Discussion:
Bush's plan to destroy America
(too old to reply)
Imperialist Watch
2007-02-01 11:22:22 UTC
Permalink
- Capitol Hill Blue - http://www.capitolhillblue.com/wp -

Bush's plan to destroy America

Posted By Doug Thompson On January 31, 2007 @ 8:25 am In Rant | 15 Comments

By DOUG THOMPSON

The absolute and unrelenting takeover of the government of the United States by a despot named George W. Bush continues - right under the noses of the new Democratic leadership of Congress and in outright defiance of the wishes of the American voters who sent a clear mandate for change in last year's elections.

Bush recently made more moves to consolidate power in the executive branch, signing an order that requires key government agencies to place his political appointees in positions to control policy on health, environmental issues, civil rights and privacy.

These political hacks, appointed without review or approval of Congress, can now "interpret" the laws as they - or their President - see fit without regulatory oversight or a requirement to report to anyone.

Even worse, my White House sources tell me that Bush is putting into place a carefully-crafted plan to extend his power and influence over government policy long after he leaves office on January 20, 2009.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, at Bush's direction, is advising cabinet secretaries to convert these political appointees to Senior Executive Service (SES) positions before Bush's second term ends, giving hand-picked policy makers absolute authority even after the President leaves office.

SES positions are protected by federal civil service, so the policy makers could not be replaced by an incoming President - Democrat or Republican - who follows Bush.

My sources tell me Bush plans to place conservative zealots throughout federal agencies, give them authority to control policy for as long as they hold their jobs, and then convert those appointees to civil service positions that will continue to enforce his wishes for years to come.

Far-fetched? Not at all. Cabinet secretaries have long had the power to convert some key appointees to SES positions although - until Bush signed his executive order granting broad policy making powers to such appointees - they did not have the ability to continue a President's programs long after he leaves office.

Bush is still hoping for at least one more vacancy on the Supreme Court before his second term ends, giving him a chance to control judicial rulings well into the next decade.

Such is the pattern of a man determined to control all phases of government without any checks and balances.

"The White House has been gaming the system for six years," says Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and an acknowledged national expert on Constitutional law. "He has shut down Congress and slowed down the courts."

Some hoped the Democratic takeover of Congress would stop Bush's power grabs but he continues and the overly-cautious and gun shy leadership on Capitol Hill appears powerless to stop him.

While they consider "non-binding" resolutions on withdrawing troops from Iraq, Democratic leaders of Congress have asked for a "legal interpretation" on what power, if any, it has to stop Bush.

And who did it ask for this "interpretation?" The Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzales, a Bush appointee who believes the President's power is absolute and the one crafting the program to extend that power and influence far beyond his Constitutionally-limited two terms in office.

"If you listen to the president and some Democratic leaders, Congress can do little to stop the hemorrhaging of lives in Iraq," Turley says.

In a recent op-ed for USA Today, [1] Turley wrote:

The truth is that there is a lot that Congress could do. Among other things, it could stop the war. But neither the president nor many Democrats want to publicly entertain such a possibility. Indeed, the president has insisted, again, that he alone makes such decisions. When asked about what Congress can do if it opposes his build-up, Bush was dismissive and said, "Frankly, that's not their responsibility." Of course, the president acknowledged, "They could try to stop me from doing it.but I made my decision, and we're going forward."

Democratic leaders seem to be encouraging the same view of an unchecked executive. The new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and other members suggested last week that it may be unconstitutional for Congress to cut funds for an escalation.

All of this would have come as a great surprise to the framers. Far from being some type of constitutional eunuchs, legislators hold the very power that determines whether a war will continue, expand or end: the power of the purse. The framers specifically justified this congressional power as a check on the president's ability to entangle the nation in disastrous foreign adventures.

But the Democrats, to date, seem too politically timid to make the hard decisions to curb the reign of terror by Bush and his legions. They tiptoe around problems that demand quick and firm actions.

While they keep talking and debating and holding hearings and considering "non-binding" resolutions, Bush consolidates his power base and expands his unchecked authority.

The Democrats may have fiddled too long already. It may be too late. For six years, George W. Bush has worked diligently to dismantle the Constitution, rip away the freedoms that provided the foundation for this country and destroy a once-great nation called the United States of America.

And, unlike his war in Iraq or his many other failed programs, this may be the one mission he might actually accomplish.

--
"We are creating enemies faster than we can kill them"

- bumper sticker in Washington DC
.***@see_my_sig_for_address.com
2007-02-01 15:10:46 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 06:22:22 -0500, "Imperialist Watch"
Post by Imperialist Watch
- Capitol Hill Blue - http://www.capitolhillblue.com/wp -
Bush's plan to destroy America
By DOUG THOMPSON
A raving alchoholic left-wing freakjob of monumental
proportions.
--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Baby Messy
2007-02-01 18:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by .***@see_my_sig_for_address.com
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 06:22:22 -0500, "Imperialist Watch"
Post by Imperialist Watch
- Capitol Hill Blue - http://www.capitolhillblue.com/wp -
Bush's plan to destroy America
By DOUG THOMPSON
A raving alchoholic left-wing freakjob of monumental
proportions.
PJM likes to use the word "nigger" in his posts, folks. Ignore his
redneck ass. Poor racist scum.
geoff
2007-02-01 19:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by .***@see_my_sig_for_address.com
A raving alchoholic left-wing freakjob of monumental
proportions.
Yep, he is, except you mis-typed, shrub is right-wing.

