President Bush’s penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice.
The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws.
Related
Glenn Reynolds: Corporate Crime Is Okay
Bill Bennett Heals America
Drudge Nullified
IOKIYAR City.
Panel slams Bush for law challenges…
A bipartisan panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is sharpl…
Allow me to get the conservative response to this out of the way:
“Pfft, what does the ABA know about the law?”
Thank you.
Literally the only thing keeping conservatism together these days is the blind worship of authority and their pathological hatred and terror of liberals. It hasn’t had anything to do with ideology in a good while.
Some Would Argue That This Is More Of A Crime Than Having Sex With An Intern
That’s an interesting conjecture, and luckily, I have some research time open. If you would please send a few interns my way, say, no more than three, I will get back to you when phase one of my research is over, and then we can progress with phase two.
I am not picky, but it should probably include a blonde, brunette, and a redhead. Worse comes to worse, three redheads will do.
Thanks!
When will Oliver learn to read the whole article?
So every other President in history has done it (if not with the same voracity), yet it’s Bush, and Bush only, who’s acting unConstitutionaly? Good luck selling that to John Q. Public.
“Good luck selling that to John Q. Public.”
John Q. Public’s already made up his mind about G.W. Napoleon and his failed presidency, Farris, and it’s reflected in his Nixon-esque approval ratings. Not that facts penetrate your little authority cult, but I just thought it should be thrown out there.
“Combined”
“Good luck selling that to John Q. Public.”
Is it me or is conservative governance now run on the theory that the public are a bunch of rubes incapable of understanding the Constitution?
Yeah, really, you guys usually come with a stupid but more credible defense than that. With Nixon it was “if the president does it, it is not illegal” apparently with Bush it is “if the people cannot understand it, it is not illegal”.
Also:
All US Presidents thru Clinton: 600 signing statements
George W. Bush: 800
Actually, after the cynical methods used to send the nation to war, attempt to explain the economy, and legislate morality; I would suspect that conservative governance relies on the theory that we’re a bunch of rubes incapable of understanding bloody well anything.
Farris, not only has Bush issued an order of magnitude more signing statements than any other president in history, it’s also a question of HOW he has used them. In the past they were usually meant for marginal clarifications or examples of how the law might be applied in special cases. Bush has used them to say, in essence, this law doesn’t apply to me. That is totally unprecedented.
Oliver, just so we are clear about this, the kinds of laws the president has chosen to violate include: (from San Jose Mercury News)
- Two bills forbidding use of military intelligence in materials “not lawfully collected.”
- A bill requiring a report to Congress on the use of the USA Patriot Act to secretly search homes or seize private papers.
- The “McCain amendment” forbidding any U.S. official from torturing a prisoner. While the administration insists it does not condone torture, the president’s signing statement in December reserved the right to waive the torture ban if harsh interrogation might advance anti-terrorism efforts.
- The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 requiring regular reports to Congress. The signing statement on intelligence reports to Congress called the requirement “advisory” and asserted that it “would be construed in a manner consistent with the president’s constitutional authority to withhold information” that could impair foreign relations or national security if released
- Bush voiced more than 500 objections to laws that he signed during his first term - including 48 that challenged his authority to withhold information from Congress in the interest of protecting national security and 37 that challenged his wartime authority.
This is dangerous power. It is unamerican and frightening power. It has to stop right now.
Good luck selling that to John Q. Public
Werentt you the guys saying a few threads ago that LIBERALS have a low opinion of the public? I think the public can easily grasp that Bush doesn’t think the rules apply to him.
Funny enough, I thought having sex with your intern WAS illegal, as per the sexual harassment laws signed by President William Jefferson Clinton.
Even more humorously, Clinton wasn’t impeached for violating that law (violating interns with cigars apparently doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense), but for perjury. You know, swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then lying one’s ass off while under oath.
Hmm… I think I see it. All presidents lie, but only Clinton was dumb enough to get caught doing it under oath. Bush does what lots of other presidents have done, but to a greater magnitude, and that’s a huge crisis because SOME DAY he MIGHT try to give those signing statements the force of law. At which point, I’m sure the ACLU (if they’re done defending the Phelps assholes) will fall over themselves filing approximately 8.7 zillion lawsuits, generating enough paper to require clearcutting 94% of California, and the dispute between the Executive and Legislative branches will end up being settled by the Judiciary.
That’s hugely different from “I solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, unless you ask me about my sexual proclivities towards subordinates during the course of this trial about my alleged sexual proclivities towards a subordinate.”
This is what I get for not studying law. I missed that whole exception to the perjury laws.
J.
If only Clinton had been lucky enough to have a Democrat dominated Congress to cover his ass and allow him and his subordinates to testify at sham investigations without every swearing an oath so he could avoid just such a prosecution.
Here’s why the signing statements are more than just the boy king stroking himself
There’s no law against diddling the intern. And nobody gets physically hurt in a consensual sexual affair.
Bush, on the other hand, has caused real pain.
Then again, I expect silence from you guys when President Clinton/Edwards/Clark/Warner/Etc. sign their signing statements, right?
IOKIYAR.
“At which point, I m sure the ACLU (if they re done defending the Phelps assholes) will fall over themselves filing approximately 8.7 zillion lawsuits …”
Oh and this my favorite part, when Jay sneers at the idea that someone might actually try to stand up for the principles of the Constitution against an out of control executive. Nice.
“… Clinton wasn t impeached for violating that law …”
Oh I get it now: A president who breaks the law and pays the consequences for it is far more dangerous than a president who simply says that he’s above the law, period. What a nice democracy we used to have here.
How to get liberals to reveal their fundamental intellectual dishonesty:
1) Make a cogent, intelligent argument proving their point wrong — i.e., that Clinton’s very real violations of the law were more serious than Bush’s potential Constitutional challenges to the law, as yet unrealized.
2) “Salt” the arguments with irrelevant asides and snide remarks;
3) Sit back, watch while the liberals obsess over those asides, focusing on them while not addressing the substance of the arguments.
Frame took half the bait, but Ollie bit on it whole hog.
FACT: Clinton’s lies, far from being harmless, represented a serious assault on one of the key underpinnings of our legal system — the power of the courts to compel truthful testimony from witnesses. He attempted to redefine the jurisdiction of the courts, saying that certain matters were “personal” and outside the scope of their purview, and therefore all right to lie about — regardless of their relevance to the matter presently before the court.
And he didn’t even have the decency to do it openly — he just did it, then argued his rationale only when he was caught.
Anyone who believes that Clinton should have been given a pass for that has no business doing anything less for Scooter Libby, who apparently lied under oath about telling the truth about a liar.
And I’ll save you the trouble of making the Oliver North comparison: apart from the facts that North lied not to a judge, but to Congress, and his actions were derived from principles and not personal gain, they are remarkably similar — and I’ve denounced North for that before.
But thanks for playing “Bait The Liberals!” Your hostess has some lovely consolation prizes.
J.
“Allow me to get the conservative response to this out of the way:”
In your simplistic world maybe. Clinton’s , the most powerful law enforcement officer in the land, having sex with an intern was perhaps morally reprehensible but not a crime.
Likewise scholars disagree about signing statements. It is not morally represensible but something reasonable adults disagree about.
The whole set-up on this item is foolish and will appeal only to the haters and no-brainers.
Dugger
If signing statements are unConstitutional, it doesn’t matter if you issue 1 or 800. That’s what makes the ACLU’s suit laughable on it’s face.
JayTea,
If your only purpose in posting here is to piss people off, perhaps you should find another pasttime.
That s what makes the ACLU s suit laughable on it s face.
What article did you read? This is the ABA, the ACLU…
If you read the article again, they don’t say that the statements are inherently unconstitutional, they say that excessive use of them are. That’s the problem- Bush has used so many of them he is saying that what Congress wants doesn’t apply to him.
Shorter JayTea: I don’t care about limited government or our constitution. Just as long as big Daddy Bush gets what he wants.
Sundown, I’m mainly here so the steady stream of Soros-sponsored BS gets occasionally challenged with a touch of truth. Introducing a smidgen of reality to the “reality-based community,” as it were.
