It's just a darn shame Bush doesn't have a Republican majority in Congress to back him up.

72 hours Mitch...

Fume, huff and puff all you want... All that is required is 72 hours notification that you have conducted a wiretap.

If the President, the NSA and the Justice department doesn't understand that simple rule, should they REALLY be running the country?

He got caught. Take off your kneepads and get up off the cold cement floor Mitch. It's disturbing.

For Gods sake stop trying to justify and rationalize an action that will have ZERO consequences anyway.

Sorry, Doug, but the whole point is that it DOESN'T require 72 hours. The FISA requirements CANNOT be interpreted as a limit on any constitutional powers held by the president. So say the courts.

The FISA act was simply an attempt by Congress to do an end run around the president. The genius Jimmy Carter went along with it. The 72 hour congressional requirement at doesn't make it a constitutional requirement.

As far as ZERO consequences, there are people in congress who are more than happy to begin impeachment again Bush. Any day now, Conyers can be expected to revive his impeachment hearings.

So because a Clinton attorney said it, it makes it true..? Sure Mitch, I believe you really have full faith in things coming from Clinton.

The term hypocrite has never been more apt when applied to you than today.

Regardless, as Doug says, the fact that these folks CHOSE to side-step FISA (which you wrongly said they were in fact in compliance with FISA - when clearly they weren't).

One more thing -
Meanwhile in Iraq, a representative for former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi described the Dec. 15 vote as "fraudulent" and the elected lawmakers "illegitimate."

An election which is essentially forced, set according to a time table, should not be claimed as a great success when it occured in an environment prone, in fact, almost guaranteed to have religious Shiaa interference, should not be claimed as some great accomplishment. As an occupying force, clearly ANYONE could declare dates for an election, and organize mechanics necessary to hold it. This election received participation precisely because the last one didn't.

If Bush is so damned concerned with "keeping us safe" he may want to spend some time worrying about the consequences of an election where, if validated, the Sunni Iraqis will - and I think several folks including me made this observation prior to the election - engage in even more violent insurrection. Further, if the allegations of fraud prove even marginally impactful, will invalidate the election and nearlyl completely undermine the government.

The President has NO solution for the dominance of the Islamic Shiaa, a situation likely to lead to armed civil conflict - to the BBC which refers to it as a civil war already - it already has.

When this President says he needs unlimited authority to "detect" via broadspectrum sniffing in order to prevent attacks, it makes me think he's incompetent to do anything unless given total control. He can't accomplish a decent outcome in Iraq because he failed to understand the Shiaa would DEMAND retribution and Fundamentalist Shiaa control, he is failing to accomplish a decent result in the "war on terror" because he is wrongly focused on the symptoms, and makes ludicrous claims he can "win" a war where the opposition is anyone who feels oppressed and is willing to engage in criminal conduct through unconventional means precisely because they understand they CAN'T engage in conventional means.

This is no excuse for terrorists, but reacting to the attacks, trying ONLY to prevent the attacks, rather than recognizing what helps drive them, is assininely simple. Further, snubbing the large majority of Islam through careless words, and through claims of desires for Democracies they haven't embraced, and which look hollow based on these kinds of actions (the warrantless wiretaps violating FISA), we look like we are duplicitous, ego-maniacal, and dishonest.

We can do better, must do better, if we are to win. The people who are the defeatists are those who think they cannot successfully accomplish their mission without stepping on liberties or being granted uneccessary and dangerous, prescendent setting controls. You all short sell your country, and your government when you think they are incapable within the strictures of law of accomplishing survaillance. Indeed, there is ample evidence that FISA would have given them nearly anything they desired.

The real argument is that you insist you MUST have this, and accuse your opposition of being traitors or wimps or defeatists, when you both don't need it, and in fact are the ones unwilling to do the hard work to preserve both liberty and victory. Please stop assuming that not having everything means having nothing, but more, please stop assuming we are incapable unless we get anything all the time.

PB

You should put the quote in its larger context, wherein you will find it to be the antecedent of the Gorelick "wall" memo, which extra-legally disallowed communication between intelligence and law enforcement agencies not only during the first WTC bombing trials, but the ongoing national security investigations that later produced the Clinton fundraising scandals involving China's cash contributions to his campaign.

Testifying before Congress, Patrick Fitzgerald (yes, THAT Patrick Fitzgerald) had this to say:

"I was on a prosecution team in New York that began a criminal investigation of Usama Bin Laden in early 1996. The team ... had access to a number of sources. We could talk to citizens. We could talk to local police officers. We could talk to other U.S. Government agencies. We could talk to foreign police officers. Even foreign intelligence personnel. And foreign citizens.... We could even talk to al Qaeda members—and we did. .... But there was one group of people we were not permitted to talk to. Who? The FBI agents across the street from us in lower Manhattan assigned to a parallel intelligence investigation of Usama Bin Laden and al Qaeda. We could not learn what information they had gathered. That was “the wall.”"

It might also be noted that consistent with Fitzgerald's testimony, the unanimous bipartisan report of the 9/11 Commission concluded the “wall” blocked further investigation of Khalid al-Midhdar and Nawaf alHazmi, two of the hijackers who flew an airplane into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

So Mitch.. if it is all so fully legal.. please reconcille why the Administration is having to explain and justify to the Judges involved in FISA just what the heck they were doing. If this is so OBVIOUSLY legal, clearly justification would be prima facia.

To wit:

"The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources.

Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court...

Other judges contacted yesterday said they do not plan to resign but are seeking more information about the president's initiative. Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who also sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, told fellow FISA court members by e-mail Monday that she is arranging for them to convene in Washington, preferably early next month, for a secret briefing on the program, several judges confirmed yesterday."

Note the "need to understand why the administration believed this was legal", meaning the judges fully question and probably feel it was not.

But hey, as Alberto Gonzalez has shown, the AG isn't exactly an impartial judge of the limits of executive power... I'm sure though you fully believe in Clinton's AG.

Each time you comment on this using clearly inadequate justifications, when the jury is both still out, and most likely decidedly against you, and such evidence is both ample and freely obtained, you look foolish.

I would appreciate an answer to the question. Do you believe our government is incapable of dealing with terrorism without resorting to warrantless taps, do you believe the FISA permissions are insufficient? If so, why? Certainly sidestepping FISA will give them some alternatives, that's not the point, but what can they legitimately gain that they in fact really need and is so important that we should sacrifice checks on the Executive?

PB

Scott said,

"The FISA act was simply an attempt by Congress to do an end run around the president. The genius Jimmy Carter went along with it."

Yup Scott. You're right. It was an attempt by Congress to do an end run around any future President because of what the Church Commission concluded were excessive and unconstitutional actions BY the President.

The genius Jimmy Carter went along with it because he had taken an oath to uphold the constitution.

*sigh*

Only PB could enter a comment section about wiretapping and segue into:

"One more thing -
Meanwhile in Iraq, a representative for former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi described the Dec. 15 vote as "fraudulent" and the elected lawmakers "illegitimate.""

Seriously, dude, learn a thing or two about the InterWeb, maybe read up on HTML, AND GET YOUR OWN BLOG. It's really actually pretty easy. I'm sure you'll get all sorts of readers, like maybe Eva Young for example. Your disjointed, meandering diatribes here rarely contribute to the debate. If you really must persist, please try staying on topic for once. It's really not that hard. Your Lefty talking points ADD is getting worse by the day. If I were to postulate, I'd say you're in the throes of advanced Kos-itis.

Ryan,

I went into the Iraq subject because it is instructive in the shallowness of the President at not realizing the real challenge, and foolishness of he and his adherants in believing they must have near limitless control. It smacks of a lack of faith in the system itself, in the Government and it's checks and balances itself. It is part an parcel of the overall debate, specifically, is the Executive to be checked by the Judiciary, the Legislative, or either in time of war.

Alexander Hamitlon in Federalist 23
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa23.htm

asserts that the executive must not be encoumbered by constraint in odering, assembling, and maintaining forces for national defense.

BTW Eracus, kudos to you for a well stated post.

But his comments are instructive in that they applied to concerns raised by those who prefered the Articles of Confederation over the proposed Constitution. The reason it is instructive is it highlights the inadequacy of inferring omniscience upon our forefathers. I doubt (HIGHLY) that Hamilton had any real intent to suggest that countering a quota based system of national defense logically meant that NO restraint on the President should ever exist up to and including ignoring relevant portions of the Constitution he advocated. His comments, in context, were applied to the unacceptable (to him) limits placed by the AoC. For anyone to assert his comments suggest he feeels it appropriate to extend limitless authority in an unendable war, is to argue that he hypocritically believed in obviating his own cherished proposal.

