Comments (33)

jimstro wrote on January 25, 2008 7:12 PM:

This Bush plan is yet another example of why the democratic leadership is wrong to take impeachment off the table.

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 7:26 PM:

Without a treaty, the "commitment" to defend Iraq is not _budgetarily_ enforceable: Congress may at any time cut the funding.

The issue turn on: Whether, despite the Congress not being bound by treaty to provide for this defense, it continues to pretend/assert that it is "stuck" paying for something.

Congress has the power to fund or not fund this. If Congress funds it, regardless the President's unilateral decision, Congress has embraced the policy as if it were a treaty.

Watch the money, not the Congress' or President's words.

pakaal wrote on January 25, 2008 7:37 PM:

I'm assuming that neither Bush nor any president can create a policy that must be maintained after the person leaves office. Otherwise, Bush would just "commit" to anything/everything he wants to.

He hasn't held back on anything he had any belief he could get away with so far, why would that change now?

the dark underbelly of america wrote on January 25, 2008 8:05 PM:

unfortunately, dick cheneys mouthpiece is going to try to do just that in performing the end run around the houses!
every bloody thing the cartel has gone after they have achieved.
the democrats are spineless and don't represent anybody but thier corporate masters.
i don't think we will ever hear again the words:

FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE

are there no leaders?

Chuck Dupree wrote on January 25, 2008 11:29 PM:

For anyone on tenterhooks about this "big inter-branch brawl", I can let you in on a secret: THE DEMOCRATS WILL CAVE. Doesn't matter what Cheney requires, Pelosi, my rep, will give it to him. If he wanted her granddaughters she'd hand them over.

not completely useless wrote on January 25, 2008 11:46 PM:

I don't get it. An "agreement" between the President and another country has absolutely no legal force. The President can make treaties only with the consent of the Senate. There's nothing in the constitution that mentions any other kind of agreement between nations.

Of course, that disregards the milquetoast attitude of the Congress. As Anonymous implies, they will no doubt claim to be bound by this agreement.

Becca Morn wrote on January 26, 2008 2:14 AM:

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the full implications of this latest blatant Administration power-grab.

Are they actually asserting that any given President can unilaterally commit US troops and funding, without Congressional review, oversight, consent, ratification or explicit budgeting -- in perpetuity?

I don't see how the Bush administration's justifications can be read otherwise.

Once again, too, they fall back on their tried-and-true strategy: It's not a 'treaty' because we say it isn't. And like so many plastic toy army men, Da Prez is The Deciderer and can put them ANYWHERE in the world he wants. No gimmes or give-backs allowed.

I think the saddest thing of all is that there are far too many Democrats out there who continue to think these people can be bargained with in good faith.

Another more ominous question: Are these the actions of an Executive who actually expects to leave office on 21 January 2008? After everything else that's happened, I honestly wonder.

Becca Morn wrote on January 26, 2008 2:19 AM:

Er, rather 2009. Always takes me about 3 months to get used to the new year... My bad.

Duck Soup wrote on January 26, 2008 10:03 AM:

I'm sorry, but here is the truth. I've been reading the boards. Some said that this is what it takes low blows to win elections, that people want the Clintons back in office because deep down people like this stuff, that the doodee (not the cream) floats to the top of the political toilet, that the Democrats and the Republican politicians are part and parcel floating next to each other, and that the Clintons will do and say anything, absolutely anything, to float their way back into the top of the White Bowl.

Obama is running on platform to change American politics, to try to take it out of a back alley street fight and add some rules against biting, groin shots, head butts and the like. The Clintons are doing everything they can to drag Obama back into that alley. This latest Clinton move today is really low. Hillary says Bill says he's sorry that "maybe" he went overboard in beating on Obama. It's professional alright. Professional wrestling. After all the Clinton distortions of Obama's statement about Reagan and falsely accusing Obama of making up fairytales about his superior record on the Iraq war, now Bill says he's sorry. Only he doesn't say it. His wife does. Tag team!

