Tell It, Colin. Let Them Eat Yellow Fruit and Yellow Cake.
Sunday, December 25, 2005
(bold by Reoublicus)
WASHINGTON (AP)— Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Sunday supported government eavesdropping to prevent terrorism but said a major controversy over presidential powers could have been avoided by obtaining court warrants.
Powell said that when he was in the Cabinet, he was not told that President Bush authorized a warrantless Nationl Security Agency surveillance operation after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Appearing on ABC's "This Week" Powell said he sees "absolutely nothing wrong with the president authorizing these kinds of actions" to protect the nation.
But he added, "My own judgment is that it didn't seem to me, anyway, that it would have been that hard to go get the warrants. And even in the case of an emergency, you go and do it."
The New York Times reported on its Internet site Friday that the NSA has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States. The program bypassed the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Powell said Congress will need to judge whether Bush is correct in his assertion that he could approve eavesdropping without first obtaining court orders.
"And that's going to be a great debate," Powell said.
Powell, who also is a former chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, had no reservations when asked whether eavesdropping should continue.
"Of course it should continue," he said. "And nobody is suggesting that the president shouldn't do this."
[note by Republicus: That's what HE thinks. Predictably, his FIRM support for the president's wartime powers in these statements will be dismissed by the Lefties and what will be considered as the operative phrases will be these critiques of procedural particulars at the expence of the declared universal principle, and themselves transmogrified into the universal principle:
"...but (Powell) said a major controversy over presidential powers could have been avoided by obtaining court warrants. My own judgment is that it didn't seem to me, anyway, that it would have been that hard to go get the warrants. And even in the case of an emergency, you go and do it."
That will be the straw grasped and fixated upon to keep the snowball rolling and growing while ignoring the iceburg of Powell's assent.
Here is the sane point which Libertarians, Constitutional scholars, and other serious intellectuals are ruminating upon (while the Bush-Haters parse and select and cry fascism as they unload whatever they can find to justify their five-year old drive towards vindictive Impeachment as that regicidal agenda reaches critical mass with the mid-term elections on the horizon-- and going quite mad with such celebrated "anti-administration" champions like General Powell saying stuff that turns his premised integrity against them and undermines their own weak premises--i.e. "Colin's one of us"):
"Powell said Congress will need to judge whether Bush is correct in his assertion that he could approve eavesdropping without first obtaining court orders.
'And that's going to be a great debate,' Powell said."
Yes, indeed. An impersonal one.]
posted by John | 8:34 AM
23 Comments:
You know, all the impeachment talk could be because he ACTUALLY is a criminal you know. All your justifications and rationalizing of the fcts doesn't make his crimes go away or become acceptable. They are what they are, crimes punishable by impeachment and possibly criminal charges.
No. All the "Impeachment Talk" is purely politically-motivated on the Democrats part.
And by sheer vindictive spite on your own.
Behold Lee Harvey's response to the post showcasing Colin Powell's support of the "spying"-- and Republicus' assessments.
And he steps right into it.
Republicus invited anyone to volunteer their thoughts on the issue which does indeed warrant debate, but dismissed the unhinged Bush-Haters who are obsessed with Impeaching Bush even if it was for jaywalking (and would surely provide blathering "justifications" why he should be).
Lee Harvey steps in and does what?
Tries to justify why he should be Impeached.
This "scandal"--the underlying subject of the post-- is peripheral to the overriding desire to bring the President down.
"They are what they are, crimes punishable by impeachment and possibly criminal charges."
What "crimes?"
These crimes: Bush is one of the most succesful and powerful Republican presidents in history, and--so far--is on his way to sitting at the table with Lincoln, McKinley, TR, Ike, and Reagan, despite his own unimposing and goofy self.
That infuriates the Bush-Hater--who calls him "The Worst President In The History Of The Country"-- and they're doing everything they can to waylay that, planting roadside bombs in the present (by making loud and clear their dissent and profusely producing writs of complaints and grievances to fill the historical record) for future historians to trip over and explode in their faces when trying to make an objective assessment.
Keep it up, fools.
You're only proving it.
All great presidents inspired similar rage from the opposition, from George Washington (who was sneeringly called "King George," sound familiar) to Lincoln (who was called an "ape," sound familiar? Like "monkey," perhaps?) to McKinley (who had an unhinged someone hoping for assassination) to Reagan (who was accused of being a simpleton and just "being there" and but a mouthpiece for the REAL brains of his administration--sound familiar?).
