From here. (http://thesarcasticcynic.blogspot.com/2007/05/bushs-latest-attack-on-constitution.html)

This is scary. This went by pretty much ignored by the mainstream media. The President has created a mechanism by which he could take control of the entire federal government. All of this without the consent or even the knowledge of our elected representatives in Congress!

On May 9th, President Bush issued a Presidential Directive (NSPD 51) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html)that redoes the Continuity of Government in case of an emergency (as if the Constitution did not already address that).

The purpose of the directive:

This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

There were two alarming things that jumped out at me when I first read this.

First there was this (emphasis mine) :


"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely effecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

Notice the use of the word "or". That means there does not have to be "mass casualties" or "damage" and it the highlighted part means it doesn't have to happen here in the U.S.

That means that something that happens overseas, like in Iraq for instance, which merely disrupts our economy (such as OPEC raising the price of oil), would be enough for the President to invoke this and take control of the U.S. Government.

Then there is the key to this whole thing and what makes it so dangerous in my mind:

"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

This effectively puts the President in charge of the entire federal government and subordinates the other branches beneath him. It is the ultimate enactment of the Republicans' "Unitary Executive" theory, which has until now been considered unlikely because it is blatently unconstitutional. The constitution already has provisions for the continuity of government and the order of succession but this directive seeks to override that.

But since when has Bush ever cared about the Constitution?

I am forcibly reminded of the character Palpatine in Star Wars, who becomes Emperor after tricking the Senate into granting him "emergency powers".

With hurricane season coming up and scientists predicting a busy hurricane season, we might see this enacted sooner than anyone feared.

What happens if we have another Katrina and Bush decides to enact this? What would we do to restore the Constitution?

I spent the better part of this morning on the phone with the offices of my representatives and with the offices of the chairs of certain committes and apparently none of them were even aware the President had issued this directive. Everyone I spoke to and directed to the white house website to read this were just as alarmed as I am.

I urge everyone who reads this and understands why this should be alarming to everyone to contact their representatives in Congress at 866-220-0044.

If misused, it could be a VERY bad thing... but remember once he's out it could be another person who takes over the government...

but this new bill pretty much shits all over the constitution.

1. The President has created a mechanism by which he could take control of the entire federal government.
2. That means that something that happens overseas, like in Iraq for instance, which merely disrupts our economy.....
3. This effectively puts the President in charge of the entire federal government and subordinates the other branches beneath him.
4. I am forcibly reminded of the character Palpatine in Star Wars, ....
5. ...and scientists predicting a busy hurricane season,
6. With hurricane season coming up and scientists predicting a busy hurricane season, we might see this enacted sooner than anyone feared.
1. I believe it said he would "[prescribe] continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies", which the President does anyway, and only "provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments....."

2. I think it said "severely" disrupts rather than "merely" disrupts.
Why quibble. What's in a word?

3. No, I think it said "a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches".
Seriously Drama, if something like this were ever needed, which branch would be the logical one to coordinate the effort? Congress?

4. Good source.

5. Yeah, like last year. But I digress.

6. Vintage Dop.

This effectively puts the President in charge of the entire federal government and subordinates the other branches beneath him.

Unfortunately I don't have time to read the directive at the moment, but I have to point out that it doesn't really matter what it tries to do, because the President can't just make the other branches of government subordinate. He can also declare himself king, but it really doesn't matter, because he's still not king. The other branches won't stand for it.

He can also declare himself king, but it really doesn't matter, because he's still not king. The other branches won't stand for it.
....not with a democratic controlled House anyway. ;)

He can also declare himself king, but it really doesn't matter, because he's still not king. The other branches won't stand for it.


No he can't. That position has been claimed by Ted Kennedy (20 odd yrs ago), with Kerry appointed as the court jester.

Unfortunately I don't have time to read the directive at the moment, but I have to point out that it doesn't really matter what it tries to do, because the President can't just make the other branches of government subordinate. He can also declare himself king, but it really doesn't matter, because he's still not king. The other branches won't stand for it.

One can only hope that in the event of an "emergency" the other branches will have more backbone than they showed after 9-11 with the so-called "Patriot" Act.

