Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If We're Attacked and Bush Takes Over, and THIS Happens, I'll Blame the Dems for NOT IMPEACHING.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
The Cleaner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:42 AM
Original message
If We're Attacked and Bush Takes Over, and THIS Happens, I'll Blame the Dems for NOT IMPEACHING.
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 09:51 AM by The Cleaner
Now personally, I can't see how ANYONE isn't scared shitless about this, and how people aren't rising up - especially Congressional Dems - and DEMANDING impeachment.

Because we are ONE STEP, one tiny freakin' step, away from a total absolute in your face Nazi-style DICTATORSHIP.


President George W. Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits deployment of U.S. troops on American streets. This would give him absolute dictatorial power over the government with no checks and balances...

The Department of Homeland Security established the Northern Command for National Defense, a wide-ranging program that includes FEMA, the Pentagon, the FBI and the National Security Agency. Executive orders already signed by Bush allow the Northern Command to send troops into American streets, seize control of radio and television stations and networks and impose martial law in times of national emergency.

The authority to declare what is or is not a national emergency rests entirely with Bush who does not have to either consult or seek the approval of Congress for permission to assume absolute control over the government of the United States.


http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. Not dogging impeachment, but I have to ask...
...Let's say impeachment hearings have been ongoing for weeks.

Let's say an attack happens tomorrow.

How do the impeachment hearings keep Bush from doing what you fear?

The proceedings wouldn't be completed in time to stop him...and the Senate gets a crack, too.

So.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Impeachment even if started today would run - hell the rest of the year for sure
And possibly into the new year. A good while for house hearings and then another good while for the trial.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Cleaner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. So we should just roll over on our collective backs and take it?
While our democracy is not only subverted but destroyed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Yep that's exactly what I'm saying
In fact I'm already looking into organizing the Bush Youth in my prefecture. You know a nice organization where they can sing patriotic songs and wave the flag and beat the shit out of people who look differently than them. It's gonna be great.

In reality I think we should resist the Bush administration, but I don't think we are 3 steps away from dictatorship, nor do I believe that Impeachment is the only way to resist him.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. Um...
Just trying to address a flaw in your thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
32. How difficult is this?
Cheney claimed that he was not a part of the government that he was elected to. He ordered the outing of a CIA agent. These are facts that we are all aware of. How long of a trial do you think he needs?

Bush bribed Libby with a commutation of his sentence. How difficult is this?

Do you really think that Republican Senators will form a suicide pact together, and then all rally to the aid of Cheney or Bush?

You can't believe that, do you?

There are reasons to argue against impeachment, good reasons. The main reason is that these monsters are dangerous, and they are the most dangerous if they get threatened. But even if that's true it isn't a very good argument to just let them continue their criminal activities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #32
45. After watching Bill Moyers, I'd have to say that at this point
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 02:54 PM by truedelphi
You can not be for the Constitution and against the needed impeachment of the major players

Impeach now. Bush, Cheny, and Gonzo (not necessarily in that order)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #32
48. There is not one argument against impeachment that's worth warm spit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
35. Do you remember the debate before the Iraq war?
Back then Republicans kept saying we had to invade Iraq because of 9/11. "What are you going to do, just sit around and wait for the next attack?" The left kept trying to get the Republicans to the common sense realization that just because one is rightfully angry about something does not mean a proposed optional solution must be accepted. Going to Iraq had nothing to do with solving terrorism. A failed impeachment attempt will not solve the problems with Bush. Its the same way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. and just how long will useless legislation take?? People keep saying
"keep passing the same bill and sending it back over and over".. how does *that* make sense?? That's a bigger waste of time than failed impeachment hearings..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Cleaner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. They don't, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
What I am saying is that it's a race against the clock. Impeach now, while we have the chance. Weaken and ostracize Bush. Set a precedent. Maybe we can thwart them, and justice will prevail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
24. If martial law is declared, impeachment proceeds only at the president's pleasure.
It sounds like it's already too late.

With a new war imminent, Congress has given up it's powers totally, and voluntarily, to Dick Cheney.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
30. I have concerns that impeachment might prompt another "incident."
For example, could an anthrax mailing prompt martial law?