What makes me really sick is that the Clintons are race baiting to try to divide the electorate in South Carolina to scaremonger the white vote away from their opponent. The Clintons would love for this election to be about race and gender, old identity politics, vote for your own and screw the rest who aren't like you, because there are more women likely to vote for the Clintons than blacks likely to vote for Obama. The white women versus the blacks. Great. This sounds like race baiting in the old segregated South that the Clintons so rail against. Now that's selflessness for you! And to those who say they are no better than the Republicans, I agree that the Clintons give Karl Rove a run for his money.

You know how we know for sure the Clintons are the wrong choice? Because the New York Times endorses them. In a totally vapid and insipid piece, the NYT said they endorse the Clintons because, among other things, Hillary got it wrong on the war but somehow she is more right on the consequences of withdrawal. What the heck are they talking about?

Here is the plain truth the NYT acts like doesn't exist. Hillary Clinton totally screwed up the most important vote of her career in an admitted gigantic error in judgment. She was a sheep. The self-proclaimed "workhorse" didn't even read the National Intelligence Estimate at the time, not even after the most senior Democratic Senator in military affairs personally asked her to. Unbelievably, Hillary Clinton still can't admit she made an error, much more a gigantic one.

Hillary is still spinning her reasons for voting for the resolution by saying she didn't vote for war - she says she just voted to authorize Bush to use force. She is in denial about the fact she didn't vote for another resolution that said exactly that. As for her plans to disengage in Iraq, they are no better or more clear than Obama's. And unlike Hillary who has burned every bridge with the Republicans (the latest NBC/WSJ poll today shows Obama beats McCain and Hillary does not - I wonder why), Obama could reach across the aisle and grab someone like a Colin Powell to be Secretary of State. After all, Powell said "you break it, you own it." Another run at Secretary of State could be Powell's chance to "fix it", at least a little.

So, back to the truth about the NYT with a little rant thrown in. Hey NYT, not only do you not walk on water. You often act like morons. Absolute morons. Don't believe me? Well, here's the proof. You were stupid enough to buy into the Administration's phony made up stories about WMD in Iraq. And don't tell me everybody was fooled. They weren't. McClatchy's wasn't fooled. The UN Weapons Inspector wasn't fooled. The vast majority of other nations in the world which would not go along with us into Iraq like they did in the early 1990s weren't fooled.

And worse of all NYT, you didn't even give it a college try to find the truth - your reporter Judith Miller was doinking one of the Administration's biggest felon lying lips Libby as she published whatever he and the Administration told her. Get real NYT. Wake up. It's obvious, NYT, why you forgive Hillary Clinton for making a gigantic mistake about the war and can't give Obama credit for having the foresight to be against the war from the start. You, NYT, can't come to terms with your own gigantic failure in blindly reporting lies about the war. That and the fact that you are scared of change. Those are the reasons, you self-absorbed, conceited institution.

There is definitely an element of truth to the comments of many posters in this thread. In some ways, the NYT is one of the biggest pieces of doodee that rises to the top of the Democratic Party. (Caveat: while the NYT is a big stupid, conceited piece of turd, Fox News is an even more arrogant, evil turd that intentionally distorts the news to benefit rich people, crazy neocons and their billionaire owner directly at America's expense).

Sorry to get so scatalogical, but you can't describe poo otherwise. Obama is essentially asking the Democratic Party, CAN WE FLUSH ALREADY? All of the posters on this thread are ready to push the knob on the toilet. If the Democrats don't, the Clintons are going to be floating around us for quite a while.

Duck Soup wrote on January 26, 2008 10:04 AM:

I'm sorry, but here is the truth. I've been reading the boards. Some said that this is what it takes low blows to win elections, that people want the Clintons back in office because deep down people like this stuff, that the doodee (not the cream) floats to the top of the political toilet, that the Democrats and the Republican politicians are part and parcel floating next to each other, and that the Clintons will do and say anything, absolutely anything, to float their way back into the top of the White Bowl.

