Bush says his "job is to protect the American people"...No, it' s not !!

[kentuck]

His job is to defend the Constitution of the United States and to act as Commander in Chief of the military forces - not Commander in Chief of the American people. Somebody needs to straighten him out on his duties and responsibilities as President of the United States. He is obviously confused. His job is not to "protect the American people". I don't think you will find that in the Constitution?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Darned straight

his sole responsibility is to preserve, protect, defend, and FOLLOW the Constitution and rule of law. Seeing what happened in NO after Katrina, I wouldn't trust him to try and protect a cactus in the desert.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. Most cacti would not accept his feeble attempt at "protection".

[katejones]

2. Actually,

The executive branch's job would be to enforce the laws. The major role of the government is to protect it's citizens from foreign aggression. The supreme court interprets the laws and the legislative makes the laws.

So you could extrapolate from that that one of Bush's jobs is to enforce the laws that protect us from foreign aggression. Hence to "protect us".

[kentuck]

7. There's a lot of "extrapolation" going on...

The Constitution does not say it. "We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence...." etc...

[Hissyspit]

96. But he always says it's his MOST IMPORTANT job and it is not.

The oath of office states to protect the CONSTITUTION. That role outranks all others.

Bush plays up the great paternal protector role as the dominant role as a psychological tactic. It is offensive and demagogic.

[kahnmann]

3. How right you are

well put.

[Golden Raisin]

4. Bravo!

[Warpy]

6. Protecting the American people would consist of

Living wages
Universal healthcare
Enough protectionism to stop offshoring of jobs
Ending the robbery of social security premiums to fatten the rich
Enforcing all labor laws
Ending corporate megamergers, preventing monopoly
Returning utilities to the public sector and away from corporate greed
A rational, progressive tax system
Ensuring that public agencies are headed by professionals who know what they're doing

Unfortunately, these guys just want to wave their dicks around. Protecting the American people is the last thing on their small minds.

[katejones]

8. Where in the constitution

Did you find all that??

Wow and here I was just reading that the government is to protect us from foreign aggression and protect our freedoms.

[Warpy]

15. Oh, you want a dissertation on the constitution

I thought the question was what protecting the American people would consist of.

I see haggling over constitutional minutiae is the important thing.

What people actually need is unimportant.

[katejones]

19. oh, ok.

So in your definition, protecting the people would consist of government healthcare? I get it now.

It is just my opinion that we should also make sure that terrorists don't kill us or none of us will actually need healthcare.

[CJCRANE]

41. But hasn't this administration got mostly F grades

on implementing the recommendations of the 9-11 commission?

[katejones]

44. Yes

And deservedly so- what is this reference to? We are talking about whether it is the Pres job to fight terrorist and protect us at all. Not whether he is doing well at it.

[CJCRANE]

51. I just think the argument is absurd -

the neocons LIHOP on 9-11 and all of a sudden they're the only people who can protect America, but first they have to ignore all the laws and traditions that make America what it is...

(I'm not saying you're saying that, I just think the whole argument has reached a level of complete absurdity).

[katejones]

57. If I saw any meaningful

response to the protection issue- like how would their ideas differ from the Pres- from Dem leaders, then maybe we could discuss them.

The Dem leaders need to give a policy alternative that protects freedoms while reducing the terrorist threat.

So far I am not sure there is even a consensus in the Party on whether there is even any threat at all or that the government should do something.

[BigYawn]

73. Yes they are doing a lousy job, but there have been no more 911's

and thats what is saving their azz.

[CJCRANE]

78. The irony is -

maybe al-Qaeda never planned to have another 9-11...or like with the first WTC attack, maybe they like to wait nearly 10 years between attacks...

[MH1]

75. For one, preventing monopoly

certainly comes under the heading of "protect our freedoms" not to mention Article 1, Section 8, regulation of interstate commerce.

As do most of the items listed by the prior poster. To the extent that almost all commerce (exchange of money for goods or services) today involves either international or interstate commerce - a situation that did not hold when the Constitution was written, true, but irrelevant - then without amending to restrict such control, the federal government has power to make laws about almost anything. Since the preamble states the purpose of the Constitution is "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", your proposition that it is all about defending the country from foreign aggression seems rather unfounded.

[formercia]

54. I agree

They are just out to protect the 'system'.

[tsuki]

9. This is his job.

Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Not the people, defend the Constitution of the United States.

[katejones]

10. The rest of the Constitution

talks about protecting our rights and borders though. All I am saying that it can be reasonably thought that protecting us from terrorists is the governments job.

I mean, who else can do it?

[kentuck]

14. It also gives the right to declare war to the Congress solely...

Only Republicans think the President should have the powers of kings...

[katejones]

21. Kings huh?

I don't think that fighting terrorists requires the President to have the power of Kings. Are you calling me a Repub or are you just saying? But we need to make sure that we are not undermining the threat. By undermining the threat we are putting us all at risk of another attack.

[LunaC]

74. Oh, PUH-LEASE --> "we are putting us all at risk of another attack"

You drank the Kool-aid to believe that shit!

Read the link in my sig line then come back and we'll talk some more about "terrorists" and "attacks".

[tsuki]

31. Cheney has called for more powers for the executive branch.

[meow2u3]

71. Only for them to be stripped when a Democrat is President

Curious, isn't it? :shrug:

[tsuki]

29. Not if it violates his oath of office. His oath of office specifically

states that his chief responsibility is to the Constitution of the United States, not the people.

If he does not protect, defend and preserve the Constitution, he does not have any authority.

[opihimoimoi]

11. His Job is to BS us and thats what he is doing..even smirks as he lies

a dead give a way

[Benhurst]

12. He sure did a good job on 9/11. So he shreds the Constitution

and breaks what laws are left. What an asshole.

[tularetom]

13. He works for us

We hired him to protect preserve and defend the constitution and he has done a piss poor job of doing that since he seems to want to ignore it whenever it gets in his way. I used to be an employee and if I'd done that bad of a job I'd expect to be fired. It's time for him to seek employment elsewhere.

[kentuck]

16. Who said, "It's just a damn piece of paper...?"

Huh?

[savemefromdumbya]

didn't do much on 9/11 did he?

[katejones]

18. What did you want

him to do? There was no way to know who was plotting exactly and when. And if he had known, he could not have locked them up with no cause could he?

It would have been a violation of their civil liberties to detain them without proof. And no one knew what day, which flights etc. either.

[Sparkly]

20. Yes, there were ways to know.

There were memos from the FBI, there was info coming from Richard Clarke, who couldn't even get a meeting; there was info from other countries... But BushCo was busy hyping "ICBMs from rogue nations," trying to build up Reagan-era "star wars" defense contracts and thinly-veiled rationale for attacking Iraq. They were ignoring terrorism, and I (among others) KNEW that and SAID that before 9/11.

Further, the question was what he did ON 9/11. The answer is: ran.

[katejones]

23. First, If he had known,

And I don't for a second believe he did or could have known the exact details, what would he have been authorized to do? He could not have them arrested or brought in- it would have been a infringement of their civil liberties.

[Sparkly]

26. People suspected of plotting to attack the US

can certainly be "arrested or brought in."

[katejones]

28. Problem is

that they didn't have names or specifics and the intelligence agencies were not communicating.

And going to flight school as an arab was not a crime or anything that should make anyone suspicious at the time.

[Sparkly]

35. flight school...

Learning to fly without learning to land DID raise suspicions, and led to an FBI memo. That was a clear communication.

[katejones]

36. But as I said

It was no crime. And to detain an Arab because he was in flight school would have surely been racist.

[Sparkly]

38. Kate, they had ties to Al-Qaeda.

I suggest you read the 9/11 report. This is but one of many warnings ignored by the administration.

[katejones]

43. So it is your conclusion

That the pres had the names of all the hijackers in connection to the info that they were about to blow up planes? Specific planes with flight #s?

