quote:One section Bush targeted created a statute that forbids spending taxpayer money "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."
I don't want my tax money going to a permanent army base in Iraq.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
More importantly, how taxpayer dollars are spent is, constitutionally, exclusively the domain of congress... Bush has no constitutional authority to say that congress can't say that money cannot be used to build a military installation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
in a saner world people would still be asking if this were a joke.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
To quote Dennis Miller from back in his SNL days when he may have still been sane: "Will somebody please slap this jerk?"
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
*sigh* *frustrated*
The next president is going to have quite the repair job.
Assuming Bush even steps down... Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ha! Once upona time I may have been impressionable to think that but I dont there's a large enoyugh percentage of US army officers loyal enough of bush to support him.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I remember when this used to be surprising.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
In a way, I am actually happy about this. It's only these sorts of things which will really force our government (and its citizens) to examine how outdated and zig-zagging our rules on these sorts of things are.
But when I zoom in from that very detached perspective, I wonder that President Bush dares to call himself a Republican anymore, working so hard to concentrate so much power into one federal office.
I'm also curious what legal basis this and similar signing statements have. "Interferes with national security" (to loosely paraphrase) seems to be pretty damn shaky ground to me.
--------
President Bush will step down in a year. I've never been able to grasp how far removed someone must be from reality to seriously imagine otherwise.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I've never been able to grasp how far removed someone must be from reality to seriously imagine otherwise.
I'd never thought of it before, but I wonder if:
1) There was a large scale terrorist attack on the US around October. Think nuclear bomb in NYC type attack.
2) GWB's inner circle tells him that Obama/Clinton would be disastrous as a war president. His generals say very similar things.
I'd say he at least considers declaring "emergency powers" that delay the election in the above situation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If that happened, do you really think either Obama or Clinton would be elected?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What emergency powers? There's no mechanism in the Constitution for him to do that.
Even if the attack happens on election day, he'll be presidency until January, and then he's out. I don't see anything changing that, short of Obama or Hillary being assasinated before they are sworn in.
Rakeesh -
Yep. I do. They'd spin it as "Republicans are the ones that set up a situation where this could happen, they provoked this attack."
Florida could break off of the US, float away and explode and I still think the Democrats stand a better than average chance of winning.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yep. I do. They'd spin it as "Republicans are the ones that set up a situation where this could happen, they provoked this attack."
I think you're forgetting the first reaction we'd likely have to such an attack. It wouldn't be fear (which would mean the spin you suggest would be effective), it would be anger.
Americans would be furious, we as a nation would be shrieking for vengeance. And if you want vengeance, who do you go to? Senators Obama or Clinton? I think that's very unlikely.
Especially since the Republicans could just as easily counter that it was all this taking a 'softer' approach to dealing with terrorism that provoked such a hypothetical attack.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What emergency powers? There's no mechanism in the Constitution for him to do that.
That's not always a sufficient barrier.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I agree we'd be furious. But, I think a measured voice would remind America what happened the last time we got pissed and lashed out: We got mired in Iraq. What do you attack when your enemy by its very nature has no vulnerable places to be attacked? It's not like the USSR where Moscow is sitting there waiting to be nuked.
I think that you're right that if you want revenge you don't turn to Obama (maybe Clinton though, you're really undervaluing her status as a warhawk), but they'd be right there to remind us of what happened last time, and to warn us of the consequences. I think that, in the face of Republicans clamoring for war and nukes, would probably scare enough Americans into backing down.
quote:That's not always a sufficient barrier.
If it were a different president, he might be able to get away with it temporarily. But this president especially I think would not. I think either the attempt would be outright smacked down, or he'd be taken out in a coup, and elections would take place.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, this argument is getting kind of silly since it's purely hypothetical. I'm losing interest, but...
You said the hypothetical attack was a nuke in NYC. I have no idea what the casualties to such a thing would be, but it would probably number in the tens of thousands at a minimum while rendering the city effectively uninhabitable, I think.
The point is, 9-11 would be chicken feed by comparison. Remember what happened the last time the possibility of nuclear weapons in the hands of our enemies was seriously posed? We invaded a country.
If that possibility instead became a certainty, I'm not sure why you think we'd be so very moderate in our response.
quote:It's not like the USSR where Moscow is sitting there waiting to be nuked.
Yet here we are, in Afghanistan and (especially) Iraq.
quote:But, I think a measured voice would remind America what happened the last time we got pissed and lashed out: We got mired in Iraq.
Dude, when you're freaking out in a panic and a bunch of your neighbors just got murdered in a spectacular fashion, you don't go to the 'measured voice'. That's just not how people work. People go to the voice that a) sounds unafraid, b) promises protection, and c) guarantees swift retribution. They don't go to, "Now let's remember, a conventional military response is not the solution to terrorism!"
They go to the candidate who says, "This is some serious @#$%, I swear I will use everything in my power to prevent it from happening again, and these @#$%#@$ are gonna pay bigtime."