Obama is running on platform to change American politics, to try to take it out of a back alley street fight and add some rules against biting, groin shots, head butts and the like. The Clintons are doing everything they can to drag Obama back into that alley. This latest Clinton move today is really low. Hillary says Bill says he's sorry that "maybe" he went overboard in beating on Obama. It's professional alright. Professional wrestling. After all the Clinton distortions of Obama's statement about Reagan and falsely accusing Obama of making up fairytales about his superior record on the Iraq war, now Bill says he's sorry. Only he doesn't say it. His wife does. Tag team!

What makes me really sick is that the Clintons are race baiting to try to divide the electorate in South Carolina to scaremonger the white vote away from their opponent. The Clintons would love for this election to be about race and gender, old identity politics, vote for your own and screw the rest who aren't like you, because there are more women likely to vote for the Clintons than blacks likely to vote for Obama. The white women versus the blacks. Great. This sounds like race baiting in the old segregated South that the Clintons so rail against. Now that's selflessness for you! And to those who say they are no better than the Republicans, I agree that the Clintons give Karl Rove a run for his money.

You know how we know for sure the Clintons are the wrong choice? Because the New York Times endorses them. In a totally vapid and insipid piece, the NYT said they endorse the Clintons because, among other things, Hillary got it wrong on the war but somehow she is more right on the consequences of withdrawal. What the heck are they talking about?

Here is the plain truth the NYT acts like doesn't exist. Hillary Clinton totally screwed up the most important vote of her career in an admitted gigantic error in judgment. She was a sheep. The self-proclaimed "workhorse" didn't even read the National Intelligence Estimate at the time, not even after the most senior Democratic Senator in military affairs personally asked her to. Unbelievably, Hillary Clinton still can't admit she made an error, much more a gigantic one.

Hillary is still spinning her reasons for voting for the resolution by saying she didn't vote for war - she says she just voted to authorize Bush to use force. She is in denial about the fact she didn't vote for another resolution that said exactly that. As for her plans to disengage in Iraq, they are no better or more clear than Obama's. And unlike Hillary who has burned every bridge with the Republicans (the latest NBC/WSJ poll today shows Obama beats McCain and Hillary does not - I wonder why), Obama could reach across the aisle and grab someone like a Colin Powell to be Secretary of State. After all, Powell said "you break it, you own it." Another run at Secretary of State could be Powell's chance to "fix it", at least a little.

So, back to the truth about the NYT with a little rant thrown in. Hey NYT, not only do you not walk on water. You often act like morons. Absolute morons. Don't believe me? Well, here's the proof. You were stupid enough to buy into the Administration's phony made up stories about WMD in Iraq. And don't tell me everybody was fooled. They weren't. McClatchy's wasn't fooled. The UN Weapons Inspector wasn't fooled. The vast majority of other nations in the world which would not go along with us into Iraq like they did in the early 1990s weren't fooled.

And worse of all NYT, you didn't even give it a college try to find the truth - your reporter Judith Miller was doinking one of the Administration's biggest felon lying lips Libby as she published whatever he and the Administration told her. Get real NYT. Wake up. It's obvious, NYT, why you forgive Hillary Clinton for making a gigantic mistake about the war and can't give Obama credit for having the foresight to be against the war from the start. You, NYT, can't come to terms with your own gigantic failure in blindly reporting lies about the war. That and the fact that you are scared of change. Those are the reasons, you self-absorbed, conceited institution.

There is definitely an element of truth to the comments of many posters in this thread. In some ways, the NYT is one of the biggest pieces of doodee that rises to the top of the Democratic Party. (Caveat: while the NYT is a big stupid, conceited piece of turd, Fox News is an even more arrogant, evil turd that intentionally distorts the news to benefit rich people, crazy neocons and their billionaire owner directly at America's expense).