What other "crimes?"
Coming from a wealthy, WASPish background with a family history of public service with lineage traced back to English Royalty (i.e. a rich "anglofascist).
[Colin Powell's own lineage, trivially added, intersects with the President's generations back and makes them distant cousins.]
What other "crimes?"
Being an Evangelical Christian and empowering conservatives and the Religious Right (i.e. "The American Taliban").
What other "crimes?"
Dealing out crushing defeats to the Democratic Party (e.g. beating Al Gore, rolling back eight years of Clintonism, winning back the Congress and sending oily top-dogs like Tom Dashle packing, beating John Kerry, and forcing--lol--the remaing top-dogs like Hillary Clinton to act Republican!), and doing to Lee Harvey's liberalism what Reagan/Bush did to communism.
What other "crimes?"
Making FOOLS out of all of you Bush-Haters and proving you the hysterical basket-cases, America-haters, inferior thinkers, and hateful hypocrites and LIARS that you are.
The guy went from being a "GUARANTEED!" one-term "unqualified moron" (who said that, "GUARANTEED"?) to an "All-Powerful Fascist" who MUST BE STOPPED.
LOL!
Who are the "morons?"
What other "crimes?"
Fighting back for his country, his party, his administration, and his honor.
Yes. "High Crimes" indeed.
LOL. wow, you are just so wrong on so many levels, it's just scary. Comparing Bush to and as a great President is pitiful, I really do feel sorry for you.
Well, Jeff, you do believe this and you have the right to. I think you are mistaken. You told me earlier that you believe tha Bush is no better than the thugs that brought down the twin towers. Hell, there is not a single american that I would even say that about. That is strong language indeed. Even the "Orca of Chappaquiddick" does not deserve that appellation.
I personally do not think that the President is necessarily the greatest in the history of the US, but I an think of several who were decidedly worse. That is why we have a limit on the number of terms any president can serve. They weren't even able to get Clinton's impeachment through the Senate, but it was not for a lack of trying. I have questioned the Patriot Act, but he was certainly not the first president to use electronic intelligence gathering. The debate about that must be had and it is a healthy thing for a Republic to do so, however, that is not a question of impeachment.
I have been readin up on what constitutes an offense 'worthy' of impeachment.
It is rather interesting to note the wide variety of opinions on the matter. People with no understanding of history and/or law trying to explain what the terms "High Crimes and Misdemeaners" is all about.
I think most of them would be quite surprised to learn what it really means.
also ...on the same note as phelonius..there are things about President Bush that I do not agree with, either. But that doesn't make him worthy of impeachment.
Kelly,
As an historian, I have to tell you that what people are defining as "high crimes" are really amazing. By the current definitions I have seen lately bandered about by people opposed to this president (and even those who were opposed to the last one) pale in comparison to things that have happened in this country in the more distant past. Even while Clinton depressed me, I was not entirely sure about his impeachment trial, but that being said, he DID lie to a federal judge. So far, Bush has not done that particular deed.
Let me go further. Has there been a president in living memory (I am referring also to my grandmother, who does not like Bush) that has not been subject to impeachment questions? No, they all have. That is probably a good thing. Some, obviously, have had the heat more than others.
Since I am Libertarian, let me do what comes naturally. It is GOOD for a republic to guard its liberty against a tyrant, no matter the political affiliation. Even the libertarians are torn about how to handle a war on terror. Terror comes in so many different ways and by so many different types of people. What I remember about this current president is that after 9/11, they were even questions about whether or not Bush knew about it in advance. What?? But ok, the idiots get a say as well. The reason that the "left" is so hateful about their fears is that they do not have an answer for any of this any more than the "right." They are all winging it, the same that all the citizens are. But the left was defeated in the last decade, and I really think that the rhetoric comes from a position of seeking power by bad-mouthing the power in control. John Kerry has not said a single coherent thing since well before the last presidential election. There are some Republicans that are just as bad, but they sit in a position of power.
Bush has not been good for the Republicans in many ways, as per the whole spend philosophy along with a weak border patrol, etc. As far as Iraq, now even the top democratic leadership is backing away from the terrible rhetoric of some of the democratic components of the radical left. They are well aware that their criticisms are taking votes away from them. Likewise, the top Republican leadership knows that the next election is now wide open, and they want a quick and easy end to the conflict. Neither side is going to get all that it wants. I see that as a good thing, because, again, the nature of a republic is to have the right to disagree.
