Bush <i>Shakes Up</i> '08 Iraq Debate
Apparently, Bush has a plan to take away the Democratic frontrunners' plans to use Iraq as a campaign issue.
Of course, the Republican candidates are entirely unaffected--seeing as they want to stay away from Iraq as much as possible--but Bush's actions are non-political, make no mistake about that.
(A)s Bush rallied U.S. troops at the base here on Saturday with a "Hoo-ah" and conferred with his Iraq dream team, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, he indicated that he was setting in motion policies that could dramatically affect the presidential race--and any decisions the next president makes in 2009.
In remarks to the traveling press, delivered from the Third Army operation command center here, Bush said that negotiations were about to begin on a long-term strategic partnership with the Iraqi government modeled on the accords the United States has with Kuwait and many other countries. Crocker, who flew in from Baghdad with Petraeus to meet with the president, elaborated: "We're putting our team together now, making preparations in Washington," he told reporters. "The Iraqis are doing the same. And in the few weeks ahead, we would expect to get together to start this negotiating process." The target date for concluding the agreement is July, says Gen. Doug Lute, Bush's Iraq coordinator in the White House--in other words, just in time for the Democratic and Republican national conventions.
Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements. Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton urged Bush not to commit to any such agreement without congressional approval. The president said nothing about that on Saturday, but Lute said last fall that the Iraqi agreement would not likely rise to the level of a formal treaty requiring Senate ratification. Even so, it would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact.
As far as the number of U.S. troops that would remain in Iraq under such a pact, the administration is considering changes that could also pre-empt anything the Democrats have in mind.[..] In fact, one Pentagon contractor who is working on the long-term U.S. plans for Iraq says that the administration is considering new configurations of forces that could reduce troop levels to well under 100,000, perhaps to as few as 60,000, by the time the next president takes office.
The upshot is that the next president, Democrat or Republican, is likely to be handed a fait accompli that could well render moot his or her own elaborate withdrawal plans, especially the ones being considered by the two leading Democratic contenders.
It's not bad enough the damage he's done in the eight years he's occupied the White House, he needs to continue the damage beyond his term.
Is impeachment still off the table?
This should put the lie to those who claimed Bush did not have a 'plan'.
He plans to enshrine his stupidity for eternity.
He will fail.
IMPEACH AND HANG NOW!!
IMPEACH, already!
Revolution ? .........................Anyone?
considering that the bush presidency has been one long unilateral breach of decency or even its semblance, i find it pretty laughable that this lame duck could do anything that couldn't be suitably reversed by a fresh executive.
sounds like a good way to frame the situation if your government had no intention of leaving regardless of who was in power, though.
The Big Dem frontrunners always intended to stay in Iraq. (come on now, who do you think runs this world?)
BushCo is doing the Dem frontrunners a favor by giving the next Dem one termer some plausible deniability.
5
►Will America Survive Itself◄ Says:
Revolution ? …………………….Anyone?
I'm in. Read Hannah Arendt, "On Revolution". The so-called American Dream isn't about a white picket fence and chicken in the pot. It is about personal and civil liberty, citizenship, an empowered citizenry, social and economic justice. Right now it seems to me that any true social conservative, that it to say, someone wishing to uphold the ideals on which this Grand American Experiment was founded, would be in these times, a revolutionary.
Bad enough he has damaged our military so bad it'll take a decade to repair and saddled the nation with a crippling debt, now this. Someone needs to stop him now.
http://www.primarilypaul.com/2008/01/07/michigan-democrats-dont-throw-yo...
Michigan Democrats - Don’t Throw Your Vote Away
Due to violating party rules, the Democratic National Committee has stripped Michigan of all its delegates to the Democratic National Convention. You can vote in the Democrat’s primary, but no Michigan delegates will be sent to the DNC to vote for you.
Give me a break - Bush has nullified dozens of real treaties and ignored just about all of the executive agreements that were in place when he took office (non-proliferation treaty anyone?) so what is to stop the new president from simply pulling out of this rushed agreement with the puppet government of Iraq? The Bushies are grasping at anything to save their hides after they leave office.
More spin from the Bush-friendly press. How is 60,000 troops in Iraq supposed to take the issue off of the table? What meaning does any agreement with Iraq's government have when we have been spending the last five months arming opposition groups in Iraq?
I really wish that the reporters would do some thinking rather than just dumping press releases into the news stream.
Take a look here:
http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/07/become_a_delega_19.php
District-Level Delegates: 0
At-Large Delegates: 0
Pledged Party Leader & Elected Official (PLEO) Delegates: 0
Unpledged Delegates: 0
TOTAL Number of Delegates: 0
Alternates: 0
TOTAL DELEGATION SIZE: 0
System type: Party-run primary
State convention page: Available
State plan: Plan Available (PDF)
State filing form: Not available online. Please contact the state party to receive a copy.
