COL Gene COL Gene

OUR Constitution is Under Attack!

OUR Constitution is Under Attack!




The U.S. Constitution is the foundation for our rights and essential for the success of our nation. The federal government was brought into existence by the people through our Constitution. Second, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land that controls the actions of our public officials in all three branches of the federal government. Every elected official swears to UPHOLD the U.S. Constitution. The very foundations of Our Constitution are being violated by the highest elected officials in America and we are allowing this travesty to take place.

The most basic principal upon which the rights of our system are based is the Separation of Powers. This was intended to split and therefore limit the power of each of the three branches of our government. That principal, which was set out by our founding fathers, can not be violated if our government is to protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Two powers granted to Congress and ONLY to Congress by our Constitution are the power to Declare War and the Power of the Budget. Both of these Congressional responsibilities have been usurped by President Bush. In the case of the budget, Bush has been allowed to establish his spending priorities and the Congress has in effect abdicated their responsibility to set the spending. The most recent example is the S-CHIP funding which Congress passed in a bipartisan vote. Bush has vetoed that decision by Congress which is an abuse of his veto power. If Congress does not override this veto Bush and NOT Congress, as the Constitution Requires, will set the spending policy of our country. Once the majority of Congress chooses a spending level, they have a responsibility to insure that it is established and must override any Presidential veto to insure their constitutional responsibility is met.

What does our Constitution say about war? Our Founders divided war into two separate powers: Congress was given the power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war. What that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress. When Congress passed the Iraq War Resolution they delegated that Constitutional power to declare war to the President. There is NO provision in our Constitution to delegate that power to the President. When Congress passed this clearly unconstitutional law, a case should have been initiated to challenge that Iraq War Resolution. No such action was undertaken and the third branch of our government, our courts, was unable to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to insure Congress and the President do not act outside the Constitution.

In both these examples George W. Bush violated his oath of office. Every time Congress does not insure their decision on the budget is enacted they fail their responsibility. The Iraq war resolution is a failure of first Congress then Bush and finally by the fact that a case was not brought to the Federal Courts to challenge the Iraq war Resolution. Technically the Courts did not violate their constitutional responsibility because they can only exercise that power WHEN a case has been initiated. Thus the fact that no case was brought to challenge the action of Congress to delegate a power only Congress can exercise was because no American choose to challenge the resolution in court. I for one believe that such a suit should be brought today to make it clear for the future that ONLY Congress has the power to declare war. Congress DID NOT declare war against Iraq. On December 8, 1941 Congress did not say to President Roosevelt he had the power to declare war against Japan, Germany or Italy. Congress DECLARED WAR and that enabled President Roosevelt to act under his power as Commander-in-Chief. That is NOT what took place in Iraq. Bush acted as both the Congress and as Commander-in-Chief.

We need to STOP the destruction of our Constitution by the President or Congress. The first step in that quest is to tell Congress they and not Bush need to set the spending of the United States. The second action is to bring a case that challenges the Iraq War Resolution which continues today to be the authority by which Bush continues the Iraq War. There is no greater danger then to allow the President or Congress to violate our Constitution!
30,917 views 121 replies
Reply #101 Top
If Gore had been successful in 2000 as he should have been, I doubt Bush would have been elected in 2004.


You don't know that, though. Quit living in the past, man!
Reply #102 Top
Reply By: Jythier Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2007
CIA Warnings happened after 9/11?


No the CIA warnings strarted in March 2001 and went up to Sept 6, 2001. The twin towers were attacked Sept 11, 2001.
Reply #103 Top
NOTHING you or anyone has said changes the fact the Bush is president because of this error not because the majority of voters voted for him in Florida or in total.


I totally agree with you here!

The problem is that the laws don't provide for such a thing as you want. The laws say that the votes were invalid just like the votes of the american service men and women were invalidated by the American hateing Albert Gore Jr. Following the laws of the land is what made Mr. Bush president and you can not re-write history. Live with it.
Reply #104 Top
No the CIA warnings strarted in March 2001 and went up to Sept 6, 2001. The twin towers were attacked Sept 11, 2001.


