Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:00:06 -0400
Some are championing Jonathan Turley's line of argument that all possible criminality by the Executive Branch is equal and the most serious of business, requiring even impeachment. Remember Turley supported the impeachment and removal of President Clinton. This is a wrong headed approach to take in my opinion. You can not reasonably compare anything even arguably done by President Clinton to the brazen attack on the Constitution and the separation of powers by the Bush Administration. I reject Turley's argument in its entirety and think it muddles the issues in a harmful way.
For example, lost in the shuffle of Obama advisor Cass Sunstein's statement about egregious crimes is the fact that Sunstein actually does not believe that Bush Administration did anything wrong. As I discussed in 2005, Sunstein supported the Bush Administration claims on military tribunals and illegal wiretapping. Indeed, Sunstein endorsed the Bush Administration's argument regarding the inherent authority of the President to disregard laws when acting as Commander in Chief.
Yesterday, on Democracy Now, Sunstein did his best Michael O'Hanlon imitation and tried to rewrite his history of support for the Bush Administration's military tribunals, acting as if he would never be cited as someone who supported Bush's lawlessness. To put it bluntly, Sunstein was prevaricating. In 2002, writing about the Bush military tribunals, Sunstein argued in favor of the unconstitutional Bush military tribunals:
~ snip ~
Sunstein now wishes us all to forget that he fully supported the Bush Administration's lawlessness. He clearly wants to play a role in a potential Obama Administration. I do object to that possibility. Sunstein has supported the most extreme views of Executive power argued by the Bush Administration. Almost as bad, he has been mendacious about his previous positions, painting himself as in the mainsteam of progressive legal thought when he clearly is in the camp of the extreme conservative views on executive power. If Obama wants a Sunstein in his Administration, let's be clear about what we are getting - not some progressive legal thinker on Executive Power, but someone who hold the most extreme views on the subject, views rejected by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Read. Act. Call, write, blog. Please.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16137
UPDATE on Kucinich's Impeachment hearing with the Judiciary Committee.
"They are telling witnesses there is a rule forbidding them from saying the president has committed impeachable offenses."
This should make every American take pause. And take action.
He gave an interview in the local NPR radio station and sounded pretty convincing about criminal prosecution being possible in every state for the murder of residents in the war. Whether he can get the effort started, I don't know.
Can't wait to read his book
Please read my blog on Impeachment
<-------------
and see at the bottom a few quick and easy things we can do in the next few days to help Dennis and the Brave Ones. (all 6 of them)
MMA
(Majority My A**)
We now need Democratic Pocket Field Guide Manuals to help the voters identify what a REAL democrat looks and sounds like before voting. What with the camouflaging being so expert these days...it becomes so hard to differentiate the faux from the real thing.
Dem-watchers Pocket Field Guide?
If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude. Don't complain.~ Maya Angelou
Good advice to visitors who repeatedly complain about the places they repeatedly choose to visit.
I'm sorry and surprised that you find a Maya Angelou quote trollworthy.
Let's revisit and review the troll rating policies here at CCN.
The wonderful four-star system was designed and implemented with the primary notion of encouraging uprates of fellow Clarkie's comments, which we as a community felt merited some commendation system-- and the four stars were a natural.
The usage of the four stars as a downrating tool however has been discouraged for all but the most egregious of troll postings, such as those that disparage or denigrate General Clark, or something so obviously out of the bounds of good taste that it should be removed from the site. But comments should never be downrated based solely on a disagreement with their point of view. (or quote!)
From the CCN Guidelines on karma:
It IS bad form to rate a comment based on whether you agree with someone or not.
There are no 'blog police' except for the community itself.
Trollish comments and malicious posts should expect to be low rated, but otherwise, 1's should be rare.
Rating comments is also a way to give kudos even when you don't have time to reply to a comment.
We're a very friendly community, so don't be hesitant to reward the effort and insight other CCNers contribute to the discussion.
I can assure you that neither Maya Angelou nor myself meant any "malicious intent" by either sentence above. :)
not Maya's but yours.
I didn't comment because I didn't want to be seen as a...what did you call them? Oh yeah..."visitors who complain..."
Maybe you could pass your "review" of the karma guidelines along to Arky Sue while you're about it? Or would that be too much to expect on Wes Clark's blog any more?
of karma time and time again. Once it's published here - it's for all who read to see. It's always available under the donkey too. ------>
To date I think I've used the troll rating feature as often as I have fingers on one hand. Yet have been the unfortunate recipient of it numerous times, but only in this year! Prior to that - never had a one, except a few finger slippage errors.
So let's try another quote on complaints. I really like this one:
"You can complain because roses have thorns, or you can rejoice because thorns have roses” ~ Proverb
"downrating" thing, by anyone, is totally childish and I wish it would just go away. It totally means NOTHING except a chance to get a nasty dig at someone, deservedly or not.
I would like to see the system changed to only having the 4 stars available as a "I agree with this comment" or "good show" or whatever and NO WAY to downgrade someone's comments.
If people want to get in a duel, then let them choose pistols or swords, but the 4 stars were chosen for a reason. Let's honor that.
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
I tend to agree with it.
The only repercussion to multiple downratings, other than - as you say- the negative jabbing and digging at a fellow blogger - is that after awhile you lose rating privileges. At one point, I had lost the "0" rating ability by the stealth back door downrater who was coming in long after the conversation had ended to downrate people.... for "sport". Didn't really matter because I so seldom use it, didn't miss it.
But yeah, it might make sense right now and be more civil around here to not facilitate that urge to 'jab' by deactivating the troll ratings... although I would imagine something like that might entail some tech nightmare for Kat and team...
Anyways I have to run, so can't add anything further!!
...is that some peckerhead with no life is carousing old threads and down rating people out of spite.
Can you imagine what is going on in that person's brain..... to take the time and expend the effort to do this?
Sad, sad little people
Why have Obama and the New Democratic Party chose to rehabilitate the Republican Party at a time when it and conservatism has proven to be such a failure? Answer: "Because that's where the money is."
Why do the media always report on stories that they refer to as "non stories"?
Sent by WesPAC, check your inboxes!