No he can't. That position has been claimed by Ted Kennedy (20 odd yrs ago), with Kerry appointed as the court jester.

I have to agree with the other poster who said that your username of "moderate" doesn't hold up in light of your posts.

But alas... "Conservative" is already taken.

....not with a democratic controlled House anyway. ;)

Thank god we at least have that going for us. It would be worse if we still had the rubber stamp Republicans in control.

Bwahahaaaa...Jerejere that sig is too much.

I have to agree with the other poster who said that your username of "moderate" doesn't hold up in light of your posts.

But alas... "Conservative" is already taken.

I don't like liberals, so I must be a conservitive. I don't like socialists, either, nor the overly religious.
As I have said before: Looking at your post I have to place you left of Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov). He at least admitted what he was after, a revolution.

Bwahahaaaa...Jerejere that sig is too much.

I like your sig.
The creationism part is funny!

I don't like liberals, so I must be a conservitive.

Gee, ya think?!? :rolleyes:

Anybody who uses the word "Hollyweird" might as well walk around wearing a t-shirt that says "I'm a Fox News watching Dittohead"

Gee, ya think?!? :rolleyes:

Anybody who uses the word "Hollyweird" might as well walk around wearing a t-shirt that says "I'm a Fox News watching Dittohead"


A poster, today, suggested that you change your signature to a disclaimer about anyone who disagrees with you. He was right on target. No one will ever confuse you with a true liberal. They are noted for being open minded.

A poster, today, suggested that you change your signature to a disclaimer about anyone who disagrees with you. He was right on target. No one will ever confuse you with a true liberal. They are noted for being open minded.

Woah kiddo...

You weren't disagreeing with me.

You were merely attempting (lamely) to rip on Senators Kennedy and Kerry.

I believe it said

Actually, it said a lot more than just the partial sentences you posted.

Good source.

Sounded more like an example or illustration to me, but why quibble over words...


6. Vintage Dop.

It wasn't written by any "dop".
The author listed is "Demosthenese".

Unless you know something I don't?

I think a lot of this depends on how the other branches react.
Again, thank God we at least have a Democraticly Controlled House now.
Thats better than a rubber stamp republican congress.

Woah kiddo...

You weren't disagreeing with me.

You were merely attempting (lamely) to rip on Senators Kennedy and Kerry.


There is nothing that can be said about those two, that would not be considered a complement, when compared with their actual performance.
The only thing lame, is the fact that Mass. keeps electing them. Guess its the best way to keep them out of state, at least for awhile. But I do wish the voters would consider the damage those two are doing to the rest of the country, and keep them at home.

There is nothing that can be said about those two, that would not be considered a complement, when compared with their actual performance.

:confused:

That doesn't even make sense.

One can assume from reading past posts from you that you don't think their performance has been very good, presumably because they are "liberals" and that's enough for you.


The only thing lame, is the fact that Mass. keeps electing them.

Again, presumably because they are *evil* liberals.

How dare they stand for things like fairness, justice and equality. :rolleyes:


Guess its the best way to keep them out of state, at least for awhile.

Yeah, I am sure that's why the people of MA keep electing them again and again and again and again...


But I do wish the voters would consider the damage those two are doing to the rest of the country, and keep them at home.

Can you articulate exactly what "damage" you are claiming that these two men caused?

The President could try to do all sorts of things. Congress and the Supreme Court could even roll over and agree. That still doesn't make it happen as long as the American people are still in posession of firearms. It might however ignite a civil war.

On all counts, Kennedy is a drunken lush, and has been for 40 yrs. Kerry still can't decide what he is. If given a choice, he can't make it.
As far a damage done: just look at their voting record. But that won't convince YOU. You agree with everything King Kennedy does, and Kerry just follows along. One example is the so called immigration reform. Another is ethics reform. All talk and no action.
I wouldn't like those two if they were independents.

This guy (http://postmanpatel.blogspot.com/2007/05/nspd51-prudent-planning-for.html) did a pretty good review of this new Directive and he points out some worrying things, including that there are secret Annexes attached to the directive that give the President additional undiclosed powers.

