Signing Statements

[FromWayDowntown]

Yes, I heard the repeated talking points. You are repeating what they want lemmings like you to say.

Please...

Show me the signing statement that supports that contention!

Nothing that I've posted in this thread is a talking point. I've agreed with you that I have no problem with Bush's signing statements (or Obama's) in and of themselves. As I've said REPEATEDLY, I've had significant legal disagreements with the interpretation of Article II powers by the Bush administration, including (but not limited to): it's view of the cons utional permissibility of torture, it's willingness to suspend habeas corpus, multiple extensions of the law through the Patriot Act, and the cir vention of the basic cons utional warrant requirements in its apparent wiretapping efforts.

You're absurd for wanting people to come forward with proof that they agree doesn't exist. You're ridiculous for wholly ignoring a nuanced argument by simply dismissing its premise as a talking point.

[Wild Cobra]

You're absurd for wanting people to come forward with proof that they agree doesn't exist. You're ridiculous for wholly ignoring a nuanced argument by simply dismissing its premise as a talking point.

If you say so. Funny how we never have these discussion of how liberal laws may and do get abused.

We obviously disagree with Article II powers. I have always seen the president as the "Executor of Law." That le in itself, allows for this person to decide how such laws are implemented. Listening to the opinions of people like Yoo does not mean you will agree with or carry out such actions. When discussing any plans for future contingency, you do not ignore options you may disagree with or dislike. That can wait until the necessity presents itself. Some people call it "the moment of truth."

I'll admit I didn't read the whole Yoo Memo, but I keyword searched "torture" and a few other words. His take was not like people like to play it out as. I never saw it as saying torture is OK, just the lines between what is torture and what isn't.

[FromWayDowntown]

So when President Bush (or President Obama) says "I won't enforce this law to the extent that I deem it uncons utional" or "I won't enforce this law to the extent that I believe it infringes on the powers vested to the Executive through Article II," I can agree with that in general. What I take issue with is when the President's belief in what the scope of Article II powers are or when the President's basis for deeming a law uncons utional is rooted in untenable legal theories concerning the cons utional balance of powers.

Thus, I agree with everything that DOJ says in the do ent you've quoted above about the use of signing statements. It's in the enforcement of the signing statement afterwards -- something that won't appear in the signing statement itself -- that the problem arises.

If you're unwilling to engage in a discussion at that level, this thread is pointless. You're making a point that few actually disagree with and you won't engage in a discussion of the argument that forms the basis for the disagreement; you just simply dismiss those you disagree with as regurgitating talking points rather than actually engaging them on the merits of the argument.

[LnGrrrR]

I can't. You seem to be arguing against their legal use when you don't like the president who used them.

Well, you would be wrong then. I'm not arguing against the legal use of signing statements. I'm arguing against the strong executive theory, of which the interpretation of Bush's signing statements play a (relatively) small part.

I'll bet we could find statistics out there that show under the same cir stances, his usage was less than others. He had a congress trying to tie his wartime powers and he said no. If we eliminated all such instances since signing statements were used to protect Article II powers, I'm pretty sure the numbers would be different.

IIRC, Bush signed more signing statements, but it might have been Clinton. The biggest point about 'wartime' powers is the belief that, since terrorism can strike anywhere, at any time, that theoretically the US could be permanently in a state of war, thereby granting the President powers which were originally reserved for 'emergency' situations. I think you'll find that is what disturbs/concerns most liberals.

Exactly. How many were used to protect from a majority in congress that hated the president?OK, they are arguing the point then "that's not fair. I don't like it when they can legally be used to do what I don't like" Isn't that childish? Is the usage legal or not?

I don't think anyone's arguing that signing statements are illegal. I think most are arguing that the legal framework/theory behind them are wrong/false. It's akin to a law that is shot down by a court... is the usage legal? Sure, until a court overrules it as unlawful/uncons utional. I think many people who argue against Yoo's theory are arguing that the idea of a President using these emergency powers in the War on Terror is acting incorrectly.

