 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
It sounds like one person opposed it but it was still approved by the justice department and it doesn't say that he was pressured to approve the memos it said he was pressured to finish the memos. Big difference that obviously that publication is hoping people like you missed.
Duties of the justice Dept.
Nowhere does it say the justice dept makes the laws.
- Responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations of federal laws.
- Represents the United States in all legal matters, including cases before the Supreme Court.
- Enforces all immigration laws, provides information, and processes applications for citizenship
- Maintains the federal prison system, halfway houses, and community programs.
It is Congress's duty to make laws.
The duties of the US Congress is to make laws.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_t...he_US_Congress
Jeff I read just about all your replies on different subjects and they seem to have a common theme...Your hatred and disgust of the FORMER administration seems to fuel your every thought..you are obviously a well educated man and it shows but your perspective and your obsession with hating all things Bush makes it difficult to have reasonable dialogue. do you ever answer any question without referring to the Bush administrationOriginally Posted by YardleyLabs
All my Exes live in Texas
they weren't asked to make a law they were asked to interpret laws. Big difference unless of course you are a judicial activist that thinks its okay to make laws from the bench ala Sotomayor.
I actually didn't hate the Bush administration. However, I did and do believe that Bush was one of the worst Presidents in our history and that he failed based on almost every measure that he set for himself in his own campaign. There is a big difference between that and hate. I was perfectly happy to forgive Bush for the ideological bent of his administration. He was clear about his ideology and the American people elected him. I found his incompetence harder to tolerate.Jeff I read just about all your replies on different subjects and they seem to have a common theme...Your hatred and disgust of the FORMER administration seems to fuel your every thought..you are obviously a well educated man and it shows but your perspective and your obsession with hating all things Bush makes it difficult to have reasonable dialogue. do you ever answer any question without referring to the Bush administration
If I go back to Bush it is because of people, like you, who express horror at actions by the Obama administration that perfectly mirror those of the Bush administration. The fact that Karl Rove, who was a master of creating "czars" as a substitute for action and was himself anointed domestic policy "czar", is now on the circuit preaching that Obama's use of so-called czars is a travesty of the Constitution, is beyond pathetic. When his comments become conservative talking points on this forum, they deserve challenge. Personally, I have no problem with the use of special assistants to the President to help coordinate policy issues whether it was under Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, GWB, or Obama. From a management perspective, it can make great sense. You were the one who described those positions as a Constitutional threat. Presumably, you felt similarly threatened by Bush, or this is simply a new found talking point in the game called "Stop Obama No Matter What."
It seems to me that the hate is all focused on the present and directed against Obama. That hatred does not seem to be issue based. Rather, issues appear to be fabricated from thin air simply to add a layer of drama to the hatred.
If one is going to use a double standard in analysis and judgment, it is hard to be taken seriously. I try not to do that and sometimes fail. I do not get the impression that most on this forum even try. Personally, I believe that the last thing we need as a country is nihilistic, gotcha politics. The political talk pundits on both sides have decided to pursue this type of politics to sell toilet paper (or whatever else they advertise) and fatten their wallets. As citizens, I believe we either need to reject that form of politics and its proponents, or to accept that we would rather fade into oblivion gracelessly.
Jimmy Carter set the standard for that!
From your perspective, what was the ideological bent of his administration?I was perfectly happy to forgive Bush for the ideological bent of his administration.
__________________________
Marvin S
It is certain that the number of those who reason well in difficult matters is much smaller then the number of those who reason badly ........ reasoning is like running & unlike carrying, hence one Arab steed will outrun a hundred jackasses.
Everyone's friend is No One's friend
Jeff...your reality is just so totally different than most of us.....are you sure you're not located in the DNC HQ?
Your BS above is just so out there, it's laughable. You can't hide the fact that you absolutely hate the Bush administration.
The only hate in the present and leveled at Obama is against his socialistic programs and his tyranny based objectives to radically change society as we know it. It's against his policies and programs....but yours and the lefts always attack the person...it's right out of Alinsky's playbook.
You sayyou were perfectly happy to forgive Bush for the ideological bent of his admin....then why don't you? You say he was clear about his ideology.....something you cannot say about Obama. You speak of incompetence....there is enough going on right now to last for many years to come.
You like to label things as a double standard...just because they differ from your analysis and judgement.....what you fail to acknowledge because of your myopic liberal lense is the fundamental difference between liberalism and conservatism. You won't even admit you're liberal.
