Replies

The resolutions that Congress passed were enough. Congressmen are on record for both Afghanistan and Iraq, in fact Kerry's vote was used extensively against him during the previous Presidential campaign. Even if they had done what you suggest, do you think that there would really be a difference in what the Congressman say on TV and what the MSM says? No, there would be no difference at all. They will still go on TV and say, "that's not what we meant," and so forth.

Now on to secrecy. Wiretaps, there is no way, whatsoever, that program could have been in the open and been effective. The appropriate Congressional leaders knew. The Patriot Act was held up in Congress over stupid stuff that was a product of the Dems being able to control the message (GWB admin, PR IQ of 2). Over at NRO at the time the deal was passed the National Security experts said as much. Once again, if you have that information out in the open, they aren't secret. Gitmo, what about it? Nothing has been done wrong and nothing has been secret other than classified hearings to determine the status of the prisoners. They have invited the press down, the detainees could challenge status in federal courts, and other things. But I digress but the previous four things have not influenced Bush's poll numbers. Democrats cannot make a winning argument on any of those issues, as uninformed as American's are, they aren't that stupid and they recognize what was going on there.

Portgate was a problem is because the administration has an ineffective spokesperson (McClellan) and can't conduct a PR campaign worth anything. They should have been in front on this and the screwed the pooch. If the administration had effectively controlled the story and explained the situation then it wouldn't be a problem, but they didn't so it is a problem. The Katrina response was a clusterfuck of the highest order, but really, there was nothing they could do that much differently. There was so much miscommunication and confusion that stuff got screwed up. But for the federal response it would have been much worse. Imagine if those halfwits Nagin and Blanco had 100% of the responsibility? The city would still be underwater has tens of thousands would have died. Finally, the Libby scandal, I don't know what to say on this other than the administration could not do anything differently because they did nothing wrong.

Secrecy isn't the problem, it is ineffective communications coming out of the WH and the Republican morons in Congress getting run-over by the Democrats. Half of the Republican caucus is so concerned about being liked by the NYT editorial page that they won't do the right thing.

A strong President isn't a problem as long as Congress properly uses its check, which is has.

Secrecy isn't the problem, it is ineffective communications coming out of the WH and the Republican morons in Congress getting run-over by the Democrats

But the secrecy IMO is what causes the ineffective communications. CIFUS (if you believe the press reports) didn't bother to tell the heads of the departments nor the President because it's very nature is to be behind the scenes. Secrecy has caused the trials of several terrorists to be held up because the government would not discuss its methods. If you are going to arrest people you must allow them their day in court or our system of justice is worthless. Secrecy has hampered the communication between the WH and the Press, between the WH and Congress, between the WH and the people.

I disagree on the declaration of war. If the declaration said We the members of Congress vote to declare war on Iraq. Yes/No. You can not weasel out of that.

I agree that a strong president isn't the problem as long as you have a strong congress and strong court too. What I'm saying is a strong president in the absence of a strong Congress is a problem and for 4 years that is what we had. That is why we had record budget shortfalls, record spending, and record secercy