"...increasingly attempt to influence government policy by issuing executive orders"

What the hell does that mean? I cannot figure out for the life of me, even taking into account 9/11, how this government suddenly became so dysfunctional.

Bush cannot spend money Congress does not give him.

Bush cannot issue orders that break the laws Congress creates, even for cases of "National Security". Because if he did we wouldn't have the nation envisioned and established by our founders anyways, so what the hell is the use of national security.

What is Congress afraid of? Threaten to impeach him NOW, then immediately thereafter, before getting a response, DO impeach him for not upholding the Constitution. Bullies like Bush, only wise-up when confronted with someone who is able and most importantly totally willing to hurt them at any cost.

It is easy to see how 52% would support a military strike in order to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. WMDs (just the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" has such a cool ring to it for Warmongers, even if it is somewhat meaningless) and the promoted visage of a mushroom cloud over a major US city helped catapult us into Iraq.

You would think a similar trick would not work twice. If you did think that, the 52% show you to be wrong.

These companies were assured that their cooperation was not only legal but also necessary because of their unique technical capabilities. They were also told it was their patriotic duty to help protect the country after the devastating attacks on our homeland. -- Rocky

What is rocky saying here, that the telecoms were duped? Is that a legal defense for breaking the law? For example, Can I get out of a speeding ticket by claiming, "My friend convinced me it was a 65 mph hour zone, and I didn't know it was really a 55 mph zone." Somehow, I think not. However, if my "friend" suddenly went bi-polar and pulled a gun to my head and said, "Start driving 65, or I'll blow your brains out". That would be a valid defense. That is if a trial actually took place. Therefore, if there was government intimidation or threats, this administration certainly would not want that coming out in a trial and amnesty certainly frees them from that particular embarrassment.

Further the quote suggests the admin lied to telecoms when they said it was legal. The administration once again being spotlighted as dishonest is another reason to skip the trial and go straight to amnesty.

Leads me to think telecom amnesty is not about the telecoms but much more about protecting the embarrassing malfeasance of this administration.

CarolynC

I was aware of how we hurt the Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war, but my historical record stopped there. Thanks for another significant event in the history of that region and yes history and context is important, although apparently not to everyone.

What I was trying to not so cleverly express was that most Americans have forgotten and do not care about something that happened 28 years ago. But if I follow your train of thought, the goal really is to remind Americans of the event in order to fire up the anger mojo again.

Unfortunately the same people who would have such a goal, prefer the history leading up to the hostage crisis remain a lacuna (sorry Condi, couldn't resist) in the American view of middle east history.

So the latest right wing propaganda has Americans not forgetting that Iran took Americans hostage in 1979, and are still so awesomely pissed 28 years later that they want America to unilaterally invade/bomb yet another sovereign state.

I am starting to be afraid these folks can reach such high levels of stupidity that they actually become transcendent. They transcend the earthly plane on the wings of ignorance and stupidity to land in the glowing frothy forests of ... I have no idea, some really fukked up place.

Moreover, I am still trying to understand what threat Iran would pose with a bomb. If they ever actually used the bomb, oops, where Iran used to be suddenly becomes a charred radioactive hole. The only purpose the A-bomb would have for Iran is defensive as in if they had one now, they would not have to worry as much about a-holes like Bush unilaterally bombing or invading their country.

What a dumb ass. If we are going that far down the road, who's to say if Iran were to use the bomb they didn't bomb your half, which of course would mean your half probably would not be cheering, but chin up the other half will still certainly be astonished.

...They are being incredibly stupid to the point of being stupifying. But I think the issue is that they like acting stupid and are slavishly devoted to their ignorance as well.

But at the risk of speculating, I wonder if the most significant factor is that they are all spawns of Satan. (alright already I know this is also a stupid thing to say, but still probably closer to the truth than what they have been hurling at Glenn.)

According to Rudy, who would want to know what a presidential candidates diplomatic foreign policy approach might be, when all that counts is whether a candidate will bomb the fukkers or not.

Whatever caused Rudy to go bald, it wasn't thinking.