This all may be read in one of two ways ..

1. It is merely a sensible , preparatory clear set of guidelines for planning the heirarchy of a new form of Government required to lead the nation in which National Continuity Coordinator (NCC) will be responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. The NCC will be the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator.

2. The President (Para 6) "shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government" .....Heading (a) "Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;"

Which can be seen that the President will when the "Catastrophic Emergency" happens - (which can be anywhere and it's defintion is suitably loose for Alberto Gonzalez to take it to mean any goddam thing he wants) the President will quite Unconstutionally seize and control the powers of the three branches of Government enshrined in the Constitution, the Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislature.

Which to some people sounds like a recipe for a military dictatorship.

Quite an interesting followup to doing away with posse comitatus and creating the largest mercinary army in the world with Blackwater.

Even the Conservatives are up in arms about this. (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824)

President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.

The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive, establishes under the office of president a new National Continuity Coordinator.

That job, as the document describes, is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.

The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

When the president determines a catastrophic emergency has occurred, the president can take over all government functions and direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."

Translated into layman's terms, when the president determines a national emergency has occurred, the president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.

Ironically, the directive sees no contradiction in the assumption of dictatorial powers by the president with the goal of maintaining constitutional continuity through an emergency.

I can't get over how biased dharma is.. what a irresponsible political hack...

I can't get over how biased dharma is.. what a irresponsible political hack...
for all the effort he puts into it, i hope he's getting paid for it.

for all the effort he puts into it, i hope he's getting paid for it.

LOL.. he's just really bad on this thread... i surely hope some lefty interest group is paying him well for his time.

keep in mind that before this little oil suckin, rich boy bum fugger, spoiled brat got into office he was overheard saying it would be better if he was appointed dictator.

i don't trust bush, didn't trust his fuggin daddy or their arse fuggin buddy reagen.

I can't get over how biased dharma is.. what a irresponsible political hack...

You call quoting a Conservative site "biased"??? You are clueless Decka.

Do you have anything to say that is actually on topic for a change?

How about something besides another lame attempt at a personal attack?

:rolleyes:

You call quoting a Conservative site "biased"??? You are clueless Decka.

Do you have anything to say that is actually on topic for a change?

How about something besides another lame attempt at a personal attack?

:rolleyes:

wasn't talking about the site.. i was talking about your arguments in the thread.... call it a "personal attack" if you'd like, but you are exceptionally "dharma-like" in this thread... and that's not a good thing

wasn't talking about the site.. i was talking about your arguments in the thread.... call it a "personal attack" if you'd like, but you are exceptionally "dharma-like" in this thread... and that's not a good thing

Again, you are avoiding the question.

What about quoting a CONSERVATIVE makes me "biased".

Biased in what way?

Address the issue for a change.

keep in mind that before this little oil suckin, rich boy bum fugger, spoiled brat got into office he was overheard saying it would be better if he was appointed dictator.

i don't trust bush, didn't trust his fuggin daddy or their arse fuggin buddy reagen.

Yup, this is the actual quote.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier .... just as long as I'm the dictator. "

Dubya (The President Elect speakig to Congressional leaders) Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000

before (B*sh) got into office he was overheard saying it would be better if he was appointed dictator.

Which is pretty much what came to pass.

You should hear all the ConservaFascist propaganda ministers (IOW, the scions of talk radio; Limba, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, et al) incessantly laughing up their sleeves about the fact that Bush -metaphorically- bent the Democrats over and jammed it up their ass on the issue of the Iraq war and further funding for the troops and not setting a timeline to withdraw them.

Bush and his extreme Right warmongering cadre--as usual-- got to have their way while simultaneously giving (once again) the dimwitted populace the finger.

Let's face it; if the Democrats in Washington are so impotent that they cannot confront Bush on an issue like that and win, then they are totally weak and useless.

1. Actually, it said a lot more than just the partial sentences you posted.
2. It wasn't written by any "dop".
The author listed is "Demosthenese". Unless you know something I don't?
1. Your initial description of this order left out certain phrases such as that the executive branch provides guidance to the other branches. That's not all that dhramatic.
Or when the order is set to kick in when our economy is severely disrupted and you re-explain it as our economy being merely disrupted.
This order actually says a lot less than you are claiming. It's a borderline paranoid interpretation.