** This information is prepared by the DNC's Office of Party Affairs and Delegate Selection and may be subject to change. For more information, please call 202-863-8000.
Im sick of democrats and republicans, it;s all just a big fucking game to them, so depressing.
Bush the destroyer. Suiciding his legacy and taking the country with him.
Bush admitted long ago in the stupid biography about him that manipulating the war for thug party payoffs come election time were part of the plan.
Nothing he has done should be considered permanent or even legal by the next administration. Eight years of pisssing in the wind and on every leg he ran across. Now piss off, W.
This will really work for the 70-80% of the Iraqis who don't want us in Iraq at all. The killings will esculate against the Iraqi government forces like never before. It might look good on paper, but how is it going to look for the Iraqis that lost family members in the last 5 tears.
Big John @ 7:
Well said. What Bush is doing is a chimera since the negotiations that he is advocating will not involve withdrawing ALL those troops from that slaughterhouse as quickly and as rapidly as possible and it certainly will not mean the dismantling and discontinuation of the military bases that the imperial United States is building in Iraq. As you correctly note, the pusillanimous Democrats are enabling Bush by basically mimicking his plans for maintaining control in that ravaged country. When it comes to providing opposition to the Republicans, the Democrats can hardly be seen as an alternative to the GOP. All the more reason to vote independent and third party in 2008.
My what lovely bobbleheads you have down there!
This is idiocy, despite the neo-con wet dream that Bush=God, or even Bush>God, the next president will not be beholding to any unilateral agreement made by the fascist decider (unless they want to uphold it). First of all the iraq gov. has to sighn on and they do not want us there, they want us out yesterday. What a bunch of bullsh-t.
You know, I'm half expecting him to burn down the White House on his last day in office, just to piss off the new guy who has to govern from a trailer.
Here in C&L we are all preaching to the choir. We all know this is all totally fucked up. We MUST get out on boards, in town hall meetings, on the streets, and PROTEST. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IS YOUR DUTY AS AN AMERICAN when your government runs amok!!! Urge your friends and family to REFUSE the military!
Preacher Boob @ 2:
Turns out Bush is smarter than we thought... he figured out a way to control the strings even AFTER he's gone... so all this optimistic talk about "withdrawing" is now a bunch of hot air, as usual, from Democrats that don't have any real plans either. Welcome to hell.
Bush = Dumbest.Fucker.Ever.
"difficult if not impossible"
What B.S. Newsweek's turn this week to step up to the plate as the government's #1 propaganda rag?
Can he do this without Congressional approval and make it stick? If he can do it, can the next president undo it? WTF?
The intent of the agreement is not nearly as telling as the timing. After 5 years in Iraq, with 4000 American soldiers having died in vain for no meaningful progress in the region, Bush now decides to implement a plan that can significantly change (good or bad) the way the war is being managed, just in time to affect Republican standing in national elections.
This misuse of the American military in what amounts to a Republican party PR stunt should be (is?) criminal... 'Support the Troops', my ass. Party over country, every time.
MyGodBeatsYourGod @ 4:
Peh, who cares? Irrelevant. The real problem with America today is that Ron Paul was a sloppy copyeditor 20 years ago when he was a physician delivering babies, and that makes him a racist.
George Bush is the Uniter. Ron Paul is the Divider.
Jiminy Cricket on a cracker, will Nancy Pelosi *please* impeach these criminals? The whole "No more money for the war" thing didn't really pan out so what have we got to lose now?
It's bad enough we'll have the reich supreme court for decades, for the love of Dog, please not Iraq too...
King of Mean @ 23:
You truly think that Bush thought of this all by himself? You truly think that the Democrats had no plans to gradually remove troops from Iraq? Only a child sees the world in such extremes.
Every time Bush does something as of late, he is spared the blame because Democrats are preemptively blaming other Democrats. Fellas, instead of throwing your own under the bus, why not work to support them and protest this idea? And please bear in mind that impeachment can't work. For one, there isn't enough time; secondly, who do you impeach? Bush? That would make Cheney the de-facto Commander in Chief.
There will have to be another way.
What an absolute moron!
i posted this article yesterday at thinkprogress, with a question... i never did get a response... will do so here:
Sorry, Barack, You’ve lost Iraq.
Bush’s efforts to negotiate a long-term U.S-Iraq pact may remove troops as an ‘08 election issue for Obama, Clinton
(newsweek, michael hirsch) http://www.newsweek.com/id/91651
it’s like he’s saying, “ha ha ha, dems… boosh is gonna get the troops out before you can… nya nya nya”
but it sounds like another political ruse… the troops won’t REALLY be out of there…
[story]
so, is this michael hirsh a shill? a jerk? both/all?