Sorry to get so scatalogical, but you can't describe poo otherwise. Obama is essentially asking the Democratic Party, CAN WE FLUSH ALREADY? All of the posters on this thread are ready to push the knob on the toilet. If the Democrats don't, the Clintons are going to be floating around us for quite a while.

Helena Montana wrote on January 26, 2008 10:10 AM:

"This is bound to be the big inter-branch brawl of the summer."

No, there will most definitely NOT be a big interbranch brawl this summer. The legislative and judiciary branches will lie down before Bush as they always, always do.

You can take it to the bank--and that's all you'll be able to take to the bank.

I'm Muldoon, HE'S Toody! wrote on January 26, 2008 10:24 AM:

Becca Morn hit it on the head: none of the Gangsters actions make a lot of sense unless you figure they don't plan to leave office. They're not setting up the apparatus for dictatorial powers for distant future Republican administrations --

PHB wrote on January 26, 2008 11:48 AM:

The Democrats can do absolutely nothing to stop Bush putting is signature to a document.

The Bushies can do absolutely nothing to force the next President to accept the terms of the agreement.

Nothin, zilch, nadda, bupkis.

Even if the agreement was voted on by Congress the next administration can simply tell the Iraqi government that it is making a new one. If Maliki refuses he can be replaced the same way his predecessor was.

The smart way to deal with this is not to propose bills intended to prevent the administration making the agreement. Instead put the agreement up for a vote and let it fall, either on a straight vote or a filibuster.

broadsword wrote on January 26, 2008 12:16 PM:

Somebody should tell these fuckwits that un-ratified treaties don't carry the force of law.

EdNSted wrote on January 26, 2008 12:37 PM:

"This is bound to be the big inter-branch brawl of the summer."

Sadly, no.

Not. wrote on January 26, 2008 1:37 PM:

"Hey! Look over here!"

"Boo!"

bunny99 wrote on January 26, 2008 3:22 PM:

Well, if Bush doesn't declare himself our permanent ruler before the next election, every dictatorial policy, broken law, and directive Bush signed needs to be scrapped. Period. Constitutional Laws were broken. Bush didn't abide by the Constitution, so his insane crap should be deemed null and void.

Forget this Congress, they make a mockery of the Constitution and should simply go home.

Duck Soup wrote on January 26, 2008 3:35 PM:

People asked me to post this as a diary so here it is. There is a poll on whether Democratic voters will vote for old style Clinton politics or will vote for change.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/26/152022/853/812/443635

Joshua wrote on January 26, 2008 3:38 PM:

LOL. Like Bush has ever cared if something is constitutional or not.

I wonder if the media feels any shame about letting itself get suckered by these clowns all these years. All the talk about Friedman Units and Petraeus reports was all BS, after all. My guess is they don't.

jon wrote on January 26, 2008 5:52 PM:

Of course he can do it. He's a War President. The Constitution is purely advisory. Nothing to see here. Please return to your prior shopping.

Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 7:28 PM:

Our agreement is only the law. Where there is no law binding us, there is no agreement to be constrained: Where there is not treaty, there is no binding obligation of We the People -- through the Senate or Congress -- to support this President's private agreement. Yet, the President acts as if the Congress, courts, and law are below him: that he can make private agreements that are binding on all of us as if they are Supreme Law; but he puts himself above the Supreme Law: The laws of war, prisoner treatment, and surveillance do not apply -- in his mind -- to him.

Power is not perpetually delegated, especially when that power is abused, by habit. It is absurd to pretend the Constitution is only about rights; nor that the Constitution, if it doesn't prohibit it, permits it. The Constitution includes as Supreme Law _treaties_; where there is no treaty, Congress may choose to fund or not fund what is not a treaty, nor the Supreme Law. The perpetual looming threat of an election does not recalibrate oversight to square one; the unremedied problems are on the table, subject to public discussion, regardless the ebb and flow of the political seas:
- Is this leadership competent to solve these issues;
- Has the leadership outlined a plan to provide leadership and address what they did not address last election: The "mandate for change"

Where there is no plan to lead or change to preserve freedom and the Supreme Law, there is no leadership nor a mandate. It is tyranny. Then we are not obligated to him. Where he breaches his oath, we cannot be compelled to honor our side of the bargain: To permit him unfettered access to power. That power was never unfettered, but constrained by law. As the Framers intended.

