ABSOLUTE POWER-The Goal Is NOT To Win War On Terror-The Goal Is Limitless Presidential Authority

[kpete]

Absolute Power
The real reason the Bush administration won't back down on Guantanamo.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Saturday, Jan. 13, 2007, at 6:52 AM ET

But it has finally become clear that the goal of these foolish efforts isn't really to win the war against terrorism; indeed, nothing about Padilla, Guantanamo, or signing statements moves the country an inch closer to eradicating terror. The object is a larger one, and the original overarching goal of this administration: expanding executive power, for its own sake.

................


The endgame in the war on terror isn't holding the line against terrorists. It's holding the line on hard-fought claims to absolutely limitless presidential authority.

...................

Insiders in the Bush administration told Mayer that Addington and Cheney had been "laying the groundwork" for a vast expansion of presidential power long before 9/11. In 2002, the vice president told ABC News that the presidency was "weaker today as an institution because of the unwise compromises that have been made over the last 30 to 35 years." Rebuilding that presidency has been their sole goal for decades.

...................

In a heartbreaking letter from Guantanamo this week, published in the Los Angeles Times, prisoner Jumah Al Dossari writes: "The purpose of Guantanamo is to destroy people, and I have been destroyed." I fear he is wrong. The destruction of Al Dossari, Jose Padilla, Zacarias Moussaoui, and some of our most basic civil liberties was never a purpose or a goal—it was a mere byproduct. The true purpose is more abstract and more tragic: To establish a clunky post-Watergate dream of an imperial presidency, whatever the human cost may be.

more at:
http://www.slate.com/id/2157493/

[illinoisprogressive]

1. thanks for this

Last night I posted my personal thoughts on this administration and what I felt was the big driving force and I felt it was imperial presidential power. It has been Cheney's rage for 35 years. He never forgave for Nixon's downfall and Bush just likes personal power to abuse.
I'm glad you posted this today. thanks

[HereSince1628]

2. WHOA! I heard a BINGO!!! Over the roar of da Bear's celebration!

Terrible to say, but true.

[kimmerspixelated]

4. They are SICK with power

and with Pandora's box about to be cranked open even wider, it is not hard to imagine at all some kind of crisis in place for Nov. 2008, therefore cancelling all elections...with the outcome of ETERNAL EFERNO KING GEORGE!!! WE CAN'T LET THIS NIGHTMARE UNFOLD!!!!

[HereSince1628]

7. I always thought I'd leave a better world behind me than this.

I'm crumudjin enough not to have expected anything like a utopia. But this really is a pisser.

[madokie]

26. I guess as long as I can breath and still talk I will be working towards that utopia even though it

is unatainable. It really hits home with me because I am expecting a grandchild soon and look at the mess we have to leave for them. Its not that it makes me mad it's that it pisses me right off

[HereSince1628]

29. Yes, struggle on for sure. It's just hit me that it's going to take longer

to fix it than I've got left. It'll take at least a decade to just clear away the debris so that generations worth of reconstruction can begin.

[Kurovski]

3. Yep. K&R.

Cheney's been singing the song of "expanded" presidential power for many years.

[magellan]

5. The unanswered question: will they give all that lovely imperial power up to the Dems in '08?

Stay tuned.

[malaise]

6. Which is why I'm waiting for the truth about

9/11. It was way too convenient for men seeking power.

[Parisle]

8. Well,..."War on Terror" is purposely vague,....

--- In fact,... I'd say it cannot be defined by any terms OTHER than the execution of limitless, one-man presidential authority,.. specifically of the military variety. It's a word-game con,.. and any waging of a "war on terror" in fact connotes the presence of dictatorial power. The so-called war on terror is just the semantic means to an end.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

23. the rules of any vague war

I just realized this the other night in a bout of insomnia:

Any vague war like "The War on Terror" that has no defined enemy, no defined goals, does NOT address the underlying problem. It's just a slogan. Like "The War on SOME Drugs".

Like the "War on Illegal Immigrants" does not address the underlying problem, which is the crappy economy of Mexico.

[EVDebs]

30. Agreed. The Congress MUST revoke the AUMFs

Authorizations for use of military force giving * his limitless powers w/o oversight. These AUMFs violate the War Powers Resolution requirements for 'clear' 'situations' and 'circumstances' (a.k.a. truthfulness) and allowed for the pretexts and fantasies of the DOD's canned war plans to go full steam ahead.

Now they are embarking on the Iran gambit despite wargames that show that that too would end in failure. We need to reign in the Miltary/Industrial corporatists and their Congressional lackies.