The effects you describe are a fringe benefit.
And I see no one STILL wants to bring up Clinton’s perjury, after Oliver introduced it and I rebutted it.
J.
SaveFarris, how exactly does your logic hold up? The ACLU is arguing a specific case of presidential abuse - the NSA spying on Americans. Their suit came out in January 2006. Charlie Savage published his article on the unconstitutional use of signing statements in a Boston Globe article in April 2006, three months after the suit. Signing statements themselves aren’t necessarily unconstitutional; however, the use of them to claim extra-ordinary presidential power are. And, you are right - it doesn’t matter if he’s signed 1 or 807, they are still illegal and unconstitutional.
Dugger, thanks for sounding reasonable today. I would suggest that you look deeply at those legal scholars who believe this current use of signing statements is legal and those who claim it illegal. What I find is a few conservative voices –Samuel Alito and Christopher Yoo — opposed by the rest of the conservative establishment, including Bruce Fein and Mickey Edwards, as well as almost universal condemnation from liberals. This isn’t simply a right-left issue. It is a case of a few ideosyncratic scholars who have made a legal reputation off the theory of a unitary executive.
JayTea, sorry but you are just to illogical to dispute.
“I m mainly here so the steady stream of Soros-sponsored BS gets occasionally challenged with a touch of truth.”
For guy who is as factual wrong as often as you are, Jay, you really have a high opinion of your abilities. Christian Scientists? Jury Rigged? Female Genital Mutilation? The Geneva Convention and summary execution? The developing world produces more CO2 than the Developed? Your posts are a hit parade of ignorance.
Umm… TomY? Review the TITLE of this piece. I would be delighted if Clinton (hell, both of them) sailed off into oblivion, but OUR HOST brought Bill up, not I.
J.
“He attempted to redefine the jurisdiction of the courts …”
Um, idiot, no he didn’t. He lied under oath and got caught. At no point did Clinton attempt, through quasi-legalistic means, to codify any kind of change in the court’s jurisdiction. But that is exactly what Bush is doing with his signing statements. He isn’t simply laying out his interpretation of a law, as Rheihard points out, he is saying that he actually doesn’t have to abide by the law or any court decisions about the law, whenever he himself decides his actions are justified. From Bill L.’s link (which no doubt Jay, seeker of truth that he is, never bothered to read):
In other words, Jay, if Clinton had acted like Bush he would have decided, on his own, that the courts had no power to compel him to take the stand in the first place and refused to show up.
Sundown, I m mainly here so the steady stream of BS gets occasionally challenged with a touch of truth. Introducing a smidgen of reality to the reality-based community, as it were.
http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2006_07_17.html
Shorter version: No one knows, or cares, who George Soros is.
As for the whole Clinton dealie, I’m not going to defend his perjury. I think it was not only illegal, but in this case, stupid and an act of poor judgement on Clinton’s part. However, the affair in and of itself was not illegal, unless he offered her work-related benefits in exchange. I don’t recall Clinton appointing Lewinsky Secretary of State, do you?*
*Ok, this last sentence was a bit of hyperbole, but my main point remains.
Sorry about the weird post. I guess I messed up one of the HTML tags.
I m mainly here so the steady stream of Soros-sponsored BS gets occasionally challenged with a touch of truth.
Wait a minute, is this the same JT who claimed that the US didn’t have a white majority?
“Wait a minute, is this the same JT who claimed that the US didn t have a white majority?”
And the beat goes on …
Funny, Jay, I thought you were here to show off your piss-poor reading comprehension skills. Or are you here to amuse us by insisting that liberals “obsess” over you? I’ll even concede that you might be here to remind us that conservatives will do anything to distract from the fact that their President and their movement are failures. By all means, drown out the pain by chanting CLINTON!!! CLINTON!!!, Jay.
Please, Jay, when it comes to Clinton, you’re as “obsessive” as it gets. The contrast with your willingness to discuss Bush is quite remarkable and telling.
“It is not morally represensible but something reasonable adults disagree about.”
