Al Gore: Impeach Bush
- Thread starter I think not
- Start date
The Executive branch is like a Movie Producer
and the Legislative Branch is like Movie Critics.
The Executive Branch is burdened with responsibility,
whereas the Legislative Branch is the Ultimate Idea Rat.
Idea Rats propose ideas, but do not bear the burden
and the obstacles of executing those ideas.
The Executive Branch is the Adult. The legislative
branch are children, hard to herd as cats.
It is with these descriptions that President Bush
often looks. So he has little patience for the stupid
questions and irresponsible questions by the Press
and the partisan hacks grandstanding in the white
hot spot light.
Now that's the Executive branch view most often
found from President to Prime Minister around the
world.
But although ITN and I most assuredly vote differently,
I have to stand with ITN on this thread.
In my mind bureaucracy is best described by Kafka
as a giant cockroach.
I think Kafka should have used Termites instead,
just for the metaphorical danger to the foundations
of the house they attack.
Bureaucracy needs a Captain with a stick to watch
and question every thing they do.
I'm one of those conservatives who find the ACLU
very necessary for it's bravery towards all Sacred Cows.
When a bad guy can be arrested without charge,
and then held somewhere for months with no followup
because of either a stupid budgetary problem or
because somebody didn't move a stack of papers to
the next desk and management is nowhere in sight
to watch this work flow, then I say CIVIL LIBERTIES
is the paddle to spank these idiots into doing a better
job.
When management is missing in a prison in Baghdad
with no oversight, no surprise inspections, then I say
CIVIL LIBERTIES is the incentive for them to maintain
the comfort of keeping their careers.
Cockroaches live in the dark.
And Civil Liberties is light.
SUNSHINE LAWS.
There's a way to do this, and as ITN said, much like
an echo to my own thoughts, Bush did very little as a leader to get the Senate on board, but preferred to treat
them like an Adult treats Children.
and the Legislative Branch is like Movie Critics.
The Executive Branch is burdened with responsibility,
whereas the Legislative Branch is the Ultimate Idea Rat.
Idea Rats propose ideas, but do not bear the burden
and the obstacles of executing those ideas.
The Executive Branch is the Adult. The legislative
branch are children, hard to herd as cats.
It is with these descriptions that President Bush
often looks. So he has little patience for the stupid
questions and irresponsible questions by the Press
and the partisan hacks grandstanding in the white
hot spot light.
Now that's the Executive branch view most often
found from President to Prime Minister around the
world.
But although ITN and I most assuredly vote differently,
I have to stand with ITN on this thread.
In my mind bureaucracy is best described by Kafka
as a giant cockroach.
I think Kafka should have used Termites instead,
just for the metaphorical danger to the foundations
of the house they attack.
Bureaucracy needs a Captain with a stick to watch
and question every thing they do.
I'm one of those conservatives who find the ACLU
very necessary for it's bravery towards all Sacred Cows.
When a bad guy can be arrested without charge,
and then held somewhere for months with no followup
because of either a stupid budgetary problem or
because somebody didn't move a stack of papers to
the next desk and management is nowhere in sight
to watch this work flow, then I say CIVIL LIBERTIES
is the paddle to spank these idiots into doing a better
job.
When management is missing in a prison in Baghdad
with no oversight, no surprise inspections, then I say
CIVIL LIBERTIES is the incentive for them to maintain
the comfort of keeping their careers.
Cockroaches live in the dark.
And Civil Liberties is light.
SUNSHINE LAWS.
There's a way to do this, and as ITN said, much like
an echo to my own thoughts, Bush did very little as a leader to get the Senate on board, but preferred to treat
them like an Adult treats Children.
ITN
There ya go - one for your side (and probably a good deal more who haven't joined in).
I steadfastly remain in my perch that there are things no president should have to be driven into revelation unless he deems it in the best interest of his nation and its people. In this case he has made his decision and stands by it.
I want that kind of man leading any country in which I live. I spent the past eight years watching that fool and his entourage swanning around hugging movie stars and telling people "I feel your pain" while doing nothing but narcissistic endeavours to promote himself and his wife into history as some kind of political saviors concerned totally with self... while amassing as much money as they could safely keep for their own. They opened the door for terrorism and now Bush has to deal with it. Thank god he is the one for Kerry would have sold us out at the first dance.
JimMoyer....
I think you are smack in the middle in your politics - and that must be a nice comfortable place in which to reside. Of course you would make peace with those who insist upon doing things "right" but in this particular issue - when a nation is at war - I wonder what is right and have to reassure myself that Bush knows what he desires to keep secret - not to protect himself but to protect us all. He made the decision to continue his wiretapping or whatever method he is being accused of to "evesdrop" on members of the public whether they are within the USA or internationally - and because he made the decision to continue this practice, is obvious to me, it was hitting paydirt.
I'll leave it at that.
ITN
That is another beautiful part to your mother's story - having you teach her history and civics so she could pass her test. No wonder she was so moved at her ceremony.
Everyone should have that opportunity to join their country - even those who are born here - just to be able to demonstrate a love and commitment which many of the young adults never to experience. Often it is only those who serve in protection or safety or military services who realize what this country contributes not only to its own people but to many others around the world.
Jay
Nuff said already eh?
There ya go - one for your side (and probably a good deal more who haven't joined in).
