By Hanlon, on August 20th, 2006 at 11:29 PM
![]() Despite the lack of media hype due to the JonBenet thing (boy was THAT convenient), the NSA ruling is the most exciting thing in quite some time, as far as I’m concerned. And one thing occurs to me.
If this ruling holds, which it very well might if the 5-3 Gitmo SCOTUS ruling is any indication, then is there any possible excuse to not immediately impeach the man? His flagship program directly violates the constitution, how can we as a nation make a case to do anything else?
Some may say that Bush needs to protect America. It’s not his fault that the laws don’t allow him to do that. We don’t understand the world we live in, all of that nonsense. But the fact remains, he swore that he would uphold the Constitution and this ruling is saying he did not do that. If a blowjob is impeachment-worthy, isn’t this infinitely more so?
I also see a rather fantastic irony in that Bush swore to God that he would uphold the constitution, which would make this ruling even worse for the guy. For all his yammering about how religious he is, there he goes swearing to God and then breaking that oath. Ouch.
Take your mind back to Clinton for a second. Him on the stand and his lawyering through the trial. Calm, quiet, almost light-hearted at times. Can you imagine Bush staying that relaxed while on trial? Never happen. He’ll sputter and yell like the guy in Office Space saying he’s a “people person”.
And there’s an even bigger question. The Constitution is the biggest law of the land. It is the law from which all other laws come from, and which all laws must be compatible with. Breaking a law in the Constitution would, at best, be considered a high crime. More realistically, it’s outright treason.
Could Bush be the first president to be imprisoned for treason? That’s an incredibly unlikely scenario, but one that I think wouldn’t be out of the question. If Duke can get imprisoned for taking money, I’m pretty sure Bush can go to prison for violating the Constitution he swore to uphold.
Got my fingers crossed.
[tags]bush, impeach, nsa, supreme court, constitution[/tags]
![]() Despite the lack of media hype due to the JonBenet thing (boy was THAT convenient), the NSA ruling is the most exciting thing in quite some time, as far as I’m concerned. And one thing occurs to me.
If this ruling holds, which it very well might if the 5-3 Gitmo SCOTUS ruling is any indication, then is there any possible excuse to not immediately impeach the man? His flagship program directly violates the constitution, how can we as a nation make a case to do anything else?
Some may say that Bush needs to protect America. It’s not his fault that the laws don’t allow him to do that. We don’t understand the world we live in, all of that nonsense. But the fact remains, he swore that he would uphold the Constitution and this ruling is saying he did not do that. If a blowjob is impeachment-worthy, isn’t this infinitely more so?
I also see a rather fantastic irony in that Bush swore to God that he would uphold the constitution, which would make this ruling even worse for the guy. For all his yammering about how religious he is, there he goes swearing to God and then breaking that oath. Ouch.
Take your mind back to Clinton for a second. Him on the stand and his lawyering through the trial. Calm, quiet, almost light-hearted at times. Can you imagine Bush staying that relaxed while on trial? Never happen. He’ll sputter and yell like the guy in Office Space saying he’s a “people person”.
And there’s an even bigger question. The Constitution is the biggest law of the land. It is the law from which all other laws come from, and which all laws must be compatible with. Breaking a law in the Constitution would, at best, be considered a high crime. More realistically, it’s outright treason.
Could Bush be the first president to be imprisoned for treason? That’s an incredibly unlikely scenario, but one that I think wouldn’t be out of the question. If Duke can get imprisoned for taking money, I’m pretty sure Bush can go to prison for violating the Constitution he swore to uphold.
Got my fingers crossed.
[tags]bush, impeach, nsa, supreme court, constitution[/tags]
By Hanlon, on August 20th, 2006 at 09:03 PM
![]() Well, it looks like the fix is in. Yet another doomsday scenario from us “tinfoil hatters” that, after years of naysaying, will likely come to fruition. According to Think Progress, the right-wing think tank American Enterprise Institute hopes that repurcussions from the Israel/Lebanon conflict might drive Bush to acting against Iran in the next 12 to 18 months. According to AEI fellow Reuel Marc Gerecht on ABC’s This Week:
GERECT: I think more importantly — because of the way the Syrians and Iranians reacted — it is possible that the president has gotten very, very angry over that issue. If, in fact, you see down the road — because the premier issue for the iranians is nuclear weapons program — if you see down the road the president taking a much harder line on that issue
STEPHANOPOULOS: How much harder line could he take? Are you talking about military action?
GERECT: Well yeah it is conceivable you go down the road 12 or 18 months that the president will say nuclear weapons in the hands of the mullahs is simply unacceptable — as he said many times. And if in fact Lebanon contributes to the hardening of the American postion, then I would say that hezbollah actions in Lebanon were a great mistake.
According to TP, Gerecht was one of several think tankers who met up with Bush last week to discuss Middle East policy. These are the same sorts of people who pushed for and shaped the Iraq war. Realpolitik-obsessed evil greedheads who guide foreign policy without being able to see their own hands in front of their faces.
