An Accountability Moment That Must Not End

There have been far too few accountability moments since Democrats retook control of the U.S. House and Senate in January, 2007.

But one came Thursday, when the House voted 223-32 to hold former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas to testify before Congress in relation to the firing of nine United States Attorneys in 2006.

A pair of resolutions -- one that directs the U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C. to bring criminal contempt charges against Bolten and Miers to a grand jury and another that authorizes the House general counsel to bring a civil suit against the White House to settle the question of whether the testimony of Bolten and Miers should be covered by executive privilege -- received the backing of 220 Democrats and three anti-war Republicans (Ron Paul, the renegade presidential candidate from Texas; Wayne Gilchrest, who lost his seat in a Maryland primary Tuesday; and Walter Jones of North Carolina).

The move was opposed by 31 Republicans and one Democrat (Texan Henry Cuellar, who backed Bush for reelection in 2004 and this year backs Hillary Clinton.) At the behest of House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, 163 Republicans were recorded as "not voting." Ten Democrats did the same.

Thursday's House decision was historic, not just for its specific response to the lawlessness of two prominent members of the Bush-Cheney administration but for its broader message. With this action, Congress is beginning to reassert itself as a separate and equal branch of the federal government.

If the imperial presidency is to be ended, however, it will take more than an accountability moment.

The House Judiciary Committee and the House as a whole – which delayed the contempt vote for far too many months because of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's misguided caution about confronting the administration – must now aggressively pursue Miers and Bolten.

As American Freedom Campaign campaigns director Steve Fox correctly notes, "In order for our system of checks and balances to be effective, Congress must have oversight over the executive branch. When Bolten and Miers – with the encouragement of the President – refused to comply with the congressional subpoenas last summer, they were tacitly saying that this oversight power no longer existed. If they are not held in contempt -– and prosecuted in the courts -– our Constitution will have been defiled."

But nothing that is wrong with the Bush-Cheney administration or the federal government began with Miers and Bolten. And no fix will be complete if it stops with them.

The Judiciary Committee must hold to account the president and vice president who encouraged Miers and Bolten to disregard the rule of law.

Miers and Bolten refused to testify not as individuals but as members of an administration that has assaulted the constitutionally-defined system of checks and balances at every turn. They acted always, and in every way, at the behest of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

It is important to hold the former counsel and the current chief of staff to account. Certainly, as People For the American Way Director of Public Policy Tanya Clay House says, "Congress has a responsibility to enforce its congressional powers, and moving forward with contempt citations is the appropriate response to this administration's stonewalling and arrogance."

But this "appropriate response" must not be seen as an end in itself.

For there to be accountability, more than a moment is required. And more than Miers and Bolten must be held to account for the high crimes and misdemeanors of an administration that has treated the Constitution and the Congress as afterthoughts.

"Members of the Bush administration have spent the last seven years pretending that the law doesn't apply to them," says House, who musters proper passion to add, "Congress has a responsibility to enforce its congressional powers, and moving forward with contempt citations is the appropriate response to this administration's stonewalling and arrogance."

Comments (90)

1. The move was opposed by ... one Democrat (Texan Henry Cuellar, who backed Bush for reelection in 2004 and this year backs Hillary Clinton.)

   That says a lot about Hillary representing the status quo!

   Posted by Metteyya at 02/14/2008 @ 5:21pm

2. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/14/2008 @ 5:26pm

   Indeed, the framers were very concerned that the legislative branch would give away its power to legislate. Or do you think "signing statements" by the President are not a form of legislation?

   While we are at it, we should spend some time on the War Powers Act and get that piece of unconstitutional legislation eliminated. The President has no business declaring war.

   Posted by srjenkins at 02/14/2008 @ 5:44pm

3. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/14/2008 @ 6:12pm

   So, let me see. When Nichols wants to talk about subpeonas, you want to bring up seperation of powers under the Constitution. When I mention that I agree with you, let's do that because "signing statements" are effectively either legislation or judicial pronouncements, both of which are not powers of the executive branch", you only want to talk about subpeonas. How convenient for you.

   As the Boston Globe put it in 2006: "President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution."

   http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hu ndreds_of_laws/

   Oh, and while you are at it, please feel free to tell me which of these other Presidents had triple digit numbers of signing statements? You'd have a hard enough time trying to find anyone in double digits.

   I seriously doubt that even Barack Obama wants to remove that authority in these times. You have not seen any Democratic candidate in put it in their platform now or in the recent past.

   I seriously doubt he does too. For me, this point demonstrates how little difference there is between the parties. You also need to review your copy of the Constitution because Congress clearly has the power to not only declare war but to dictate it's scope. The Commander-in-Chief is the idea that someone would be leading troops on the ground in execution of those powers - just as had been done with George Washington and which was not done by his namesake.

   The WPA is a retroactive go ahead for military actions like Korea and Vietnam, and I would argue, it might have even been a factor in granting authorization for Iraq because Congress knew he might very well go in anyway and use the WPA to cover his backside. Easy enough to get in there, and then talk about supporting the troops once they are in harm's way.

   Posted by srjenkins at 02/14/2008 @ 6:41pm

4. To quote George Will, well. The Republicans decided to throw a little snit, bless their hearts. (You learn some interesting terminology dating a Southerner.) Seriously, what did the Reps think they were going to accomplish by that display? The Dems just continued on like nobody's business. I wonder if they were taking their plays from the Iraqi Parliament playbook or something. I'm glad it didn't deter the contempt citations from going forward, although it's going to civil court since King George can't have any upstarts ruining his little kingdom.

   Posted by yutsano at 02/14/2008 @ 6:42pm

5. Only the left makes a big deal out of them

   it doesn't matter who makes a big deal out of this: bush has, in fact, signed more of these than any other president x 10.

   Presidents must retain the authority as Commander-in-Chief and the sole person responsible for the Nation's security to commit forces when they (not Congress) determine a threat to National Security or our Vital Interests

   the president has no such authority. re-read the constitution, liberty.

   Posted by darladoon at 02/14/2008 @ 6:49pm

6. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/14/2008 @ 6:12pm

   As you stay awake at night worrying about Islamic fundamentalism, take a half hour out to read this little piece. Illuminating that we are destroying ourselves to destory others. Is a Pyrrhic victory still victory? And are you willing to sell yourself, and everyone else in this country, to a debt that will amount to indentured servitude, O, Lover of Liberty?

   http://mondediplo.com/2008/02/05military

   Posted by srjenkins at 02/14/2008 @ 6:56pm

7. Remember what Sodumb Insane did to his leg when they appeared to act up-- no wonder repub congress perv's roll over so easily-- fear, they live in constant fear... poor clucking elephicks.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2008 @ 7:00pm

8. re, elephickens

   Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2008 @ 7:02pm

9. Call me when they arrest somebody!

   Posted by Mask at 02/14/2008 @ 7:22pm

10. here's liberty's argument:

    Nothing the President and his aides do in a classified setting can be or should be subjected to oversight or to judicial proceedings -- no matter how illegal -- because the imperative of keeping everything Secret, and the Nation secure, vastly outweighs the imperative of living under the rule of law

    liberty is, in fact, the fringe. not chomsky or zinn.

    Posted by darladoon at 02/14/2008 @ 8:21pm

11. The separation of powers must be preserved and no amount of spin by the Dems is going to change this essential part of our constitution.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/14/2008 @ 5:26pm

    But, friend Luvvy, 'executive privilege' is not even mentioned in the Constitution; it is a tool that, well, tools like Shrub use to protect themselves and their minions.

    Your boy is the lawless one, without a whit of protection for his position from the Constitution. It'll be interesting to see if those strict constructionists on the Bench (Scalia, Thomas and probably Roberts and the awful Alito) will remain true to country or to party.

    Posted by skeletonman at 02/14/2008 @ 8:27pm

12. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/14/2008 @ 6:12pm Yeah, Bush (read 'Cheney') is brilliant, setting himself above and outside the law like that. His abuse of the oval office is unprecedented in American history and I hope never to be repeated.

    How anyone can defend this mealy-mouthed little pissant is beyond me; will you defend Hillary or Obama come next year when she/he tries the same shit?

    I think not.

    Posted by skeletonman at 02/14/2008 @ 8:30pm

13. Remember what Sodumb Insane did to his leg when they appeared to act up-- no wonder repub congress perv's roll over so easily-- fear, they live in constant fear... poor clucking elephicks.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 02/14/2008 @ 7:00pm

    As a proud chicken owner, I take slight umbrage, but only slight, as I laughed my tuchas off at that.

