The CIA for a large part acts independent of the executive and I think that's one of the problems people have with it. That's one of the issues those who fought for the release of these documents hope to bring to the fore. None of the comments made prior to yours tried to make a partisan issue of it and heap blame on Republicans so I don't see what's made you so defensive.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

I don't see what's made you so defensive.

Hearing the constant refrain of our current president's critics is what makes me defensive, thefadd. Here's an almost 700-page report, cataloging offense after offense to civil liberties under Democratic presidents, in direct contrast to the "Noooo! Bush be stealin' my rightz!" chorus of the past six years. An honest reading must lead to at least one of two conclusions: 1) Bush's actions weren't really all that egregious, or 2) every executive office holder seeks to maximize the power of that office in similar ways.

Now, 1) is debatable; maybe all our recent presidents have been taking egregious steps to curtail civil liberties. But 2) shouldn't be, and the report is the proof. Which puts Bush back in the middle of the heap, exactly what I keep saying. All the hatred is unjustified, and in fact detrimental to the body politic. We all would have been better off without all the invective of the past few elections.

Wiretapping and warrantless searches bother people across the political spectrum no matter who is doing them. People are upset that the CIA was doing these types of things. People are also upset that the current President has been doing these types of things. Bush's wiretapping, however, was done through the NSA, not the CIA. You're conflating the CIA with the Executive. Just because the CIA has been doing it, doesn't mean the Presidents were at the time were -- which is an additional problem people have with what the CIA was doing. Now are you going to argue it's ok for the Bush to do this because the CIA has released a report saying it has wiretapped in the past and believes that wiretapping was wrong?

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

Bush's wiretapping, however, was done through the NSA, not the CIA. You're conflating the CIA with the Executive.

Both the CIA and NSA fall under the purview of the Executive branch.

Just because the CIA has been doing it, doesn't mean the Presidents were at the time were

Please. We're supposed to believe that John F. "authorized the Bay of Pigs fiasco" Kennedy was somehow completely clueless about another Castro assassination plot months before? Or that the wiretapping of LBJ's most vocal critics was undertaken completely on a lark?

Now are you going to argue it's ok for the Bush to do this because the CIA has released a report saying it has wiretapped in the past and believes that wiretapping was wrong?

I've already stated my arguments above: that Bush is a middle-of-the-road president, and that those who use spying programs authorized by him as evidence of extraordinary wrongdoing are woefully ignorant of what presidents do. If he's in the wrong, so were (at least) every president from Truman to Nixon.

Bush is a middle-of-the-road president,

So, that's what they're calling the Harbinger of the Apocalypse these days?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Is Bush suffering a little extra blow back because people are finally fed up with the level of transgressions on personal liberty? I'd allow that. But "Kennedy did it" is hardly a defense when everyone knows what a reckless cowboy he was. Based on reported fact, Bush II's warrantless wiretapping and other misuses of the intelligence community are patently worse than anyone since Nixon. Furthermore, this report makes it pretty clear the CIA went out on its own in a lot of cases, too.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

But "Kennedy did it" is hardly a defense when everyone knows what a reckless cowboy he was.

I'm less interested in presenting a defense than a question. That so many presidents with such different political viewpoints all respond in similar ways to the duties and constraints of office is interesting. One could simply assert "power corrupts," but that facile answer seems like a cop-out without evidence that all those men were corrupted -- and the lack of other evidence is itself an indicator.

What I really want to know is whether the duties of upholding the Constitution from an executive position present an inherent contradiction. Can one successfully fulfill all that's required by being smart or strong or moral enough (or all three)? Or do presidents need to be cowboys, in the sense of the Western literary tradition -- a force for the law, who must sometimes work outside of the law to do the job?

I'm inclined to agree your sentiment that they need to be cowboys who push the boundaries. But I don't think that mitigates the responsibility the rest of us have to keep them in check. The friction is likely a good thing.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

    If the tenor surrounding Bush's violations is more shrill than normal, there's a lot of blame to hand around, but I'd say you have to start with Florida. The eventual winner was going to get off to a bad start no matter what~, and it would have taken a skilled politician to turn that around. Bush is not a skilled politician. Settling on "constant attack" as a governing style didn't help either, and if the administration is getting a lot of less than deserved heat right now, well, a look in the mirror would help answer why.
    As to the history, I think there's at least a good fraction of what could be called the Left who would agree with the assessment that every president since Truman- heck even before Truman- was in the wrong. I'm thinking of Chomsky and Zinn, in particular, though there have been a few other writers and thinkers mining the same terrain*. I know Noam didn't take the 90s off; I haven't read more than a smattering of his stuff since Manufacturing Consent, but recall reading or hearing the line, "Clinton has managed to finally end all hope for change in South and Central America", and IIRC stated that this was all being ignored by the press because he was a Democrat. (He certainly doesn't shy away from criticizing Kennedy and Johnson when it comes to Vietnam.) Haven't read any Zinn, but I'd be amazed if he let the leadership for either side off the hook in his writings.
    Why the change in tone? Some guesses would have to include 9/11, and the subsequent heightening of the stakes, both real and imagined. What we're doing now, posting on the Net, also has to be considered; for the first time, large numbers of folks can broadcast and receive political opinions. To continue on your theme that things haven't changed much, I'd suggest that Bush is only slightly more despised than past presidents, it's just that the instruments for "hearing" that dissent (and support!) are more refined than ever-- and there's more money in it than ever before. There's been more partisan periods in US history, but I'd posit there's been no time like this for transmitting partisanship to the largest possible audience.
    Is Bush middle of the road? Maybe, maybe not. He certainly does seem the least competent president since Carter, any way, and unlike the peanut farmer W hasn't been reined in by his own party very effectively. This actually irritates me more than anything. I can accept living in an empire, based on a degree of injustice and exploitation-- but can the figureheads at the top at least be competent?