Invoke tinfoil hats and conspiracy theories all you want. Odds are we’re going into Iran in under two years. Because despite massive chaos, thousands of deaths, and countless setbacks… the people who make the decisions are the ones who absolutely refuse to consider alternatives, and refuse to aknowledge failure.
By Hanlon, on August 20th, 2006 at 06:49 PM
![]() That’s it. I’m now convinced Bush doesn’t read the news at all and no one tells him anything. The man still, after all these years and every single bit of evidence to the contrary, is saying Iraq is central to the War on Terror. Even threw Lebanon in there.
“It is no coincidence that two nations that are building free societies in the heart of the Middle East Lebanon and Iraq are also the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity,” Bush said in his weekly radio address. “We will defeat the terrorists by strengthening young democracies across the broader Middle East.”
This is what I call an example of Bush Oversimplification. He sees that Iraq and Lebanon have democracies and violence, and immediately concludes that the ‘terrorists’ are killing people due to the democracy. If this makes sense to you, I’d like you to wear aluminum foil so we know who you are (thank you Lewis Black).
Let’s take a look at Iraq and Lebanon right now. Lebanon is next to Israel, who has been fighting with the Middle East as a whole for some time now. Israel responded to a few Israeli soldiers getting hit by Hezbollah (which has happened before), and a war escalated. Hezbollah, of course, is a militant faction of a government that doesn’t like Israel already. Keep in mind that the Lebanese ELECTED officials who are openly hostile to Israel.
Iraq is where the United States invaded and killed 30,000 or so civilians to find WMDs that weren’t there and because of connections with Al Qaeda that didn’t exist. We destroyed their entire infrastructure, ravaged their cities, and did so with absolutely no plans of what to do afterwards.
Now, according to Ye Old President, these aren’t factors in why Iraq and Lebanon are violent right now. He still goes back to “the terrists hate freedom!” It’s almost disturbing in its stupidity. And when faced with the accusation that these wars are actually FOSTERING Terrorism (which they certainly are, after all Al Qaeda in Iraq went from a small-time group to big enough that it’s aiming for actual political power)? He says this:
“We will defeat the terrorists and expand freedom across the world, we’ll protect the American homeland and work tirelessly to prevent attacks on our country,” he said. “The terrorists remain determined to destroy innocent life on a massive scale, and we must be equally determined to stop them.”
Wow. Does this man ever actually say anything or is he just a Jingoistic Talking Point Speak and Say? And now he wants to expand freedom across the world.
Bush lives in a little bubble where success means his policies are working, and failure means his policies are working. When his laws are shot down he calls it partisan politics, and every war is terrorism. Who’s killed more civilians? The “terrorists” of Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, or the United States in Iraq? I think that answer is very revealing.
[tags]terrorism, war on terror, iraq, bush[/tags]
![]() That’s it. I’m now convinced Bush doesn’t read the news at all and no one tells him anything. The man still, after all these years and every single bit of evidence to the contrary, is saying Iraq is central to the War on Terror. Even threw Lebanon in there.
“It is no coincidence that two nations that are building free societies in the heart of the Middle East Lebanon and Iraq are also the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity,” Bush said in his weekly radio address. “We will defeat the terrorists by strengthening young democracies across the broader Middle East.”
This is what I call an example of Bush Oversimplification. He sees that Iraq and Lebanon have democracies and violence, and immediately concludes that the ‘terrorists’ are killing people due to the democracy. If this makes sense to you, I’d like you to wear aluminum foil so we know who you are (thank you Lewis Black).
Let’s take a look at Iraq and Lebanon right now. Lebanon is next to Israel, who has been fighting with the Middle East as a whole for some time now. Israel responded to a few Israeli soldiers getting hit by Hezbollah (which has happened before), and a war escalated. Hezbollah, of course, is a militant faction of a government that doesn’t like Israel already. Keep in mind that the Lebanese ELECTED officials who are openly hostile to Israel.
Iraq is where the United States invaded and killed 30,000 or so civilians to find WMDs that weren’t there and because of connections with Al Qaeda that didn’t exist. We destroyed their entire infrastructure, ravaged their cities, and did so with absolutely no plans of what to do afterwards.
Now, according to Ye Old President, these aren’t factors in why Iraq and Lebanon are violent right now. He still goes back to “the terrists hate freedom!” It’s almost disturbing in its stupidity. And when faced with the accusation that these wars are actually FOSTERING Terrorism (which they certainly are, after all Al Qaeda in Iraq went from a small-time group to big enough that it’s aiming for actual political power)? He says this:
“We will defeat the terrorists and expand freedom across the world, we’ll protect the American homeland and work tirelessly to prevent attacks on our country,” he said. “The terrorists remain determined to destroy innocent life on a massive scale, and we must be equally determined to stop them.”
Wow. Does this man ever actually say anything or is he just a Jingoistic Talking Point Speak and Say? And now he wants to expand freedom across the world.
Bush lives in a little bubble where success means his policies are working, and failure means his policies are working. When his laws are shot down he calls it partisan politics, and every war is terrorism. Who’s killed more civilians? The “terrorists” of Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, or the United States in Iraq? I think that answer is very revealing.
[tags]terrorism, war on terror, iraq, bush[/tags]
|
|
|
