home

"This is none of your business!" Addington exploded.

mcjoan reviews James Piffner's "Power Play":

James P. Pfiffner's book Power Play: The Bush Presidency and the Constitution, succinctly and convincingly lays out the historical backdrop for the development of our system of government, based on the rule of law, and just as convincingly presents his argument that the Bush administration has put that very system on a precipice. . . . Pfiffner argues that, in pursuing an agenda developed by Cheney, Addington, Yoo, Bybee and others, Bush "abrogated the rule of law by taking actions not authorized by law and sometimes directly against the law."

No kidding. A WaPo article yesterday detailed how Cheney and his henchman David Addington perverted the Constitution:

Joel Brenner and Vito Potenza, the two men wilting under Addington's wrath, had driven 26 miles from Fort Meade, the NSA's eavesdropping headquarters in Maryland. They were conducting a review of their agency's two-year-old special surveillance operation. They already knew the really secret stuff: The NSA and other services had been unleashed to turn their machinery inward, collecting signals intelligence inside the United States. What the two men didn't know was why the Bush administration believed the program was legal.

It was an awkward question. Potenza, the NSA's acting general counsel, and Brenner, its inspector general, were supposed to be the ones who kept their agency on the straight and narrow. That's what Cheney and their boss, Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, told doubters among the very few people who knew what was going on. Cheney, who chaired briefings for select members of Congress, said repeatedly that the NSA's top law and ethics officers -- career public servants -- approved and supervised the surveillance program.

That was not exactly true, not without one of those silent asterisks that secretly flip a sentence on its tail. Every 45 days, after Justice Department review, Bush renewed his military order for warrantless eavesdropping. Brenner and Potenza told Hayden that the agency was entitled to rely on those orders. The United States was at war with al-Qaeda, intelligence-gathering is inherent in war, and the Constitution appoints the president commander in chief.

But they had not been asked to give their own written assessments of the legality of domestic espionage. They based their answer in part on the attorney general's certification of the "form and legality" of the president's orders. Yet neither man had been allowed to see the program's codeword-classified legal analyses, which were prepared by John C. Yoo, Addington's close ally in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Now they wanted to read Yoo's opinions for themselves.

"This is none of your business!" Addington exploded.

(Emphasis supplied.) In case anyone cared, Cheney and Hayden were committing the felony of lying to Congress.

Unfortunately, Congress has never seen fit to care. It is fun to get all hot and bothered about an Executive violating the Constitution as a matter of course. The problem is we had and have a Congress that does not seem to care at all.

Let me be blunt - while it is true that the Bush Administration is clearly the worst in history and the most blatant violator of laws and the separation of powers we have seen, when the Congress abdicates its responsibilities to uphold its Constitutional duties, the question is raised - who is worse - the Congress or the Executive Branch? I call it a tie.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< More Background on Two Palin Controversies | SPT Editorial: McCain's Campaign of Lies is a Disgrace >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Today I read all about the mortgage (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by hairspray on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 06:26:14 PM EST
    crisis and how the congress approved the bailout bill that was essentially written by the Bank of America.  This was the Demcratic house and senate banking committees elected in 2006 to clean up the Bush sins. Is it any wonder that people do not see the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain?

    The repubs are shaking in their boots (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 06:32:15 PM EST
    aren't they?  Well, you just wait till they drag out all of that dry powder and use it.  It's going to be so dry and there's going to be so much of it, they'll probably blow themselves up due to all the dry static electricity in the dry powder storage room air and the friction caused by hauling all that dry powder out for use.

    Parent
    It almost seems like 2006 was a waste (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 06:34:15 PM EST
    of lots of money and effort.

    We didn't do everything we did just so Ike Skelton, Henry Waxman, et al. could have their gavels back and do nothing.  

    I always knew I was going to hang with (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 06:36:34 PM EST
    Democrats, even as a baby I knew.
    Because they are nice people.  There is such a thing as absurd though and the nice people have embraced it.

    Parent
    I say Congress is worse (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by davnee on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 06:41:05 PM EST
    because they are cowards.  Cheney et. al. are at least serving an ideology, evil though it may be.  What's Congress serving?  Other than themselves.

    Cheney serves Satan unflinchingly (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 06:44:13 PM EST
    Flawlessly loyal while the Dems serve? they serve? ummmm uhhhh they serve healthier food at the House cafeteria now.

    Parent
    He does not serve Satan (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by litigatormom on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:31:21 PM EST
    He IS Satan.

    Parent
    Did you read Jane Mayer's book, (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by snstara on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 06:47:36 PM EST
    The Dark Side?  

    From the case her book lays out, it is fairly clear that Cheney, Addington, Yoo, and Gonzales belong in jail.  Yet, they are not in jail.  

    The U.S. Congress has proved itself just as irrelevant as Cheney, et. al., believed it to be in their pursuit of the Unitary Executive.  They cannot even enforce a subpoena when they deign to issue one. What has gone on in the name of this nation is despicable; where was the Congress?!

    Yes, I did read it. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by litigatormom on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:08:48 PM EST
    It is a chilling book.

    Yes, they all belong in jail. They probably have immunity from civil suits.  To the extent that they have lied to Congress, obstructed justice, etc., they can be prosecuted.  Whether they will be is another question.

    Obama has left the question open. But I'm sure there will be a sizable number of people who want to "put it behind us," the way Ford put Nixon behind us (ugh) by pardoning him.  I say that we can't put it behind us until we have full knowledge of what they did.

    Georgie can always pardon them prospectively.  There is a good chance he will.  You can't be pardoned from impeachment, however, and I think they can be impeached even after they leave office. What's the point, you might ask?  Shame, for one.  And forfeit of government pensions and other benefits.

    Parent

    Ignoring their crimes sets a bad precedent. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by snstara on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:27:30 PM EST
    But I agree that it seems as if no one will see a single day in prison, or lose a cent in benefits or lucrative post-government contracts, regardless of who wins in November.  

    Parent
    And (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by cal1942 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:42:58 PM EST
    what in h&ll is John Yoo doing teaching at the University of California.

    I'm afraid the rot and decay is too deep.

    Still worse, it was the cowards in Congress, worried about their own hides, who gave us Obama whose 'post-partisan' trash guarantees that the people guilty of ruining our constitutional government will get off without even so much as wide exposure.

    One of the arguments against impeachment, that conviction and removal from office was not possible because of Republican opposition, was always a strong clue that impeachment wouldn't occur because of the fear of public backlash.

    House leadership never considered that the public may have offered strong support once hearings began to expose the perfidy of this administration.

    We are so screwed.

    Parent

    Can (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 06:49:22 PM EST
    they be prosecuted after they leave office?

    Parent
    By who? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 06:50:23 PM EST
    By (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 06:56:22 PM EST
    someone like Patrick Fitzgerald? Is there a statute of limitations on this kind of stuff? Since I'm not a lawyer I really don't have an idea. Some of the lawyers here could answer the question.

    Parent
    Haven't a clue there (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:13:46 PM EST
    Congress owns this now (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 07:35:34 PM EST
    An Obama administration will never pursue any of this and McCain sure wouldn't either. The Democratic Congress earns the lion's share of the blame. They came to power in 2006 because the American people were disgusted wirh the corruption and incompetence of the Republcan's. Instead of showing leadership they made the decision that it would hurt their post partisan schtick they were going to use in the presidential race.

    And now (none / 0) (#33)
    by cal1942 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:45:03 PM EST
    they're blowing the election by talking non-stop about Sarah Palin.

    Parent
    I agree that Congress is toothless (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by lilburro on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 07:50:21 PM EST
    However, the incoming executive's responsibility will be to appoint new people.  I hope someone asks McCain what he thinks of the current crew of administratives, from the Dept of Interior to Addington and Yoo; and if he would keep on anyone from that administration.  If we could get McCain to praise Cheney, that could be golden.  

    O.K. so why exactly (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by NYShooter on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:19:55 PM EST
    did Pelosi, in practically her first announcement as Speaker "take impeachment off the table?"

    And why, on the same subject, did Obama state (slight paraphrase) "I'm not going to wast time on what THE REPUBLICANS will claim is a which hunt?"

    And why exactly did barack vote FOR immunity on FISA?

    Maybe, as he was believing his own hype, and getting closer to actually becoming President, he wanted to "Git me somma that there
    P...o...w...e...r?"

    I don't understand (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:24:32 PM EST
    Usually I have to wait for Lambert's take when it comes to asking these sorts of questions before it all makes any sort of sense to me who is taking who for what ride when.  BTD always has the facts though, for better or worse.

    Parent
    ctrenta (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:01:37 PM EST
    You know you are banned from my threads.

    Do not post in my threads.

    I know this is OT (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by litigatormom on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:30:47 PM EST
    but there is no open thread.  I wanted to link, for your collective entertainment/nausea, an op-ed in the WaPo by McCain economic advisor Donald Luskin.  It is called Quit Doling Out the Bad Economy Line, and it accuses Obama of being "Patient Zero" in spreading the "myth" that we are heading towards a recession.  It's a variation on Phil Gramm's "mental recession/whiners" comments.

    Can we impeach McCain too?

    That Pelosi book 'Know Your Power' (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 06:28:15 PM EST
    It's sales have been a huge flop.  I know you are all shocked.  I was            n't

    It appears that nobody wants to pay good hard earned money to learn how to own their power using the Pelosi method.  I hope I didn't disturb anyone's lawlessness by voicing my opinions, carry on.

    Too much (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 06:31:34 PM EST
    I'm a Liberal (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:18:45 PM EST
    and since my son is special needs and I don't work right now and I read Deepak, I don't own a watch.  I suppose you'll want'n my mantis tiller though, everyone covets it.

    Parent
    Can the next congress investigate Bush (none / 0) (#3)
    by Saul on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 06:29:33 PM EST
    and all his cronies for violation of the laws even after they are gone?

    Looks like if you had a majority proof congress in 09 then you would be able to really investigate and prosecute without the republicans voting against you in the congress to proceed with the investigations.

    They can also be impeached (none / 0) (#28)
    by litigatormom on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:10:13 PM EST
    even after they leave office.

    Parent
    Can you site the actual law that allows (none / 0) (#36)
    by Saul on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 07:39:01 AM EST
    impeachment after the president leaves office.  I feel you cannot. I think it must be done only while in office.

    Parent
    There isn't a specific law (none / 0) (#37)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 10:07:16 AM EST
    There is precedent, however (although not with the President).

    Parent
    Oh BTD (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 06:48:53 PM EST
    I agree with you completely. We're all going to sound like Nader after this is said and done.

    I wish I thought that things would be cleaned up in Nov. I don't think it matters who wins the election.

    None of your business! (none / 0) (#19)
    by Doc Rock on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 07:56:34 PM EST
    What an outstanding entry!  Potenza deserves a medal--Hayden deserves nothing.

    None of your business! (none / 0) (#20)
    by Doc Rock on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 07:56:48 PM EST
    What an outstanding entry!  Potenza deserves a medal--Hayden deserves nothing.

    BTD (none / 0) (#34)
    by cal1942 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:49:51 PM EST
    A superb post and many thanks for providing the links.

    I ordered the book.

    Yeah, but now with retroactive immunity... (none / 0) (#35)
    by lambert on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:15:25 AM EST
    ... isn't all this now arguably legal?

    I think the nation needs to heal. Let's move on!