January 31, 2006
-
Presidential Power
Before I start my post today, I want to let you know that one of my subscribers is having a baby today. Please go over and wish her well. Her site name is Anothermadhousewife.
Here we go:
Some may wonder what type of reading patterns I have. I read about 2-3 books a week. I also read foxnews.com about 3-4 times a week. I read USA today a few times a week. I read the Wall Street Journal two times a week. At one time, I read the Drudge Report at drudgereport.com every day. I don’t read it much any more. I read nonfiction. I have not read a fiction book in over 10 years.
While reading the Wall Street Journal last Friday or Saturday, I saw an article with an interview of the vice-president Dick Cheney. In the interview, he was mentioning the need to have what he would call a “strong president” during times of war. He felt that the President needed more power during times of war to do things that were important for national security.
He was basically referring to the ability to spy on international calls. I thought it was an interesting issue.
During times of war, should the President be given more power in order to protect citizens?
Comments (134)
Protect citizen? Our President invaded another country with wimpsy reasons.
totally. but he is a rare to find.
Holy cow, I wish I could read that much.
too rare to find .
I commented on what you should get your wife for valentines day in that entry! Be sure to read it!
Oh and to answer your question…ABSOLUTELY!
Absolutely not, giving the president more power is what the folks who created this country absolutly feared. This system is built on checks and balances and if the president is granted more power then the system, as a whole fails, and it becomes a one man government.
National Security is definately a priority.
YES!! That is what he is SUPPOSED to do…*protect* us. And can we not sacrifice SOME freedoms (for a time) in order to SAVE *all* our freedoms in the long run? That seems to make the most sense, to me!
ha. The President usually starts the war.
Good question. In my opinion, I don’t think so because too much power is never too good. I believe in balance and moderation. =D
I honestly don’t know. I see both sides. It drives me crazy that I can’t ever say “yes” or “no.”
-Hil
If people are concerned about having their calls monitored, then maybe they are discussing something they shouldn’t be. If someone wants to listen to my hum drum phone calls to my mother, or my calls to my friend discussing my sex life with my husband or other such nonsense, then feel free. I have nothing to hide.
I think the President needs to be able to have the power to do anything he needs to in order to keep the citizens of our country safe during times of war, within reason.
ABSOLUTELY!!
no
RYCL: If it keeps up, I will have to kill it. Not really. I just can’t keep it. And I edited my post to go into further detail
I don’t know. I don’t like Bush.
sure, I guess. Depends….
With the current president, he has used the “conflict” in Iraq as an excuse. We are becoming a controlled nation with him and his ideas. Tapping our phone calles, wanting all drivers licenses to look alike, etc. Next thing you know we will need “paper” to travel from town to town or state to state.
I believe so.
RYC: Thanks! That’s my brother!
Yes, but I don’t think that his power should be unlimited or unwatched by others!!!!
If and only if it is a legit war. “War on Terrorism” gets just as much credentials as “Vietnam War” and “War on Poverty.”
US’s last official war was actually World War II… rest of them are only “peacekeeping missions.”
sure thing
RYC to P8indme: NO Dan. It would NOT be funny.
It would be almost impossible, and I would be in alot of trouble!
Our government is set up on a system of checks and balances. We should not vary from that idea. If too much power is given to one branch of the government, there is a greater chance of corruption. So – No. I do not think the President needs additional power during times of war.
In time of war, or armed conflict of any kind, the President should be able to exercise all of the powers authorized by the U.S. Constitution — no more and no less. The day we suspend the constitution because of a war is the day we kiss our republic goodbye.
The questions that I see, however, are (1) Whether the President should be harangued by elected members of Congress in time of war for exercising powers that he possesses under the Constitution as Commander in Chief? and (2) Whether Congress should be permitted to infringe upon the inherent constitutional powers of the President in time of war?
The constitution states: “Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
I think some of the vitriolic criticism that has been leveled against the President for conducting surveillance of Al Qaeda-linked phone calls, and the attempts to curtail those efforts, amount to giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.
Congress alone has the power of war but can delegate some of that power to the President. The President should be a good steward of this power. I have a problem with the way that our President campaigned and manipulated intelligence to obtain this power from Congress and now will not relinquish this power.