I steadfastly remain in my perch that there are things no president should have to be driven into revelation unless he deems it in the best interest of his nation and its people. In this case he has made his decision and stands by it.
I want that kind of man leading any country in which I live. I spent the past eight years watching that fool and his entourage swanning around hugging movie stars and telling people "I feel your pain" while doing nothing but narcissistic endeavours to promote himself and his wife into history as some kind of political saviors concerned totally with self... while amassing as much money as they could safely keep for their own. They opened the door for terrorism and now Bush has to deal with it. Thank god he is the one for Kerry would have sold us out at the first dance.
JimMoyer....
I think you are smack in the middle in your politics - and that must be a nice comfortable place in which to reside. Of course you would make peace with those who insist upon doing things "right" but in this particular issue - when a nation is at war - I wonder what is right and have to reassure myself that Bush knows what he desires to keep secret - not to protect himself but to protect us all. He made the decision to continue his wiretapping or whatever method he is being accused of to "evesdrop" on members of the public whether they are within the USA or internationally - and because he made the decision to continue this practice, is obvious to me, it was hitting paydirt.
I'll leave it at that.
ITN
That is another beautiful part to your mother's story - having you teach her history and civics so she could pass her test. No wonder she was so moved at her ceremony.
Everyone should have that opportunity to join their country - even those who are born here - just to be able to demonstrate a love and commitment which many of the young adults never to experience. Often it is only those who serve in protection or safety or military services who realize what this country contributes not only to its own people but to many others around the world.
Jay
Nuff said already eh?
Wednesday's Child, you are fly.
Compliment.
You might reconsider if Clinton did the same thing?
I voted against Clinton both times. I consider him
highly intelligent but highly unreliable, when one
day he does great good, and another day an unfathomable whimsical stupidity.
Although I might find more reason for Bush to do
what he did, I would have a hard time resigning myself
to Clinton doing the same.
I think bureaucracy does its job better when
it is under the gun, when Civil Liberties DEMANDS
the bureaucracy no room for comfort, but rather
to do the followup necessary to catch the bad guys.
Although Bush is trying to define Executive rights
most legitimately through the constitution, he cannot
be so sanguine as to delegate through the middle
management ranks of the bureaucracy to do the job
right.
Move away from the ideology of NATIONAL SECURITY
and know that bureacracy does a notoriously bad job
at followup on the bad guys it arrests.
The bad guy can know what he is charged with.
That's leverage for us, not him.
Even the formerly departed Supreme Court Justice
Rehnquist disagreed with the decision that led
to Miranda Rights, but in his wisdom, he saw it became
part of the culture, so deeply ingrained, so often
watched on an endless number of cop television series
that to use the Miranda Rights as an example of
handcuffing the police no longer had credibility.
It made the police better overall.
If you trust the bureacracy to actually move
paperwork literally from one desk in the same office
to the next desk, then you have way too much faith
in the competence of a bad system of turf warfare,
beset by ephemeral budgetary shortfalls.
We're talking practicality here.
As a card carrying American Republican who sympathizes
with the Libertarian wing and who despises the
constant shallowness and opportunism of Democratic party criticisms, you might reconsider the Kafka-esque
nightmare of bungled bureaucracy where mid level
management is notoriously chickenshit and absent
in carrying out the ideology and beliefs of the Commander in Chief.
The Presidents who are delegators and not much
hands-on are constantly betrayed by the ineptitude
and scared nature of their own bureaucracy.
And the biggest nightmare is the lack of followup
after you caught a real bad guy.
And other nightmares of brave whistleblowers that
got to take a circuitous route to save the day against
a scared and incompetent mid-level manager.
I support your need for a Stick.
We need a big stick.
I may not want the next President to do what Bush
did especially if I didn't vote for him.
Compliment.
You might reconsider if Clinton did the same thing?
I voted against Clinton both times. I consider him
highly intelligent but highly unreliable, when one
day he does great good, and another day an unfathomable whimsical stupidity.
Although I might find more reason for Bush to do
what he did, I would have a hard time resigning myself
to Clinton doing the same.
I think bureaucracy does its job better when
it is under the gun, when Civil Liberties DEMANDS
the bureaucracy no room for comfort, but rather
to do the followup necessary to catch the bad guys.
Although Bush is trying to define Executive rights
most legitimately through the constitution, he cannot
be so sanguine as to delegate through the middle
management ranks of the bureaucracy to do the job
right.
Move away from the ideology of NATIONAL SECURITY
and know that bureacracy does a notoriously bad job
at followup on the bad guys it arrests.
The bad guy can know what he is charged with.
That's leverage for us, not him.
Even the formerly departed Supreme Court Justice
Rehnquist disagreed with the decision that led
to Miranda Rights, but in his wisdom, he saw it became
part of the culture, so deeply ingrained, so often
watched on an endless number of cop television series
that to use the Miranda Rights as an example of
handcuffing the police no longer had credibility.
It made the police better overall.
If you trust the bureacracy to actually move
paperwork literally from one desk in the same office
to the next desk, then you have way too much faith
in the competence of a bad system of turf warfare,
beset by ephemeral budgetary shortfalls.
We're talking practicality here.
As a card carrying American Republican who sympathizes
with the Libertarian wing and who despises the
constant shallowness and opportunism of Democratic party criticisms, you might reconsider the Kafka-esque
nightmare of bungled bureaucracy where mid level
management is notoriously chickenshit and absent
in carrying out the ideology and beliefs of the Commander in Chief.
The Presidents who are delegators and not much
hands-on are constantly betrayed by the ineptitude
and scared nature of their own bureaucracy.
And the biggest nightmare is the lack of followup
after you caught a real bad guy.
And other nightmares of brave whistleblowers that
got to take a circuitous route to save the day against
a scared and incompetent mid-level manager.
I support your need for a Stick.
We need a big stick.
I may not want the next President to do what Bush
did especially if I didn't vote for him.
WC
Good post, I may not agree with you, but I respect your opinion. As I have stated, we both seek the same thing, in a different way. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, you raise points I can't argue with, and others I can, hopefully I can find the truth somewhere in the middle.
Jimmoyer
I think you're a closet centrist, like WC said, or a moderate conservative at the very least, both are intended as compliments. If we can criticise the incumbent regardless of our political affiliation, we are still a democracy. Anything short of that, we have become our own worst enemy.
Good post, I may not agree with you, but I respect your opinion. As I have stated, we both seek the same thing, in a different way. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, you raise points I can't argue with, and others I can, hopefully I can find the truth somewhere in the middle.
Jimmoyer
I think you're a closet centrist, like WC said, or a moderate conservative at the very least, both are intended as compliments. If we can criticise the incumbent regardless of our political affiliation, we are still a democracy. Anything short of that, we have become our own worst enemy.
I watched Al Gore spouting off tonight. This guy is scarier than bin Laden himself. Seems to me Binny attacks America overtly while Gore attacks from within. He would seem to want America's anti terrorist secrets revealed to the world in an attempt to discredit Bush.
IMO I would label him a borderline traitor.
IMO I would label him a borderline traitor.
Wow more commentary - which is a great way to start the day
Jim Moyer
I long to be the centrist observing as you are comfortable in so doing and perhaps one day I will learn enough to relax and know the background more fully - I admit I lack much right now. Your explanation and comparison between the two presidents speaks for me as well. It is what niggles my gut about the differences in style. I agree totally with what you have written with only one exception. This would be a perfect situation if we were not at war. I think Bush has lacked the "best" cabinet for himself - having sorted people out before 9/11 and he was caught with obligation after 9/11 when others would have suited a different scene. No doubt his father could have given him better advice had we known 9/11 would happen on his watch.
In your desire to insist on "right" ( and here is where we split a bit )...I fully agree we have to feel okay with decisions made by the guy who is at the top and since Clinton I have relaxed with Bush, inclined to feel we have fully "corrected" from the fool ....but I may be overlooking errors on Bush's part because he is so unlike Clinton.
Yet...."right" does not have its place at the table in our world these days.... spying and evesdropping (what a quaint expression)... is girly man stuff when we are sending our young to a foreign nation to kill. We are at war whether acknowledged or not - as long as there are military sent to kill - we are at war. All "right" stuff becomes moot.
So that's perhaps why I am hanging behind the boss here. When one declares war there aren't many choices and the boss has to be prepared to take on the howlers from the sidelines who are making hay while they sit in comfort doing nothing BUT howling, and preparing for the next vote. This legislature has done little work for the people of the country - it has been partisan politics and press pandering on our buck.
ITN
Agreeing to disagree is the best thing a country can ask of its people. If we all agreed, nobody would catch the errors or question the leadership and we would no longer enjoy our part in governance.
Zoofer
Gore appeared a couple of times yesterday and I was reminded of stepping in yesterday's garbage which missed the bin.... he was unimportant to his father - never learned honesty and morality - only when it suited him for better press - and was such a good choice for Bubba - because Bubba needed a failed someone rather than a VP who could shine alongside his tarnished personality.
Jim Moyer
I long to be the centrist observing as you are comfortable in so doing and perhaps one day I will learn enough to relax and know the background more fully - I admit I lack much right now. Your explanation and comparison between the two presidents speaks for me as well. It is what niggles my gut about the differences in style. I agree totally with what you have written with only one exception. This would be a perfect situation if we were not at war. I think Bush has lacked the "best" cabinet for himself - having sorted people out before 9/11 and he was caught with obligation after 9/11 when others would have suited a different scene. No doubt his father could have given him better advice had we known 9/11 would happen on his watch.
In your desire to insist on "right" ( and here is where we split a bit )...I fully agree we have to feel okay with decisions made by the guy who is at the top and since Clinton I have relaxed with Bush, inclined to feel we have fully "corrected" from the fool ....but I may be overlooking errors on Bush's part because he is so unlike Clinton.
Yet...."right" does not have its place at the table in our world these days.... spying and evesdropping (what a quaint expression)... is girly man stuff when we are sending our young to a foreign nation to kill. We are at war whether acknowledged or not - as long as there are military sent to kill - we are at war. All "right" stuff becomes moot.
So that's perhaps why I am hanging behind the boss here. When one declares war there aren't many choices and the boss has to be prepared to take on the howlers from the sidelines who are making hay while they sit in comfort doing nothing BUT howling, and preparing for the next vote. This legislature has done little work for the people of the country - it has been partisan politics and press pandering on our buck.
ITN
Agreeing to disagree is the best thing a country can ask of its people. If we all agreed, nobody would catch the errors or question the leadership and we would no longer enjoy our part in governance.
Zoofer
Gore appeared a couple of times yesterday and I was reminded of stepping in yesterday's garbage which missed the bin.... he was unimportant to his father - never learned honesty and morality - only when it suited him for better press - and was such a good choice for Bubba - because Bubba needed a failed someone rather than a VP who could shine alongside his tarnished personality.
Great post Wednesday's Child. Great take on Gore.
But then I think Al Gore had a more than excellent
chance to be more real, more substantial, more
intellectual, more knowlegeable, more moral than
any final party nominee in recent American history.
To me, he made a wrong turn, a decision to pay
too much heed to the daily tide, the polling.
In fact, to me, Al Gore, always had the chance for
true greatness, far more than Kerry. Al Gore has
a potential greatness that befits a 2nd in Command
kind of guy who is so smart he can give 5 different
answers on the same issue and see the merit in each.
But then Gore gave in to the ephemeral, and gave into the patronizing fake tone. When he said COUNT EVERY VOTE in 2000 and then proceeded not to do what he said by picking only certain counties to recount and by
fighting the absentee military vote, he got hit with the tension of being so close at winning that he dropped all care for avoiding
hypocrisy.
And then as every politician comes to that moment of
time of the BIG QUESTION: Am I brave enough to
take the risk to lose on what I believe ?
Anyway Wednesday's Child, the question you didn't quite
come to terms with is this: Would you feel the same
way if Clinton did not seek search warrants? By the way,
the hypocrisy of the Democrats and the major media
is that they forget he did do just that on many occasions.
Decisions made in favor of the current President
will certainly be used to favor Presidents that you might not like in the future.
I cut my early teeth on Nixon. And for me both
Nixon and Clinton kicked my fake crap detector.
Bush is very real.
Despite his appalling failure at extemporaneous speaking
or debating. On a one-on-one level he would defeat the
proudest intellectual.
Not fake.
But his hubris causes me concern. A little more
consensus-seeking would have saved everyone
a lot of ag.
And .....
a really good leader like Abraham Lincoln led by co-opting giant egos in his cabinet and by co-opting Senate
threats to consensus building.
Overall, do I give Bush a bye and stop all this nibbling criticism ?
NO.
Because he could follow the rules of constitutional protections
and by doing so, do the job of catching bad guys with even
better bureaucratic competence.
And by the way if I hate the next President, I won't be able
to stomach allowing Bush to set a precedent.
But then I think Al Gore had a more than excellent
chance to be more real, more substantial, more
intellectual, more knowlegeable, more moral than
any final party nominee in recent American history.
To me, he made a wrong turn, a decision to pay
too much heed to the daily tide, the polling.
In fact, to me, Al Gore, always had the chance for
true greatness, far more than Kerry. Al Gore has
a potential greatness that befits a 2nd in Command
kind of guy who is so smart he can give 5 different
answers on the same issue and see the merit in each.
But then Gore gave in to the ephemeral, and gave into the patronizing fake tone. When he said COUNT EVERY VOTE in 2000 and then proceeded not to do what he said by picking only certain counties to recount and by
fighting the absentee military vote, he got hit with the tension of being so close at winning that he dropped all care for avoiding
hypocrisy.
And then as every politician comes to that moment of
time of the BIG QUESTION: Am I brave enough to
take the risk to lose on what I believe ?
Anyway Wednesday's Child, the question you didn't quite
come to terms with is this: Would you feel the same
way if Clinton did not seek search warrants? By the way,
the hypocrisy of the Democrats and the major media
is that they forget he did do just that on many occasions.
Decisions made in favor of the current President
will certainly be used to favor Presidents that you might not like in the future.
I cut my early teeth on Nixon. And for me both
Nixon and Clinton kicked my fake crap detector.
Bush is very real.
Despite his appalling failure at extemporaneous speaking
or debating. On a one-on-one level he would defeat the
proudest intellectual.
Not fake.
But his hubris causes me concern. A little more
consensus-seeking would have saved everyone
a lot of ag.
And .....
a really good leader like Abraham Lincoln led by co-opting giant egos in his cabinet and by co-opting Senate
threats to consensus building.
Overall, do I give Bush a bye and stop all this nibbling criticism ?
NO.
Because he could follow the rules of constitutional protections
and by doing so, do the job of catching bad guys with even
better bureaucratic competence.
And by the way if I hate the next President, I won't be able
to stomach allowing Bush to set a precedent.
Re: RE: Al Gore: Impeach Bush
Jim Moyer
I had to sleep on your query about Clinton for it raised the gall in my stomach.
First Gore: I think he is an impaired man because he was an impaired child. He has not, nor will ever measure up to his father's "greatness" - his cold and distant father. He may have the intellect and even the soul of a good man, but he implodes when the opportunity is given, because he is destined to fail, rather than compete in the same arena of history as his father. He is a self-saboteur and I can't say any more about him. Had he remained in the Senate where he could do less harm, I would never have given him a second thought. As VP he was a back up man. As a loose cannon in society - as an activist for unfinished business - he needs wise counseling.
Second Clinton: There were many things Clinton did I am sure which were suppressed by an adoring media who enjoyed all the adventures, misadventures, and travelling this president gave them to fill their allotted inches. But that still doesn't answer your question: If I had known Clinton sought search warrants - if I had heard it or read it in the usual MSM manner I would have wondered why the author of the news was committing PR suicide.
If there had been rumor and gossip about Clinton and search warrants I would have assumed he would lie under all conditions because lies and semi-truth were only tools to be utilized in self-promotion and aggrandizement.
That is much of my trouble with Clinton. The man was a facade on a screen - in real life - nobody knows the real Clinton - not even himself because he dare not look. He should never have been a president - because he was an imaginary one which was created by the MSM and the party who chose him, believing him to be what he presented, and not the flawed individual persona harbored inside the public figure.
I guess many leaders fall into this trap of believing their "press relations". Clinton was a weak, self-loving man who translated his self-love into oratory of love for country. I think he really believes his statement "I am the first Black President".... even though the public always take it as a great commentary on how well the Blacks adopted him....no doubt he made the statement in sincerity...because he is out of touch with reality. Much of the rhetoric the public fell for from Bill Clinton was the same kind of third drink seminar one can experience in a bar when the booze is taking hold. Grandiose and false. The ultimate Straw Man!
Bush of course is an overcorrection, because many people saw the Clintonian era as some kind of beginning and I believe they wished
to stop the mood of "Americanized primogeniture" [incorrect terminology but satisfying to my thought] evolving in the royal mood of the Oval Office and in the MSM. Bush is so honest it hurts him personally. The media don't want honesty and abrupt truth - you can't sell ads on it. Again Bush's career is influenced by his relationship with his father. These men and their early days!
Kennedy comes to mind but I only know the history of the man - not the man.
Gross stuff for me to write? No it wasn't about Monica at all IMO. Clinton scared the hell out of me....and it is why it took me
so long to apply for naturalization. My apologies for being so wordy!
jimmoyer said:
Jim Moyer
I had to sleep on your query about Clinton for it raised the gall in my stomach.
First Gore: I think he is an impaired man because he was an impaired child. He has not, nor will ever measure up to his father's "greatness" - his cold and distant father. He may have the intellect and even the soul of a good man, but he implodes when the opportunity is given, because he is destined to fail, rather than compete in the same arena of history as his father. He is a self-saboteur and I can't say any more about him. Had he remained in the Senate where he could do less harm, I would never have given him a second thought. As VP he was a back up man. As a loose cannon in society - as an activist for unfinished business - he needs wise counseling.
Second Clinton: There were many things Clinton did I am sure which were suppressed by an adoring media who enjoyed all the adventures, misadventures, and travelling this president gave them to fill their allotted inches. But that still doesn't answer your question: If I had known Clinton sought search warrants - if I had heard it or read it in the usual MSM manner I would have wondered why the author of the news was committing PR suicide.
If there had been rumor and gossip about Clinton and search warrants I would have assumed he would lie under all conditions because lies and semi-truth were only tools to be utilized in self-promotion and aggrandizement.
That is much of my trouble with Clinton. The man was a facade on a screen - in real life - nobody knows the real Clinton - not even himself because he dare not look. He should never have been a president - because he was an imaginary one which was created by the MSM and the party who chose him, believing him to be what he presented, and not the flawed individual persona harbored inside the public figure.
I guess many leaders fall into this trap of believing their "press relations". Clinton was a weak, self-loving man who translated his self-love into oratory of love for country. I think he really believes his statement "I am the first Black President".... even though the public always take it as a great commentary on how well the Blacks adopted him....no doubt he made the statement in sincerity...because he is out of touch with reality. Much of the rhetoric the public fell for from Bill Clinton was the same kind of third drink seminar one can experience in a bar when the booze is taking hold. Grandiose and false. The ultimate Straw Man!
Bush of course is an overcorrection, because many people saw the Clintonian era as some kind of beginning and I believe they wished
to stop the mood of "Americanized primogeniture" [incorrect terminology but satisfying to my thought] evolving in the royal mood of the Oval Office and in the MSM. Bush is so honest it hurts him personally. The media don't want honesty and abrupt truth - you can't sell ads on it. Again Bush's career is influenced by his relationship with his father. These men and their early days!
Kennedy comes to mind but I only know the history of the man - not the man.
Gross stuff for me to write? No it wasn't about Monica at all IMO. Clinton scared the hell out of me....and it is why it took me
so long to apply for naturalization. My apologies for being so wordy!
Gore's Challenge
Former vice president Al Gore has turned himself into a one-man grand jury, ready to indict the Bush administration for any number of crimes against the Constitution. Whether you agree with Gore's conclusions or not, the speech that the 2000 Democratic nominee for president gave this week in Washington was as comprehensive a rundown of George W. Bush's ventures to the limits of executive authority as anyone could hope to find.
Gore is hardly an objective observer. Having outpolled Bush in the popular vote only to see his apparent victory taken from him by a divided Supreme Court, Gore cannot be expected to be dispassionate about the way Bush is operating as president. His speech is just an indictment. The proof of the charges can come only in congressional hearings and, ultimately, in the courts.
But even after discounting for political motivations, it seems to me that Gore has done a service by laying out the case as clearly and copiously as he has done. His overall charge is that Bush has systematically broken the laws and bent the Constitution by his actions in the areas of national security and domestic anti-terrorism. He is not the first to make that complaint. My e-mail has included many messages from people who have leaped far ahead of the evidence and concluded that Bush should be impeached and removed from office for actions they deem illegal.
Gore stops well short of that point and contents himself with citing the cases that cause many others concern. The first -- and to my mind weakest -- instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But there is no clear evidence as yet that Bush willfully concocted or knowingly distorted the intelligence he received about Saddam Hussein's military programs. Interpretations of that intelligence varied within the government, but the Clinton administration, of which Gore was an important part, came to the same conclusions that Bush did -- and so did other governments in the Western alliance.
It is a reach to attempt to make a crime of a policy misjudgment.
But the other cases Gore cited are more troubling. The Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, for which only low-level military personnel have been punished, traces back through higher and untouched levels of command to the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the White House, all of which failed in their duties to ensure that the occupation forces were adhering to recognized international standards for the treatment of prisoners.
Similarly, the administration's resistance to setting and enforcing clear prohibitions on torture and inhumane treatment of detainees in the war on terrorism raises legitimate questions about its willingness to adhere to the rule of law. From the first days after Sept. 11, Bush has appeared to believe that he is essentially unconstrained. His oddly equivocal recent signing statement on John McCain's legislation banning such tactics seemed to say he could ignore the plain terms of the law.
If Judge Samuel Alito is right that no one is above the law, then Bush's supposition deserves to be challenged.
Gore's final example -- on which he has lots of company among legal scholars -- is the contention that Bush broke the law in ordering the National Security Agency to monitor domestic phone calls without a warrant from the court Congress had created to supervise all such wiretapping. If -- as the Justice Department and the White House insist -- the president can flout that law, then it is hard to imagine what power he cannot assert.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter has summoned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to a hearing on the warrantless wiretap issue, and that hearing should be the occasion for a broad exploration of the willingness of this administration to be constrained by the Constitution and the laws.
The committee should keep the attorney general on the witness stand as long as it takes -- as long as it spent examining the qualifications of Judge Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, if it comes to that. The stakes for the country are that high.
Gore is certainly right about one thing. When he challenged the members of Congress to "start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you're supposed to be," he was issuing a call of conscience that goes well beyond any partisan criticism.
Former vice president Al Gore has turned himself into a one-man grand jury, ready to indict the Bush administration for any number of crimes against the Constitution. Whether you agree with Gore's conclusions or not, the speech that the 2000 Democratic nominee for president gave this week in Washington was as comprehensive a rundown of George W. Bush's ventures to the limits of executive authority as anyone could hope to find.
Gore is hardly an objective observer. Having outpolled Bush in the popular vote only to see his apparent victory taken from him by a divided Supreme Court, Gore cannot be expected to be dispassionate about the way Bush is operating as president. His speech is just an indictment. The proof of the charges can come only in congressional hearings and, ultimately, in the courts.
But even after discounting for political motivations, it seems to me that Gore has done a service by laying out the case as clearly and copiously as he has done. His overall charge is that Bush has systematically broken the laws and bent the Constitution by his actions in the areas of national security and domestic anti-terrorism. He is not the first to make that complaint. My e-mail has included many messages from people who have leaped far ahead of the evidence and concluded that Bush should be impeached and removed from office for actions they deem illegal.
Gore stops well short of that point and contents himself with citing the cases that cause many others concern. The first -- and to my mind weakest -- instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But there is no clear evidence as yet that Bush willfully concocted or knowingly distorted the intelligence he received about Saddam Hussein's military programs. Interpretations of that intelligence varied within the government, but the Clinton administration, of which Gore was an important part, came to the same conclusions that Bush did -- and so did other governments in the Western alliance.
It is a reach to attempt to make a crime of a policy misjudgment.
But the other cases Gore cited are more troubling. The Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, for which only low-level military personnel have been punished, traces back through higher and untouched levels of command to the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the White House, all of which failed in their duties to ensure that the occupation forces were adhering to recognized international standards for the treatment of prisoners.
Similarly, the administration's resistance to setting and enforcing clear prohibitions on torture and inhumane treatment of detainees in the war on terrorism raises legitimate questions about its willingness to adhere to the rule of law. From the first days after Sept. 11, Bush has appeared to believe that he is essentially unconstrained. His oddly equivocal recent signing statement on John McCain's legislation banning such tactics seemed to say he could ignore the plain terms of the law.
If Judge Samuel Alito is right that no one is above the law, then Bush's supposition deserves to be challenged.
Gore's final example -- on which he has lots of company among legal scholars -- is the contention that Bush broke the law in ordering the National Security Agency to monitor domestic phone calls without a warrant from the court Congress had created to supervise all such wiretapping. If -- as the Justice Department and the White House insist -- the president can flout that law, then it is hard to imagine what power he cannot assert.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter has summoned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to a hearing on the warrantless wiretap issue, and that hearing should be the occasion for a broad exploration of the willingness of this administration to be constrained by the Constitution and the laws.
The committee should keep the attorney general on the witness stand as long as it takes -- as long as it spent examining the qualifications of Judge Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, if it comes to that. The stakes for the country are that high.
Gore is certainly right about one thing. When he challenged the members of Congress to "start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you're supposed to be," he was issuing a call of conscience that goes well beyond any partisan criticism.
Morning ITN
Good stuff in your post. I liked especially the last paragraph :
Gore is certainly right about one thing. When he challenged the members of Congress to "start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you're supposed to be," he was issuing a call of conscience that goes well beyond any partisan criticism.
He is now in the most powerful position he has been in since leaving electoral politics - that of a knowledgeable and educated citizen - and activist - but he himself must learn to temper his tantrums to that people will actually hear his words - and he must learn to stop crashing and burning all of the good work he is capable of by doing some pretty dumb stuff in between. It is why I wrote he needs some counseling on self control. No doubt it is passionate and emotional for that what he feels "comfortably"...but it is underlying anger he needs to deal with and dump the turmoil from the past. It is over.....so over.
The thing people don't seem to get about Bush is whether wrong or right in peoples' opinions and what they read in the press, the guy is doing what he feels to be right. He is as I said an honest man. You just can't fight honesty. You can claim all manner of things about his post 9/11 behavior, but to say he did it without deep consideration and advice is a fool's errand. Because Bush and his handlers are not fools either. He has the confidence necessary in order to be honest and in one's face. Whether people like the style or not.
Good stuff in your post. I liked especially the last paragraph :
Gore is certainly right about one thing. When he challenged the members of Congress to "start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you're supposed to be," he was issuing a call of conscience that goes well beyond any partisan criticism.
He is now in the most powerful position he has been in since leaving electoral politics - that of a knowledgeable and educated citizen - and activist - but he himself must learn to temper his tantrums to that people will actually hear his words - and he must learn to stop crashing and burning all of the good work he is capable of by doing some pretty dumb stuff in between. It is why I wrote he needs some counseling on self control. No doubt it is passionate and emotional for that what he feels "comfortably"...but it is underlying anger he needs to deal with and dump the turmoil from the past. It is over.....so over.
The thing people don't seem to get about Bush is whether wrong or right in peoples' opinions and what they read in the press, the guy is doing what he feels to be right. He is as I said an honest man. You just can't fight honesty. You can claim all manner of things about his post 9/11 behavior, but to say he did it without deep consideration and advice is a fool's errand. Because Bush and his handlers are not fools either. He has the confidence necessary in order to be honest and in one's face. Whether people like the style or not.
Good Morning
All Democrats know Gore is finished in politics, perhaps instead (although I doubt it), he can become the new Jimmy Carter, that is, criticise from a safe distance, to be seen as a activist for the people. I agree however he needs to keep it as nonpartisan as humanly possible, the important factor here should be if Bush has broken any laws.
If Gore continues to push it, and loses, the Democrats will plummet and I wouldn't doubt them losing even more seats in the House and Senate. I honestly don't think they have learned their lessons from these past two Presidential elections.
On a side note, think you will be be voting this November with your citizenship process still moving along?
All Democrats know Gore is finished in politics, perhaps instead (although I doubt it), he can become the new Jimmy Carter, that is, criticise from a safe distance, to be seen as a activist for the people. I agree however he needs to keep it as nonpartisan as humanly possible, the important factor here should be if Bush has broken any laws.
If Gore continues to push it, and loses, the Democrats will plummet and I wouldn't doubt them losing even more seats in the House and Senate. I honestly don't think they have learned their lessons from these past two Presidential elections.
On a side note, think you will be be voting this November with your citizenship process still moving along?
ITN
Thanks for your rapid response... my vote? I thought I would be able to vote in the last Presidential election... apparently the FBI are "busy" with immigration and then Homeland Security have to do their stamp as well. Seems odd one can reside as a checked out alien who renews the card often with updated stuff...but when one is ready to become a citizen they have to go back to birth again....and start from square one. But it's ok - I'll wait.
Two things I wanted to separate on your post:
Abu Graib - I think this was a low level ugliness on the part of the guard staff there - perhaps rising to the person in charge in situ.
To go up the ladder is an impossible exercise. Honestly I think the staff were the instigators and it got out of control - probably because emotion is high towards the terrorists and the language barrier probably created many hostilities between the two sides.
Not excusable, but it goes on in our civilian prisons every day as well.
The public do not know what the orders are in place for "torture" because this group are the enemy - they attacked the USA and if they are tortured for information - those are the rules of engagement - and the military probably have practiced these same rules as long as there have been "legal" wars. Give the enemy an idea that they can be allowed a minute of respite, and you will be killed. I promise you that.
Thing to remember here....there is no honor in war no matter what our ancestors have put in our history books. It is ugly, bloody, smells to high heaven, creates broken minds and souls, hate, and often can never be repaired.
Somestimes I look at East Germany and Japan and wonder how the hell that came to be....these shining places rising out of the horror. Well perhaps not East Berlin....but the country of Germany joined East and West.
Even to see their Chancellor in the White House looking at Bush with trepidation was a major accomplishment...
Thanks for your rapid response... my vote? I thought I would be able to vote in the last Presidential election... apparently the FBI are "busy" with immigration and then Homeland Security have to do their stamp as well. Seems odd one can reside as a checked out alien who renews the card often with updated stuff...but when one is ready to become a citizen they have to go back to birth again....and start from square one. But it's ok - I'll wait.
Two things I wanted to separate on your post:
Abu Graib - I think this was a low level ugliness on the part of the guard staff there - perhaps rising to the person in charge in situ.
To go up the ladder is an impossible exercise. Honestly I think the staff were the instigators and it got out of control - probably because emotion is high towards the terrorists and the language barrier probably created many hostilities between the two sides.
Not excusable, but it goes on in our civilian prisons every day as well.
The public do not know what the orders are in place for "torture" because this group are the enemy - they attacked the USA and if they are tortured for information - those are the rules of engagement - and the military probably have practiced these same rules as long as there have been "legal" wars. Give the enemy an idea that they can be allowed a minute of respite, and you will be killed. I promise you that.
Thing to remember here....there is no honor in war no matter what our ancestors have put in our history books. It is ugly, bloody, smells to high heaven, creates broken minds and souls, hate, and often can never be repaired.
Somestimes I look at East Germany and Japan and wonder how the hell that came to be....these shining places rising out of the horror. Well perhaps not East Berlin....but the country of Germany joined East and West.
Even to see their Chancellor in the White House looking at Bush with trepidation was a major accomplishment...
As some of the guards in that infamous prison were prison guards back home,I suspect an investigation into the practices of those American prisons where they worked,would be in order. Odds are that American prisoners were abused by these thugs also.
A lot of mistakes are made in secret.
We don't want just the Executive Branch to
decide what part of the Geneva Convention to ignore.
We don't want to leave it up ONLY to the
Executive Branch what their policy on Torture is.
We don't want to leave it up ONLY to the
Executive Branch to decide what it's plans are
for the aftermath of any war.
We don't want to leave it up ONLY to the Executive
Branch to monitor its own bureaucracy, whereby
lower operatives make decisions in a vacuum untended
by oversight. Abu Graib. Turf warfare between
CIA and FBI and NSA and Home Security.
We don't want to leave it up ONLY to the Executive
Branch to decide the legality of wiretaps.
Major policy decisions require a circle wider than
the White House.
And oversight of administering those decisions
require a wider circle than the White House.
You voice many of my same complaints about
the irresponsibly shallow opportunism
and hypocrisy of the opposition party.
But the White House must submit to question,
regardless.
In fact often, a reasonable man of the opposition
gets unheard, because the White House takes this
man for granted that he will not upset the apple cart
to push the issue for fear of being depicted unreasonable.
Sometimes it does take a crazy stand to make
the powers to be to notice.
LEVERAGE.
We don't want just the Executive Branch to
decide what part of the Geneva Convention to ignore.
We don't want to leave it up ONLY to the
Executive Branch what their policy on Torture is.
We don't want to leave it up ONLY to the
Executive Branch to decide what it's plans are
for the aftermath of any war.
We don't want to leave it up ONLY to the Executive
Branch to monitor its own bureaucracy, whereby
lower operatives make decisions in a vacuum untended
by oversight. Abu Graib. Turf warfare between
CIA and FBI and NSA and Home Security.
We don't want to leave it up ONLY to the Executive
Branch to decide the legality of wiretaps.
Major policy decisions require a circle wider than
the White House.
And oversight of administering those decisions
require a wider circle than the White House.
You voice many of my same complaints about
the irresponsibly shallow opportunism
and hypocrisy of the opposition party.
But the White House must submit to question,
regardless.
In fact often, a reasonable man of the opposition
gets unheard, because the White House takes this
man for granted that he will not upset the apple cart
to push the issue for fear of being depicted unreasonable.
Sometimes it does take a crazy stand to make
the powers to be to notice.
LEVERAGE.
If this has been posted elsewhere, my apologies - I have looked and can't see it anywhere - but I think it fits in here.
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/bandow-020916.html
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/bandow-020916.html
Something I didn't see in the previous essay by the Cato Inst.
During the 9/11 hearings Chairperson Gorelick sat in pomp and ceremony not once being challenged for her splitting of the FBI and CIA information sharing during the Clinton royalty on his orders. It was one of the most crucial errors in funneling the pre 9/11 messages to the right people.
Imagine those two agencies in a non-communicating mode. A few people mentioned it about Jamie Gorelick thinking it odd she was sitting as Chair on the Commission, yet nobody came right out and questioned her.
During the 9/11 hearings Chairperson Gorelick sat in pomp and ceremony not once being challenged for her splitting of the FBI and CIA information sharing during the Clinton royalty on his orders. It was one of the most crucial errors in funneling the pre 9/11 messages to the right people.
Imagine those two agencies in a non-communicating mode. A few people mentioned it about Jamie Gorelick thinking it odd she was sitting as Chair on the Commission, yet nobody came right out and questioned her.
Well I've bored everyone to Goredom...or is that Gored eveyrone to boredom.... I've been researching and am bleary from all the print. I'll put this one up and call it enuf!
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/neumayr200601180825.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/neumayr200601180825.asp
Former Vice President Al Gore says he is worried about our civil liberties. How quaint. Too bad he didn't evidence a similar concern when the administration of which he was a key member was routinely putting power before liberty.
--------------quote from Wednesday's Child---
Well, if we don't like it from Gore than we shouldn't
like the same from Bush.
And you certainly won't like it from Hillary Clinton,
if by unfortunate circumstance she becomes President.
Although it will be quite good fodder for talk radio.
--------------quote from Wednesday's Child---
Well, if we don't like it from Gore than we shouldn't
like the same from Bush.
And you certainly won't like it from Hillary Clinton,
if by unfortunate circumstance she becomes President.
Although it will be quite good fodder for talk radio.