Daschle: Congress Denied Bush War Powers in U.S.

Barton Gellman

The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority “in the United States” in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in today’s Washington Post.

Daschle’s disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.

Showdown time. Either Daschle or Bush and Gonzales are lying. Hmm. Wonder who?

WARTIME….Do President Bush’s inherent constitutional powers as commander-in-chief give him the authority to override federal law and approve domestic spying by the NSA? That’s certainly the justification he provided at Monday’s press conference:

Of course, their argument is not that the president has the inherent power to authorize domestic surveillance anytime he wants, only that he has that power during wartime. And as near as I can tell, that’s the elephant in the room that no one is really very anxious to discuss: What is “wartime”? Is George Bush really a “wartime president,” as he’s so fond of calling himself? Conservatives take it for granted that he is, while liberals tend to avoid the subject entirely for fear of being thought unserious about the War on Terror. But it’s something that ought be brought up and discussed openly.

Read more from Kevin Drum.

Iraq election losers unite to contest result

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq’s Sunni Arab and secular parties threatened on Wednesday to boycott the new parliament after alleging massive fraud in last week’s election, ramping up pressure on the triumphant Shi’ite Islamists to share power.

The Electoral Commission, which opposition groups demanded be dissolved accusing it of bias, rejected calls for a rerun of the vote, saying complaints were numerous but unlikely to affect the overall result — a view held by U.S. and U.N. officials.

Sound familar? Is this Iraq, or Ohio?

From an online MSNBC poll:

Live Vote
Do you believe President Bush’s actions justify impeachment? * 57772 responses

Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
87%

No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
4%

No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
8%

I don’t know.
1%

Granted, its a easily rigged (or “freeped“) poll, but still, thats a bunch of folks who don’t like our King George. Read more here.

Insisting that the spying by the highly secretive NSA had been essential in the war against terrorism, Mr Bush said: “It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this important program in a time of war.”

Feel free to scream “KARL ROVE IS A TRAITOR” at this moment.

Censure motion introduced in House over Iraq, torture
Larisa Alexandrovna

Ranking House Judiciary Democrat Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has introduced a motion to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney for providing misleading information to Congress in advance of the Iraq war, failing to respond to written questions and potential violations of international law, RAW STORY has learned.

The Select Committee seeks to subpoena the President and other members of the administration in hopes of ascertaining if impeachable offenses have been committed. Sources close to the Judiciary Committee indicate they believe this is the only avenue left after having written repeated letters requesting answers on matters ranging from the Downing Street Memos to the outing of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson. HR 635, which would create the select committee, could potentially recommend articles of impeachment against both the President and Vice President.

I posed the question last night in another forum asking why did King George perform illegal searches when it was so easy to get them approved. I recieved the typical, knee-jerk “Clinton did it” response, which - as is generally the case- is wrong, but no real answers.

To my way of seeing it, there can only be two possible explanations for it. One, Bush was advised that the searches he desired wouldn’t pass the overview process (which is hard to believe, seeing how many have been approved) so they didn’t even try.

Or, he’s testing how far presidental power extends. Well, getting censured is the first step on a path that can end in impeachment. That might answer his question.

And take Congress with ya:

Abramoff said to discuss plea deal

Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist under criminal investigation, has been discussing with prosecutors a deal that would grant him a reduced sentence in exchange for testimony against former political and business associates, people with detailed knowledge of the case say, The New York Times will report.

Mr. Abramoff is believed to have extensive knowledge of what prosecutors suspect is a wider pattern of corruption among lawmakers and Congressional staff members. One participant in the case who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations described him as a “unique resource.”

Betcha he’s ruining a bunch of ho ho ho’s in DC about now.

Hee.

This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason–and less out of genuine concern about national security–that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.

Read about King George’s pleading to kill the snooping story.

Or about his lie on revealing the NSA snooping to relevant parties in Congress:

Former Intel Chairman Graham: White House Made ‘No Reference’ to NSA Program In Briefings

Or

Democrats Say They Never OK’d Wiretapping

And how can we forget this gem, from 2000:

“GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don’t agree with each other. But that’s OK. If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”

Seems you got your wish, King George.

Dig the headline:

Bush Leaves Out the Bad News When Citing Poll Saying Iraqis Are Upbeat

President Bush is making selective use of an opinion poll when he tells people that Iraqis are increasingly upbeat.

The same poll that indicated a majority of Iraqis believe their lives are going well also found a majority expressing opposition to the presence of U.S. forces, and less than half saying Iraq is better off now than before the war.

“Making selective use”. Ok, thats close enough to “Bush lies by omission”, considering the weasels we’re dealing with.

No, not the king this time:

Reed admits misstep in work
Says he shouldn’t have taken job for Abramoff

By JIM GALLOWAY

Ralph Reed, the political strategist and candidate for lieutenant governor, said recently that his work for disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff was a mistake that — if given the chance — he wouldn’t repeat.

“Had I known then what I know now, I would not have undertaken that work,” Reed said, according to the text of a speech posted on his campaign Web site this week.

But he still hasn’t returned the 5 mill he got to pimp for ‘em. Lying weasel.