i hate George Bush!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Or...an opium plant.

to be so lucky . . .

BTW, if memory serves me correctly Clinton asserted it on Hillary's behalf as mentioned in that article above, where she was covered by it. But, then he tried to assert it during Monicagate and it was, quite understandably, denied. I am sure it was asserted more than that. In practice, it routinely is asserted and the treat of its assertion stays many requests, etc. As mentioned in that article, the USSC has held the EP is not absolute and can be broken in the interests of justice like when Nixon lied and when Clinton lied.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

to be so lucky . . .

BTW, if memory serves me correctly Clinton asserted it on Hillary's behalf as mentioned in that article above, where she was covered by it. But, then he tried to assert it during Monicagate and it was, quite understandably, denied. I am sure it was asserted more than that. In practice, it routinely is asserted and the treat of its assertion stays many requests, etc. As mentioned in that article, the USSC has held the EP is not absolute and can be broken in the interests of justice like when Nixon lied and when Clinton lied.

I remember that they wouldn't let him use it for Hillary and the health care BS. Lemme see if I can dig something up.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I remember that they wouldn't let him use it for Hillary and the health care BS. Lemme see if I can dig something up.

That article above found he could assert it for HC because she was an employee of the govt. Again, EC applies only to the Pres. and his subordinates in the Exec. Branch.
_____________________________________________________
Also - on a diff. note - this is just in from CNN:

Poll: Iraqis conflicted about war, its impact
Survey done mostly before recent cycle of violence
Wednesday, April 28, 2004 Posted: 4:16 PM EDT (2016 GMT)


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Nearly half the Iraqis polled in a survey conducted primarily in March and early April said they believed the U.S.-led war had done more harm than good, but 61 percent of respondents said Saddam Hussein's ouster made it worth any hardships.

The CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll showed conflicted feelings among Iraqis over the war and its impact at the time of the survey.

Most interviews were done between March 22 and April 9 -- before the latest flare-up of violence that brought some of the deadliest fighting since the end of major combat nearly a year ago.

Iraqi interviewers conducted face-to-face surveys with 3,444 adults in Arabic and Kurdish in respondents' homes. The poll was the first since the war to cover urban and rural areas throughout Iraq, representing about 93 percent of the population. It has a sampling error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

Nearly half -- 47 percent -- said they believed attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq could not be justified, while 52 percent said those attacks could be justified some or all of the time.

Thirty-three percent of those polled said the war had done more good than harm, while 46 percent said it had done more harm than good.

Forty-two percent said Iraq was better off because of the war, while 39 percent said it was worse off. Given the sampling error, those figures indicated a dead heat.

On a personal level, Iraqis appeared more optimistic, according to the poll. More than half of those surveyed -- 51 percent -- said they and their families were better off than they were before the invasion, while 25 percent said they were worse off.

Fifty-four percent said conditions for creating peace and stability had worsened in the three months before they were questioned for the poll. Twenty-five percent said conditions improved during that time before the upsurge in violence.

Those polled were virtually united in opposition to attacks against Iraqi police, the survey found. Ninety-two percent said those attacks could not be justified.

But the Iraqis surveyed were split on whether ongoing U.S.-led military action in the country was justified. Fifty-two percent said it was not, while 47 percent said it could be justified.

Asked about when they wanted U.S. and British forces to leave, 57 percent chose immediately, as in the next few months, the poll said; 36 percent said troops should stay longer.

At the time the question was asked, 53 percent said they would feel less safe if the U.S.-led coalition left immediately. About half as many -- 28 percent -- said they would feel more safe. Sixty-nine percent said they or their families would be in danger if they were seen cooperating with the coalition.

The respondents were split in their opinions of L. Paul Bremer, the U.S civilian administrator in Iraq. Forty-two percent said they held a unfavorable opinion, while 31 percent rated him favorably. He proved more popular than President Bush, disliked by more than half the respondents.

Forty-four percent gave Bush a very unfavorable rating and 11 percent somewhat unfavorable; 24 percent said they held a favorable opinion of the U.S. president. But Bush proved more popular than Saddam in the survey, with eight of 10 respondents viewing the ousted Iraqi leader unfavorably at the time the poll was done.

Negative view of U.S. forces

U.S. soldiers man a checkpoint Wednesday in Baghdad.
The poll suggested more than half of Iraqis had a negative impression of U.S. forces in general before the current wave of violence.

Twenty-nine percent said troops had conducted themselves very badly, while another 29 percent said fairly badly; 24 percent chose fairly well, and 10 percent said troops had acted very well.

Among those who said the troops acted badly, 54 percent said their opinions were based on things they had heard. Thirty-nine percent said they decided based on things they had seen, while 7 percent said they were judging from personal experience.

Two-thirds -- 67 percent -- said troops were not trying at all to keep ordinary Iraqis from being killed in exchanges of gunfire, while 18 percent said the Americans were trying only a little and 11 percent said they were trying a lot.

Sixty percent of those surveyed said U.S. soldiers sometimes or often showed disrespect for Iraqis during home searches; 29 percent said that the troops did not. Forty-six percent said the troops sometimes or often showed disrespect for Iraqi women during such operations, while 39 percent said the soldiers did not.

Asked whether U.S. troops showed disrespect for Islam during such operations, respondents were split -- 42 percent said often or a little, while 43 percent said not at all.

Those polled gave the troops low marks for reconstruction efforts. Asked about the restoration of basic services such as electricity and clean drinking water, 41 percent said the troops were trying only a little and 44 percent said they were not trying at all.

Seventy-one percent surveyed said they saw troops mostly as occupiers, while 19 percent said they viewed them as liberators. Asked how they viewed troops at the time of the invasion a year ago, the respondents were split, with 43 percent saying they saw the coalition forces as occupiers and another 43 percent saying they considered them liberators at the time.