Shouldn't that be the point?No, he just followed others. Did you read the link I posted in Post #86 from the Clinton administration? Here is a small extract of THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS, November 3, 1993:

Yes, I'm aware. However, usually signing statements are focused on certain instances, whereas the Bush signing statements seemed to be more open-ended, and counter to laws specifically designed to limit executive power.

I disagree with some of the things I heard Yoo say. I won't say they are legally wrong, but yes, morally questionable.

This is really the whole point of it. Do you think it should be legal for the President to perform extreme acts, such as torture, to protect America during emergency or wartime? Yoo thinks it should be legal, as the President is granted the ability as commander-in-chief. Others, like myself and Winehole, disagree. It hasn't been decided by SCOTUS yet, so we're arguing about the legality of the theory.

Again, have an example of a such a signing statement? That's what I was going to do. Show why the statement isn't improper. The point is clear and simple. Congress cannot have written laws enforced that hinder a president's Article II powers. Any layman should be able to understand that.

Then answer this simple hypothetical question, if the legality is easy to determine.

If Congress signs a law, specifically stating that the President is not allowed to interrogate a relative of a detainee in order to gain information, is that law legal or not?

And another... can the President authorize the military to torture unlawful combatants? Not just interrogate, but torture? Keep in mind, we did sign a treaty saying we would not torture. Which takes precedence? The treaty we signed, or the President's wartime capabilities?

I think he will, however, I think he will do his best in confidential communications with congress telling them he doesn't want legislation that he has to do such. Being of the same mindset as him, I think congress will be careful of such legislation in the future.

Given how hard Obama has been pushing for the state secrets privilege, I doubt it, sadly.

[FromWayDowntown]

Listening to the opinions of people like Yoo does not mean you will agree with or carry out such actions. When discussing any plans for future contingency, you do not ignore options you may disagree with or dislike. That can wait until the necessity presents itself. Some people call it "the moment of truth."

Oh, it's quite obvious that President Bush was relying quite heavily on what John Yoo was arguing. Yoo (along with David Addington) was, among other things, the "legal mastermind" of the military tribunal systems that sprung up in the immediate aftermath of war in Afghanistan and has been a major legal proponent of arguments aimed at defending torture.

That's precisely the legal question that is at issue here -- if the President's decision to adhere to a law or reject it was guided by the arguments provided by guys like Yoo (and it clearly was) and if those arguments were for unprecedented expansions of Article II power (Yoo argued with some vigor that being "at war" gave the President substantial discretion to simply disregard the enactments of Congress in the course of executing the war), then an otherwise-unobjectionable signing statement becomes the articulation of an express intent not to defy Congress but to ignore long-understood Cons utional principles.

[Wild Cobra]

What I take issue with is when the President's belief in what the scope of Article II powers are or when the President's basis for deeming a law uncons utional is rooted in untenable legal theories concerning the cons utional balance of powers.

Then shouldn't the congress take their side to the courts if they agree with that as well? If it affects an individual under the law, then they have cause to take it to court. Isn't that how it works? What about McCain-Feingold? Parts of it were challlenged. Sometimes you have to wait for it to go to court.

Thus, I agree with everything that DOJ says in the do ent you've quoted above about the use of signing statements. It's in the enforcement of the signing statement afterwards -- something that won't appear in the signing statement itself -- that the problem arises.

yet many laws are always selectively enforced anyway. So many examples to choose from. Guidance from mayors, police chiefs, governors, you name it. Are you just using this like others do for Bush Bashing?

If you're unwilling to engage in a discussion at that level, this thread is pointless. You're making a point that few actually disagree with and you won't engage in a discussion of the argument that forms the basis for the disagreement; you just simply dismiss those you disagree with as regurgitating talking points rather than actually engaging them on the merits of the argument.

Then it's the same endless over any subject.

Opinion!

Like I repeatedly said, I'm looking for facts.

Well, you would be wrong then. I'm not arguing against the legal use of signing statements. I'm arguing against the strong executive theory, of which the interpretation of Bush's signing statements play a (relatively) small part.

Well, I suggest you take it up with the courts because it has been validated. One reason why I feared having a "community organizer" become president. Too many ways to abuse executive power. This is just where anyone how wants power and despises what made America wants to be. So they can disassemble it. President Obama seems to be doing a great job at destroying this nation.

