In Defence of George W. Bush

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[Neil Mick]

This thread arose due to a clear need to initiate personal and ad hominem attacks on our President (besides, I am always drawn to defend the rhetorical underdog). Well, you can stop hijacking my threads, boys: and dump all your venom, right here!

For once, I am going to have to agree with Mike Sigman. People are getting just too personal, with the attacks on our President. The many rude--and false--comments about his (untested) IQ oversimplify a basically simple man. In effect, you misunderestimate him, the Decider-in-Chief.

You all claim that it was sheer stupidity that sent us into Iraq. OK, granted, it wasn't the greatest idea off the shelf: but let's face it...he didn't Decide to go to war, all by his lonesome. He had lots of help, from Congress to all those misguided souls who voted for him. Where are the piles of blame to be laid at THEIR feet?

Did Bush tell the news stations to start acting like clones of FoxNews? No. Did he TELL Dan Rather to start acting like a soldier, instead of a journalist? In reality, the corporate news media is as much to blame, as the (Unitary) Executive. It seems kind of petty to start getting in W's face, when a whole lot of other people were in on it, cheering the war on our airwaves.

And what about that whole Abu Ghraib/Gitmo mess? No one knows if W approved of it, or not. So, where's the moral condemnation of Rumsfeld, whom we KNOW approved of torture? Yes, true: I can almost hear you respond, "Hey, waitaminute! Bush said we "don't do torture."

OK, you have me there. Sure, Bush is guilty of mendacity: but look at it from his perspective. A lot of cool guys you respect around you are telling you that the gloves are off, we can act outside the Geneva Conventions now. So, you do the same thing you always did, as CEO...you let them all have a long leash, do whatever they pleased, and only listened to a few, trusted advisors.

Is that your fault that some of the boys got a little carried away (over, and over again?)

You see, regarding torture: W's in a quagmire. He set up these extra-judicial laws to try an end-run around international law, in hopes that he could capture the baddies within his term, and be the President Boy Hero of his time. Now, he has to play cover-up: and one thing leads to another...the next thing you know, W's waking up wondering how he's the owner of dozens of secret extrajudical gulags in Asia! How did it all come to this!!!

Really, is it HIS fault that he took the views of the writers of "24" a little too much to heart??

Let's be honest...the vast majority of American's have a coginitive disconnect in relation to the war. They think of it as the "Pentagon's" war, which, operationally, I suppose it is, even tho we're all funding it, and thus culpable. The only way that this war will really hit home (and finally end) is when we institute a draft. So please, enough of all your crying that it's all Bush's fault, etc. He's just a poor figurehead hanging onto whatever ideological furniture that's bolted onto the floor, as his Ship of State sinks sadly into the miasmic swamp of historic folly. Is HE really to blame, for acting like any other politican would, in his place?

And a lot of other evils attributed to him, weren't even invented by him! Bush didn't invent extroadinary rendition...Clinton did. Bush didn't invent signing statements (even tho he has used them as end-runs around bills he doesn't like...and used them, more than all the other Presidents combined). And, did Bush invent placing hostile corporate figures in Cabinet positions to gut agencies like the EPA, the Dept of Agriculture, etc? No, Cabinet position appointments have ALWAYS been political chess pieces.

So spread the blame around where it belongs. Bush might represent a great mismanagement of office, but he is only one man.

To call him stupid or to belittle him, to mock our President, is to forget how dangerous and destructive these people really are.

[Michael Varin]

I know Neil is being a little facetious, but these are very valid points. I am constantly trying to get people to really learn about history. Not the crap they teach you in school, but the history that is available with just a bit of extra effort.

Throughout history people have used the government to legitimize their actions. It used to be priests and divine right, now it is democracy and the will of the people. Policies have been implemented that appeal to the common man's emotions, but actually serve only a select group at his expense.

Freedom isn't free. I hear this all the time, but most of the people who repeat this phrase don't know what the cost of freedom is. It is eternal vigilance, never trusting government, never letting gov't exceed its proper limitations.

The Constitution has been abused almost since it was ratified. We criticize Bush for behavior that we consider heroic from FDR or Lincoln. This problem is much greater than one man. Do you honestly think replacing him with Hillary is going to matter? Or Obama? Or Giuliani? Or Romney? Or Fred Thompson?