2. "With hurricane season coming up and scientists predicting a busy hurricane season, we might see this enacted sooner than anyone feared."
That sentence was written by Demosthenese????
DAMN, he was prescient!!

1. Your initial description of this order left out certain phrases such as that the executive branch provides guidance to the other branches. That's not all that dhramatic.

How childish... :rolleyes:

You are starting to sound a lot like Foolsworth or Decka... and those are not compliments.

You have to read the whole thing and take it all in context. For example, read "Guidance" in the context of the President being the "coordinator" of all three branches.

Try reading the article by the conservative that I posted earlier. This is no liberal conspiracy theory. This is genuinely concerning to anyone with an open mind.

Maybe you will read a conservative without the piss-poor attitude you obviously have when reading something by me.



Or when the order is set to kick in when our economy is severely disrupted

And who decides what constitutes "severe"? The President.
What you are failling to grasp is that the whole thing is so vague it could mean almost anything and thus opens it up to dangerous interpretations.

The definition of "catastrophy" they give is so vague it could mean anything from a nuclear attack to an internet virus.


This order actually says a lot less than you are claiming. It's a borderline paranoid interpretation.

Obviously you didn't read it... which is no suprise.

This is just another of your usual kneejerk partisan reactions.

Reasonable people on both sides of the asile who actually put an ounce of effort into comprehending this are all alarmed by it.



That sentence was written by Demosthenese????


Thats what the byline said. You would know that if you ever bothered to read anything I posted instead of just giving your usual kneejerk reaction.

If you put as much effort into comprehending what you read as you do into trying to deny everything I say then you might not have such a piss poor attitude.

At least then you would give the appearance of being rational.

.

Maybe you will read a conservative without the piss-poor attitude you obviously have when reading something by me.
Not just conservatives.

The Patriot act has saved our a&% more than once.


One can only hope that in the event of an "emergency" the other branches will have more backbone than they showed after 9-11 with the so-called "Patriot" Act.

He was just saying that it would be easier to get things done if he was a dictator. You (as usual) take things way way out of context in order to make your meaningless point.



Yup, this is the actual quote.

1. You are starting to sound a lot like Foolsworth or Decka... and those are not compliments.
2. Maybe you will read a conservative without the piss-poor attitude you obviously have when reading something by me.
3. And who decides what constitutes "severe"? The President.
The definition of "catastrophy" they give is so vague it could mean anything from a nuclear attack to an internet virus.
4. Reasonable people on both sides of the asile who actually put an ounce of effort into comprehending this are all alarmed by it.
5. Thats what the byline said. You would know that if you ever bothered to read anything I posted instead of just giving your usual kneejerk reaction.
1. You insult me with comparisons that I do not find insulting.

2. I admit that you've got me there. I definitely do have a bias toward things certain people post. It's not fair and it's certain one of my shortcomings.

3. This is where a little pinch of paranoia seeps in. For you to rail against this, you have to assume that someone will unnecessarily declare something "severe" or deem an internet virus to be a "catastrophe".
We can apply that type of exaggerated fear to make any aspect of government more forboding.

4. And those of us who don't assume the President will exaggerate an incident are the unreasonable ones here. Okay.

5. This is the quote you are attributing to Demosthenes: "With hurricane season coming up and scientists predicting a busy hurricane season, we might see this enacted sooner than anyone feared."
Are you sure that's what he said?

The Patriot act has saved our a&% more than once.

Bull.

Give specific examples.

4. And those of us who don't assume the President will exaggerate an incident are the unreasonable ones here.


Actually you are unreasonable because you refuse to even acknowledge the possibilities that so many other people, Conservative and Liberal alike, all agree is a concern.

All because you just don't like me (for some unknown reason) and this is your kneejerk reaction. That, my friend, is entirely your problem.

It makes you seem like an unreasonable kook, much like your friends Foolsworth and Decka.

But apparently you are fine with that. :rolleyes:

Which is pretty much what came to pass.