Wrong again. Signing statements themselves are relatively uncontroversial but Bush’s use of them is highly controversial because he is using them in a different way. Again, the author of the article linked to by Bill L points out:
Bush is not, as has historically been the case, using his signing statements to put on record his interpretation of this or that aspect of a law, he is using them to assert radically expanded executive priviledges in relation to Congress and the courts. He is, in other words, attempting to re-write the Constitution on the fly as he and he alone sees fit. This is highly controversial and dangerous.
“Don t disagree with you.”
Um, Dugger, you do understand, that he totally refuted your original point, right?
z
I don’t know. I always liked Fein - he was a good pointy headed conservative. He had a voice tailor- made for writing, though. I think he must have had cancer - he looked very shriveled.
Dugger
Dugger, maybe conservatism has moved away from Fein just as it moved away from me some years ago.
Well, see, there’s your problem right there. You stumbled right outta the blocks. To make a “cogent, intelligent argument” you have to be acquainted with something called “facts.”
Better luck next time.
FACT: Clinton s lies, far from being harmless, represented a serious assault on one of the key underpinnings of our legal system the power of the courts to compel truthful testimony from witnesses.
-Which may help to explain some lessons learned thereafter, namely both Bush and Cheney’s refusal to go under oath in their testimony to the 9/11 commission -or so much as have a transcript of their testimony taken.
Additionally that would include my favorite, Wolfowitz’s assertion that Iraq oil reserves would pay for the cost of the war, which according to his calculations were somewhere in the 100 billion dollar mark (psst -it’s nearing 3/4 of a trillion). Perjury? You bet- Wolfowitz own sources could soundly disprove his claims. Ah, Wolfowitz diddn’t testify under oath, so no harm no foul (except to 2500 Americans).
So Clintons assult on the legal system over an extra maritial dalliance (for which he was punished for his perjury) trumps the absolute lack of accountability over meaningless issues like war and terror.
Well done, Jay. Were all glad you could take a break from your inbred-reactionary-New Hampshsire-crackerpolitik-pre-teen-invertebrate festering morass of Kem Mehlman-jock-huffing chickenhawk bloviations over at Wizbang just you could set the record straight for us. We’ll all make sure to pray extra hard for our lord and savior George Soros. It’s been nice seeing you.
zad,
Don’t disagree with you. Will note that Fein, a long time conservative, had been very ill and since has seemed to move away from conservatism.
Dugger
“How can there be a controversy without opposing points of view? Or is controversy defined as your side being definitely right? ”
Jesus you guys are stupid. Dugger is attempting to paint Bush’s use of signing statements as uncontroversial, the stuff of reasonable disagreement. The fact of the matter is that the only people who support Bush’s use of signing statements is a small group of radical, conservative extremists (and idiots on blogs). As the ABA report indicates, there is nothing reasonable to mainstream legal scholars about Bush’s use of signing statements.
Frame…
“It is not morally represensible but something reasonable adults disagree about.
Wrong again. Signing statements themselves are relatively uncontroversial but Bush s use of them is highly controversial …
How can there be a controversy without opposing points of view? Or is controversy defined as your side being “definitely right?”
Plenty of lies have been documented, Dugger. You’ve even admitted that the administration has knowingly made false statements; you just apologized for that by claiming that unless critics can demonstrate their “intentions,” then no lie can be proven.
No Frame, sorry. I take the ABA’s analysis for exactly what it is: an opinion expressed by a group of lawyers. I have no quarrel with their position, and in fact it makes sense to me. But that is very different than declaring that no reasonable person could disagree, as you have claimed.
Frame…
The fact of the matter is that the only people who support Bush s use of signing statements is a small group of radical, conservative extremists…
This is not a fact. Althought I will grant you that anyone who does not agree with your position will be labeled by you as a radical, conservative extremist. So in that way your statement is correct, as far as you are concerned.
And allow me to remind you of some recent history:
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito received a unanimous well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association on Wednesday, giving his nomination momentum as the Senate prepares for confirmation hearings next week.
Judge Roberts received the same rating. So I guess once the ABA announced their position, no reasonable person could disagree….except for a handful of radical extremists.