They are all collectivists, and collectivism equals slavery. It is time to wake up.

If we support these people, if we fail to exercise our rights, if we continue to be poor stewards of our gov't, we have no one to blame, but ourselves.

[Hogan]

I'll donate $20 to your favorite charity Neil if you, Neil Mick, can stop writing about Bush & Co for 30 days. No posts about Bush, Cheney, the Iraq war, the war on terror, gitmo, etc., anything that has anything to do with the present administration or how you think Bush is 'baaaaad'.

Hell, I'll even do $30 - a dollar a day.

C'mon, Neil... Can you do it? $30 to whatever org. you want.... even 'moveon.org'... Do you have other things to do??

[Neil Mick]

I'll donate $20 to your favorite charity Neil if you, Neil Mick, can stop writing about Bush & Co for 30 days. No posts about Bush, Cheney, the Iraq war, the war on terror, gitmo, etc., anything that has anything to do with the present administration or how you think Bush is 'baaaaad'.

I'm not quite sure why I'm your anti-Bushie bugaboo, John. Just take a gander at my "Sick puppies" thread...I barely even mention W, whereas several other poster's are engaging in a heated anti-Bush fest.

OK, I was being a little facetious, but really...he IS only one man. All these personality attacks are misleading and oversimplify a deep, deep problem we have in the US gov't and media.

Hell, I'll even do $30 - a dollar a day.

C'mon, Neil... Can you do it? $30 to whatever org. you want.... even 'moveon.org'... Do you have other things to do??

Make it $50, donate it to aiki-extensions (which, BTW, will also get you a years' membership), and you're on! :D

http://www.aiki-extensions.org/donors.html

[Neil Mick]

I know Neil is being a little facetious

Hmm...what gave it away? ;)

Freedom isn't free. I hear this all the time, but most of the people who repeat this phrase don't know what the cost of freedom is. It is eternal vigilance, never trusting government, never letting gov't exceed its proper limitations.

The Constitution has been abused almost since it was ratified. We criticize Bush for behavior that we consider heroic from FDR or Lincoln. This problem is much greater than one man. Do you honestly think replacing him with Hillary is going to matter? Or Obama? Or Giuliani? Or Romney? Or Fred Thompson?

If we support these people, if we fail to exercise our rights, if we continue to be poor stewards of our gov't, we have no one to blame, but ourselves.

Exactly. If this war were going well: we wouldn't be hearing all the petty, personal remarks about W...he'd be "our hero." The atrocities at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo would be dismissed as necessary costs to achieve the goals of the war on terror.

So long as we win, it seems: it's all OK to violate any laws we deem as obstacles. What's a minor charge of collective punishment in comparison to the "winner of the War on Terror?" And all those secret rendition flights, loss of civil liberties, etc...they'd all be excused as "needed tools" to "win the war."

If only we were winning in Iraq.

How easy it is to put aside our societal principles when we're on the winning team! :disgust: :disgust: :dead:

[Hogan]

...Make it $50, donate it to aiki-extensions (which, BTW, will also get you a years' membership), and you're on! :D

http://www.aiki-extensions.org/donors.html

Hmmmm...You got a deal... starting now - "No posts about Bush, Cheney, the Iraq war, the war on terror, gitmo, etc., anything that has anything to do with the present administration or how you think Bush is 'baaaaad'."

At end of 30 days, $50 gets donated to Aiki-extensions.

[Neil Mick]

Hmmmm...You got a deal... starting now - "No posts about Bush, Cheney, the Iraq war, the war on terror, gitmo, etc., anything that has anything to do with the present administration or how you think Bush is 'baaaaad'."

At end of 30 days, $50 gets donated to Aiki-extensions.

Nope, sorry, forgive my inherent distrust...but YOU have to register, FIRST...THEN, I'll stop for 30 days!

Mamma Mick didn't raise any fools...:cool:

[Hogan]

Nope, sorry, forgive my inherent distrust...but YOU have to register, FIRST...THEN, I'll stop for 30 days!

Mamma Mick didn't raise any fools...:cool:

Register? For aiki-extensions? Meaning you want me to pay 1st? Well, mama didn't raise me for a fool, either. Original bet was you to desist for 30 days & then I would donate. What if you fail? You gonna' provide em with a pro-rated refund?

