Bush could bypass new torture ban

January 4, 2006 11:57 AM

Bush could bypass new torture ban [From the here-we-go-again department. ] When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.
posted by Postroad (87 comments total)

The signing statement does not have the force of law. Furthermore, as I read it, that particular signing statement does not contain any reservation of the right to bypass the law.

Perhaps the article should be forwarded to the "don't believe the hype" department.
posted by JekPorkins at 12:01 PM on January 4, 2006

Well, when you combine that statement with Bush's remarks at the press conference about the NSA spying a few weeks ago, it's easy to read that statement as saying, in effect, "America won't torture people, unless it might help fight terrorism." From my understanding, that's basically the reason that there's been torture in the first place.
posted by Godbert at 12:06 PM on January 4, 2006

If Bush didn't do these weasely legal maneuvering and gerrymandering for evil I would applaud him and his staff for their creativity. But alas, it's all for evil and evil profit, so he gets wagging pointing fingering and a "shame on you". Only 3 more miserable years of this miserable fucktard and maybe we'll get somebody better or dread, somebody worse.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 12:07 PM on January 4, 2006

Supreme Court Justice nominee Alito appears to disagree with you JekPorkins. Its an odd area, but Alito seems to push the view that as the enforcer of laws, the President has the right to say "this is how it is going to be interpreted". Use of signing statements has increased dramatically since the Regan whitehouse.
posted by afflatus at 12:08 PM on January 4, 2006

What exactly is a signing statement? "I'm signing this bill and just want to make it clear that I don't plan to enforce it or plan enforce it selectively in a way that I see fit?"
posted by Mijo Bijo at 12:09 PM on January 4, 2006

I shiver to think how much damage this idiot can do in the next three years. Can this country really survive that?
posted by HuronBob at 12:10 PM on January 4, 2006

Actually, that is exactly the intention of the signing statement. Interestingly, the idea of presidential signing statements was originally put forth by Alito years ago under the Reagan administration. The idea is to establish background if Bush's interpretation is ever challenged in the Supreme Court. Yet one more reason to fillibuster Scalito.
posted by JackFlash at 12:11 PM on January 4, 2006

Can somebody point to the actual statement on the White House web site? I can't seem to find it.
posted by AstroGuy at 12:12 PM on January 4, 2006

Godbert:

It is, indeed, easy to read the statement as saying something that it does not say, and meaning something that it does not mean. But isn't it better to actually read what things say and interpret them correctly, rather than ascribing incorrect meaning in order to attack a political enemy?

It does not say, in effect, "America won't torture people, unless it might help fight terrorism." It says, in effect, "It is now illegal for America to torture people. The Bush administration will comply with the law, but will continue to fight terrorism in every way authorized by this and every other law."

Maybe Bush intends to violate the law. But he didn't say that he does, and making a signing statement doesn't give him the right to (especially when the signing statement explicitly says that he will comply with the law).

and JackFlash: Are you suggesting that Alito should be rejected because he is NOT a strict constructionist? That legislative history should be rejected out of hand when interpreting statutes? Wow. Un-freakin-believable.
posted by JekPorkins at 12:13 PM on January 4, 2006

because it was so fun last time:

torture doesn't work.
posted by narwhal at 12:14 PM on January 4, 2006

I shiver to think how much damage this idiot can do in the next three years. Can this country really survive that?

Might not have to. The Senate and House might go back to the democrats just because a good chunk of the GOP will be indicted or in jail. And any decent democratic candidate should be able to hold sway with the voters by not being a crook or guilty by association to a crook.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 12:15 PM on January 4, 2006

I know this is probably a dumb question, but is there anything in the constitution that would support the concept of the signing statement? Or are they just making shit up?
posted by 2sheets at 12:15 PM on January 4, 2006

Maybe Bush intends to violate the law. But he didn't say that he does, and making a signing statement doesn't give him the right to (especially when the signing statement explicitly says that he will comply with the law).