No, he did not. Different agencies had suspicions about a few of them. They didn't communicate and they were not sure when it was going to happen. There was alot of failure to go around but you cannot lay all the blame at Bush's feet.

Again, without the info about specifics, there was no way to prevent it. And they couldn't just go around harrassing Arabs in flight school could they?

[Sparkly]

47. Read the 9/11 Commission Report.

$10 in paperback.

[katejones]

48. I have not

read it all the way through but a lot of it. I will read the rest but you have not answered my question.

[Sparkly]

50. Oh, your question!

The Bush administration was apparently too inept to do anything to thwart a major terror attack -- despite warnings, memos, international intel, and a counter-terrorism czar with his "hair on fire" -- because as Condi said, "Nobody told us to do anything," and they weren't given engraved information with ALL the details of who, what, when and where, including seat numbers... There's your answer. :eyes:

[katejones]

61. OK so what would you have

done? Profiled Arabs that fall and summer? You make cryptic comments like that but in all seriousness, how could it have been prevented? I don't see how without violating the hijackers rights.

[CJCRANE]

49. I've never read it but I saw on DU

that Thomas Kean said in an interview that all the incriminating stuff is in Chapter 8 (i.e. what the govt could've/should've done to prevent 9-11).

[CJCRANE]

52. Well they spent $75M harassing President Clinton -

so I don't see how it could've been so difficult to follow up on the 55+ warnings they recieved.

[katejones]

56. How are the two

related in any way? Spending money to investigate a president using grand juries and the like and getting warnings about arabs in flight school?

And, hello, just cause they had the warnings in hand doesn't mean that they had specifics like which airlines and flight #'s.

And the agencies were not communicating- so the FBI may have had some of the info but not all- the info was not put together in time.

In order to believe that Bush co had a memo in front of them that said "19 muslims are going to blow up flights...." giving exact info, is to believe that the president of the USA allowed mass murder. And since when does the pres have all that sort of info anyway- most of that stuff is filtered through massive beauracracies first. Hence the problem- lack of communication between them.

[CJCRANE]

53. You're making me feel sorry

for the poor neocons. Poor little things they couldn't investigate a few arabs in flight schools so they had to let it happen.

But now it's happened it's ok to kidnap people, torture them and detain them indefinitely. Oh, yeah and might as well spy on Americans without even letting the secret spying court know that you're doing it.

Makes sense.

[katejones]

58. Honestly, if they had

those powers then, do you think 9/11 would have happened? And since when does the Patriot Act allow anyone the right to kidnap or torture someone?

Obviously we don't want our gov to have that kind of power. So any alternatives? Anyone? Cause I am not sure what we should do to prevent another 9/11.

[CJCRANE]

62. There won't be another 9-11 for a while

they hit the jackpot on that day. You can decide for yourself who I mean by "they".

[CJCRANE]

63. How many Americans have died and been injured

in Iraq?

How many were left to die in New Orleans?

How many innocent people have been killed in Iraq?

How many innocent people have been kidnapped and tortured?

Would you use a sledgehammer to crack a nut?

[TankLV]

66. Clinton managed to do it WITHOUT the PA.

They could have KEPT the "no fly zone" around the capitol and actually PREVENTED the pentagone hit.

After the FIRST PLANE HIT the tower, they could have immediately closed the air space around NYC, too.

It's quite simple.

They were at BEST negligent. They LIHOP. There's now even more evidence that supports MIHOP.

Just join up so you could defend your fellow repuke buddy, huh?

Nice try, not gonna work.

We all know the facts, which you obviously don't.

[katejones]

70. Just a last thought

USS Cole
1993 World Trade Center
So no terrorism occurred during Clintons watch- wrong.


I am not a "buddy" look at the name.

I already served in the Military, thanks.

[TankLV]

87. You're still a "buddy", honey.

Stop putting words in my mouth I never said.

I never claimed nor said that "terrorism never happened during Clinton's terms" - YOU are the only one claiming that.