By the way, I just received an "infraction warning" from Jun re my offer of a donation, saying that I was attacking you rather than the post. (I wonder have you ever gotten one?) Given that I am at risk for being banned or something for offering this donation, said donation may be retracted until I consider this forum further.

[Neil Mick]

Register? For aiki-extensions? Meaning you want me to pay 1st? Well, mama didn't raise me for a fool, either. Original bet was you to desist for 30 days & then I would donate. What if you fail? You gonna' provide em with a pro-rated refund?

If I fail, then I would refund you your money.

The reason I insist on an "in advance" payment is that it would be too easy for you to forget. Actually, had you gone through with it, I'd likely not post for 30 days at all. So, you'd be rid of me for 30 glorious, Neil-free-forum-post days.

Now, how cool is that? :cool:

By the way, I just received an "infraction warning" from Jun re my offer of a donation, saying that I was attacking you rather than the post.

He did??:confused: I will never understand Jun's warning-infractions. It's OK to outright call ppl racists and chemically dependent here, but it's NOT OK to offer donations to charity if I'd stop doing something. Weird. :freaky:

(I wonder have you ever gotten one?)

Yes, I did. Two, actually. The second was based on a misreading of a post. It so put me off that I stopped posting for six months (altho I did promise not to post here again. I let myself down on that score. Note to self: reinstate my AW membership)

Given that I am at risk for being banned or something for offering this donation, said donation may be retracted until I consider this forum further.

OK, I completely understand. Should you reconsider, the offer stands.

[Mike Sigman]

To call him stupid or to belittle him, to mock our President, is to forget how dangerous and destructive these people really are.How is this a "defence" (sic) of George Bush, Neil. That bottom sentence says in essence that he is worse than stupid, he's also dangerous. In other words, it's purely an asserted ad hominem.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

[Neil Mick]

How is this a "defence" (sic) of George Bush, Neil. That bottom sentence says in essence that he is worse than stupid, he's also dangerous.

Wrong. Again, with the misrepresentations, the misquotations. I said,

To call him stupid or to belittle him, to mock our President, is to forget how dangerous and destructive these people really are.

"These people," do not =George Bush alone, which is the core thesis of this thread.

In other words, it's purely an asserted ad hominem.

"In other words," I'm beginning to doubt that you truly understand what an ad hominem IS.

Ad hominem (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem)

Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason

It only takes a second to look at the body-count of my sig, and to realize that, yes: these men ARE dangerous...no personal attacks or emotional appeals, here, sorry (nor even a real need for them. The Administration's record speaks for itself).

But hey! You're quite free to report this thread, and we can leave it up to Jun, as to whether or not this constitutes an ad hominem attack. I'm perfectly happy with whatever he decides...far more, than any judgements YOU'RE likely to proffer.

[Mike Sigman]

Wrong. Again, with the misrepresentations, the misquotations. I said,
Neil Mick wrote:
To call him stupid or to belittle him, to mock our President, is to forget how dangerous and destructive these people really are."These people," do not =George Bush alone, which is the core thesis of this thread. Since "not=George Bush alone" means including George Bush, I made no misrepresentation, thanks. It only takes a second to look at the body-count of my sig, and to realize that, yes: these men ARE dangerous...no personal attacks or emotional appeals, here, sorry (nor even a real need for them. The Administration's record speaks for itself). Your "figures" have been openly questioned in the past. They're from the same sorts of people that say George Bush is an alcoholic (hope you caught the humour in my "chemical addiction" remarks toward people who were accusing George Bush of a form of chemical addiction). I.e., you're stating an opinion as fact and using it to smear Bush.... again. Ergo, ipso facto et in hoc signo vinces, it is not a "defence" of Bush at all, it's an ad hominem. Quod erat demonstrandum. ;)

Mike Sigman
Hoc nomen meum verum non est.

[Neil Mick]

Since "not=George Bush alone" means including George Bush, I made no misrepresentation, thanks.

Sorry, but, yes, you did. An ad hominem implies a personal attack. Claiming that Bush is part of a group of dangerous men with accompanying documentation is hardly an ad hominem.

Not that I'd expect you to acknowledge the difference, but one can hope...

Your "figures" have been openly questioned in the past.