[lala_rawraw]

9. i could not agree more

[demnan]

10. Well

We should raise hell, protest, and impeach

http://www.democrats.com/cdic!

[spanone]

11. Current NYTimes story seems to back it up.

Bush and Cheney Rebuff Critics of Iraq Troop Increase

WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 — President Bush, facing sharp and widespread opposition to his plan to send more troops to Iraq, insists that he has the authority to do so even without the approval of Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/washington/14cnd-prexy.html?ei=5059&en=fa5030716feee52b&hp=&ex=1168837200&partner=AOL&pagewanted=print

[Joanne98]

12. Time to post the 9/11 Vendetta video again.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNDzLYpN_Q8

It tells the whole story...

[MN ChimpH8R]

13. For someone as mainstream as Lithwick to say this

so plainly and openly is really eye-opening. She is exactly correct.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. Bingo. The "War on Terror" has always been a convenient excuse.

If 9/11 hadn't happened they'd have figured out another way to do exactly the same thing (that is, assuming they didn't "do," aid and abet, or at least foresee 9/11).

[dailykoff]

17. VERY convenient. (n/t)

[Golden Raisin]

15. It's called dictatorship. Fascist dictatorship.

And they get bolder with each passing week.

[dailykoff]

16. Well, she's halfway there.

Wait 'til she finds out that the "war on terror" was part of the game plan from the beginning.

[pacalo]

18. For protection: Secrecy & executive privilege to evade getting caught.

[133724]

19. good article at Raw Story on this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3119980

[alfredo]

20. Write those letters to the editors asking if bush is using the

war on terror as a way of gaining dictatorial power over us.


I have started one. This is a rough draft and will be compressed and refined before I hit that send button.




Why does it seem that bush expends more effort grabbing more power for himself than capturing and killing those behind 9-11? Because of the "war on terror" Bush has been able to seize power above and beyond any other president. Is his goal to win the wars, or to hold onto dictatorial power? Every week there is a new pronouncement, a new signing statement, a new domestic spying program to "protect" us from terrorist.

Remember back in Dec 2000 he said, ''If this were a dictatorship, it would be a
heck of a lot easier — so long as I'm the dictator.''

[Kablooie]

21. This is what I've said for a while now. But ...

the only reason they would want to expand the presidency powers is if they are confident that they will continue to hold power.

The surge shows that they are still trying to hold onto ultimate presidential powers. How on earth could they think they will remain in power now? ... Unless they have new trick up their sleeves?

I still think there is a big, ugly, brown surprise for us remaining in their arsenal. Those that think Bush has lost are reacting prematurely, I'll bet.

[Independent_Liberal]

22. I think the goal is for the US to rule the world.

Global hegemony. Pax Americana. Empire in the Middle East.

[StateSecrets]

24. K & R

[Time for change]

25. So tragic, but so true

Why don't more Democrats recognize that this is precisely the reason why they must proceed towards impeachment? This is destroying the very foundation of our Constitution. How can anyone claim that impeachment would be a waste of time?

[Occulus]

36. Because sadly, too many seem to believe that It Can't Happen Here

Guess what? It is happening. Before our eyes.

[Time for change]

37. I totally agree with that!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=67175&mesg_id=67175

One would think though that our elected Democratic representatives would see what's going on. I am hoping that they intend to plow full speed ahead with investigations that lead to impeachment, conviction, and removal from office of both Bush and Cheney.

[NotGivingUp]

39. if they don't impeach, then they're all just puppets of the 1%

[lonestarnot]

27. We best get to impeaching this fuckwad.

[NotGivingUp]

28. yes, i've felt like they have been accomplishing everything they've wanted...

their goal being to destroy what little 'democracy' we had.

[porphyrian]

31. I'll kick that. - n/t

[bridgit]

32. so we throw off tyrants only to codify them here...sure, it's called: The American Way...

i've thought for years american politicians have been gah-gah for tyrannical powers, our GI's never had to shave their head till the amrican officer class seen the discipline brought to the battlefield by the Nazi/Weirmach army

[kestrel91316]

33. Not just "unitary presidency". He wants an "imperial presidency".

And every day that Congress does not act against him is one more day they are complicit with it.

IMPEACH
INDICT
IMPRISON
NOW

[mzmolly]

34. Ahhh, now THAT makes sense.

Horrid. :(

[ananda]

35. Imnsvho, Bush already has..

.. unlimited presidential authority simply because he takes it and nobody does anything very significant about it.
And he has the press to help him and treat him like a king. uggghh

[Quantess]

38. True. (end of message)