    Posted by yutsano at 02/14/2008 @ 9:40pm

14. But one came Thursday, when the House voted 223-32 to hold former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas to testify before Congress in relation to the firing of nine United States Attorneys in 2006.

    no way!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 10:38pm

15. And are you willing to sell yourself, and everyone else in this country, to a debt that will amount to indentured servitude, O, Lover of Liberty?

    http://mondediplo.com/2008/02/05military

    Posted by SRJENKINS 02/14/2008 @ 6:56pm

    good work, captain.

    don't forget that consumer debt also totals 13 trillion buckaritos.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 10:44pm

16. Call me when they arrest somebody!

    Posted by MASK 02/14/2008 @ 7:22pm

    waiting in vain...........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 10:45pm

17. "A pair of resolutions -- one that directs the U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C. to bring criminal contempt charges against Bolten and Miers to a grand jury and another that authorizes the House general counsel to bring a civil suit against the White House to settle the question of whether the testimony of Bolten and Miers should be covered by executive privilege..."

    A pair of resolutions?!?!? Mr. Nichols I think you know full well that neither resolution will come to pass. The AG's office is under the executive branch and they can't force (or direct) Mulkassey(sp?) to do anything and I seriously doubt that he will. And, as for the House General cousel bringing civil suit action against Bolton and Miers, it could take up to 3 years to get the suit in federal court, which means the HGC could run the risk of the court siding with the constitution with regard to the separation of powers.

    Geez, this is another exercise in futility...and this 110th Congress wonders why their pol numbers are looking like the tidy-bowl man as he starts circling the bottom of the toilet with the rest of the other crap.

    Posted by ACook at 02/14/2008 @ 10:46pm

18. Posted by SRJENKINS 02/14/2008 @ 6:56pm

    No surprise, you link an article by Chalmers Johnson. This guy is cut from the same anti-American cloth as Chomsky and Zinn.

    Plus like the other two, he has such a twisted view of both US and world history. Only the fringe left actually takes the guy seriously.

    Thanks, but no thanks.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/14/2008 @ 7:54pm | ignore this person

    run, run, run, but you sure can't hide.

    SRJ,

    It seems your reading runs always runs to "the US is evil". Sorry, but I don't think you will find more than 1% of the population who agrees with you.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/14/2008 @ 8:02pm

    baa, baa, baa

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 10:47pm

19. LL

    Presidents must retain the authority as Commander-in-Chief and the sole person responsible for the Nation's security to commit forces when they (not Congress) determine a threat to National Security or our Vital Interests.

    Except that the authority as Commander-in-Chief does not include when to commit the country to hostilities. That was clearly left to Congress except in cases of the need to repel an ongoing or imminent assault.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/14/2008 @ 10:49pm

20. Heh, liberty you amuse me. In a time when only 3 out of every ten people in the US approve of George Bush's job, and even less approve of the job of our congress, you state that a fair portion of America isn't incredibly cynical towards America. you assume no one thinks the US is in fact evil.

    You then presume to label Zinn as an outsider in a negative sense, when anyone at all familiar with his work could tell you that the entire point of his histories of the US are that they are in fact different from the norm. Matter of fact, if you study US history, Zinn's version of it is paralleled in more conventional versions of it, it's simply told from the opposite perspective.

    Posted by shadow master at 02/14/2008 @ 11:41pm

21. i think zinn tells much more truth than the conventional version, shadowmaster. how many conventional histories are even a little honest about christopher columbus?

    Posted by loveloki at 02/14/2008 @ 11:53pm

22. Hey Lib,

    on signing statements, yeah, they do go way back (to Monroe?), but, as far as I can tell, until Regan, only 75 had been issued (yes, 75, half the number issued by GWBush).

    Also, many of those signing statements were rhetorical in nature (along the lines of, although Congress passed this bill, I think it is good, therefor it is good, so I will sign it).

    It's the movement conservatives who have so politicized this extra-Constitutional 'tool.' Here's an interesting statement from the wikipedia entry:

    "The upswing in the use of signing statements during the Reagan administration coincides with the writing by Samuel A. Alito – then a staff attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel – of a 1986 memorandum making the case for 'interpretive signing statements' as a tool to 'increase the power of the Executive to shape the law.' Alito proposed adding signing statements to a 'reasonable number of bills' as a pilot project, but warned that 'Congress is likely to resent the fact that the President will get in the last word on questions of interpretation.'"

    It's clear from Alito's own words that he saw this as a LEGISLATIVE tool.

    Congress is only now waking up to his predicted resentment, and this is an issue that'll have to be addressed eventually. But an easy argument can be made that GWBush has abused it.

    Posted by Rintrah at 02/15/2008 @ 03:45am

23. Indeed, the framers were very concerned that the legislative branch would give away its power to legislate. Or do you think "signing statements" by the President are not a form of legislation?

    While we are at it, we should spend some time on the War Powers Act and get that piece of unconstitutional legislation eliminated. The President has no business declaring war.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 02/14/2008 @ 5:44pm

    SRJ, Of course you are correct, but Livberty, Rio and the rest of the right wing fanatics believe that they, Bush and the rest of the neocons are ordained directly by God to root out what they perceive as evil. Anything wrong, in their eyes, regardless of laws, should and will be destroyed....and that includes fellow countrymen who have the audacity to disagree with them.

    Karl Rove wrote the book on this and the rethug party continues to carry the banner.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/15/2008 @ 06:52am

24. LUVVY, could you point me to the word "unitary Executive" in the constitution.

    Can you show me where it says private citizens may ignore a congressional subpoena?

    and as asked by others, will you grant Hillary the same latitude you give Chimpy McFlightsuit? If she decides to start rounding up American rightwing terrorists and shipping them to Syria for "interrogation", will you support that? Will you support the indefinite jailing of more people based on "she is the President, we HAVE to stand behind her'? will you support the classification of travel documents, removing them from congressional oversight?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/15/2008 @ 09:17am

25. Republicans did not vote. Interesting. Isn't that the complaint they make about Obama, that he voted "not voting" too many times?

    could it be loyalty to party over loyalty to Law and the country?

    Nahh, surely not. I know the republicans want to get to the Truth of the matter, like they always do when it comes to Chimpy. The truth abut his energy policy, the truth about what was known about Saddams wmd's,

    ---

    and once again, Luvvy finds an evil socialist link to a source. Be it the State Dept, the CIA, NLRB or any other source that is not tied to the Heritage Foundation or Chimpy, they are all suspect because they are full of evil librools.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/15/2008 @ 09:24am

26. some constitutional law for Luvvy:

    February 14, 2008 National Briefing | Southwest Ban on Sex Toys Is Overturned in Texas By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    A federal appeals court has overturned a Texas statute outlawing sales of sex toys, essentially leaving Alabama as the only state with such a ban. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Texas law making it illegal to sell or promote obscene devices, punishable by up to two years in jail, violated the right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/15/2008 @ 09:25am

27. And MBB's claim that "we" don't pollute our water and residents meets the road of reality, along with more corporate welfare for the mining industry. This mine closed in 1995, but the taxpayers are footing the bill.

    By P. SOLOMON BANDA, Associated Press Writer Fri Feb 15, 5:45 AM ET

    DENVER - More than 1 billion gallons of contaminated water -- enough to fill 1,500 Olympic-sized swimming pools -- is trapped in a tunnel in the mountains above the historic town of Leadville and threatening to blow.

    Lake County Commissioners have declared a local state of emergency for fear that this winter's above-average snowpack will melt and cause a catastrophic tidal wave.

    The water is backed up in abandoned mine shafts and a 2.1-mile drainage tunnel that is partially collapsed, creating the pooling of water contaminated with heavy metals.

    County officials have been nervously monitoring the rising water pressure inside the mine shafts for about two years. An explosion could inundate Leadville and contaminate the Arkansas River.

    Peter Soeth, a spokesman for the Bureau of Reclamation, which acquired the drainage tunnel in 1959, said there was no immediate threat to Leadville's 2,700 residents.

    ...Leadville, which sits at 10,200 feet of elevation and some 100 miles west of Denver, rose to national prominence and attracted thousands of people after a gold rush in 1859. After the gold ran out, silver became the dominant mining industry.

    Later, a mine that sits beneath 13,000-foot mountain peaks began shipping molybdenum ore in 1915. Miners have recovered 946,000 tons of molybdenum, used to harden steel, worth about $4 billion. The Climax mine closed in 1995.

    Yeah, $4,000,000,000 just does not leave enough profit for cleanup. Yet, this CLimax mine is scheduled to reopen in 2009, with taxpayers still paying for cleanup. Why the Freeport-McMoRan CEO Richard Adkerson is struggling, there is simply no money to pay for cleanup.