By you, and only you. And so what if they did?? What RELEVANCE does this have to do with determining an ad hominem??

Questioning the validity of one's figures does not = determining the nature of an ad hominem

They're from the same sorts of people that say George Bush is an alcoholic

So, let me get this weird, twisto logic straight:

1. "A" makes an ad hominem attack;

(example: "A" says, "George Bush is a heartless killer, little better than Charles Manson or Hitler, for carelessly ignoring the over 1 million people murdered as part of his idiotic, ideologically-driven policies.")

2. Anyone who uses the same documentation as user,

(Example: "B" says that over a million people died from the Administration's policies, making them very dangeous)

is ALSO guilty of using ad hominems...:crazy: :crazy: :hypno:

Nope, it's just as twisto as when I started. :rolleyes:

(hope you caught the humour in my "chemical addiction" remarks toward people who were accusing George Bush of a form of chemical addiction).

Yah, very "funny:" until you started including ME (a person not participating in your discussion) in your "humor." :grr:

I.e., you're stating an opinion as fact and using it to smear Bush.... again.

Even if only 20,000 people died in Iraq, Mike: that, in my book, is "dangerous." A pity you feel differently.

This discussion is getting tiresome, and rehashing old debates. I am not really interested in debating the nature of ad hominems with someone who just used them so effectively to shut down my last thread.

If you have something of value to add here (relevant to the discussion), please feel free to post. Otherwise, I think I'll pass on further discussion attempts to re-invent the wheel.

[Mike Sigman]

Sorry, but, yes, you did. An ad hominem implies a personal attack. Claiming that Bush is part of a group of dangerous men with accompanying documentation is hardly an ad hominem. It's a reference to the person(al), Neil. You're implying (and I mean that in the strict construction of logic and grammar) that Bush is *not only* stupid *but also* dangerous. Therefore, your opening comments are not a defense of Bush, but an attack.
This discussion is getting tiresome, and rehashing old debates. Translation: "Uh oh... the thin facade of "defence of Bush" isn't holding up, no matter how dumb I thought the readers were".

Regards,

Mike Sigman

[Neil Mick]

It's a reference to the person(al), Neil. You're implying (and I mean that in the strict construction of logic and grammar) that Bush is *not only* stupid *but also* dangerous. Therefore, your opening comments are not a defense of Bush, but an attack.

Implication does not = Inferral. YOU inferred: I implied no such thing, regarding his stupidity. In point of fact, I happen to agree with you that there is no way to measure Bush's intelligence, as he never published his IQ ratings. Ergo, questioning his IQ IS an ad hominem.

Translation: "Uh oh... the thin facade of "defence of Bush" isn't holding up, no matter how dumb I thought the readers were".

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Translate it any way you like, Mike: but I think it's time to move away from old arguments that go nowhere.

[Mike Sigman]

Translate it any way you like, Mike: but I think it's time to move away from old arguments that go nowhere.Exactly. And I thought your attempt use a disingenuously-worded thread to do exactly the same "old arguments" was a waste of time.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

[Neil Mick]

Exactly. And I thought your attempt use a disingenuously-worded thread to do exactly the same "old arguments" was a waste of time.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Great. Thank you for your opinion...I shall treasure it "always." :rolleyes:

In the meantime...NEXT!

[Ryan Sanford]

Exactly. And I thought your attempt use a disingenuously-worded thread to do exactly the same "old arguments" was a waste of time.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Even if the last sentence was an attack on Bush, he still defended (or at least shifted attacks to others) him in most of the rest of the post. Considering that Niel was the author, you should be happy. :p

[Taliesin]

Neil

You did imply (suggest) and someone else inferred (concluded) although unsurprisingly his conclusion do not stand up to examination.

[Mark Freeman]

Neil

You did imply (suggest) and someone else inferred (concluded) although unsurprisingly his conclusion do not stand up to examination.

What are you 'on' David? :D As you and I have been (inferred)publicly 'outed', on the now defunct thread, as being chemically dependant, I was curious as to which ones you use to make your views so deluded;)

Seriously though, I can't post anything on the topic here as I have to go and meet my candyman:o

regards,

Mark
p.s. Sorry Neil, not trying to hijack your thread, I just find myself at a loss when asked to write in the defence of GWB, perhaps if I switch my meds?