IIRC, Bush signed more signing statements, but it might have been Clinton. The biggest point about 'wartime' powers is the belief that, since terrorism can strike anywhere, at any time, that theoretically the US could be permanently in a state of war, thereby granting the President powers which were originally reserved for 'emergency' situations. I think you'll find that is what disturbs/concerns most liberals.

I see the "what if" scenario a bit overboard. However, right now, we continue to see terrorist activity. During the Clinton administration, they managed an attack about once a year average. I'd say president Bush has done a rather good job at preventing the attacks, and I do not see any means he used as uncons utional.

I don't think anyone's arguing that signing statements are illegal. I think most are arguing that the legal framework/theory behind them are wrong/false. It's akin to a law that is shot down by a court... is the usage legal? Sure, until a court overrules it as unlawful/uncons utional. I think many people who argue against Yoo's theory are arguing that the idea of a President using these emergency powers in the War on Terror is acting incorrectly.

Then please show me one where the argument for it is wrong. To say that a statement is wrong because a point Yoo made is wrong doesn't wash. Does the signing statement infringe on presidential powers or not when stated as such? Who cares if an example is misguided or not. How about real possibilities?

Yes, I'm aware. However, usually signing statements are focused on certain instances, whereas the Bush signing statements seemed to be more open-ended, and counter to laws specifically designed to limit executive power.

counter to laws specifically designed to limit executive power...

Shouldn't we be ashamed at such a congress?

This is really the whole point of it. Do you think it should be legal for the President to perform extreme acts, such as torture, to protect America during emergency or wartime?

Extreme acts, yes. Torture, NO!

Yoo thinks it should be legal, as the President is granted the ability as commander-in-chief. Others, like myself and Winehole, disagree. It hasn't been decided by SCOTUS yet, so we're arguing about the legality of the theory.

Besides the debate and audio clip that may be a misstatement, have anything that has Yoo endorsing torture?

Then answer this simple hypothetical question, if the legality is easy to determine.

If Congress signs a law, specifically stating that the President is not allowed to interrogate a relative of a detainee in order to gain information, is that law legal or not?

That is a fuzzy one, beyond my pay grade. In general, I would say no. However, it would be cir stance specific. I will not assume that there isn't a proper reason to do otherwise. It is absolutely morally objectionable.

And another... can the President authorize the military to torture unlawful combatants? Not just interrogate, but torture? Keep in mind, we did sign a treaty saying we would not torture. Which takes precedence? The treaty we signed, or the President's wartime capabilities?

Torture, NO. However, I find it hard to say no because the media and liberals are calling things torture that are not torture. I say yes to these enhanced techniques.

Oh, it's quite obvious that President Bush was relying quite heavily on what John Yoo was arguing. Yoo (along with David Addington) was, among other things, the "legal mastermind" of the military tribunal systems that sprung up in the immediate aftermath of war in Afghanistan and has been a major legal proponent of arguments aimed at defending torture.

Torture, or enhanced techniques?

That's precisely the legal question that is at issue here -- if the President's decision to adhere to a law or reject it was guided by the arguments provided by guys like Yoo (and it clearly was)

Really? Were you a fly on the wall? How many other people do you think a president listens to before making such a decision?

and if those arguments were for unprecedented expansions of Article II power (Yoo argued with some vigor that being "at war" gave the President substantial discretion to simply disregard the enactments of Congress in the course of executing the war), then an otherwise-unobjectionable signing statement becomes the articulation of an express intent not to defy Congress but to ignore long-understood Cons utional principles.

I see no expansion of executive powers any different that any past president has used. The provisions are already deemed cons utional. With or without a signing statement.

[LnGrrrR]

That is a fuzzy one, beyond my pay grade. In general, I would say no. However, it would be cir stance specific. I will not assume that there isn't a proper reason to do otherwise. It is absolutely morally objectionable.

This is the crux of the argument, IMHO. This and your answer to the next question.

We're arguing over whether that should be legal or not, and the framework behind that decision. Do a President's emergency powers trump other laws?

Torture, NO. However, I find it hard to say no because the media and liberals are calling things torture that are not torture. I say yes to these enhanced techniques.

I thought you said that nothing can infringe on the President's Article II powers? If not, then why can't he tell his executive branch to commit torture, murder, or anything else in order to gain the information needed to protect this country?

[Wild Cobra]

This is the crux of the argument, IMHO. This and your answer to the next question.

We're arguing over whether that should be legal or not, and the framework behind that decision. Do a President's emergency powers trump other laws?

They have trumped over law in the past. Already tried and tested.

I thought you said that nothing can infringe on the President's Article II powers? If not, then why can't he tell his executive branch to commit torture, murder, or anything else in order to gain the information needed to protect this country?

I never said any such thing. Please show me where I did. I may have misspoken. I said congress cannot write laws that limit the presidents powers. The president still must abide by the cons ution and treaties.

[LnGrrrR]

They have trumped over law in the past. Already tried and tested.

Yes, they have, but to what degree? For instance, many scholars think that it was uncons utional, or at the least, morally wrong, to have placed Japanese-Americans in detention camps during WWII.

I never said any such thing. Please show me where I did. I may have misspoken. I said congress cannot write laws that limit the presidents powers. The president still must abide by the cons ution and treaties.

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood. I will agree with you that Congress can not write laws that limit the President's defined Cons utional powers. However, I think that many things that a President claims are his powers are not clearly defined in the Cons ution.

Now, I could be wrong, but if Congress signs a bill stating that certain money should be used for certain things, is it infringing on a President's powers if he decides to allocate those funds somewhere else? What if the bill specifically states certain things it WON'T fund, and the President funds it with the money anyways, stating it's not Congress' job to tell him how he can run the executive branch?

Of course, Congress can't tell him how to run his branch. But it CAN tell him what is and isn't funded, can't it? That is the proper role of Congress. So which side wins in this case?

It also comes out to being an effective line item veto in many cases, where instead of vetoing the bill, the President just declares which parts of the law are 'illegal' or 'uncons utional' and then he doesn't have to abide by it (unless it's taken to court somehow).

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, they have, but to what degree? For instance, many scholars think that it was uncons utional, or at the least, morally wrong, to have placed Japanese-Americans in detention camps during WWII.

I agree it was morally wrong, but I doubt it was uncons utional. I'm pretty sure most people of the time wouldn't consider it unreasonable. I would say by today's standards, it was unreasonable. However, those were different times.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I'm sure there were heated discussions about this then, as well as now and the future to come. It boils down to weather the actions were reasonable or not. The president clearly thought it was to protect this nation, but who really determines that? If I recall, court cases at the time supported the decision, but I never really studied that situation. Reasonable or not, I say it was wrong, but today, we are looking at that with 20/20 hindsight. Not really fair to judge the past that way in my opinion.

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood. I will agree with you that Congress can not write laws that limit the President's defined Cons utional powers. However, I think that many things that a President claims are his powers are not clearly defined in the Cons ution.

Example please.

Now, I could be wrong, but if Congress signs a bill stating that certain money should be used for certain things, is it infringing on a President's powers if he decides to allocate those funds somewhere else? What if the bill specifically states certain things it WON'T fund, and the President funds it with the money anyways, stating it's not Congress' job to tell him how he can run the executive branch?

I think that's the only control congress can have, and depends on the wording. "Should" is not and absolute term. Democrats effectively made us lose the Viet-Nam war that way. Something they obviously are not willing to do with the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course, Congress can't tell him how to run his branch. But it CAN tell him what is and isn't funded, can't it? That is the proper role of Congress. So which side wins in this case?

Congress wins, unless they lose in the public eye. Will the congress Nixon had ever be forgiven by conservatives? Or by the vets who came back to a public that hated them?

It also comes out to being an effective line item veto in many cases, where instead of vetoing the bill, the President just declares which parts of the law are 'illegal' or 'uncons utional' and then he doesn't have to abide by it (unless it's taken to court somehow).

Would it be better to be forced to veto the whole bill?

If congress is stupid enough to try to infringe on Article II powers, then they deserve it.