Nice.
Oh, that’s right, I forgot. In Duggerland, Bush has never told a lie, because we don’t know what his intent was. And, as has been proven, by that logic, Clinton didn’t lie either.
Funny enough, I thought having sex with your intern WAS illegal, as per the sexual harassment laws signed by President William Jefferson Clinton. — Jay Tea (or is it Cee) attempting humor.
Harrassment is not consensual. Monica asserted under oath that her activity was indeed consensual.
But for Jay-whomever and the wingers it’s NOKIYAD, never OK if you’re a Democrat.
Sorry, I’m a little late to this party, but, jay
“…North lied not to a judge, but to Congress, and his actions were derived from principles and not personal gain, they are remarkably similar and I ve denounced North for that before.
Would you similarly denounce Bush for lying to Congress in the State of the Union address? Those “16 words” of his?
“What President Bush has done is to add his 2¢ into the debate; since he signs legislation into law, his intentions and interpretations ought to be just as important as those of Congress.”
You haven’t been paying any attention at all have you? Bush is not simply adding his two cents into the interpretation of this or that law or aspect thereof. He is using his signing statements to assert broad new presidential powers that supercede the will of Congress and the Courts. He is not interpreting law, he is asserting that he is above it.
“Would you similarly denounce Bush for lying to Congress in the State of the Union address? Those 16 words of his? ”
What lie? No lie has been documented. Check with FactCheck among many others. You are wrong here.
“So I guess once the ABA announced their position, no reasonable person could disagree& .except for a handful of radical extremists.”
Um, Scratch, being rated well-qualified as a lawyer/judge by the ABA does not represent an endorsement of the person’s legal philosophy, does it? I would tend to think not since the ABA just came out specifically against Alito’s pet project, signing statements. I never challenged Alito’s qualification as a lawyer but I take it now, from your endorsement above, that you fully support the ABAs assessment of Bush’s use of signing statements that:
Our esteemed host wrote:
Well, there actually was a President Clinton, and he did issue some signing statements — and yes, they did seem to have been met with silence.
When the interpretation of a law and its applicability to a given situation arises, the courts look at congressional intent, via the debates in Congress and extensions entered into the record. What President Bush has done is to add his 2¢ into the debate; since he signs legislation into law, his intentions and interpretations ought to be just as important as those of Congress.
“But that is very different than declaring that no reasonable person could disagree, as you have claimed.”
Sorry again Scratch. Unless you’re willing to extend “reasonableness” to the entirety of the Left, I refuse to do the same for the small, cabal of extremist lawyers who would like to transform the president into a king. But more importanlty, Dugger’s suggestion that “reasonable” people can disagree about Bush’s use of signing statements is an attempt to color support of Bush’s actions as mainstream. It is most decidedly not. The argument in favor of Bush’s grab for power through the use of signing statements is a radical argument. It is not reasonable in the sense as it flies in the face, as per the ABA, of the very principles upon which the Constitution is founded and no reasonable person, who values our democracy, would support it.
“I m guessing that a random sampling of the mainstream would produce an astonishing lack of knowledge about what a signing statement is and how Bush is using them. ”
Um, was I talking about the “average joe on the street”? No, Scratch, I was talking about the mainstream of legal opinion. Can we consider the ABA mainstream or would you like to brand them as radicals now? Or do you just want to consider them stupid? Because the ABA found, again, that:
The main point here is not that Bush has already seized power but that if “left unchecked” his signing statements pose a serious challenge to our system of government. Remember, it’s not me saying that, it’s the ABA. You argue that the courts will weigh in, hopefully, and decide the matter. But Bush, in some of his statements, has argued that neither the courts nor congress have jurisdiction over his actions when it comes to national security. Bush has rjected judicial oversight of domestic wiretapping and, in a signing statement addedto the Patriot Act, Congressional oversight of that laws implementation. I’m glad you’re such an optimist asto think that BUsh, having explicitly rejected judicial and Congressional oversight, woudl suddenly give in after a court ruling or the passage of yet another law. I for one don;t have you faith in the man.
