating, then she must have seen something that I haven't. I'm asking what it is.
Rosemary has it exactly right. The best discussions involve different perspectives and viewpoints. So you Canucks, Cajuns and all varieties of brainwashed lefty, socialist BushHating dissenters just keep speaking your mind. Realizing how wrong you are often makes me feel verrry smart ;)
Cheers
PS I find myself missing Steven Malcolm Anderson very much when visiting the Queen and Dean. His delightful discourse made the discussion so entertaining. Lovely man. I miss my friend.
For a suposed proud Marine to go trashing a sister service, without EVER stepping foot in the warzones in which they operate, one with any brainpower would quesiton his 'knowledge' of the situation. But that would require actually READING what's going on, not taking other's words for it and staying home in DC...or going home and trashing your OWN home state's ability to complete their military service.
Well, I got that far before deciding that the rest was probably a waste of time. I didn't say that. I said that YOU told ME to shut up, and that it wasn't your role to do so on someone else's comment section. Slow down and read carefully.
Why?
Because he's saying that they (those hardworking men and women) can't get the job done. Implying that the job they are doing isn't good enough, that they are failing.
Telling people, who are risking their lives everyday and are proud of the job they are doing, that the very thing they are proud of is crappy, broken and needs improvement; you don't think that is disrespectful?
During wartime, as is the case any other time, the President's most important job is to protect the US Constitution.
The Founders felt so strongly about this that they made the President swear an oath to that while being sworn in.
So, IMHO, a President who says he has unlimited power in the fight against terrorists (as Bush has claimed) is breaking his oath of office.
Trade security for liberty? Or as John Cornyn recently put it, “None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead.”
Well I say, "Give me liberty or give me death."
Bottom line: there is pretty good evidence that this President has broken the FISA statute as well as the Fourth Amendment and Article II of the Constitution.
Looks like this is headed to court.
Yours,
Wince
The conflict is a complete clusterfuck and the only way out of it is to fight that motherfucker to the bitter end. This is where I disagree with Murtha. We can't pull out because we are partly responsible for the mess. Likewise, the Iraqi people will be eternally grateful if we complete the mission, rebuild the infrastructure, and support their new democracy whether or not it is Shiite dominated or not.
Looks like this is headed to court.
I'll chalk that one up along with all the other Ara prophecies. I'd get better accuracy out of calling a psychic hotline, though.
However many times you repeat yourself, it doesn't make your assertions true.
And when Republicans have said the same when attempting to get increased military spending under the Democrats? Were they being disrespectful of the military as well?
Pam: No, he said we could not win and we should bring them home NOW.
No he didn't. He wanted the US military to maintain a close presence, and he said that nothing more could be gained militarily.
Look, it's fine to disagree with the man, but why change his words? Admitedly, it makes it easier for to argue with a sock puppet version of him, but wouldn't you rather debate the issue honestly? There's no need to make him into a baby-eater in order to disagree with him.
I agree with that one. Not that I'm American or have any say in the matter, but it doesn't look like withdrawal is an option at this point if the situation is to improve at any time in the near future.
Protecting the American people. No question. The Constitution is just paper.
There it is: the Constitution, our laws, the oldest functioning system of governance in the world history, government of the people, for the people and by the people....
...is "just paper."
I've got nothing more to say on this topic.
I'm not the one putting the cart before the horse. The people are the reason for the document, not the other way around. If your loyalty is to an idea, rather than to people, your priorities are sadly misplaced. You made an absurb hypothetical rhetorical flourish and it landed you in the soup. Gotcha!
If you had defended the Constitution as the best known way to protect the American people, we would be having a different argument. That's why I value the Constitution - not for itself - but for what it does for us.
Yours,
Wince
If your loyalty is to an idea
My loyalty is to the US Constitution. Read what I wrote, please.
If you had defended the Constitution as the best known way to protect the American people
That's exactly what I'm doing. Please read what I wrote.
Wince, I like you which is the only reason I'm continuing this conversation right now. So allow me to point out that you are playing semantic games to squiggle out of the dubious corner you painted yourself into a while back.
I value the Constitution - not for itself - but for what it does for us.
I think you are making a distinction without a difference. The fact is, the President is sworn to uphold the Constitution. Period. It's in his oath, which is in the Constitution. The framers understood (and you should too) what the real issue is: without the bedrock, the foundation that is the Constitution, the people are in danger of despotic rule.
Call it what you want: my loyalty is to the US Constitution, not the President and certainly not to George Bush's idea of "protection of the people."
That, pardon me, is total bullshit. And if you buy into it, you (and everyone else) will deserve what you get: A despot, a dictator and the end of our system of governance.
No one -- NO ONE -- is above the law: not terrorists, not leakers and certainly not the President.
No, you are the one playing semantic games by creating a false hypothetical choice between the Constitution and protecting the people. I called you on it. Your entire argument is false, proceeding from false premises and reaching a false - and absurd conclusion where you claim the people are slaves to the Constitution and all 300 hundred million should die before one word of the Constitution is violated.
The Constitution exists for the people. The people do not exist for the Constitution.
Once that is clear, we can proceed.
Yours,
Wince
The Constitution was created to protect the rights of the people. That makes sense because it was written by the people and for the people. These rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
As the framers were well aware (even if you are not), the Constitution protects the people from infringement on these rights from without and from within.
So it shouldn't be a surprise, Wince, that the President of the United States swears an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. This is so important that he is required to take this before he even assumes office. This means that the President is subservient to the Constitution which protects the rights of the people. Not the other way around.
Is that clear?
If those at the top choose to ignore what the Constitution says, if they fail in their sworn oath to preserve, protect and defend that Constitution, then there are remedies that can be brought to bear on them.
Good. Now we are back to agreement, because you have abandoned the false dichotomy between protecting the people and protecting the Constitution. You will notice that I have never said that the President is above the Constitution, and we have never disagreed on that point.
Yours,
Wince
I have never said that the President is above the Constitution
Of course not. You simply said "The Constitution is just paper. People are important. Laws are only laws."
Wince, I don't believe for a moment that you think the Bible is just paper, or the Torah is just paper, or a $100 bill is just paper, or your marriage license is just paper, or your drivers license is just paper.
Please tell me you don't believe that.
In my church we believe that the Word of God is sacred, because it comes from God, but the Bible is just paper. Mine was made, not by God, but by Zondervan. Step on it, spit on it, defecate on it and you have committed no crime. Sure, you are being extremely offensive, because we all know what you mean by it, and I may not want my tax dollars to pay for it, but if you spit on the Bible and I deck you, I'm the lawbreaker. There is no magic about those words, in ink, on that paper, which makes that physical object sacred.
Similarly, a $100 bill has no value, other than what people give it, and my marriage license has no value, other than what people give it, which is why I've so strenously resisted further devaluation of that license and want to abolish no-fault divorce, to increase it's value. You want to break the marriage contract? You better have a reason, and a darn good one!
The Torah is your holy book. I will treat it as sacred, out of respect for you, a person (singular of people) who is a sacred creation of God.
If you like, you can have it as a hierarchy: God is above the people and the people are above the Constitution.
Once that primacy is firmly established I am ready to defend the Constitution, as the choice of the people, and well worth defending.
The Supreme Court expresses this a little differently. They say, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Yours,
Wince
I'm not going to give the Constitution primacy over the people.
No one is asking you to.
Yet the fact remains that we are a nation of laws and no man is above the law. If the law is an ass (as asserted by Dickens' Mr. Bumble) then you do what you can to change it.
But you don't simply ignore it.
Step on it, spit on it, defecate on it and you have committed no crime...There is no magic about those words, in ink, on that paper, which makes that physical object sacred.
No one is accusing Bush of burning the Constitution either. What's your point? (BTW, are you saying that burning the flag is no big deal?)
You want to break the marriage contract? You better have a reason, and a darn good one!
Why? It's just a piece of paper. Laws are only laws. A husband should be able to decide what's right and wrong in a marriage.
God is above the people and the people are above the Constitution.
If by this you mean that God is the highest authority in our system of governance, then this is most definitely where you and I part company. In our system of governance (and look up the phrase so you don't mistake my meaning) in our system of governance, the Constitution is the highest authority. In your church or my synangogue, God's word is the highest authority. But don't mistake one sphere for the other. Because when you do, you're barely one step removed from the Taliban.
I'm serious about this Wince.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
If you are referring to Justice Jackson's famous line, be careful -- his meaning is not what you think it is. Besides, he wrote it in a dissenting opinion, i.e., his side lost.
IJS.
I already agreed to this: no man is above the law.
But you don't simply ignore it.
I'm not, and neither is Bush. In fact, he's claiming that it fully justifies his actions. Disagree? OK. But Bush is not ignoring the Constitution. He almost certainly is ignoring what Ara and Wince think about the Constitution, however.
Burning the flag is no big deal, but I think writing a law against it, properly framed, may very well be perfectly Constitutional. Speech which is likely to result in violence is not protected speech. Incitement to riot is still illegal. There are certainly communities where burning a flag would incite a riot, so the illegality of flag burning may reasonably fit under legislative purview. You can use the same logic to prohibit yelling the n-word on a streetcorner in Harlem, for the same reason. I've never met a political point which was well served by burning a flag. Burning a flag is almost invariably moronic. But if you burn a flag and I riot, I'm still a criminal.
If you believe, as I do, that God is the highest authority, then God must necessarily be the highest authority over our government, as He necessarily has the highest authority over all things. But God has vested his authority in the people, just as, back in the day, he vested his authority in Caesar, and the people have vested their authority in the Constitution. This was the standard belief of the people who wrote the Constitution, including the Deists. Everyone knew about rendering unto Caesar and unto God their seperate dues.
It appears, from the way you state things, that you believe the Constitution is more sacred than the Torah. Furthermore, you apparently believe that the Constitution has more authority than our individual consciences, placing you in opposition to Thoreau. Civil disobedience to the slavery allowed under the Constitution was rather, umm, rampant, before the Civil War. Guess you disapprove of the Underground Railroad! Look at all those people placing themselves above the law!
If you believe there is no God, than of course He would have no authority at all.
And yes, these discussions are fun. Too fun, probably.
Yours,
Wince
Not at all. In fact I haven't used the word sacred at all in this thread. But since you brought up Caesar and the New Testament, I must say I agree with the full quote: render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, etc.
Furthermore, you apparently believe that the Constitution has more authority than our individual consciences, placing you in opposition to Thoreau. Civil disobedience to the slavery allowed under the Constitution was rather, umm, rampant, before the Civil War.
Good point. But I did say if you think the law is wrong then you should change it. Gandhi believed that as did King. I consider myself vastly outgunned by those two (unfortunate metaphor) but I'm with them, as they were with Thoreau. And Wince.
If you believe there is no God, than of course He would have no authority at all.
Fortunately our system of governance does not require a belief in God. That might be one of the reasons why it has survived so long. Allow me to quote Sandra O'Connor again:
As for laws, yes when they're broken we have recourse. When you kill 3000 people to protect a piece of paper with a law on it...what 'recourse' do their families have? Ara's cold comfort that he finds their deaths necissary to NOT violate a law?? Thanks, as an AF wife...you matter worth a crap in protecting my country and my husband who's protecting your right to say his death is better than to violate a law. You are a sad little man...
I don't see any reason to call Ara a sad little man. Both he and I are too old to join up. Ara is advancing the worth of the rule of law. A recent study found that the rule of law was a major contributor to the wealth we have here - something like seventy-five percent of our wealth is due to the rule of law and our individual educations. And that wealth is what has enabled the USAF to buy far and away the best planes in the air along with the very expensive training that makes their pilots the best in the air - well, except maybe for the Navy and Marine pilots! That's what allows your wonderful hubby to kick butt worldwide.
It's true that Ara is being hysterically panicked over a reasonably normal political kerfuffle complete with a standard Constitutional crisis. Seems like we have about six of those per year, and people get all excited every time, including yours truly.
But here is something we haven't talked about yet. The President is above the law, according to the Constitution. Even a Senator or Congressman like Tom Delay can be hauled before the appropriate criminal court by the prosecutor in any jurisdiction where a crime is committed. But the President can't. And the President can only be indicted, tried and convicted by political bodies, not judicial ones. Hmmmm. That's odd. And, in fact, we have seen that the President can actually break the law and, as long as the people are behind him politically, never be tried and convicted for it. So, President Clinton, protected by the Constitution, was above the law. And he wasn't breaking the law to protect the country, he was breaking it to protect himself.
Yours,
Wince