Gotta Love The Spin
July 5th, 2008, 12:17 PM EDT
It’s funny how my interview with Karl Rove is characterized differently, depending on whether it’s a left-wing or right-wing blog mentioning it. Crooks and Liars says: “Alan Colmes Whips Up on Karl Rove Over War Powers/Detainees/habeas corpus.” Hyer Standard has: “Allan Colmes Shreds Karl Rove Over Gitmo: The Aftermath Includes Tears & Tantrum”. And then there’s Newsbusters: “Karl Rove Schools Alan Colmes on Rights of Enemy Combatants”, where it is stated that liberals like me have “extraordinary concern” for how terrorists are treated. Hey, at least Newsbusters spelled my name right.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwY0DcNhB04]
Lord… I need another drink before I check out what the cons are saying about this…
That was a great interview, Alan. You stood your ground and presented your case with quite a bit of passion. And, you even gave Rove a chance to defend himself.
July 5th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Indeed. The whole “Declaration of War” bit deserves some follow-up, as it’s a bi-partisan Constitutional disaster.
July 5th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
No one really wants the news. We’re a nation of spin-eaters.
July 5th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Jesus is LORD!
Keep Jesus in the public square !
July 5th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Allan? Alen? Allen? Alvin? Alien?
Both of you made good points. I think pro or con, the Congress shouldn’t authorize the use of war-like force if it’s not a war. It muddies the waters.
Unlawful enemy combatants shouldn’t necessarily get habeas corpus rights, but I also don’t think we ever held enemy combatants in a fashion and length of time such as what we’re doing in Gitmo. Did we in WWII? I’m not sure if we did or not.
I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that suspension of habeas corpus is a short-term wartime solution that shouldn’t stay in place for a long period of time.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Jesus will set you FREE !
Not the law of the land !
True freedom is not liberal sayith the LORD !
Jesus IS LORD !
July 6th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Spin this story every which way but loose Alan, but you still lost and I’m a freaking Liberal. You can’t claim victory on a story that lacks all common sense. Letting the terrorists go looks like surrender and it looks like we are against our troops. We’ve got to go back to the scene of the crime to fix it. Where did we go wrong? Getting the terrorists wasn’t a bad thing. Breaking the Constitution was the bad thing. Bush looks like a King trying to have his own way. Arguing to free people who threatened us is never smart. You lost because you don’t think like a “Red-blooded, scared, American Conservative, bitter, and holding his Bible and Gun.” Think like your way of life is coming to an end and you’ll do anything Bush and McCain say to protect it. How do you reason with a person that’s afeared? Now that’s some real common sense talking. Jack Daniels and Charlie Daniels for everybody after Obama wins.
July 6th, 2008 at 12:36 am
who is Michael Dukakis ?
July 6th, 2008 at 12:50 am
WW2 was a war against a country. The so-called “war” against terrorism is not a war. It’s a campaign. It’s not an excuse for the executive branch to lay claim to extraordinary emergency powers for all eternity.
We don’t know who’s being held at Gitmo, and the question yet to be answered is whether our government really has half a clue.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:59 am
Who is Michael Docockis?
A doofis?
Or a cockis?
Oh; I get it, BOTH !!!!!!!!!!
July 6th, 2008 at 2:01 am
How do you figure? There is absolutely no way Allan lost regardless whether or not you are a liberal, conservative, or not affiliated with a party.
The truth is there was NO DECLARATION of war made, thus Rove’s entire argument is nullified, in the sense that he framed it in the clip above.
Furthermore to compare the two conflicts (WW2 and Iraq) is such a stretch it’s actually somewhat hard to argue. Authorizing the use of force if absolutely necessary, and a declaration of war are different in so many ways that it’s really a waste of time to argue, seeing as though anyone with basic governmental knowledge already knows that the two situations are incomparable.
Rove talks about the Nazis we rounded up on the battle field. Well the prisoners at the heart of this case are not from the battlefield, they are products on endless nighttime raids, and back channel “pick ups”.