    Cash Compensation (FY December 2006)

    Salary $1,250,000

    Bonus $0

    Latest FY other short-term comp. $0

    Latest FY other long-term comp. $30,860,648

    Latest FY long-term incentive payout $0

    Total $32,110,648

    Stock Options (FY December 2006)

    Number of options Market value

    exercised 1,099,480 $28,221,809

    unexercised 0 $0

    unexercisable 1,199,827 $25,031,203

    Total 2,299,307 $53,253,012

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/15/2008 @ 09:42am

28. Americans have obviously become too complacent. We are so used to the freedoms that our fathers, mothers, grandparents, and ancestors fought for that we apparently have begun to take them for granted. How else to explain the lack of protest to the obvious attempt to whittle away at our civil rights? The administration wants to make it possible for surveillance without warrants, wants to give immunity to private companies who gave up customers' personal information without warrants, they have endorsed torture and have apparently decided that habeas corpus is a quaint idea whose time has come and gone.

    We as Americans have grown too fat and lazy (figuratively and literally) and as a result, are being led by the nose by the rich and powerful whose best interests are served by an ignorant and selfish populus. Can you say "bread and circuses?"

    These are dark times, and when the apologists ask "Have you personally had your civil rights impinged upon?" then that just shows their un-American, un-Constitutional allegiance to a movement and not to their country and Constitution. When anyone's civil liberties are impinged upon, then it is all of us who are in danger.

    "When good people in any country cease their vigilance and struggle, then evil men prevail." Pearl S. Buck

    "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." John Philpot Curran

    "Vigilance is the price of democracy." Gregory Rooker

    "The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance of official policy, but a love of one's country deep enough to call her to a higher plain" George McGovern

    "You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it." Malcolm X

    "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president." Theodore Roosevelt

    Posted by Turk33 at 02/15/2008 @ 09:50am

29. Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell:

    "There is no longer a way to compel the private sector to help us," he said Thursday in an Associated Press interview.

    Bush Says Congress Putting US in Danger http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19072207

    Oh, I don't know, what about, hmmm, a warrant? How about a subpoena? You know, the legal avenues that government has always had to impel somebody or some organization to help out with ongoing investigations?

    Posted by Turk33 at 02/15/2008 @ 10:27am

30. And if you were listening to this interview this morning, the Orwellian aspects were unmistakeable. In one breath, McConnell said that the government needs to be able to offer immunity or the telecom companies would be less likely to cooperate, and in the next breath was claiming that what the telecom companies did wasn't illegal.

    If it wasn't/isn't illegal, then why do they need immunity? Or if they do need immunity, then the government must know that what they asked for and what the telecom companies complied with was illegal.

    It's obvious that any legislator that who votes to give telecoms immunity is doing so to protect the campaign donations from telecoms, and/or shielding themselves from the specious attacks that are inevitable from conservative fear-mongers claiming that a vote against the immunity is a vote for the terrorists.

    Makes me sick!

    Posted by Turk33 at 02/15/2008 @ 10:35am

31. It's obvious that any legislator that who votes to give telecoms immunity is doing so to protect the campaign donations from telecoms, and/or shielding themselves from the specious attacks that are inevitable from conservative fear-mongers claiming that a vote against the immunity is a vote for the terrorists.---Posted by TURK33 02/15/2008 @ 10:35am

    It makes for odd bedfellows, TURK.

    Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) voted FOR the telecomm retroactive immunity. But she's one of the 11 US Senators who voted BOTH against war with Iraq in 1991 AND 2002. Hardly a right-winger.

    So the question is....why?

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 10:43am

32. the terrorists.

    Posted by TURK33 02/15/2008 @ 10:35am

    like in dekalb?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/15/2008 @ 10:44am

33. wow. i search dekalb (thinking illinois) to make sure i had the name right,

    and what did i find?

    Community around McNair High unsettled by shooting

    By KRISTINA TORRES

    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

    Published on: 02/14/08

    Recent shootings near McNair High School appeared to be a wake-up call for DeKalb County police and school officials, as they announced Thursday a new, county-wide, anti-violence task force.

    "Less isolationism and more working together," said DeKalb schools Superintendent Crawford Lewis, summing up what he described as a new spirit of collaboration in the name of public safety.

    Two teenagers were shot in the last week in separate incidents near McNair, prompting questions about the safety of 1,300 students on the south DeKalb campus as well as in the surrounding neighborhood.

    wake up, folks

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/15/2008 @ 10:46am

34. So the question is....why?

    Posted by MASK 02/15/2008 @ 10:43am

    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/15/2008 @ 10:47am

35. good stuff, T

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/15/2008 @ 10:47am

36. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/15/2008 @ 10:47am

    Probably...but odd that Mikulski is in on it. She's pretty liberal (as noted, voted against BOTH Iraq Wars) AND she easily wins re-election in Maryland.

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 10:49am

37. Bush has not only glommed the rights and privileges of congress, but also the rights and privileges of the supremes. he claims the right to decide what is and what isn't constitutional.

    pardon me but would not a retroactive law protecting the telecoms be unconstitutional?

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/15/2008 @ 10:54am

38. So the question is....why?

    Posted by MASK 02/15/2008 @ 10:43am

    An excellent question - and if I were one of her constituents, you can bet your bippy I'd be asking!

    I would have to guess that she has polled her constituents and thinks that more of them have succumbed to fear than have not, so she is trying to vote on that basis. I'll be honest - I don't get how anybody could have voted for the immunity for telecoms. It is blatant disregard for civil rights and the Constitution, and is a deplorable stretch for our government. It puts us yet closer to totalitarian government practices (failure to observe habeas corpus, torture, invasions of sovereign countries, extraordinary rendition, etc., etc.).

    Posted by Turk33 at 02/15/2008 @ 10:57am

39. The Neo Cons believe in the Unitary Executive theory. A theory that states that Congress cannot DO ANYTHING that could restrain (oversight?) the President from excercising his Executive Branch duties. This ideology is akin to granting the President king-like authority to do whatever he wants. Scary stuff.

    Let me apologize in advance for the following Rese-ian type post... The entirety of the article can be found at sourcewatch.com.

    "when it was revealed in 2005 that the Bush administration had been illegally spying on Americans, [Vice President Dick] Cheney responded: 'If you want to understand why this program is legal…go back and read my Iran-Contra report.' In that report -- authored in 1987 -- Cheney and aide David Addington defended President Reagan by claiming it was 'unconstitutional for Congress to pass laws intruding' on the 'commander in chief'."--Charlie Savage, October 2007.[1] "The president is always right."--Steven Bradbury, U.S. Department of Justice lawyer, July 11, 2006.[2] "It's not too far from King of Everything, really."--Jan Frel, AlterNet, October 28, 2005.[3]

    The unitary executive theory "asserts that all executive authority must be in the President's hands, without exception."[4]

    President George W. Bush "has been asserting from the outset of his presidency" that presidential power "must be unilateral, and unchecked."[5]

    "But the most recent and blatant presidential intrusions on the law and Constitution supply the verse to that refrain. They not only claim unilateral executive power, but also supply the train of the President's thinking, the texture of his motivations, and the root of his intentions.

    "They make clear, for instance, that the phrase 'unitary executive' is a code word for a doctrine that favors nearly unlimited executive power. Bush has used the doctrine in his signing statements to quietly expand presidential authority."[6]

    According to "Dr. Christopher Kelley, a professor in the Department of Political Sciences at Miami University, as of April 2005, President Bush had used the doctrine 95 times when signing legislation into law, issuing an executive order, or responding to a congressional resolution."[7]

    "The President announced in these signings that he would construe provisions in a manner consistent with his 'constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.' While the President clearly has the authority to supervise the executive branch, it is unclear how far he might construe this authority under the unitary executive theory."[8]

    In June 2007, Vice President Dick Cheney claimed that he is neither a member of the executive branch of the U.S. government[9], nor required to comply with executive orders issued by President George W. Bush. In turn, President Bush--consistent with his claim that presidential power "must be unilateral, and unchecked"[10]--also claims that he is not required to comply, as neither the president nor the vice president are "agencies" of the executive branch.[11]

    Since 2004, Cheney's office has refused to "allow" the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), "a department within the National Archives, to conduct an on-site inspection of how classified material is handled there, as it is authorized to do under an executive order issued by President Bush." Additionally, Cheney "prevented his office records from going to the National Archives, as required by federal law, according to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)", who is "now challenging the legality and rationale behind Cheney's decision in a letter[12] sent to the vice president" on June 21, 2007. Waxman also said that Cheney's office "stopped supplying data to the Information Security Oversight Office on its classification and declassification procedures in 2003."[13][14]

    Following a threat by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) to defund[15] "$4.8 million in executive-branch funding", "senior administration officials" told The Politico Cheney's office "will not pursue the argument that it is separate from the executive branch ... Two senior Republican officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the rationale had been the view of the vice president's lawyers, not Cheney himself."[16]

    Emanuel said the defunding "vote is still planned, and said the new position means the vice president needs to comply with National Archives requirements."[17]

    Jan Frel wrote in the October 28, 2005, AlterNet Blog[18] that Bush had, however, used this "unitary logic, including [in] many of his ill-fated choices relating to torture and the Geneva Conventions."

