[ 04 July 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Bush has the constitutional power to offer commutations, of course. But if this commutation was granted to Libby in order to derail a criminal investigation, if it was granted to cover up prior or ongoing criminal activities, that is itself a crime meriting the impeachment of George W. Bush.

---

And the attempt to impeach Clinton had a lot to do with the attempt to impeach Nixon that ended with his resignation.

It's an escalating tit for tat, using the law courts and the ability to pardon for politically partizan ends.

As I mentioned in the other, now closed thread, the last century or so of the Roman Republic went this way.

In the Roman example, Pro-consuls would use thier governorships of conquered lands to raise armies that had loyalty to the Pro-consul over that of the Roman state.

I used to think this is where the parallel or anology breaks down. But the Iraq war has politicized American generals. Not that they weren't before-- but it was much less public. Now, it seems they are almost choosing up partizan sides on CNN.

I do not think a military junta is about to take over in the U.S. But I do not think it is unthinkable. Remember that Macarthur was as much as exiled to the Philipines in the 30's because he was thought to be feeling out people in the military as to thier loyalty to Roosevelt and the "New Deal".

Ah yes, old paranoid Tommy is at it again.

But wasn't it a Judicial junta that put Bush on the throne in the first place?

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
A potentially extreme case, but lets say the Democrats grow some balls (this is the most extreme part of this) and stop funding the Iraq war. The White House continues to make terrible decisions when it comes to the war.

---

Well actually, I think they should grow some breasts, as quite obviously it was the balls segment of the population that got them into this mess.

quote:

---

I'm actually not sure if this would be an entirely bad thing. I hate the idea of a military rule for our closest neighbours, but I believe that if it happened the people of the US would be shocked away from their Paris Hilton news and would actually start paying attention to what's going on in the world and maybe create an actual representative government.

---

quote:

---

I'm actually not sure if this would be an entirely bad thing.

---

quote:

---

I'm actually not sure if this would be an entirely bad thing. I hate the idea of a military rule for our closest neighbours, but I believe that if it happened the people of the US would be shocked away from their Paris Hilton news and would actually start paying attention to what's going on in the world and maybe create an actual representative government.

---

This reminds me of an old Communist Party slogan:

"The worse, the better."

See, if things get really bad, why then the people will just RISE UP!

This slogan was used by the German CP when it decided to attack social democrats, but not Nazis, because if Nazis got in, there'd be a revolution!

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Well actually, I think they should grow some breasts, as quite obviously it was the balls segment of the population that got them into this mess.

---

Granted, sounds like a far better idea.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Oh man, everyone needs to watch Keith Olbermann's rant! It's incredible! It's a long and total slam on Bush!

---

i could only make it through about 2 minutes of this total drivel..

This rant is nothing more then damage control...

Some how the workers of the USA are supposed to accept a leader even if the leader is not what you want?

Why should they do that? They have been doing it all this time and look at the mess it has caused.

So this talking head ( and the organization that he represents)wants us to feel better because he verbally chastized George Bush?

How about calling for the mobalization of the workers to overthrough the government?

When does this organization talk about the war crimes Libby was protecting. The war crimes of starting an illegal war.

This president did not just betray the trust of the American people by doing a bad job... He helped lead humanity closer to its own distruction...

This scripted monolog set up an arguement and then went on to protect it..

The arguement they put forward was there idea that the citizians of American should always hold alegence to the president no maatter which party he/she is from... At the same time the president has to uphold a duty to manage the country by doing a good job..

The first part of this thesis is a joke and a none starter. and the second part is even more laughable.. Ya, leading a nation of 300 million is nothing more then a job, kinda like , ya know, putting the piston rings on a piston when you are on the line at Ford...

Look I understand you frustration at the whole thing... but dont' trust these people with their laughable tricks... It may make you feel good to hear something, anything that is directed at the ruling class by the very organizations that uphold them... But in the end; nothing will change...

If anything this rant orcastrated by this news agency is a warning to the members of its calss..

That warning being...

Be carefull about what you do as you might insite the citizians.....

[ 04 July 2007: Message edited by: trippie ]

[ 04 July 2007: Message edited by: trippie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Oh man, everyone needs to watch Keith Olbermann's rant! It's incredible! It's a long and total slam on Bush!

---

Wow.

That is the boldest, yet most articulate and coherent condemation of Bush that I've ever seen by anyone not on the internet.

[ 04 July 2007: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

quote:

---

And so would they if all of sudden the breasts were in charge!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:
Um no, cuz most of the 'breasts' voted for the war and the top 2 breast pairs around are still for it (tho they waver up and down according to the polls but we know how they would do it if in charge -Rice and Clinton)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:
The most powerful woman in the US is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; she is third in line for the presidency, should something *unfortunate* happen to Bush and Cheney.

She voted against the 2002 war resolution concerning Iraq.

---

I'm unimpressed:

quote:

---

In 1998, Pelosi stated that Saddam Hussein "has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology." in supporting the military air strike President Clinton carried out then "to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors." After 2001, Pelosi has generally supported spending for national defense in areas of the War on Terrorism. Pelosi voted for the USA Patriot Act, but has since opposed the extension of provisions that she believes would further curtail individual liberties.

In 2002, Pelosi opposed the Iraq Resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq, while stating that Iraq, like "other countries of concern", had WMD. [...]

Pelosi's voting record shows consistent support for Israel. [...]

Pelosi voted in favor of keeping the travel restrictions on American citizens to Cuba, until the president has certified that Cuba has released all political prisoners, and extradited all individuals sought by the U.S. on charges of air piracy, drug trafficking and murder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:

Anyway, I didn't say Pelosi was the saviour of US democracy; just pointing out that she is more powerful than Clinton or that warmongering fool, Rice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
If you hadn't mentioned her 2002 vote on Iraq, I would have kept my mouth shut for a change.

---

It won't happen though, even if we were to see Bush's approval rating dips into the teens. They would likely force Congress to impeach and remove them, and if 67 senators ever vote for their removal, I'll eat my hat. It just wont happen.

quote:

---

Mr. Bush explained his clemency philosophy in Texas in his 1999 memoir, “A Charge to Keep.”

“In every case,” he wrote, “I would ask: Is there any doubt about this individual’s guilt or innocence? And, have the courts had ample opportunity to review all the legal issues in this case?”

In Mr. Libby’s case, Mr. Bush expressed no doubts about his guilt. He said he respected the jury’s verdict, and he did not pardon Mr. Libby, leaving him a convicted felon. And Mr. Bush acted before the courts had completed their review of his appeal.

“As governor, Bush essentially viewed the clemency power as limited to cases of demonstrable actual innocence,” said Jordan M. Steiker, a law professor at the University of Texas who has represented death-row inmates.

“The exercise of the commutation power in Libby,” Professor Steiker continued, “represents a dramatic shift from his attitude toward clemency in Texas, and it is entirely inconsistent with his longstanding, very limited approach.”

---

quote:

---

In commuting Mr. Libby’s sentence, Mr. Bush said he had found it excessive. If Mr. Bush employed a similar calculus in Texas capital cases, he did not say so. Even in cases involving juvenile offenders and mentally retarded people, Mr. Bush allowed executions to proceed, saying that he was satisfied of the inmates’ guilt and that they had received a fair hearing.

The United States Supreme Court has since barred the execution of juvenile offenders and mentally retarded people as a violation of the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

---

[ 08 July 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Just as encouraging as the Bush piece itself is the outcome of Olbermann's exchanges with the fascistic Bill "we have your phone number" O'Reilly and Fox News- excerpted below:

"In March 2006, O'Reilly dropped a caller from his live radio show, seemingly for mentioning Olbermann's name. O'Reilly accused the caller of being part of a larger group of individuals that had been calling O'Reilly with the sole purpose of mentioning Olbermann. The caller said, “I like to listen to you during the day. I think Keith Olbermann's show…” when O'Reilly cut in, responding to “Mike” as follows:
“ Mike is — he's a gone guy. You know, we have his — we have your phone numbers, by the way. So, if you're listening, Mike, we have your phone number, and we're going to turn it over to Fox security, and you'll be getting a little visit. […] When you call us, ladies and gentlemen, just so you know, we do have your phone number, and if you say anything untoward, obscene or anything like that, Fox security then will contact your local authorities, and you will be held accountable. Fair?[""
........
"According to The New York Times, O'Reilly eventually stopped attacking back on his own show, but Fox News spokeswoman Irina Briganti has released the following public statement in response:

“ Because of his personal demons, Keith has imploded everywhere he’s worked, from lashing out at co-workers to personally attacking Bill O’Reilly and all things Fox, it’s obvious Keith is a train wreck waiting to happen. And like all train wrecks, people might tune in out of morbid curiosity, but they eventually tune out, as evidenced by Keith’s recent ratings decline. In the meantime, we hope he enjoys his paranoid view from the bottom of the ratings ladder and wish him well on his inevitable trip to oblivion.[23] ”

A press release by NBC indicates that ratings for “Countdown” are up significantly since Fox’s 2006 statement.
“ Countdown with Keith Olbermann" (8:00 to 9:00 pm ET) continues its ratings surge, up +81% in total viewers (818,000 v. 452,000) and +73% in the demo (292,000 v. 169,000) over a year ago. "Countdown" maintained its lead over CNN, with a +9% advantage in total viewers and a +7% advantage in the demo. CNN delivered 749,000 total viewers and 273,000 in the demo for the month.”"

[ 08 July 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]