-g
Neill
2007-02-03 13:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by .***@see_my_sig_for_address.com
A raving alchoholic left-wing freakjob of monumental
proportions.
Yep, he is, except you mis-typed, shrub is right-wing.
-g
Er, he's still president, at least for now. I'm still curious, is it all
presidents, or just repubs which garner your ire?

My guess is it's just repubs, which makes you the worst kind of hypocrite
asshole.
geoff
2007-02-03 20:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Nope, I had no problem with Bush senior, or Reagen but during the 90's,
pre-fox news, some of the repubs would say how they want integrity restored
to the Whitehouse. Was integrity restored? I don't think so and at least
when clinton fired his gun, no one died from it and it did not de-stabilize
parts of the world no did it empower the enemy.

I think fox news amplifies the problem, for example, during the high gas
prices, Bill Frist talked about sending each american X amount of money but
on fox, they chose some obscure statement by a dem, dems were not even in
control at the time, to analyze and of course, the conclusion was, dems are
so messed up.

I am registered as independent and do not see the issues as dem and repub
but shrub continues to draw those lines, as does dicky-do, so it is hard to
avoid that in a discussion.

Not only do we have a WH in denial about Iraq and al-queda and afghanistan,
Rush, a drug addict and homosexual, is the hero of the conservatives as
well. It came out from his first divorce that he is gay but his lawyers
quickly moved to have those records sealed.

The owner (paul crouch) of the largest christian broadcasting station in the
US, TBN, paid some $400,000 to a guy he had an affar with several years ago.
The deal was the guy was to remain silent, which he did not. Paul Crouch
later confirmed on TBN that the money was paid to this guy but denied having
an affair.

So, the world for the right is, support paul crouch, shrub is doing a
fantastic job, listen to rush, etc. You do not have to tell me about
bizaare, we got plenty in this country. Meanwhile, Iran gains influence in
the middle east, Afghanistan supplies most of the world with heroine
(started after shrub sent troops there), al-queda uses the drug money to
fund operations, and man, do they sound beaten (not), Haliburton gets rich,
oil companies get rich, saudi arabia continues to spread their brand of
islam, etc., etc.

-g
Neill
2007-02-04 09:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Nope, I had no problem with Bush senior, or Reagen but during the 90's,
pre-fox news, some of the repubs would say how they want integrity restored
to the Whitehouse. Was integrity restored? I don't think so and at least
when clinton fired his gun, no one died from it and it did not
de-stabilize
Post by geoff
parts of the world no did it empower the enemy.
I think fox news amplifies the problem, for example, during the high gas
prices, Bill Frist talked about sending each american X amount of money but
on fox, they chose some obscure statement by a dem, dems were not even in
control at the time, to analyze and of course, the conclusion was, dems are
so messed up.
I am registered as independent and do not see the issues as dem and repub
but shrub continues to draw those lines, as does dicky-do, so it is hard to
avoid that in a discussion.
Err, no it's not, any more than it's easy to avoid making racist or sexist
statements. But, you're right, for some people. Doesn't make it right.
Post by geoff
Not only do we have a WH in denial about Iraq and al-queda and
afghanistan,
Post by geoff
Rush, a drug addict and homosexual, is the hero of the conservatives as
well. It came out from his first divorce that he is gay but his lawyers
quickly moved to have those records sealed.
And Bush is gay, too, right? Even if either were true, what difference does
it make, other than the left would be hyper critical for making it an issue,
are you?
Post by geoff
The owner (paul crouch) of the largest christian broadcasting station in the
US, TBN, paid some $400,000 to a guy he had an affar with several years ago.
The deal was the guy was to remain silent, which he did not. Paul Crouch
later confirmed on TBN that the money was paid to this guy but denied having
an affair.
This is true, and a real issue for organized religion, not only in this
country. You could summize corruption and sexual immorality follow power and
money, but I wouldn't know about either :)
Post by geoff
So, the world for the right is, support paul crouch, shrub is doing a
fantastic job, listen to rush, etc. You do not have to tell me about
bizaare, we got plenty in this country. Meanwhile, Iran gains influence in
the middle east, Afghanistan supplies most of the world with heroine
(started after shrub sent troops there), al-queda uses the drug money to
fund operations, and man, do they sound beaten (not), Haliburton gets rich,
oil companies get rich, saudi arabia continues to spread their brand of
islam, etc., etc.
What's your point, these issues have been and will continue to be the case
regardless of any US policy. So if you want to make the point Bush failed in
his policy, go ahead. His ambition was to win elections, which he
accomplished quite well. And the taxpayers will be paying his pension for
some time. It's difficult to argue with success.
Post by geoff
-g
geoff
2007-02-04 23:27:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neill
What's your point, these issues have been and will continue to be the case
regardless of any US policy.
Really? Always been an issue? I was unaware of any other time where we
empowered our enemies so much or after an invasion of a country, it becoming
the heroin capital of the world, funding our enemies.