Clinton would have to do a hell of a lot of switching to get 'warhawk' cred, Lyrhawn. And for every time she and Democrats (in theory) reminded the voters of the consequences, Republicans would be there pointing out how much interfering and sabotaging Democrats have been doing, and how much (as a campaign tactic) morale boost to our enemies Democratic politicians have been giving.
I think you vastly overestimate America's willingness to even listen to the calm, measured voice of reason in the hypothetical you describe. We would go totally lizard-brain, man.
Re: 'Emergency' powers, I'm just pointing out that insufficient or even totally absent constitutional support is not always a substantial barrier, when the metal meets the meat.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, by what I would infer as your definition of a warhawk then, almost no one in Congress left really fits the description. Bush, Cheney, McCain and some other people in the Bush Administration really, but, other than that I'd think no one. She's constantly at odds with the more peaceable elements of the Democratic party, and they aren't happy with a lot of the votes she's made, especially as a member of the armed services committee. Maybe not by warmongering Republican standards, but certainly by her own party's standards she's in that column.
quote:Yet here we are, in Afghanistan and (especially) Iraq.
quote:If that possibility instead became a certainty, I'm not sure why you think we'd be so very moderate in our response.
Well it's not my hypothetical, but what makes you think there's certainty of anything? What would we do? Where would we go? With Bush in charge I'm betting he'd want to go to Iran, but there'd likely be zero evidence of any connection between a random bomb and any single nation. So what would we do? Nuke Tehran? Maybe a smaller city, take out Qum? Or hell, it's Bush, he might invade Norway. I guess my point is, that if it's 9 months from now, we aren't going to have the troops to invade Iceland, let alone another Middle Eastern nation, the option just plain wouldn't exist. It'd be a bombing. I don't care how pissed off you think we'd be, we wouldn't nuke anyone over it, especially considering we wouldn't know who to nuke even if we were going to do it.
I really don't know what you'd expect. With no troops really available, without emptying the US of all reserves and pulling troops from the DMZ in S Korea and whatever we have in Europe, we can't possibly invade another nation. I'm 99.99% certain we wouldn't nuke anyone. It's been more than 50 years since we did, and we haven't seen anything like WWII since, and losing a chunk of NYC won't change that. So what? Airstrikes? We just make it up as we go along?
It's not 10 years in the future, it's like 8 months in the future, with Iraq clearly in the forefront of our minds, and the long road of how we got into it and how we got STUCK there also in our minds. Pissed as we would be, I think as soon as Bush starts saying "trust me, I know who to attack" people start flashing back to Iraq.
Blind rage turns to grief eventually.
Re: Constitutional authority, yeah I see your point, and history certainly bears you out on that. But in present day America, I just don't see him getting away with it. Enough people would resist.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We would go totally lizard-brain, man.
Now there's a slogan! "The Republican Party: we're the choice of your hind-brain."
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I don't want my tax money going to a permanent army base in Iraq.
Why not?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Interesting last paragraph of the article...
quote:Among the presidential candidates, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have said they would issue signing statements if elected. John McCain said he would not
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If it were a different president, he might be able to get away with it temporarily. But this president especially I think would not. I think either the attempt would be outright smacked down, or he'd be taken out in a coup, and elections would take place.
Before 9/11 Bush had the lowest approval rating of any President during his first year in office. After that his approval ratings soared to among the highest ever. Looking back on it, can you tell me what he did following that attack that was so great?
I certainly hope that the suspension of the constitution is something Americans would never tolerate even temporarily, but based on how people reacted to the last crisis, I fear that many Americans would accept it all to readily if they were scared enough.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I certainly hope that the suspension of the constitution is something Americans would never tolerate even temporarily, but based on how people reacted to the last crisis, I fear that many Americans would accept it all to readily if they were scared enough.
There are situations I actually do hope we would (briefly) tolerate suspension of the constitution, but a nuclear terrorist attack is not one of them.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm curious Rakeesh, under what circumstances would tolerate suspension of the constitution. Would you tolerate full suspension of the constitution, or are you thinking of just specific sections or rights.
Even during the Civil War, the constitution was never suspended, although certain rights were suspended in some places.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sorry to have been unclear, I did indeed mean sections and rights, not the entire thing.
A nationwide sudden lethal epidemic that demanded quarantine is one such circumstance, though. To my knowledge there is no mechanism by which the President can use the military to summarily suspend everyone's right of free travel between the states, but it would certainly be necessary in such a situation, I think.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: A nationwide sudden lethal epidemic that demanded quarantine is one such circumstance, though. To my knowledge there is no mechanism by which the President can use the military to summarily suspend everyone's right of free travel between the states, but it would certainly be necessary in such a situation, I think.
The constitution does grant the Federal Government the right to regulate interstate commerce. I suspect that would allow them to complete suspend interstate commerce in an emergency situation.
It was after all easy enough to ground all air traffic after 9/11 with out suspending any part of the constitution.
In any case, I suspect that a quarantine would be support by state governors and enforced by the National Guard rather than the regular military. That sort of thing is after all the mission of the National Guard.
There are some cases where I can see some rights being suspended during a crisis. If there were massive violent riots on a regional scale, I could see suspending the writ of habeas corpus, the right of free assembly and possibly even free speech with in that region until the riots were brought under control as long as the rights were immediately restored following the riots.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
DarkKnight, signing statements are not in and of themselves wrong. Most of them are PR, "I'm sure glad I signed this bill for the American people" sorts of things. Sometimes they are clarifications. Rarely are they descriptions of how the president is going to ignore them, until this administration.
quote:4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.
I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws – more than any president in history – is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Thanks Chris, Although the article is technical accurate it certainly leaves a different impression than Obama's statement implies.
I wonder what Clinton and Romney have actually said.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
I have opposed the Bush Administration's abuse of signing statements, and as President, I would not use signing statements to disagree on policy grounds with legislation passed by Congress or as an end run around the veto. I would only use signing statements in very rare instances to note and clarify confusing or contradictory provisions, including provisions that contradict the Constitution. My approach would be to work with Congress to eliminate or correct unconstitutional provisions before legislation is sent to my desk.
quote:4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
I share the view of many past presidents that signing statements are an important presidential practice.
quote:4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
As President, I won’t have signing statements. I will either sign or veto any legislation that comes across my desk.
The names are linked to the Boston Globe questions that the candidates responded to, and I urge folks to read them. Very revealing.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't care how pissed off you think we'd be, we wouldn't nuke anyone over it, especially considering we wouldn't know who to nuke even if we were going to do it.
I sincerely hope you are right, but there are credible reports that the Bush administration and pentagon have seriously considered using Nuclear bunker busters to attack Iran's centrifuge facility. It's certainly possible that such plans are just Texas blustering, a madman stance to both scare Iran and make it easier to persuade Europe to join us in a more tempered assault. Lets hope so.
But everyone knows that is fool hardy to make threats if you aren't willing to follow through. Likewise it's extremely dangerous to assume that people who make these kinds of threats won't ever follow through. If leaders in the White House and Pentagon are willing to circulate such a plan today, I think we have to seriously consider the possibility that they would use nuclear weapons in a crisis situation including possibly in retaliation against a nuclear assault.
Its not rational, but I don't see much rationality from our leaders these days.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm sorry but there has been a push pull relationship between all three branches of government especially the executive and legislative.
Bush is not a national hero that can do as he pleases because the people love him. He like many presidents, has found a way to extend the executive branches power in a way that has precedent and some constitutionality.
If people are pissed off that Bush has managed to extend the powers of the executive branch this far, they need to look at the congress for allowing it to happen. Because when the congress simply whines when they are ignored, I don't fault the executive branch for relying more on itself and trying to do things on it's own.
I look at the congress who has an even lower approval rating than Bush and shake my head. Grow some teeth and start reigning in the executive branch instead of whining that nobody will step in and do your job for you.
Having said that, that's why I think Obama would be so good for this country, he isn't polarizing, he isn't a whiner, but he also knows where the imbalances are in our country and is good at restoring equilibrium.
As much as I think Bush is wrong in THIS regard, I think the congress is ridiculous in that they don't stop it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I look at the congress who has an even lower approval rating than Bush and shake my head. Grow some teeth and start reigning in the executive branch instead of whining that nobody will step in and do your job for you.
Which members of Congress did you vote for last time?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I look at the congress who has an even lower approval rating than Bush and shake my head. Grow some teeth and start reigning in the executive branch instead of whining that nobody will step in and do your job for you.
Which members of Congress did you vote for last time?
The last time I could have voted for a senator I was on a mission and was not permitted to vote. The congressman for my district is not the one I voted for.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The last time I could have voted for a senator I was on a mission and was not permitted to vote.
Why not? I was permitted, even encouraged to cast an absentee ballot while I was on my mission. Who told you you weren't permitted to vote as a missionary.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:The last time I could have voted for a senator I was on a mission and was not permitted to vote.
Why not? I was permitted, even encouraged to cast an absentee ballot while I was on my mission. Who told you you weren't permitted to vote as a missionary.
I could have sent an absentee balot, but we were asked not to read up on politics or the news. The main reason I did not vote was because I did not follow politics or the news closely and therefore did not feel I could cast a good vote.
Were you a couple missionary when you voted? Also I can see the rules varying by mission and by the time period one served.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Were you a couple missionary when you voted? Also I can see the rules varying by mission and by the time period one served.
Jeez BB, We met. I'm not that old.
I served my mission when I was 22 during the 1984 election.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'll also add that I think there is a big difference between saying that you chose not to vote because as a missionary you were not following the issues and so did not feel able to make a good choice and saying that you weren't permitted to vote as a missionary.