    "And who was the author of the infamous 'torture memo?'," Frel asked? It was David S. Addington, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney since October 2005 and Cheney's counsel since 2001, who "believes in the Unitary Executive theory.[19] If you guessed that this meant the power of one CEO who decides liberty and justice for all, you wouldn't be far off," Frel wrote.

    Addington was the "vice president's point man," Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank wrote October 11, 2004.[20]

    "Cheney has tried to increase executive power with a series of bold actions -- some so audacious that even conservatives on the Supreme Court sympathetic to Cheney's view have rejected them as overreaching," Milbank wrote.

    News Release: "President Signs Justice Approps Authorization Act," Statement by the President, November 4, 2002: "The executive branch shall construe section 530D of title 28, and related provisions in section 202 of the Act, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authorities of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties." News Release: "President's Statement on H.R. 199, the 'USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005'," March 9, 2006: "The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."

    "Presidential signing statements: Similar to the line-item veto is the presidential signing statement, in which the President signs a bill but also specifies which parts of a bill he or she actually intends to enforce.[21]

    "Until the Reagan administration, only 75 signing statements had ever been issued." Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton "issued a total of 247 signing statements." "President George W. Bush alone has issued 130 signing statements, which tend to be more sweeping in scope than those of his predecessors." In July 2006, Sen. Arlen Specter filed legislation that would allow a chamber of Congress to file a lawsuit to determine the constitutionality of presidential signing statements.[22]

    Footnotes:

    1 Satyam Khanna, "Charlie Savage: Cheney Plotted Bush's Imperial Presidency ‘Thirty Years Ago'," Think Progress, October 9, 2007. 2 Dana Milbank, "It's Bush's Way or the Highway on Guantanamo Bay," Washington Post, July 12, 2006. 3 Jan Frel, "Unitary Executive Theory," AlterNet Blogs, October 28, 2005. 4 Robert Parry, "The End of 'Unalienable Rights'," consortiumnews.com, January 24, 2006. 5 Jennifer Van Bergen, "The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State?" FindLaw's Writ, January 9, 2006. 6 Jennifer Van Bergen, "The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State?" FindLaw's Writ, January 9, 2006. 7 Jennifer Van Bergen, "Scholar says Bush has used obscure doctrine to extend power 95 times," The Raw Story, September 23, 2005. 8 Jennifer Van Bergen, "Scholar says Bush has used obscure doctrine to extend power 95 times," The Raw Story, September 23, 2005. 9 Julia Malone, "Cheney asserts he's part of the legislative branch. Will not follow executive order," Cox Newspapers (Boston Globe), June 21, 2007. 10 Jennifer Van Bergen, "Scholar says Bush has used obscure doctrine to extend power 95 times," The Raw Story, September 23, 2005. 11 Josh Meyer, "Bush claims oversight exemption too. The White House says the president's own order on classified data does not apply to his office or the vice president's," Los Angeles Times, June 23, 2007. 12 "Vice President Exempts His Office from the Requirements for Protecting Classified Information," Chairman Henry A. Waxman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, June 21, 2007. 13 John Bresnahan, "Waxman challenges Cheney on whether VP has to turn over documents to National Archive," The Politico, June 21, 2007. 14 "Waxman vs. Cheney," The Gate/National Journal, June 22, 2007. 15 Patrick O'Connor, "Emanuel Bill Would Defund Cheney," The Crypt's Blog/The Politico, June 24, 2007. 16 Mike Allen, "Cheney part of executive branch again," The Politico, June 27, 2007. 17 Mike Allen, "Cheney part of executive branch again," The Politico, June 27, 2007. 18 Jan Frel, "Unitary Executive Theory," AlterNet Blogs, October 28, 2005. 19 Alexander Hamilton, "The Federalist Papers : No. 70. The Executive Department Further Considered. From the New York Packet. Tuesday, March 18, 1788, The Avalon Project, Yale University. 20 Dana Milbank, "In Cheney's Shadow, Counsel Pushes the Conservative Cause," Washington Post, October 11, 2004. 21 Tom Head, "Imperial Presidency 101 - Unitary Executive Theory and the Imperial Presidency," Civil Liberty at About.com. 22 S.3731. A bill to regulate the judicial use of presidential signing statements in the interpretation of Acts of Congress introduced July 26, 2006, by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.).

    Posted by BizarroRio at 02/15/2008 @ 11:23am

40. LVL,

    How do you reconcile the Unitary Executive ideology once it is applied to a President you do not agree with. Checks and balances are the single most important part of our Constitution. They allow us, the citizens, to have a free society for ALL people. Not just what the Republicans or Democrats want.

    President Roosevelt went before Congress every year to reauthorize funding for WWII...He also went before Congress to get a formal declaration of War and the same once the war was ended. The War Powers Act is a super-constitutional law that needs to be repealed, regardless of which party, President, Congress (Republican/Democrat) introduced it in the first place.

    Posted by BizarroRio at 02/15/2008 @ 11:30am

41. Posted by BIZARRORIO 02/15/2008 @ 11:30am

    In fairness, I've asked LVLIB that and he said he DID support even a "President Hillary" having the same powers as Bush to "fight the War on Terror". And brushed aside any possibility that such power might be turned against groups that HE liked (such as fervant "right-to-life").

    Although....I never asked him how he would feel (if Romney had won) about a "Temple Mormon" having such powers!....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 12:01pm

42. The problem isn't the War Powers Act - it was designed to prevent a president from sending and keeping troops into harms way for an extended period of time without a declaration of war - it's the Congress's complete lack of any kind of intestinal fortitude to stand up to the current administration and exercise their power in regards to military actions.

    They should look to a Democratic icon (and with Jefferson, my personal favorite), Harry Truman, who when deciding to desegregate the army, said to his opponents (who said that this action would eliminate any chance he had of being elected) that it was more important to lose doing the right thing than to win doing the wrong thing. What a novel concept in today's political arena. It doesn't seem that anybody (and I lump both parties in this statement) does anything for the right reason if there aren't personal gains on the line.

    A senator or representative voting for a war (or continued funding for said war) that he or she doesn't believe in smacks of pathetic subservience to the notion that supporting the troops means funding the continual failed mission in Iraq and not funding it means that somehow he/she is a coward or un-Patriotic.

    Posted by Turk33 at 02/15/2008 @ 12:31pm

43. Posted by TURK33 02/15/2008 @ 12:31pm | ignore this person

    The WPA is a problem. By providing an avenue of warfare without formal declaration of war, the WPA gives Washington cover if they want to have military action without the formal declaration of war. The WPA was a bad solution to a problem of protracted engagements. It is also thought that the WPA helps presidents defend the country from impending attack by allowing them to respond to threats without Congressional approval.

    The president has enumerated powers to defend the country, under emergency conditions, without the need to ask congress. The idea of a declaration of war is to provide the need, funding and resources required for the war. This creates a check and balance on the act of warfare. The WPA, through un-intended consequences, only reinforces the idea of a Unitary Executive by allowing the President to invoke the WPA, and then, after troops are already in theater, ask Congress to extend the action. This can become extremely dangerous when you consider the Iran Sabre-Rattling that occured before the recent NIE brought light to Iranian Nuclear program.

    GWB would have had plenty of authority, under the WPA, to invade Iran after declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Gaurd terrorists. Do we really want a President, any President, the authority to do that?

    Posted by BizarroRio at 02/15/2008 @ 12:58pm

44. Posted by MASK 02/15/2008 @ 12:01pm

    or what about president ellison?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/15/2008 @ 12:58pm

45. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/15/2008 @ 12:58pm

    Well, he'd probably shunt that aside with a "Well, Ellison's not in the race", then asked "Well, what if he was and won"...and LVLIB would hem and haw and say "Well, if that happened THEN I'd answer it".

    Point of fact, he doesn't have much of an imagination, if he is "comfortable" with Hillary having massive powers to stop "domestic terrorism" and can't conceive of it being turned around against elements that HE would support.

    "It's a poor blaster that doesn't point both ways!"---Isaac Asimov

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 1:12pm

46. "Well, Ellison's not in the race"

    Posted by MASK 02/15/2008 @ 1:12pm

    too bad.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/15/2008 @ 1:17pm

47. Yes, contempt citations against Miers and Bolton followed by impeachment proceedings against Darth Cheney would be energizing to citizens like many/most of us here at the thenation.com. I'd furthermore enjoy viewing Miers and/or Bolton upholding their failed neo-conservative ideology by actually doing some jail time ala the two NY Times reporters and their protected war-mongering, sychophantic Judith Miller, Novak, Flush, Coulter, et al.

    Posted by lewwelge at 02/15/2008 @ 1:22pm

48. Posted by LEWWELGE 02/15/2008 @ 1:22pm | ignore this person

    Not going to happen...The Congress will attempt to get more info from Miers/Bolton through the intimidation of the Contemp Citations. But, the AG, President, Speaker of the House and the DNC (yes, the Democratic National Convention) would never let it get to impeachment or jailtime.

    The AG would not go against the President (see previous post on the Unitary Executive).

    The President would never acknowledge the impeachment proceedings (see previous post ont the Unitary Executive)

    The Speaker would never let it get to the floor, since she took it off the table after the '06 MidTerms. She, apparantly, took it off the table to cover her own complicity in the Domestic Spying Program which would inevitably come up during any impeachment hearing.

    The DNC remembers what the Clinton Impeachment hearings did to the Republican approval ratings and stupidly thinks the same would happen to the '08 elections. So, they continue to push the "Let's move forward in dealing with the peoples business" mantra, forgetting that accountability in government is the peoples business.

    Posted by BizarroRio at 02/15/2008 @ 1:36pm

49. The DNC remembers what the Clinton Impeachment hearings did to the Republican approval ratings and stupidly thinks the same would happen to the '08 elections Posted by BIZARRORIO 02/15/2008 @ 1:36pm | ignore this person

    Should have read: ...stupidly thinks the same would happen to the Democratic numbers before '08 elections...

    Posted by BizarroRio at 02/15/2008 @ 1:47pm

50. Unitary Executive

    that's what they called king George way back then. how did they deal with him?

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/15/2008 @ 1:49pm

51. Posted by BIZARRORIO 02/15/2008 @ 1:36pm

    LEW's a little naive and prone to "Yippee" moments at anything that SOUNDS good.

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 2:19pm

52. "They should look to a Democratic icon (and with Jefferson, my personal favorite)..."

    Posted by TURK33 02/15/2008 @ 12:31pm

    TURK, your personal favorite was a SLAVE owner. How very sad.

    Posted by ACook at 02/15/2008 @ 3:22pm

53. Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/15/2008 @ 2:46pm

    RIO, I'm going to be VERY interested to see your defenses of the "powers of the Executive Branch"....

    under a "President Hillary" or "President Barack" Administration!

    I'm sure it will be quite....illuminating.

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 3:50pm

54. Posted by ACOOK 02/15/2008 @ 3:22pm

    ACOOK, you object to slavery?!?!?!?

    Exodus 21:7 If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant....

    Exodus 22:3 If he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

    Leviticus 25:39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee....

    Leviticus 25:44-46 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.

    Ephesians 6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

    Colossians 3:22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

    1 Timothy 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

    Titus 2:9-10 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

    1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 3:55pm

55. If you haven't yet read Charlie Savage's excellent book Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency, I highly recommend it. It's a, and perhaps the, definitive study of the Unitary Executive over the last half-century. Chapter 10, titled "Power of the Pen: Signing Statements", is alone worth the price. The history is detailed, up through the Reagan administration to today, always with a certain Mr. Cheney behind the scenes. It's too much to go into here, of course, but I don't think you could come away from that chapter unconcerned about signing statements, regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum.

    Posted by Donald Weed at 02/15/2008 @ 4:03pm

56. Although....I never asked him how he would feel (if Romney had won) about a "Temple Mormon" having such powers!....heheh

    Posted by MASK 02/15/2008 @ 12:01pm

    Mask I read that and I'm gonna have nightmares tonight!

    Posted by yutsano at 02/15/2008 @ 4:10pm

57. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/14/2008 @ 7:54pm

    He is presenting an argument. Whether you agree with the worldview that informs that argument, whether 1% or .000001% of the population agrees with those arguments, or whether his arguments are similar to those of Chomsky or Zinn has no bearing on whether it is true or not.

    You don't get to offer red herrings, bandwagon and other forms of informal logical fallacies and still pretend that you are rational. Can you provide any arguments that either establish that the truth of his premises are false or the logic of the argument does not follow? If not, then you have to accept the argument. I can't see any flaws in the argument, but perhaps you can see the difficulties better than I do. You only need to point them out.

    But, you don't get to dismiss them out of hand - anymore than I can point to the authors of the "Fair Tax Book" and say they are both right-wing idiots. No, I have to talk about the fact that no one has demonstrated such a tax works. Everyone that has tried it has moved away from it. There are specific problems in their proposal and the assumptions it makes, and it won't bring in enough money. Even when I do talk about them specifically, I have to get into relevant facts like the fact that neither has any economics training. I can't just say idiots and move on - although it is tempting to do so. You need to do the same here.

    Posted by RINTRAH 02/15/2008 @ 03:45am

    Informative. I'd only point out that 75 is 1/10 as many as GWB has done as of 2006.

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 02/15/2008 @ 06:52am

    I'm tempted to agree with you. But, there is this weird dichtomy going on where in one breath they are talking about seperation of powers and the Constitution, and in the next breath, defending breeches in that seperation. Anytime I see that much cognitive dissonance, I feel compelled to explore it and see if we can get to its root. There is something interesting here, but I can't put my finger on it.

    Posted by MASK 02/15/2008 @ 10:43am

    While you are at it Mask, why don't you ask why this person you describe as "[h]ardly a right-winger" voted for these bills: Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Phone Recording Amendment, Religious Memorials at Schools Amendment, English as the Common Language, USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization, and USA Patriot Act of 2001.

    Sure, she's liberal, but she doesn't have a particularly good record on civil liberties.

    Posted by TURK33 02/15/2008 @ 12:31pm

    Oh, I disagree with you here. If Congress had to pass something saying, "We give authorization to conduct a war with X." Then, there would be none of this qualifying commentary such as Clintons that tries to explain away the vote.

    Under emergency conditions, Congress can damn well get together and pass a war authorization. As they did on December 8, 1941.

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/15/2008 @ 2:46pm

    ...somehow think that we must be ruled dictatorially by either the judiciary or legislative branch!

    The concern is being ruled dictatorially by the executive branch, the only branch that has only one person coordinating all its activites and could plausibly do anything dictatorially.

    Posted by MASK 02/15/2008 @ 3:55pm

    Feel free to quote the scripture that has Jesus supporting slavery.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/15/2008 @ 4:28pm

58. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/15/2008 @ 5:21pm

    where in the constitution does it say America should rebuild the world economies?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/15/2008 @ 5:42pm

59. May I say, there is absolutely no substance to charges that the United States is guilty of imperialism or attempts to impose its will on other countries, by use of force.''

    Nope, none.

    SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee. ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected. CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels. HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated. IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike. HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed. CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed. NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields. CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war. PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province. NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto. CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies. PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base. PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues. GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base. MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake. NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur. SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne. NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields. IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region. OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt. PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914. HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution. KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War. CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election. NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up. HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest. NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto. HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war. CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups. CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war. PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election. HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests. NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo. COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army. MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists. HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation. CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate. WORLD WAR I 1917-18 naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years. RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections. HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign. YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia. GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists. WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers. TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna. CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt. HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife. PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike. CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country. EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt. WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest. WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war. DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion. IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north. YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane. URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength. GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war. GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift. CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory. PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion. PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce. KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases. IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah. VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige. GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua. EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners. LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Marine occupation against rebels. IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait. CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles. PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation. VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969. LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war. CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails. GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis. CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union. PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return. INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign. GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels. DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles Blacks, 43 killed. UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities. CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos. OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion. LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside. SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas. MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War. CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president. CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash. ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels. IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution. LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers. EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash. NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution. LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions. GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution. HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders. IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf. LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't. BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region. IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war. LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down. VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm. PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup. PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed. LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war. SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel. IRAQ 1990-? Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military. KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne. LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising. SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction. YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro. BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs. HAITI 1994-? Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup. ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins. LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners. ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners. SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant. AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies. IRAQ 1998-? Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions. YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo. YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole bombed. MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels. UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime. Forces also engaged in neighboring Pakistan. YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen. PHILIPPINES 2002 Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Muslim Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into US combat missions in Sulu Archipelago next to Mindanao. COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline. IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Second Gulf War launched for "regime change" in Baghdad. US, joined by UK and Australia, attacks from Kuwait, other Gulf states, and European and US bases.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/15/2008 @ 5:46pm

60. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/15/2008 @ 5:21pm

    It looks like you are having difficulties with Johnson's argument, since it doesn't have any Marxist, Socialist or Anarchist elements - as far as I can tell.