If what you say here is true then you lied when you said that President Clinton warned Mr. Bush before he took office. Or are you telling us lies now not then or then not now? It gets confusing keeping up with you.
Reply #105 Top
Reply By: Paladin77 Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2007
“No the CIA warnings started in March 2001 and went up to Sept 6, 2001. The twin towers were attacked Sept 11, 2001.


If what you say here is true then you lied when you said that President Clinton warned Mr. Bush before he took office. Or are you telling us lies now not then or then not now? It gets confusing keeping up with you.”


What are you talking about? Bush took over January 20, 2001. The meeting between Clinton and Bush where Clinton told Bush that the danger was from al-Qaeda and bin Laden took place in December 2000 one month BEFORE Bush took office. The CIA warnings that bin Laden intended to attack the U. S. started in March 2001, two months AFTER Bush became president and continued up to 5 days before the attack on 9/11/2001.
Reply #106 Top
continued up to 5 days before the attack on 9/11/2001.


which according to you means that there was no more threat.


you still haven't told us how bush could have stopped the 9/11 attacks.
Reply #107 Top
Reply By: danielost Posted: Friday, October 12, 2007
continued up to 5 days before the attack on 9/11/2001.


“Which according to you means that there was no more threat.”

It means NOTHING of the sort. Reports came into the White House at different times. The threats said that an attack was to take place in the near future.


“you still haven't told us how bush could have stopped the 9/11 attacks.”

I said I did not know if we could have stopped the attack but by ignoring the warnings we allowed the attack to take place without using the information contained in the warnings. The purpose of the 16 intelligence agencies for which we spend over $12 Billion dollars per year is to give the President the types of information in these warnings. When the President ignored those warnings it is as if we took all the effort and tossed it on the junk pile. Bush could have alerted law enforcement agencies to be on the lookout for Middle East people that were acting strangely. The general public could have been alerted to help them identify to police and the FBI any suspicious activities. The airlines could have been alerted as well as immigration. Just making the warnings public might have made the terrorists choose to drop their plans because of the publicity of the intent to conduct the impending attack. No one knows but what we do know is that NONE of this happened because BUSH ignored dire warnings we were to be attacked by Ben Laden. Those warnings proved to be100% correct!
Reply #108 Top
“you still haven't told us how bush could have stopped the 9/11 attacks.”

I said I did not know if we could have stopped the attack


Reply #109 Top
No the CIA warnings strarted in March 2001 and went up to Sept 6, 2001.


The CIA had the warnings and the FBI had the people it's sad that they couldn't talk. Thanks to your beloved Clinton.
Reply #110 Top
Reply By: danielost Posted: Friday, October 12, 2007
continued up to 5 days before the attack on 9/11/2001.


“Which according to you means that there was no more threat.”

It means NOTHING of the sort. Reports came into the White House at different times. The threats said that an attack was to take place in the near future.


“you still haven't told us how bush could have stopped the 9/11 attacks.”

READ YOU STUPIT IDIOT!

I said I did not know if we could have stopped the attack but by ignoring the warnings we allowed the attack to take place without using the information contained in the warnings. The purpose of the 16 intelligence agencies for which we spend over $12 Billion dollars per year is to give the President the types of information in these warnings. When the President ignored those warnings it is as if we took all the effort and tossed it on the junk pile. Bush could have alerted law enforcement agencies to be on the lookout for Middle East people that were acting strangely. The general public could have been alerted to help them identify to police and the FBI any suspicious activities. The airlines could have been alerted as well as immigration. Just making the warnings public might have made the terrorists choose to drop their plans because of the publicity of the intent to conduct the impending attack. No one knows but what we do know is that NONE of this happened because BUSH ignored dire warnings we were to be attacked by Ben Laden. Those warnings proved to be100% correct!
Reply #111 Top
Reply By: Adventure-Dude Posted: Friday, October 12, 2007
No the CIA warnings started in March 2001 and went up to Sept 6, 2001.


The CIA had the warnings and the FBI had the people it's sad that they couldn't talk. Thanks to your beloved Clinton.