I've heard enough weird rumors and interpretations of the draconian rules the church imposes on missionaries, no need to add fuel to the fire.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Were you a couple missionary when you voted? Also I can see the rules varying by mission and by the time period one served.
Jeez BB, We met. I'm not that old.
I served my mission when I was 22 during the 1984 election.
That's two years after I was born! It's perfectly plausible that you served a mission as a 21 year old AND as a couple. Not all couple missionaries are in their 60's or 70's. In Hong Kong we had couple missionaries in their 40s working in the church offices.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:That's two years after I was born! It's perfectly plausible that you served a mission as a 21 year old AND as a couple. Not all couple missionaries are in their 60's or 70's. In Hong Kong we had couple missionaries in their 40s working in the church offices.
There are occasionally couple missionaries who are that young but it is very rare. The church does not generally call couples who are of child baring age or who have children under the age of 18 and the demands of jobs and career make it highly impractical for most couples to serve missions until they retire.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:That's two years after I was born!
Way to make a girl feel young BB.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I do not think President Bush would or could ever try to disallow the elections, or to disallow n elected rival from taking his job after the election.
However, I do believe that many of the policy's and precedents that he set may be used by less scrupulous people to hold onto and retain power they no longer should constitutionally have. Yes I can see a day when a president would arrest rivals as "Enemy Combatants" based on "Secret Information we can not disclose to court" showing "there surrender based attitudes help our enemies, and are a danger to the country."
Would those who approve of President Bush's use of signing statements truly be satisfied if a President Hillary Clinton were to have that same power?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:That's two years after I was born!
Way to make a girl feel young BB.
I'm clearly in a downward spiral at this point, with no hope of leveling my craft, if I opted out of ejecting and crashed to my death would that make you feel any better?
I was going more for I am exceedingly young not so much that you are very old.
I've yet to meet an old person who could handle a motorized scooter in the city. Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
What I don't get is why we tried and impeached President Clinton for having an affair -- something that, while morally reprehensible, in no way affected the country at large -- and meanwhile we're letting Bush get away with challenging the constitution with little or no repercussions! I mean the man has broken more laws than most of the criminals in our justice system!! But because he's the president using "signing statements" he can give it just enough of an air of legality and legitimacy that we're letting him get away with it?
It's immensely frustrating.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: What I don't get is why we tried and impeached President Clinton for having an affair -- something that, while morally reprehensible, in no way affected the country at large -- and meanwhile we're letting Bush get away with challenging the constitution with little or no repercussions! I mean the man has broken more laws than most of the criminals in our justice system!! But because he's the president using "signing statements" he can give it just enough of an air of legality and legitimacy that we're letting him get away with it?
It's immensely frustrating.
Before I let myself explode, I'll stick to your statement.
Clinton was not impeached because he had an affair, he was impeached because he lied to a grand jury under oath.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: I was going more for I am exceedingly young not so much that you are very old.
I'll accept that but from now on a expect you to bow with deference to my wisdom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Clinton was not impeached because he had an affair, he was impeached because he lied to a grand jury under oath.
Well, to be even more accurate, he was impeached because enough Congresspeople voted to impeach him. You don't actually need a reason to impeach anyone, and they certainly didn't have one.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote: I was going more for I am exceedingly young not so much that you are very old.
I'll accept that but from now on a expect you to bow with deference to my wisdom.
On the outside it will look like this: But on the inside I'll be doing this: Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Clinton was not impeached because he had an affair, he was impeached because he lied to a grand jury under oath.
Well, to be even more accurate, he was impeached because enough Congresspeople voted to impeach him. You don't actually need a reason to impeach anyone, and they certainly didn't have one.
I put it in bold for you to make it easy. Did you miss that part? And before you say you don't think that was a very good reason to impeach, I remind you that the entire Supreme Court of the United States refused to attend Clinton's State of the Union Address following his perjury; something that never before happened in the history of the country.
But wait... BUSH LIED, KIDS DIED!!! IMPEACH THE CHIMP!!!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I remind you that the entire Supreme Court of the United States refused to attend Clinton's State of the Union Address following his perjury; something that never before happened in the history of the country.
I'm sure the Supreme Court was very, very hurt. *plays world's smallest violin for them* Somehow I doubt Congress was all choked up about the "lying under oath" thing, though. Call it a hunch. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Well, to be even more accurate, he was impeached because enough Congresspeople voted to impeach him. You don't actually need a reason to impeach anyone, and they certainly didn't have one.
To be even more more accurate (hyper-accurate?), would those Congresspeople have voted to impeach him without him lying to a grand jury under oath?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: quote:Well, to be even more accurate, he was impeached because enough Congresspeople voted to impeach him. You don't actually need a reason to impeach anyone, and they certainly didn't have one.
To be even more more accurate (hyper-accurate?), would those Congresspeople have voted to impeach him without him lying to a grand jury under oath?
The congress was invading his privacy, his personal business something they had no right to inquire about whatsoever.
It was NOT their business. He had broken no law until he lied under oath -- but they had no right to put him under oath and question him about that anyway.