Lastly this is NOT the first time enemies of America have received Habeus Corpus, in fact it’s not one of the first 5 times our enimies have received habeus corpus. Example one - Timothy McVeigh.
But hey what do you expect from Rove, I mean the guy is one of the masterminds behind the fucking fable we followed in deciding to invade Iraq - so ya, you can’t really expect much in regards to common sense, let alone a respect for the basic principles of this country from a guy like that.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Right on, Matt! You should comment on this blog more often.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Great to hear Alan bring up the lack of a declaration of war and complete disregard for the constitution in this country. This “executive use of military force” power has clearly been used as a loophole for the President to avoid the checks and balances that our founders so carefully instituted.
If they wanted the President to be able to start a war on his own, then they wouldn’t have made it so that the Congress has to declare war would they? The “police action” power is for emergencies…..say a terror attack in Washington (God forbid) where the President would call in the army to take action to defend the country. For this reason, I think that there needs to be some kind of time limit put in place on a “police action” before Congress would have to make a declaration of war.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
“But hey what do you expect from Rove, I mean the guy is one of the masterminds behind the fucking fable we followed in deciding to invade Iraq”
To say that there was not intelligence pointing to Iraq having WMDs or having the capability to produce them is just plain wrong. Obviously the emphasis WAS on going to war, but there was intelligence there.
“Furthermore to compare the two conflicts (WW2 and Iraq) is such a stretch it’s actually somewhat hard to argue.”
That means that there can’t be an exact comparison. We’re essentially at war with illegal combatants, are we not? Makes it a difficult situation. I will grant you that war should be declared before fighting in a war-like fashion. The last really “good” war was WWII.
“This ‘executive use of military force’ power has clearly been used as a loophole for the President to avoid the checks and balances that our founders so carefully instituted.”
Impeach the President, then. Checks and balances are in place to remove a president that has supposedly violated checks and balances, perjured himself about interns blowing him, etc. The whole point of the Constitution is it doesn’t EXPECT people to act the way they should…it takes into account the depravity of mankind. So if Bush has done stuff that is *so* unbelievably wrong, he will be impeached and convicted and booted. He won’t be because though he has made big mistakes, he did this in good faith after one of the most horrible acts of terrorism ever perpetrated on our country. People realize that and know that it would be wrong to try to boot him despite the bad aspects of his presidency.
July 6th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
“So if Bush has done stuff that is *so* unbelievably wrong, he will be impeached and convicted and booted.”
————
This doesn’t just apply to Bush. It’s wrong to go to War on your own whim without going through the legal process of doing so—that is, getting congress to declare war. If Clinton did it, it would be wrong too. This doesn’t just apply to Bush, this applies to every President since WWII who went to war using the “police action” executive power, which, IMO, should have limits placed on it so that in the future the President won’t use it to circumvent Congress and go to war again.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
That Bush had the gall from day one to call this the “Iraq War” shows what little regard he has for the Constitution, even though he calls himself a “strict constructionist”. This whole idea of conservative judges beings “strict constructionists” is the biggest load of crap I’ve ever heard. Power to Alan for bringing this fact to the forefront on a regular basis. Unfortunately, so much of Fox’s audience is already so deep into the tank for Bush that it’s probably falling largely on deaf ears.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Was there intelligence to show that Sadam intended to use WMDs against the US or any western nation, or was that just invented out of whole cloth?
July 6th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
invented.
;)
July 6th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I decided to check back to see what actually happens in Liberalland and I’m glad that I did. Those of you arguing that there was no declaration of war lost this argument when congress voted to give the authority to the president. It doesn’t matter how we got into the war. All that matters is “Will we end it or defend it?” Defending the unconstitutional things that have threatened liberty and justice for all is the choice we have to make. McCain will defend Bush. Democrats will change direction. Progressives will ignore the gridlock just for the sake of progress and that’s surrender. I will not surrender. It looks like Obama is sticking his finger in the wind.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
cecil~ i really think that you’d be happier on a more narrow-minded, conservative-focused blog. honestly. i’m just being real.
let’s be clear on the exact type of “authority” that congress gave Bush the Moron. he was given authority to
“strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq” and “obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” in order to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”
The above excerpt is from the Wikipedia article on the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002″.
i guess YOU lost the argument, cecil.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:44 am
It’s funny how my interview with Karl Rove is characterized differently, depending on whether it’s a left-wing or right-wing blog mentioning it
That’s easy to explain. To the Lefties a “win” is for them to bring up points and/or to do so with a nasty “gotcha” tone… nevermind if the points are actually correct.