But when the administration has argued that being the President gives him the authority to ignore the law regarding wiretapping and, more to the point, torture, it's hard to read this statement as saying anything other than "We won't torture people anymore, except when we do."
posted by EarBucket at 12:16 PM on January 4, 2006

Since the interrogation of anyone picked up on suspicion that they have participated in, or have knowledge of, terrorist activities is fighting terrorism we had better torture them all, of course to make us safer.

Someone called Cindy Sheehan an evil person in another thread today, but isn't the person responsible for the wholesale torture all these detainees really the evil person?
posted by caddis at 12:19 PM on January 4, 2006

is there anything in the constitution that would support the concept of the signing statement?

No, but there's nothing in the constitution that would support the idea of the congressonal record, either. (or a great many other things, as well, including many of the favorite "rights" of both liberals and conservatives)
posted by JekPorkins at 12:19 PM on January 4, 2006

Like I've said before, how do I know I'm not a terrorist unless someone tortures me into admission? Torture does work.

Vote Chasing 2008.
posted by chasing at 12:20 PM on January 4, 2006

I'm running on a platform of torture for each and every American, by the way.
posted by chasing at 12:21 PM on January 4, 2006

My google fu is failing me, as I can't find the signing statement on the whitehouse.gov site either.

As to the force of law concerning presidential "signing statements", I refer you to the Department of Justice.
posted by dejah420 at 12:23 PM on January 4, 2006

has anyone found a copy of the signing statement?
posted by narwhal at 12:23 PM on January 4, 2006

Can this country really survive that?

Yep. We've survived far worse, although it's easy enough to forget that once and a while.

The trick is to remember that even Germany is a thriving and lovely place these days, even though they went through far, far worse between WWI and WWII.

That isn't to say we shouldn't be concerned, or try to stop/prevent bad things; after all, that's how we ensure the survival of our country. It's just to remind you that as things get worse, people work harder to make them better, and worst case it gets so bad that someone else will come in and fix our wagon*.

*this is not to suggest that I want this to happen, or that I think it should, or that there is something going on right now that should be fixed in this way -- but hypothetically, if we had something going on in this country that was as bad as Germany had with Hitler, wouldn't you want it fixed by whatever means necessary?
posted by davejay at 12:24 PM on January 4, 2006

I know this is probably a dumb question, but is there anything in the constitution that would support the concept of the signing statement? Or are they just making shit up?

The question is moot if the guy who invented "signing statements" becomes a Supreme Court Justice, and is ever a deciding vote.
posted by Happy Monkey at 12:25 PM on January 4, 2006

JekPorkins: I understand that what you have said is, indeed, what word to the signing statement says. I just happen to find that particular interpretation somewhat hard to believe when looking at the comments Bush made about the NSA spying. Regarding that, he made the claim that what he was doing was for the good of the country, even though many constitutional scholars and lawyers disagree with his interpretation of the law.

I do concede that you're right in saying that the signing statement does not give him the right to ignore the law, nor does it say anything to that end. The idea that he will interpret the law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President," however, could change meanings when you consider his interpretation of his constitutional authority, which, from the NSA stuff, seems to me to be that he has the constitutional authority to do anything he feels will make America safe (and uses the constitution as the basis for stepping over 'lesser' laws).
posted by Godbert at 12:26 PM on January 4, 2006

Only 3 more miserable years of this miserable fucktard

Why do you say that? Bush has so far shown no respect for the Constitution or laws of this country. Why would he start in 2009?
posted by empath at 12:27 PM on January 4, 2006

dejah420: glad to know it's not just me.

any possibility the signing statement was removed due to press?
posted by narwhal at 12:27 PM on January 4, 2006

I have no doubt that Bush will do whatever he wants, and then find legalistic ways to justify it. After all, he's president, and that's what presidents do. But this signing statement is a really dumb thing to focus on.

Instead, I propose that we focus on the things that Bush actually does that are bad, illegal or immoral. Sadly, that's not how politics works. Oh well.
posted by JekPorkins at 12:28 PM on January 4, 2006

Why do you say that? Bush has so far shown no respect for the Constitution or laws of this country. Why would he start in 2009?