[Taliesin]

Mark

What a terrible thing to say!!!

- although I do admit to consuming a fair bit of a liquid with chemical formular H20 - it's widely believed to distort viewpoints almost as much as inhaling that dreadful stuff you have down in Devon (I think it's called fresh air)

I understand that the same delusions can be caused by what is called FND (Fox News Deficiency)

I also like the comment

"You guys need to realize how you look to any person with a modicum of reason and self-control."

- although quite how the author of this little gem would know how anyone looks to a person with a modicum of reason and self-control is unclear.

[Mike Sigman]

Even if the last sentence was an attack on Bush, he still defended (or at least shifted attacks to others) him in most of the rest of the post. Considering that Niel was the author, you should be happy. :pOh, I dunno... look at these phrases and see if you really see a defense of Bush:

his (untested) IQ oversimplify a basically simple man.

You all claim that it was sheer stupidity that sent us into Iraq. OK, granted, it wasn't the greatest idea off the shelf:

Sure, Bush is guilty of mendacity

He set up these extra-judicial laws to try an end-run around international law

he's the owner of dozens of secret extrajudical gulags in Asia

didn't invent signing statements (even tho he has used them as end-runs around bills he doesn't like

Neil likes to assert things like the above and then drag you into a protracted discussion.... even though he's dimly aware that the initial statements he makes aren't true. It's this willingness to lay out what he knows to be questionable as the "truth" that leads me over and over back to my comments about dishonesty.

For instance, grabbing one of the above, "signing statements" are used to indicate that a new law does not override existing law's exception. As an example, it is illegal to open First Class mail and one of the laws Bush signed reinforced that idea. However, there are already (and have been, for many years) exceptions to that law in certain cases (criminal warrants, national emergencies, etc.). A "signing statement" indicating that those exceptions (which Bush didnt originate) still exist would be an example of what a signing statement does. It says that the new law is understood not to quash existing legally-accepted exceptions.

Now that's pretty easy to find out, the information on signing statements. When someone disingenuously acts like a signing statement is some illegal or underhanded mechanism simply to use as a "gotcha", you're talking about a basically dishonest person.

;)

Mike

[Taliesin]

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.
David Friedman

[Mike Sigman]

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. So don't use force. Send in Neville Chamberlain and "there will be peace in our time"!!!!

Great and noble-sounding theory. Just goes to prove that people don't learn from history.... therefore their history is meaningless.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

[Neil Mick]

Neil likes to assert things like the above and then drag you into a protracted discussion.... even though he's dimly aware that the initial statements he makes aren't true.

Mike likes to pretend that everything on his ideological side of the world is proceeding according to plan..even if that plan is shaping up to look increasingly like the itinerary on the Titanic...:freaky:

For instance, grabbing one of the above, "signing statements" are used to indicate that a new law does not override existing law's exception.

Excellent...yes, let's examine signing statements.

As an example, it is illegal to open First Class mail and one of the laws Bush signed reinforced that idea. However, there are already (and have been, for many years) exceptions to that law in certain cases (criminal warrants, national emergencies, etc.). A "signing statement" indicating that those exceptions (which Bush didnt originate) still exist would be an example of what a signing statement does. It says that the new law is understood not to quash existing legally-accepted exceptions.

Now, gentle reader: if you're like me, and someone makes a claim that you KNOW to be false...what do you do? You're sitting in front of a computer...you COULD google it...or, you could simply attack the character of the person making said claims.

But for the more rational among us:

Signing statement (United States) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement_%28United_States%29)

Controversy over George W. Bush's use of signing statements

There is an ongoing controversy concerning the extensive use of signing statements to modify the meaning of laws by President George W. Bush. In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".

George W. Bush's use of signing statements is controversial, both for the number of times employed (estimated at over 750 opinions) and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses signing statements as a line-item veto although the Supreme Court has already held one line item veto bill to be an unconstitutional delegation of power in Clinton v. City of New York.

Previous administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. George W. Bush's 130 signing statements contain at least 1,100 challenges. In the words of a New York Times commentary:

And none have used it so clearly to make the president the interpreter of a law's intent, instead of Congress, and the arbiter of constitutionality, instead of the courts.