I stated CORRECTLY that Clinton managed to prevent terrorist acts (remember 2000) WITHOUT the PA and SUCCESSFULLY CAUGHT ALL THOSE RESPONSIBLE for the WTC bombing WITHOUT THE PA, "honey".

And - it turns out - a "freeper" mole, too!

We could see ya a mile comming.

Funny how that works.

[MadisonProgressive]

67. WOW, you sure are a strong Bush defender!

[katejones]

69. Not really

But I am not a Bush basher either. I don't like alot of his positions and I don't trust the patriot act.

But perhaps I am niave because I have a hard time thinking that anyone would do what you accuse him of doing.

[MadisonProgressive]

76. Not naive, just not yet educated

But don't worry, we have special camps we can send you to for that!

[CJCRANE]

79. Politicians make macro decisions all the time -

One of Blair's arguments for invading Iraq was that after regime change the sanctions could be removed and so save the lives of the hundreds of thousands who were starving.

So he made a calculation to risk 10's of 1000's of lives to save 100,000's.

In WWII Truman took the decision to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki to bring the war to a swifter conclusion rather than risk a land invasion. Again a simple calculation to take saves to save lives in the long run.

Also in WWII, Churchill received intelligence that the Germans were going to firebomb Coventry. But he never warned the people or evacuated the city because he didn't want the Germans to know he could decipher their communications. So he took a short term hit in casualities for a longer term strategic gain.

And these are only benevolent examples. There are plenty of examples where leaders have sacrified virtually their entire countries due to their egos or for their own gain.

[TankLV]

88. Sure can fool us with your words!

You're not a repuke bunkerboy buddy - riiiiiight.

[bear425]

80. I was wondering why it took so long to ban katejones. Finally!

Can you imagine us going to FR and defending Clinton the way she defended the blivet? We would be banned asap. Oh well, better late than never.

[MadisonProgressive]

83. WHOHOO!! I love that tombstone!

[long_green]

81. they certainly could have sent some agents to interview the

subject (while making him fully aware of his rights). Nothing illegal about that.

[Thorandmjolnir]

97. Oh please!

"they didn't have names or specifics and the intelligence agencies were not communicating."

Then how the hell did they have the names and photos of all the hijackers that same afternoon? or at least the day after?

How could they be so certain as to who did it, in such a short time?

Please, try another one!

[savemefromdumbya]

22. Really?

I'm afraid there is lot that has't surfaced about 9/11 yet.

[tsuki]

33. The Clinton admin told them that terrorism was the number one

threat, and Asscroft said, "yea, whatever." It was not even on Asscroft's top 5 or top 7 when the NY was hit.

At anytime, Asscroft could have gone to FISA and gotten warrant, even 72 hours after. Judical oversight, legal. No judical oversight, illegal. Terrorism was not a priority.

Bush has violated his oath of office. That is a HIGH CRIME.

One FISA judge has resigned, and the others are questioning their involvement with FISA.

[katejones]

37. Let us not be hasty

quote:Bush has violated his oath of office. That is a HIGH CRIME.

One FISA judge has resigned, and the others are questioning their involvement with FISA.

End quote

Shall we wait until the evidence is in?

[Sparkly]

39. Bush admitted it!! What more "evidence" is needed?

:shrug:

[katejones]

46. He admitted he

wiretapped but then maintained that it was NOT illegal.

Let us wait for the evidence on THAT- the legality of it.

[tsuki]

40. Well, he confessed on national TeeVee. What evidence are

you looking for? A confession is a pretty convincing piece of evidence to me.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

72. Fuck that him and his boys don't need evidence to put people in jail.

I don't need to wait for any evidence to want them behind bars. Worst case scenario he's a criminal best case scenario he's incompetent and stupid. If I screw up in my job I get fired. So should he.

[newspeak]

84. yeah, remember at that time

Ashcroft's main focus was prostitutes. I also remember Condi Rice on television say that the administration couldn't imagine anyone using a plane as a weapon. Well, now we know it was BS, pure BS.

[truth2power]

68. No way to know?..

I borrowed this from a Duer who posted it here. Can't remember who. Hope they don't mind if I use it. Sums it up nicely..