You should hear all the ConservaFascist propaganda ministers (IOW, the scions of talk radio; Limba, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, et al) incessantly laughing up their sleeves about the fact that Bush -metaphorically- bent the Democrats over and jammed it up their ass on the issue of the Iraq war and further funding for the troops and not setting a timeline to withdraw them.

Bush and his extreme Right warmongering cadre--as usual-- got to have their way while simultaneously giving (once again) the dimwitted populace the finger.

Let's face it; if the Democrats in Washington are so impotent that they cannot confront Bush on an issue like that and win, then they are totally weak and useless.

That is why it is SO important that we not sit by and say nothing. Now is the time to call your representatives and make your opinion known!

Call your Representative in Congress at 866-220-0044.

Next week is a recess for Congress and most of them will be back in their home district. If yours is having a townhall meeting, make a point of showing up.

They may have lost the battle over funding, but it is not too late to tell them to get on board with the bill to revoke Bush's War Powers.

1. Actually you are unreasonable because you refuse to even acknowledge the possibilities that so many other people, Conservative and Liberal alike, all agree is a concern.
2. All because you just don't like me (for some unknown reason) and this is your kneejerk reaction. That, my friend, is entirely your problem.
1. You are right that my assumptions are probably naive. But both of our assumptions are based on either overly positive or overly negative speculation.
Ideally, this process will be launched smoothly and only when totally necessary. In my mind I probably don't allow enough for the possibility that it will be misused and you probably can't imagine that it wouldn't be.
So in that sense neither of us is more unreasonable than the other.

2. I think I'll PM my response lest someone say "That's so gay".

A terrorists had plans to weaken the Brooklyn Bridge. He was arrested before he did it, because the Patriot act gave us the power to do so.


http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200602011350.asp

Bull.

Give specific examples.

1. You are right that my assumptions are probably naive. But both of our assumptions are based on either overly positive or overly negative speculation.
Ideally, this process will be launched smoothly and only when totally necessary. In my mind I probably don't allow enough for the possibility that it will be misused and you probably can't imagine that it wouldn't be.
So in that sense neither of us is more unreasonable than the other.

2. I think I'll PM my response lest someone say "That's so gay".

I'm not sure what you just said.Sounds like doublespeak.Which is a
fancy way for Liberals to act like Rosie and also have their cake.
I don't done believe that Rosie needs any more cake.
**********************************
' Let them Eat Rosie ',said the nude Queen of Versailles.

1. I'm not sure what you just said.Sounds like doublespeak.Which is a
fancy way for Liberals to act like Rosie and also have their cake.
2. I don't done believe that Rosie needs any more cake.
If you believe I sounded Liberal then one of us has made a grave error.

If you knew myself an dharma better you'd probably understand the post better. Please stay here long enough to do that. New people are fun.

Anyway, dharma seemed to be saying that I was unreasonable because I didn't have a problem with this particular proposal. I agreed that, to an extent, I give too much benefit of the doubt to this administration. He on the other hand has far too much suspicion.
We're probably both wrong and the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

Get me now?

2. We're all in agreement there.

I like the idea of 'continue-ing a constitutional republic by claiming dictoral powers...contradiction at tis finest.

A terrorists had plans to weaken the Brooklyn Bridge. He was arrested before he did it, because the Patriot act gave us the power to do so.


http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200602011350.asp

:rolleyes:

Lets put this in perspective...
That is an editorial in National Review, a far-rightwing newspaper.

What few claims he makes, he doesn't back up very well.

For instance:
Total terror-related defendants captured with the help of Patriot Act provisions: 401.

And what does he offer as evidence for his claim? The Justice Department website. Yes, the same Gonzo Justice Department that is currently embroiled in a scandal specificly because they were firing people for not being partisan enough. He tries to site Gonzo as proof several times in that article.

And this:
According to federal prosecutor Ken Wainstein's January 3 comments after meeting with President Bush, number of U.S. attorneys who use "the
Patriot Act tools each and every day in his or her efforts:" 93.

Remember these are the attoreys who got to keep their jobs after the Partisan Purge...They were the ones who are sufficiently Partisan that they would bring charges against a Democrat without evidence before an election at the request of his Republican opponent...