[Wild Cobra]

I finally read the August 2002 memo in it's entirety, so I came back to this posting:

I will ask again. Do you agree with the legal theory that comes to conclusions like this?

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

Do you agree or disagree that the President is able to do such a thing?

Cassel is flat out wrong in the contention behind the question. Yoo's responce in saying "I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that." was either edited, or he misspoke, because it is clearly different than what he wrote in the memo. He specifically said, on page 2:

Section 2340 further defines "severe mental pain or suffering" as:
the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical
pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application,
of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly
the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical
pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other
procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
personality.

As for the six minutes of audio, I tried listening to it before, but it's a very bad audio. I have a hard time distinguishing the words with the background noises I have around me. I finally listened to that today. I just shake my head at the things Yoo didn't say and have clarified. Nothing he has written supports the idea that it's OK to crush testicles, in fact, his writings clearly say otherwise.

All along, Yoo was saying that it is section 2340 that the president must comply with. Just not other international agreements between other nations.

[LnGrrrR]

I agree it was morally wrong, but I doubt it was uncons utional. I'm pretty sure most people of the time wouldn't consider it unreasonable. I would say by today's standards, it was unreasonable. However, those were different times.I'm sure there were heated discussions about this then, as well as now and the future to come. It boils down to weather the actions were reasonable or not. The president clearly thought it was to protect this nation, but who really determines that? If I recall, court cases at the time supported the decision, but I never really studied that situation. Reasonable or not, I say it was wrong, but today, we are looking at that with 20/20 hindsight. Not really fair to judge the past that way in my opinion.

Agreed it must have been tough then, but as any society must do, we must look back and determine what was just/unjust in order to avoid things like this in the future.

Congress wins, unless they lose in the public eye. Will the congress Nixon had ever be forgiven by conservatives? Or by the vets who came back to a public that hated them?

Yes, but I'm just talking about procedural issues. If the President takes said money and spends it on whatever he wants anyways, how can Congress call him on that? Impeachment would seem the only clear option.

Would it be better to be forced to veto the whole bill?

I would prefer that yes, but I understand why it's not done, as that would make passing something extremely hard. Of course, I'm all for that, as that's pretty much what our government was designed to do... make it hard to pass laws. As a conservative, you don't like the idea of making it harder to pass laws?

[LnGrrrR]

...All along, Yoo was saying that it is section 2340 that the president must comply with. Just not other international agreements between other nations.

You don't think that the fact that Yoo didn't outright say, "No, the President could not do that" implies that Yoo could see instances where he would find it acceptable and/or legal?

If Yoo didn't think there was a way that was legally possible, wouldn't he have just said, "No, the President could not do that, regardless of the situation."? Or is it your belief that he 'misspoke'? Because he has long advocated great authority for executive positions.

[Wild Cobra]

You don't think that the fact that Yoo didn't outright say, "No, the President could not do that" implies that Yoo could see instances where he would find it acceptable and/or legal?

If Yoo didn't think there was a way that was legally possible, wouldn't he have just said, "No, the President could not do that, regardless of the situation."? Or is it your belief that he 'misspoke'? Because he has long advocated great authority for executive positions.

I'm can only guess to the cir stances. His writings clearly say otherwise. Why must I repeat that? Did you read the memo? I honestly think he either misspoke, or the tape was edited.

Remember the TV interview with Palin, and her talks about Russia? That tape was edited. They cut out several sentences she said between the question and the aired answer, making that "I can see Russia from my House" a comedy special.

I never trust what is said unless I'm there, or know I am listening to or reading from an unedited tape or transcript. People with agenda's too often lie with creative editing.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm can only guess to the cir stances. His writings clearly say otherwise. Why must I repeat that? Did you read the memo? I honestly think he either misspoke, or the tape was edited.

Remember the TV interview with Palin, and her talks about Russia? That tape was edited. They cut out several sentences she said between the question and the aired answer, making that "I can see Russia from my House" a comedy special.

I never trust what is said unless I'm there, or know I am listening to or reading from an unedited tape or transcript. People with agenda's too often lie with creative editing.

Cmon WC. How do you "know" that you are listening to an unedited tape or transcript? There are multiple sources that refer to that interview. Did you listen to the longer audio I posted, not just that one clip?

