Democrats are pushing for criminal investigation into President Bush's "abuses," like detaining and interrogating foreign non-uniformed combatants (i.e., terrorists), eavesdropping on phone calls between non-citizens and individuals in terrorist-sponsoring nations, and dismissing U.S. attorneys.
I have one question for them: precisely how are these things, each well within a sitting president's constitutional responsibilities, abuses of his power?
A sitting president is the commander in chief of the executive branch. That means that it is his responsibility to carry out those policies that he was hired to carry out: make sure the military does its job, and keep the people safe.
A sitting president does not need to make sure the constitutional rights to the judicial process for the terrorists detained in various military compounds like Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, because as non-citizens, they have no constitutional rights. A sitting president does not need congressional nor judicial approval to wiretap calls between non-citizens and terrorist-sponsoring nations because non-citizens have no constitutional rights in this country. The attorneys that President Bush fired were hired and served at the discretion of the president.
Were the individuals held in military prison or eavesdropped upon United States citizens, the Democrats might have a case. Were the attorneys fired appointed by congress as a watchdog on the office of the president--which isn't constitutionally legal, so the point is moot--they might have a case.
George Bush has done far less to warrant such harassment than did Abraham Lincoln, the hero of the Democrats. Indeed, if it had been one of their own in power, making the same decision, there would be no questions asked, because they know damn well he had the constitutional authority to take the actions they're questioning.
53 minutes ago