I just love those two words, "strategic partnership". That is what an empire calls the agreement it made with its lacky Government that it is propping up.
Norman Bates @ 28:
He signed his name to some of the most disgustingly racist things I've ever read. These 'newsletters' were released for years and years. At some level a person has to take responsibility for what they stamp their name on.
Not that its important, because the man's conservative-libertarian ideals would destroy America as well. You might want to read up on those--those things he never mentions in front of a Democrat audience, because the war is what gets him all of the points with the kids nowadays--before thinking of him as the Alpha and the Omega.
Shawnmeat @ 31:
Now impeachment proceedings could expose the criminal acts that the administration has carried out. That would be the only thing we need. Expose them. Start investigations.
"It’s not bad enough the damage he’s done in the eight years he’s occupied the White House, he needs to continue the damage beyond his term."
You thought this was an 8 year plan?
I hate to bring this up. If George and Cheney asserts that the Executive has the power to do this, then a future Executive has the power to undo this. A decision to be colonialist is not irreversable. That would creat so called problems with our foreign relations. But, really, would those problems be any greater than those already caused by this present administration.
Different Anonymous @ 30:
Hoo-boy. You don't honestly think that'll ever happen, do you? You clearly do not understand The Rules of the Game. The two-party system here is one big Grand Illusion.
Nancy Pelosi is as concerned with your rights and welfare, as much as as George W. Bush is a cowboy who clears scrub. Both are elitist aristocrats and phonies. They have more in common with each other -- and protecting the self-interests of each other -- than they have in common with the regular folks that vote for them.
Iraq????
Come on - that's SO 2004!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080113/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mideast
If you weren't convinced that it's all about the oil, you should be now.
pissed off patricia @ 26:
Well, live by the sword die by the sword. If the agreement doesn't rise to the level of a treaty, it is easily rescinded by the next POTUS.
"Even so, it would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact."
Howzabout the Dem candidates make it known to the Iraqi government that they will absolutely NOT be bound to any agreements made by Bush? Surely that news would make it to Iraq, if it were reported. We may need to use some of those shiny new executive tools Bush so thoughtfully provided the next Dem president, if only to clean up the enormous mess he made with them -- you can't use a teaspoon to clean up the mess made by a bulldozer.
Bush should already be consigned to history except for the criminal trials that should follow his term in office.
I wonder if Bush is going to honor this pact by naming an Iraqi bridge, "the friendship bridge"? Nah, thats been done already by the Soviets just before they invaded Afghanistan. Besides, the British probably already have a friendship bridge in Iraq. After all, this is their second attempt in just under a hundred years.
I tried to post a comment in the Newsweek discussion about the political nature of everything this WH does. I was very careful to avoid ranting, but it wasn't accepted since it didn't jibe with what Newsweek is promoting.
Like pond scum, George W. Bush is rising to the surface. LOL
Shawnmeat @ 35:
Excellent!
yellow dog @ 45:
Bush is more like a turd that will not flush in my opinion. :lol:
Oil is at the core, but I think many things are involved, including a military presence in the area, protection for Israel (ergo all the AIPAC/Christo-Endtimer support), projecting power in an area starting to develop nukes. I think Hillary and Obama and the rest of the political establishment have understood this from the first. I think that is why all the equivocating from the Democrats pelosi, reid etc. They have disagreed with the methods, but not the end objective. All the WMD lies and "Wave of Democracy" etc. bogus reasons for the war have been window dressing and smoke to sell to the ignorant. George Bush doesn't give a fuck about Osama Bin Laden and the destruction of 3000 Americans (his whole family is devoid of true emotion as evidenced by the story of the family reaction to Bush's sister's death.) I think this whole Iraq thing has been a long time in the making and probably even has more than a little of Bill Clinton's DNA on it as well.
Treaties never stopped Bush from doing what he wanted, I don't see his little trickery working. The next President and congress will likely be Democratic and the Democratic President will probably have the backing of the Democratic Congress to make any changes needed to undue the crimes of G.W. Bush and his minions.
His great annoucement will be to make Iraq the 51st state but their citizens cannot travel outside the middle east. The official language will be english and he will get support from the republicans to build a fence around it. The evangalicals will try to make the region Christtian.
STEVEinSC @ 48:
I agree. And in case somebody doesn't know the family reaction to Bush's sisters death, it was to go golfing!!! the next day!!! If anyone thinks Reagan's family had problems, the Bush family has them beat by a mile.
The only solution is Impeachment.