Bush and the National security Advisor (Rice) could have had the agencies be aware of the warnings. Local Law enforcement, the airlines, immigration all could have been notified. Bush could also have had Congress change the rule that prevented more direct exchange between the CIA and FBI. Bush DID NOTHING but sit on his A*s.
Reply #112 Top
bush to fbi agent. al guida is going to attack some place sometime between now and the end of the year keep an eye out for it.


maybe
Reply #113 Top
A complete side question:

Col, were you home schooled?
Reply #114 Top
Let's take another look at those warnings:

Let’s take a look at some of the warnings Bush and Rice ignored and failed to act upon to protect our country.

All this is from At the CENTER of the STORM by George Tenet. I sight to page for each warning. The material in Quotes is the exact text and anything in parentheses is what I have added.

P 136.

“On Jan 13, 2000 (7 days before Bush took office) John McLaughlin, Jim Pavill and Tenet briefed Pres Elect Bush, Cheney and Andy Card. “We told them that out biggest concerns were Terrorism, Proliferation and China. I don’t recall Iraq coming up at all.”

P 138

“ The Vice President’s presence may also have had an unintended chilling effect on the free flow of views as important policy matters were debated.”


P 139

“The Pakistanis always knew more then they were telling us and they had been singularly uncooperative in helping us run these guys (al-Qaeda) down.”


p. 143

“On January 25, 2001 Dick Clark sent a memo to Condi Rice saying there was an urgent need for an NSC Principals Meeting to review his strategy against al-Qaeda”. ( This meeting was never held)

P143

“If we were going to switch from defense to an offensive posture against the Terrorists, we need new covert action authority.” (One of the issued was permission to use the new Predator equipped with the hell Fire Missile from President Bush. Tenet tried over and over again to get Bush to enable the CIA to use this new system).


P 144

“Feb 2001 Usama Bin Ladin and his global network of Lieutenants and associates remain the most immediate and serious threat, Tenet told Rice.”



P 145

“During the spring of 2001, at one of the innumerable Deputies meetings John McLaughlin expressed frustration at the lack of action.”

P145

“May 30, 2001 meeting with Condi Rice Rich (would not further identify) ran through the mounting signs f a coming attack. They were truly frightening.”


P. 149

“On June 28, 2001 we had more then ten specific pieces of intelligence about impending attacks… the intelligence was both unprecedented and virtually 100% reliable. Over the last three to five months we had been witness to never-before seen efforts by Ayman al-Zawahiri to prepare terrorists operations.”

P 149

“All around the Moslem world important operatives were disappearing while others were preparing for martyrdom.”

P. 150-152

“July10, 2001 a meeting with Rice. There will be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months! The signs were unmistakable. The attack will be spectacular Rich told Condi and the others and it will be designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. Facilities.”


P153


“At the conclusion of the July 10th meeting Condi looked at Cofer and asked, what should we do? Cofer responded this country needs to go on a war footing now!” ( Nothing changed after this meeting In addition the Bush administration kept the very existence of this meeting secret even from the 9/11 Commission The commission and the public did not learn of this July 10th meeting until the Fall of 2006 when the Press learned of the meeting and the dire warning that was ignored by Bush and Rice).


P 156

“On July 24, 2001 King Abdullah of Jordan sent word (to Bush) in his view Bin Laden and his command structure must be dealt with in a decisive and military fashion. He offered to send two battalions of Jordanian Special Forces to go door-to-door in Afghanistan” (Bush took no action).


Page 158-159


“August 6, 2001 the Presidential daily Brief (PDB) entitled, Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.” (No action resulted from this PDB)


P 160

“September 4, 2001 (7 days before 9/11) meeting with Rice and Rumsfeld and others was dominated by the same subject and the issue of Bush approving the use of the weaponized Predator Drone” (Bush did not act on this request until a week AFTER 9/11)
Reply #115 Top
A complete side question:

Col, were you home schooled?


A-D,

As a parent who homeschools their children, I find this slam on homeschoolers to be repulsive.
Reply #116 Top
The meeting between Clinton and Bush where Clinton told Bush that the danger was from al-Qaeda and bin Laden took place in December 2000 one month BEFORE Bush took office.