Our analysis and judgement of the Bush admin is based on the fact that we understand where he was coming from philosophically and ideologically and we agreed with that. Can you say the same thing for Obama? Do you actually know where he is coming from ideologically and philosophically? I can say that personally I get a handle on him but what I have seen so far has scared the crap out of me and half the US is right there with me.
Train the dog, the ribbons will take care of themselves.
No, I am actually located in Yardley PA. However, I do send money to the DNC every single month.
For one who is hypersensitive about anything you view as an affront, you are quick with both name calling and interpretation of emotions. Is that part of your philosophical bent? So far today you have called me laughable, a moron, a nitwit, irrational, and a pure socialist, and now you are telling me how I feel about Bush. Have you ever figured out how to argue a point with facts instead of names?
If true, why don't you simply state what he has done, specifically, that is socialist and fundamentally different from what he said he would do in his campaign and what other Democrats have supported before him? No names, just facts. In addition, what are his specific "tyranny based objectives"? And what is he doing that is radically different from what has been done in this country over the last 50 years? Even his health care proposals are less radical than simply saying Medicare eligibility will now begin at birth. How radical is changing an age limit? What he has proposed is less radical than that.
Actually, I think Bush's record of incompetence was apparent over a period of eight years and is directly linked to his record low approval ratings and Obama's victory. I think Obama's record, after seven months, is still unclear. I believe he has done a good job in some areas and an inconclusive job in most. I would have said the same abut the first seven months of Bush's administration with the exception of noting that he seemed to take an inordinate number of vacations.
Actually, I label them as a double standard because they are. For example, yesterday you wrote:
"Jeff....Obama is clear accumulating and centralizing powers and responsibilities in the WH. All his "czars" are evidence of this and are clearly obvious abuses of his presidential authority, because in fact they are clearly designed to bypass congressional oversight.
Name a couple of instances where Bush was "given too much power and that he abused it thoroughly". Did he ever create such czars to circumvent congress?" [Emphasis added]
Yes, he did. Over and over again. He created a cyber czar, a war czar, a domestic policy czar, etc., etc. It was done on a regular basis throughout hs administration and was a frequent target for both criticism and humor. As I noted, I wasn't bothered by his "czars". If they helped him get the job done, great. However, if it was an important concern for you, why weren't you even familiar with the fact that Bush did this regularly? BTW, I don't think either circumvented Congress in appointing czars. Congress gets to approve the guys with line control over agencies. The President gets to appoint his own assistants. And also, I have regularly described myself as a liberal or progressive. I am actually more of a tradotional conservative on budget issues (as distinct from a neo-con or voodoo economist), a liberal on issues related to having a social "safety net" and true equal opportunity to the best of our ability, and an almost complete libertarian on lifestyle issues. The latter puts me at odds with both social conservatives and liberals.
It sounds to me like you are saying that it was OK for Bush to do those things because you agreed with him philosophically and indeologically but that it is not OK for Obama to do the same things because he is too radical. Am I overstating what you are implying? It seems to me that you are basically saying that a double standard is appropriate since what really counts whether or not you agree with the President philosophically. If so, you are confirming what I said in my "BS" post.
I actually think that Obama is a relatively traditional liberal with a lot of areas where he is much more moderate than most of his base. His books provide fairly good insight into his background and his thinking. I am comfortable with his basic philosophical approach but disagree pretty strongly with some of his economic policies, where I am more conservative, and some of his "lifestyle" beliefs where I am probably more liberal. My principal area of disagreement is with his willingness to adopt Bush's cavalier dismissal of budget deficits because he fears that he cannot deliver his promises if he makes balancing the budget a priority. Unfortunately, from a political perspective, he is making the same expedient calculations that Bush made and I think he is correct politically. However, I would rather have him be correct fiscally.
So what made AG Eric Holder change his mind on prosecuting interrogation abusers between April and now?
kg
I keep my PM box full. Use email to contact me: rockytopkg@aol.com.
As I understand it, the decision not to investigate was based on interrogations carried out under guidelines approved by the White house Counsel for harsh interrogations. As far as I know (and I may well be wrong) that decision and the related decision not to go after the White House Counsel office concerning the legitimacy of their opinion has not changed. Subsequently, it became clear that in some cases there were interrogations that used techniques that were not authorized by the White House Counsel guidelines. This included the death threats. My understanding (with the same caveat from above) is that Holder's investigation is focusing specifically on interrogations that used those unauthorized techniques. Did I miss something? If my understanding of the facts is correct, I do not see any inconsistency. However, if he actually reversed the original position and is now going to investigate the White House Counsel, one small part of me will be cheering, but the rest will be upset because I think Obama's decision to drop it was correct.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote