Ciao!

I think it makes a lot of sense that you would be supportive of Bush. I don't agree with this, but i also don't think you don't have good reason to be in the Republican camp. If you care more about foreign policy matters over domestic issues, Bush is your guy. Unfourtunetly, I think your trust in The Bush Administration to effectively implement its goals abroad is mislaid. It should be remembered that the September 11th Terrorist attacks took place on Bush's watch, and that his attempts to make the world a safer place for democracy and americans have been questionably effective.
In the meantime, America has lost nearly 3 million jobs, and not to foreign sources. 87 percent of jobs lost since September eleventh have not reappeared abroad.(Harpers Index, January) Also, Bush has repealled, or rendered inneffective, every enviromental protection law passed since the 1970s.
Economy aside, i think its time for america to stop looking to solve problems for other courtries, and to start helping them solve their problems themselves, in the global community, in addition to solving our own problems here at home.

Bret:

Are you trying to make the post hoc ergo propter hoc argument that just because 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, it's his fault? I hope not, since it's a logical fallacy. We could easily blame Clinton for 9/11. I prefer to lay the blame on bin Laden.

That said, I do think Bush's policies have been fairly successful. Let's see ... Afghanistan's no longer ruled by the Taliban and is moving towards becoming a stable state, Iraq's no longer ruled by a mad tyrant and is moving towards becoming a democracy, Lybia recently decided to abandon its WMD program, Syria & Jordan recently agreed to tighten their borders w/ Iraq to prevent those foreigners (the resistance fighters aren't Iraqis) slipping in. I think those are successes.

As for the economy, I think it all depends on how you see things. Is Bush really in charge of the economy? I don't think so. There's tons of other factors (not to mention the 9/11 effect on jobs & job creation). I agree w/ you on the environmental arguments and probably many other domestic ones.

Bottom line: It's not that I "trust" the Bush administration to solve all my problems, especially not the problem of global terrorism. It's that I've not heard the Dems address the issue in any way that satisfies me. When I have to choose between a candidate who ignores the greatest problem facing the world (and especially the survival of Western, liberal civilization) today and one that's doing something (anything!) about it, the choice for me is obvious.

I have to agree with you. Being more drawn to foreign affairs, I believe that Bush's admin has been effectively dealing with the problem of int'l terror.

The fact that we have not seen another major terror attack is evidence that American intel agencies are working very hard, and achieving success at identifying and neutralizing threats.

Having worked along the US-Mexico border for the Border Patrol, I can tell you firsthand that the extra funding Bush has poured into Customs and Border Protection (read better equipment and more personnel) is money very well spent. (Moreover, he has increased the number of Customs, and Diplomatic Security agents - which spells greater security for ports of entry as embassies.)

In short, greater resources funneled into DHS and intelligence agencies is producing a safer America. I don't think this can be disputed.

I'm looking at Bush as being a safer bet. Truth told, however, I still can't say definitively where my vote will go just yet...

ps. I've almost always leaned left in the past, and I'm not pleased with the economy, on the domestic side. But I think that these days, and the next few years, require vigilence in the int'l arena as relating to security issues.

I'm also still on the fence, waiting. The US electoral system is all about the better choice (or least bad, depending on your half-full or half-empty perspective). If the Dems put forth a better candidate than Bush, I'd vote for them. If not, my vote goes to Bush.

My problem w/ this campaign's that it's been turned into the Democratic slogan best put forth by Dean: The goal is to defeat Bush. Wrong. The goal shouldn't be about defeating Bush. Elections are a means, not an ends. The goal should be about making America better, safer, fairer, etc. Now. Is defeating Bush a means to that ends? That's a fair question. But the goal shouldn't be to defeat Bush, as if anyone would make a better president.

I don't want to hear candidates tell me that they can defeat Bush. I don't care. I don't care who slept w/ whom, who flew more hours in a fighter jet, who did or didn't do drugs in their younger years, who protested what war, or anything else. All I want to know is this: What are you going to do to govern this country and to protect it from international terrorism? I don't care about candidate's opinion on Bush or anyone else. I just want them to answer that question — and focus on it.

I also keep hearing the Dean meme about change. The Dems want change, change, change. But I've not yet gotten a clear idea of what kind of things they want to change, and in what way. I want a program for change, not just the idea that change (any change) is good.

well said.

You stated:

"As for the economy, I think it all depends on how you see things. Is Bush really in charge of the economy? I don't think so. There's tons of other factors."

