There is taped evidence Bush I gave Saddam the green light to go into Kuwait if he did give Saddam permission and then organized a global coalition to remove him it proves that governing out weighs justice and that is truly fucked up.
Rachel Maddow Puts It Together So Simply
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
There is taped evidence Bush I gave Saddam the green light to go into Kuwait if he did give Saddam permission and then organized a global coalition to remove him it proves that governing out weighs justice and that is truly fucked up.
Here is a review of two recent books about Bush 2's presidency. In it you'll find what some people think "what people in power want to make public" and some might call facts:
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/the-accountable-presidency?page=0,0
The Accountable Presidency
By Jack Goldsmith
The New Republic
February 1, 2010 |
"Crisis and Command: A History of Executive Power from George Washington to George W. Bush" By John Yoo
"Bomb Power: The Modern Presidency and the National Security State" By Garry Wills
In December 2008, Chris Wallace asked Vice President Cheney, “If the president, during war, decides to do something to protect the country, is it legal?” Cheney’s answer included a reference to a military authority that President Bush did not exercise. “The President of the United States,” he said, “now for fifty years is followed at all times, twenty-four hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States.” The vice president added that the president “could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen” without checking with Congress or the courts, and noted also that “he has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.” And then he shifted to the war on terrorism: “It’s unfortunate, but I think we’re perfectly appropriate to take the steps we have.”
Garry Wills and John Yoo have written books that, in very different ways, analyze the conception of presidential power inherent in Cheney’s statement. Wills does not like what Cheney and his boss did with the presidency after September 11. But perhaps in reaction to Cheney’s statement, which he reproduces in his introduction, Wills has looked back and determined that the problem lies less with the Bush administration, which he blames plenty, than with the institution of the presidency, which became too powerful when it was given control of the bomb in the 1940s. Yoo, a legal architect of many of the Bush administration counterterrorism policies that Wills detests (and some of which I had a hand in revising), also looks to history to explain the Bush presidency, but he takes a longer arc. He analyzes the origins and subsequent growth of presidential power, with emphasis on how presidents have used their powers aggressively in crisis, and concludes that the Bush administration actions “fell within the precedents set by earlier Presidents.”
Damn, I totally forgot this thread. The wars against the First Nations (Indians) were never "declared" or debated. Manifest destiny or the principle of manifest destiny meant that the United States would push westward and subdue any people that resisted. If the resistance was divided, the US government would ink peace treaties with those people, but as we now know, not honor them. (Casinos excepted).
Historians treat each of those wars as seperate entities.
Congress did not vote on sending Marines to Haiti in 1915, or Nicaruga in the 20s or over the border into Mexico in 1917 to get Pancho Villa.
For that matter, the "Posse Comitatus" was not even envoked for the 1932 Veterans riots on Anacostia Plain in DC.
What do you mean?
Similar threads