Did you also happen to read the article that Bill L. linked to? Here’s a relevant passage:
I’d like to note, again, that the insistence of the radical right, Dugger included, that there’s “nothing to see here, move along” is part of the effort to “normalize” a serious threat to Constitutional principles.
duros and Tom
You keep having trouble with this. ‘Lie’ does require intent to deceive. Blame Webster, not me. Unbiased sources like FactCheck (not the poster) have concurred w/me on the 16 words, for instance. And I have actually never said that I think Bush has never told a lie. He’s human. He’s probably has. Its just that what you and most progressives claim as lies are merely things you disagree with and against which you can cite some kind of remote contradiction.
(Rummy said July 4, 2000 was sunny; Condi said it was raining. Bush lied!!!)
Sorry to mess up your comic-book view of the world, but no lie has been documented.
Also, I said this:
“Likewise scholars disagree about signing statements. It is not morally represensible but something reasonable adults disagree about.”
Frame then went off into Bug-a-Boo land as he typically does.
Leftist John Dean, with some experience in this area, has said:
“Presidential signing statements are old news to anyone who has served in the White House counsel’s office. Presidents have long used them to add their two cents when a law passed by Congress has provisions they do not like, yet they are not inclined to veto it. Nixon’s statements, for example, often related to spending authorization laws which he felt were excessive and contrary to his fiscal policies.”
I know one need not respond to frame’s frothery but just for the record - this time. As I said, reasonable people can disagree. Frame’s not agreeing does not invalidate that assessment.
Dugger
But more importanlty, Dugger s suggestion that reasonable people can disagree about Bush s use of signing statements is an attempt to color support of Bush s actions as mainstream. It is most decidedly not.
I’m guessing that a random sampling of “the mainstream” would produce an astonishing lack of knowledge about what a signing statement is and how Bush is using them. But I may be wrong about that…were do you get your information about what the mainstream thinks of this subject?
Bush’s “signing statements” are exactly that: statements. I don’t disagree on principle with the ones that I have heard about, and the dreaded threat to our Constitution has several checks and balances to go before it actually occurs. So he signs a law while declaring that under certain circumstances the law may not apply? Guess what…if that’s the way he feels, he wouldn’t have heeded the law under those circumstances anyway. All he’s doing is serving notice. Another President may feel differently and he is free to excercise his authority as he sees fit, subject to rulings by the Supreme Court (think, Frame! think!) and subject to the authority of the Congress to amend the Constitution and to impeach. Bush has made specific claims about the applicability of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, for example…claims which he probably would have included in a signing statement to that law. Of course, no such statement exists, but Bush still holds the same position, and has taken the same action, and faces the same checks and balances. No “statement” would have saved him that.
Oh and Dugger, Dean, who has some experience in this area, as you rightly point out, adds this near the end of his article:
“Leftist John Dean, with some experience in this area, has said …”
Ya, Dugger. Here’s the full article where that quote comes from.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
Here’s what comes right after the opening paragraph you cite (without a link):
As I’ve said countless times before: Dugger, you are one helluva stupid and dishonest bastard. Frothy enough for you, idiot?
Tom said
“That that made liars out of themselves is secondary to the fact of their colossal strategic misjudgement”
This is really wrong on both counts. They did not make liars out of themselves (how do you know?) and it is much too early to be talking about strategic ‘anything’.
Midder, Magically knows what their intent was. Does it get burdensome - reading minds?
Dugger - No Lie has ever been documented. Easier to shriek lie than calmly debate.
“Easier to shriek lie than calmly debate.”
Tell us, DUgger, is it just as easy as quoting somebody out of context to make it appear that they support an argument that they actually oppose?
Dugger, 16 words were a lie, they were untruthful, the entire intent was to deceive and it was known the claim was dubious at best. We can look at the language, “has learned” to be a strong endorsement and vouchsafe of the intelligence rather than “believes”, and anyway you slice it, for the SOTU for the United States, what our intelligence agencies believe should be the foundation, not what Britain claims but fails to substantiate.