I'm gonna need my hat. :tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Miss_Underestimated Donating Member (239 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
56. at least foreign countries would know that we were in the process of
seriously questioning the president and hopefully it would help boost our standing in the world and garner support :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
3. and yet there are people on this very board who claim this to be
"silly talk".... maybe because I mentioned a false flag attack leading up to this scenario?? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
7. BUSH HAS AN ADDED INCENTIVE
to invade Iran. He is the most spitful person in the world. He invaded a country because he wanted revenge.

He is upset because the country has finally saw thru him and wants him impeached. So what would be the perfect thing to do, invade Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
9. How can you even challenge the Executive Order in court?
The Supreme Court refused to recognize taxpayers (Freedom From Religion) having standing to sue for the Executive Office's faith-based initiatives due to deference to the Executive.

Screwed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
11. in my gut, I feel this will doubtless happen, regardless of what we do. this admin
has ALWAYS USED any new power grab immediately and without oversight, as soon as they self-legislate its ok to do so.
previous examples:

NSA illegal wiretaps
Torture of detainees
rescinding of habeas corpus


etc.


my point is that they never ever WAIT to see if a situation warrants the new power they've earmarked, they use it IMMEDIATELY and often are acting retroactively to excuse behavior already occurring.

this is why I fear we will see martial law here after another false flag event, because they worked so hard to set up all the markers in the correct alignment to do so.

I can't see them setting up a possible dicatorship and then NOT availing themselves of that power. Do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zensea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. In your gut? WTF?
Well, is that as reliable as Chertoff's gut?
spy vs spy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. my gut has been fairly reliable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zensea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. let's see
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 10:40 AM by Zensea
--elimination of civil liberties, weakening the ability of the citizens to stop the juggernaut
-- reshaping of the present character of the checks and balances system (like trying to stop filibustering), in such a way to advantage the executive branch over the other branches.
-- More and more "disappeared" people, along with executions in Guantanamo.
--

Also look for:
-- scenario: Bush loses the popular vote, again, and wins the electoral vote, but the chasm is wider, making it obvious the electoral college has been manipulated.
-- the rescinding of the two term presidency.
-- the permanence of US bases in Iraq as a base of operations, with the dropping of the MOAB on Syria or Iran, to "make a strong case" for submission to the US.

Civil liberties have not been eliminated.
No executions at Guantanamo. It's a little hard to disprove one way or the other the question of "disappeared" people.
No obvious manipulation of the electoral college, although I agree the popular vote was manipulated in Ohio.
The two term presidency has not been rescinded or even come close. Besides that would take a constitutional amendment, hardly a process that indicates dictatorship.
Still a little too early to say that the US bases in Iraq are permanent.

Yeah, you're batting a thousand there with your gut.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. what-ever dude
you picked the 20% of the post that did not come to pass and acted like the entire thing was not indicative of what eventually occurred.

what is the reason you're attacking me for my gut feelings and then attacking me for being off by 20%?

I labeled them as gut feelings, what more do you want? Are you saying I'm not allowed to give my opinion of how i see things happening? what is your purpose with this attack?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zensea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. the purpose is this
I have little truck for gut feelings in politics and for the aspect of the left which mirrors the right.
I don't see much difference on the level that both sides play up fear. That's why I wrote "spy vs spy."
It's bad enough when the rightists do this kind of thing, but when the left does it too ...
At least the right has some excuse, after all their whole agenda is to frighten us into submission.

It's not an attack either. It's a comment. I can see why you would perceive it as an attack, it's not a stretch to read my impatience with this sort of stuff that way -- but it really isn't meant to be an attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. thanks for the clarification.
not everyone will understand your personal shorthand of "spy vs. spy".

and you misunderstand my purpose in posting my "gut feelings", I would feel WRONG not to point out what I see as the danger points. If I stood by and said nothing, I would be, in my own view, complicit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zensea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Didn't know it was personal shorthand!
I thought everyone knew these characters :)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. oh yes, I know those characters
but was unclear what you were implying by merely saying "spy vs. spy".

its shorthand because in your own mind, you knew what you meant by just making the reference.
Since I didn't know your intent, I could not get to you intent from the reference alone.

