My definition of reading: interpreting words as having meaning

I never intended to make a case that there was a sole motivator for what Bush did

Friday, November 14, 2008 07:52 AM

I personally believe that Bush acted to protect us

Thursday, November 13, 2008 07:07 AM

I know, it sucks that people can go back and read what you actually wrote.

Why not stop while you're behind? It's worked for others.

I am arguing that the general populace would be sympathetic to those arguments. ...that's obvious isn't it, why else would the constitution dismantling FISA reform have passed?

-- NotOrbitBoy

No, that is not only not obvious, it is factually incorrect.

Congress passed the FISA changes, not "the general populace" The "general populace" was against it passing.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/10/obama_fisa/

"Virtually everything that ------ idiot has done in the past 8 years has been for two reasons: 1) his ------ up ideology and 2) to enhance, protect and defend his fellow Thugs." - retlizard

Please explain exactly how illegal surveillance or torture has enhanced, protected, or defended his fellow thugs. Name a thug, and explain how they benefitted from spying, from torture. Back it up.

I don't think you can do this. I've been asking for two days, and gotten zero examples.

In response to your:

"You haven't made your case that the only motivation for power is personal aggrandizement or altruistic intent "

should have been

"I never intended to make a case that there was a sole motivator for power"

Ok, use of the word "obvious" was an overstatement.

I do think, however, that more than a couple of the people who voted for FISA reform were reading the tea leaves, were considering the upcoming election as they made their decisions....didn't want to look weak.

There is a bind here. Clearly, Republicans will believe that any investigation or prosecution of Bush and his administration by a Democratic president and Congress will be motivated by vindictiveness. So the arguments for pursuing an investigation and possible prosecutions must be very solidly based on the notion that it is our job -- everyone's job -- to protect the structure of the government as it is established in the Constitution of the United States.

Our government was clearly established on the foundation of three bases of power: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches. Every kid who's been through the public schools ought to know that. These three branches are supposed to balance each other out; power was divided precisely to avoid creating a situation where the chief executive could accumulate too much of it and become a tyrant. Remember, our country was ostensibly founded in protest against the tyranny of kings -- leaders who felt that they were entitled to exercise absolute power.

Bush, Cheney, and Company were plainly intent upon usurping power for the executive branch. They took advantage of a divided Congress, calculating that too few legislators would unite to prevent them from doing what they wanted to do -- let alone prosecute them. Their insidious attempts to control the Justice Department by hiring only Republican partisans was part of the plan to rob the judicial branch of power.

As citizens, though, we Americans fall over and over again into the trap of believing in "a leader," so a portion of our citizenry actually believes that the president and the administration should be running the whole show. (Remember Sara Palin panting to "be in charge" of the Senate?)

This mistaken perception that power should be consolidated in the executive branch is partially encouraged by our absurd belief that government needs to be run as if it were a private business, with a CEO at the top making quick decisions. As long as we believe that it is more important to make fast decisions, regardless of their consequences, instead of taking the time to consider complicated problems, debate them, and ultimately make better decisions, we are going to be stuck with the notion that we need a "leader." We are an immature, impatient country and think that everything ought to be done ASAP.

I like Obama, but the people who think that he alone is going to solve all of the country's problems are sorely mistaken. He is only one part of the picture, and he should remain so. The reason that he may be the right person for this office at this point in time is that he is an excellent listener and seems to really understand how to organize various groups to work together. And frankly, we are not going to get out of this mess any time soon, unless we have some serious cooperation among the strange bedfellows we call the citizens of the United States.

So the bind is: how do we protect the Constitution from further violation and deterioration caused by the abuses of the executive branch, and still somehow persuade Republican members of Congress to get in the boat and row with the rest of the crew?

Any investigation and possible prosecution of the wrongdoers now needs to be presented as a warning to the present and future executive branches: that ALL, regardless of party, must be careful to respect the boundaries and limits of their power.

If Bush issues a blanket pardon for everyone involved, either including or not including himself, and Congress fails to investigate in the name of bi-partisanship, then I say let all the extralegal executive power Bush granted to himself (and by proxy, the executive office) remain in place so that Obama can use that in order to do what needs to be done. President Obama can label Bush and his ilk enemy combatants and have them all "secretly renditioned" to another country and kept in one of the secret prisons established by the Bush administration. They deserve no less. Then we'll have one thing to be grateful that Bush did.

Iokannon: "NOB, you are a serial contrarian"

NOB: "No I'm not. No I'm not."

Once again, any credit must go to Monty Python. Sorry for the interruption. Oh, and since I'm already here, Impeach Bush.