I still find it hard to believe we will impeach a President for getting a blow job while in office, but can't or won't impeach Bush for his numerous blatant crimes.

If U.S. voters truly wanted an administration that would seek to vigorously investigate members of the Bush administration for their roles in authorizing torture, then they should have paid more attention and supported Rep. Dennis Kucinich during the Democratic primaries and in his efforts to impeach Bush and Cheney. But let's face it, the reality is that's not the electorate that exists.

As much as it frustrates me personally that the Bush administration is not (and likely will not be) held accountable for its misdeeds, I feel that Obama is simply being pragmatic.

thanks

In reply to this comment by jwray:
*doublepromote

And impeach bush before he pardons the torturers.

*doublepromote

And impeach bush before he pardons the torturers.

When given the privilege of public service, how did Bob Barr choose to spend his time?

-He authored the anti-gay 'defense of marriage act'.
-He authored legislation to outlaw Wiccan worship on military bases.
-He was a signature of the patriot act.
-He was a huge supporter of the 'war on drugs'.
-He was a huge supporter of the impeachment of Clinton, yet sees no need to impeach Bush.
-He sought to outlaw abortion.
-He supported the embargo of Cuba.

And the list goes on and on and on.

Honestly. With such a poor record, why would anyone want to give him even greater responsibility?

>> ^jwray:
The constitution quite clearly does not provide anyone the authority to declare martial law.
The only remotely similar statement in the constitution is in Article 1, Section 9: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
But since it does not state which branch of government has the authority to suspend Habeas Corpus, no branch of government has the authority to suspend Habeas Corpus


Irrelevant with this administration. A bill was signed into law several months ago that shifted the power to declare martial law from the Congress to the president. Bush can literally snap his fingers and stop the elections if he so desired.

http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/vk2k.shtml

This talks about what you talked about below.

In reply to this comment by blutruth:
To all those who would say that Americans would rise up against a rule of martial law, I have a couple of points to make. Keep in mind that I'm doing this mostly to play Devil's Advocate, but also to hopefully contribute to the discussion.

1. First, and I could be wrong about this, but I think that it would be safe to say that the subset of Americans who would amass any significant stockpile of weapons and know how to use them would share a sizable overlap with the subset of Americans who are either in the military or have been in the military. Would it not make sense, if one were planning to do something that would cause an uprising, to send as many of these military men and women out of the country? Maybe to Iraq or Afghanistan, or to hundreds of military bases around the world? This would keep them away from the country they swore to protect.

2. To those who would argue that those in the military would desert when given an order to harm their fellow countrymen, I would submit the Milgram experiment as an example of the flaw in that argument. It has been demonstrated that if a superior is willing to take full responsibility for their actions, people will rarely exercise any self control when in contact with their fellow man, especially when verbally pushed to do so. This doesn't even take into account threatening soldiers with violence against their family if they were to refuse, or other less than pleasant ideas.

I wouldn't say that I believe that something incredible will happen between now and November 2 that would "necessitate" martial law, but I would not be surprised if something does.

I would say to you, "be prepared", but I'm not sure what preparations one could make for those kinds of events.

If Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party had not run for President, Gore would have ended up with more votes than Bush. So don't blame Nader.

You know who I blame? The MILLIONS of people who voted for Bush. Especially those who did it twice.

You know who else I blame? The idiot old fucks who accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan because the ballot was "too confusing." If it's too confusing, go home and sit on your hands, Grandma.

I also blame this entire ridiculous country for its elections that have no runoffs, even if the tally is split by one vote.

But I never blame Nader, because he doesn't deserve to be blamed.

>> ^chilaxe:
Whenever Nader complains about Bush, keep in mind without Nader, Gore would have easily beaten Bush. I think Nader needs to indicate he understands how wrong he was in order for his current predictions to be credible. Not even the Green party supports him anymore.

>> ^bcglorf:
I would say this is fear mongering, only from the left this time. Bush and Cheney might be crazy enough to do something like this, but the right to bear arms will be what stays their hand. They aren't so ignorant as to realize that even martial law couldn't stop the resulting uprising from a president with the lowest approval ratings ever calling off an election.


I agree. They've been experts at keeping radical action "low key", and suspending elections would spark an instant revolution. If they were planning that, Fox News would be talking about the possibility day & night, to lay the groundwork in the public consciousness.

I could believe that list was given to the Democratic leadership, and that they caved, rather than call the bluff.

More likely though, I think you're right about Nader just trying to scare Democrats into voting for him.

However, if we have a domestic terror attack between now and the election, I'm going to become a full believer in conspiracies, because that won't be a coincidence at all.

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
In my opinion it seems that they are building up to this anyway....
Remember that secret meeting the house of representatives had on March 13, 2007 that Dennis Kucinich refused to attend because of his opposition to the content?
It's been leaked that the meeting referred to impending martial law, handling opposition to the government in the event of an uprising, safehavens for congress people in such event, what will happen to Americans that may oppose the "rule of law" from the Federal govt and the "unavoidable" merger between countries of the North American continent.


Wow, I would like to think that what the esteemed Constitutional_Patriot has said in that comment is not possible, but I know better.

Its not the fact that this could happen its the fact that there is even talk about this possibly happening.

This is indeed scary.

>> ^bcglorf:
I would say this is fear mongering, only from the left this time. Bush and Cheney might be crazy enough to do something like this, but the right to bear arms will be what stays their hand. They aren't so ignorant as to realize that even martial law couldn't stop the resulting uprising from a president with the lowest approval ratings ever calling off an election.

You could be right bcglorf,
but after the things that this president has done over the last 7 years I don't think it's fear mongering at all. He has proven himself and those around him to be completely power hungry as well as 100% untrustable. At this point I wouldn't put anything past him. As for the right to bear arms, hunting rifles and pistols won't take this nation back. There might be a few folks out there, maybe even a few hundred that might have a formitable arsenal stored in their basement but nothing can stop the mechanized forces of this country. In my opinion the "Right to bear arms" is a moot point.

>> ^srd:
On what legal grounds could the US gouvernment call off elections?


On the grounds of having the military and FBI and who's going to stop them?

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
In my opinion it seems that they are building up to this anyway....
Remember that secret meeting the house of representatives had on March 13, 2007 that Dennis Kucinich refused to attend because of his opposition to the content?
It's been leaked that the meeting referred to impending martial law, handling opposition to the government in the event of an uprising, safehavens for congress people in such event, what will happen to Americans that may oppose the "rule of law" from the Federal govt and the "unavoidable" merger between countries of the North American continent.


Refusing to attend THAT? Inconceivable! He should have attended with a hidden recorder.

>> ^srd:
On what legal grounds could the US gouvernment call off elections?


On grounds of "maintaining continuity of government in the event of a national emergency" - see presidential directive 51.

If we impeach Bush, do we end up with Cheney as President???!!!

It reminds of that old saying of "Jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire!"