"There was NO GULF between intelligence communities prior to 9/11! They were briefed, they were warned, they KNEW, they did NOTHING! Now they use it to justify pissing on the U.S. Constitution!"

MIHOP, IMHO.

[serryjw]

89. Since you are new..I will give you the benefit............BUT

you need to start reading before you make statements like these.Most here are somewhere betwen LIHOP and MIHOP........I past MIHOP a long time ago.
Welcome to DU!

[savemefromdumbya]

17. didn't do much on 9/11 did he?

[earthboundmisfit]

24. I have noticed in his speeches that * does a lot of telling us

"What the President's job is". As in "Part of my job as President is (fill in the blank)". He does it in speech after speech after speech. And the funny thing is what he cites as being "part of the job of the President" is usually NOT "part of the job" AT ALL.

[fooj]

25. Besides, if he really believed that was part of his job...

he would have taken the suggestions of the 9-11 Commission and not received an F on their follow-up report! He is full of crap. He could care less about protecting Americans...

Peace.

[AZBlue]

27. Then whose job is it?

I think it is part of his job, whether or not it's in the Constitution. There's a lot for a President to do that's not in the Constitution.

What's NOT part of his job is to control us. There's a big difference between protection and control.

[katejones]

30. Very True!!

We don't need to be controlled but our country does need to be protected.

[bluedog]

32. protect?

if thats the game they want to play...then why did he not read the Aug 6 2001 memo where they threaten ed to attack this country?.......they knew they was about to happen.........did he not think it was real...of did he not bother to do anything about it....No he has NOT protected this country.

[katejones]

34. What do you think he knew?

What do you think he could have done with that info? There was a threat, but with agencies not communicating, the info was not getting to who needed it. And there wasn't anything specific enough to act anyway.

If there was, do you think that the pres would have allowed over 3000 people to die?

[Ino]

55. What did he know??

What do you think he knew?
Posted by katejones
What do you think he could have done with that info? There was a threat, but with agencies not communicating, the info was not getting to who needed it. And there wasn't anything specific enough to act anyway.

If there was, do you think that the pres would have allowed over 3000 people to die?

What did he know? Oh, let's see... how about a little President's Daily Brief that Bush received on Aug. 6, 2001, entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." that specifically mentioned hijacking? You think he could have done something with that? Even though he was on vacation?

Yes, I do think he would have allowed 3000 people to die. 9/11 was his personal Pearl Harbor! He sat there reading "My Pet Goat" while they died. He sat there in Crawford while Katrina victims died.

And anyone who excuses his criminal inaction and unconstitutional actions at this point is just as guilty as he is, IMO.

[katejones]

59. Slaughter 3000+ Innocents?

QUOTE What did he know? Oh, let's see... how about a little President's Daily Brief that Bush received on Aug. 6, 2001, entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." that specifically mentioned hijacking? You think he could have done something with that? Even though he was on vacation?
END QUOTE

AGAIN the memo was VAGUE. In order to have intercepted them, he would need to know specifics. Or he would need to profile all arabs getting on planes during the summer and fall of 2001. We are still not allowed to profile- it being a racist policy. And we are post 9/11. Would we have allowed profiling pre- 9/11??? No!

QUOTE Yes, I do think he would have allowed 3000 people to die. 9/11 was his personal Pearl Harbor! He sat there reading "My Pet Goat" while they died. He sat there in Crawford while Katrina victims died.
QUOTE

Then there is obviously nothing I can say to you. I can't believe ANYONE would allow that.

QUOTE And anyone who excuses his criminal inaction and unconstitutional actions at this point is just as guilty as he is, IMO.
END QUOTE

There is the rub- people who disagree with you do not feel that they are "excusing criminal inaction". So it is irrational to paint those people so.

[CJCRANE]

64. How many innocents have been slaughtered in Iraq?

How many Americans have died and been injured in Iraq?

