<p>LEAHY: The president has said very specifically, and hes said it to our European allies, hes waiting for the Supreme Court decision to tell him whether or not he was supposed to close Guantanamo or not. After, he said it upheld his position on Guantanamo, and in fact it said neither. Where did he get that impression? The Presidents not a lawyer, you are, the Justice Department advised him. Did you give him such a cockamamie idea or what?</p>
<p>BRADBURY: Well, I try not to give anybody cockamamie ideas.</p>
<p>LEAHY: Well, whered he get the idea?</p>
<p>BRADBURY: The Hamdan decision, senator, does implicitly recognize were in a war, that the Presidents war powers were triggered by the attacks on the country, and that law of war paradigm applies. Thats what the whole case </p>
<p>LEAHY: I dont think the President was talking about the nuances of the law of war paradigm, he was saying this was going to tell him that he could keep Guantanamo open or not, after it said he could.</p>
<p>BRADBURY: Well, its not </p>
<p>LEAHY: Was the President right or was he wrong?</p>
<p>BRABURY: Its under the law of war </p>
<p>LEAHY: Was the President right or was he wrong?</p>
<p>thank you, but isn’t it interesting that the mentality is there from the people who supposedly are dealing with the law, the constitution, and balance of powers, that Bush is always right…</p>
<p>After all your struggles and skepticism of those who claim to have a creator, a god so to speak, you have finally settled upon someone with mere omnipotence. Still, thats no small matter; but what a disappointment it must have been to realize that it was actually George W. Bush. </p>
<p>Talk about a shot in the keister! Oy vey!
That had to hurt.</p>
<p>Now, now, cgm, you know you shouldn’t have to defend something that is, by definition, true. How can you even question him? (I’m sure your name is on a NSA list somewhere by now!)</p>
<p>Sorry, couldn’t resist… I’ll try to get serious now… :)</p>
<p>Under separation of powers, his attorney works for the executive branch, so I suppose he’s OK in making such a claim. I’d be worried if congress or the courts agreed with the attorney. Otherwise, at least the attitude is in the open, and we know that the job of the advisors was to justify bushie’s wants. </p>
<p>In truth, it makes me think just a smidgen more of some of these advisors. I’ve had a tough time figuring out how otherwise sane, accomplished folks could give such hairbrained, far out opinions (like the famous torture opinion of a few years ago). Silly me, I thought their jobs were advice. Now I know their jobs were to justify and support the boss’s decision (just like the corporate world - another MBA connection for this administration?).</p>
<p>Phew, a quick read of the subject heading and I thought it had said, “Now it is Official: Bush is Impotent” !! And I was thinking, geez, the second Prez to tell the world…another Viagra ad coming? :D</p>
<p>In any case, go Leahy! (I’m from VT and do like him)</p>
<p>Phew, a quick read of the subject heading and I thought it had said, “Now it is Official: Bush is Impotent” !! And I was thinking, geez, the second Prez to tell the world…another Viagra add coming? </p>
<p>In any case, go Leahy! (I’m from VT and do like him)</p>
<p>THat post should have had a spew alert attached to it! Very, very funny.</p>
<p>May I ask whereabouts in Vermont? Daughter is looking at a school in your fair state and, while we have visited, I’m always eager to hear the inside scoop.</p>
<p>You know, I think it would be great if y’all nominated Leahy. Really. You have my blessing.</p>