Ok, so Mr. Clinton told Mr. Bush about AQ before the CIA knew about AQ as a threat to America? My, how wise and brilliant Mr. Clinton must be!

The CIA warnings that bin Laden intended to attack the U. S. started in March 2001, two months AFTER Bush became president and continued up to 5 days before the attack on 9/11/2001.


I believe you are writing about the PDB titled “bin Laden determined to attack America.” That was a historical document that listed the things he and his organization have done to the US and what the CIA thinks his capabilities are. It was not a brief that included anything that was on the way, and if you say that was the first warning then there was no warning!
Reply #117 Top
A-D,

As a parent who homeschools their children, I find this slam on homeschoolers to be repulsive.


I'm sorry Gid that you took a presumptuous offense to my question. First of all you do not understand my positions regarding homeschooling. In fact I have a high admiration to home schooled children and plan in home schooling my children when I am blessed with them.

You see Gid the reason why I am asking Col is he reminds me of a friend of mine who was home schooled. A very intelligent person but lacks in communicational skills. The challenge with my friend is that he has to always be right (similarly to our Col here) even when proved wrong. Another aspect that I see in common is that they both feel like they have "something VERY important to say" and everyone should listen and agree (including being impressed).

Many home schooled children struggle in social skills (with the exception of those who also network).

That's all not at all a bash on home schooling.
Reply #118 Top
I believe you are writing about the PDB titled “bin Laden determined to attack America.” That was a historical document that listed the things he and his organization have done to the US and what the CIA thinks his capabilities are. It was not a brief that included anything that was on the way, and if you say that was the first warning then there was no warning!

I am talking about all these warnings: You are talking about the one I list on page 158-159 of the Tenet book. Bush ignored the entire series of warnings as well as what Clinton told him and did NOTHING!

All this is from At the CENTER of the STORM by George Tenet. I sight to page for each warning. The material in Quotes is the exact text and anything in parentheses is what I have added.

P 136.

“On Jan 13, 2000 (7 days before Bush took office) John McLaughlin, Jim Pavill and Tenet briefed Pres Elect Bush, Cheney and Andy Card. “We told them that out biggest concerns were Terrorism, Proliferation and China. I don’t recall Iraq coming up at all.”

P 138

“ The Vice President’s presence may also have had an unintended chilling effect on the free flow of views as important policy matters were debated.”


P 139

“The Pakistanis always knew more then they were telling us and they had been singularly uncooperative in helping us run these guys (al-Qaeda) down.”


p. 143

“On January 25, 2001 Dick Clark sent a memo to Condi Rice saying there was an urgent need for an NSC Principals Meeting to review his strategy against al-Qaeda”. ( This meeting was never held)

P143

“If we were going to switch from defense to an offensive posture against the Terrorists, we need new covert action authority.” (One of the issued was permission to use the new Predator equipped with the hell Fire Missile from President Bush. Tenet tried over and over again to get Bush to enable the CIA to use this new system).


P 144

“Feb 2001 Usama Bin Ladin and his global network of Lieutenants and associates remain the most immediate and serious threat, Tenet told Rice.”



P 145

“During the spring of 2001, at one of the innumerable Deputies meetings John McLaughlin expressed frustration at the lack of action.”

P145

“May 30, 2001 meeting with Condi Rice Rich (would not further identify) ran through the mounting signs f a coming attack. They were truly frightening.”


P. 149

“On June 28, 2001 we had more then ten specific pieces of intelligence about impending attacks… the intelligence was both unprecedented and virtually 100% reliable. Over the last three to five months we had been witness to never-before seen efforts by Ayman al-Zawahiri to prepare terrorists operations.”

P 149

“All around the Moslem world important operatives were disappearing while others were preparing for martyrdom.”

P. 150-152

“July10, 2001 a meeting with Rice. There will be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months! The signs were unmistakable. The attack will be spectacular Rich told Condi and the others and it will be designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. Facilities.”