In response I ask, Is Bush really in charge of the executive office? I really don't think so, from everything I've read and seen he seems to be a puppet for special interests.

As far as the dems stance (with details) for how to continue the fight against global terrorism, um, theres 9 more months of debating to go. Once a democratic nominee is elected then will your concerns be answered, with detail. I look forward to seeing debates between Bush and the Dem nominee. I also don't recall any 'detailed' plans of action from Bush during his campaign 4 years ago, only the slogan "compassionate conservative" comes to mind.

"...everything I've read and seen he seems to be a puppet for special interests..."

You must be reading propaganda, Sergio.

Sergio:

Oh, definitely good points. Bush is as much beholden to special interest groups as any Dem president was (Clinton?) or will be. That's American politics, for better or worse.

And I certainly do hope the nine months of debates sharpen things up for me. I think Edwards might be the guy. There's a "Republican for Edwards" campaign recently started (there's also a "Democrats for Bush"). Kerry is starting to worry me ... his recent conversations w/ the hard-liners in Iran saying he'd reverse the current policy of putting pressure on them makes the mullahs happy ... and my unhappy. Iran's in a delicate situation in that it could go hard-line or further towards reform right about now ... we have to push the hard-liners or at least let them know that barring the opposition from the election is unacceptable.

It's not that I think Bush did everything right in handling the Middle East. But he's at least put intense amounts of pressure on authoritarian reforms, calling for democratic reforms. That should continue, not diminish. I don't want to be "friends" w/ an authoritarian Iran (or Saudi Arabia, or Syria, or Jordan, or Pakistan), I want to push for and support democratization movements.

Sergio,

The President doesn't have much control over the economy. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors dictates monetary policy. (This Bd does not include the President.) And the legislature dictates fiscal policy. (The President is not a member of the legislative branch.) And there are indeed tons of other factors.

I also think Scott's correct in observing that you've been consuming propaganda. You suggest that Bush is not in control of the executive, because he's a "puppet of special interests."

Bush is the President, who by constitutional fiat is vested with the executive power. And suggesting that he's a puppet of special interests is conclusory at very best, but most probably nonsense.

Also, there wasn't a "plan of action" put forth by Bush 4 years ago because the unthinkable thing had not yet happened. Bush was elected in 2000, the terrorist attacks that initiated the war on terror didn't occur until 2001.

And, perhaps, the democratic nominee may better address the next steps to be taken in the war on terror, and make more compelling arguments on making America safe against terrorist threats. But throwing blind faith into the fact that the nominee is democratic and will therefore be "better" than Bush is simply naive.

Take a step into the real world and you will see that political answers are not easily answered with prepackaged responses.

Oh, on the idea of "plans of action" against Iraq. I've heard the accusation that the Bush administration had a working plan for an invasion of Iraq well before 9/11.

Well. Duh! Of course it di. The Clinton administration drafted it in the 1990s. And this isn't a clever conspiracy; it's rational national security. Iraq was a regional threat, we had military assets & commitments in the region, therefore it was necessary to have contingency plans on what to do.

BTW, I'm sure there are military plans in the Pentagon (heck, some of these things are West Point paper writting assignments!) for various contingencies. Such as ... what if North Korea crosses the border? what if India invades Pakistan? what if Syria attacks Israel? what if North Korea launches missiles at Japan? what if the president calls for an invasion of Panama? or Grenada? Heck, I'm sure there's a plan gathering dust somewhere just in case we go to war w/ France.

In short, I certainly hoped there was a plan — lots of them, in fact — for Iraq prior to 9/11. I'd like to think the military spends most of its time preparing for even the most ludicrous contingencies.

Tom,

I never stated that Bush had control over the economy. I am well aware that the US economy is run by the Fed as well as other entities. I simply stated that I feel he is not in charge of what he should be, which is the executive office.

That said, the "propaganda" that I read are from several non-fringe sources that Yahoo News posts daily which include The Associated Press, The Washington Post, Dow Jones, etc.

Examples are:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/dowjones/20040211/bs_dowjones/200402111541001168

and

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040218/sc_nm/science_bush_dc_8

One of those articles points out Bush's lack of a plan to resolve the trade dispute with Europe. The other addresses the concerns of scientists who view the adminstration as distorting their findings in order to support its own policies.
If you suspect all those sources are biased and liberal, that is your observation, nothing more.