That's the $64,000 question. If only he could be impeached for having broken existing wiretapping laws. If only we had representatives of any moral fibre whatsoever.
posted by Rothko at 12:28 PM on January 4, 2006

“It does not say, in effect, "America won't torture people, unless it might help fight terrorism.” - posted by JekPorkins

Are we reading this differently?

From the article:
'Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case," the official added. 'We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it's possible that they will."

Looks to me like that is exactly what is being said. Of course it’s by Joe Unnamed Offical.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:32 PM on January 4, 2006

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
posted by blue_beetle at 12:35 PM on January 4, 2006

I guess peepee and dios got hung up in the letterman thred...
posted by AspectRatio at 12:37 PM on January 4, 2006

Why do you say that? Bush has so far shown no respect for the Constitution or laws of this country. Why would he start in 2009?

It took me a minute, but haha. I meant as president, not omnipotent dark overlord of earth and space.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 12:38 PM on January 4, 2006

I think that arguing what the statement does or does not say is a bit pointless if we can't read the actual statement.
posted by AstroGuy at 12:39 PM on January 4, 2006

The signing statement via Reason:

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.

Nothing new here, as far as signing statements are concerned, they been used multiple times since Eisenhower (Search from 1993 forward on GPOAccess). This appears to be an F-U to McCain and those who dare oppose King George.
posted by rzklkng at 12:46 PM on January 4, 2006

has anyone found a copy of the signing statement?
posted by narwhal at 3:23 PM EST on January 4 [!]

I believe this is it.
posted by caddis at 12:46 PM on January 4, 2006

Rothko, impeaching Bush leaves us with Cheney and I can't really imagine anyone wants that freakin' anger-monkey in charge. Or Hastert or Condi.

I want the entire administration impeached.

But I think the midterm elections should be and will be a serious wake up call to the Republican party that they are heading in the wrong direction.

So how many pending indictments against ranking Republicans are there right now? More than a dozen? Two dozen? What happens when you pull a card out of a house of cards again?
posted by fenriq at 12:48 PM on January 4, 2006

And for perspectives sake, Lord Cheney would like to return the power of the Presidency back to it's glory days pre-Nixon. Via the Guardian:

In an astonishing display of candour, Dick Cheney now looks back on the Nixon presidency with chilling nostalgia, ruing the loss of unfettered executive power. "Watergate and Vietnam served ... to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area," opined the vice-president to a gaggle of reporters in the cabin of Air Force Two, as they flew over the Middle East.

posted by rzklkng at 12:49 PM on January 4, 2006

I would think that the President's "signing statement" is of no relavence in interpreting the statute.

First of all, the plain language of the statute controls its meaning, so Bush would have to argue there is some ambiguity in the statute. If so, the courts, using various rules and standards such as perusing the "legislatiuve history", will try to determine the *will of the legislature*, i.e., Congress. My understanding of our legal tradition is that the will of the people, expressed through a legisture, controls the law. Hence, the President's intention in signing the law is irrelavent.

The bottom line is that President Bush and his administration is arguing in various venues that a President can do whatever he or she wants as long as he or she justifies the actions under the banner of national security. In plainer terms: President is arguing that he is above the law.

The clear implication is that the President is dictator, or king, whenever he or she is engaging in national security matters, a condition that he or she can define any way the President wants because no one would have a legal right to question the President.

How any legal scholar in their right mind could defend this is beyond me. The notion is fundumentally Un-American in point of fact.
posted by JKevinKing at 12:49 PM on January 4, 2006

I think that arguing what the statement does or does not say is a bit pointless if we can't read the actual statement.
posted by AstroGuy at 12:39 PM PST on January 4 [!]

agreed.

but i'll even go ahead and assert that if anyone's worried this signing statement implies a chance that this "no torture" law can be sidestepped at the whim of our president then it will be sidestepped.

The White House tried hard to kill the McCain amendment. Cheney lobbied Congress to exempt the CIA from any interrogation limits, and Bush threatened to veto the bill, arguing that the executive branch has exclusive authority over war policy.