Hi Dan dear!!
RYC: I’ll never tell…..hehe
Love, Candy
And technically, we never declared war with Iraq. Congress approved a joint resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq. The self proclaimed “War President” is not even at war.
Sure, why not.
Hitler had a lot of power…
We are already spying on international calls. What’s new in that? We’ve been doing it since the first international phone line was installed across the atlantic. We’ve also been reviewing e-mails with catch words being sent through international servers. What’s new in all of this? nothing. Just another ploy to have people hate the person in charge. Both sides of the aisle agree that screening international calls is Legal. So, we must ask ourselves: “Why do they make an issue of it now?”
Yes we need a strong President, one with a back bone (either in times of war…or peace). I’m tired of reading the news, being that the journalists are out to report only the bad things….in order to obtain ratings. Very rarely do you hear anything good, becuase it doesn’t sell air time or papers. Goes to prove that controversy and blood sell, pretty sad.
The reality is that the country of Iraq was in a bad state of affairs. There was evidence that something could be seriously wrong over there that could be potentially bad for the U.S. Thank God it didn’t turn out that way. Currently their infrastructure is being rebuilt to be stronger than ever before, and now they have more freedom then ever before.
So here’s the real issue: Did going to Iraq help both the U.S. and Iraq? Answer: Yes.
I agree with “yet still learning”. Although I must say that I would rather us have this president than Mr. Gore especially during a time of war.
May God guide, lead and protect our president!
I agree with Vanessa 100%.
I’ve already had a mini soap box on this issue here, so I’ll just leave a resounding Yes!
…what if per chance the person in extreme power begins to act with selfish motivation… what then?
Power is easily bestowed, but misery to temper…. liberty once forsaken, may never return.
We are not safer, we are less free, we are more divided, we have more debt. Though, yes some do succeed… the elite outpace the poor more every day.
Concentrating more power into the plutocracy is not the answer, but the ailment.
Not if those “protections” impede on constitutionally protected rights.
yeah.
if he wants to listen to my phone convo’s no prob. he will here a lot of slang though and might have to hire someone to figure that out!
oh and he will here lots of jokes and laughter …
how to negociate with bill collectors … ha ha!
hear*
No.
the US is allready the most “protected” nation in the world.
I agree with AnArchy4SaleD2k3.
Under the current situation, I would say no. There’s really no need for him to have greater power, and chances are, it would be mis-used. This seems to be an era of corruption and greed. Not just by the current President, but by everyone. Nobody can be just given more power. Not until they’ve shown that they used what power they had responsibly, and I’ve yet to discover a politician that has.
We ‘mere mortals’ need to learn to step up to the plate. Just because none of us is perfect shouldn’t give us a pass to be as greedy as we want. We all need to be the best we can, for ourselves, for our friends, and for total strangers. It’s the only way the world will become any better than it is. Each individual must make their own effort.
1. Bush’s primary protection is himself, his family and cronies. To the wire tapping, there is wire tapping law that he chose to disregard, hiding behind the shield of national security. The way you set up the question is cleverly bias for the Bush’s administration.
2. Your posting series about Xanga retirement now shows your cheap cheat for popularity on Xanga.
N0eprop4u
No. I don’t think the president should have more power. Looks at Star Wars I, II, And II sides being crap movies they did have a point. The more power you give someone who does not use it well or right, the more freedom you may give up just for security.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. Benjamin Franklin
This goes along with giving more power to people who want you to have less freedoms so they can retain power. I’m not saying that this is happening but it could happen.
Given the potential for abuse of that power, I would say that there would have to be shown a greater necessity than I have seen so far.
No.
L,r
RYC:
“Everyone who comes after me on this will probably disagree by saying people kill guns don’t.”
Well, I hope nobody comes after you and if they do that they are not armed.
I have long held that people kill people and guns are just tools. They are certainly very efficient and conventient tools though and I would not oppose hugely stiffer penalties for crimes (any crime) committed with a firearm. I think that our treatment of criminals who use firearms (all criminals for that matter) is far too lenient. How about a mandatory life sentence for any crime committed with a firearm?
THanks for your comment.
L,r
I dont think I could answer that question simply yes or no. Way too many variables in each given situation. Unfortunately, I do understand that the question almost would need a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to be passed into law or not.
