Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Monday, January 30, 2006
Friday, January 27, 2006
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
The President's Latest Q & A Session
So now we have to ask, Mr. President, what wouldn't you do?
Say again?
Well, you've authorized warrantless domestic wiretaps, which are clearly illegal. You simply can't do domestic searches without a warrant. When you violate a law that's so clear-cut, I'd like to ask, what wouldn't you do? It's useful to know what you think the limits on your executive power are.
Okay, I'll give you some good examples. I wouldn't authorize torture for people we want to interrogate and intimidate.
You've already done that.
I wouldn't set up a system of prisons outside of the United States where we can keep our prisoners of war.
You've already done that.
I certainly wouldn't leak the name of one our intelligence agents to the domestic press in order to discredit my opponents. You could even call that treason.
You've already done that, too, Mr. President.
Give me a break here. How about this? The president's powers as commander in chief are pretty broad, but to launch an attack on a country that's not an immediate threat to us would go beyond my power. It would violate the UN charter as well.
But sir, you did that, too.
You've got me pinned down pretty well now. Can you think of anything I haven't done yet?
Well, you could drop a nuclear bomb on North Korea to make it give up its nuclear weapons. You'd teach them a lesson.
Yes.
And you could drop another bomb on Harvard University to quiet Alan Dershowitz and all those other people on the faculty who keep criticizing you.
I don't think Ted Kennedy would like that very much.
Mr. President, what's one university in the War on Terror? If it's necessary to protect the American people, you should do it.
How about if I just roll some tanks into Harvard Square? That wouldn't be so drastic. Maybe not as effective, either.
Come on, Mr. President, you have a reputation to maintain here. You don't want Dick Cheney to call you a namby pamby behind your back, do you?
Of course not, but I don't want to destroy America. I want to save it. Pretty soon you and your friends will say that I want to destroy America in order to save it.
You've already done that.
Say again?
Well, you've authorized warrantless domestic wiretaps, which are clearly illegal. You simply can't do domestic searches without a warrant. When you violate a law that's so clear-cut, I'd like to ask, what wouldn't you do? It's useful to know what you think the limits on your executive power are.
Okay, I'll give you some good examples. I wouldn't authorize torture for people we want to interrogate and intimidate.
You've already done that.
I wouldn't set up a system of prisons outside of the United States where we can keep our prisoners of war.
You've already done that.
I certainly wouldn't leak the name of one our intelligence agents to the domestic press in order to discredit my opponents. You could even call that treason.
You've already done that, too, Mr. President.
Give me a break here. How about this? The president's powers as commander in chief are pretty broad, but to launch an attack on a country that's not an immediate threat to us would go beyond my power. It would violate the UN charter as well.
But sir, you did that, too.
You've got me pinned down pretty well now. Can you think of anything I haven't done yet?
Well, you could drop a nuclear bomb on North Korea to make it give up its nuclear weapons. You'd teach them a lesson.
Yes.
And you could drop another bomb on Harvard University to quiet Alan Dershowitz and all those other people on the faculty who keep criticizing you.
I don't think Ted Kennedy would like that very much.
Mr. President, what's one university in the War on Terror? If it's necessary to protect the American people, you should do it.
How about if I just roll some tanks into Harvard Square? That wouldn't be so drastic. Maybe not as effective, either.
Come on, Mr. President, you have a reputation to maintain here. You don't want Dick Cheney to call you a namby pamby behind your back, do you?
Of course not, but I don't want to destroy America. I want to save it. Pretty soon you and your friends will say that I want to destroy America in order to save it.
You've already done that.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Biographer Richard Reeves examines President Reagan, a masterful rhetorician
Wichita Eagle | 01/22/2006 | Biographer Richard Reeves examines President Reagan, a masterful rhetorician:
"Did Reagan's brainy White House staff members manipulate him? No way, Reeves says. As White House Chief of Staff James A. Baker III commented, 'He treats us all the same, as hired help.' A later chief of staff, Donald Regan, told Reeves that everybody working in the White House 'thought he was smarter than the president.' Reeves responded, 'Including you?' Regan's reply: 'Especially me.' But it was Reagan, not Baker or Regan, who managed to persuade power brokers to more than double the federal tax dollars devoted to the military, to decrease taxation of the wealthy, and to substantially neutralize the Soviet Union's influence in a worldwide Cold War."
"Did Reagan's brainy White House staff members manipulate him? No way, Reeves says. As White House Chief of Staff James A. Baker III commented, 'He treats us all the same, as hired help.' A later chief of staff, Donald Regan, told Reeves that everybody working in the White House 'thought he was smarter than the president.' Reeves responded, 'Including you?' Regan's reply: 'Especially me.' But it was Reagan, not Baker or Regan, who managed to persuade power brokers to more than double the federal tax dollars devoted to the military, to decrease taxation of the wealthy, and to substantially neutralize the Soviet Union's influence in a worldwide Cold War."
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Friday, January 20, 2006
Legal Rationale by Justice Dept. on Spying Effort - New York Times
Legal Rationale by Justice Dept. on Spying Effort - New York Times
This proves it then, that we have an unconstitutional presidency that will operate outside the law. Any person who says that a wiretap in the United States without a warrant is justified can't be right. National security requires some secrecy, but a warrantless wiretap can't be justified under any legal doctrine. To make such a wiretap permissible, we would have to change the law. The president's defense of his actions shows that if the law conflicts with his beliefs about what national security requires, he'll go with his beliefs.
This proves it then, that we have an unconstitutional presidency that will operate outside the law. Any person who says that a wiretap in the United States without a warrant is justified can't be right. National security requires some secrecy, but a warrantless wiretap can't be justified under any legal doctrine. To make such a wiretap permissible, we would have to change the law. The president's defense of his actions shows that if the law conflicts with his beliefs about what national security requires, he'll go with his beliefs.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Friday, January 13, 2006
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
http://www-internal.mathworks.com: News
http://www-internal.mathworks.com: News
What is the relationship between the war in Iraq and this action by Iran? Do you see one?
What is the relationship between the war in Iraq and this action by Iran? Do you see one?