Antyway, is any of this surprising that Bush tries to modify the laws to his liking, no matter the intent of congress or if he declares his actions supercede congress? Let’s look at some other transgressions of this type, executive orders. He has issued executive orders that directly supercede laws of congress, i.e. the Reagan papers.
Next, Undermining laws he doesn’t have the clout to repeal, pass or oppose. Remember all the new tough corporate accounting standards passed in the wake of Enron? They don’t do much good when you slash the enforcement budget of the regulating agency. Ditto for the EPA, can’t repeal regulation, cut enforcement. Estate Tax? Can’t repeal, slash the enforcement. If no one notices the laws aren’t being enforced, they figure they don’t have to pay the political price. Meanwhile, tons of pollution can be dumped, investors can be ripped off, and the Paris Hilton’s can avoid taxes.
Shorter Dugger: no mind reading has been documented. Pathetic. You will defend knowing untruths on the slenderest of reeds. At that point, it simply raises the question: why are you so obsessed with defending Bush, given that you believe he’s stated knowing untruths, but hasn’t reached the magic threshold of a provable lie? It’s a distinction without a difference, according to your own logic.
And as far as the Iraq war being a colossal strategic error, that’s clear enough to anyone who’s willing to look at things objectively. Being committed to the leader, you cannot do so, and so you deny it. Facts be damned!
“ Lie does require intent to deceive.”
It can also work with “intent to get their way.” And they got their way by making false statements. The Bush administration played fast and loose with their claims about Saddam’s WMDs because they “knew” he was guilty, and they “knew” they needed to invade. That that made liars out of themselves is secondary to the fact of their colossal strategic misjudgement, but don’t tell us we weren’t lied to. We were all here to hear their false claims of certainty, their false incitement to panic, and their false reassurances. The fact that they didn’t care enough to do their homework doesn’t exonerate them from having lied.
Of course, you did sidestep my question from earlier.
Actually, JayT sidestepped my question about Oliver North.
Dugger, we’ve been over this way too many times to back into it again. Between me, frame, factcheck and quaker, we have more than demonstrated the Bush administration’s lies, both outright and by omission, as well as subterfuge and camoflage.
If you are okay with an Emperor instead of a President who is accountable, hey, more power to you. As Midder points out, the signing statements may be innocuous on their face, but they are statements of intent, aren’t they? (I’m not a lawyer)
I mean, if the bill says the President must report things to Congress (or whatever), but his signing statment says “not if I don’t want you to know about it”, where is the oversight? We won’t know he’s doing illegal things behind Congress’s back because he doesn’t feel he has to tell them about it.
Unitary Executive: 1, Checks & Balances: 0.
By the way, isn’t Unitary Executive a classy way of saying King?
Bill Clinton; Not one documented lie, ever.
Er… make that:
“I didn’t sidestep your question, I didn’t see it for several hours. I had more important things to do.”
duros, I didn’t “sidestep” your question; I had more important things to do.
But now that I see it, let’s take a look at those 16 words:
As I understand it, at the time of the State Of The Union, the British WERE saying that, and it was backed up by Joe Wilson’s report (not the op-ed he wrote for the New York Times, but the actual report he gave the CIA.
If later events prove that inaccurate, then so be it. It doesn’t make it a lie.
You might as well accuse all the people who argued for a flat earth or a heliocentric sky for centuries of lying.
Here’s a relevant example of a lie: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman — Miss Lewinsky.” Or his actual testimony under oath.
A lie requires intend, the knowledge that what one is saying is false. You may BELIEVE that Bush knew what he was saying was incorrect, but it ain’t been proven. An actual examination of the facts (http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html) backs up my position.
Besides, Saddam had agreed, as a condition of the termination of hostilities, to surrender and destroy all WMDs under international supervision. He did not. As far as I’m concerned, when you violate the terms of an armistice, war’s back on.
J.
“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Yes, we did. We made it up.
It doesn’t take magic to realize their intent when the CIA advised them not to make that claim in speeches in the months prior to the state of the union, objected to it in the speech and finally relented when the speech writers put it through the semantic prettifying machine taking the responsibility of that claim away from the CIA.