Anyways.. can I ask why you dont read fiction? I read quite a bit also.. a good mixture, of fiction and non. And even a lot of the non-fiction out there is actually partially ‘fiction’ (many American History books for example)..
I haven’t visited your site in awhile; Im glad I did.
No!
Yes.
You should watch some real news, like BBC. Fox and CNN gives you all the local crap like “So and so’s dog fell down a well”. BBC is MUCH more global-based and (in my opinion) isn’t slanted towards either the left or right like Fox is.
My dearest friend died on January 29th. Thank you everyone for praying for her.
within reason. some things the government are doing now are outrageous.
I kind of agree that the gov’t should have had more powers after 9/11, but when does it end. The ‘war on terror’ is such a vague concept and one that I can’t imagine definitively winning. (what does the world look like when the war on terror is over, will that realistically occur anytime soon?). It seems to me that the president passed the point where he should have privileged powers as leader long long ago.
Yes.
When a President gets more powers in wartime to protect citizens, it’s important to still use checks & balances on that power… one of the reasons Bush’s wiretapping of citizens was such a big scandal was because he could have authorized it through Congress, even retroactively, and he didn’t bother. Showing that he felt he could get away with whatever he wanted, even though it would have taken only a bit more effort to go the legal route.
No
overall the people should have more power. the president needs to ask the people what is right.
What are y’ll protecting citizens from?? It’s not your government thats for sure! I cannot belive the civil liberties that are being tossed aside for the sake of “protecting” the people…reminds me of Inqusitions of days ago…where the “Citizens” had to be protected from themselves….where does it end?? Do y’ll plan on “protecting” us in other countries too?? If so, we all don’t want your type of protection…..’til the next
I’m very hesitant to say yes…the guys that framed the constitution did so with a vast amount of experiences among them.
Most came from countries with abuses of power…some of the same abuses can be found today. The constitution was created to make boundaries which respect individuals as well as the government’s authority.
Do I want them to haul the butts of the guys that caused 9/11 into court? Yes.
Am I ready for them to use any method that the goverment/President thinks is necessary? I don’t think so … I’m not impressed with Bush’s assessment of the information he received on Iraq…either he failed or the people bringing him the info failed…whichever it was he also failed to hear the opinions of other nations’ leaders.
I suppose. I have nothing to hide, so it wouldn’t bother me much.
I think it is okay if he is watched and only for that reason and none other. It has to be that specific order.
Lots of good answers, the truth is yes we should, n the assumption and hope that the man entrusteed with the extra power will continue to walk in a leadership role that is good for the people, economically, socially, etc etc. That his goals will be to use the powers he is iven for the people, not use the people he governs for more power. And it becomes a fine line, because how dictators started out saying how they wanted to help[ their people, all they needed was the power and opportunity, and then they turned around and helped themselves, and hurt all others. Its a question not of the power, but of the man…. is the man trustworthy for the power, or is it a facade. REgardles sof whether or not the people of this countrylike George W. I don’t think he will try to usurp the poowert and keep it for longer than is intended. that is all.
yes
You should share with us what books you are reading. I always like GOOD non-fiction books. During times of war… maybe. NOT IN THIS SITUATION. This is an unfounded war.
The President needs to follow the rules all the time! How would you like it if he shut your site down because HE felt it was an act of terrorism? because you know, he has the power to make those decisions. BULLSHIT! Ok..that made no sense. I’m delirious.
sure
Yes, considering the Constitution gives him more privileges.
Yes, of course.
I don’t think so, cause there’s a reason why we have the checks and balances. All the Presisdent would have to do is have a hold on Congress, and then keep us in a state of war. Leaders throughout history have gained power through wartime situations. Its just a bad idea
I am torn on the spying issue, on one hand, I want my privacy, but on another, if they have to get a warrant to spy on conversations, emails, etc., would it maybe not be a missed opportunity by the time the warrant was issued? I’m sure terrorists don’t use the same phones, emails, etc. for a long time, I would think they would constantly be changing these on a regular basis so as not to be found out?
Not this war, durring World War 1&2 yes, but durring “The War On Terror” no
Michael
Hmm.. I think I president should have more power yes, but it has to be the right president, so he doesn’t abuse that power.