We the People may retain the belief that this government is not supportable, and requires more effective legal oversight within the Supreme Law. But it is an unenforceable assertion of obligation to which the Congress -- until there is a ratified treaty -- is not bound to honor.
Someone give me a good reason why anyone should believe that this is a "republic" or the leaders should not be arrested for having mental reservations about their oath.

Let's discuss the implications of this arrogant President's assertion that he is above the law, and can bind Congress -- without a debate on a treaty -- to budgetary conclusions:
- What changes in the Constitution are needed to better oversee Congress, and compel them to assert their oath;
- What new Constitutional language is required, not just in this Constitution, but in a new Constitution that would better oversee the Congress
- What will inspire the President's respect for the law when Congress chooses to not do what the framers' intended: Fully assert power out of self-interests?
- What are lawful solutions which the public must be reminded that would check power, enforce rights when all three branches have assented to tyranny?
- What is the solution when the courts assert that war crimes, human rights abuses, and illegal Geneva violations are "state secrets"?
- When the government, in committing war crimes, risks subjecting American citizens to like violations, what are the remedies?
- What is to be done when the leadership does not assent to law, but something else?

Here are some suggestions:
- Legal counsel working for the Speaker and President/VP can be put under investigation for disbarment at the _State_ level;
- We the People may issue arrest warrants through grand juries to detain the President, VP, and Members of Congress allegedly complicit with these war crimes -- violations of the Supreme Law
- We the People may openly discuss other branches of government that would be deleted exclusive powers to oversee, investigate, intrude, monitor, and use lawful force to constrain illegal war crimes by the Executive Branch;
- We the People may discuss a third chamber within the Legislature that would ensure the bills are Constitutional _before_ they are entered into any Committee for investigation, review, debate
- There can be meaningful consequences for the breach of oath, war crimes, and attacks on the Constitution
- We the People may subject legal counsel to intrusive oversight when they assent to illegal warfare, abuse, and violations of their attorney standards of conduct.
- The Speaker may be removed by declaring her position vacant, to make way for impeachment
- The State legislatures may pass resolutions calling on the Congress to investigate and impeach the President, VP
- Public officials at the state level who refuse to discuss these options to better defend rights and constrain power may be adjudicated with breaching their oath of office
- Prosecutors who refuse to defend the Constitution and not bring charges against the President, VP, and Members of Congress for alleged war crimes could be prosecuted for subsequent illegal malfeasance in re the oath of office
- Members of Congress can be prosecuted for malfeasance
- We can openly discuss the flaws with this system of governance, and discuss methods to modernize what is failing: This solution may or may not be one that is solved through statute

We the People have had six [6] long years of this abuse of power, failed oversight, bungling combat operations. We can reasonably expect more, something marginally approaching legitimate government that respects written law with plans that embrace not folly but prudence. We are not required to be forever bound to something that does not work; nor fearful of solutions which might improve things.

Leaders exist to solve problems. This crew things of leaders as those they blindly follow, regardless the folly. Written law is our guide; without it, and beyond it, are the playgrounds for these tyrants. We have options. the Congress through its laziness has well given us plenty of examples of incompetence; these can be addressed either through malfeasance indictments, or through other lawful methods including investigations into breaches of the oath of office.

Every second the Congress, President,and Courts spend _not_ asserting the rule of law, defending the Constitution, or ignoring the Supreme Law, is another second We the People have to broaden our oversight, discuss solutions, and expand our power to oversee what incorrectly believes it is not responsible to We the People. This government is not the sovereign; We the People are _The Sovereign_ As sovereign, We the People cannot be sued; we cannot be constrained. Unless. We. Agree.