    ~Check out some of the outrage in the books from the side that won, for example.
     *Odd little snippet from the book store. While flipping through a Cato report on the Gingrich revolution ten years later, by chance I caught the line, "there's no substantive difference between the legislators of either party when it comes to foreign policy." Sounds an awful lot like Nader, eh? The publishing date, IIRC, was late 2005.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

The eventual winner was going to get off to a bad start no matter what

Yep.

As to the history, I think there's at least a good fraction of what could be called the Left who would agree with the assessment that every president since Truman- heck even before Truman- was in the wrong.

I agree with that assessment. The question is: to what extent is that fraction right and/or wrong? Because it can be both. One could argue, for example, that the Chomsky/Zinn/and so on group are interpreting the Constitution's ideals correctly, but those ideals can't be perfectly applied because those ideals aren't universally accepted. And since Chomsky, Zinn and other also assert that it's wrong to push for universal acceptance, that implies a limit to how close to the ideal our society will ever get.

He certainly does seem the least competent president since Carter

See, there I disagree. To start, I think GW Bush was worse. Between bungling the beginnings of the Russian transition and leaving Saddam in power, he made too many mistakes with far-reaching consequences.

Second, I think much of (but not all) of the incompetence people assert is misplaced. New Orleans was a disaster decades in the making, and Bush just happened to be the guy on watch. We can already see that Bush's tax and economic program was either correct (because the 90s boom is reasserting itself) or inconsequential (because the 90s boom wasn't prevented from reasserting itself). And of course, the real test -- whether Iraq becomes a viable modern state or an international no-man's-land -- is still up for grabs.

HW's gotta be considered better than his son. His grasp of international politics was far better and he had some decent domestic social policies. The only concern I have with HW was the ever increasing racial tensions that he made no effort to curb. His son's done everything he can to stoke racial tensions so I guess that issue is largely a wash. There's just a lot further down to go post-Clinton than post-Reagan.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

New Orleans was a disaster decades in the making, and Bush just happened to be the guy on watch.

I don't think anyone really (or at least jokingly) blames the hurricane...or the failure of the levees on Bush.  The thing that sticks in my craw (and probably that of many others) is how he and his administration totally screwed the pooch when it came to the aftermath.  Brownies doin' a great job??  Blackwater troops taking the place of the national guard 'cuz the guard is off on some overseas adventure?  FEMA?  That's a lot of fuckup for one "watch".  It puts in mind of the town drunk losing control of his car at a busy intersection.  Sure, maybe folks in the town knew that the boozer would come to a bad end, but that doesn't excuse the cop who neglects to come to the aid of the injured after the event.   Is the accident the cops fault?  Of course not...but he should probably put down the doughnut long enough to take care of business during his watch.

And that's all I gots to say since this is going to throw us off topic.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

New Orleans was a disaster decades in the making, and Bush just happened to be the guy on watch.

Clinton wouldn't have taken three days to notice that there were black people dying on CNN.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

    Sorry for the long delay-- it's been hotter than hell the last couple weeks (over 105 for two weeks, and 112 today), and my ability to focus has suffered some.

    What's interesting about the abuses of power chronicled in the CIA report is that there's almost universal agreement that the techniques are bad (warrantless wiretapping, harassment based on political affiliation, etc), but that some folks are so bad, so evil, that bending or breaking the laws is acceptable. Nazi agents? Sure. Commie spies? Yep. Communist Party members? A little dicier, especially in the 30s, when it was almost trendy to join the Party. Peace protesters?  Usually not. The nice Lutheran minister down the street? Right out. Americans have never been good at discussing various degrees of vice, or using "bad" techniques to get the "right" result. (Racial quotas are a good example.) If there's no consensus, I'd say it's in part because folks would really just rather not think about it-- which is why every generation discovers, to their amazement, that the government isn't always nice and decent to those who disagree with it, which explains some of the heat Bush is getting.
    As to the matter of incompetence, we'll probably be able to argue for hours without reaching agreement. I would note one standard of judgment, though, that buttresses my point: the difference between reacting, versus having time to prepare. Iraq is the prime example of this (fer chrissakes, Iraqi soldiers were surrendering to unmanned planes the last time around, could there be some expectation of victory in the preplanning?), but I'd point instead to Homeland Security and the Social Security reform bill. There was plenty of time, comparatively, for both of them to be done well, and yet they weren't. (And the legacy of Homeland Security will also be with us for decades or longer.) Add in the recent failure of the immigration bill, and you have three examples of governance worth fighting for, worth losing reputation and clout, but went nowhere, or were badly implemented. Add in a North Korea policy that's been less than successful, atrocious relations with Europe, and whatever the heck is going on with Russia, and I believe "worse since Carter" is certainly an arguable position.
    Yeah, the whole, "OMG, Bush iz dumb!" thing is out of control, but I can't place the blame entirely on partisanship; our popular culture loves caricature, and it will create one despite evidence to the contrary. What can you do, though? I'd love to see the E! Channel disappear due to lack of interest, and have Johnny Knoxville try his hand at Shakespeare to get work-- but all that will have to wait until I'm World Emperor, I guess :)

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras