Comments | josabry: In the mood to start a debate...

josabry

In the mood to start a debate...

Jul 05, 2007 10:53

here's a way to do it. Two nights ago, Olbermann said this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/

Read it. He doesn't mince words. And I don't disagree. Maybe the idea will catch on now.

Comments 8

elengul July 5 2007, 15:18:39 UTC

Olbermann is absolutely correct. The thing I love about his anti-Bush rants is that I agree with him 100%, and he can word it far more eloquently then I could ever hope to.

Bush and Chaney are, essentially, guilty of treason. They should, at bare minimum, resign. They won't, though. They have neither the conscience nor the strength of character required to make such a move. They need to be impeached.

mnemoscat July 5 2007, 17:27:33 UTC

Too right. I'm not sure you're going to get a debate here, though. I don't know that anyone we know really disagrees...

yerbrainondrugs July 6 2007, 03:05:05 UTC

MightyGodKing had a comment that I thought was interesting. He pointed this out:
"Remember, though, it is not a pardon. Bush merely commuted Libby's sentence so he would serve no jail time. And why did he do this? Because Libby is still appealing his case, and therefore if subpoenaed by, oh, I don't know, let's say Congress or something like that, he can refuse to answer questions about his experience on Fifth Amendment grounds. If Bush had pardoned him, Libby would have no such recourse.

Really, you almost have to admire them, for they are such magnificent bastards."

pneumatik July 6 2007, 13:04:21 UTC

@ mnemoscat: Anyone who disagrees with the call for Bush and Cheney to resign over Libby's commutation? I do.

I get that people hate Bush. He certainly hasn't impressed me in the last few years. I just don't get the big deal over Libby's sentence being commuted. I think Ford pardoning Nixon was a much bigger deal, and Ford didn't resign.

The wikipedia page on Clinton's commuting the sentences of 16 members of FALN is interesting. Essentially, Clinton let 16 people who had killed at least six people and maimed many others out of jail. It was opposed by Congress by a vote of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House. Clinton didn't resign. And read the rest of the page for several other really unseemly commutations and pardons that Clinton signed ( ... )

I love you to death dude ... elengul July 6 2007, 16:30:38 UTC

but you're just wrong. The founding father's may have been concerned about the country being run by a committee, but they were far more concerned by the country being run by a king, elected or inherited, which is why the constitution doesn't really give exceptional powers to the president. You seem to be forgetting that congress can legislate to constrain the President's executive power, even with respect to his or her command of the armed forces. Congress rarely does this, because presidents have rarely stepped out of line enough to call for it, but not enough to just be impeached (a notable example is the constraint placed on President Nixon's strategy of bombing Cambodia during the Vietnam War). Frankly, the last 6 years that have marked Bush's presidency have seen some of the largest erosions of power of the legislative branch in the history of the country and scary increases in the power of the executive branch. Law enforcement is the pervue of the executive branch, and the PATRIOT Act gave overwhelming and scary amounts of ( ... )

Re: I love you to death dude ... pneumatik July 6 2007, 19:36:17 UTC

Re para 1 ( ... )

Re: I love you to death dude ... pneumatik July 6 2007, 19:36:29 UTC

Re Para 2 ( ... )

yerbrainondrugs July 7 2007, 04:19:29 UTC

As often is the case, I suspect the truth is somewhere in between the two extremes you're presenting. Yes the President gets special powers. Yes it's fairly standard practice for him to spend his years in office performing acts that furthers his personal agenda (and helps out his friends ( ... )