Discuss this with your friends. Explore the laws, as the legal community has done, and seek ways to _lawfully_ check this government, oversee it, intrude upon it, and remind it: We the People are _The Sovereign_. We outnumber them. They know this. Their power is not ordained by God, but deleted -- conditionally -- by We the People. That power may be revoked. Any. Time. We. Choose.

This government needs a lawful wakeup call: Give We the People a reason why We should assent -- one more second -- to this non-sense. This is not leadership in a Republic; this is blind obedience to tyranny. We the People never agreed to be bound by the secret agreements of Congress to do nothing. Our power to check is not constrained by oath; it is our duty -- as free people -- to remind the leadership their oath to the _law_ -- not to We the People -- has been breached. We may withdraw support. We may revoke our respect. We may defer assent.

All abuses of this government of Our Will may be publicly examined and held to account. Where the government "officials" attempt to block that review, we do not need to wait for their cooperation. We may make adverse inferences: They have illegally assented to tyranny, and have breached their oath to the Supreme Law. Nuremberg reminds us that the Supreme Law of the land includes the self-evident legal obligations and duties of elected officials to constrain power per the existing treaty obligations, Geneva. This government has defied Geneva, and asks that those breaches go unexamined. That is a double wrong: First for failing to prevent; second for failing to account. It is not a state secret that tyrants have abused power.

Each of abuse of power rightfully enrages a civilian population. The leadership of that civilian population is not one that is exclusively within the halls of the District of Columbia. The leadership is the leadership that dares to lead, not make excuses, nor prattle of illusory change, nor prance _about_ issues of the law, when the law has been confronted and demands a rebuke through like confrontation, not a debate nor assent.

Each abuse and assent to this abuse has enflamed the outrage of Americans. Either they are asleep under the cloud of tyrannical non-sense, or they are awake, and declared a threat to the tyranny. either way, it is the tyranny that is not confronted; and We the People that is impermissibly the subject of the attention. No. The proper attention needs to be placed on the government officials who have -- through neglect and incompetence -- not paid attention to reality, their malfeasance, and the illegal assent to tyranny.

We the People have nothing to fear. The law -- by definition -- is on our side: We, as Sovereign, are the source of the power behind that law. It is ours. We may use it lawfully to forgive them for what they have done: That forgiveness is only possible if they openly admit to what they have done; and ask We the People to forgive them. Until they are open and admit to what they have done, We are not obligated to take them seriously, either as people seeking immunity or forgiveness; nor as Sovereign overseeing officials who move without constraint of law. We the People, then, may impose justice for their defiance of that law -- Our Will -- and punish them according to the law for their failure to accept responsibility for what they have done in defiance of Our Will.

We intended for the FISA statute, Constitution, oath of office, and the Supreme Law in Geneva to be respected, not explained away, nor ignored. The US government remains in defiance of our intent. The solution is not to adjust our intent to accommodate their defiance; the way forward is to use their effort to delay, in seeking permission to defy our will with new excuses, as the pretext and evidence to revoke their power. They have abused it. If we do not revoke it, then we are complicit with that abuse.

Mr. Purple wrote on January 26, 2008 9:07 PM:

The Theory of Unitary Executive strikes again.

brian wrote on January 27, 2008 12:58 AM:

Restore the consitution.

This is the ONLY issue serious citizens should be considering in theis electon.

Bert wrote on January 27, 2008 9:54 AM:

The oil companies got Bush elected so they could do this thing, they say now that there were plans to attack Saddam and Iraq long before 2003 came around,
if you read the news it was no real surprise to finally read that they invaded the place, there was the song-and-dance about yellowcake and all that garbage, but basically I don't think the military ever really LEFT the middle east after the first gulf war, and the second one was almost just part II, hence the name. It's an ongoing multi-decade saga of perpetual military blablabladeblabla zzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
If you don't like King George and Prince Halliburton, vote for people that'll build ethanol refineries and windmill stations. It's really that simple.
http://www.impeachbush.org

Virginia Simson wrote on January 27, 2008 11:15 AM:

For progressives, you can sign up at
integritynow.org if you support the Kucinich imperative.