I see NOW you were trying to say that by my expressing a warning in order to arm ouselves against their corruption, and them expressing warnings in order to FURTHER their corruption, that you viewed as exactly the same thing.

frankly, I see them as very different motivations.

but anyways, thanks again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
15. could, or will? . . . why else would he sign that Executive Order? . . .
certainly not to benefit some future president . . . his mind doesn't work that way . . . no, BushCo is planning something that will enable Bush to exercise his new dictatorial powers -- and effectively make himself president for life . . . the 2008 race for the Democratic nomination will become moot, since there won't be any elections that year . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
irislake Donating Member (967 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
16. Why are you letting this happen?
Would they steal two elections, have a new Pearl Harbor, set up a police state, build internment camps for yu'all just for nothing? I don't think so. I have been amazed watching this happen from a safe place. (I hope.)I'd be shivering in my shoes if I lived south of the border. Some of Ann Coulter's wishes may well come true.

Your passivity in the face of such obvious criminality and skuldugery boggles my mind! But then you have a corporate controlled media who won't help you. Why would Bush even need to take over a media that has already been taken over?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4 t 4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. Question?
Has any Pres. ever done this??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #16
25. alot of people who are watching this from out of box have a total
different perspective on the whole, if they were encountering something like this in their own countries, they would not be just watching something so sinister to take place they would be out in the streets in the millions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #16
36. Look for the North American Union in your supermarket soon...
If we suffer this "gut-feeling" terror attack, Chimpolini will impose martial law -- why else imbue the pRetzeldent with these powers now? We sit on the edge of the cliff... and the majority of the populace intentionally remains clueless for fear of going into shock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
18. oh for f's sake please let's stop with this baloney. ANOTHER
terror attack and Bushlers' out on his ASS -- 2 fer 2, Chucklehead, way to go! --NOBODY would forgive his idiotic Administration for a second attack. NOBODY.

Plus, who's gonna supply the brazillion mercs needed to maintain this Martial law? LOL. Just because we SUCK at fighting guerilla warfare doesn't mean we'll suck when we're the guerillas. Good luck controlling the most highly armed population on earth, Mister Bush.

Martial law would crash the economy, also, leaving those in power SCREWN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warren pease Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #18
33. I disagree, and here's why...
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 12:36 PM by warren pease
I think a terrorist attack would, unfortunately, provoke the exact same response as 9/11 did. Mass media way over the top, cheer-leading and calling for heads on pikes. "Patriotic" americans wanting blood, anybody's blood, so long as it's shed by disposable brown people. And while we're at it, there's these liberals who could use a lesson or three.

Note that 9/11 is the justification for every single Bushean outrage since, foreign and domestic. From torture to "shock and awe," from Gitmo to 655,000 and counting dead Iraqi civilians -- everything they do is legitimized by 9/11. And this time, having achieved such monumental military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, all eyes will turn to Iran.

You think his ratings won't go back to 80 or 90 percent positive? This is the US of Dumbfuckistan we're talking about here, not some educated country.

As to enforcement, there's always Blackwater with its three training facilities in the US and answerable to nobody but whoever sighs their checks. Admittedly, there aren't nearly enough of them to lock down the country. But through the magic of corporate news manipulation, Blackwater could maintain a high profile in a few key cities and, by the time they got through their breathless recaps and live, on-scene scripted coverage, TV news would turn it into a nationwide occupation, with no community unaffected.

As to the world's most heavily armed populace going round-for-round against tough, battle-tested, extremely well-equipped troops, guardsmen and mercenaries... Or do you know of a few hundred tanks, fighter jets, bombers, wifi communications systems, etc. just waiting for the rebels to pick them up?