Others, however, have defended the use of presidential signing statements. The United States Department of Justice says that

Although the recent practice of issuing signing statements to create "legislative history" remains controversial, the other uses of Presidential signing statements generally serve legitimate and defensible purposes

You get that? Bush's OWN DoJ calls their usage controversial.

No, nothing "controversial" here! :crazy: But wait, there's more:

Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement
In addendum to law, he says oversight rules are not binding (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/)

Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "
The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.

Bush's expansive claims of the power to bypass laws have provoked increased grumbling in Congress. Members of both parties have pointed out that the Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to write the laws and the executive branch the duty to ''faithfully execute" them.

Several senators have proposed bills to bring the warrantless surveillance program under the law. One Democrat, Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, has gone so far as to propose censuring Bush, saying he has broken the wiretapping law.

Bush challenges hundreds of laws (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/)

The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html)

'Signing Statements' Study Finds Administration Has Ignored Laws (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/18/AR2007061801412.html)

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION TASK FORCE ON PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE (http://www.abanet.org/op/signingstatements/aba_final_signing_statements_recommendation-report_7-24-06.pdf)

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the issuance of presidential signing
statements that claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law the President has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the
clear intent of Congress;

The Problem With Presidential Signing Statements (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6539)

What is new and troubling is the extraordinary frequency with which President Bush has used these statements, and the unorthodox way he uses them. The recent spate of presidential signing statements constitutes a threat to our country's system of checks and balances as surely as the Bush administration actions that the Hamdan ruling struck down did.

Since he took office, Bush has used this device to object to more than 500 provisions in more than 100 pieces of legislation--nearly as many as the 575 signing statements issued by all of his predecessors combined. In these statements, the president often has claimed that the new laws violate the Constitution and signaled his intention not to enforce certain provisions, despite having signed them into law.

These statements might be helpful in understanding complex legislation, even if their use were prompted by opportunistic motives. But it is one thing to refer to a signing statement to get some sense of what a law is about, and quite another to treat the statement as though it defines the president's responsibility under law, serving as an explicit order to everyone working in the executive branch.

President Bush dishonors traditions in his aggressive use of signing statements as one way among many to circumvent the congressional and judicial checks built into the Constitution.

Now that's pretty easy to find out, the information on signing statements.

Sure is! Took me about...

Results 1 - 10 of about 877,000 for "signing statements". (0.12 seconds)

.12 seconds.

When someone disingenuously acts like a signing statement is some illegal or underhanded mechanism simply to use as a "gotcha",

When someone pretends that there is not controversy around W's use of signing statements in the face of reams of documentation...what have we got, Mike?

you're talking about a basically dishonest person.

Exactly. You finally nailed it (with a little help). Good for you! ;)

[Mike Sigman]

But for the more rational among us:

Signing statement (United States) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement_%28United_States%29) The "more rational" among you use Wikipedia as a source? You realize that every Tom, Dick, and Harry with an axe to grind writes and edits the Wikipedia entries as they see fit, don't you?

Now notice, just to show exactly what you're doing is what I have pointed out several times.... you take a point and try to argue some tangent rather than admit you were wrong. Your statement was that Bush "used them as end-runs around bills he doesn't like", you don't even attempt to defend. You're now trying to do a Neil Mick and protract the discussion into something quite different.

And looking at the Wikipedia entry, where does it contradict a single thing that I've said? Nowhere. At most it discusses extraneous points and says nothing about Bush trying to circumvent (that's a big word that means "make an end run around", Neil) the law. So your charge is baseless, immediately and you're too petty to simply admit it... you want to argue endlessly, so my point is made about your ethics, once again.

The ABA panel (very liberal and pro-Democrat) says that signing statements are "controversial". Fine. The Wall Street Journal made fun of the ABA panel. Each to his own opinion. Saying an action is "controversial" tells us nothing.