What about John Yoo's other memos and legal positions? His commentaries on papers like the Wall Street Ed page? He consistently has given the impression that he believes the President's wartime powers trump the normal checks and balances.

There's no way to prove completely that the tape wasn't edited, anymore than you can prove that 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy. But to think that this quote has been out there for YEARS, and not a single person, not even Yoo himself, has disowned it, or disproved it, would tend to make one think it was an accurate depiction of what he said. (Not even taking into account the fact that it was, IIRC, a live debate with many different witnesses.)

Just look up "John Yoo testicles" on yahoo. You'll find youtube clips there as well.

[Wild Cobra]

Cmon WC. How do you "know" that you are listening to an unedited tape or transcript? There are multiple sources that refer to that interview. Did you listen to the longer audio I posted, not just that one clip?

That's m y pojnt. You usually don't know if it's unedited. As for the clip quoted by so many links, they all use the same source. I have not seen two or more sources on the issue. Have you? I already said I listened to the audio. Doesn't mean it wasn't edited.

What about John Yoo's other memos and legal positions? His commentaries on papers like the Wall Street Ed page? He consistently has given the impression that he believes the President's wartime powers trump the normal checks and balances.

I won't disagree with that thought. I am disagreeing with the testicle argument. All the rest of his work I have read excludes him from making such a statement. It is completely inconsistent with his works.

There's no way to prove completely that the tape wasn't edited, anymore than you can prove that 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy. But to think that this quote has been out there for YEARS, and not a single person, not even Yoo himself, has disowned it, or disproved it, would tend to make one think it was an accurate depiction of what he said. (Not even taking into account the fact that it was, IIRC, a live debate with many different witnesses.)

There can be several reasons for that. One of which is not validating something by commenting on it.

Just look up "John Yoo testicles" on yahoo. You'll find youtube clips there as well.

I'll do that, but it still doesn't mean he didn't mis-speak.

[Wild Cobra]

You know, if you listen carefully to the audio, there is someone else speaking just before Yoo gives the last part of the response. Maybe he was answering a different question too.

As for the Youtube clips. They are all the same audio, and no video yet. Is that what you call multiple sources?

[LnGrrrR]

I'll do that, but it still doesn't mean he didn't mis-speak.

I'll wait until you watch the video to continue.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll wait until you watch the video to continue.

There are so many there. I saw no video, just pics and the same source tape. I'm still looking except I've also watched parts of a 2008 congressional hearing. Watching the whole thing now:



Find me the video you are talking about and I'll pause this one and look at it in another tab.

[LnGrrrR]

There are so many there. I saw no video, just pics and the same source tape. I'm still looking except I've also watched parts of a 2008 congressional hearing. Watching the whole thing now:



Find me the video you are talking about and I'll pause this one and look at it in another tab.

I'll try to find it and get it to you. My earlier comments stand, I think, about the multiple viewers and not disavowing the comments.

Just know that next time you quote anything from FoxNews, I'm going to play the "How do you know it wasn't edited?" card

[Wild Cobra]

But to think that this quote has been out there for YEARS, and not a single person, not even Yoo himself, has disowned it, or disproved it, would tend to make one think it was an accurate depiction of what he said.

You are wrong. Yoo says he was cut off, and the answer is out of context because it doesn't have the rest of his remarks on the subject. See the hour plus Youtube I linked. It starts about 48-1/2 minutes in.

Oh... Addington explains "unitarian" a little after 50 minutes.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm 1 hr. and 12 minutes into the video and It's appalling how they badger Yoo. Ellison is asking an impossible question to answer under oath without assuming.

[Wild Cobra]

Just know that next time you quote anything from FoxNews, I'm going to play the "How do you know it wasn't edited?" card

As you wish. Just remember the Couric interview is verified as edited.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow. Just finished the hostile interrogation of Yoo and Addington by congress. I cannot believe how lame congress can be by using sources like Vanity Fair to ask questions from.

[Wild Cobra]

As you wish. Just remember the Couric interview is verified as edited.

I meant the Gibson interview, with her proximity to Alaska, but the Couric interview was also edited.