    In the article I linked to above, he sketches out an argument that, at it's most uncomplicated, comes down to this:

    1. [T]he United States...[cannot] pay for [both] its own elevated living standards [and] its wasteful, overly large military establishment. 2. [Most] "defence" projects...bear no relation to the national security of the US. C. "There are, however, some steps that the US urgently needs to take. These include reversing Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the wealthy [increase tax income], beginning to liquidate our global empire of over 800 military bases [decrease expenses], cutting from the defence budget all projects that bear no relationship to national security [decrease expenses] and ceasing to use the defence budget as a Keynesian jobs programme [increase investment]."

    You'll notice that this is a straight economic argument. So, your attempts to slide in the red herrings about American Hegomony, Hansen and Ronald Reagan, doesn't change the fact that military spending is bankrupting the country and undermining our national security.

    Now, if you want to make arguments that challenge his claims that the Defense Department isn't a big experiment in government central planning of the economy and a jobs program; that having thousands of nuclear weapons - some with tactical capabilities -makes us more secure, that our manufacturing capital hasn't been decimated by these policies, that there is no real opportunity costs, or whatever other argument you wish to bring to bear, by all means, do so.

    But to resort to name calling? That's socialism and communism? Particularly when the status quo is the closest form of communism that the United States has even known, is rather....ironic.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/15/2008 @ 5:55pm

61. "MAY I SAY, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SUBSTANCE TO CHARGES THAT THE UNITED STATES IS GUILTY OF IMPERIALISM OR ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE ITS WILL ON OTHER COUNTRIES, BY USE OF FORCE.''

    wow. put down that crack stem, mr reagan.

    que pendejo.

    wow. que idiota

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/15/2008 @ 6:47pm

62. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/15/2008 @ 6:30pm

    I don't find any compelling argument that our defense spending is bankrupting the country.

    no, it's the attack part that's bankrupting the country

    In point of fact, it is one of the few constitutionally mandated elements of our national budget. Whereas, social security and other domestic engineering programs are not.

    I would cite that Social Security and Medicare are a far greater threat to our economic security than military spending.

    i'd say consumer debt and rubber money are an even bigger threat

    As to our military bases, the US does a bipartisan review of bases every couple of years (a good thing).

    i think the people of okinawa (FOR EXAMPLE!!!!!!!!) do a review EVERYDAY!

    However, given the abject failure of the UN as a peacekeeping body in the world,

    IN 1948, PRIME MINISTER LOUIS ST. LAURENT APPOINTED PEARSON

    MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS IN THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT.

    SHORTLY AFTERWARD, HE WON A SEAT IN THE CANADIAN HOUSE OF COMMONS, FOR THE FEDERAL RIDING OF ALGOMA EAST.

    IN 1957, FOR HIS ROLE IN DEFUSING THE SUEZ CRISIS THROUGH THE UNITED NATIONS, PEARSON WAS AWARDED THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE.

    THE SELECTION COMMITTEE CLAIMED THAT PEARSON HAD

    "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD." "SAVED THE WORLD."

    THE UNITED NATIONS EMERGENCY FORCE WAS PEARSON'S CREATION,

    AND HE IS CONSIDERED THE FATHER OF THE MODERN CONCEPT OF PEACEKEEPING.

    looks like you've been sharing mr. reagan's crack pipe

    the US has become the defacto world peacekeeper.

    i'm sure the iraqis agree

    Without the US military presence the world would be a far more dangerous place than it already is.

    TIV of arms exports from USA, 1997-2006

    Generated: 11 June 2007

    Source: SIPRI Arms Transfers Database

    For more information, see

    http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/output_types_TIV.html

    1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

    Afghanistan 12 12 Algeria 30 75 44 149 Argentina 113 185 278 70 2 13 12 16 4 17 710 Australia 27 21 269 208 128 196 263 217 225 401 1955 Austria 26 27 61 114 Bahamas 54 54 Bahrain 67 6 6 299 6 58 6 53 501 Bangladesh 1 61 62 Belgium 24 36 57 24 24 27 27 12 231 Bolivia 9 18 20 47 Bosnia-Herzegovina 25 16 41 Botswana 18 15 33 Brazil 129 14 27 120 70 8 57 52 16 493 Brunei 15 7 0 0 22 Bulgaria 4 4 Canada 244 70 104 166 93 31 52 74 100 101 1035 CAR 9 9 Chile 7 17 5 10 14 11 285 349 China 31 31 Colombia 97 79 41 62 261 123 85 3 30 781 Croatia 7 68 75 Cyprus 4 4 Czech Republic 3 44 28 18 44 14 151 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Denmark 77 89 42 34 36 12 8 137 27 40 502 Dominican Republic 6 2 1 0 3 27 39 Ecuador 6 2 2 10 Egypt 909 522 461 823 781 528 391 478 526 538 5957 El Salvador 2 16 9 27 Estonia 4 1 14 19 Ethiopia 37 37 Finland 391 547 792 509 7 2246 France 79 127 93 20 16 20 17 78 14 464 Georgia 6 6 Germany (FRG) 61 157 90 90 118 46 23 105 97 787 Ghana 7 7 Greece 634 980 295 262 211 281 1527 797 74 49 5110 Hungary 37 37 India 4 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 81 109 Indonesia 22 10 30 4 4 6 6 6 2 90 Iraq 3 34 26 63 Ireland 1 1 Israel 42 1351 737 85 109 282 84 836 1083 985 5594 Italy 296 4 225 252 148 495 412 59 31 1922 Jamaica 4 4 Japan 827 1484 1268 401 462 395 426 384 290 350 6287 Jordan 84 271 6 21 25 3 85 115 3 41 654 Kazakhstan 19 19 Kuwait 313 15 29 14 107 478 Latvia 14 14 Lebanon 6 5 4 4 1 20 Lesotho 4 4 Lithuania 1 14 15 Luxembourg 1 1 2 Macedonia 2 2 4 0 8 Malaysia 347 11 9 32 11 2 12 424 Mali 7 3 10 Mauritania 3 3 Mexico 261 19 26 115 135 44 15 45 8 18 686 Morocco 31 8 3 42 Netherlands 76 286 287 140 185 228 60 129 97 126 1614 New Zealand 28 13 22 45 15 48 33 3 207 Nigeria 1 4 11 16 Norway 96 88 124 110 90 8 4 5 3 74 602 Oman 3 12 1 6 4 13 75 399 513 Pakistan 127 17 5 16 104 83 102 454 Panama 6 6 Peru 6 12 1 1 5 22 47 25 22 141 Philippines 31 9 5 3 19 8 35 110 Poland 133 27 168 14 5 6 154 507 Portugal 0 4 1 13 57 29 289 203 596 Qatar 0 3 3 2 8 Reg. Sec. System 13 13 Romania 18 54 17 3 1 1 1 19 49 32 195 Saudi Arabia 1674 1811 1166 3 33 77 104 94 143 148 5253 Singapore 427 605 186 416 60 212 47 371 537 30 2891 Slovenia 0 0 South Africa 9 18 14 41 South Korea 734 1164 1145 835 290 186 437 857 485 1010 7143 Spain 142 21 234 194 125 159 77 134 77 18 1181 Sri Lanka 12 9 9 6 16 52 Sweden 70 193 65 68 38 30 30 30 62 58 644 Switzerland 388 447 498 18 2 1353 Taiwan 2979 2139 1705 565 434 314 116 336 725 624 9937 Thailand 363 40 51 28 14 152 147 48 14 12 869 Trinidad & Tobago 3 1 1 5 Tunisia 25 23 10 75 16 149 Turkey 1175 1633 1151 511 193 476 297 110 302 5848 UAE 12 27 10 81 13 12 303 1371 1392 3221 UK 654 674 54 773 1223 388 459 100 26 229 4580 Unknown country 3 3 Uruguay 11 11 Venezuela 17 5 11 13 46 Total 14249 15388 11490 7508 5814 5009 5611 6665 7095 7940

    There comes a time, when we heed a certain call When the world must come together as one There are people dying And it's time to lend a hand to life The greatest gift of all

    We can't go on pretending day by day That someone, somewhere will soon make change We are all a part of God's great big family And the truth you know and Love is all we need

    chorus: We are the world, we are the children We are the ones who make a brighter day So let's start giving There's a choice we're making We're saving our own lives It's true, we'll make a better day, just you and me

    Send them your heart so they know that someone cares And their lives will be stronger and free As God has shown us by turning stone to bread And so we all must lend a helping hand

    -chorus repeat

    When you're down and out, there seems no hope at all But if you just believe there's no way we can fall Let us realize that a change can only come When we stand together as one

    Chorus repeat x2 It's True we make better days just you and me

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/15/2008 @ 7:25pm

63. Posted by MASK 02/15/2008 @ 10:43am

    "While you are at it Mask, why don't you ask why this person you describe as "[h]ardly a right-winger" voted for these bills: Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Phone Recording Amendment, Religious Memorials at Schools Amendment, English as the Common Language, USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization, and USA Patriot Act of 2001."