George can write agreements all he wants, but cannot enforce them via any law. He might be able to write "signing statements" but he cannot bind the United States to anything without Congressional approval. It's like his recess appointments, they expire every time the congress starts a new session.
I fear that we're passengers on Flight 990,
and Bush is pulling an Al-Batouti
Shawnmeat @ 35:
At some level, the person screaming fire in a crowded theater has to point to an actual fire. In 40 years of public service, nobody can point to a single racist utterance that Ron Paul has ever made.
(If we really want to be fair, balanced and equal-opportunity, we could open up the "Guilt By Association Sweepstakes" by spotlighting Barack Obama standing on a stage receiving the endorsement of vicious gaybaiter homophobe Donnie McClurkin -- not decades ago, but THREE WEEKS AGO!! -- with Obama smiling and applauding and assuring us that his campaign and candidacy promises America "Change" and "Hope." Alas, we don't want to talk about that, nuthin' to see here, so let's hurry right along...)
Back to the real point -- IMPEACHMENT -- there's a huge roadblock, and Democrats and liberals don't want to talk about the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.
The real problem facing the impeachment of Bush, is that the senior leading anti-war advocate of the Democratic Party -- who endorsed Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House -- is a former chapter leader of the Ku Klux Klan. Impeachment will always be a non-starter, off the table, because the Democratic advocacy for the Bush/Cheney impeachment comes from an old white man with a long racist history, and this impeachment advocacy opens up a huge can 'o worms that does the Democratic Party no favors and incalculable damage. It's a Pandora's Box, that Rupert Murdoch, Rogers Ailes and Karl Rove know as well as anybody. It is the trump card they keep close to the vest, ready to use at a moments' notice once a "serious" impeachment movement commences.
Let's get it out of the way now, because the skeleton has to fall out of the closet some time:
Fact: Robert Byrd, the senior United States Senator from West Virginia and a member of the Democratic Party, is the longest-serving member in the history of the Senate and President pro tempore of the United States Senate of the 110th United States Congress, a position that puts him third in line of presidential succession, behind Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Fact: Robert Byrd is one of the most powerful Democrats in the land, and has been returned to office time after time after time.
Fact: Robert Byrd, Democrat, served as EXALTED CYCLOPS, or leader, of his local chapter of the KU KLUX KLAN.
Fact: Robert Byrd has never tried to deny it - because he can’t. It’s all on the record and it’s all true. One of the most powerful and lionized Democrats in the party's history was a chapter leader of a racist organization that burned crosses and lynched blacks and Jews. You can look it up. (And try squirming your way out of it.)
Opinion: If Robert Byrd — EXALTED CYCLOPS of the KU KLUX KLAN — had been a Republican, C&L would have thrown him under the bus and hanged him by a gibbet before he ever cast his vote against the Iraq War. (But since Byrd is a Democrat, he gets a free pass. Club membership has its privileges. One of them being: Do as we say, not as we do.)
Hey!!
I thought the Magna Carta and the US Constitution and the ABM Treaty and the Geneva Conventions and .. and .. and etc were "fait accompli" but THIS administration had no trouble pre-empting them with their own "executive orders" ..
and why does Bush hate the troops and their families so much?
I cant understand that. He gets to tell us all to support the troops , meanwhile he uses them as bait for terrorismers.???
MountainMan23 @ 56:
No shit!
Great point. Dumbya has ignored all kinds of multi lateral agreements.
Lemmy Caution @ 55:
Adding, for Shawnmeat's benefit, as above, using his own words and logic:
At some level a PARTY has to take responsibility for their RACIST LEADERSHIP that they stamp their name on.
Or do you disagree?
Why hasn't he been impeached before he can do more damage. It is well known that he did not win the office, neither in 2000, nor in 2004, so it should be quite easy, maybe we don't even need to impeach him, just fire him, like any bad employee. So now he wants to make sure he can destroy the country, kill more young people, even after he is gone. This is a travesty.
Robert Byrd supports the troops, he wants a withdrawal, and supports both Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and supports impeachment of George W. Bush.
Unfortunately for those of us who consider ourselves liberals, Robert Byrd was an Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan. And that doesn't help our cause.
I mean, it doesn't get any uglier than that.
Bush can pretty well do anything he wants, because Byrd and Pelosi are tied at the hip/skirt. WE all look like racists.
Shawnmeat @ 35:
Very well stated.
As I wrote elsewhere the solution is to impeach Bush-Cheney NOW. Then put both of them on trial for high treason with the full punishment of the law being imposed without the possibility of pardons. These two traitors will definitely sell this country down the river for their own profit, without giving a damn about the cost to the rest of us, and the future of our children. The BushCrime family led by the white haired witch who mothered this spawn of a cretin, is all about destroying America and turning it into a facist state. Hell is too good a place for all of them.