In general? I’m not sure. In this particular case? Tapping citizens phone lines? Why? Because they are foreign? At one point, George W.’s family was considered foreigners too. All of us origionated from foreign countries, unless you are full blooded American Indian. What’s next? Tapping the phone lines of German citizens? Or Russian? Or how about any random black person? Or a homosexual? I hear those gay people have all sorts of conspiracies going on about the president. Maybe he should start tapping THEIR phone lines. I’ll probably get mine tapped just for suggesting it!
the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
As long as said power doesn’t include by-passing U.S. Code, Constitutional protections n those modified by U.S.Code on the way to kingdomship. The 2nd amend. is there along with the other gifts given by our founding fathers for a reason, and I’m a patriot in the best sense of the word. We need to continue watching the watchers, ’cause we know they don’t walk the path unless they know we’re aware. Eye’s on the watchers, folks!
I don’t know about “more” power…shouldn’t he already be protecting citizens?
I thought you were retiring?
our president is a good man, and I trust him to lead this country.
but on an unrelated note, I guess I vote for the good of society rather than the individual.
Yeah FDR did worse things to the Japanese during WW2. I’m not saying what he did was right, but what Bush is doing is essential. We need to break their communication before they blow up more buildings.
Yeah FDR did worse things to the Japanese during WW2. I’m not saying what he did was right, but what Bush is doing is essential. We need to break their communication before they blow up more buildings I believe.
yes.
I’d like to know what books you’re reading also.
A guarded ‘yes’ to answer the question.
yeah
yes, but I do think that there would also need to be increased accountbility. With great power comes great responsibilty.
sometimes fiction books contain as much truth as non-fiction what TeenWtiter said goes for me to, you have to go for the overall good
Yes. The president should have more power during times of war. However, the extent of these powers should be constitutionally defined – or defined by law. In addition, terms should be defined. What constitutes a war? Is declaraion of war by congress required for the presedint to invokde his special war powers, etc.
In any case, the president, like all citizens, should be constrained by the rule of law. He does not get to make up the laws (these are not the powers of the executive branch) nor should he be able to take over the role of the judiciary.
We have a constitution and bill of rights that true patriots fought to establish. The president, the congress, and the judiciary are sworn to uphold these laws. They should do so.
absolutely. and he should step up and take responsibility for any negative occurences that could then possibly result from his actions [with the new extra power].
ryc: uw is university of wisconsin… la crosse is the city it’s in
Yes, I believe the president (or in my case, prime minister) should be given extra power to protect the people during times of war.
Also, I’m proud to be your 3000 subscriber.
Some interesting comments people leave. Some forget that the President is the commander and chief and so by default (and constitutional right) has certain powers in war time. Powers that Congress and the courts do NOT have. And of course they have powers the Prez doesn’t have. Such as Congress chooses what to fund and not fund. Some things today are a bit more controversial. Many of our laws don’t take into account current technologies and the speed at which things happen. We need those addressed in Congress. In the mean time, the President is acting against foreign enemies, not our own citizens. Why are those citizens communicating with terrorists anyway??? Is it a constitutional right to work with those intending harm to US citizens?
yes. unlimited.
Definitely.
And on the books – I’m not much of a fiction fan, either, but I’m finding it is a good way to keep my imagination alive. You read 2-3 books a week?! Way to go, brother, way to go!
The key is for Congree to grant him these power priveledges, and then to take them away again once the threat is minimized. He can’t just have more power simply because he wants it.
The US President should have absolute authority in all circumstances. As long as his name is Bush.
no
Certain types of power, perhaps. But I can’t think what those powers would be. Not spying on private citizens, and certainly not without warrants. The President is not the sole leader of our country; he is no king, and we are not subjects.
no
no. more power. more corruption.
peace max
i’d say no
Absolutely..more so with this one than any other…take care…lee
I don’t know, because I don’t know really much about the government or whatever. Only certain powers. Whatever’s best.
definetly not
Given that the right to privacy is not an enumerated right in the constitution and that current laws have not kept up with current technology. I would say that Bush should use domestic spying. Now this needs to be used in a limited amount only when deemed essential to the protection of the country. Congress needs to deal with this issue in the legislature so that we do have some law regarding new technologies. Bush is doing what he thinks is right. Remember he is not he first president to do things that the public saw as an overstepping of presidential power. For all the democrats out there who are complaining about Bush remember Bush has always followed what the Supreme Court said unlike Andrew Jackson who told the Supreme Court to enforce thier own ruling (this is an impeachable offence)
Remember – these are INTERNATIONAL calls. They’re not listening to our cellphones as we talk about our daily lives. Of course they should be able to.