Oh, and here is a good excuse for the Patriot Act... it is profitable. :rolleyes:

Cash sum that Patriot Act Section 371 let Customs agents seize when terror-tied New Jersey imam Alaa al-Sadawi tried to smuggle funds into Egypt in his father's airline luggage: $659,000.

Then there is the return to the same old fear-mongering that got the rightwing their chance to rip up the Constitution in the first place...

Total number of individuals who Islamic fanatics murdered in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on America: 2,977

And more pieces of trivia that do not support the author's contention.

Number of U.S House members who supported the Patriot Act on October 24, 2001: 357, while 66 demurred.

What he fails to mention is that only one member of the house actually read the Patriot Act before they voted on it and he voted No...

And one member of the Senate also read the act before voting on it and he also voted No...

Tally of U.S. senators who backed the Patriot Act on October 25, 2001, including Massachusetts Democrats Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, who voted for it before they filibustered against it: 98, with Wisconsin Democrat Russell Feingold as the sole dissenter.

1. You are right that my assumptions are probably naive. But both of our assumptions are based on either overly positive or overly negative speculation.
Ideally, this process will be launched smoothly and only when totally necessary. In my mind I probably don't allow enough for the possibility that it will be misused and you probably can't imagine that it wouldn't be.
So in that sense neither of us is more unreasonable than the other.


Actually, what you characterize as negative assumptions, I consider to be erring on the side of caution. The probability is that even if this President doesn't abuse these powers, another one down the line eventually will unless those powers are constrained somehow. If you consider the old but true axiom "power corrupts" to be based in negative assumptions about people, then perhaps you are right but I would rather be practical than positive 100% of the time.

Bush isn't in any position to do squat.

He has few friends left, Cheney (which lately is questionable as they squabble over Iran), Rice who will not go all the way on the dictatorship stuff (it may ruin her standing in her capitalistic circles), Rove who has been totally marginalized and exposed for no more than a loser (he only won 2000 with the help of SCOTUS - he only won 2004 by 1% and he got his ass handed to him in 2006) and and and ... can't think of any others.

On the world stage, other than Israel, no one will partner with Bush and in general they hate america.

It would take the military (NG or whatever) to take control of the streets and they would simply refuse to do it ... and if they did, the well-armed americans would make them wish they were never born. There's something about being outnumbered 1000-1 that makes life difficult.

Nope -- the best Bush can hope for is another 9/11 or similar where he tries to stay in office due to some war powers act loophole.

Other than that -- he's off to his private hideout in South Ameirca (bad choice IMHO) in Jan '09 to become known as the worst president in history.

On edit: I forgot to mention the evangelicals ... they're dumping him too.

Rove who has been totally marginalized and exposed for no more than a loser (he only won 2000 with the help of SCOTUS - he only won 2004 by 1% and he got his ass handed to him in 2006) and and and ... can't think of any others.



....and this happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIEmHUYO4S8

Bush isn't in any position to do squat.


Don't underestimate Bush.

He managed to get another years worth of funding...

....and this happened: Wow...they found a jiggaboo that dances just as bad as they do...

Don't underestimate Bush.

He managed to get another years worth of funding...

And why wouldn't he?

The dems don't have a super majority in the senate ... they have a very shakey one-seat advantage so they have to do the best they can.

2nd thought ... why would the dems want to end the Iraq crusades? It's the gift that keeps on giving and in '08, when america is really sick of it the dems should be able to clean up once again in both chambers. Then they will have the super majority and the house will be out of reach for the republicans for a generation or more -- the dems should enjoy a 50-100 seat advantage after '08.

The republicans are being played like the jerks they are and they don't even know it. OTOH -- the republicans have one slim chance left to salvage their party and that is to break away from Bush before it's too late ... maybe September or thereabouts. We'll have to wait and see.

Read Brooks' sig line ... it's all there ... the whole story.

....and this happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIEmHUYO4S8

I'd love to see him on a surfboard.

I'd love to see him on a surfboard.
And love to see him and Bush have gay sex on your roof so you flip out and start throwing your anti-Jew grenades at them.