But after veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress approved it, Bush called a press conference with McCain, praised the measure, and said he would accept it.

it's not as if they haven't made their desires known...
posted by narwhal at 12:49 PM on January 4, 2006

thanks caddis & rzklkng

anyone want to link to the actual bill/law?
posted by narwhal at 12:56 PM on January 4, 2006

Well, that statement does look pretty straightforward...In light of the role as commander in chief in times of (the neverending) war, banning torture is unconstitutional when it comes to detainees suspected of possessing information about terrortastic activities.

Looking at the link in dejah420's post, this seems to be consistent with one of the accepted interpretations of a signing statement.

Ugh...
posted by agent at 12:59 PM on January 4, 2006

It took me a minute, but haha. I meant as president, not omnipotent dark overlord of earth and space.

I think empath was suggesting that a president who's shown so little for respect for the Constitution may not see any need to relinquish his office simply because the Constitution says his term is up.

The sad part is, if Bush said that we needed to declare him our god-king in order to protect America from terrorists, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if there ensued a debate about how we really do need a god-king....
posted by jefgodesky at 1:00 PM on January 4, 2006

Congressional Testimony on the subject by Phillip J. Cooper (Amazon), Presidential historian, from the Clinton Era for fairness sake.
posted by rzklkng at 1:01 PM on January 4, 2006

Instead, I propose that we focus on the things that Bush actually does that are bad, illegal or immoral.

Like, say, I dunno. . .torture?
posted by EarBucket at 1:02 PM on January 4, 2006

And lastly, all the info on the bill from the irreplacable Govtrack.
posted by rzklkng at 1:03 PM on January 4, 2006

How dare you question Dear Leader!!

Bunch of Amerika haters!
Commies!
Osama Saddam lovers!
Terrorist sympathizers!
posted by nofundy at 1:05 PM on January 4, 2006

may not see any need to relinquish his office simply because the Constitution says his term is up.

The suggestion that people actually believe this might even be a remote possibility obliterates any credibility those people's other opinions or predictions about Bush may have had. Just sayin. When we pretend there's a real chance of Bush declaring himself God-King, any rational criticism we may have of him will rightly be ignored.
posted by JekPorkins at 1:05 PM on January 4, 2006

Like, say, I dunno. . .torture?

Among other things, yes. Now you're catching on.
posted by JekPorkins at 1:06 PM on January 4, 2006

JekPorkins, how can you still maintain that anything is impossible?
posted by rzklkng at 1:06 PM on January 4, 2006

Maybe already in here...
From the Department of Justice:

THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL
SIGNING STATEMENTS

Many Presidents have used signing statements to make substantive legal, constitutional, or administrative pronouncements on the bill being signed. 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.

Again, from the Clinton Era.
posted by rzklkng at 1:08 PM on January 4, 2006

JekPorkins, how can you still maintain that anything is impossible?

Easy, I make an earnest attempt to remain rooted in reality, instead of the ever-so-tempting fantasy world that my contemporaries enjoy so much. In fantasy world, Bush is easy to defeat, because he's virtually indistinguishable from Darth Vader. In the real world, pretending Bush is Stalin will only put his successor in office.
posted by JekPorkins at 1:10 PM on January 4, 2006

shouldn't official statements not be open for interpretation..?
posted by borq at 1:10 PM on January 4, 2006

Like, say, I dunno. . .torture?

Among other things, yes. Now you're catching on.

But this is part and parcel of that debate. The fact that the President believes he has the Constitutional authority to bypass any law he wants to is vitally important to the torture argument, the wiretapping argument, and, I have a feeling, a dozen other horrifying arguments we're going to have over the next three years.

On this note, exactly why does Mr. Bush think it's so vital to renew the Patriot Act? Why does he need a law authorizing him to do anything, if he's above the law in the first place?
posted by EarBucket at 1:10 PM on January 4, 2006

exactly why does Mr. Bush think it's so vital to renew the Patriot Act? Why does he need a law authorizing him to do anything, if he's above the law in the first place?

He's not above the law, and he doesn't even really think he's above the law. If he did, he wouldn't have asked for the Patriot Act, and he wouldn't have opposed the torture bill to begin with.