The point is, The Federalist Papers often are instructive in understanding the mind-set of the framers of our Constitution, but to infer from them things beyond their time of reference is foolish. Given that, there is NO basis to assume the intent of our forefathers was to obviate the Constitutional checks, and so it seems right to ask why these SHOULD be sacrificed, when tasks can be accomplished nearly equally if analysis of facts AS THEY ARE, rather than as you want them to be (the Shiaa religious dominance and pent up animous), are evaluated. This simple fact (the Shiaa position) was well understood prior to our invasion, and no amount of will to remove a despot can excuse plunging a country into a predictable bloody, long and costly civl war. The administration presented a polly-ana view about the aftermath, attempting to "bend reality" to its will, just as it has a polly-ana view of its own authority. This view has been repeatedly shot down by the courts, yet we persist with the arguments that it is justifiable, right up until the point that the Court either says "no", or the administration slinks away quietly because it knows it will be repudiated. Such conduct, just like that in Iraq, makes us look the fool, and it convinces many that you all are incapable of operating within the law precisely because you don't believe you can do so and still accomplish what you want, or worse, you don't think you should have to.

PB

Oh, and btw, I neither have the time nor inclination to get my own blog. As well, it would be entirely against the reason I post.

I post because I feel dialogue is healthy, useful. It helps avoid uglier forms of discourse, and frankly, I believe there are people who deserve to know there are other facts. Mitch believes those facts shouldn't even be discussed or presented, I disagree.

So, I have no intent of any such thing. Mitch posts interminable pointless posts, you are willing to put up with them because he advocates your side. I certainly do, and will continue to, bring in side-bar. Sorry that you don't like it, but issues normally are MUCH larger than the simplistic references Mitch uses.

Finally, I doubt highly that I'd get dyed-in-the-wool conservatives to read. I'd hope to write well enough, but they prefer to stay in their end of the pool, and I believe it is important to shine some "light" into that end, because when fishing you go where the fish are. That's not meant to be overly condescending, but many folks come here for the echo-chamber, and I think it's important to engage in real communication. Some, you mostly, and there are many others, prefer to mostly insult. Mitch insults nearly endlessly and then denies it (for example "poor, jerk-kneed, simple Peeb" - I'm sure that was a joke.. but some, a few, like Doug, like Eracus today, like Chrisss, Terry, actually would like to discuss things. And one sincere compliment I've paid Mitch in the past and will continue to, his blog allows for such exchange when SOOOOOO many (nearly all) on the right, do not. (nearly all being my personal experience - I don't have emperical evidence).

So Ryan, skip what I write if it bugs you, I won't care and I won't lose sleep. I'm no more jealous of Mitch than I am of an ignorant child (yes Mitch, THAT would be an insult - although as you well understand almost everything is said in the frame of political windbagedness that your blog so well establishes - so it's not really personal). I certainly could start a blog, but I don't post here to aspouse my own opinion, I post here to challenge yours (collective).

Take care, and thanks for the interest :).

PB

PB writes, "Oh, and btw, I neither have the time nor inclination to get my own blog. As well, it would be entirely against the reason I post."

Peebs seemingly has way too much time to sit and type endless, tired talking points here at Mitch's blog. He/she is not looking for discussion, merely post-whoring for attention.

Back on topic: Jamie Gorelick's slip is showing again!

pb opined:
Mitch believes those facts shouldn't even be discussed or presented, I disagree.

Which is why Mitch never allows pb to post here. That would disturb the "echo chamber".

Kermit-

We'll only know what Mitch's position on PB posting facts is when PB actually does that.

"Mitch believes those facts shouldn't even be discussed or presented, I disagree."

Oh, please. Mitch is more than patient with you when you present your "facts," and he and others dutifully debunk about 85 percent of them, at which point you come back with a fresh flagon of "facts," which are once again smashed into little teensy pieces. The very fact Mitch maintains a comment engine debunks your myth that Mitch doesn't believe your "facts" should be discussed. Serve it on toast. Just because the main posts by Mitch go against your own personal bias. . . well. . . boo-frickin'-hoo. It's his blog, therefore it's his right.

"I neither have the time nor inclination to get my own blog."

You may not have the inclination, but God oh man you obviously have the time, judging by your War & Peace narratives penned here.

And I'm not suggesting you go away and never come back, I'm simply saying that a lot, if not most, of your comments go careening off the road, into the ditch, through the barn, take out of a few chickens and end up stalled in the cornfield. For such comments, a better venue might be your own blog. But, by all means, continue commenting here as well, just, as they said in Star Wars during the assault on the Death Star: "Stay on target."