P153


“At the conclusion of the July 10th meeting Condi looked at Cofer and asked, what should we do? Cofer responded this country needs to go on a war footing now!” ( Nothing changed after this meeting In addition the Bush administration kept the very existence of this meeting secret even from the 9/11 Commission The commission and the public did not learn of this July 10th meeting until the Fall of 2006 when the Press learned of the meeting and the dire warning that was ignored by Bush and Rice).


P 156

“On July 24, 2001 King Abdullah of Jordan sent word (to Bush) in his view Bin Laden and his command structure must be dealt with in a decisive and military fashion. He offered to send two battalions of Jordanian Special Forces to go door-to-door in Afghanistan” (Bush took no action).


Page 158-159


“August 6, 2001 the Presidential daily Brief (PDB) entitled, Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.” (No action resulted from this PDB)


P 160

“September 4, 2001 (7 days before 9/11) meeting with Rice and Rumsfeld and others was dominated by the same subject and the issue of Bush approving the use of the weaponized Predator Drone” (Bush did not act on this request until a week AFTER 9/11)
Reply #119 Top
Once more, with feeling:

Gene, you ignorant slut.
Reply #120 Top
"Many home schooled children struggle in social skills"

Many children struggle in social skills. They just don't point it out unless they're homeschooled. Oh, must be because they're homeschooled!
Reply #121 Top
I believe you are writing about the PDB titled “bin Laden determined to attack America.” That was a historical document that listed the things he and his organization have done to the US and what the CIA thinks his capabilities are. It was not a brief that included anything that was on the way, and if you say that was the first warning then there was no warning!


“August 6, 2001 the Presidential daily Brief (PDB) entitled, Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.” (No action resulted from this PDB)


So I was correct, thank you.
There was nothing in the brief that hinted that AQ was going to do anything within the next 180 days. As I have told you before that the CIA gets about 14,000 tips a day that say we are going to be attacked by some group or other. The information that is actionable has been dealt with. Having been on the action side I can tell you that until Mr. Clinton was elected the standing orders were simple, if anyone can be identified they were snatched off the streets and never seen again. Mr. Clinton canceled that order he made it easier for the enemy to succeed. He preferred to go with extreme rendition, which everyone on the extreme left, including yourself, says Mr. Bush should not do because he is a bad person doing bad things.

P 156

“On July 24, 2001 King Abdullah of Jordan sent word (to Bush) in his view Bin Laden and his command structure must be dealt with in a decisive and military fashion. He offered to send two battalions of Jordanian Special Forces to go door-to-door in Afghanistan” (Bush took no action).


So here you advocate a preemptive strike into a nation without provocation because they might do something to us. Is that not the same justification Mr. Bush used to go to war in Iraq that you said was illegal and worthy of impeachment? Please explain why it is ok in this case but not ok in Iraq. Afghanistan had not done anything to us they only provided safe haven for the terrorist. Just like in Iraq. What I am getting from you is that Mr. Bush was criminal for not starting a war with Afghanistan and criminal for using the attack on 9/11 as justification to attack Iraq who was providing safe haven for terrorist. Just where is your logic here?

P153


“At the conclusion of the July 10th meeting Condi looked at Cofer and asked, what should we do? Cofer responded this country needs to go on a war footing now!” ( Nothing changed after this meeting In addition the Bush administration kept the very existence of this meeting secret even from the 9/11 Commission The commission and the public did not learn of this July 10th meeting until the Fall of 2006 when the Press learned of the meeting and the dire warning that was ignored by Bush and Rice).


So it was Mr. Black not Mr. Tenant that suggested going to a war footing like you had posted before.
Mr. Black is a smart man and I respected him each time we met. He was the one that set up the strategy for attacking Afghanistan after 9/11 and in the meeting at Camp David he was wise not to mention this previous discussion. Or at least no one at the meeting remembers him bringing it up. Mr. Black was the one in charge or involved in almost every black operation for the last 20 years. He was the one that designed the Ghost program around the world and was shelved during the Clinton administration. So the program that was protecting America set up by Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush was stopped by Mr. Clinton and reactivated by Mr. Bush but not soon enough to stop the 8 year head start AQ and others had in his 8 months before 9/11.