To all, I wish you all the best 2006 that is possible. Happy New Year.
Don't underestimate him.
Anti-Bush forces have thrown EVERYTHING at him, and he's still standing.
I remember the morning of 9/11, beholding the Pentagon billowing clouds of smoke from the penthouse lounge. Others had gathered, and one man next to me said something which proved to be very prescient and that I will never forget.
He said: "Bush is going to change the map."
And that son-of-a-gun did.
I also remember an argument I had with someone back when Reagan was president. I said: "Reagan's going to be remembered as a great president."
That individual scoffed as well.
There are some who will still insist he was not a great president, but as time passes his stature will only grow--even more--until it achieves the mythical status of the greats I mentioned.
Bush isn't there yet, and may not make it, after all, when all is said and done (the economic boom may well run its course before he leaves and sour the rest, the Iraqi gambit may fail and tarnish the man who himself spent the surplus political capital on it that he said he'd spend, and stated that his legacy will be tied to the success or failure of his foreign policy, etc.) but he has a lot of the ingredients of "greatness" mixed in which tend to float to the top over time and become the Platonic Universal--the mythic stature--and override the Platonic Particular (warts and all).
He can potentially achieve a Reaganesque stature.
At worst, a Wilsonian one (who's considered one of the "greats," but a flawed and tragic one).
Perhaps he will end up as just a mediocre one, but the historic circumstances which he has risen to makes that unlikely, I would say.
And like James said, there are plenty of other presidents who are far worse than Bush can possibly be by the most stringent of objective measurements.
The Left is trying damn hard to poison his reputation and make him a Nixon, but he's not saddled with his complexities and is too good natured to be in the same club.
Being hated does not disqualify one from being "great."
Quite often, as I've said, it's a prerequisite.
Lee Harvey is not qualified to determine presidential greatness.
He probably thinks that he himself would be a Union loyalist during the years of the Civil War, but that would be a delusion. His own words and character would have him chumming around with John Wilkes Booth, insisting that Lincoln is the worst failure of a president, a divider, a tyrant, a war monger, a subverter of the Constitution, a mass murderer, and deserves to be assassinated.
And save your pity for yourself, Lee Harvey.
Republicus needs none of it.
James said: "I have questioned the Patriot Act, but he was certainly not the first president to use electronic intelligence gathering."
That's right. Former-President Clinton did that too, during a time of "Peace and Prosperity" (however illusory) no less.
But like Clinton's own rationales for attacking Iraq (see the December 11 post "Former-President Clinton LIED...And People DIED!"), he's given a free pass on that, as well from Lee Harvey's Bush-hating crowd, which proves the unprincipled--if not insane-- scoundrels they are.
Happy New Year James, Kelly. (Yeah, you too Jeff).
I would go so far as to say that Bush's use of electronic intelligence gathering would fall into the category of misuse of power rather than abuse of power.
Happy New Year, too.
Not necessarily "misused," Kelly. It's open to debate, but I think, under the circumstances, it would fall under the category of presidential prerogative as granted by war powers.
BTW, I can't let this one go:
"LOL. wow, you are just so wrong on so many levels..."
Name ONE (besides the one you did mention).
P.P.S. True, James, Bush leaves enough to be desired in enough areas to perhaps keep him out of the top ten, maybe top twenty when all is said and done, but he's been a president of much consequence, and unless it comes out that he pilfered hundreds of FBI files on Democrats, or inflicted IRS audits on Bush-hating private citizens, or rented out the White House for campaign cash, or raped some nurse in Texas when he was governor, or had one of Jenna's friends give him oral sex in the Oval Office, I really can't see him being ranked number 43 in descending order of greatness-- i.e. "The Very Worst President Ever"-- but that's precisely the rank that Jeff--when in Lee Harvey mode-- gives him.
What I was trying to point out is that Bush's USE of electronic intelligence gathering is that he did NOT abuse the power of his office in doing so. AT the WORST I would call it misuse.
One of the reasons for impeachment is abuse of power.
I agree that in times of war the president should have some "limited" flexibility. The truth of the matter is that our country was attacked from the inside by enemies on the outside.
=======
As I watched the Twin towers come down from the comfort of my home, I remembered a picture I have of me on top of tower #2.
http://paperclippings.blogspot.com/
2005/12/july-1986-world-trade-centerview.html
Every time I see that picture I imagine that I am up there as they come falling down.