To the right, the correctness of the information is a “win”.
Thus Alan dwelling on the irrelevant formality of a Congressional Declaration of War is a big deal to Leftists.. but absurd to Righties.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:52 am
an “irrelevant formality”? we spend five-thousand dollars a second for a war that’s technically not a war. that’s a LOT of money for our government to spend on an illegal activity.
dude, you’re a dick. i can’t believe you see abusing presidential powers as an IRRELEVANT FORMALITY.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Alan: Are you saying you DON’T have “extraordinary concern” for how terrorists are treated??? I am surprised.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
The only point that really matters to me is that our government is taking people into custody and keeping them incarcerated for years without oversight or due process.
This is a prescription for unlimited abuse of power.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Be nice, Cheryl…no namecalling. We right-wingers have feelings, too.
Michael, you make good points but you almost circumvented what I said. I was saying that the very point of impeachment is for situations in which the Congress does think that the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors or violated the Constitution. The Congress authorized force…that is not a strict declaration of war but isn’t it a watered-down version of it? Why make the POINT to authorize force if you will not go to war? The answer is that our politicians want it both ways. No actual war to be held accountable for, but give the President the ability to create war. If the President is to blame, so is the Congress.
This is just kind of a side thought…what if the President needs to go into Grenada to rescue medical students? Does that require a declaration? When does it rise to the level of “war”?
Strict constructionists would be in the mold of Ron Paul, most likely. That’s the honest truth. But you think Ginsberg, Souter, Breyers, and Stevens are interpreting the Constitution more strictly than the other side? That’s laughable. The conservative judges/justices may not be perfect but they interpret the Constitution in a much more “originalist” way than the libs on the Court.
RC makes a good point…even as a (somewhat) neocon I don’t like the idea of holding people down at Gitmo for EXTENDED periods of time without doing anything, even considering they’re likely mostly terrorists.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
“The Congress authorized force…that is not a strict declaration of war but isn’t it a watered-down version of it? Why make the POINT to authorize force if you will not go to war? The answer is that our politicians want it both ways. No actual war to be held accountable for, but give the President the ability to create war. If the President is to blame, so is the Congress.”
——————-
You’re right. To quote Phil Donahue, “there’s a lot of sin to go around here.”
However, if the President was able to get Congress to “authorize the use of force”, which does not necessarily mean war, then why was he so afraid to ask Congress to declare war like the Constitution says?
—————
“This is just kind of a side thought…what if the President needs to go into Grenada to rescue medical students? Does that require a declaration? When does it rise to the level of “war”?”
————
No, that’s a situation when “police action” actually is what it is. President Bush knew what he was doing all along though. He invoked the “police action” power to circumvent congress and go to war. He never intended for this to be an emergency police action. He intended to go to war with Iraq.
This is why I think that there should be some limits placed on “police action” powers that the President has. I understand that there needs to be a certain degree of flexibility because nobody can predict what will happen in these situations, but there is no reason for the President to have to power to undertake a 5 year pre-emptive botched war under the guise of a “police action”. Actually, in this case, the President was very plain about his dishonesty in the matter. He called it a “war” from day one, but for some reason not all that many people seemed to care that he had no regard for the constitution.. There shouldn’t be any loopholes available to circumvent the process on a decision which such implications as a war.
—————-
“Strict constructionists would be in the mold of Ron Paul, most likely. That’s the honest truth. But you think Ginsberg, Souter, Breyers, and Stevens are interpreting the Constitution more strictly than the other side? That’s laughable. The conservative judges/justices may not be perfect but they interpret the Constitution in a much more “originalist” way than the libs on the Court.”