Regarding your statement "there wasn't a 'plan of action' put forth by Bush 4 years ago", I didn't know a president needed a major catastrophe to set up a plan for the continued growth of the country. There are issues other than just global terrorism you know. What has Bush done to curb corporate corruption? The environment? I guess those issues don't matter to you, and thats fine.

Other than lead the fight against terrorism what has Bush done for the US? (Which by the way I believe any president would have done in a catastrophic sitation like 9/11). The majority of the answers I here from people are "I got a $300 dollar refund". What else has he done? Maybe you can enlighten me.

How can you possibly believe that a man who is incapable of composing proper english sentences, is really pulling the strings in the executive office?

It is even more ironic that you so called 'moderates' use debating skills and rhetoric to prove your points across, a skill your president clearly lacks. What happens when your president doesn't have pre-written speeches?

"This very week in 1989, there were protests in East Berlin and in Leipzig. By the end of that year, every communist dictatorship in Central America had collapsed." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Nov. 6, 2003

"[A]s you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Oct. 28, 2003

"[T]he Iraqis need to be very much involved. They were the people that was brutalized by this man." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 15, 2003

"Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., July 25, 2003

"It's very interesting when you think about it, the slaves who left here to go to America, because of their steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped change America." —George W. Bush, Dakar, Senegal, July 8, 2003

He's leading the fight against global terrorism because his administration is telling him what to do in that respect. That is puppetry. I would have more respect for the White House if Dick Cheney was President.

Sergio,

As a rule I avoid political debates; they nearly always end up with accusations about who is more or less informed. With that said ...

I reread your post and agree that your didn't state anything about Bush's role in the economy. You questioned Bush's competence with regard to executing the highest executive office.

I still fail to see your point on how GW is failing to lead the executive. I am not compelled to present articles supporting my support of President Bush; it is not my responsibility to "enlighten you." I'm comfortable with my position, and don't feel the need to convert you to the dark side. There are drawbacks to every administration, Shrub included. But based on what I know, I'm putting my vote in the incumbent President.

I read the articles you posted, out of respect for your　enthusiasm. The first, the one that "points out Bush's lack of a plan to resolve the trade dispute with Europe," also says this:

"In its 2005 fiscal year budget plan, the Bush administration offered Congress several options to replace the foreign sales corporation benefit. They include a corporate tax cut, a permanent research tax credit, increased small business expensing, and other tax benefits."

Aren't these "options" "plans" to address the trade dispute? The tenor of the article was that Republican leadership is displeased with the Admin's "somewhat lackadaisical" approach to the dispute, not the absence of plans. (I'm not familiar with the dispute, incidentally. Did you read the article carefully?)

The second article was interesting. It very well may be that the Administration has spun information to promote its policies. But I doubt that this is unprecedented.

Moreover, the article was based on comments by members of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The Union's entire raison d'etre is pointing out scientific failures by governmental leaders and preventing the "misuse" of science, and is composed of respected scientists from all over. But I strongly suspect vast ideological differences between the the Republican platform and these admittedly "green" scientists, who demand, in the wake of lost confidence following the "federal government's involvement in Vietnam," "a great change in humanity's stewardship of the earth."

I suppose it is my observation, and nothing more, that statements in the first article seem to contradict your own, and the second article is probably not objective.

Objectivity is the key here, right? The dichotomy of liberal / conservative / moderate means very little in my view.

And you're setting up a straw man with that statement that the you didn't know a catastophe was required for the Pres to have a plan for the continued growth of the country. That wasn't the issue that you raised with regard to plans.

You said, "As far as the dems stance (with details) for how to continue the fight against global terrorism, um, theres 9 more months of debating to go... . I also don't recall any 'detailed' plans of action from Bush during his campaign 4 years ago, only the slogan "compassionate conservative" comes to mind."

The inference is that Bush failed to present a stance (with details) for how to continue the fight against global terrorism. Global Terrorism, not the economy.

Of course I care about the environ, corp corruption, et al. But that was not the issue you raised.

"The majority of the answers I here from people are "I got a $300 dollar refund". What else has he done? Maybe you can enlighten me."

Very Pithy.

Sorry Miguel, last post on this subject.

Buzz,

Pretty weak. Bad public speaking skills = bad Pres? That's a jump.

On what basis do you conclude that the only reason Bush is prosecuting the war on terror is because his admin is telling him to?

If you're talking about his advisors, aides, cabinet, etc., then also note that all Presidents have these inputs.

If you're privy to direct evidence indicating that Bush is controlled (not advised as are all Presidents, but actually controlled) by his administration, then I will listen carefully to what you have to say.

If you want to shovel conjecture and unfounded conclusions, then I will not.

"I am not compelled to present articles supporting my support of President Bush"
Funny, is it that you can't find any that aren't biased, or right-wing propaganda?

"I'm comfortable with my position"

As am I.

I love this bit from Buzz:

It is even more ironic that you so called 'moderates' use debating skills and rhetoric to prove your points across, a skill your president clearly lacks. What happens when your president doesn't have pre-written speeches?

Not only is the first sentence gramatically incorrect, it's an admition that we "so-called moderates" use debating skills & rhetoric to make our points. So. Um. How do you want to counter-argue? W/ a list of slogans? Your ideological position? Sad truth is, most voters don't care about ideology or slogans. They care about arguments that make (common) sense.

Bush may not be eloquent (as if Clinton's parsing of the defition of the word "is" was eloquent), but he's addressing the isues I, as a voter, want addressed. Namely: What to do about international terrorism. I still haven't seen a single comment on this post address that issue either.

I like a statement Dennis Miller recently made about why he's likely to support Bush. I paraphrase: After 9/11, the Democrats said they weren't going to do anything to defend me, but they still wanted more money. No thank you.

BTW, I'm very happy w/ my tax refund. That might be worth a vote alone. But you mention that any president would've fought the war on terror after 9/11. Well, I'm not so sure about that. At least not if we believe the Dean, Clark, Kerry rhetoric — made after 9/11, I might add.

Sorry to sound dramatic, but right now the war on terror is top priority. There exists a group of people who want to destroy Western liberalism. All of our quibles about what to do about the environment, economics, health care, etc. are a tempest in a teacup comparead to that. And if we fail to defeat al-Qaeda and similar groups, that tempest in a teacup might not matter.

The point is that your president can not debate the way you are debating with your fellow bloggers. My grammar is far from perfect, but it is a thousand times better than your hero Bush. That is truly pathetic.

And let me rephrase "prove your point across" with "try to prove your point across".

Regarding Dennis Millers propaganda, the Democrats voted FOR the war on terrorism and have supported bills to make it easier to fight terrorism.

Sadly it seems that the war on terrorism is the only issue that really concerns you. Just wait until your mother gets sick and won't be able to afford adequate healthcare, or when you actually get a real job but find it isn't that easy anymore.

"Oh, but Bush doesn't control the economy"

When he decides to fight a 100 billion dollar war alone when he could have waited a little more to have an international coalition that would share the burden of war debt, he does have a major influence on the economy and the deficit. As you know there was no immediate threat from Iraq. Who destroyed the WTC? Osama, not Iraq.

First, Bush isn't my "hero" or anything like it. Why do you insist on seing the world in black-white terms? Life is nothing but gray areas ... I like some things Bush does.

Frankly, I don't care how eloquent our president is. Or how faithful to his wife. Or what he did when he was a teenager or in college. I don't care about any of that. All I care about, as I said before, is what policies he pursues in the war on terror.

Yes, the Dems voted for the military actions in Afghanistan & Iraq (Kerry voted for both, BTW). It's not a partisan issue. I don't care about parties, to me they're about the same in the end.

My complaint has to do w/ the campaign strategies & rhetoric of the current Dem candidates (although I'm starting to like Edwards more). The current Dem rhetoric doesn't address the main issue I care about. Come to think of it, you (Buzz) haven't addressed it yet either.

And that's also a problem w/ the Dems in general. Bush may not be articulate, but he stays on topic. The Dems have reduced themselves to red herrings, ad hominem attacks, and other logical fallacies. So, eloquence aside, they also fail in a rhetorical test.

Miguel,
Basically I think that not only has Bush failed in the "war on terror", but he has created a mess any following president will be hard-pressed to clean up.
BUSH'S MESS
As you stated, 9-11 had nothing to do with Bush or even Clinton, it was al Quada. However, Bush's response to 9-11 has INCREASED the danger to Americans abroad and her at home.

One of the comments mentioned that Bush has been successful because no terrorism had occurred here in America. I would have to disagree. If you look at the major actions on American targets by al Quada, they have roughly happened once every 2 years or so. Khubai Towers-June 1996, African embassies-August 1998, USS Cole-October 2000, September 11-2001. Bush is no more responsible for stopping the next attack (which is just a matter of time), than he is responsible for allowing 9-11.