PB, get some help. Really. Get some help.

Your manic scatological meanderings and dissociated thinking could be symptomatic of a chemical imbalance. It is not my intent to offend you, but look at your posts, and then look at the responses to your posts. Yours is not the activity of someone fully in control of his faculties.

You're all over the place, PB, everywhere, from one thread to another, sometimes seeming unable to identify which one is which, and it's just a mess of free associations and unfocused chatter and rage that can no longer reasonably be dismissed as mere ranting and raving. You can hardly be read, let alone understood. Something's just not right.

Enough said.

Doug, the excesses of the Nixon administration cannot apply here. The Nixon White House wasn't listening to foreign terrorists who have destroyed American lives and property. The issue for the Nixon White House was spying on American citizens. To the extent that FISA was trying to safeguard Americans, FISA seems to be redundant, to somehow attempt to stop the president from doing what the Constitution said he couldn't do: spy on US citizens who were not aiding a foreign power.

And we love Jimmy Carter. Without Jimmy, the Reagan Revolution might have been delayed by a term or two. It was because of his incompetence that Reagan swept the election. Go, Jimmy.

"I post because I feel dialogue is healthy, useful. It helps avoid uglier forms of discourse, and frankly, I believe there are people who deserve to know there are other facts. Mitch believes those facts shouldn't even be discussed or presented, I disagree."
Posted by: pb at December 22, 2005 12:36 PM

And yet he continues to let you present and discuss those "facts" in every one of his comments. Wow, for a tyrant bent on censorship of your "truth", Mitch is doing a horrible job.

Clinton did it!!

Carter did it!!

Nixon did it!!

Bush One and Two did it!!

Big whoop....

We are at war (you do know what that is PB) and got 3000 dead countryman in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania to prove it.

Bush just needs to declare war through the congress against worldwide Islamofascism and wiretaps, Homeland Security would be a breeze..might even scoop up a domestic moonbat eco-terroristic type or two in the process...

"Mitch believes those facts shouldn't even be discussed or presented"

Peeb, you sound sort of like Michael Moore, zillionaire filmmaker, crying about the opporession and censorship he's suffered.

Present and discuss all you want! That's why I have comments open! Just don't expect me to look at BS and call it filet mignon.

Mitch,

I'm only regurgitating your own useless blather.

You said pointedly and on numerous occassions that it is wrong and deceitful for the media (of which you consider yourself one) to attempt to discuss both sides of an issue. Further, that you will not do so yourself because the other side is well represented by the likes of WaPo, NYT, Strib, etc..

Sorry, but that means you both think it's wrong to discuss the opposing factors, and YOU won't do so.

Thems the facts, whatever Chad says.

Eracus, it was a glimmer of hope, it faded all to quickly, back to your insulting nature it appears.. ah well.

PB

Damn a line like that and I completely overlooked it..

"Present and discuss all you want! That's why I have comments open! Just don't expect me to look at BS and call it filet mignon."

No, I would never expect you to consider your blog anything other than BS. I try to have a reasonably decent self-view, how about you?

Moreover, you seemingly willfully ignore that this clearly wasn't the point, either that or your simple, which is it? My point, and I think you knew it full well, was that YOU refuse to discuss any facts uncomplimentary to your side,
advocate against presentation of important facts (have advocated here repeatedly precisely such). If that makes me Michael Moore because I think you obfuscate and dissemble, well then call me Mr. Moore. I never said I didn't get to post, and your comments are simply a strawman created by falsely putting words in my mouth (a routine you've fallen into very often).

I prefer actual dialogue, if you feel grown up enough to engage in it, someday perhaps, I'll be happy to oblige, til then, I'll continue to mostly ignore your replies, because they are mostly just strawmen and intentional avoidance of fact.

PB aka Mikey

Eracus,

When did you get your PsyEd, PhD, or M.D.? Just curious.. as you seem to be so full of invective and insult that it's hard to tell what's hate, and what's just pure insult.

Mikey

Peeb,

You have departed controlled flight, as they say:

"You said pointedly and on numerous occassions that it is wrong and deceitful for the media (of which you consider yourself one) to attempt to discuss both sides of an issue."

Um - no? Not at all. Show me where I've said that even once.

It is wrong to *claim* to discuss both sides of an issue without admitting one's own bias. I will discuss (as it suits me) both sides of an issue, while admitting my own bias; the New York Times and the Strib (and, for that matter, PB) will not. That's the "wrong and deceitful" part. But feel free to show me where I've departed from that standard, if you can (which you can't).