US troops would never fire on Americans? That's never been a problem in the past. Many times when there was a strike to be broken or a local insurrection by the "real" Americans -- the indigenous peoples and tribes -- to be stamped out, federal troops were called in to destroy the opposition by any means necessary, including state-sanctioned killing. See the National Railroad Strike of 1877, the Ludlow Massacre, Wounded Knee, the Pullman Strike and the Haymarket Riots for examples and details. And all but the 1877 railroad strike occurred after posse comitatus was adopted in 1878

And as to those two directives -- NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51 and HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20 (sorry for the uppercase; I just copied them from a white house news release) -- I can only think of two reasons to adopt such provocative and ominous policies:

1) As a necessary response to the societal dislocation and chaos resulting from an emergency severe enough and/or widespread enough to justify a massive, coordinated effort to restore normality through the most efficient use of any and all available federal resources. As an element of such a federal response, martial law is just another useful tool to help the feds restore order as quickly as possible. Martial law would only be invoked if absolutely necessary, on a limited geographic basis, with every concern and respect for individual and societal rights and liberties, and for not a second longer than necessary to achieve a full return to the rule of Constitutional government.

2) The 22nd Amendment says BushCo has to leave the White House in January, 2009 and, having fought for at least half a century to put the executive branch in the hands of pure malevolent fascists and world-class thieves whose only agenda is massive enrichment for themselves and their corporate cronies through things like insane levels of war spending and privatization of absolutely everything not already controlled by our multinational lords and masters, the right wing has absolutely no intention of screwing up a good thing by complying with the law. And if it takes martial law to hammer that point home for alienated, disengaged, misinformed and apathetic Americans, well that's just fine, too.


Realistically, which of these sounds more like standard BushCo behavior?

On edit> I'm not saying martial law, or any of the above is a sure thing, but they're certainly capable.



wp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #33
57. exactly! they are capable!
all evidence points to the fact that bush, inc is capable of anything, and i do mean anything. in addition, they often telegraph exactly what they plan to do before they do it, and then go ahead and do it in spite of massive popular opposition. to expect otherwise is foolish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #33
61. Yes, Americans would fire on Americans: e.g. Kent State
I think anyone who was old enough to follow the news at the time knows that National Guard (not regular military, National Guard) troops opened fire on protestors at Kent State University in 1970, killed four, and injured others. There was another shooting of protestors at Jackson State that same year, but it was a predominantly African-American school, so, typically for the news media, it wasn't well covered.

But yes, I have no doubt that given martial law, American troops would shoot Americans, particularly if they Fox News junkies, who have been programmed to hate "liberals."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moodforaday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
41. everybody forgave him
for the first attack, for both stolen elections, for wilful negligence during Katrina, for torture, for renditions and secret prisons, for illegal wiretaps, and we could go on for a page or two. If there is another attack, the media, Congress and lots and lots of people will lie PROSTRATE before the Dear Leader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #18
52. They forgave him everything else...
Given what Bush has been allowed to get away with so far and a largely compliant mass media, he'd get away with another terror attack and declaring martial law.

As for the logistical problems, you think Chimpy understands any of that? Or cares?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
19. A preemtive strike on Iran is in the works despite new UN activity by Iran
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 11:00 AM by EVDebs
Truthout, Cunningham report on the inept House intell committee

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071607L.shtml

and now rumblings that Cheney wants to attack Iran

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071607J.shtml


lead me to believe that the inept GOPers on the House and Senate intell committees are being pushed into something the country cannot tolerate.

Impeach Cheney NOW. I'm more worried about this causing Iran to do a preemtive rash act, and this administration pushing them into it for their own political calculus. US citizens and troops, we're afterthoughts.

Merges with Post #7 above by bitwit1234
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
20. Democrats and Republicans with hidden agendas
There are people in this Country that let their oath to a foreign power supersede their oath to the Constitution.

You fill in the blank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. Chalabi was working for Iranian intelligence
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 11:03 AM by EVDebs
Iran used Chalabi to dupe U.S., report says

By Knut Royce
Newsday

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/20019...

" Patrick Lang, former director of the DIA's Middle East branch, said he had been told by colleagues that Chalabi's U.S.-funded program to provide information about weapons of mass destruction and insurgents was effectively an Iranian intelligence operation. "They (the Iranians) knew exactly what we were up to," he said.

