LeakGate Resolution:Bush's genius.

[rtwngAvngr]

hhhhmmmmm...is America a republic or an absolute monarchy? :hail:

Most assuredly a republic, but the president has great lattitude regarding declassifications. And let's face it, nobody was endangered. This is a nonissue, despite you blowing it all out of proportion.

 

[Dr Grump]

Most assuredly a republic, but the president has great lattitude regarding declassifications.

Is that a good or a bad thing?

And let's face it, nobody was endangered.

That we know of.

This is a nonissue.

To you maybe.

despite you blowing it all out of proportion.

Not blowing anything anywhere. I have only made a couple of comments on the issue and didn't start the thread.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Is that a good or a bad thing?



That we know of.



To you maybe.



Not blowing anything anywhere. I have only made a couple of comments on the issue and didn't start the thread.

You're saying the president lawfully declassifying things in accordance with his legally granted authority throws our type of government into question.
"Are we a dictatorship?!", you scream like a little girl.

Do you have evidence of anyone being harmed from his declassification? Until that point, stfu.

 

[jillian]

You're saying the president lawfully declassifying things in accordance with his legally granted authority throws our type of government into question.
"Are we a dictatorship?!", you scream like a little girl.

Hmmmmmmm.....I haven't heard anyone scream. Only saw some questions asked.

 

[Bullypulpit]

He hasn't done anything wrong. Iraq had connections to alquaeda. He was monitoring the communications of TERRORISTS. He is able to declassify whatever the hell he wants, however he wants. Your party is a bunch of mewling weenies.

I'm thinkin' that your one of those folks who'll support Dubbyuh even if he were to be caught on the White House lawn strangling a Girl Scout. You'd be screaming, "But she deserved it!"

We can never be certain that Dubbyuh HASN'T used the NSA to spy on US citizens since there is absolutely no, zero, zip, nada oversight of the program by anyone outside of Dubbyuh's butt-buddies. So, until I see proof positive that this program has not been used to engage in warantless and illegal domestic spying operations, I will continue to assume that it has.

And your assertion that the POTUS can do as he pleases, when he pleases, flies squarely in the face of the Constitution and the original intent of the Founding Fathers. They fought and died so that we may live without the yoke of a tyrant. You, it seems, would cheerfully wear that yoke. I, for one, will not.

 

[Bullypulpit]

You're saying the president lawfully declassifying things in accordance with his legally granted authority throws our type of government into question.
"Are we a dictatorship?!", you scream like a little girl.

Do you have evidence of anyone being harmed from his declassification? Until that point, stfu.

Until the POTUS clarifies beyond any reasonable doubt as to whether he 'de-classified' material in the interest of national security or to score political points, I would respectfully submit that you should stfu.

 

[Dr Grump]

You're saying the president lawfully declassifying things in accordance with his legally granted authority throws our type of government into question

No, what I am saying is he shouldn't have the power to do that. There should be more checks on him having that type of authority.

"Are we a dictatorship?!", you scream like a little girl.

?

Do you have evidence of anyone being harmed from his declassification?

How would anyone know?

Until that point, stfu.

:nine:

 

[Redhots]

You think Bush would like nothing better than unchecked power but I have not seen him indicate that.

Then you haven't been paying attention the last 5 1/2 years.

By the way, many many Presidents add signing statements and none of them say "well...this does not apply to me if I dont want it to" and I defy you to find ANY signing statement originating from the current pPresident that says that.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.

Any other requests?

Edited to add Whitehouse link.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html

 

[Annie]

Then you haven't been paying attention the last 5 1/2 years.



http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/



Any other requests?

Redhots has posted and his word is law. We can all fold up our tents and go home, he says so.

 

[Redhots]

Kathianne has decided that rather than trying to defend his/her postion it would be easier to just make a sarcastic remark and move on.

I can't say I disagree with that choice.

 

[Annie]

Kathianne has decided that rather than trying to defend his/her postion it would be easier to just make a sarcastic remark and move on.

I can't say I disagree with that choice.

Of course you couldn't disagree with that choice, you offered nothing of substance. You my newbie are already a deficit loser.

 

[Redhots]

I have no interest flaming.

Another poster made a request for proof.

I answered that request which in turn supplemented my postion that:

If you don't think Bush/Cheney would like unrestricted, or at the very least vastly increased Presidental powers.... Then...You...Haven't...Been...Paying...Attention.

Thanks for the warm welcome.

 

[Annie]

I have no interest flaming.

Another poster made a request for proof.

I answered that request which in turn supplemented my postion that:

If you don't think Bush/Cheney would like unrestricted, or at the very least vastly increased Presidental powers.... Then...You...Haven't...Been...Paying...Attention.

Thanks for the warm welcome.

I have plenty of post to topic. You have zip, zero, nado, nothing. You are trolling.

 

[Redhots]

Trolling? Me? I'd have to disagree with that.

My origonal post wasn't directed at you was it. Yet you decided to involve yourself with it and all you offered was sarcasim and derision. Which so far seems to be a theme with you. At least in regards to me.

I'm new to these boards so tell me, should I be flattered to have drawn your attentions so quickly, or do you say these things to all the new posters?

 

[Annie]

Trolling? Me? I'd have to disagree with that.

My origonal post wasn't directed at you was it. Yet you decided to involve yourself with it and all you offered was sarcasim and derision. Which so far seems to be a theme with you. At least in regards to me.

I'm new to these boards so tell me, should I be flattered to have drawn your attentions so quickly, or do you say these things to all the new posters?

Cute, post #48 and onward:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=410885#post410885

Off the mark a troll.

 

[Gunny]

Kathianne has decided that rather than trying to defend his/her postion it would be easier to just make a sarcastic remark and move on.

I can't say I disagree with that choice.

Redhots has decided that instead of making a claim substantiated by fact, it's easier to make an unsubstantiated claim as fact then demand someone else "defend" their position.

Justify YOURS first.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Redhots has posted and his word is law. We can all fold up our tents and go home, he says so.

I don't think that is the case at all, dear lady. Redhots merely provided the facts necessary to counter CSM's baseless assertions.

 

[Annie]

I don't think that is the case at all, dear lady. Redhots merely provided the facts necessary to counter CSM's baseless assertions.

Facts? Where? Bully I expect more of you.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Facts? Where? Bully I expect more of you.

The Boston Globe article laid out all of the facts regarding Dubbyuh's signing statement about the torture ban quite nicely.

 

[Annie]

The Boston Globe article laid out all of the facts regarding Dubbyuh's signing statement about the torture ban quite nicely.

Bully, unless I'm missing something, this was thrashed out in the early winter. No doubt about it, there are powers that go with Chief executive officer and Commander in Chief that you and others wish GW did not possess. But he does, has, and will for another nearly 3 years.