no bump for Bush Iraq speech. No wonder. He never said anything new:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush.poll/index.html

on his secret visit to Iraq. (Funny I thought it was so safe over there)
When he finished with his applause line (something about fighting the good fight, one of those troop rallying phrases) there was a solitary whistle of approval

Kerry should make the trip, might pick up another Purple Heart. :)

King Kong Cheney not look too good. He smile crooked. He eat one hand. He have stroke?

considering the man in question had 5 mystery deferments.

pathetic. bok bok bok goes the chicken hawks

just an fyi Swiftboats was proven a lie and is now a verb for smearing someones military record.

(example) man did you see how they tried to swiftboat Murtha?

considering the man in question had 5 mystery deferments.

pathetic. bok bok bok goes the chicken hawks

just an fyi Swiftboats was proven a lie and is now a verb for smearing someones military record.

(example) man did you see how they tried to swiftboat Murtha?

I watched the whole thing and I missed the proof that they lied part.. that little example you used is an inside joke with you liberals, it isn't mainstream. Four Purple Hearts, sounds gooood, maybe even.......Presidential?

thab 5 deferments and the mystery missing years service in the A.N.G.

Well, he did go to Iraq. I don't think Cheney was in the ANG.

thab 5 deferments and the mystery missing years service in the A.N.G.

Cheney Deferred, W did the ANG.

been to Iraq big whupp, Al Franken has been to Iraq more than both the pres and VP combined

Cheney Deferred, W did the ANG.

been to Iraq big whupp, Al Franken has been to Iraq more than both the pres and VP combined

Well Al has more time. Besides, he's so ugly he doesn't even need a flak jacket, he just scares the insurgents out of the neighborhood. Did he serve in Vietnam?

Al wasn't responsible for sending our best to fight and die or responsible for a 'by his account' 30,000 civilian deaths. last I checked Al wasn't responisible for putting our sons and daughters in harms way over a lie. but I'll give you a c- for the obfuscatioon attempt.

Al wasn't responsible for sending our best to fight and die or responsible for a 'by his account' 30,000 civilian deaths. last I checked Al wasn't responisible for putting our sons and daughters in harms way over a lie. but I'll give you a c- for the obfuscatioon attempt.

I don't even know what obfuscatioon means, but c- doesn't sound high enough. Stella your daughter? Pretty kid.

Al wasn't responsible for sending our best to fight and die or responsible for a 'by his account' 30,000 civilian deaths. last I checked Al wasn't responisible for putting our sons and daughters in harms way over a lie. but I'll give you a c- for the obfuscatioon attempt.


Careful with the lies. Next thing you know your adversary will start talking about Clinton
and we all know he did way more damage to the country than Bush. What's 30,000 lives compared to dignity, fortititude, moral rectitude and all of that other stuff? Oh, and the Bible.

It has taken me forty years to realize my dad was right about Vietnam.

For the record, I don't like Bush, I do like Clinton (and Carter too) and I think Mallard Fillmore is pompous and stupid and, um, pompous and stupid.

Careful with the lies. Next thing you know your adversary will start talking about Clinton
and we all know he did way more damage to the country than Bush. What's 30,000 lives compared to dignity, fortititude, moral rectitude and all of that other stuff? Oh, and the Bible.

It has taken me forty years to realize my dad was right about Vietnam.

For the record, I don't like Bush, I do like Clinton (and Carter too) and I think Mallard Fillmore is pompous and stupid and, um, pompous and stupid.

Well I'm glad you declared which side you'tre on, who you like and don't like. I'd a never figgered it out.

yup, obviously. and that obfuscation will get ya an A

Enjoy your evening.

Well I'm glad you declared which side you'tre on, who you like and don't like. I'd a never figgered it out.

I don't even know what "you'tre" means.

Means I can't schpell neither. :)

it's typing one handed while you are working on another system that is tough

http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1421748

Analysis By GARY LANGER

Dec. 19, 2005 — The recent elections in Iraq and an improved economic outlook at home have shifted public support in the president's direction, lifting him from career lows in his job performance and personal ratings alike....

...Overall, 47 percent of Americans in this ABC News/Washington Post poll now approve of George W. Bush's work in office; 52 percent disapprove. While hardly robust, that is up from a career low 39 percent-60 percent in early November to its best in nearly six months.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1421748

Analysis By GARY LANGER

Dec. 19, 2005 — The recent elections in Iraq and an improved economic outlook at home have shifted public support in the president's direction, lifting him from career lows in his job performance and personal ratings alike....

...Overall, 47 percent of Americans in this ABC News/Washington Post poll now approve of George W. Bush's work in office; 52 percent disapprove. While hardly robust, that is up from a career low 39 percent-60 percent in early November to its best in nearly six months.

I wonder what it is going to be when the news of his breaking laws and trashing that little document called the Constitution sinks into the psyche of the American people completely. I think we might see a new low next week.

I wonder what it is going to be when the news of his breaking laws and trashing that little document called the Constitution sinks into the psyche of the American people completely. I think we might see a new low next week.