Furthermore, his signing statement "pronouncements" about a law have no binding legal effect anyway. If he's going to break the law, he's going to break it regardless of some signing statement. The signing statement is a superfluous part of the debate. The debate itself is just a distraction from the real issues. While we get up in arms about a piece of legislative history that, at best, will not even be considered by a court for 10 years or so, Bush goes ahead and does what he wants, knowing that we're too busy worrying about legislative history to do anything about it.
posted by JekPorkins at 1:20 PM on January 4, 2006

On this note, exactly why does Mr. Bush think it's so vital to renew the Patriot Act? Why does he need a law authorizing him to do anything, if he's above the law in the first place?
posted by EarBucket at 1:10 PM PST on January 4 [!]
-----------------------------------------

Very good question, if he has no need to fear the law, why does he need to create one condoning his acts? What up wit dat?
posted by mk1gti at 1:25 PM on January 4, 2006

Again, from the Clinton Era. -- rzklkng

Oh...but no. T'was *Ronnie* what tamed the Beast. Again, to quote the DOJ:

Separate and distinct from all the preceding categories of signing statement, and apparently even more controversial than any of them, is the use of such statements to create legislative (or "executive") history that is expected to be given weight by the courts in ascertain the meaning of statutory language. See Marc N. Garber and Kurt A. Wimmer, Presidential Signing Statements as Interpretations of Legislative Intent: An Executive Aggrandizement of Power, 24 Harv. J. on Legis. 363, 366 (1987). Although isolated examples can perhaps be found earlier, signing statements of this kind appear to have originated (and were certainly first widely used) in the Reagan Administration.
posted by dejah420 at 1:28 PM on January 4, 2006

Don't you realize, by questioning our fearless leaders actions, you are helping our enemies.
posted by darkness at 1:32 PM on January 4, 2006

Hey not me, I know which way the wind is blowing.

All Glory to Comrade Bush! Hooahh! Hooahh! Hooahh!
posted by mk1gti at 1:49 PM on January 4, 2006

hey, i don't need a compass to tell me which way the wind is shining.
posted by narwhal at 1:52 PM on January 4, 2006

I make an earnest attempt to remain rooted in reality

Me too. If you had asked me 10 years ago if I believed America would have a ruler selected by the supreme court, invade 2 countries, let the killer of 3000+ people roam freely for at least 5 years, mock the mothers of dead soldiers, detain prisoners indefinately without due process, kidnap people in other countries and deliver them to yet other countries to be tortured and let a city be destroyed and not even pick up the bodies I would have laughed at you and told you that you should be writing speculative fiction.

I would never have thought that America would be a jumpy and insecure nation quivering in fear of every noise in the yard. Surely the greatest nation on earth needent change anything in order to take on a few extremist.

Boy would I have been wrong. Good thing nobody asked me that!
posted by srboisvert at 2:01 PM on January 4, 2006

Or should that be which way the blowhard is blowing?
posted by mk1gti at 2:10 PM on January 4, 2006

srboisvert

If all of that had been told to me by someone ten years ago I would have called the loonie bin for them. . . Funny how truth is much, much stranger than fiction . . . .
posted by mk1gti at 2:12 PM on January 4, 2006

If you had asked me 10 years ago if I believed America would have a ruler selected by the supreme court, invade 2 countries, let the killer of 3000+ people roam freely for at least 5 years, mock the mothers of dead soldiers, detain prisoners indefinately without due process, kidnap people in other countries and deliver them to yet other countries to be tortured and let a city be destroyed and not even pick up the bodies I would have laughed at you and told you that you should be writing speculative fiction.