But asked, "Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the U.S.-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?" Sixty-one percent said it was worth it. Twenty-eight percent said it was not, while 9 percent said they were not sure.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

That article above found he could assert it for HC because she was an employee of the govt. Again, EC applies only to the Pres. and his subordinates in the Exec. Branch.

BUT - executive privilege doesn't apply to conversations between government employees and persons outside the government. That's why Cheney's **** should be released. Executive privilege can't be invoked.

If Cheney had top-secret meetings with, say, the people at Enron, it would not be executive privilege.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

BUT - executive privilege doesn't apply to conversations between government employees and persons outside the government. That's why Cheney's **** should be released. Executive privilege can't be invoked.

Yes it could. It applies to all dealing in the Exec. branch including dealing with outside parties. The theory is that it promotes open discussion. In other words, people will be more open if what they say is not going to be made public. It is like the atty/client or Psychologist/patient priviledges.

No- the issue there was that unlike Cheney, Hillary was not an official employee of the Fed. Govt., but the court found that she was. They are different issues. This is an interesting case. The COurt could go either way and if it finds that Cheney is covered, it would be in line with precedent. The courts usually break EC when criminal malfeasance a la Clinton and Monicagate and Nixon and Watergate sort of demand it or someone's life is a at stake a la the Burr issue. In Cheney's case, although it smacks of a backroom deal, no proof of that exists like in Water and Monica Gates that a crime was committed.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Yes it could. It applies to all dealing in the Exec. branch including dealing with outside parties. The theory is that it promotes open discussion. In other words, people will be more open if what they say is not going to be made public. It is like the atty/client or Psychologist/patient priviledges.

There's not a single case that allows it to apply to outside parties. Hillary's case was the closest, but that's it. Find me a case where it applied and I'll buy you a drink.

[DeeGeMe]

I'll second that. Exec. Privilege has historically been associated only with the President but Bush has tried and is trying to get it extended to include the VP--which is why this case is before the Supreme Court.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

There's not a single case that allows it to apply to outside parties. Hillary's case was the closest, but that's it. Find me a case where it applied and I'll buy you a drink.

Hillary's case is close to it. I think the Court will not extend the EC in this case. But you never know.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Lux

Perhaps he was regretting his country's training of terrorist. 'Damn, we shouldn't have set up schools for them, particularly not in our own country.'

We set up schools for terrorists in America? I do not remember reading that. Nor did we set up or sponsor the Al-Q training camps. If you have information to support what you said, let's see it. Certainly we helped SH obtain power. But, he then ran amuck. So, we had to stop him.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Lux

My God, I didn't see that post earlier. Having said this, you don't understand why others would want to shove a sharp stick up your arse?

This is what we assume the mentality is in America, but we also assume you don't go around verablising it. America is not the land of the free. What are you free from? For christ's sake, you can't even burn your own flag as a form of protest without going to prison. Sounds like repression to me. And what the hell does 'best country there is' mean? These kinds of statements do nothing but make the world cringe. It makes me more inclined to favour the terrorists!

The victims of the NY terrorists attacks didn't deserve that, but the country sure needed a wake up call. Instead of blaming crazy bearded men, perhaps people could take a look at what could have provoked them. And don't pretend they're jealous of your 'freedoms' and your way of life. Jesus, it goes far deeper than that.

No society is free to do what it wants when it wants. That would be anarchy. America is without a doubt has the most freedom and due process of any other country in the world. If you know of a country that has more freedom, please tell us which one it is. I submit once again, you cannot support what you sarcasticly say and conclude. I took comparative law in law school and can assure you there is not society that has protection from the law like Americans do.

But you are correct in that the policies of the world (not just America) for the last 2,000 years regarding the Middle East make them hate us. I say once again, the hatred is somewhat unfounded because without the help of the world and the need for their oil, most of the Middle East would still be in the dark ages. I mean they have all of this oil wealth and they are still living in many ways as if it is 1200 A.D. So, I think a little of the blame goes on them. Certainly not all of it goes on Amercia and the world's treatment of the Middle East.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

We set up schools for terrorists in America? I do not remember reading that.

It's in Georgia and was set up in the forties.

ETA: I posted before I read Lux's post, kudos to her for knowing that. Extra points.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Lux

The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, now the 'School of the Americas' in Georgia. It was set up in 1946 and trained dictators and state terrorists amoung others. There's so much detail to go into, look it for yourself. Just one statistic though, 40% of the ministers under the Guatemalan genocidal regimes studied there.

Here is the website for The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

http://www.benning.army.mil/whinsec/

I think it is a stretch to say it trained terrorists to ne terrorists. I mean does it teach you how to hijack a plane - no. Does it teach you how to make a chemical weapon - no. So, you are wrong in the sense that although world leaders may have gone there, it did not teach them how to be a terrorist. In other words, there is no class called "How be be an evil dictator and terrorist."

Once again, your conclusion is unsupported by any direct evidence.



Interestingly, one of the Crown Orinces of Saudi Arabia went here for awhile. I went to a party at his house, which was HUGE.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

We set up schools for terrorists in America?

Another question we'll never get the answer to: Why did some of the terrorists train at our very own military bases?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Another question we'll never get the answer to: Why did some of the terrorists train at our very own military bases?

Who knows. But, did we train them to be terrorists. Or, did we train then to be in an army, etc.

BTW - here is the FAQ section for that school. Please note it nowhere says that it trains terrorists


http://www.benning.army.mil/whinsec/about.asp?id=37

[Hawkeye]

These kinds of statements do nothing but make the world cringe. It makes me more inclined to favour the terrorists!

And what's that statement supposed to make the world do

And BTW I consider Austrialia and England to be #'s 2 and 3 in my the best countries of the world list.