Erroll @ 62:
Adding, for Shawnmeat’ and Errol's benefit, as above, using Shawnmeat's own words and logic, and dittoheaded by Errol:
At some level a PARTY has to take responsibility for their RACIST LEADERSHIP that they stamp their name on.
Or do both of you disagree?
I guess now we know what the giant embassy and all those permanent bases are all about.
If history is any indication he will get away with it. At first the Republican led Congress let him cut off their collective balls, and unfortunately the Democratic controlled Congress hasn't been clamoring for them back.
pissed off patricia @ 65:
They all say it is to protect our interests in the middle east. What are our interests? OIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What else do they have.
They have no intention of leaving power. There are too many investors in this (yet another) failed business venture of BushCo to risk losing their collective buy-ins. If he can successfully start a more significant war with Iran (see today's headlines), Cheney never has to leave as the war powers act ensures he and the chimp stay put until the hostilities are over. Indefinitely postponed elections. This action is just one more way of assuring the shareholders in IraqCo LLC.
Is this what Karl Rove meant when he said that Iraq wouldn't be part of the discussion in the '08 Election?
pissed off patricia @ 65:
Members of Congress who actually read the Iraq War resolution and had been repudiating the Iraq War lies from the beginning (ie. "racists" like Ron Paul and Robert Byrd) weren't fooled about the real grand design.
But gee whizz, "serious" liberals who aren't the least bit racist and who didn't read the war resolution before rubberstamping an unprovoked invasion against a sovereign Arab nation that resulted in the deaths of 600,000 innocent civilians and ethnic cleansing of four million refugees (ie. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, etc.) seemingly can't wrap their heads aroud the fact that the signatories of PNAC are doing EXACTLY what they promised they were going to do.
It's a funny world, isn't it? And oh! wot a good laff we're having remaking the world in our image, yes?
Another Empire, Backfire!
Rollo Tomassi @ 68:
Reading that article in the NY Times, the very last sentence of the 2 page article finally mention the issue of oil distribution. Boy, they sure don't want us to know that the reason we are there is to steal their oil.
Just gonna be another excuse for Bush lite (aka Hillary) to not withdraw our troops.
I think its a total lie that we are bound by Bush.
somebody please answer this question:
katy @ 33:
thanks...
I was always skeptical of Bush's war rationale.
But then I saw the sliver of Democrats who resisted the War, and that tiny fringe was comprised of a coalition of Ku Klux Klan racists (eg. Robert Byrd), gaybaiting homophobes (eg. Barack Obama), and Area 51 tinfoil hat conspiracy wackos (eg. Dennis Kucinich).
So I supported my president.
Not much has changed. Bush's war has been a disaster. But most of the serious village Dems supported Bush in prosecuting that disaster by giving him a green light and two thumbs up!
So the impeachment should extend far beyond the White House.
Of course, not only have the Democrat Party not purged the racists, homophobes and alien-worshippers from their rank and file, they've actually pushed them into leadership positions.
And for that alone, I will not stand idly by and condone Democrat leadership racism, homophobia and Art Bell clones.
So I stand with my president, Dear Leader Lord Bush.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, and 24% of the people all of the time.
Liberal Patriot @ 74:
HILLARY CLINTON VOTED FOR THE WAR, VOTED FOR THE SURGE. SHE HAS BLOOD ON HER HANDS. SHE'S A WAR CRIMINAL.
Lemmy Caution @ 64:
WAR CRIMINALS, TOO. HILLARY IS A WAR CRIMINAL.
There's something so Karl Rove-ish about the whole deal.
I doubt anything he does will really affect the '08 election. For one thing, Iraq is no longer the top issue for either party. Bush can bring all the military home tomorrow and the American people still know who lied us into that war. There's so much more damage that's been done to our country than Iraq, I think Americans are now in a place where they are worried about what's happening domestically and it's too late for Bush to remedy all of that. Anyway, the neocons don't have the will to take care of America.
PEACE ATTACK @ 76:
You need to take PEACE out of your name and just go with ATTACK.
►Will America Survive Itself◄ @ 5:
I got a pitchfork and an unlit firebrand, and a ticket to DC. Who's with me?
The Bush-league (mal)Administration - the gift that keeps on giving and giving and giving.
Headaches, that is.
You must correct the factual inaccuracy that Bush could encumber any future President or this country without Congressional approval. Any agreement by Bush would have to be considered a treaty to be legal and treaties must be approved by Congress. Bush, on his own, cannot enter into agreements/alliances with foreign countries. To claim otherwise, is not only idiotic but duplicitous.
I think it's funny when he uses the term "we". As if he's involved or understands what's going on.
You know this load of steaming crap came from darth cheney and his oil baron buddies.