If you had laughed at me and told me that was speculative fiction, I would have told you to take an American history class. If, in 1995, you were unaware that each of those things is both precedented and predictable, well, maybe you were in elementary school or something. With the possible exception of the Supremes' granting cert. in Bush v. Gore, which was irregular, but was not "having a ruler selected by the supreme court."
posted by JekPorkins at 2:17 PM on January 4, 2006

are we over here now? *sigh* i'm only good for one endless thread a day.
posted by nola at 2:21 PM on January 4, 2006

“Surely the greatest nation on earth needent change anything in order to take on a few extremist.” - posted by srboisvert

Kinda wondered about that myself. No one has seemed to notice that we fought the latter part of the cold war without hysteria and repealing civil rights while we had the metaphoric nuclear gun to our heads. But 12 guys in a plane - woah, drop everything.
Weird.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:41 PM on January 4, 2006

Woo hoo! You guys elected Judge Dred! I AM THE LAW!
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:57 PM on January 4, 2006

"The Legal Significance of Presidential Signing Statements'--by the DOD.--From Deja 420's link.
I just read the whole thing.

Does ANYONE here believe that Pres. Bush read it?
ANYONE at all? Dios? PP? Joe?
posted by notreally at 3:09 PM on January 4, 2006

Does ANYONE here believe that Pres. Bush read it?

Of course he read it. Every president reads every DOJ memorandum that was produced for the previous president's white house counsel six years before he was even elected.
posted by JekPorkins at 3:32 PM on January 4, 2006

But I'm wondering if he read it before he SIGNED it.
I'm thinking Clinton, Bush sr., Nixon etc. would have read and understood what they were signing.
With this Bush I have doubts.
This is the same person who bragged he never finished reading a book in college.

My Bad. I shouldn't be complaining about him. Rather it's those of us who reelected him. We're the problem.
posted by notreally at 4:10 PM on January 4, 2006

"What exactly is a signing statement?"

It's kinda like being king, except you have to run for elections every four years. The good news is that you can rig the elections, though.

Obviously, this is what the creators of the Constitution had in mind...
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:27 PM on January 4, 2006

I also reserve the right to torture if I need to make use of it. Where can I write a little appendation alongside Bush's?
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:28 PM on January 4, 2006

I also reserve the right to torture if I need to make use of it.

He didn't reserve the right to torture. He reserved the right to exercise the "constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Whether that includes torture is a question for the courts, I guess, though Bush would be wise to avoid ending up there. (not that he's ever wise).

Do you have constitutional authority of any kind? If so, go ahead and reserve the right to exercise it. When you sign a bill into law, that is. Lucky you -- your reservation of rights will have just as much legal force as the President's will: None.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:35 PM on January 4, 2006

George could write it, but he sure as hell couldn't say it...
posted by Artw at 5:55 PM on January 4, 2006

Well, now I'm sad. Does this mean all the bills I have been signing mean nothing?
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:57 PM on January 4, 2006

JekPorkins is dhoyt
posted by interrobang at 5:57 PM on January 4, 2006

The issue heated up again in January 2005. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales disclosed during his confirmation hearing that the administration believed that antitorture laws and treaties did not restrict interrogators at overseas prisons because the Constitution does not apply abroad.

WHOA. This is basically saying "yeah we'll work around that boring thing know as Constitution by preparing prisons abroad" This increasingly look like a a government respondng to no one and not giving a fuck about what voters think or say...the public equivalent of a Board of Directors : arrogant, incompetent but plenty powerful and often unchallenged.

In response, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, filed an amendment to a Defense Department bill explicitly saying that that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody is illegal regardless of where they are held.

Ehehe calling shots ! Gonzales is yet another absolute nothing easily replaceable..let's have both houses express their point of view on the subject shall we ? If we go in deep shit you're coming with us. I don't know much about McCain but the more I hear the more I like him.

The White House tried hard to kill the McCain amendment. Cheney lobbied Congress to exempt the CIA from any interrogation limits, and Bush threatened to veto the bill, arguing that the executive branch has exclusive authority over war policy.

This fixation with torture is, I guess, the first strike. The logic behind it may as well be "if we make them agree to let us torture, we pave the way to have them subscribe anything else"

But after veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress approved it, Bush called a press conference with McCain, praised the measure, and said he would accept it.