[newspeak]

85. let me know Kate

if you think spying on the Quakers or an anti-poverty Catholic group makes you feel more protected. You might want to take a look at the "no fly list" and you'll find some Green Party members, anti-war protestors, nuns, quakers and other non-violent groups. Does that make you feel safer? I mean peace is such a terrorist activity.

[cyberpj]

42. True that. Here's the oath of office, unchanged since 18th century:

The oath of office is the main focus of the inauguration ceremony and the only part required by law. In Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, the founding fathers provided an oath of office for the President-elect's official swearing in. This 35-word vow has not changed since the 18th century.

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will try to the best of my ability, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

George Washington added the phrase "so help me God" to the end of his oath, and almost every president has added it since. He also followed his swearing-in with the first inaugural address -- another tradition most presidents have also adopted.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/inauguration/history.html

[peekaloo]

45. Ramen!

People with father issues seem to believe this Bu$hit.

[Contrary1]

60. He left the word "wealthy" out of that statement.

"My job is to protect the wealthy American people."

There. That's more like it.

[MadisonProgressive]

65. This is what he must do

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


There is no wording regarding protecting or defending "the American people".

[gudshoveler]

77. I don't feel protected

For the first time ever, I feel like looking over my shoulder when I go out, or watching what I say when I am on the phone. This has nothing to do with terrorists. It has everything to do with Bush and his gang. We are in deep trouble.

[newspeak]

82. his primary duty is to defend the Constitution

Even if he says his duty is to protect the American people, then where was he on 9/11? I remember the reporters on TV that day asking where's the president? And, how about the August PDB? What did he and his friends do, use it for toilet paper? If there were some in the FBI who knew that something was going down, like Rowley, and their concerns were being dismissed, then it seems to me there was a dereliction of duty. Therefore, I believe the one duty he thinks he should be doing, protect the people, has been a failure since the American soldiers over in Iraq are being killed everyday--they also are American people.

[socialistrot]

86. I doubt that Bush has ever read The Constitution

In fact, I’d be willing to bet that most members of Congress have never read The Constitution.

[PWRinNY]

90. Bush protecting Americans? HA!

It's as if most Americans have forgotten the price already paid for our freedom; they've forgotten our Constitution, our Forefathers, and the very American ideal. People are so concerned with being safe from terrorists that they ignore the fact that we may no longer safe from the very government that claims to protect us. I fear the day any one of us may be rounded up for simply questioning this administration or reminding others of the Constitution. America was never "the land of the safe and secure" but has always been looked to as "the land of the free." How very sad and frightening this has all become.

Condoleeza Rice defends Bush's illegal wiretaps on US citizens by stating the following:

"...We exist now in a world in which terrorist attacks are taken from within the United States. And that's what the president addressed."

I take issue with this statement. The Constitution was written at a time when we had terrorists right here on our soil, in the guise of British Redcoats. Sure, they were soldiers, and we were at war. Right here on our soil. But really, what is the difference now? The Redcoats didn't play by the rules. Our men went off to war, and they would come home to find their families burned to death in their homes and worse, and their villages and towns destroyed and worse - if they got to come home at all. Those were, in fact, acts of terror, right here on our soil. And it was in this very time that our Constitution was written - it was not ripped up and destroyed just because we had Redcoats terrorizing us. Just the opposite, the Constitution became our law and our very way of life. The point was made then, as it needs to be made again today: Without freedom, there is no security.

If the Bush administration and his Republican sheep in Congress are so bent on protecting Americans, then why don't they protect us? Protecting us isn't really what they care about, or else we'd have a cleaner environment. Really, what is the threat from terrorists if our earth is destroyed? If Bush & Co. cared about protecting us, they'd stop cutting necessary programs that benefit our poor and elderly; instead they leave the most vulnerable of our nation's people out in the cold to fend for themselves and try to decide whether to freeze to death or starve to death, or die of illness because they can no longer afford Medicaid and Medicare. If they cared about protecting us, they'd provide armor for our troops who are over on the other side of the world fighting a war that makes no sense. And if they cared about protecting us, they'd protect our civil liberties and our rights above all else - for if we lose these essential liberties, our enemies have indeed defeated us already. So is Bush protecting Americans? Hardly!