The answer to international terrorism is not the path Bush is pursuing. In fact, Bush is doing exactly what al Quada could hope for--Bush's policies are recruiting thousands of more people to join extremist organizations. Look at what he has done; invaded and destabilized Afghanistan leaving it for the warlords to rule, invaded and destabilized Iraq (with no legal cause), left the Israelis and Palestinians to blow themselves up, unconstitutionally imprisoned American citizens, violated the Geneva convention (Gitmo prisoners), spent hundreds of billions on false security, spent little on first responders, bankrupted city/state budgets with meaningless terror alerts, and destroyed the credibility of the Presidency.

Even worse, Bush has divided the one bloc of potential allies--the democracies of the world--into several fragments, by his misguided, weak, and illegitimate policies.

If foreign policy is your concern, then any voter would do right to pick someone other than George Bush.

Patrick,

What aspect of Bush's response to 9-11 are you talking about? The broader war on terror, the war in Afganistan, Iraq, heightened border and port of entry controls, tighter immigration control, creation of DHS, deconstruction of INS, pressuring foreign countries to pony up the terrorists, greater cooperation between intelligence agencies (here and abroad), promoting an image of non-tolerant aggression towards terrorists, terror groups, and nations that sanction their activities within its borders, or none of these? What would be a better approach to dealing with terrorism following 9-11? I don't think diplomacy would work. Perhaps greater concessions and cooperation with foreign nations in prosecuting the war, but even that would slow down the pace as the mechanics are worked out, and would get bogged down in bureaucracy, red tape and politics. I think a swift, strong response was necessary.

You also mentioned that the lack of terror attacks since 9-11 does not demonstrate the effectiveness of American intelligence in combatting the threat, noting past attacks by Al Qaida. Seems like you're suggesting that Al Qaida will attack notwithstanding the efforts made by the present admin to dismantle the network. I think you're a little off base here, however: the military offensive in Afganistan has servely crippled the leadership of al Qaida, and continuing efforts (monitoring financial flows from members of al Qaida, as well as other activities) continues to bleed the group.

I think Bush has been responsible for preventing attacks. DHS and various intelligence agencies have been beefed up, and are directly combating the problem. While likely no leader could have predicted 9-11, some future attacks can be with vigilent surveillance and other operations, clandestine or open, as necessary. Every practicable effort to identify and neutralize future threats should be taken.

Inaction, or ineffective action, following 9-11 would have done more harm than help. It's no secret that the attacks were celebrated in certain parts of the world. Wouldn't appearing weak or ineffectual give the impression to terrorists that the US cannot defend itself against their 'righteous' cause, thereby inviting further attacks? Diplomatic efforts would most probably flounder. When people think they're right - really convinced of it - they go to great lengths. Homicidal lengths in cases of terror. I'm convinced that swift, bold and decisive action following 9-11 was the best way to communicate American unity, and convey the message that their actions were unconscionable, unacceptable, and wrong, and that every effort would be made in the future to stop them. While direct confrontation of terror groups and gov'ts who harbor them may precipitate recruitment of some terrorists, I suspect that these numbers would be greater following any other response.

Bush's invasion of Afganistan was necessary. He should have perhaps waited for more support, but al Qaida was able to operate freely within its borders, and to wait, or to pursue diplomacy with the Taliban, would have given Qaida time to dig further underground, plan more attacks, and disburse; moreover, the Taliban gov't was highly oppressive, murderous, and ruthless. Now, even under warlord rule in some places (the country is still ostensibly ruled by the central gov't est by the US), women can go to school and receive medical care; sing and dance are permitted; and the people enjoy greater liberty. The US did Afganistan a great service by toppling the Taliban.

The US didn't leave the Israelis and Palistinians to blow themselves up. You statement implies that the US at one time had control over the situation, which has never been the case, despite substantial effort over the years. I disagree wholesale with the concept that the Bush administration has allowed two warring nations to slaughter one another. How many times has the US tried to intervene? The US is in a no-win situation. It cannot completely support either side. To support Palestine would be to alienate Israel, which faces one of the most dire security situation in the world, with hostile forces on all sides, constant shelling on the north by Hamas, and blood-chilling threats by leaders of most Arab nations in the region. To support Israel would alienate Arabs, who view 'the injustice' of Palestine as a primary rallying point for Arab unity. Diplomatic efforts over the years have failed miserably. And apparently to stand back, and focus on more imminent issues, is to 'leave them to blow eachother up.' I wish there were a solution!