Regardless, it is not that Clinton was impeached that lends the frustration, it is that Bush has not been, when there are far more legitimate reasons for impeaching him than there were with Clinton.
Do you deny that, using the president set by Clinton's impeachment, we should have more than enough reason and evidence to impeach Bush as well?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To be even more more accurate (hyper-accurate?), would those Congresspeople have voted to impeach him without him lying to a grand jury under oath?
Almost certainly. Like I said, you give Congress the opportunity to remove a sitting president and claim they did it for a reason of principle? That's like a picnic. They didn't need the reason, though.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So when the line item veto was ruled unconstitutional, did all the items Clinton vetoed get automatically restored? That was determined to interfere with Congress' power of the purse.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It was NOT their business. He had broken no law until he lied under oath -- but they had no right to put him under oath and question him about that anyway.
Let's assume I agree with you about everything else (I don't, but it's a boring conversation at this point): you don't get to decide, "I shouldn't have to answer this question, so I can lie under oath," and get away without penalty.
quote:Almost certainly. Like I said, you give Congress the opportunity to remove a sitting president and claim they did it for a reason of principle? That's like a picnic. They didn't need the reason, though.
So without the perjury, howdo you think his impeachment would have happened, Tom?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Considering the investigation into the Clintons ended up covering all manner of things that had absolutely nothing to do with the perjury, I think it probably would've gone on anyway. They clearly were less interested in the perjury than they were excited about it being a gateway to a witch hunt, thus, I don't think the lack of a gateway would've stopped them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So without the perjury, howdo you think his impeachment would have happened, Tom?
All they needed was political cover to call the vote.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: quote:It was NOT their business. He had broken no law until he lied under oath -- but they had no right to put him under oath and question him about that anyway.
Let's assume I agree with you about everything else (I don't, but it's a boring conversation at this point): you don't get to decide, "I shouldn't have to answer this question, so I can lie under oath," and get away without penalty.
quote:Almost certainly. Like I said, you give Congress the opportunity to remove a sitting president and claim they did it for a reason of principle? That's like a picnic. They didn't need the reason, though.
So without the perjury, howdo you think his impeachment would have happened, Tom?
[[Unnecessary grumpiness due to case of mistaken identity -- deleted. Sorry rakeesh, I mistook you to be the same person as Respibiggle (sp?).]]
The question of whether or not Clinton's impeachment was right or just is a moot point. It happened. I'm talking about Bush now.
Is there any one here who would deny that, using the precedent set by Clinton's impeachment, we should have more than enough reason and evidence to impeach Bush as well?
[ January 31, 2008, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: And before you say you don't think that was a very good reason to impeach, I remind you that the entire Supreme Court of the United States refused to attend Clinton's State of the Union Address following his perjury; something that never before happened in the history of the country.
The actions of the members of the Supreme Court are not very relevant to the question of whether or not it was a good reason to impeach.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: But wait... BUSH LIED, KIDS DIED!!! IMPEACH THE CHIMP!!!
Thanks for showing us you have no credibility in this discussion either. Obviously you couldn't be bothered to take the time to understand why people want Bush impeached. Or why at least 25 congressman actively support holding impeachment hearings against Cheney (I guess they don't have real reasons and HR 333 must just be a packet of blank paper). Or why you can see middle-aged citizens declaring Bush to be the worst president in their lifetimes (trumping even Jimmy Carter in the opinion of my parents).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Eh, it's a possibility that without any perjury it still would've happened.
I doubt it, though. I think it would've remained a much more ordinary style of presidential scandal.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I liked Clinton, but he did lie about sexual conduct while being investigated, under oath, about a sexual harassment case. They DID have the right to question him...and he had the right to not answer.
He did not have the right to lie because he didn't want people to find out, and his past conduct DOES have bearing on that type of case.
No excuses.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think what proceeded, a multimillion dollar witch hunt that delved into every manner of his pivate, and professional life, and that of his wife, could possibly have been justified from what happened.
Do I think he should've been punished for lying? Yes. Do I think that individual offense was good enough excuse to rifle through every aspect of his life to find something else to pin on him as well? No, and I think it's against the spirit of the Constitution as well.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Do I think that individual offense was good enough excuse to rifle through every aspect of his life to find something else to pin on him as well? No, and I think it's against the spirit of the Constitution as well.