" Further, that you will not do so yourself because the other side is well represented by the likes of WaPo, NYT, Strib, etc.."

Will not? Not exactly, Peeb. I feel less compulsion to delve into the other side's beliefs and motivations when they are so very much in evidence anyway - and in fact, so much of this blog's content is driven by direct attack on the other side's statements of their own beliefs and motivations.

I let my "opponents" state their own side; for the most part, they are the media or other institutions that don't need my help in getting their side of the story in front of the public.

"Sorry, but that means you both think it's wrong to discuss the opposing factors, and YOU won't do so."

Multiple intertwined logical fallacies, all adding up to "You're wrong, PB". Discuss "opposing factors" all you want; I do.

Oh, I probably don't talk about what you want, the way you want it. Tough. Start a blog. Or, if you're crunched for time, retreat into the enveloping coccoon of the media's point of view.

"Thems the facts, whatever Chad says."

I'll let you know when you put some of them out there, k?

PB: I'm only regurgitating your own useless blather.

AK: You kiss your sister with that mouth?

I believe it's time to uncork my limericks:

PB, the blog comment filibuster
Writes lengthy lefty point bluster
He's loose with his facts,
And can't stay on track,
And his critics scalp him like Custer.

PB just wrote another long tirade
Which must have taken just shy of a decade.
"I'm right!" says PB.
"Why can't you all see?"
"To annoy you all is my creepy crusade!"

"Censorship!" cries PB on Mitch's blog.
"Crushing of dissent! And I hate Bush's Dog!"
"Illegal wiretap!"
"And other such crap!"
"Kyoto! Pollution! ANWR! SMOG!

Ryan -- Brilliant!
It's only missing one verse... but what rhymes with Halliburton? How about:
PB whose lunacy is spurtin'
;)

Straining for reason,
Intellectual ex-lax
would not help PB.

A stinky ocean
of written "runs" stretches forth
to the horizon.

The diarrhea
that leads to such indulgence
needs a real big plug.

"Oh, I probably don't talk about what you want, the way you want it. Tough. Start a blog. Or, if you're crunched for time, retreat into the enveloping coccoon of the media's point of view."

Jeez, Peeb, you might as well believe in evolution!

So Mitch, then in fact, you don't discuss both sides.

Let me know when you are going to start, we can have an actual conversation.

The real irony is that you are so insecure you can be easily baited into these kinds of admissions. You also seem nearly incapable of not rising to pithy little jibes, but yeah, you're pretty savvy.

As for facts, I've repeatedly put out both facts and questions, and you continuously (as here) and consistently (as in always) ignore them because you are a. afraid to engage in real debate or b. understand you are not armed to do so.

Fact, the Sunnis likely will destroy your prediction of victory within one year if the current election outcome is validated. Ok, I suppose that's actually an opinion. So here's a fact, between the Kurds and the Shiaa they are likely to have 230 of 275 parliamentary seats, leaving 45 for the Sunni's (maybe), given their intent in voting (this time) was to secure the opportunity to amend the Constitution, and this will prohibit that, would you consider it a. more likely, b. less likely or c. equally likely that violence will be greater within one month than it was one month ago.

I'll go with a. but then again, you claimed FISA wasn't violated (wrong fact), you issued opinions from right-wing blog land to prove your factless position, I used actual sources of sourced news as opposed to opinion, you know, like judges involved in it and stuff, but you're right, you have the facts, and I, well I just tell the truth as well as I can.

There are lies, damned lies, and then there is Mitch.

PB - aka Mikey

PB, do you even notice when you're shoveling B.S., and attempting switcheroos? Even when it's in the same comment thread?

From PB: "Mitch believes those facts shouldn't even be discussed or presented, I disagree."

And yet here we are, discussing your "facts" and everything, freely and openly. . . and willingly. It's staring you right in the face, every time you open the comment engine to bloviate. Is the irony lost on you that entirely?

"As for facts, I've repeatedly put out both facts and questions, and you continuously (as here) and consistently (as in always) ignore them because you are a. afraid to engage in real debate or b. understand you are not armed to do so."

Now I'm wondering if you even bother to read comments other than your own. Anyone who has ever poked their heads in here knows full well that Mitch responds to you all the damned time (and far more charitably than you desreve), and blows you out of the water with a regularity that can't even be achieved with Metamucil.