This is all a non-issue. It is a simple matter for candidates to state: I will not be bound by an agreement that the lame-duck administration makes without Senate approval.
We need to start asking the candidates what their position is on the question.
Lemmy Caution @ 64:
I find your point to be both opaque and bizarre. Are you trying to say that it the Republican party's responsibility to monitor Ron Paul's newsletter while absolving Ron Paul of the racist comments that had been made in his newsletter for the past twenty years? Paul has claimed that he did not make those statements nor does he advocate the content of its message but yet he refuses to divulge who was the actual author of those statements. Paul and his organization claims that he is not racist even though he has no hesitation in accepting money from racist groups such as Stormfront nor has it apparently ever occurred to Paul why these groups are attracted to him unlike, say, a candidate like Dennis Kucinich. The racist rantings on Paul's newsletter have usually been written anonymously. Until Paul acknowledges who was behind those essays, the accusations that Paul supports those less than intelligent ramblings will remain valid.
I guess was right when he said that Iraq wouldn't a big deal during the election cycle.
centavo @ 1:
I'll post this until the site monitor turns blue in the face. :-)
The answer is: Yes!
Here is why:
Ralph Nader: "Things Are a Lot Worse than We Thought!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-tCPSfHA
The Dems allowed themselves to be emasculated by Bushco. Now they will be reduced to caretaker govt for GW's iron reality.
Bush has whipped the Dems completely. They bleat, " please mr all powerful george, dont hurt us anymore, were afraid of you.".
Bush has become Americas cruel God.
Rove predicted this... and they planned for it. And several hundred American lives will have died for it in the meantime. That's what makes me so mad about the Bush administration: that they have been using our American soldiers as political tools since the beginning.
But there is still the Economy Stupid. And 3 million manufacturing jobs that have migrated overseas by corporate America. The only one speaking on that issue is Edwards.
Impeachment is off the table, not because it is unjustified, not because it is undoable, but because it is politically stupid to waste the next 11 months on it in the middle of a Presidential campaign when we will have a new President in precisely one year in any event and the GOP may be able to convince US voters that the Dems want vengeance rather than governance. That is why it is off the table and should stay off the table.
i'm sure this article is wrong in its implications. the past 8 years has seen an ever increasing assumption of power by the president, now of course if the current president sings some treaties with Iraq, the next president can nullify them. For better or worse, Bush has achieved Cheney's goal, which is increased executive power. When we have a democratic president, this power is not going to go away.
Anyway, this little plan won't work. What will work for Bush is if we elect a democratic president who decides to keep the troops in Iraq.
You are deficient in the application of rational thought sam.
As an alternative to impeachment, can the then former President be prosecuted once his term expires?
(I guess they still wouldn't using the argument that it would lead to tit for tat prosecutions in the future - even though I still think there may well be arguments that they should - but still, is it technically an option?).
Not so strange bedfellows:
"Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere," George W. Bush, Today.
"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime is a threat to all of us." -Barrack Obama. March 2, 2007
The oncoming Dollar Bust, followed by the Bush Depression, will put all dreams of empire to rest.
I'll believe this bit of news when I see it. I've seen Bush and his 'people' pull this stunt so many times I've stopped believing anything that comes out of the white house. It's all political game playing and it's gross. It's childish and psychologically sick. By the way, if this accord does go as planned, nobody can tell me it couldn't have happened years ago. The Bush people (I mean the Bush oil people and rebuilding people) finally have all their dots in ts in order, the paperwork is signed and they said. "ok go ahead."
And this?
Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements. Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton urged Bush not to commit to any such agreement without congressional approval. The president said nothing about that on Saturday, but Lute said last fall that the Iraqi agreement would not likely rise to the level of a formal treaty requiring Senate ratification. Even so, it would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact.
This just pisses me off.
Iurge all of you to visit John Edwards Web Site. He can be the change we need.
http://www.johnedwards.com/
The Provokateur @ 93:
I agree. What Sam does not seem to realize is that future administrations will look at the pusillanimous behavior of the Democrats and think, with much justification, that if Bush and Cheney and their cohorts can get away with their transgressions, then they should be able to commit crimes and misdemeanors that they wish to engage in with great impunity.
Article II Section 4 does not state that Congress may impeach; on the contrary, it emphatically says that Congress shall impeach and it is required to do this not because the senate may or may not convict those who have committed serious transgressions against their country but because it is their duty to do so. To fail to impeach means that congress has failed in its moral imperative to act and that will hardly serve as a deterrent against corrupt governments in the future.
Bush is doing Gods work.
He's destroying the GOP.