Do you have the same sympathy for Ken Starr and Monica Lewinsky?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I have sympathy for Monica Lewinsky. Why would anyone have sympathy for Ken Starr?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
I have no idea who Ken Starr is, but I definitely feel sorry for Lewinsky.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Ken Starr is the prosecutor who spent $40 MM investigating the sordid details about exactly what happened between Clinton and Lewisky, and then published a legal report that some people used in place of pornography.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Ken Starr is the prosecutor who spent $40 MM investigating the sordid details about exactly what happened between Clinton and Lewisky, and then published a legal report that some people used in place of pornography
You may have left out a few details about it but at least you stuck with the Democrat talking points.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
He forgot that the Republican sponsors had already gone through a couple of special prosecutors who had investigated what their mandate was to investigate, said they could find no incidence of wrongdoing, and stopped.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
KenStarr quit as lead prosecutor to rejoin his law firm in time to collect his partnership share of the looting of the HughesElectronics employees' pension fund. After reaping more millions on the lecture circuit from Republicans grateful for his abuse of prosecutorial power -- abuse sufficient to cause permanent shutdown of the Office of the SpecialProsecutor -- he was then chosen to head the law school of PepperdineUniversity on MalibuBeach.
Now precisely what am I s'poseta feel sorry for?
[ February 05, 2008, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You know, I missed 1998 completely because I was on my mission. I think it was the best year in the last 50 to have missed.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
What were the republican talking points, other than that hanky panky in the oval office can be turned into high crimes and misdemeanors as long as the president is a democrat?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think it was the best year in the last 50 to have missed.
No way. 2001 was a steaming pile of suck.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
True dat.
But 1998 was also the year of Titanic. That puts it over the edge.
(I wouldn't have wanted to miss 9/11. It's too much of our collective experience. Clinton and his impeachment was just sordid.)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
An outraged Jon Stewart: "It strikes me that if there is any power explicitly granted to Congress, it would be allocating the budget -- to decide whether taxpayer money could go to building permanent bases in Iraq."
"Senior Political Correspondent" Rob Riggle: "Oh Jon, I hear you. It's crazy. But at this point, really, I'd just let it go. . . . Look, this guy hasn't listened to anyone for seven years. He's got a year to go. You're just going to make him madder."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Do I think that individual offense was good enough excuse to rifle through every aspect of his life to find something else to pin on him as well? No, and I think it's against the spirit of the Constitution as well.
Do you have the same sympathy for Ken Starr and Monica Lewinsky?
For Lewinsky? Yes I do.
For Ken Starr? Most certainly not.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: For Ken Starr? Most certainly not.
Why not?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Why would I?
He overstepped what should have been his authority, at the urging of his Republican masters, and after all he went through, he still couldn't find anything.
And in the end, became quite wealthy.
Where in there is there something for me to feel sorry about?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: For Ken Starr? Most certainly not.
Why not?
Why should we feel sorry?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I wouldn't have wanted to miss 9/11. It's too much of our collective experience. Clinton and his impeachment was just sordid.
9/11 was too big to miss anywhere on the planet, even if you had been a missionary.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The difference between President Clinton I and President Bush II.
President Bill Clinton lied under oath.
President George W Bush refuses to testify, claiming Executive Privilege to almost everything.
So, we all know when Clinton is lieing. His mouth is moving.
We don't know when Bush is lieing because asking if he's lieing is somehow wrong, un-patriotic, un-constitutional, and helps the terrorists win.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
What clearly gets me about this current signing statement, is that its claims are so outrageous.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but even I know that the founding fathers gave congress the power of the purse rather than the President specifically to reign in the power of the executive branch. They gave congress the power to declare war, not the President, explicitly to reign in the power of the military commander in chief.
Now while I wouldn't claim that the founders intent should always trump when interpreting the constitution, this is one case where I whole heartedly support the founders. The separation of powers is from my perspective the most inspired idea in the constitution. Weakening that separation leads to messes like the one we are currently in.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My recollection of the constitution is fuzzy, but don't treaties have to have the consent of the senate anyway?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yes. The President can negotiate treaties, but they don't enter into the full force of US law unless ratified by the Senate.
Case in point, the US never ratified the Treaty of Versailles even though Wilson was a key player in the negotiations. His one major point that made it through, the League of Nations, was never joined by the US as a result. Same thing with Clinton and Kyoto.
Also, it's the reason why the US is the only country that calls sparkling wine made outside of Champagne, France, Champagne. There was a provision in the Treaty that restricted any nation from calling it Champagne, but since we never ratified, sparkling wine from California goes by Champagne. (The issue was later settled and old champagne makers were grandfathered in).
I think Bush is finally crossing a line that he'll really get checked on.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There are non-Californian US champagne producers (albeit all niche ones, AFAIK).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I couldn't think of any off the top of my head, certainly no major producers. But yeah, it's anywhere in the country so long as they were producing it before the agreement with France went into the effect in the 70's or 80's, I can't remember.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Ken Starr is the prosecutor who spent $40 MM investigating the sordid details about exactly what happened between Clinton and Lewisky, and then published a legal report that some people used in place of pornography
You may have left out a few details about it but at least you stuck with the Democrat talking points.
As opposed to, say, providing no information at all but implying one's own position on a moral high horse...?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I think the biggest detail I left out is that Starr didn't find any thing that could be considered a crime outside of family court.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Lying to Congress belongs to a family court?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Lying to Congress belongs to a family court?
I think Clinton lied to a grand jury not to congress.
