What A$$croft said about Bu$h

[paularoid]

I know this is only one sentence picked out of a whole diatribe but . . . . .

"The president has been more respectful of civil liberties and civil rights than any previous wartime president in the history of the United States,"

I also admit that it's probably out of context and -may- be technically correct so the whole thing should be read here:

http://www.chapelhillnews.com/106/story/2361.html

[Colefan]

I assume he said that with a straight face just before he broke out in song.

Let the eagles soar, and the liars will lie.

[paularoid]

I assume he said that with a straight face just before he broke out in song.

Let the eagles soar, and the liars will lie.
Yeah, right... Obviously you didn't go read the thing. :rolleyes: In any case I don't think anybody "broke out in song" but the photograph there -does- show him posing with "peace protesters" with smiles all around.

As I said, he may be technically correct and he pointed further along in the paragraph that:

Franklin Roosevelt ordered Japanese Americans be sent to internment camps during World War II and Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to arrest tens of thousands of civilians during the Civil War.
So in essence he's at least partially correct, but that brings up the subject of all the detainees at "Gitmo" (Guantanamo) or all the detainees in the recently admitted secret jails around the world, etc. etc. etc. What about all their "civil liberties"? I guess he's still correct though because most of those folks are not U.S. citizens and therefore their "civil liberties" don't count.

[DaveM]

Ashcroft might also have noted that, whatever one might make of Lincoln's and Roosevelt's actions, both took place during a declared state of war, the former a civil war in which enemies literally could be "among us". Only Congress has the power to declare war, which it has not, just as it did not during the Korean War, during the Vietnam War, during the first Gulf War, or during any of the various military "actions" that took place in the interim.

Consequently, when anyone in the current administration justifies any action by stating "we are at war", they are legally incorrect.

History, I fear will reveal another glaring difference between Ashcroft's scapegoats and the present administration. Both Lincoln and Roosevelt presided over a military campaign that ended in victory (well, apart from in certain areas of the rural South....).

[paularoid]

this pertains directly to the subject at hand.

-----

Hi,

This week, the Senate is planning to quietly hold a vote that would pardon President Bush for breaking the law by illegally wiretapping innocent Americans.

The bill would let the administration off the hook for breaking the law and make it legal to wiretap Americans, in secret, without any oversight whenever they want to.

Democrats and some Republicans are holding strong against it, and if enough of us speak up we can stop it. Can you sign the petition opposing the Republican move to pardon President Bush for breaking the law?

http://pol.moveon.org/dontpardon/

Thanks!

[Judy]

Thank you, Paul! You really have no idea how much I appreciate you keeping me in touch with these things. Submitted my name and comments to the petition and passed it along for my friends to do same.
Thanks again for keeping my compass pointed due North, Paul.
Judy

[John L]

Such a vote would have to go down before the November election...since it looks as if at least one of the houses will swing back to a Democrat majority...which in turn would make it difficult to get such a measure passed...

Consider what Clinton was impeached for...then look at our current leadership. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Reminds me of a great bumpersticker:

"Would someone PLEASE give this guy a bl**job so we can impeach him?!"

[Colefan]

John,

I seen a great response to your bumpersticker on another bumpersticker...

"we're all wearing the stained blue dress now"

Or something like it.

[Bat]

They're going to try to pass a law that says it isn't a law when the President breaks it...what?? What kind of crap is that, and how much do they think this country is going to swallow before it erupts? God, I get angry!!!!:mad:
Buck Fush.

[DaveM]

Not sure that we've ever had a sitting President attempt to pardon himself in advance before....truly, we live in strange times. Mind, as an "ex post facto" law cannot be enacted under the U.S. Constitution (remember that funny ol' document?), making the ongoing domestic spy activities legal would not excuse those which were not permitted by United States law prior to any such legislation. Of course, I suppose that doesn't necessarily apply to today's Washington crowd.

I have of course signed the petition. Not that I have any major hopes that it will accomplish anything, but it felt good.

[paularoid]

Mind, as an "ex post facto" law cannot be enacted under the U.S. Constitution (remember that funny ol' document?), making the ongoing domestic spy activities legal would not excuse those which were not permitted by United States law prior to any such legislation.
Well according to ol' G.W. that's only a "goddam piece of paper" donchaknow :eek: . That's almost exactly (if not exactly) what he said. I don't have any links to that -immediately- convenient but if you do a search I'm sure you'll find it if you don't believe me. It should be all over the place although somewhat old and possibly buried amongst the other detritus now 'cause he said that quite some time ago. Something to the effect of "it's just a goddam piece of paper".

[DaveM]

Ah well.....I keep forgetting about such trivialities--I guess I'll never make a politician.