It's obvious that Bush, who didn't excel at school, either skipped or slept through all his American History lessons and needs a refresher course, as do all the ill-informed Americans who actually believe the lies this administration keeps telling us.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Benjamin Franklin

[newspeak]

91. now, now PWR

don't you know our forefathers and mothers were terrorists fighting against their legitimate government? See that's the knew meme today-they were going against their government. It's not like the colonies had decent representation back in Jolly old England--there were however some in parliament at that time arguing for more representation. If you look at our ancestors with today's standards then you see how Bush perceives many Americans. Or what Skull and Bones think of the majority of the mass: BARBARIANS. Of course, we're not doing the barbaric acts, they are!!!! So some of my ancestors have been here since 1636 and others met them on the shore, so I guess they were part of the "terrorist" movement to get away from Mad King George!

[PWRinNY]

93. Perhaps we're related then...

Maybe our ancestors came over on the same boat and fought side-by-side for our freedom, in that case, as my family as also been here since then and fought for our freedom in that war and in every war since. Perhaps we share some of the same ancestors. :)

[kentuck]

92. Welcome, PWR.....excellent post!

I think your posts will be very accepted at DU...

[PWRinNY]

94. Thanks Kentuck!

Great to be here!

[newspeak]

95. on my mother's side

some of my ancestors came over on the Primrose, after the Mayflower. My father's family lived in the Ohio area in the early 18th century. Zane Grey wrote the book "Betty Zane", that mentions a frontiersman who is supposed to be one of my father's ancestors. Since my father left when I was about three, I don't know too much about his side except for that, and that my great-grandmother was native american and her father was a leader to one of the tribes. I do know my great grandfather's name was Joseph, because the few times I talked to my father he told me that in each generation a male child is named after him. My mother can't remember which one. Family on my mother's side has fought for this country since the beginning and unfortunately, some fought on opposite sides of the Civil War. Ancestors came from Culpepper VA to Ohio. Any similarities PWR??

[PWRinNY]

98. Not quite the same story newspeak

But similar. :) Also my mother's side - our first ancestor to come to the US was John Irish, born about 1600 in the parish of Clisdon, County of Somerset, England; died in 1677. He married Elizabeth Risley, who died August 28, 1687. John was the first of the family in America. He was living in Duxbury, Plymouth Colony, Massachusetts in 1629. He came to Plymouth with John Bradford, the son of the Governor of Plymouth Colony, William Bradford. He was of considerable note in Duxbury, as a surveyor of lands. He left much property in Seaconnet, Rhode Island. He was a volunteer for the Pequot War (1633-1637). I also have a great-great grandmother who's native American, but that's on my father's side. :) Nice to get to know you!

[ddeclue]

99. It's official - We Now Live in a Banana Republic

http://www.brainshrub.com/us-banana-republic

It’s official - We Now Live in a Banana Republic.

Last week we heard the shocking news that the President had secretly ordered NSA phone taps without a warrant of any sort of hundreds and possibly even thousands ordinary American citizens making overseas calls over the last 3 years in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and justified it using a secret legal “finding” from the Justice Department.

Previously, President Bush, in clear violation of various extradition treaties with foreign countries, has secretly ordered the illegal kidnapping from certain foreign countries to others of persons he believed to be terrorists and used another secret “finding” from the Justice Department to once again to justify that order.

We’ve seen the President order that an American citizen, Jose Padilla, who was taken into custody not on a foreign battlefield, but rather in Chicago Illinois - be held in a U.S. Navy brig in South Carolina without a trial, a judge, a jury or even access to a lawyer for three years.

Again this action was also justified by a legal "finding” contrived by the Justice Department.

This illegal detention continued until they were faced with the likely embarrassment that a conservative, largely Republican appointed Supreme Court would force them to release Mr. Padilla. At this point they finally announced charges against Mr. Padilla but these charges had nothing to do with the original reasons for detaining him.

