The attempted Bush Adminstration's Unitary Executive Coup was nothing but one huge, "If the President does it, it's not illegal." Not one word that anyone has written here indicates that they believe any different.

What was it Yoda said? Oh, Yeah...
Convenient it is very, when the shoe is on the other hand.

and Cabo, " I've added leftists and Marxists to your list per your request. Somehow, they seem most appropriate given your "party" line and unoriginal talking points.

You seem not to recognize the poem of Pastor Martin Niemöller..and if you agree to "add" Marxist and Leftists to my "list" as you call it, can it be taken to mean that you give tacit assent to the entire list?

Here's the poem in its entirety:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.

(By the way, he was not very popular with Adolph Hitler.)

Cabo, you also state, In true Marxist banana republic style, your remedies and the Obama administration's direction seem to have no problem with establishing ex post facto criteria, contrived de facto bills of attainder, punishment of legal opinions and other unconstitutional devices to "hang" the previous administration while conveniently diverting attention from the real economic disaster they are crafting.

Does this mean that there is no circumstance, whatsoever, that would justify investigating the circumstances surrounding the Executive-authorized torture that accompanied this war?

My point is quite simple, and not meant to inflame, ad hominem, anyone posting on this board. On the other hand, calling to task those who perpetrated an evil is not ad hominem, it is ad rem, since they are the primary actors in the event. If one simply blames all the ills of the world on some villified group- "THEM" it's not a far reach to the mobs to justify book burnings, teabaggings and the like.

I'm not sure where it came across that Democrats should not be held accountable for their actions (or inactions). If there is illegal activity, including the deliberate misleading of the American people for reasons OTHER THAN National Security, then prosecution of those crimes should be investigated. No one should be afraid of the Light of Justice- She holds a balanced scale and she is blindfolded. I get the impression that several of our members do not have faith in American Justice any longer. If that be the case, perhaps it is not I who should be looking for greener pastures.

I would only caution that, in the past, the cry of "national security" has been used both legitimately and illegally. Sometimes only history can be the jusdge. Certainly Lincoln had just cause for suspending habeus corpus . Posse Comitatus has been violated on numerous occasions, but not necessarily for the wrong reasons.

All three branches of our government have recognized that Japanese internment camps in WWII were an abuse of national security. The Supreme Court, Congress and the Attorney General, Dep. Attorney General and Independent Prosecutor in the Nixon years recognized that Nixon's claim of "Executive Privilege" was not valid. You know who finally said that Nixon had the right to disobey the entire government accusing Nixon of breaking the laws of the United States?

A young lawyer named Robert Bork. I believe he's a poster-child of the false concept of "judicial restraint."


Finally, Steve, I have no disagreement with you whatsoever about the aftermath of 9/11. I do disagree with the outright falsehoods that you state, whicih completely change the sense of your statement concerning Iraq:

Enter Iraq - known as a regional military bully, a human rights cesspool led by a butcher (and equally bad progeny) publicly and 1.)notoriously supporting all anti-Western causes with money and military support, and 2.)believed by every intelligence source due to the caliber of Iraq's scientific base and international acquisition of the requisite materials to be going nuclear. Iraq 3.)already had a stockpile of chemical weapons - also a United Nations no-no - and the recorded proof of no compunction to deploy them, having gassed Iranians and Kurds with devastating results. 4.)Iraq's public position was very pro-terrorist (especially Al Qa'ida) and its private position was one of chief logistician.

I do not, for a minute, deny that Saadam was a brutal, inhuman dictator- along with dozens of other national tyrants, with whom we seemed quite content to countenance. But that was not the justification for the war.

1.) Iraq was a major trading partner with a number of Western nations. In fact, for years, we supported Saadam in his war against Iran.

2. & 3.)The NIE for the U.S. were very ambivalent about Saadam's capabilities, the British were even more wary, and U.N. Weapons inspectors testified that Saadam had destroyed or lost virtually all capabilities since the 1991 war. It was George W. Bush who DELIBERATELY mislead the world concerning Iraq's attempt to get "yellowcake" for nuclear programs.

4.) Saadam was violently oppposed to Al Queda, and the Bush (Cheney-Rumsfeld) smokescreen connecting him with 9/11 was repeatedly shown to be a total fabrication. Saadam feared radical Islam for the same reasons we do- He ran a secular (Muslim) state. He did not want radical Islamists anywhere near Iraq, and was willing to go to war to prevent it.

Your argument about Saadam being allied with Al Queda has been debunked as false propaganda as thoroughly as that of the moon being made of Swiss cheese- not that I have anything against Swiss cheese.