They better build all those facilities radiation proof, as BuZh is handing out more nukes to the Turks right now.

Since the US can NEVER contain the Kurds, they've had real good intel in place as to where they THINK they can avoid the dust and other irradiation.

Good bloody luck - to destroy the Constitution for their load of garbage is truly ..
{you fill in the blank}

Nuclear proliferation forever and treason that goes with it!

Duck Soup wrote on January 27, 2008 2:16 PM:

Bush is history. We have nothing to fear but the Clintons themselves.

This is an election about who we are, who we want to be. If America does not regain its can-do, we’re in it together, no man is an island spirit in its greatest traditions, it will soon fade into a shadow of its former self. Here is an analysis of the latest on the Clintons versus Obama. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/27/14512/4399/221/444226

crescentdave wrote on January 27, 2008 2:58 PM:

I'm not holding my breath. The dems have caved on every substantial reigning in of bush's extra-constitutional powers. Reid and Pelosi are regressive democratic leaders beholden to corporate interests. They have consistently cleared the way for bush's misdaministration and continue to do so, even to this very day.

Elections 2008. Vote OUT incumbents in the primaries. Elect progressives to run for the real democratic party. Do NOT vote for any democrat who's consistently voted to continue to fund and continue to allow bush to do whatever his handlers want him to do.

LiberalTarian wrote on January 27, 2008 3:09 PM:

It's the magic shit finger in action. Look for more looting of the US treasury that is never addressed and never punished.

Time to vote with our feet.

enough wrote on January 27, 2008 7:48 PM:

One would think you might have noticed that Bush's recent trip to the middle east, especially Saudi Arabia, could very well be defined as treason. Giving away the country for his "legacy"? Nah, too tough for you.

jdogg333 wrote on January 28, 2008 10:50 AM:

http://www.fknnewz.com/index.php

cheers!

deborah wrote on January 28, 2008 11:23 AM:

Thanks, Duck soup for this laugh:
"Obama is essentially asking the Democratic Party, CAN WE FLUSH ALREADY?"

I agree that Reid plus some truly disappointing Dem Senators will vote less on Constitutional grounds than on fear for their jobs [rightly so as for ex with Landreiu's electorate has been flooded out and not re-situated by this too-clever admin]
and it is tiresome in the extreme.

I have forgotten too much of my Conlaw class but recall that Prez agreements w/foreign powers stand only just below treaties in enforceability. So I suspect that a new law must be passed by congress in the new [Obama?] administration de-funding enactment of terms of the agreement [ie, soldiers] so that the new Pres can re-do yet another of Bush's poopies.

missmarple wrote on January 28, 2008 2:44 PM:

THE DEMOCRATS WILL CAVE. Doesn't matter what Cheney requires, Pelosi, my rep, will give it to him. If he wanted her granddaughters she'd hand them over.

I wonder if Nancy realizes how low our opinion of her has gone?

phil james wrote on January 28, 2008 3:37 PM:

crescentdave wrote on January 27, 2008 2:58 PM:
"I'm not holding my breath. The dems have caved on every substantial reigning in of bush's extra-constitutional powers. Reid and Pelosi are regressive democratic leaders beholden to corporate interests. They have consistently cleared the way for bush's misdaministration and continue to do so, even to this very day."

Two things in this I vehemently object to
1) using the phrase "democratic leaders" and the names Pelosi or Reid anywhere in the same sentence, paragraph, or statement of any kind.
2) the use of the term "beholden to corporate interests" when it is far more likely that they are simply acting in a manner true to their nature...as invertebrates