Oh god yes, Cheney and Bush were absolute saints. Just marvelous people.

Who needs proof? Just because they had congress approval does not make it right? If congress and the justice dept approves executing your children for pick pocketing a video game does that make it okay? I think not.

of course they never did anything ill-legal, because luckily our government runs on the principle that if the executive office does it, its legal.

[edit on 6/21/2009 by Alaskan Man]

This is a trick question thread.

There is no way to answer this but to agree with the poster.

As his obvious stance is that anything the president does is legal or that congress does is legal or that the supremes state is legal, as long as he likes what they did.

Sure. Legal. Fine. If that is as high as your morale and ethical standards go then I am truly scared for anyone that crosses your path and comes up on your bad side.

That means you agree with everything Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Omar Khadaffi, etc, etc, etc did, because it was legal for them to do it according to their laws.

If that's the truth, then why are we invading/opposing/fighting those people or types? If "is it legal" the only standard, we have not a leg to stand on.

So, make the choice, morale/ethical or legal? One way or the other, Bush and Cheney are going to be wrong.

Morally and ethically they were all kinds of wrong. Legally they created what are called "loop holes" and "catch-22" situations to wriggle out of their illegal activities.

Unfortunately that kind of ethical standing does not match up well with a Republic or a Democracy, but lines up well with a Dictatorship or a Divine Right of Kings.

Making up the rules as you go along and stretching every previous legal and morale standard to do so, until they are so warped as to be unrecognizable is only the rule of law in a very cynical way.

Truly it is the rule of man and not the rule of law, which is exactly what our constitution was founded to put an end to.

I'm kind of at a loss as to what the president actually does. If anything happens that's a little untoward, the immediate argument is, "It was congress...", "Someone was already convicted for that...", "It was the supreme court..."

If the president doesn't make any real decisions, or takes no responsibility where things are not right, what's the point? Can't have it both ways. If it happens on your watch, do you have no responsibility at all?
The Shrub/Cheney administration was terrific at throwing people under the bus when a problem arose. Anything to keep their noses apparently clean.

The OP here was rather ridiculous on the whole. If I were to commit a million crimes but was able to completely remove all evidence, am I guilty of any crimes? Nope. I am free to go. If I have the wherewithal and the ability to actually influence changes in the law that would make any of my crimes suddenly legal, am I still guilty?

The thing I've noticed is that due to the interweb there are all sorts of questions that are raised daily with regard to official stories that don't seem to be based on logic/physics/truth/common sense. These questions are never answered. The MO is to belittle, smear, and ridicule the person raising the question rather that offering real data to back up the claims.

How many of those who received/were the intended recipient of the anthrax mail after 9/11 were opposed to the Patriot act? Where did that anthrax come from?
Likelihood of being a terrorist (of the type we're always hearing about) who sent them?

If Shrub is so squeaky clean will he unseal some of his records? No. How many records does he have sealed? More that you and I, that's certain.
If there is nothing to hide from that administration, will there be complete transparency in their dealings? No.

Because you can cover your tracks well doesn't mean you are without guilt.

Well Grapesofraft you are either the most nieve person in the world or you are very very young and inexperienced.
First of all go to the library and check out COMPROMISE. sub-title"Bush-Clinton. & the CIA." This book writen from first hand by a CIA agent who was there (Terry Reed)....................................................
The book explains how Clinton both Bill & Hillary were chosen by the skull & bones group then spearheaded by VP Geo. Bush and how Oliver North, under a code name met with Clinton then Gov. with Hillary working at the ADFA-Arkansas Developing/Funding Agency, as a lawer/bookkeeper.
To keep things from being confusing to you I will call Geo.Herberwalker Bush father Bush and Geo. & Jab as J.Bush And G. Bush.

Congress would not fund our CIA to train the contras in SO. America who were fighting for what was berlieved to be American interest. Anyway a plan was formed where father Bush who was at the time VP for Ronald Ragan. help plan and implement a way to training and finance the training of the contras. "The Plan"...North went to Clinton and met him in a old Ammo bunker outside a small city in Arkansas, They were to use the Mena airport to training pilots for the contras. The planes were stolen by our CIA from the east coast and west coast and their serial numbers were changed. The training was financed by flying drugs into Mena Ark. and then distribute them in the USA for sale. J.Bush and G. Bush were in on some of the sales so they could make a little extra ready cash. Berry Seel a pilot extraordianir was working for the Mena group. Berry made the mistake of obtaining, first hand some video and audi footage of J & G Bush drug transactions. The book will tell you, our guys hit berry in Flaordia and filled him with so many holes from a Mac-10 that it looked like a Cartel hit. WhiteWater-The white water affair was only a diversion, ( one of Clintons favoriote tricks) to keep an Investigation from taking place at the ADFA where Hillary was laundring money from all the drugs sold.

There is lot more to this story so If you are interested in finding out how our world really works buy or check out this book.
THIS EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS AND THEY INGNORED. KMG


[edit on 24-6-2009 by kissmygrits]

Originally posted by adamc3
If you had read my post you would know that war was never declared in regard to Iraq. Congress does not have to authorize deploying troops or even invading a country.

Never tell me what I have and have not read. Mind your manners.

War has not been declared since WWII, by your logic the the invasion of Greenland in 1940, Korean war, Vietnam, Haiti, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Somalia were all illegal. Which would mean FDR, Nixon,Carter, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, and Bush42 are all criminals. Other than Nixon, I would disagree so would the Supreme Court, the ultimate interpreter of the constitution.

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787 the first draft of the Constitution gave Congress the sole power to "make" war. This was changed to "declare" war, so as not to limit the Commander in Chiefs powers. Had they wanted or intended Congressional approval for engaging in war they would have written it that way.

A state constitution at the time prohibited the Governor from "making" war without Congressional approval.

Lastly, the powers granted to the President in the War Powers Act have been held as constitutional by the Supreme Court and therefore do not violate the Constitution.

Appeal to authority means nothing to me. If supreme court justices rule a certain way it could simply mean they are complete mental retards who cannot read the constitution for the life of them. Such is the case with the very clear-cut order of the constitution in regard to congress declaring war before military action is taken by the president. If you look at what evidence the supreme court went by, you can see their decision was nonsensical. (The evidence being the constitution.)

The idea that congress has to declare war for the purpose of ceremonial ritual makes no sense whatsoever. Do you really believe that the line about declaring war is for the sake of window dressing? Congress declares war for the purpose of authorizing the war and telling the president to make war. And the reason it says "declare" instead of "make" is because congress declares it and then the president makes it happen. The reason it was changed is to add to the separation of powers. What you imply is that congress declares war for the purpose of executing a political ritual/ceremony. Well no... otherwise you could just say the entire constitution is just ceremonial and just something there to state things that are already known. This is a very fundamental part of the constitution and its more than just window dressing as you seem to claim.

You can see the obvious example set by the early presidents. The only cases where war was not declared was in cases where another country explicitly declared war on us. I'm not sure when presidents decided to start ignoring the constitution but the first one who did belongs in prison along with all the rest of them who decided to ignore it. So, in regards to FDR, Nixon,Carter, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, and Bush42: they may well all be criminals who belong in prison if they made war without congressional declaration of war. And as for Bush42, he is proven guilty as a war criminal.