The question of the constitutionality of holding of American citizens as "enemy combatants" is an interesting one. I happened to be reading into the very subject. I have a Verbatim Transcript
dated July 25, 2002, of John Ashcroft testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, being asked this very question. I attached it at the bottom of this post for your review.** (You might also find it interesting, Miguel.) The questioning is made by Senator Feingold, D-Wisconsin.

Hundreds of billions have not been spent on false security. This money is making its way to law enforcement and first responders. As a former DHS employee, I saw firshand that money was being spent on night vision optice, improved comms, more manpower, et al. It is not being wasted, and it is making it to first responders. Because of bureacratic procedures, it just takes time to make it's way to the agency, and for the agency to obtain needed resources.

Credibility of the Presidency? Did you really say that? Bill Clinton! Now, I liked Bill, I supported him during his presidency, and think the impeachment proceedings were a collosal waste of money and time. Not much credibility was left after Clinton lied to the American people (albeit over a trivial issue, and it being "legally correct" (Clinton was a lawyer's lawyer after that remark!)), and it coming public knowledge that he was receiving fellatio under the Oval Office desk, and abusing cigars.

As to Bush dividing the democracies of the world into several fragments, those democracies were never a cohesive unit. There was support immediately following 9-11, but that support waned with time and the political injection, and I suspect would have done so no matter what. Lets you also forget, the US did have support from a number of other countries, just not France or Germany, the most vocal opponants, who had very much to lose by supporting a war effort considering their sizeable muslim populations. (Moreover, France's motives have been subject for otehr reasons. See http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040128-094014-7323r.htm)

"Misguided, weak and illegitimate" are conclusory adjectives, and I agree with their application here.

You make a good argument on these counts, though.

FEINGOLD: I'd like to now turn to the issue of the detention of
U.S. citizens. I've always believed that one of the most important
principals of our legal system is that -- been that Americans can not
be arrested and held indefinitely without charge or access to counsel
or judicial review, simply in the arbitrary decision of a government
official, even if president.

Section 4001-A of Title 18 of the U.S. Code enacted in 1971
provides, "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the
United States except pursuant to an act of Congress."

So I'd ask you General, what is the legal authority for the
president's decision to transfer Jose Padilla from civilian custody to
military custody, and to hold him there indefinitely? I'm especially
interested to know whether you advised the president that Section
4001-A prohibits indefinite detention without charges of U.S.
citizens, and if not, why not.

ASHCROFT: Let me address 4001 of Title 18, U.S. Code, which is a
title dealing with the criminal law, and with the criminal justice
system.

The president's authority to detain enemy combatants, including
U.S. citizens, is based on his commander in chief responsibilities
under the Constitution, not provisions of the criminal code. And it
is bolstered by the Congress' September 18, 2001 authorization to use
force, which plainly includes the force necessary to detain enemy
combatants.

Section 4001-A does not, and constitutionally I don't believe it
could, interfere with the president's constitutional power as
commander in chief. 4001-A reads, "No citizen shall be imprisoned or
otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an act of
Congress." And as you mentioned, that was enacted in 1971. While the
language appears broad, the section as a whole plainly addresses the
attorney general's authority with respect to federal, civilian prison
system detainees, and not the president's constitutional power as the
commander in chief to detain enemy combatants.

FEINGOLD: Well General, is there an act of Congress, or even a
court decision issued since 1971, since the date of that statute that
you believe grants the president the authority to transfer and hold
Padilla in military custody indefinitely? And if so, what act of
Congress or court decision grants this authority to the president?

ASHCROFT: Well, in 1984, Congress enacted 10 USC 956, which
explicitly authorizes payment for the detention of enemy combatants.
So that there are items that clearly make it understood and recognize
what I believe is the constitutional authority...

FEINGOLD: Does that statute refer to American citizens being
held as enemy combatants?

ASHCROFT: It does not differentiate between enemy combatants.
In that respect it's very similar to the case law that does not
differentiate between enemy combatants and others when it comes to
detaining individuals who have been a part of an enemy action against
the United States.

I might point out that even when 4001-A was being enacted,
Congressman Abner Mikva and others in the debate over it stated that
the provisions did not interfere with the president's commander in
chief powers. So that there is legislative history to indicate that
it was understood when 4001-A was passed that the law did not purport
to in any way derogate that which was constitutionally established
regarding the president's powers as commander in chief.

