What were they waiting for!?!?

[Bullypulpit]

<blockquote><a href=http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/30/congress.raid.ap/index.html>Calling the decision to authorize the raid "profoundly disturbing," Sensenbrenner signaled that he would not be among the lawmakers backing off their criticism of the Bush administration. - CNN.com</a></blockquote>

Firstly, the warrant to search Rep. WIlliam Jefferson's (D-LA) was, by all accounts legitimate...and had been ignored by the Louisiana representative and his office...for some 9 months. Secondly, a search of Rep. Jefferson's home turned up some $90,000 in bribe money he had been videotaped from an FBI informant was found in his freezer, with the remaining $10,000 unaccounted for. Now, I do believe in presumed innocence, but he's got an awful lot of 'splainin' to do to a jury.

But, that's not what I'm talking about here. What I'm talking about here is Rep. James Sensenbrenner's title for the hearing on the raid on Jefferson's office, that being...

<center><h2><font color=purple>Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?</font></h2></center>

Why the kerfuffle over this matter, given the Bush Administration's utter disdain for the Constitution since the day after 9/11?

Why didn't Rep. Sensenbrenner voice his outrage over the illegal domsestic spying operations conducted by the Bush White House? Where was the indignation over Bush's use of signing statements to essentialy declare that he is a law unto himself? WHy was he not up in arms when Bush suspended habeas corpus and the right to a speedy trial and so confront one's accusers, all in the name of th "war on terror"? Oddly, he supported these actions. So, what is so special about this incident that has House members, on both sides of the aisle, up in arms over the usupation of the Constitutional separation of powers, about which they have so long remained silent in the face of far greater insults?

Why should Congress, which has turned a blind eye towards the usurpation of the average citizens right by the White House, feel that it is above the law? Does their power and status bring them such priviledge? America is, supposedly, a nation of laws, and no man or woman is above those laws. Perhaps they are merely folowing the lead of President Bush and his Cabinet, who seem to think the law of the land is not for such as they and they may act as they will...when they will, with none to gainsay them.

Such rank hypocrisy cannot go unanswered, and our elected officials should bear in mind that elections are coming up in November. They should not underestimate the power of an angry electorate.

 

[Avatar4321]

While I disagree with you on everything, I have to agree that its ridiculous that members of Congress are using this out of all things to call in question the President.

However, the President's actions hold up. I've been studying alot of the Presidents actions lately and they are completely legal according to Constitution, statutes, and common law.

The one are where the President did cross the line was signing that stupid Incumbent protection act, aka McCain-Feingold Campaign finance "Reform". I swear Congress could call for the extermination of a group of people and call it "Population Reform" and it would pass because it says reform.

 

[CSM]

<blockquote><a href=http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/30/congress.raid.ap/index.html>Calling the decision to authorize the raid "profoundly disturbing," Sensenbrenner signaled that he would not be among the lawmakers backing off their criticism of the Bush administration. - CNN.com</a></blockquote>

Firstly, the warrant to search Rep. WIlliam Jefferson's (D-LA) was, by all accounts legitimate...and had been ignored by the Louisiana representative and his office...for some 9 months. Secondly, a search of Rep. Jefferson's home turned up some $90,000 in bribe money he had been videotaped from an FBI informant was found in his freezer, with the remaining $10,000 unaccounted for. Now, I do believe in presumed innocence, but he's got an awful lot of 'splainin' to do to a jury.

But, that's not what I'm talking about here. What I'm talking about here is Rep. James Sensenbrenner's title for the hearing on the raid on Jefferson's office, that being...

<center><h2><font color=purple>Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?</font></h2></center>

Why the kerfuffle over this matter, given the Bush Administration's utter disdain for the Constitution since the day after 9/11?

Why didn't Rep. Sensenbrenner voice his outrage over the illegal domsestic spying operations conducted by the Bush White House? Where was the indignation over Bush's use of signing statements to essentialy declare that he is a law unto himself? WHy was he not up in arms when Bush suspended habeas corpus and the right to a speedy trial and so confront one's accusers, all in the name of th "war on terror"? Oddly, he supported these actions. So, what is so special about this incident that has House members, on both sides of the aisle, up in arms over the usupation of the Constitutional separation of powers, about which they have so long remained silent in the face of far greater insults?

Why should Congress, which has turned a blind eye towards the usurpation of the average citizens right by the White House, feel that it is above the law? Does their power and status bring them such priviledge? America is, supposedly, a nation of laws, and no man or woman is above those laws. Perhaps they are merely folowing the lead of President Bush and his Cabinet, who seem to think the law of the land is not for such as they and they may act as they will...when they will, with none to gainsay them.

Such rank hypocrisy cannot go unanswered, and our elected officials should bear in mind that elections are coming up in November. They should not underestimate the power of an angry electorate.

You are a piece of work Bully. You know damn well that if the Dems thought they had a glimmer of a chance hanging the President on any of the allegations you make, they would have been all over it like a bunch of flies on fresh dog poo at the park.

I hold no particular love for ANY politician but the individuals we have in Congress right now (both houses!) are for the most part a bunch of spineless, lying, crooks. There are a few exceptions but it wont be long before they are corrupted too.

Unfortunately, there is no viable third party that can present a candidate that represents the REAL US citizen and their concerns.

 

[jillian]

You are a piece of work Bully. You know damn well that if the Dems thought they had a glimmer of a chance hanging the President on any of the allegations you make, they would have been all over it like a bunch of flies on fresh dog poo at the park.

I hold no particular love for ANY politician but the individuals we have in Congress right now (both houses!) are for the most part a bunch of spineless, lying, crooks. There are a few exceptions but it wont be long before they are corrupted too.

Unfortunately, there is no viable third party that can present a candidate that represents the REAL US citizen and their concerns.

I'm not going to comment on the allegations. I just want to point out that with republicans controlling both houses of Congress, there wouldn't be any way for Democrats to take action. As for being all over such allegations, ummm... how do you think we have the discussions we have on this board and elsewhere? So, IMO, the issues are being raised (some with greater validity than others).

As for the third party that represnts "the REAL US citizen", there is no "REAL US citizen". There isn't one ideology, or even two, so I'm not sure what that means. A third or fourth party would be nice, though. Might be time for a more representative government.

 

[CSM]

As for the third party that represnts "the REAL US citizen", there is no "REAL US citizen". There isn't one ideology, or even two, so I'm not sure what that means. A third or fourth party would be nice, though. Might be time for a more representative government.

Your last statement is exactly what I was driving at. IMO, both parties we have today tend to represent the less moderate (in some cases...extreme) members of their party. It's not about ideology; its about doing what's right for the country and its populace. I often hear about "saving us from the tyranny of the majority". I think we need saving from the tyranny of the minority at this point.

 

[jillian]

Your last statement is exactly what I was driving at. IMO, both parties we have today tend to represent the less moderate (in some cases...extreme) members of their party. It's not about ideology; its about doing what's right for the country and its populace.

I actually think that, as good a system as we have, it could do with a little more representative government. I suspect part of the problem is the fact that the candidates who make it through the primary system tend to appeal to extremes on both sides. I have no use for radicals on either end of the spectrum. I also think we all want what's best for the country (at least the people do, not necessarily government). The question then arises, who has the better idea of what is best?

I often hear about "saving us from the tyranny of the majority". I think we need saving from the tyranny of the minority at this point.

I think we need saving from tyranny of any kind.

 

[CSM]

I don't know who has the better idea of what is best for the country...that is why we have a democratic form of government. My heart tells me the answer is NOT found in either extreme. Which leads me to the belief that true leadership is essential; we have got to stop electing politicians whose only interest is in retaining power and pandering to every radical, politically correct sreaming me-me that crawls out of the woodwork.

 

[jillian]

I don't know who has the better idea of what is best for the country...that is why we have a democratic form of government. My heart tells me the answer is NOT found in either extreme. Which leads me to the belief that true leadership is essential; we have got to stop electing politicians whose only interest is in retaining power and pandering to every radical, politically correct sreaming me-me that crawls out of the woodwork.

I'm with ya on all of that. And I think we both agree that extremism only hurts us. Moderate societies are more accommodating, healthier and more productive politically, economicaly and socially.

Politics is what it is, though. Once people achieve power, no one willingly gives it up. And the old adage "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" will always hold true.

 

[5stringJeff]

<blockquote><a href=http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/30/congress.raid.ap/index.html>Calling the decision to authorize the raid "profoundly disturbing," Sensenbrenner signaled that he would not be among the lawmakers backing off their criticism of the Bush administration. - CNN.com</a></blockquote>

Firstly, the warrant to search Rep. WIlliam Jefferson's (D-LA) was, by all accounts legitimate...and had been ignored by the Louisiana representative and his office...for some 9 months. Secondly, a search of Rep. Jefferson's home turned up some $90,000 in bribe money he had been videotaped from an FBI informant was found in his freezer, with the remaining $10,000 unaccounted for. Now, I do believe in presumed innocence, but he's got an awful lot of 'splainin' to do to a jury.

But, that's not what I'm talking about here. What I'm talking about here is Rep. James Sensenbrenner's title for the hearing on the raid on Jefferson's office, that being...

<center><h2><font color=purple>Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?</font></h2></center>

Why the kerfuffle over this matter, given the Bush Administration's utter disdain for the Constitution since the day after 9/11?

Why didn't Rep. Sensenbrenner voice his outrage over the illegal domsestic spying operations conducted by the Bush White House? Where was the indignation over Bush's use of signing statements to essentialy declare that he is a law unto himself? WHy was he not up in arms when Bush suspended habeas corpus and the right to a speedy trial and so confront one's accusers, all in the name of th "war on terror"? Oddly, he supported these actions. So, what is so special about this incident that has House members, on both sides of the aisle, up in arms over the usupation of the Constitutional separation of powers, about which they have so long remained silent in the face of far greater insults?

Why should Congress, which has turned a blind eye towards the usurpation of the average citizens right by the White House, feel that it is above the law? Does their power and status bring them such priviledge? America is, supposedly, a nation of laws, and no man or woman is above those laws. Perhaps they are merely folowing the lead of President Bush and his Cabinet, who seem to think the law of the land is not for such as they and they may act as they will...when they will, with none to gainsay them.

Such rank hypocrisy cannot go unanswered, and our elected officials should bear in mind that elections are coming up in November. They should not underestimate the power of an angry electorate.

While I disagree with your assessment of Bush, I do agree that no Congressman is above the law, nor should the FBI be told to keep their hands off of Congress.

 

[jasendorf]

It's not like this raid existed in a vaccuum. A subpeona was ignored, the courts were involved from the get go. This is simply TWO branches keeping their eye on the third. Not ONE branch intimidating the other. I think Jefferson's documents were obtained using the best practice available.

But, one does have to wonder what's in Denny Hastert's files that he's afraid the FBI will find...

 

[Bullypulpit]

It's not like this raid existed in a vaccuum. A subpeona was ignored, the courts were involved from the get go. This is simply TWO branches keeping their eye on the third. Not ONE branch intimidating the other. I think Jefferson's documents were obtained using the best practice available.

But, one does have to wonder what's in Denny Hastert's files that he's afraid the FBI will find...

Bratwurst...Lots of bratwurst...

Whoops! Wrong politician...That would be James Sensenbrenner, not Denny Hasturt.

 

[Gunny]

Your last statement is exactly what I was driving at. IMO, both parties we have today tend to represent the less moderate (in some cases...extreme) members of their party. It's not about ideology; its about doing what's right for the country and its populace. I often hear about "saving us from the tyranny of the majority". I think we need saving from the tyranny of the minority at this point.

If THAT ain't about the truth. I'm about damned-sick of it myself. The current lib mindset is to Hell with the 90%, let's make laws that reflect and protect the other 10% of screwballs. And just pick any issue where some aberrant nitwit wants our entire society to cater to his/her abnormalcy.

 

[Bullypulpit]

If THAT ain't about the truth. I'm about damned-sick of it myself. The current lib mindset is to Hell with the 90%, let's make laws that reflect and protect the other 10% of screwballs. And just pick any issue where some aberrant nitwit wants our entire society to cater to his/her abnormalcy.

Hows about "...And liberty and justice for all..."? Sounds good to me.

 

[Gunny]

Hows about "...And liberty and justice for all..."? Sounds good to me.

"Liberty and justice for all" doesn't mean the minority gets to shove it's crap down the throats of the majority.