Uh… not Dubya.
IDK about any other people.
No. The President shouldn’t be granted any greater powers regardless if the country is at war. Our Founding Fathers decided that we needed checks and balances to keep any one person or group from having too much power.
Bush seems to think that he has all the power in the world and soon, when he finds out he is wrong again, it will be funny to see him squirm.
Bush really is the anti-christ and it’s scary to think a man like him could have been given greater powers that make him the supreme being in all of the US government.
I think if we believe that someone higher up isn’t listening to whatever calls they feel like… we’re lieing to ourselves.
Definitely!!!
Doesn’t he already have all the power he needs?
yes, in times when we are being attacked or harmed directly
“More power” is a very general statement. It depends on the “power” that is being discussed. I don’t think any one person in the government should be given too much “power” no matter who he or she is.
>Ariana
Damn it has takenme about 3 weeks to finish up this book I’m reading but it’s because i only read it when I’m at work.
god i love these political questions! i’m a political science major so i thrive off this stuff. more more more!
ummm…it’s understandable that there may be some circumstances that arise during times of war which require more control and power on the part of the president. war presents us with an certain unpredictability that doesn’t exist in times of peace. however, should we decide to expand the powers granted to the president, they MUST, without any question, be powers that are within the boundaries of the constitution. unfortunately for mr. bush, we have a little thing call the FOURTH AMENDMENT which states “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effect, 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.” sadly, unauthorized wire-tapping doesn’t quite fit the bill here…
the “bill” of rights. ha…get it? oh i’m such a comedian.
basically, no person in the U.S. is above the law, including public officials. so expanded power is cool as long as it’s within the realms of our trusty ol’ Constitution.
i will now descend from my soap box.
Absolutely not, in my opinion. As mentioned before, our system of government is completely invalidated apart from the checks and balances. When that goes we are reduced to a near-monarchy. Power-grubbers can too easily use fear or misinformation to take power that will never be given back (i.e. income tax!!).
wartime or not that’s a big heck yeah!
Martha
The gov’t should be given more power. Most of that power will reside in the executive branch. However, the question that arises is what is a war? Are we at war? Were we at war in 1990 or 1968 or 1951? The last war we declared was against the Axis in WW II. The US has not been in a war to “save itsself” since the War Between the States and I think that is the only kind of war that justifies sacrificing civil liberties that we would not otherwise sacrifice in peace time.
i don’t believe in war, first off. secondly, i don’t believe that one person should have more power than the president already has. the argument is made that giving her/him more power would cut through the red tape of congress, but if we were at war, i don’t think congress would be into a lot of bureaucracy (sp?). trust the people we elected, don’t give one person more power than they already have, and for G-d’s sake, don’t go to war and be killing people!
It depends on what the president wants to take away from us. Freedom? No. Convenience? Maybe.
isnt that what hitler had? a little more power in times of national insecurity?
and look where that landed the world.
This discussion always confuses me… I thought the NSA *has* been listening to phone lines and monitoring communications in general for decades. How is this different? I want to know in what way this power would be increasing. It seems common sense to monitor communications for mentions of terrorism planned against the U.S. I have assumed that my government has been doing this in a systematic, professional way. Technology places today’s spies outside the realm of needing to listen to one’s conversation with one’s grandma to search for key words and phrases.
Despite my confusion, I would not be concerned about Bush’s administration abusing this kind of power. I think Bush and his cabinet are very focused on the protection of the USA in the light of current threats. Some past administrations did abuse similar powers, however, so I would be hesitant to expand powers without proper checks and balances.
2-3 books a week??? You have that kind of time? I wish I had! I will be lucky if I can afford to read a book each month!
I like non-fiction, but I lean towards reference books. I can spend a lot of time going through history related books, the paranormal, etc, but I can’t imagine not reading fiction.