No court has ever construed 4001-A to apply outside the context
of civilian detention, but these cases admittedly don't come up very
often.

FEINGOLD: Well, General, the law in 1970 was -- '71 was enacted
following a long and troubling history in our nation about the
detention of 100,000 Japanese-Americans, German-Americans and Italian-
Americans. Not because they committed crimes but out of a fear of
what they might do. And I think there is serious dispute here with
regard to your interpretation of what this...

ASHCROFT: May I comment on that, Senator? The detention of
citizens of the United States who were not enemy combatants but merely
of an ethnic group, which I think you referred to in the detention of
Japanese citizens -- citizens of Japanese origin during the Second
World War, is obviously a very different item than the detention of
enemy combatants.

And I think the case law -- Supreme Court case law recognizes the
difference between enemy combatants and others in this respect. And
it's something that we're very conscious of and sensitive to.

FEINGOLD: General, then let me ask you this, given the
importance of this practice, apparently, to the administration. Other
than Padilla and Hamdi, are there other U.S. citizens currently being
held as enemy combatants, and if so who are they? Why are they being
held as enemy combatants, where are they being held, how long have
they been held?

ASHCROFT: I'm told there are none. And I know of none, and I'm
told there are none.

FEINGOLD: It is just the two of them, then?

ASHCROFT: That's my understanding.

Wow, many typos. I should've previewed my post.

In the last paragraph, I meant to say I disagree with the application of those adjectives to Bush's policies.

The other just make the reading goofy, like I'm writing in a foreign tongue. Sorry! (Es tut mir leid!)

Patrick:

You make good arguments for why Bush's foreign policy isn't perfect. And I agree that there are many things I wish he'd done better. But the argument that Bush's foreign policy isn't to your liking doesn't make me want to vote for ANYONE other than Bush. I want to know what that other person would do. Bush may not be a "ten" in my foreign policy scale, but I want to know that I'm replacing w/ someone who ranks higher, not just someone else.

Bottom line: you don't have to convince me to vote AGAINST Bush. You have to convince me to vote FOR someone else.

What's funny about tom's "argument" is that no where does he mention Patrick's concern regarding Bush invading and destabilizing Iraq (with no legal cause). Guess what? This is one of the most important issues for many Americans. Bush's adament lies about Iraq having WMD has affected the way people view Bush.

Also, comparing Bill Clinton's sex lies (which killed no one) to Bush's Iraq WMD lies (which have killed thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of US citizens) is ridiculous.

Buzz:

First, Bush didn't exactly "lie" about Iraq's WMDs. Everyone (including the French, Chinese, Germans, UN, etc) believed Iraq had WMDs prior to the invasion. The only question was what to do about them. Perhaps our intelligence was wrong. But being wrong does not make one a liar.

Second, don't think stability's always a good thing. Is Iraq less "stable" than it was a year ago? Yes. But what kind of stability did it have (mass graves, rape camps, torture centers)? North Korea is very stable. I sure wish it'd destabilize, giving the people a chance to move towards democracy. Sometimes you have to rock the boat.

I forgot to mention Iraq, and wrote too much on other matters anyway. Miguel addressed your concerns.

Also, Buzz, take a look at the history of armed struggle and you'll find many instances of faulty intelligence leading to open conflict. I think the Bush admin's mistake in interpreting pre-war intelligence was very well precedented, including mistakes by leaders you might respect.

No Tom, I think you're wrong. Bush is the only US president to ever have faulty intelligence. It never happened to FDR, Truman, Isenhower, JFK. Oh, wait, it did. Pearl Harbor? Chinese army crossing the Yalu? Sputnik? Bay of Pigs?

Also, I'm not sure Clinton's lies didn't cause any deaths. Remember Kosovo? The military campaign there happened around the time of the sex scandal. It's also an uncanny coincidence that the cruise missle strikes against Iraq happend during the peak of the Whitewater scandal. If you check the record, every time Clinton was in a scandal, he launched missiles agianst some country.

Now, I know I'm just knitpicking. And I agree w/ much of the Clinton foreign policy (though I don't think it was aggressive enough against dictators). But this whole "Bush is a murder and Clinton wasn't" line is weak. Every US president has blood on his hands, whether because of something he did (like go to war) or didn't do (like sit by and watch people be mass murdered in foreign countries). It's part of the job; get used to it.