Well actually, Asherman, unlike you, I started out with fairly high regard for George W Bush. I had voted for his father in 1988 and thought he might possess both George (the Greater)'s insight into foreign affairs and moderate social policies. It took less than three months into George (the Lesser)'s administration to see that he was a gross ideologue who put the safety of the nation behind his ideology of soaking the poor. That die was cast when he attempted to completely defund the Nunn-Lugar Act that paid for dismantling ex-Soviet nukes and funds to pay for ex-Soviet scientists not to ply their trade on the black market. He did that to offset his proposed tax cuts for the rich.
Imagine that? He wanted to stop funding a program (a very successful program, at that) the US was using to stop the spread of nuclear fissionable material to black-markets in Central Asia, so he could offset tax cuts.
And If you don't mind, I would like to correct your statement that:
Asherman wrote:All Presidents are sworn to protect the security of the United States and to defend the Constitution.
The oath of the President is as follows:
Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:
Quote:"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
His sworn duty is to protect the Constitution. If he knowingly and with malice aforethought circumvents it he is subject to the laws under that constitution.
Asherman wrote:Until there is clear and unequivocal evidence that a President has violated his oath, he is entitled to our loyalty and trust ... apparently even if he violates the Criminal Codes by lying under oath in a Federal Court.
No, that is not a true statement. Perhaps it is in a monolithic communist or fascist state where the leader is associated as the epitome and avatar of the State, but for those citizens who live in a federal-democratic-republic such hero worship is tantamount to pagan idolatry and a weak-minded form of a cult of personality.
If you wish to raise the Office of the President to the equivalent of the State as the German people did with Chancellor Adolf Hitler, you have that right. But don't expect thinking men to follow that lemming-like bull$hit simply because it serves your political agenda to protect the man currently holding that office.
And I doubt very much you would be as insouciant if a Democratic President did such as Bush has done.
As I recall, when I was inducted into the US Army, I swore an oath to defend the US Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, not simply obey the President.
If the Defend-Bush-No-Matter-What crowd needs to defend Bush, that's fine, but at least they ought to be intellectually honest about what they are defending.
What Bush did was bypass current statues that had not encumbered him in ANY way before he broke those laws allegedly to defend and protect this nation. Not a single one of his administration's thousand-fold FISA requests was finally rejected before he set about to undermine the Constitution by bypassing the FISA court.
The FISA statutes are so flexible and deferential to the Executive Branch's duties that they even allow such wiretapping to occur BEFORE going to the FISA court, if such action is reviewed within 72 hours after the wiretapping. So, there was no need to claim an emergency, because they could wiretap without prior court approval if it was crucial to national defense.
Bush just decided not even to allow court review of the wiretaps after they occurred.
That completely undermines the very essence of the Constitution's architecture of checks and balances.
And for the life of me, I cannot understand why that is not a problem for you.
The law he broke is linked.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html
Quote:Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of courtsection 1801 a (1), (2), or (3) of this title[/u]; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 a (1), (2), or (3) of this title
The statute specifically does not include
"a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore"
If it is your position that George Bush is above the Law because his actions will make it easier for you to Christmas shop unmolested by religious fanatics, then you are entitled to that opinion. But we are not going to agree on this.
You appear to be willing to give up the blood stained freedoms ten generations of Americans died defending simply for your physical comfort.
It is strange indeed that I was willing to fight and die to defend your rights but you have no such inclination to support my rights, or even your own in this matter.
And as Ben Franklin said:
Quote:"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