James said:
"Since I am Libertarian, let me do what comes naturally. It is GOOD for a republic to guard its liberty against a tyrant."
Yes. The general hubbub raised about the "spying" is good, in that it will keep this president--and future ones who are availed of the same "tools" under the same or similar circumstances--honest.
Bush knows what will happen now if he or any in his administration succomb to any temptations to use the war-waging machinery against any citizens too far removed from what common sense would characterize as enemies of the state and define as clear and present dangers in the context of the military conflict.
"Bush has not been good for the Republicans in many ways, as per the whole spend philosophy along with a weak border patrol, etc."
Right. Hence the splintering and sharding of his base that caused his approvals to plummet below 40%.
Certainly, Bush has compromised traditional Republican identities and principles with his big spending "compassionate conservativism" flirting with bleeding hearts and with his Neoconservative Foreign Policy jettisoning right-wing Isolationism and Cold War realpolitik Realism while embracing Wilsonian Idealism (hitherto, the butt of many a right-wing joke).
This is similar--in an inverse way-- to what Clinton did to the Democratic Party, with his "New Democrat" triangulations to the right (e.g. welfare reform, balanced budgets, military intervensionism in the Baltics and Iraq, etc.).
There seems to be a morphing and conflating of the two parties on important points with the "irreconcilable differences"
kept alive by the extremists on both ends preventing the melding by pulling back on the coattails rather than riding them towards unity.
That unity is beginning to resemble a chimerical, composite creature made up of goatish "New Democrats" and Neoconservative lions at the head, with the paleos from both ends extenuated and tapering backwards and forming the serpentine tail.
Interesting. Perhaps this pondering merits posting...
"...now even the top democratic leadership is backing away from the terrible rhetoric of some of the democratic components of the radical left."
Yes, the serpentine tail trying to wag the goatish head...
"Neither side is going to get all that it wants. I see that as a good thing, because, again, the nature of a republic is to have the right to disagree."
Yes. Behold the chimaera...
I had a little fun in Photoshop.
Behold the chimaera!
http://paperclippings.blogspot.com/
2005/12/chimaera.html
Nice, Kelly!
Correction:
Republicus said:
"And like James said, there are plenty of other presidents who are far worse than Bush can possibly be by the most stringent of objective measurements."
Replace "The most stringent of"
with "any."
John, glad you liked my chimaera. I took a little of this and little of that from other pictures to make it.
By trying to appease everyone they actually alienate most everyone. It's like the Aesop fable about the Man, the boy and the donkey.
The Man, the Boy, and the Donkey
A Man and his son were once going with their Donkey to market. As they were walking along by its side a countryman passed them and said: "You fools, what is a Donkey for but to ride upon?"
So the Man put the Boy on the Donkey and they went on their way. But soon they passed a group of men, one of whom said: "See that lazy youngster, he lets his father walk while he rides."
So the Man ordered his Boy to get off, and got on himself. But they hadn't gone far when they passed two women, one of whom
said to the other: "Shame on that lazy lout to let his poor little son trudge along."
Well, the Man didn't know what to do, but at last he took his Boy up before him on the Donkey. By this time they had come to
the town, and the passers-by began to jeer and point at them. The Man stopped and asked what they were scoffing at. The men said: "Aren't you ashamed of yourself for overloading that poor donkey with you and your hulking son?"
The Man and Boy got off and tried to think what to do. They thought and they thought, till at last they cut down a pole, tied the donkey's feet to it, and raised the pole and the donkey to their shoulders. They went along amid the laughter of all who met them till they came to Market Bridge, when the Donkey, getting one of his feet loose, kicked out and caused the Boy to drop his end of the pole. In the struggle the Donkey fell over the bridge, and his fore-feet being tied together he was drowned.
"That will teach you," said an old man who had followed them:
"Please all, and you will please none."
lol! Amen, Kelly. Very apropos.
I would distinguish the character of the lion with the character of the goat.
The chimaera had the lion's head as a head, with the goat at the midsection.
Obviously, Republicans/conservatives are much less concerned with pleasing "everyone" than they are following their convictions and remaining consistent.
Bush's steadfastness under a great deal of pressure is a case in point.
The reason for the steadfastness is that most of the Republicans/conservatives have a moral background that isn't moveable.
That's right.
Post a Comment
<< Home