—————
I think that you’re generally correct about Ron Paul, even though I don’t agree with him on everything, he does his honest best to strictly adhere to the constitution and I respect that a great deal. I don’t really have anything to say about the “libs on the Supreme Court”. That’s irrelevant to my position. I never said what my opinion is about how strictly they adhere to the constitution and I don’t really have enough information to form an opinion on them. All I know is that it’s total BS to call yourself a “strict constructionist” but support “police action” loophole wars, warentless wiretapping, and support the suspension of Habeas Corpus.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Sorry, but I can’t believe he called it an “irrelevant formality”. That pisses me off.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
The US’s first major military engagement was with the vile North African Muslim States , who attacked our ships, cargo and men simply because we weren’t paying tribute to them upon our indendpence from Great Britan.
Jefferson , afer having met with their emessaries in London, was convinced that the only way to deal with them was to crush them, and when he became President he set out to do just that… and he did so without a declaration of war.. but it was a war nonetheless.
People making silly arguments about “Declaration of War” when every person on earth knows what we were in in Iraq in 2003 was war don’t impress me at all.
Sorry if that pisses you off Cheryl.. but get a fucking grip.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:17 am
I’ve got a very firm grip on reality and what’s right and what’s wrong, which is why this pisses me off. Sorry if you don’t… go fuck yourself.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Karl Rove appeared on the Hannidy and Colms Show (July 5th 2008) to discuss the issue of Enemy Combatants and Habeas Corpus pertaining to the recent Supreme Court ruling. When K. Rove was confronted with the underlying constitutionality of the war he kept going back to the words “use of force.’ This is an attempt to hide behind words and their exact meaning. Only Congress can declare War. War is a far cry from a use of force. A use of force is targeted bombing or small military operations. War is an all out action. For the President to have War Powers Act qualifications Congress must label and pass a Bill of War or Declaration of War. Congress passed a bill allowing for the use of force if all other avenues had been exhausted. This is not an all out Declaration of War. We are not legally at War with Iraq. As with Vietnam we are in a Police Action in Iraq, thus the wording used by Congress, “use of force.” Karl Rove seems to be hiding behind the public perception that a Use of Force is equal to War. He would not use the word, “War,” in the exchange with Alen Colms. Why? Because he knows that in reality, No Declaration of War has been passed by Congress concerning Iraq. Yes, Congress has approved a Police Action in Iraq, which is what “Use of Force” legally equates to. Rove, Bush, and the Administration has abused the limited power granted by Congress and re-interpreted, “Use of Force” and sold it to the American people as evidence of War Powers. This is word play, abuse of public perception, and the art of deception by definition. Rove claims to stand for moral high ground, strong American principles, and Law. Well he should realize that standing for Habeas Corpus is the Temple Mount of Moral High Ground. We should not lower our standards and join the other despots of the world. Rove should realize that standing for Justice is more important than revenge. He should consider that the principles of legal representation, fair trial, hearing all the evidence against you, innocent until proven guilty, and all the other aspects of the Rule of Law are what make us an Ethical or Moral nation that rise above the muck of Tyranny. The America Rove would like to see is one that breeds dictatorship, authoritarianism, tyranny, or totalitarianism. The lack of principle Rove would wish for the American legal system is not only for foreign enemies, it was a wish he had for all Americans as well. That is the removal of the rule of law for anyone labeled an Enemy Combatant, Foreign or American. Thank any God that the Supreme Court ruled that all People are protected by the Constitution when detained by the State. A person has to be proven guilty by more than mere suspicion. All persons must be proven guilty or innocent by a court of law through a preponderance of evidence not by suspicion, not by tribunal, not by public opinion, rather by LAW, our Constitution. What is so hard to comprehend for Mr. Rove? Law?
July 8th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
John:
Please break your posts into paragraphs.
It’s much less overwhelming for us then.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
AMEN, Michael. You’d think that if he wanted us to read what he writes he would have started doing that by now.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:05 am
I did read some of it too and he makes good points….it’s just that the formatting makes everything run together and seem so overwhelming.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
exactly.
i’m only able to read bits and pieces of his dissertations.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:22 am