Nice meeting you.
Faith
If you went to my website http://www.dallasdivide.com …..one might think that I was a war monger or military sort. Truth is the old propellar/piston planes give me a sense of Freedom, and remind me of brave men who gave their lives for Our Freedom. (General Chuck Yeager has a Birthday this week…go to his website and wish him a Happy Birthday!)
As for invading Iraq………The United States Senate approved IT. George just didn’t wake up and decide to go.
Now that we are there, the military and our spy organiztions have to walk fine lines. Did not Sun Tzu speak of deception in War. What does going to war mean? It means that your enemies ‘HATE’ you. These ‘humans’ hate us. I watched one morning as two tall buildings crumbled. Could not believe it as it happened.
I am not sure what being given more power means. But listening to international calls, I believe, is in the best interest of The United States. If not…..you can ‘bet’ the Congress and Senate will put a ‘stop’ to it.
And if they want to listen when I call my friend in Norway……..Tell the NSA……THEY CAN
Merlin
no, cuz the pres could decide to make some crazy ass decisions in his/her efforts to protect us that could actually harm us and make us more vulnerable to more attacks. like our current pres…wow, he’s on the kind of crack that no other has EVER tried before. except bin laden.
I said before, our founding father, one of them once said “Those that would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither” The man co-wrote the US constitution. He was wrong? The timeless document is now invalid, our world has changed so much?
No. Benjamin Franklin was correct. War is NO excuse to infringe on our god-given and constitutionally protected civil rights. Ever. Christian, Muslim, Athiest, EVERYONE. Created equal, under god, some god, any god.
If they were going to attack us, there would be absolutely nothing we could do to stop them. Why have we not been attacked? Not the government or the war on terror, we have not been attacked because NO ONE WANT TO ATTACK US.
1984, distant war, terrorist bombings, thoughtcrime…
Idon’t think so, because when you leave the fate of a nation up to one man, then it is easy for our nation to fail and deteriorate very quickly. Someone very wise once told me that “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Ifirmly believe this, and apparently our forefathers had the same concerns which is why they instilled into our coutry’s core, (through law and order) the system of checks and balances. We have a leader, the justice system, and the people, ( or the representitives of the people) who all have a say in whats goes on, so that one branch cannot become unbalanced or too powerfull because of the consequences observed throughout the ages in other courties and government types.
Any entity that is meant to help protect something ought not have the power to destroy it. I really think there should be a hippocratic oath for presidents, do no harm. Unitary power = scary, so no, he ought only have so much power as will maximize protection and minimize harms.
If you do all this reading…when do you have time to do anything else…like sleep, eat, work…..
Anybody can listen in on my calls…I’m not trying to hide anything!! I say if it will save American lives…LISTEN IN for heaven’s sake.
i LOVE UR xanga cment me
~Lynz~
No. Absolutely not.
The president himself…ummm…. i say nay….the president is only the head of one branch and almost more of a face for us to picture when we think of the government. Giving him more power goes against the purpose of the constitution (checks and balances)…. He is the enforcer, giving him more power is not a good idea…but the whole government in general…well… thats a different story altogether…
Some powers should be given in times of war, but I think it should first be agreed on by Congress. The Roman Senate used to give power to one or two Consuls, in times of war (which was constant), who ruled like an Emperor for a period of six months. The problem with that was the Consuls didn’t want to give that power up at the end of the term. I don’t think that can happen in modern times but better to be safe than sorry.
In my opinion on the current subject. I think what Bush is doing is perfectly fine. I’d rather him listen to my phone conversation and the not-yet-known terrorist than neither and have another 9/11.
-Autumn
I think it is wrong for the President to have that kind of power, it is goes completely against the Bill of Rights! For those of you who said that they don’t have a problem with it because they have nothing to hide, THAT is not the issue! This is a PRIVACY issue! How many “exceptions” will we make before things get out of hand? I mean, I want the government to get the terrorists as much as the next guy, but here’s a question, what will happen after the War on Terror (assuming it might end someday)? What if the government holds on to that power? What then? Sure we could try and protest, but the government could still do what it wants to (look at what Bush did!!). Just a thought. By the way I’m not a Bush-hater, so don’t think I’m just spouting off.