I don't think this is gonna be the gotcha moment that the dems have been striving for since 2000.

Wait 'til it sinks in that he's made himself into a Constitution-stomping, snooping King, and he's effing King for three more years!

Wait 'til it sinks in that he's made himself into a Constitution-stomping, snooping King, and he's effing King for three more years!

When it all comes out it will be proved that he had the authority to do what he did including, constitutionally, by statutue, and by precedent. Sorry, but I don't think this will be the gotcha issue.

When it all comes out it will be proved that he had the authority to do what he did including, constitutionally, by statutue, and by precedent. Sorry, but I don't think this will be the gotcha issue.
Just pondering your constitutional statement and after perusing the constitution, I cannot for the life of me find (without onerous elastisity...the kind that makes conservatives shudder) or begin to imagine where he should come to these powers constitutionally. Was hoping that you could shed some light on your premise in this area.

In fact this is one of those instances where convictions seem to be taking a holiday again.

Because if one tries to constitutionally explain the powers of the executive office and tries to expand or elasticize the meaning...then one is confronted with an abdication of conservative dictum that warrants an exacting and literal meaning of the constitution and our founders originalist intent...and I am sure are founders are not on board with this.

Just curious.

Just pondering your constitutional statement and after perusing the constitution, I cannot for the life of me find (without onerous elastisity...the kind that makes conservatives shudder) or begin to imagine where he should come to these powers constitutionally. Was hoping that you could shed some light on your premise in this area.

In fact this is one of those instances where convictions seem to be taking a holiday again.

Because if one tries to constitutionally explain the powers of the executive office and tries to expand or elasticize the meaning...then one is confronted with an abdication of conservative dictum that warrants an exacting and literal meaning of the constitution and our founders originalist intent...and I am sure are founders are not on board with this.

Just curious.

According to "W" when Congress voted to allow use of force in Afghanistan, that's all he needed to do this. Although, I'm not sure after perusing the resolution, and I'm sure that many Congressmen and women would be not so sure as well, where it stated within that resolution to use force in Afghanistan that it said he could conduct wiretaps without a warrant. Fuzzy logic that he has there I'm afraid. The administration is claiming that since we are at war, the President's powers are expanded, but technically, there was never a declaration of war was there? Just a resolution allowing use of force first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, war was never declared.

I have been looking at my copy of the pocket Constitution that I picked up in Philadelphia a couple of weeks ago, and amazingly enough, nowhere in there does it allow for such movement by the executive branch. And I thought that the oath of office said that he would protect and defend the Constitution of the US? I guess rolling it out and pissing on it is the same thing then?

I have been looking at my copy of the pocket Constitution that I picked up in Philadelphia a couple of weeks ago, and amazingly enough, nowhere in there does it allow for such movement by the executive branch. And I thought that the oath of office said that he would protect and defend the Constitution of the US? I guess rolling it out and pissing on it is the same thing then?

Can you find in the 1st amendment where it says you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre?

Just pondering your constitutional statement and after perusing the constitution, I cannot for the life of me find (without onerous elastisity...the kind that makes conservatives shudder) or begin to imagine where he should come to these powers constitutionally. Was hoping that you could shed some light on your premise in this area.

In fact this is one of those instances where convictions seem to be taking a holiday again.

Because if one tries to constitutionally explain the powers of the executive office and tries to expand or elasticize the meaning...then one is confronted with an abdication of conservative dictum that warrants an exacting and literal meaning of the constitution and our founders originalist intent...and I am sure are founders are not on board with this.

Just curious.Article II

more specific please.Where do you read that in there brumm?

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPEACH).

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#CONCUR); and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

According to "W" when Congress voted to allow use of force in Afghanistan, that's all he needed to do this. Although, I'm not sure after perusing the resolution, and I'm sure that many Congressmen and women would be not so sure as well, where it stated within that resolution to use force in Afghanistan that it said he could conduct wiretaps without a warrant. Fuzzy logic that he has there I'm afraid. The administration is claiming that since we are at war, the President's powers are expanded, but technically, there was never a declaration of war was there? Just a resolution allowing use of force first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, war was never declared.

I have been looking at my copy of the pocket Constitution that I picked up in Philadelphia a couple of weeks ago, and amazingly enough, nowhere in there does it allow for such movement by the executive branch. And I thought that the oath of office said that he would protect and defend the Constitution of the US? I guess rolling it out and pissing on it is the same thing then?

Our wars have been undeclared since Korea, it is internationally politically cleaner that way. That isn't to say we are not at war but it is just an accepted fact that we are and that things are then on a wartime footing. It is also politically expedient for our elected officials to accept that premise. It gives whoever is in power the ability to defend our country and it's interests on an unoficial war footing. It is largely held to be unsatisfactory with the general public and politicians vow to never to do it again and they seem to stick to that promise until the next time. For Democrats to deny this President war powers would fundamentaly signal a change in the way things have to be done and dead as they seem to be as a political entity, they still expect to regain the upper hand at some point in the future, rightly so. They will be reluctant to make the changes so all we are going to get is noise.

Article IImore specific please.