JayTea, the British may have been making the claim but they didn’t substantiate it, didn’t share their sources with the US and our own intelligence agencies said it was bogus and informed the white house it was so. So Bush had no business including it in the SOTU.
No Frame, sorry. I take the ABA s analysis for exactly what it is: an opinion expressed by a group of lawyers.
I can see it now:
Prosecuter: We have solid evidence that the plantiff had comitted murder of the first degree.
Plantiff: Well, that’s just your opinion.
Frame then went off into Bug-a-Boo land as he typically does.
…the crap? I swear, you conservatives come up with the stupidest phrases.
Dugger thinks simply saying “it’s not a lie” when it clearly is a lie is evidence enough. I’ll never be dumb enough to be a Republican.
Duros,
“Between me, frame, factcheck and quaker, ”
Neither your group collectively nor any of you singly has demonstrated a single Bush lie. Nary a one. Save the bluster for the True Believers. I await the first lie, still.
Midder,
If its not magic, how do you, humble OW poster, KNOW Bush’s INTENT? Not what you guess at. Not what addled left wing fever-swampers believe. Not a ‘possible’ interpretation. What you actually know. Do you have a signed statement from Bush?
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
Dugger
Neither your group collectively nor any of you singly has demonstrated a single Bush lie.
“And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on,” Bush said. “But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong. We found them.”
The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa . -As I understand it, at the time of the State Of The Union, the British WERE saying that, and it was backed up by Joe Wilson s report (not the op-ed he wrote for the New York Times, but the actual report he gave the CIA.
ZZZZZZZZZ……
“State Department Declared Niger Uranium Sale to Iraq Unlikely -in March 2002
“We do not torture.”
“”I’ve been to war. I’ve raised twins. If I had a choice, I’d rather go to war.”
“Neither your group collectively nor any of you singly has demonstrated a single Bush lie.”
This is precisely because — hilariously — you have limited the kind of “documentation” required to prove a lie to a) an admission by Bush, or b) “documentation” of his mental state. This kind of desperate “argument” doesn’t fly in court, in the home, or anywhere else in real life. More comedy please!
Can you name an instance where any politican lied, then Dugger, excluding examples where they later admitted it?
” lie is a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it. Thus a true statement may be a lie if the speaker thinks it is false. Fictions, though false, are not lies. Depending on definitions, a lie can be a genuine falsehood or a selective truth, a lie by omission, or even the truth if the intention is to deceive or to cause an action not in the listener’s interests. To lie is to tell a lie. …”
I know. The dictionary is lying too.
Oh and since we’ve changed topics here’s a neat little lie from 2004:
Clearly Bush knew this was untrue because he authorized the program to go around the courts, as required by law, well before he gave this speech. But he went ahead and said it anyway: “Nothing has changed.” Liar.
The thing is, conservatives like Dugger have a real emotional investment in the “fact” that Democrats like Clinton and Gore are weaselly liars, contrasted against their own manly, courageous straight shooters like Reagan or GWB. Therefore, they’ll call Democrats liars left and right, even on the basis of demonstrably made up lies (like Gore “inventing” the internet) because it suits their emotional, tribal, John Wayne view of the world. However, when confronted with demonstrable (and disastrous) lies from their own side, they’ll construct hilariously bizarre hoops for critics to jump through. If they are slightly honest, perhaps you can get them to come halfway and say “all politicians are liars” or some such lukewarm gruel. Pretty sad from people who are allegedly adults, with real jobs and familes and whatnot. Pretty sad for our democracy, too, really.
“… when confronted with demonstrable (and disastrous) lies from their own side, they ll construct hilariously bizarre hoops for critics to jump through…”
And don’t forget: quote people out of context to bolster support for an argument that the person quoted actually opposes. Dugger’s a twofer for hoop construction and misquoting in this very thread. Now there’s a guy who I’d trust to tell me when someone was lying.
It must be great to be a Bush supporter. Anytime you get backed into a corner on one point of perfidy, incompetence, illegality or sheer idiocy you can always rest assured that sooner or later another will come up to distract everybody from the first. Since the Bush administration is a morass of such embarrassments and stupidity you can keep the shell game going forever. When that fails, blame Clinton.