Bush on the other hand has repeatedly told egregious lies to congress that have cost the lives of more American citizens than the 9/11 attacks in addition to the lives of tens to hundreds of thousands of around the world. He has broken treaties, trounced the constitution, spied on American citizens, order the kidnapping and torture or who know how many people and disgraced the country through out the world. It will take decades to rebuild what he has destroyed.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
He lied under oath. I don't feel sorry for that. I think they went too far, but his ludicrous attempt at dodging the truth opened the door.
He was a lawyer, and the PotUS. There was no excuse.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
On a related conservative not, I like what Doug Wead (the historian and political operative that coined the term compassionate conservative) had to say about Ron Paul and the conservative movement. The Mouse that roared: Why Ron Paul won the election.
quote:Well now, Republicans say, we have a nominee. That may very well be but there was only one clear winner in the confusing GOP nominating contest and it was not John McCain. The winner was Ron Paul. And the effects of his win will be felt for years to come.
Ron Paul made a classic political mistake. He told the truth. In debate after debate he pointed at his party, his president, his fellow contenders for the GOP nomination, shouting aloud like the little boy in the proverbial story, “they have no clothes” and lo and behold, we looked and they didn’t. They were all naked.
He showed that the conservative movement has lost its way, its moral authority and its logic. He showed us that we have become a red team versus blue team. That since we have decided that this is a political war and all normal rules are suspended, conservatives can do liberal things to win it. Conservatives can run up big deficits if it helps their side win. They can dole out needless pork if it elects another “conservative” to congress. They can go to war if it makes their president look like a leader and wins him another term.
But in the process, Ron Paul showed us, that we have lost our way. We are no longer conservatives. We are fighting for power not for principles. We have become corrupted by the process and the only way back is to retrace our steps and find all the things we discarded along he way.
Emphasis mine. I am so mad at Congress for its inability to reign in Bush. Bush has really damaged the party I used to think upheld my conservative values.
*note* I am not talking social conservative values. I am talking about monetary policy and the ideas of limited restrained government.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why is it that every time one brings up President Clinton's perjury, President Bush's supposed greater lies are always brought up?
As though that made a difference, really. Let's say that for the sake of argument Rabbit's statements are totally, completely correct. Why is that an excuse for perjury?
The second President Bush wasn't around when President Clinton committed his perjury. It's not as though President Clinton said, "Hey, this other President will do a lot worse a few years after I'm gone, so I should get a pass for all intents and purposes on some really questionable relationships in the office and on perjury."
No. It doesn't work like that. It shouldn't work like that. "This other guy was lots worse," isn't an acceptable argument for any other kind of transgression, so why does President Clinton get to hide behind someone else's misdeeds?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:That since we have decided that this is a political war and all normal rules are suspended, conservatives can do liberal things to win it. Conservatives can run up big deficits if it helps their side win. They can dole out needless pork if it elects another “conservative” to congress. They can go to war if it makes their president look like a leader and wins him another term.
When has the republican party every been any different on these issues? Certainly not in my lifetime.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And you know, the funniest thing about President Clinton getting a pass on perjury? It lends Bush apologists a defense against Bush criticisms.
If President Clinton's fans would just admit, "Yes, he committed perjury, and that's an awful thing for a President regardless of what sort of question he was asked. Now let's move on," Bush apologists wouldn't get to say, "You were a lot happier with lying when it was Slick Willy in office."
But I hardly ever hear fans of President Clinton admit, yes, he committed perjury and it was pretty dang bad for him to have done. Almost invariably President Bush gets trotted out like a shield.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Why is it that every time one brings up President Clinton's perjury, President Bush's supposed greater lies are always brought up?
As though that made a difference, really. Let's say that for the sake of argument Rabbit's statements are totally, completely correct. Why is that an excuse for perjury?
It isn't. No one said it was. The point I was making and I believe others have been trying to make as well is that if Clinton's lies justified his impeachment, Bush's certainly do as well.
quote:The second President Bush wasn't around when President Clinton committed his perjury. It's not as though President Clinton said, "Hey, this other President will do a lot worse a few years after I'm gone, so I should get a pass for all intents and purposes on some really questionable relationships in the office and on perjury."
Like I said, the issue isn't one of Clinton getting a pass because Bush has done worse, it is a question of whether or not Bush should be held accountable for his acts. If you have established a standard that lying is an impeachable offense, why aren't you holding Bush to that standard?
Until the people, who supported impeaching Clinton for his lies, stand up and demand at least an independent investigation of the crimes of the Bush administration, its difficult to see any principle behind Clinton's impeachment other than a partisanship.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Like I said, the issue isn't one of Clinton getting a pass because Bush has done worse, it is a question of whether or not Bush should be held accountable for his acts. If you have established a standard that lying is an impeachable offense, why aren't you holding Bush to that standard?
Until the people, who supported impeaching Clinton for his lies, stand up and demand at least an independent investigation of the crimes of the Bush administration, its difficult to see any principle behind Clinton's impeachment other than a partisanship.