In response to the Patriot Act addenda that the Democrats wanted slipped in, Bush's stance is actually very legally correct. It's sort of like the FISA act, the War Powers act, and a couple of others. In order to keep peace between the executive and legislative branches, presidents have signed certain acts, like the War Powers act, but have noted that those acts in no way are meant to pre-empt the presidents powers under the Constitution. In other words, as an example, the president can declare a war and under the emergency powers entrusted him can wiretap, etc., without having to have each case reviewed by a panel of judges. FISA, and a number of other "acts" are known to be flimsy intrusions into the executive branches powers in time of war. Of course Bush is going to note that in a "signing statement" when he signs a like the Patriot Act. Get some education and quit this constant shallow, emotional, shrill talk-before-you-think, Neil.When someone pretends that there is not controversy around W's use of signing statements in the face of reams of documentation...what have we got, Mike? But see, this is exactly the duplicity I was talking about, Neil. I never said there wasn't controversy nor did I "pretend" it. So my characterization of you is exactly true:

Neil likes to assert things like the above and then drag you into a protracted discussion.... even though he's dimly aware that the initial statements he makes aren't true. It's this willingness to lay out what he knows to be questionable as the "truth" that leads me over and over back to my comments about dishonesty. You stand exposed for what you are. What's your beef?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

[Neil Mick]

Even if the last sentence was an attack on Bush, he still defended (or at least shifted attacks to others) him in most of the rest of the post. Considering that Niel was the author, you should be happy. :p

You know the really sad thing? I actually agree with Mike that it is an ad hominem (tho, not prohibited on AW, as W is a public figure) to call Bush "stupid," or lacking intelligence. There have been no official output of Bush's IQ, so no one can really tell exactly how smart/stupid he is (not that an IQ test is even the final arbiter of that question).

But I certainly took issue with some of the other posters in the "Sick Puppies" thread, castigating W for his stupidity.

If Mike were more interested in progressing an interesting dialogue rather than personality-driven attacks: he could have run with it, and we could well have found ourselves arguing on the same sides.

Small wonder that Mike likes to debase complicated Middle Eastern discussions into the much simpler LCD "Arab vs Jew" formula. It's how he likes to debate.

[Neil Mick]

The "more rational" among you use Wikipedia as a source? You realize that every Tom, Dick, and Harry with an axe to grind writes and edits the Wikipedia entries as they see fit, don't you?

To you, perhaps: but to the rest of us, we all realize that there is extensive discussion on the validity of the topics, in the discussion page of wikipedia.

"Nice attempts," BTW, to completely ignore the rest of my sources.

Pathetic: but a nice try. Thanks for playing.

Now notice, just to show exactly what you're doing is what I have pointed out several times.... you take a point and try to argue some tangent rather than admit you were wrong.

Notice, how you try to turn an action of what YOU'RE doing, into something of which I'm guilty...

When someone disingenuously acts like a signing statement is some illegal or underhanded mechanism simply to use as a "gotcha"

Sorry, it might not be "illegal:" (which, I never claimed, as you're well aware) but to go around the Congress and act as if the Executive is a branch ABOVE the other two is, IMO, underhanded.

And looking at the Wikipedia entry, where does it contradict a single thing that I've said? Nowhere. At most it discusses extraneous points and says nothing about Bush trying to circumvent (that's a big word that means "make an end run around", Neil) the law.

There's a good reason for this, Mike: you're doing what you usually do...you fail to read the rest of the links. It's SoP for Mike to read a few lines of a post and ignore the meat of the links. Here, he does it again. :rolleyes:

The ABA panel (very liberal and pro-Democrat)

Does anyone else notice how many organizations out there have been "outed" by Mike for being pro-liberal, pro-Democrat?

Thank GOD Mike's here to make it all right!!!! :D :D :D

In response to the Patriot Act addenda that the Democrats wanted slipped in, Bush's stance is actually very legally correct. It's sort of like the FISA act, the War Powers act, and a couple of others.

Don't you just LOVE apologists?? Where would all the mass murderers of the world be without 'em?

You stand exposed for what you are. What's your beef?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Right you are, Mike...just, wrong pronouns.

YOU stand exposed for what YOU are...a troll, far more interested in flaming, proving your shallow political views are RIGHT (over and above any sort of two-way discussion...all anyone has to do is look at the "Sick Puppies" thread, to see your MO, writ large), while claiming, in the midst of overwhelming documentation (all the while, providing almost NONE), that all others are WRONG (even to the point of calling ALL who disagree chemically dependent, liars, et al, ad nauseum).

[akiy]

OK, folks. Cut it out with the personal attacks. That's enough.

Thread closed.

-- Jun