Feingold's a Fraud
As Hugh Hewitt points out, Russ Feingold seemed to think that the President had plenty of "inherent powers" as Commander in Chief back when Congress authorized him to take all necessary actions to respond to 9/11.
What a difference four years without attacks -- and a presidential bid -- make.
What a difference four years without attacks -- and a presidential bid -- make.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:56 AM
13 Comments:
President Bush said it best today in response to yet another bogus attack by the MSM and the Democrats:
"I've reauthorized this program more than 30 times since September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill our American citizens."
The Dems have no answer to bold leadership. That's why Reagan cleaded their clocks. That's why Bush has and will do the same!
Another excellent point was made today by John McIntyre at Real Clear Politics:
"...the White House’s initial response is a pretty powerful signal that they aren’t afraid of where this is heading."
"...the White House’s initial response is a pretty powerful signal that they aren’t afraid of where this is heading."
No, it's because they're eager to refocus everyone's attention on the mystical Bush "swagger," what they call "walking" in Texas. The concocted image of the swaggering cowboy who, to boot, is a vigilante who smugly flouts the liberal, girly-man Geneva Convention and the United States Constitution.
This image plays well in Peoria where everyone is tuned out of what is really going on in their country, counter to their economic interests and right under their noses. Instead, the herd is prodded to the polls by homophobia and xenophobia to the steady drumbeat of 9/11.
With all the scandals swirling around this administration, why not get everyone to focus on the one that plays the macho vigilante card?
Let's let Feingold speak for himself. "This is just an outrageous power grab. Nobody, nobody, thought when we passed a resolution to invade Afghanistan and to fight the war on terror, including myself who voted for it, thought that this was an authorization to allow a wiretapping against the law of the United States."
What evidence do you have that Russ Feingold actually believed that by voting to invade Afghanistan he was voting to let the President violate the law of the land and vitiate the fourth amendment to the Constitution? What evidence do you have that any sitting member of Congress felt that way at the time?
Lacking such evidence Carol, it is clear who the fraud is here. (No, not Hugh Heiwtt, he's merely a self-righteous blowhard addicted to the sound of his own voice.)
Mike wrote:
"To the probable troll 'Duke...' (or leftist nut, whatever):"
"I have always been a registered independent, but always a conservative because I am reasonably intelligent."
"this gal was intellectually challenged"
"all of her other lemming friends"
Mike, what exactly do you think the phrase "ad hominem attack" means? Thank you for a truly content-free first post.
You fizzycysts sure is smart.
It has yet to be seen whether Bush violated the law with his wiretaps. So far it's lookin' like he didn't. So Feingold is lying. The powergrab comment rings hollow as well coming from a member of the powergrabbing Democratic Party.
Mike, I too am baffled by the hundreds of words you have managed to string together that somehow fail to make any point, other than Bush having some sort of epiphany, that most liberals haven't mastered flying a fighter jet, and that you have a degree in physics.
In my post that apparently inspired you to begin writing the first chapter of your bio, I was merely pointing out why the Bush administration has no fear of where this wire-tapping story is going. They (his handlers) are so beleaguered by scandals and the fruits of his hubris that they are eager to return to the emotional touchstones that keep his base united: 9/11, homos wanting to get married, and the image of the swaggering rancher, replete with his big Ford truck rambling across the non-ranch set his campaign bought so he could look like an "everyman" on the way to do some "show-chopping" of some cedars and mesquite for the cameras. (Dianne Feinstein is as much of a rancher as he is.)
These are the things he most relies on when the ugly details of his incompetence and arrogant greed start to see the light of day. His handlers have long known that the U.N. and the Geneva Conventions don't poll very well in the heartland, especially when they are portrayed as obstacles to American imperialism. So why not add the U.S. Constitution to the list of silly constructs that are meant to be defied when they are inconvenient?
The Toby Keiths of America won't take the time to think it through. They'll just pump their fists in the air and whoop it up for the macho vigilante.
Mike, I think you are doing a fine job here. As we conservatives know, #1. the Democrats only care about their power, and don't really care about defending our freedom. #2. Bush let Clinton off by not investigating the Chinese Communists funding of his campaigns. #3. The only way the Democrats feel they can get power is by frivolous indictments that gum up the system and cost tax payer money. And #4. Name calling is the liberals only strategy in these blog debates.
Merry Christmas!
Oh yeah, Mr. Twister/Duke-stir/et. al. Honestly, what do you think Kerry would have done to Iraq, border security, taxes, or oval office carpeting if he had won? Do you think that Iraq would now be a democracy? And about civil liberties, have yours been infringed upon by conservatives? And how?
Mike write, "Thanks for your help, but I definitely know what an ad hominem attack is."
I sincerely doubt that, Mike, as you continue, "Could calling me a fizzycyst (that took me longer than it should have, but in my defense it is late and I am not used to concocted words to be cute) and impugning my intelligence count?"
No, because by definition (which you claim you "definitely know") I would only be engaging in ad hominem attack, if I said mean things about you to advance an unrelated argument (actually to impugn your witness on an unrelated matter).
It is clear from my post, I said a mean thing about you for no reason other than to jape at your intellectual pretense. I found it funny that you would claim all liberals have is ad hominem while engaging in the same yourself.
Mike said... "The previous swagger of a talented rich young man (that I have no doubt that he had) is history. Even if he never had a religious epiphany, I would still respect him."
I belatedly realized that you thought I was referring to Bush's behavior as a "rich young man." I'm sorry, but that would be "stagger."
What I was referring to is his current "swagger," what he himself alluded to during last year's nomination acceptance speech when he joked that "in Texas, they call it walking." This swagger is not only the result of his delusions of competence but also the knowledge that due to his purported epiphany, he has God on his side and can do just as the kings of old did: anything he wants. (Including riding in fighter planes to victory celebrations.)
Kirkill wrote...
"The only way the Democrats feel they can get power is by frivolous indictments that gum up the system and cost tax payer money."
Let's see now, whose playbook does that sound like? How much time and money did Ken Starr spend? And to what end? Hmmm.
In answer to the question about the results of Starr's investigations: Monica Lewinsky cooperated with prosecutors and avoided perjury charges; Susan McDougal, James McDougal, William Marks, Sr., Stephen Smith, Neal Ainley, Larry Kuca, Jim Guy Tucker, Christopher Wade, Robert Palmer, Webster Hubbell, John Haley, David Hale, Eugene Fitzhugh, Charles Matthews, and John Latham were all convicted (Hale, Fitzhugh, Matthews and Latham's convictions came after Starr had resigned). And, oh, yes...Bill Clinton was found guilty of Contempt of Court for lying under oath (i.e., perjury), had his law license suspended, and impeached by the House of Representatives.
Post a Comment
<< Home