He described it as "one of the most sophisticated and successful intelligence operations in history."

"I'm a spook. I appreciate good work. This was good work," he said."

This is the impeachable offense, actually treasonous offense, of the GOP and neocons.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. The Iranians have been in the Intelligence business
for a few thousand years longer than we have. When people in Iran listen to a politician, they turn to each other and say "What did he mean by that?" It's a society that runs on intrigue. It's part of the psyche.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maraya1969 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
29. Call Pelosi. Here is the number!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
34. UM, CAPITOLHILLBLUE is not a credible source -- it is a combination of Fantasy and Science Fiction
EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. UM, yes bush signed this
Many many others have reported this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Then there are probably plenty of better sources then CAPITOLHILLBLUE, right? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Yes, but unless you have been asleep for the last two months,
there is no need to post any other sources. This story has been discussed may times here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. If you use a source like CAPITOLHILLBLUE, your great posts will be discounted -- It is like quoting
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 02:13 PM by emulatorloo
The Weekly World News or National Inquirer.

All I am saying is that most of what CAPITOLHILLBLUE prints is fantasy and nonsense. Why site them if you have another source -- it weakens your argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. I didn't write the OP
in case you didn't notice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Of course -- Does it matter????
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 04:08 PM by emulatorloo
My only point is that CAPITOLHILLBLUE is generally bogus and we would be better off not using it to make arguments. Because we can probably find better foundations for our arguments than that.

Other than that I think we are all on the same page --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #46
55. I know that
My point is you need to give that advice to the author of the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #37
60. ooh, he signed it
doesn't mean it will actually work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warren pease Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. There are lots of sources for the same basic info...
Here's a particularly good one, including links to all kinds of useful stuff, like the full text of the directives themselves and the White House news release that announced them.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Con...


This one is also reputable and includes documentation, analysis and links:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5...


And from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Home...


Have a look, read the directives and analysis, then ask yourself if these two docs, when coupled with the patriot act and military commissions act, aren't the blueprint for a lock down national security state.

As noted in my post above, I'm not saying any of this will happen, but this administration is certainly capable of it and crazy enough to at least seriously consider the idea -- else why these directives in the first place?


wp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. thnx -- I appreciate it! EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
47. (aside) Capitol Hill Blue and Mr. Thompson are prone to hyperbole at times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conspirator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
49. If the US is attacked you can't blame anyone, cause you wont have free speech under martial law n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
50. There will be plenty of blame to go around, dems included. Problem is,
that blame, accountability, responsibility, democracy, voting, etc won't matter at that point.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
51. He may or may not use it
Granted, those documents give Bush the power to effectively declare himself dictator but whether he'll use it or not is another matter. I'm sure he'd like to but it depends on whether he thinks he can get away with it. Plus, I think he'd want to leave it as late as possible. With impeachment off the table (thanks very fucking much Pelosi, talk about shooting yourself in the foot!), a still largely compliant mass media and the fact that no-one's called them on blatantly ignoring subpoenas (which is a straightforward impeachment offence if there ever was one), I think he'll be content to leave it as late as possible.

What happens then depends on what Chimpy (or more likely, his handlers) think they can get away with. Martial law is a distinct possibility.

Impeachment might not work but at least when historians look back, they'll be able to note that someone tried to reign the maniacs in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
53. That would pretty much be a good time for a military coup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
54. a January 2006 article? with no citations?
At least earlier this year we were discussing something more current, which was Presidential Directive 51 on Continuity of Government, which even the ACLU stated wasn't was not a source of concern.

As usual, its impossible to tell what CHB is (or rather was) talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
samsingh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
58. where are the 2/3 of the votes in the Senate to impeach?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #58
62. If you don't have the votes, and it's important, you just keep introducing it
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
samsingh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. good idea
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
59. If this happens
I'm a Bluecoat (Or Browncoat for you Firefly fans)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lpbk2713 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
64. Wouldn't surprise me to learn there's a MIHOP plan in the works.




So that BushCo could cancel the '08 elections due to *tairist threats*.

That's the only way the rethugs would have the remotest chance of winning.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 29th 2014, 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC