Although I didn't read Bruce's post, I didn't have to. He is predictible in that, he reacts to any legitimate criticism of his party / ideology in the way that has typified ConservaRepubs: either 1. Attack and insult the source. This eliminates the need of actually addressing the issue or 2. Diversion. Point out "Yeah but look at what the OTHER guys did in the case of _____! again avoiding that pesky thing of actually addressing the issue. In this case it seems that he's gone with "2" and again like most uber- Cons, doesn't actually have an original thought of his own. So fine. Bush broke the law. A big one. A CONSTITUTIONAL one. The ConservaRepubs reply? lol. Look what the OTHER Guys have done! Precludes ever having to accept any of the accountability they preach others should be big enough to take, doesn't it?
On Jun 29, 7:31 am, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote: > Obama, Bush, & FDR: Together > Again<http://www.reason.com/blog/show/134418.html> > > Posted on June 29, 2009, 9:04am | Nick > Gillespie<http://www.reason.com/staff/hitandrun/129.html> > > Writing in the *Wash > Post*<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/28/AR200...>, > Brookings' Benjamin Wittes and Harvard's Jack Goldsmith are disappointed > with President Barack Obama's unilateralist view on detaining suspected > terrorists. They worry that he is simply following George W. Bush's bad > precedent: > > Obama, to put it bluntly, seems poised for a nearly wholesale adoption of > the Bush administration's unilateral approach to detention. The attraction > is simple, seductive and familiar. The legal arguments for unilateralism are > strong in theory; past presidents in shorter, traditional wars did not seek > specific congressional input on detention. Securing such input for our > current war, it turns out, is still hard. The unilateral approach, by > contrast, lets the president define the rules in ways that are convenient > for him and then dares the courts to say no. > > The authors suggest that Obama follow FDR's lead by getting congressional > input instead: > > When Franklin D. Roosevelt sought congressional authorization for the > Lend-Lease program in January 1941, the isolationist-leaning nation was > evenly split over the proposal. After two months of sharp congressional > argument and national debate, almost two-thirds of the country supported > Lend-Lease, and Congress passed the program by large margins. "We have just > now engaged in a great debate," Roosevelt proclaimed. "It was not limited to > the halls of Congress. It was argued in every newspaper, on every > wavelength, over every cracker barrel in all the land; and it was finally > settled and decided by the American people themselves. Yes, the decisions of > our democracy may be slowly arrived at. But when that decision is made, it > is proclaimed not with the voice of any one man but with the voice of one > hundred and thirty millions. It is binding on us all. And the world is no > longer left in doubt." > > It's really great to argue for more input when it comes to all aspects of > war, especially the waging of it in the first place. Wittes and Goldsmith > seem incredibly naive, however, in presuming that Congress is champing at > the bit to make any hard decisions. Recall that Congress did vote on an > authorization of force; recall also that Congress has shied away from > actually declaring war for many decades now. They might not like some > aspects of the Imperial Presidency, but they are also cowards when it comes > to the sort of decisions that they might actually be held accountable for. > > In any case, citing FDR in this context strikes me a tin-eared to the > extreme. Didn't he use an executive order to intern what, 100,000 Japanese > Americans during World War II? That was a unilateralist action that had > moral support in Congress, sure, but was far worse than anything Bush or > Obama dreamed up, much less acted on. The order was also refused by Mountain > State governors, to their credit. Read Eric Muller's great Reason > piece<http://www.reason.com/news/show/36412.html>on that racially > driven hysterical legacy of FDR. > > And watch Reason.tv on Obama's bad rendition and detention policies, which > have roots not only in the Bush admin but in Bill Clinton's: > > Permalink <http://www.reason.com/blog/show/134418.html> | 11 > Comments<http://www.reason.com/blog/show/134418.html#comments> > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Frederick The Moderate < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Again, I don't have a problem with legally passed legislation. I don't > > like or approve of many of our laws. But when Bush was caught doing > > it, it wasn't legal. > > > On Jun 29, 5:42 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You mean the Democrat Congress' Electronic Eavesdroppong Bill, that was > > > passed in 2007? The one that our current President supported and voted > > > for?? > > > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Frederick The Moderate < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So what do all those "Constitutionalists" Republicans and > > > > Conservatives think about his criminal acts in this regard? > > > > Or is the Constitution only important until it interferes with the GOP > > > > agenda?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