Can you find in the 1st amendment where it says you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre?

But you can. Doesn't mean that there won't be consequences for you doing so.

When it all comes out it will be proved that he had the authority to do what he did including, constitutionally, by statutue, and by precedent. Sorry, but I don't think this will be the gotcha issue.
I'm not sure it matters that what he's doing is legal. Everything Hitler did was legal as well.

no bump for Bush Iraq speech. No wonder. He never said anything new:


The Bush Administration seems to have changed their tack in the last few days. They are aggressively defending this like never before. I mean W is actually taking hard questions from reporters and regular folks. :rolleyes:

I think this new approach indicates how worried the admin. is over this. I think they know Bush is in big trouble and they are taking the most aggressive approach available now to shore up public support for the Prez. before the sh!t really hits the fan.

For goodness sakes, I even heard the impeachment word bandied about on the radio yesterday. :eek:

Where do you read that in there brumm?

Where does it say he can't collect foreign intelligence?

Article II
Article II

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

So where in here does Article II give the President the power and authorization to go above and beyond the law of the land again? Just curious, because I don't see that authorization in there anywhere.

Oh no. You mentioned the "H" word. Now this thread is going to veer precipitously. I'm puttin' on the kevlar.

Article II
I'll understand if you don't want to get into the constitutional minutae of this, I have been reading the statements made by constitutional experts and they either say that "under the most elastic readings of article II" or they say that it does not exist at all. Most are proclaiming that there are federal laws that grant two ways for anyone including the president to obtain a wire tap...the first is an article 3 and the second is a fisa route. These experts are saying that presidential fiat for wiretapping is against federal law... and cannot be found in any reading of the constitution.

Where does it say he can't collect foreign intelligence?R.I.P

'strict constructionism' & *conservativism*

:rolleyes:

I'll understand if you don't want to get into the constitutional minutae of this, I have been reading the statements made by constitutional experts and they either say that "under the most elastic readings of article II" or they say that it does not exist at all. Most are proclaiming that there are federal laws that grant two ways for anyone including the president to obtain a wire tap...the first is an article 3 and the second is a fisa route. These experts are saying that presidential fiat for wiretapping is against federal law... and cannot be found in any reading of the constitution.

I understand. I appreciate those arguments from those experts. I have also seen other constitutional experts saying that Bush was well within his rights. Something about some law that Carter signed in 1978.

All I'm saying is that my gut feeling is that this won't be the gotcha that you are hoping for. But, what do I know. We'll definately find out. Should be fun to watch.

Oh no. You mentioned the "H" word. Now this thread is going to veer precipitously. I'm puttin' on the kevlar.
I ain't afraid of Godwin's law. Legality should not be the only test for whether something is wrong or not. That was my point.

I ain't afraid of Godwin's law. Legality should not be the only test for whether something is wrong or not. That was my point.


Good Point. Of course legality is not the only consideration. In this case it is important because of the politics involved. In terms of whether it is right ot wrong for Bush to be monitoring terrorist conversations, I certainly would like the NSA to be doing that very thing. You undoubtably have concerns with Bush, and his administration, but I hardly think there is any comparision to Hilter here.

you aren't horrified by the evergrowing reach of govt. this is YOUR ENEMY remember, and instead you are centralizing more power, allowing the Pres to either circumvent or 'flex'the constitution within a inch of its life and you guys just accept it. how far you've strayed

like spying on his detractors, closing down the Munich newspaper and removing any astrologist who didn't see things his way. uh, he was also big on 'returning his country from the moral decay crap'

you aren't horrified by the evergrowing reach of govt. this is YOUR ENEMY remember, and instead you are centralizing more power, allowing the Pres to either circumvent or 'flex'the constitution within a inch of its life and you guys just accept it. how far you've strayed

The NSA wiretapping without a warrant is not without precedent. As you have no doubt heard by now, Carter and Clinton did similar. From what I have heard the Pres was within his rights to order the taps. So while being legal it is also not a situation of evergrowing as it had been done before.

You raise a good point about conservatives and less government. Conservatives in general and myself want the government to take less of the money that we earn. We also want the government to protect our families from the people that our hell bent to see us dead or living in a crippled state. Conservative have historically been strong on defense.

Now, if I really felt the President and his government were circumventing the constitution and undermining personal privacy for law abiding US citizens, I'd be holding a picket sign and standing next to you outside of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Nothing that I have seen has lead me to believe that is the case.

I see a President that is using tactics that have been used before to fight an enemy that is without precendent. I also see the democrats undermining the President's efforts to fight this war for partisan political reasons.

Well said and I might add that wea are as watchful as are our liberal friends, just more open minded toward this administration.

I also see the democrats undermining the President's efforts to fight this war for partisan political reasons.P*t meet kettle--if this had come out during a libbie presidency the right would be crucifying him-and screaming about privacy violations.

P*t meet kettle--if this had come out during a libbie presidency the right would be crucifying him-and screaming about privacy violations.

Okay, then show me where the GOP'ers were calling for Carter's and Clinton's impeachment when they had investigations without warrants.