Christ he really thinks we're that stupid ? Apparently so. Well we are not.
posted by elpapacito at 6:07 PM on January 4, 2006

elpapacito:

"Christ he really thinks we're that stupid ? Apparently so. Well we are not"

Yes we are. His re-election in the face of a clear public record that made Nixon look like an angel is pretty conclusive proof that the depths of stupidity available have yet to be plumbed.
posted by -harlequin- at 6:25 PM on January 4, 2006

(I'm afraid to say that "we are")
posted by Balisong at 6:33 PM on January 4, 2006

GOD BLESS AMERICA
posted by zouhair at 6:33 PM on January 4, 2006

harlequin: don't forget only half the voters voted for this administration. Consider that Bush voters represent only 1/6 of total population and without Diebold, inmates not voting and other voting tricks I doubt he would have won the 2nd mandate and maybe the first one as well.
posted by elpapacito at 6:40 PM on January 4, 2006

elpapacito:

Sure, but 1/6th total population voting for him is even more stunning than the figures on how widespread American rejection of basic science is, motivated by a fringe (mis)interpretation of the Bible that has been long discredited and dismissed by even the vast majority of Christianity.

Or along the lines of rzklkng's comment, how can you still believe there is a bottom that we've reached? :-)

I agree - even assuming no voting irregularities, of which there were many, the margin of error was greater than his margin, so the voters did not decide - a coin toss would be exactly as representational. But it remains utterly damning how much of the vote he was given.
posted by -harlequin- at 7:03 PM on January 4, 2006

Statistical irregularity does not a mandate make.
posted by Balisong at 7:19 PM on January 4, 2006

..Or political capital gained.
posted by Balisong at 7:20 PM on January 4, 2006

Actually, I regret this leaning into a "Americans actually really are that dumb" thread. I would like to unpost my previous postings. :-/

Maybe someday I'll gain wisdom and foresight.

Not today apparently.
posted by -harlequin- at 7:26 PM on January 4, 2006

It's OK, we really ARE that dumb.
posted by Balisong at 7:40 PM on January 4, 2006

harlequin: if you're dumb because you made a dumb statement then your statement of americans being dumb is likely to be dumb. But then if you are american you aren't as dumb as you dumbly tought.

Proves that americans are living contradictions...which is pretty good as a description I'd say.

Anyway the 1/6 of pop being polarized isn't that suprising in a highly polarized bipartisan election : funny how having only 2 parties polarized people in two poles, isn't it ? :)
posted by elpapacito at 5:03 AM on January 5, 2006

Thanks for the heads up interrobang.

I thought I recognized the writing style.

Yet another Defender of Dubya reincarnated on MeFi!

It must be tough having to defend such trash.
posted by nofundy at 5:55 AM on January 5, 2006

elpapacito: I don't know much about McCain but the more I hear the more I like him.

I disagree with McCain on a whole lotta stuff, but he strikes me as a "real" Republican. Someone who remembers the old core tenets of the party: limited federal power, personal privacy, balanced budgets and other pipe dreams.

How the party got hijacked by the Nanny State ("Only WE have the right to tell you what you can do with your body"), Prude, ("Only WE have the right to tell you who to love"), Big Government ("Spend em if you got em...and even if you don't"), Equal Rights Opposing, Science Denying, School Crushing, ChickenHawks is beyond my comprehension.

There has to be a rise of viable 3rd and subsequent parties at this point. Right now, Americans have choice between two, big spending, overreaching, self aggrandizing parties. The question has stopped being "How much control should the government have?" and has become, "Which of these two behemoths do you want running your life?".

The current system must be dismantled in order to effect a change. We need fresh minds, new blood, less cash. Campaign spending should be capped at every level. Restrictions to getting on the ballot should be loosened across the board. Lobbying should be heavily regulated with reporting requirements so odious that the practice, as it's currently designed, disappears.

Current technology makes the electoral college redundant. Scrap that bad boy and lets see some representational government. Party line restrictions are crazy and the antithesis of democracy.

I think the whole system is screwed. But I have solutions. Vote for me as Supreme Ruler. I promise to rule graciously and wear funny hats.
posted by dejah420 at 11:16 AM on January 5, 2006

How Much Authority Does the President Possess When He Is Acting as "Commander In Chief"?
posted by homunculus at 12:23 PM on January 5, 2006