Self refuting, II

For all their ranting and raving, the BushCo crowd cannot point to a single example of the President actually ignoring any court order or explicit law passed by Congress in reaction to his decisions.

Ignored precedents? He's made reasonable arguments why to apply some precedents rather than others to handle terrorism detainees.

Wiretapping? Congress, though the Democrats have controlled it for 7 months now, has not passed any refinements to FISA to try to outlaw the President's program, which targets international phone calls between someone overseas whose phone number was in a terrorist's Blackberry and someone in the United States.

Signing statements? Nobody in the Administration claims those can overrule Congress. They are simply the official interpretation of the statute which will be adopted by the Executive Branch. If the interpretation is incorrect, Congress can pass something clearer, or someone who is harmed by that interpretation can challenge the law in court.

If Congress doesn't like what the President is doing, it needs to take steps to show it. If Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi, for all their bluster, can't get enough of their colleagues to agree with them on particular measures, then that means, by definition, that CONGRESS does not disagree with the President on that issue.

As many of us have frequently pointed out, Congress wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want the credit for sticking it to the man, but they don't want the blame in case their decisions come out wrong. As Cindy Sheehan finally realized, they won't put their money where their mouth is. They'd rather the President be the one making the decisions, so he takes all the blame if they go wrong.

As they say in Oklahoma, Cohen's all oil, no well.

Or as I said about yesterday's NYT op/ed, "...could easily be mistaken for an hysterical Democratic Underground blog rant."

After reading "This NYT piece is so absurdly wrong, so riddled with flaws of reasoning based on misapprehended (or misappropriated) history, that the prospect of linking to it - and risking validating the balance by picking targets - wearies me" I had to doublecheck to make sure we hadn't linked the same piece, as the description applies.

Narrative.