Honestly, how many times has Mitch asked you, point blank, to name a single civil liberty trammelled upon by the Patriot Act? You have yet to answer, and yet Mitch is supposedly the one ignoring you or afraid to debate? That takes an alarmingly dense person to make that kind of claim.

And here you go off on Iraq again. My God, man, focus. Are you this insufferable in person? Have you ever, in your entire existence, said anything along the lines of "Okay, I'm wrong here," or "whoops, I made a mistake." I honestly can't imagine it after this steadfast refusal to admit that Mitch's blog more than encourages discussion from each side of the spectrum. I think you know you stepped in it with that one, and I even think you're a little embarrassed by it, so much so that you're actually digging yourself deeper and deeper with your frankly pathetic attempt to back it up. It's okay, man, you can do it, just type it really slowly. . . "yeah, that was incorrect for me to say, sorry."

Good Lord, I'm all for Web-based debate, but you're pathological about it, and not particularly good at it, so it's a pretty ugly double whammy you have on display here.

Go on out, find a nice girl, pay her $20 if you have to, but get some release.

Lay off of PB.

No healthy person is this persistent in something that is so self-destructive.

Besides, it's Christmas.

PB, you heard me. 1982.

Ryan, are you really that simple?

WE are disussing it, but Mitch isn't. Get it?

And you know, unlike some, cough*you*cough, I don't have to constantly resort to insults.

Eracus, Merry Christmas, thanks for the good thought (I mean that sincerely), which is rare for what I post here.

Btw, the first sign of getting better, is admitting you have a problem. One of the most consistent traits of conservatism (IMHO) is self-denial. Perhaps you can consider that the next time you attempt psycho-analysis. I've freely and often admitted the many flaws both I, and those who oppose neo-nazism err I mean neo-conservatism, have. Is that something you believe you see from Mitch, if so, when?

Just the facts ma'am, just the facts.

Mikey - aka hater of Life.

Oh, and Ryan, in slightly less than a week I celebrate my 20th anniversary, have girl, don't need much release outside of tweekin yur nose.

You take this crap WAYYYY too seriously fella. I'm just pissin in Mitch's coffee, he pretty well knows it, grow up sometime.

PB

Wow. Just. . . wow.

Hey! PB is actually reading the Federalist Papers! He'll be Punching his ballot next to the big "R" and watching the 700 Club before long.
I'm still looking over his Federalist #23 analysis but somehow I think his statement that
"The Federalist Papers often are instructive in understanding the mind-set of the framers of our Constitution, but to infer from them things beyond their time of reference is foolish."
Isn't an attempt to say that in an age of email & cell phones Bush is justified in interpreting the 4th amendment to allow warrantless wiretaps.

PB: My analyses of your interpretation of Federalist #23 .
You're reading the wrong document. Federalist 41 is the first paper that discusses the proposed different branches of the federal government and the powers of the executive; fed #23 discusses the advantages of a federally organized military with its own power to tax & levy troops, raise a fleet, etc., versus the AoC system. There is nothing in fed #23 about powers assigned to the executive.
Your clue should have been that the word "executive" is never mentioned in fed #23. At these lower numbers the federalist papers are not concerned so much with a detailed description of how the Union government should be structured as 1) criticism of the Aoc 2)discussion of the proper role of a government in a nation of free men 3)preventing factional war in a democracy.
I do believe you're trying, though, PB. E for Effort!

Pretty isnt it play65 [url=http://www.bkgm.org]play65[/url] the tabletop Look around to find a table that suits your bet sizes backgammon [url=http://www.bkgm.org]backgammon[/url] Hands such as Ace,6, Ace,5,Ace, and Ace, 2, 4 are all examples of soft 17 online backgammon [url=http://www.bkgm.org]online backgammon[/url] gracefully.

I haven't gotten anything done today. I feel like a fog, but what can I say? I've just been letting everything wash over me lately, not that it matters. Shrug.

We recommend you to visit excellent george washington site. qY0ptan0x

We recommend you to visit excellent global deejays site. qY0ptan0x

We recommend you to visit excellent handjobs site. qY0ptan0x

online casinos supposed to Professor Brown was tall -- though his posture had grown http://www.casinophiles.com online casinos know [URL=http://www.casinophiles.com] online casinos[/URL] Ive been calling you for five minutes! Didnt you hear me.

online casinos supposed to Professor Brown was tall -- though his posture had grown http://www.casinophiles.com online casinos know [URL=http://www.casinophiles.com] online casinos[/URL] Ive been calling you for five minutes! Didnt you hear me.