Hopefully he doesn't take America with them.
fwacbar @ 24:
it's worse then that...what people fail to realize is that the Republican party is Anti-American...and the greatest enemy we have ever faced as a nation. Of course it doesn't help that the Democrats won't acknowledge this and are for the most part in bed with the enemy. And even worse then that is the majority of America (even though they are starting to wake up) don't really know what is going on, they only get the sound bites and you can't tell what is what from a 3 second clip and some corporate news flunky's opinion of what the real story is and if the American people don't wake up and realize their enemy is within our own government we will never change anything.
13 figure PR stunt on the march
I dunno. I see a man about to touch a colossal issue with his magic shit finger, and voila, it'll all turn to shit.
The GW Bush administration did a pretty good job of dismantling all of Clinton's reforms. We are kidding ourselves if we think GW Bush will have any influence once he leaves office. Moreover, if someone with cahoonies gets into office within the next 20 years, I would not be the least bit surprised to see GW Bush painted as an enemy of the state. And ya know what else? Said leader will probably be a Republican.
At some point you just stop being afraid of these people. It is hard to take them seriously, considering their complete ineptness. And, frankly, with as piddly as the Democratic opposition and pushback has been, maybe having the USA stop being the world's last superpower is not such a bad thing. The drive the economy into 2% haves and 98% have nots, people will do what they have always done--vote with their feet. In England, the country we love to look at as an example of fallen empire, now has a higher standard of living for the average person than people in the US do. Fine, let those who can emigrate. It'll mean brain drain for the USA, but apparently the USA does not feel that brains have all that much value anymore or they wouldn't be cutting off the limbs of education everytime the economy goes into recession.
"I love my country." Um, well, what am I? Some codependent, beaten wife???
Let GW Bush do his damn accord with Iraq. We go on and on about how the Iraq government is not really a government, and like as not, the accords reached with today's government will be rejected by tomorrow's without the USA actually having to do anything.
centavo @ 1:
Yes.
And they're going to keep it off. The Dems don't have the stones God gave a gnat. It's not going to happen.
Yeah he's a douche, but it's the democrats own fault - we elected democrats and pretty much gave them a mandate to end the war. period. But they didn't, and now Bush is going to use Iraq to the republicans advantage. The Democrats are their own worse enemy.
Lemmy Caution:
Senator Byrd has publicly repudiated his former beliefs and apologised. Ron Paul's reaction when confronted was to deny responsibility for those words. Who's a more honest man and a better leader? You decide.
And I know you're probably salivating at the thought of paying no tax under a Paul administration, but when you can't get treated at an Emergency Room due to understaffing because there's no public money, because you were hit by a car that lost control due to potholes in the road due to there being no money for road repair in the public treasury, you won't take the money you saved not paying taxes with you.
J.
WHAT A PIECE OF SHIT YOU ARE MR BUSH
Bush really needs to STFU, or somebody needs to shut him the fuck up. We're done with you first grade idiots now STFU (or else)!
RW @ 22:
Said like a [deleted] most Democrats!
Site Monitor: No personal attacks. Posts made with the intent to insult or incite a flame war will be deleted/edited.
Yep his self-proclaimed approval rating is gonna reach 45% with this little trick.
What ever this nut puts in place it should be reversed. He's not the power.
Norman Bates @ 28:
You have the same mentality as norman bates. Sloppy editor my ass, he's a racist no matter how you cut it.
It's not one or two racist articles, it's a damn gold mine of racist articles. The rag was named after him for crying out loud.
Give me a break. It's not like the US hasn't broken agreements and treaties before. Just ask any indigenous person from the First People Nation. They would know. This breaking agreements has precedence so the next president can say, "Sorry, we changed our mind and we will not honor any agreements made by boy Bush. This is a new administration and we do things differently."
If Americans want out of Iraq, then that issue will still be on the table. It doesn't matter how many temper tantrums boy Bush has. We can pull out of Iraq anytime we want. Once boy Bush is out of office, he can't do a f**kn thing about it.
Iraq isn't going to be the issue, it's going to be Iran
Listen to yesterday's satire at 'weeklyradioaddress.com' and hear a tongue in cheek 'radio address' by George W. Bush.
Remember, he's still 'in charge' and he doesn't like to loose the focus of the media for very long. In real life, he's also hinted that 'things will change' and that 'the successor will inherit a different world'... He intends to go out with a 'big bang'. He and Cheney want their war with Iran so damn much that they feel that it will also swing the voting for the next inhabiter of the oval office, and that it might.
Say, how much coverage has the new revelations on that speed boat issue in the straight gotten? Bush needs a boogie man, he has one. Now the sales job, but first a word from the Bushist military-industrial complex...
The only way Bush is going to be removed from office, since the republicans and many republicrats won't remove him, is either the day he walks out, or in a body bag because the military 'fraggs' him like Saddat was years ago...