    Sorry, SRJ, I realize as a "purist" that anybody to the Right of Dennis Kucinich in your book is a "neo-con and probably friends with Pat Robertson"....but Mikulski voted against BOTH the 1991 and 2002 Iraq war resolutions, something that ONLY 11 other US Senators voted against. And YES, that does make her "hardly a right-winger".

    Posted by MASK 02/15/2008 @ 3:55pm

    "Feel free to quote the scripture that has Jesus supporting slavery."----Posted by SRJENKINS 02/15/2008 @ 4:28pm

    Sorry, if my point was completely lost on you. I think if you ask ACOOK, she'll tell you she believes in BOTH the Old Testament and the New Testament, ergo verses from the OT for HER.

    As for Jesus, he said nothing. He was QUOTED BY OTHERS as saying things...so who cares?

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 7:28pm

64. love how liberty compares military spending to social security.

    liberty: social security is a vital interest, the military is not (at least in its current form).

    Posted by darladoon at 02/15/2008 @ 8:26pm

65. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/15/2008 @ 6:30pm

    I don't find any compelling argument that our defense spending is bankrupting the country. In point of fact, it is one of the few constitutionally mandated elements of our national budget.

    According to some estimates, over 50% of our taxes go to fund current military and previous military expenditure. It is a fact that debt in this country didn't break 1 trillion until the 1980s, and Ronald Reagan was instrumental in causing that to happen and adding in at least that much with programs such as "Star Wars" or death squads in South America.

    Bush has nearly equalled Reagan's feat. Making the "defense budget" hit a trillion a year and getting debt around $9 trillion.

    If you don't find this compelling evidence of bankruptcy, what qualifies? I also think the argument that the "Founding Fathers" would have found the idea of 800 military bases around the world - as beyond their intent of defending the nation from insurrection and foreign invaders.

    I would cite that Social Security and Medicare are a far greater threat to our economic security than military spending.

    Both of which are initially paid for by citizens - directly out of their own pockets. I'm all for taking military expenditures right out of people's paychecks along with FICA - so people can get a good sense of actual costs and what they are getting in return.

    Revenues have been the far stronger because of the taxcuts.

    Evidence? You don't increase tax collection by reducing taxes. I can't think of a better time to use the phrase, "Don't pee down my back and tell me it's rainin'". But, don't take my word for it, actually look for yourself.

    Treasure Department Gross Tax Collections ($MM): $2,112,755 (2000); $2,144,654 (2001); $2,033,661 (2002); $1,969,648 (2003); $2,035,761 (2004); $2,286,837 (2005), $2,536,771 (2006), $2,709,798 (2007)

    Far stronger? Perhaps that means something different to you than it does to me - because the cuts reduced revenue and when you look at the final number and compare it to the rate of inflation, it has just returned to 2000 levels.

    Now, the argument that people offer that take this position typically suggests that growth of the economy paid for these taxes - despite the fact that the economy has grown below the average over the last fifty years during Bush's tenure, their impact on our debt when combined with increased "defense spending", increased unemployment, etc.

    So, in other words, it is not supported by the facts.

    Which brings me to the whole fact versus opinion issue. You make these types of assertions: "Revenues have been the far stronger because of the taxcuts," with no supporting evidence. Someone else asserts that the military has served as a centrally planned economy in the United States, and you have to go the name calling, opinion, you hate America route? Rather than outline why this is not a fact - just like I did with your bogus revenues are far stronger claim?

    Every time I hear someone on the right go for the "you hate America", "socialism", citing percentages of people that may agree with a certain position, I know we've moved to the realm where either they haven't thought real hard about the issues they are talking about or worse, they don't have a leg to stand on.

    Here's an observation that you exhibit and I think characterizes the right in general. You worship at the altar of perception, rather than truth. Proverbs 1:20-33 comes to mind, and calamity is about to overtake us like a storm, and no matter how much you put you fingers in your ears and whistle Dixie, there's going to be hell to pay, my friend.

    However, given the abject failure of the UN as a peacekeeping body in the world, the US has become the defacto world peacekeeper. Without the US military presence the world would be a far more dangerous place than it already is.

    Care to point out where the Constitution stipulated the federal government supplying "defense" to the whole world and explain to me how this passes muster but Social Security doesn't?

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/15/2008 @ 8:33pm

66. Posted by MASK 02/15/2008 @ 7:28pm

    "neo-con and probably friends with Pat Robertson"....

    I should remind you that "quotes" are typically used to either suggest someone actually said something or that the term is dubious. Since you and I both know that I have never said anything like the above and it obviously isn't a dubious term, care to explain the quotes? Particularly when what I said was, "Sure, she's liberal, but she doesn't have a particularly good record on civil liberties." That's not calling someone a neo-con or making any kind of conjucture about who they spend time with.

    You do realize that it is behavior like this that causes people to feel contempt for you?

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/15/2008 @ 8:42pm

67. Posted by MASK 02/15/2008 @ 7:28pm

    He was QUOTED BY OTHERS as saying things...so who cares?

    I think I might save this one to post next time you choose to go to your archive and quote someone else. You are a rich source of irony Mask. I do very much appreciate that, at least.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/15/2008 @ 8:45pm

68. Posted by SRJENKINS 02/15/2008 @ 8:33pm

    great work.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/15/2008 @ 8:59pm

69. Your own hatred of our military and the right of a nation to preserve itself color your own perceptions of truth as much as my own prejudices towards a strong military color mine.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/15/2008 @ 8:59pm

    liberty, you only parzodize yourself.

    srj's uses facts.

    now, back to reagan's crack pipe.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/15/2008 @ 9:01pm

70. Posted by SRJENKINS 02/15/2008 @ 8:42pm

    the quote controversy returns.........................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/15/2008 @ 9:10pm

71. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/15/2008 @ 8:59pm

    I don't hate the military. I simply view it as, primarily, an unnecessary expense, an investment in pain and suffering that could be better allocated elsewhere.

    But, here again, we move to claims about hate rather than rationality and facts.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/15/2008 @ 9:19pm

72. Posted by SRJENKINS 02/15/2008 @ 8:42pm

    True, I apologize. I have been trying to remind myself to use single quotes (') to indicate things that I paraphrase.

    But I feel the sentiment is there....you always identify yourself as a purist liberal, and indicate quite clearly that few in the Democratic Party live upto your standard of left-wing ideology.

    But you leaped into attack mode about my comment on Mikulski more out of personality (mine) than ideology I think (though obviously that played a factor). Mikulski may not be "pure" but given the spectrum of Democratic politics, she's left of center...and her support of telecom immunity surprising nonetheless.

    As for Jesus and my quoting...the Apostles claim that the words they wrote down are not only what Jesus actually said, but the Divine and Immutable Word and Truth of the Godhead on Earth...

    while my paraphrasing (and the admitted punctuation problem I note) is of you guys!....Hardly even close to semi-divinity!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 9:23pm

73. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/15/2008 @ 8:59pm

    Hey, thanks FZ.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/15/2008 @ 9:10pm

    I just get tired of him putting words in my mouth. I like Mask, for the most part, but he's got a few bad habits - and perhaps I'm hard about it because they are habits I am inclined toward myself and struggle to avoid, sometimes successfully. Maybe it would be better if I just rolled with it, but then again, that's not my way. Goes without saying I am NOT a musician. =)

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/15/2008 @ 9:26pm

74. BTW, SRJ, I'm curious...

    "I don't hate the military. I simply view it as, primarily, an unnecessary expense, an investment in pain and suffering that could be better allocated elsewhere."----Posted by SRJENKINS 02/15/2008 @ 9:19pm

    Why would a person NOT "hate" "an investment in pain and suffering"?

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 9:26pm

75. Posted by MASK 02/15/2008 @ 9:26pm |

    Note the "quotes"....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 9:27pm

76. Posted by MASK 02/15/2008 @ 9:23pm

    You know the funny thing is that I didn't know anything about it until you mentioned it. I then went to Vote Smart to check it out and then found these other weird votes, and my comment kind of grew out of that.