Just to be clear, if I'm not mistaken President Bush has not perjured himself to a court. That's a technicality, but then so are laws.
So the comparison is not quite accurate yet. Morally, though, I agree with you. If Clinton's behavior was impeachable, so too should Bush's many misstepts be impeachable, to discover whether they were missteps or outright lies.
As for not excusing President Clinton's behavior but insisting President Bush be held to the same standard...I'm sorry. I find that difficult to believe. That is not the impression I get when I discuss this with people. I've heard, "It was no big deal, the question should never have been asked in the first place," too many times, I suppose.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Bush may be technically innocent of perjury but there is substantial evidence that he has broken other laws like the National Strategic Intelligence Act.
Is your position that those laws matter less than the laws Clinton broke?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, my position is that it's absolutely undeniable that President Clinton perjured himself, whereas as you say there is 'substantial evidence' that President Bush has broken other laws.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
By the way, what does 'technically innocent' of perjury mean, anyway?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Some would dispute that Clinton's lie was on a material matter to the court in question. If it was not, it was not perjury.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But I hardly ever hear fans of President Clinton admit, yes, he committed perjury and it was pretty dang bad for him to have done. Almost invariably President Bush gets trotted out like a shield.
I think it's the other way around. Rather, Clinton's perjury gets trotted out as a shield to defend Bush from otherwise valid arguments for impeachment. When do you ever hear Democrats bring up Clinton's "perjury" on their own, except to contrast with the way Bush is essentially being granted a free pass?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:No, my position is that it's absolutely undeniable that President Clinton perjured himself, whereas as you say there is 'substantial evidence' that President Bush has broken other laws.
Under US law, an accused person is held innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Clinton has never been tried on the charge of perjury. If such a trial were to occur, it is far from evident that he would be found guilty.
To what ever extent it proven that Clinton perjured himself, it is because a special Ken Starr was given the authority to investigate the issue and spent untold effort uncovering the evidence even though there was no evidence of either his affair with Ms. Lewinsky or perjury before Starr started digging.
Bush has virtually confessed to violate NSIA and yet still no special prosecutor has been appointed to investigate his crimes. You will note, that is what I've called for.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Lying to Congress belongs to a family court?
The question he was asked belonged in family court.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: To what ever extent it proven that Clinton perjured himself, it is because a special Ken Starr was given the authority to investigate the issue and spent untold effort uncovering the evidence even though there was no evidence of either his affair with Ms. Lewinsky or perjury before Starr started digging.
This is flat out not true. Starr requested authority to investigate the issue after hearing tapes that contained specific evidence that Clinton had lied in his deposition and had encouraged Lewinsky to be evasive in her deposition.
The tapes were made by a woman who had been the subject of a concerted smear campaign that questioned her honesty when she reported seeing Katherine Wiley upset and disheveled shortly after leaving Clinton's office.
quote:The question he was asked belonged in family court.
Actually, the question was originally asked as part of proceedings in a sexual harassment suit, which was properly before the federal district court. Discovery during this sexual harassment suit properly included whether Clinton had had improper sexual relationships with female subordinates.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
At the time, I thought people were just being mean to Clinton- who cared who he slept with. But now that I am a bit older (I was a teenager then), I realize that these issus do matter. Now that I have a job, I understand the power differential between boss and employee much better (I have a boss and subordinates so I see both sides). I think sexual harrassment is an important issue and shouldn't be lightly dismissed. I also think that Bush's actions should be investigated thoroughly. I don't think the fact that bill did bad allows bush to. Nor does Bush's actions make bill's retroactively ok.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
According to my understanding, based on a Dateline NBC or 20/20 special (it's been 9 years or so, but I think it was 20/20), Lewinsky wrote letters to her best friend specifically saying that she became an intern specifically to have sex with Clinton. I mean, whatever. I doubt they'd make up such letters.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: To what ever extent it proven that Clinton perjured himself, it is because a special Ken Starr was given the authority to investigate the issue and spent untold effort uncovering the evidence even though there was no evidence of either his affair with Ms. Lewinsky or perjury before Starr started digging.
This is flat out not true. Starr requested authority to investigate the issue after hearing tapes that contained specific evidence that Clinton had lied in his deposition and had encouraged Lewinsky to be evasive in her deposition.
I guess whether or not my statement is true or untrue depends on how you interpret "before Ken Starr started digging". If you understand that phrase to mean before Ken Starr was appointed special prosecutor to investigate Clinton, as I intended, then I think even you will admit that there was no evidence of perjury at that point in time.
And my original point is still valid. There is far more evidence that Bush has violated the law than there was evidence Clinton had violated the law before a special prosecutor began investigating the crime. I can see no justification for those who supported Clinton's impeachment but do not even support an independent investigation of Bush's alleged crimes except partisan vendettas.
[ February 08, 2008, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
with deference to my wisdom.![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)