I just remember what happened when the Shah was thrown out of Iran. Yippee...
tHeGaMeOfLiFe @ 111:
congrats on buying whatever your told, you dummy.
ron paul is not a racist...
Bush can only shake up two things at this point in his career.
The fist being a snow-globe given by moms.
The 2nd being a 12oz'er of Nesstlie Quick Chocolat Milk. Yumm, Yumm!
Treaties must be approved by Congress for them to be binding. A presidential agreement means nothing. OR would mean nothing if the Constitution were still in effect.
RW @ 22:
I tried civil disobedience and caught hell for it. I hung my American Flag upside in protest for about a month before my neighbors complained to the HOA and I received letters and spiteful comments. I was expecting that though. What I need to do is get an Impeach sign for my yard. The thing is, it's (impeachment) is not going to happen. There simply isn't enough interest since the Bush administration is winding down and the election is in full swing. I've personally written both my Congress people, Democrats Mikulski and Hoyer and both wrote back saying they are not supporting impeachment. So I've tried even talking those folks to support it. So I'm not sure what else I can physically do.
As I suggested awhile back when Congress and the President were on vacation. We should have marched into Washington and take the country back.
People are just going to let what Bush and company did slip under the rug. He's going to get away scott free just like he has done with everything in his life.
But recently, I've noticed more public protests trying to get impeachment on the table. In front of the Post Office yesterday a Lyndon Larouche supporter had set up an "Impeach Cheney" table and I thought that was cool. Not sure I support Lyndon Larouche in general but the fact that they were out there actively supporting Impeachment made my day.
My only hope is that if we can somehow mar Bush's Legacy. Label him for the failure that he is.
In the fall of 2007 Hillary said she could not promise to remove American troops IMMEDIATELY upon taking office in 2009... BECAUSE NONE OF US KNOW WHAT SITUATION THE BUSHIES WILL SET IN MOTION IN IRAQ BEFORE BUSH LEAVES OFFICE.
Looks like she was the ONLY CANDIDATE, Democrat or Republican, who was being completely honest... and she was hammered by Democrats for not taking a stronger anti-war position. SHAME on the DEMS... and more power to Hillary for being smart and causious.
I sometimes wonder about the public. Recently i was reading about a writter talking about how gruesome, bush is, how bad things are in iraq, troops getting killed. But as i said to him, he's nice and comfy here at home and never had to go into battle, but we who have can tell the difference. You the public blame bush, yet he counter- attacked the terriorists where they went and saddam had alquidda in the northern part of iraq. Now alquidda is'nt a army, but a gang in pakistan trying to recruite to murder, like komakazy. W.m.d. is in iraq in tunnels on mobile launchers waiting for coalition forces to leave iraqi's to alquidda, then mobile launchers will come up to surface to certain locations for launch to all free countries with missles filled with poison gas=i gallon killed 5,000 kurds in one week, imagine what it would do here and now your raving about a man who loves the union of south africa (usa) with his many wives in his muslim religion, like alquidda. I hope we'll all be alive after you the people light the fuse to death.
[Don't post in ALLCAPS-Sitemonitor]
[Do not post in ALL CAPS-Sitemonitor]
[Until you turn off the CAPS LOCK (7/16 of an inch to the left of the 'A' key), your posts won't go up on the board-Sitemonitor]
Norman Bates @ 28:
That's funny because the racists think he's a racist too...he has support from racist groups. Apparently he neglected to tell them that he didn't write/read his own newsletter that repeatedly published racist articles. A guy who puts a newsletter out under his own byline and then later claims he doesn't know the content has no credibility.
"difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact"
I say bullshit! bush has been doing that on a regular basis. And if they want to stick with that assesment then does that mean Russell Means wins?
Reply to Terrible - Agreed. Bush saw the signing statements and all this power-grabbing as a wonderful thing. Nobody had done that before, it was a new precedent... and Congress went along with it. To some degree, even though the Republicans are no longer in control, Congress is still going along with it.
Now a Democrat is most likely to become the next President, barring a sudden Utopian change in this country over the next few months, or some Diebold shenanigans... and all that power is going to pass to the next President. I say let's use it!
(Tongue firmly in cheek - I don't actually advocate a continuation of the disastrous Unitary Executive precedent set by this President.... (Unitary President Precedent? ;) ))
Another ripe target for bases to join the 700+ we already have. :(
America's Empire
Need to stop all the power flowing into the presidency! Need to call it what it has become: Emperor.
King of Mean @ 23:
The Chimp didn't figure anything out. This is the work of his fascist lawyers and Dick(head) Cheney.
Comments are closed on this entry