We’ve seen the President order that suspected terrorists captured on battlefields abroad be held in a multitude of secret prisons including at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ; Abu Gharab, Iraq; in Eastern Europe; and elsewhere without access to an International Red Cross representative and without a proper accounting of who those prisoners are to the IRC.

Those prisoners have been repeatedly subjected to abuse and even torture and a number of prisoners have even died as a result of their treatment.

More legal “findings” from the Justice Department were used to justify these actions that are in clear violation of the Constitution’s prohibition that “no person may be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment” and that are in violation of other Federal statutes and international treaty obligations.

We’ve even seen the President and Vice President lobbying to stop Congress from passing anti-torture legislation until last week when they were faced with the embarrassing prospect of Congress overriding a Presidential veto.

We’ve seen the President lie to both the Congress and the American People about the reasons for starting a war, and then attempt to silence his critics through Nixonian tactics such as the illegal outing of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

We’ve seen the Administration use our government to fund and distribute covert propaganda both here and abroad.

We’ve seen the Administration use our government to illegally collect information on air travelers without a warrant where no probable cause existed to justify these illegal database searches.

We’ve seen the Administration attempt to create Orwellian government propaganda offices such as the Office of Strategic Influence and Orwellian government research programs such as “Cities that See” in an attempt to use computers and cameras to track the movements of everyday ordinary citizens as they walk down city streets.

Never has any American President committed so many illegal, immoral and unconstitutional acts. Never.

Even Richard Nixon at some level understood that wiretaps without a court order were illegal, unconstitutional and wrong. The Watergate “plumbers” after all were burglars, not government agents acting behind the shield of official protection.

President Bush acts as though the Constitution were a hindrance, a burden, and an obstacle to be worked around rather than understanding that it is his primary duty to preserve, protect, defend and obey the Constitution.

He uses often-secret legal findings by his Justice Department to give the appearance of propriety while denying the third branch of government, the Federal Court system, any say in the matter. He never gets these Justice Department findings approved by the Congress, the Courts, or the people.

These fiat findings and executive orders are but one step removed from “because the King said so” and circumvent the very checks and balances the Founders intended for our protection.

The President swore an oath before God and the American People “to the best of his Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The President is fond of telling us that his number one priority is the protection of the American people and he repeated this claim yet again recently to a PBS reporter.

His oath of office however makes no mention of protecting the American people, nor does the Constitution charge him with that responsibility.

This, at first, may seem odd but the Founding Fathers understood well that tyrants often justified their actions on the basis that they were acting in the best interest of protecting the people.

They did not fight a revolution to remove themselves from the clutches of one king only to appoint a different king to take his place. They wanted a democratic government. They wanted an open government where effective checks and balances protected both the rights of the majority and the rights of the individual against those would be tyrants.

Protecting the American people is no excuse for destroying the American Constitution.

Secrecy is anathema to democracy for it denies “We the People” our fundamental right to an accountable government and our fundamental right to make an informed decision at the ballot box.

The President has repeatedly used secrecy to hide his illegal actions from the view of the Congress, the Courts, and most importantly the American people.

That the New York Times was aware of the fact that the President was illegally spying on American citizens without a court order - and chose to withhold that fact from the American public for over a year makes them an accomplice to that crime.

For the New York Times to withhold this information during an election year is in fact an unforgivable sin against the American People.

It is the duty of the press, above all else, to bring such abuses of power to the light of day.

That the President expects us to trust him for an extended period with the expanded and Constitutionally questionable powers that were granted to him under the PATRIOT Act after they expire in December would be laughable were it not so dangerous.

Today is hardly the first “trying time” that Americans have ever known. We should not allow the President to frighten us into giving up our American birthright – the Constitution - and into replacing a free government of laws by a mere dictatorship of men.

That the President has gotten away with so many impeachable offenses for so long is baffling and deeply disturbing. The United States Congress and the Senate investigated Richard Nixon and prepared Articles of Impeachment against him for far less serious offenses.

It is long since time for them to impeach President Bush.