    ...you always identify yourself as a purist liberal, and indicate quite clearly that few in the Democratic Party live upto your standard of left-wing ideology.

    There is a reason Dennis Kucinich is an anomaly, and you know, as well as I do, that he would be a mainstream social democrat in most countries in Europe, just as Clinton would be a moderate conservative.

    I still can find people I like besides Dennis, such as Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold and Dick Durbin, but there certainly aren't as many as I would like - and it doesn't stop me from disagreeing with them when they make bad decisions. Same as with anyone else, they just get it less.

    "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." -Edward Abbey

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/15/2008 @ 9:53pm

77. "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." -Edward Abbey

    Posted by SRJENKINS 02/15/2008 @ 9:53pm

    Even when it claims to be "benevolent"? That sounds libertarian?!?!?

    I agree with your assessment of American politicians....compared to EUROPEAN ones, but then again, compare Bush to Lee Hsien Loong of Singapore and Dubya is a "goddamned liberal"...or compare Segolene Royal to Castro and she's a "capitalist exploiter".

    The point is, we live in America and our paradigm is our own and not likely to alter but a few degrees from OUR "center".

    And in case I didn't make it, I DISAGREE with Mikulski....I just found it odd that somebody who voted against the Iraq War (both of them) is willing to cave or concede on telecoms getting immunity for the "War on Terror".

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 10:08pm

78. Posted by MASK 02/15/2008 @ 9:26pm

    I think the Sermon on the Mount gets at the point: "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Matthew 5:21-22)

    I think Christ's message of peace is, at it's core, about finding a way to get beyond hatred. It means finding room in your heart for both the tortured and those that torture.

    I don't pretend I've even made much of a start, but I certainly don't hate the abstract notion of "the military" or any members of the military. I've been there, done that - and I know what motivates people to join. If anything, I empathize with their situation.

    I also don't think all pain and suffering is necessarily bad. It is often how we learn but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference between pruning some branches and ripping something out by its roots.

    Anyway, no purpose is served by hating anything, so it's is best to skip it, if we can.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/15/2008 @ 10:35pm

79. Posted by MASK 02/15/2008 @ 10:08pm

    Left libertarian is probably as good a description of my position as any.

    I think the U.S. has moved quite a bit from our center if you look at the historical progression, and over time, it will change again.

    Yes, I know you disagree with Mikulski. I also agree with you - on this point.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/15/2008 @ 10:40pm

80. 800 military bases scattered around the world.

    120 years of using the military to support our "interests" as well as those of Dole, ARAMCO, Standard Oil etc.

    We will spend more on military than ALL OTHER NATIONS COMBINED NEXT YEAR!!!!!

    But, no substance for an American Empire claim?

    Your opiate of choice is fogging your gray cells.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/15/2008 @ 11:22pm

81. Chimpy takes the time to have his lawyers research, and the time to sign 750 statements "clarifying" the laws passed by congress.

    But, he needs no oversight and there is nothing un-constitutional about it.

    Inhale......

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/15/2008 @ 11:24pm

82. Posted by MASK 02/15/2008 @ 3:55pm

    Oh where oh where is PONTIFLOGIC?

    the issue is slavery, I thought he would be tuned in to make his arguments about Cuba, but not Saudi Arabia.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/15/2008 @ 11:25pm

83. Posted by SRJENKINS 02/15/2008 @ 10:35pm

    any oversight of the military is military hating. Just like any questions about Bush's reign of error are "America hating".

    It has it's own internal logic.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/15/2008 @ 11:28pm

84. I received an e-mail from John Conyer, Jr.'s office this morning and responded with a message of appreciation sans complaint about the contempt of congress citations being way overdue.

    Posted by lewwelge at 02/16/2008 @ 08:52am

85. Nice riposte by Putin. Reminds me of KVH's nice line from a while back stating that while politicoes were "giving head (sycophantically, corruptedly bowing to the war-hogs' [Rove/Cheney/Bush/Rice/Rumsfeld/Powell/Tenet] fearmongering and rush to war), we on the left were keeping our heads" (and futilely as it turned out, protesting/demonstrating).

    This is the key distinction between Obama and Billary, as is clearly pointed out, as usual, in a recent article in our esteemed mag, The Nation.

    Posted by lewwelge at 02/16/2008 @ 09:01am

86. the US has many means to impose its will on the rest of the world. force and the threat of force is just one.

    all we have on this blog is the ignore button. cherish it.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/16/2008 @ 09:01am

87. "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment." (Matthew 5:21-22)----Posted by SRJENKINS 02/15/2008 @ 10:35pm

    Which always makes me wonder how somebody like LVLIBERTY rationalizes away such a verse, when he proposes nuking China to 'save the Chinese from Mao'....or says "think Dresden" as a strategy for 'winning the war on Terror'....or even rants against "leftists" and accuses them of wanting to destroy America.

    Maybe he simply comes up with different definitions of "hate" and "brother"?

    Posted by Mask at 02/16/2008 @ 09:37am

88. Posted by MASK 02/16/2008 @ 09:37am

    I don't pretend to understand LVL's position. From my conversations with him, I think he makes the distinction that Christ's message applies to individual relations and not to the state. I also have the sense that he believes that there a Christian obligation to prevent or mitigate evil in the world and that the state is one means to accomplish that goal.

    If the first part is true, I disagree with him on that point. Thoreau put it well, when he said:

    "It is truly enough said, that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men [and women] is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice."

    In short, there is no seperate morality for the state, and it frequently corrupts the morality of the people that act as it's agents.

    Which brings us to the second point, we have a responsibility to prevent and mitigate evil - both individually and collectively. World War II or any instance of genocide can provide an example. I think this is a difficult piece because if you accept that you have the moral responsibility to prevent evil, then if you follow that to the logical conclusion then you have to figure where you are going to stop. Is it okay to use force? Is it okay to do some evil yourself in order to stop a greater evil? And if you go down that route, why not think of the possibilities of what might have happened if we could have dropped an atomic bomb on Berlin or Beijing?

    I think it is best not to go down that route. Non-compliance and non-cooperation are powerful tools for stopping evil, and while we have an obligation to stop evil, that obligation is not justification for doing evil ourselves.

    Ultimately, Christ has told us how to handle this type of problem:

    "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5-38-48)

    But, that's a hard road. Does that mean we don't fight against the Nazis? I think it does. I think it means we don't cooperate with them, and we must suffer the consequences.

    Turning the other cheek may mean getting beat to death. Giving up our cloak and tunic means we'll likely be cold. Going two miles out of our way rather than one...isn't good business. All of this is a recipe for poverty, pain and suffering. Take up your cross indeed.

    But, let's face it. How many people do you know live this teaching? I can't say I've ever known one, personally. And it leaves people like me with a comfortable existence claiming to be Christians looking like hypocrites, and to some degree we are. To some degree we are all like Constantine, praying, "Lord, make me a Christian, just not....yet."

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/16/2008 @ 11:32am

89. i believe it was st. augustine, referring to celibacy with the "just not yet," thing, wasn't it, srjenkins?

    Posted by loveloki at 02/16/2008 @ 5:38pm

90. Posted by LOVELOKI 02/16/2008 @ 5:38pm

    Give me chastity and continence, but not yet. - Saint Augustine.

    You are absolutely right. I was thinking Constantine would be a better example, because of his lifestyle and holding off of conversion and baptism until his final illness, but I couldn't resist the rhetorical flourish from St. Augustine.

    From Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

    "By the delay of their baptism they could venture freely to indulge their passions in the enjoyment of this world, while they still retained in their own hands the means of a sure and easy absolution. The sublime theory of the Gospel had made a much fainter impression on the heart than on the understanding of Constantine himself. He pursued the great object of his ambition through the dark and bloody paths of war and policy; and, after the victory, he abandoned himself, without moderation, to the abuse of his fortune...As he gradually advanced in the knowledge of truth, he proportionably declined in the practice of virtue; and the same year of his reign in which he convened the council of Nice was polluted by the execution, or rather murder, of his eldest son...At the time of the death of Crispus the emperor could no longer hesitate in the choice of a religion; he could no longer be ignorant that the church was possessed of an infallible remedy, though he chose to defer the application of it till the approach of death had removed the temptation and danger of a relapse. The bishops whom he summoned in his last illness to the palace of Nicomedia were edified by the fervour with which he requested and received the sacrament of baptism, by the solemn protestation that the remainder of his life should be worthy of a disciple of Christ, and by his humble refusal to wear the Imperial purple after he had been clothed in the white garment of a Neophyte."

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/16/2008 @ 11:02pm