There used to be a time without rush, tbn, etc. It was not always an issue.

-g
Neill
2007-02-05 15:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Neill
What's your point, these issues have been and will continue to be the case
regardless of any US policy.
Really? Always been an issue? I was unaware of any other time where we
empowered our enemies so much or after an invasion of a country, it becoming
the heroin capital of the world, funding our enemies.
There used to be a time without rush, tbn, etc. It was not always an issue.
-g
The drug trade has been around for thousands of years. Why do you think Bush
is empowering anyone. unless you also believe the US got what it deserved on
9/11?

Apparently, you are on the side of American's enemies.
geoff
2007-02-05 18:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neill
The drug trade has been around for thousands of years.
The golden triangle use to be the largest supplier of heroin to the world.
That changed *AFTER* shrub went into Afghanistan. Not only did Afghanistan
become the largest supplier of heroin to the world but they are doing it at
record levels with each year beating the previous year.

I should remind you that Iraq gets 90% of any money allocated for the "war
on terror" even though the attack came from Afghanistan.

Shrub neglected Afghanistan in favor of Iaq and we are seeing the results of
it. A well funded al-queda and a healthy heroin trade.

-g
Handy Hugo
2007-02-05 23:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Neill
The drug trade has been around for thousands of years.
The golden triangle use to be the largest supplier of heroin to the world.
That changed *AFTER* shrub went into Afghanistan. Not only did Afghanistan
become the largest supplier of heroin to the world but they are doing it at
record levels with each year beating the previous year.
I should remind you that Iraq gets 90% of any money allocated for the "war
on terror" even though the attack came from Afghanistan.
Shrub neglected Afghanistan in favor of Iaq and we are seeing the results of
it. A well funded al-queda and a healthy heroin trade.
-g
If you softies would allow us to legalize it, we could then let American
companies take it over so we could tax it...

HH
Neill
2007-02-06 00:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Neill
The drug trade has been around for thousands of years.
The golden triangle use to be the largest supplier of heroin to the world.
That changed *AFTER* shrub went into Afghanistan. Not only did Afghanistan
become the largest supplier of heroin to the world but they are doing it at
record levels with each year beating the previous year.
I should remind you that Iraq gets 90% of any money allocated for the "war
on terror" even though the attack came from Afghanistan.
Shrub neglected Afghanistan in favor of Iaq and we are seeing the results of
it. A well funded al-queda and a healthy heroin trade.
-g
Are you arguing we shouldn't have overthrown the taliban in afghanistan?
They're no longer in power, so I don't see your point.

Are you arguing we shouldn't have overthrown Saddam. The world is still
better off with one less dictator in office., and I still don't follow your
logic
geoff
2007-02-06 02:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neill
Are you arguing we shouldn't have overthrown Saddam.
You got it. BINGO!

Maybe the world would be better off without sadam but we were attacked by a
group in Afghanistan. Want to send a message to all terrorists? Kill all
al-queda.

Instead, by losing focus, we have a stronger al-queda, a less stable middle
east, a healthy, record level, drug trade in Afghanistan, the taliban, etc.

After al-queda is dead, take out sadam if need be.

-g

Handy Hugo
2007-02-03 00:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Imperialist Watch
- Capitol Hill Blue - http://www.capitolhillblue.com/wp -
Bush’s plan to destroy America
By DOUG THOMPSON
The absolute and unrelenting takeover of the government of the United
States by a despot named George W. Bush continues - right under the
noses of the new Democratic leadership of Congress and in outright
defiance of the wishes of the American voters who sent a clear mandate
for change in last year’s elections.
Bush recently made more moves to consolidate power in the executive
branch, signing an order that requires key government agencies to place
his political appointees in positions to control policy on health,
environmental issues, civil rights and privacy.
These political hacks, appointed without review or approval of Congress,
can now “interpret” the laws as they - or their President - see fit
without regulatory oversight or a requirement to report to anyone.
Even worse, my White House sources tell me that Bush is putting into
place a carefully-crafted plan to extend his power and influence over
government policy long after he leaves office on January 20, 2009.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, at Bush’s direction, is advising
cabinet secretaries to convert these political appointees to Senior
Executive Service (SES) positions before Bush’s second term ends, giving
hand-picked policy makers absolute authority even after the President
leaves office.
SES positions are protected by federal civil service, so the policy
makers could not be replaced by an incoming President - Democrat or
Republican — who follows Bush.
My sources tell me Bush plans to place conservative zealots throughout
federal agencies, give them authority to control policy for as long as
they hold their jobs, and then convert those appointees to civil service
positions that will continue to enforce his wishes for years to come.
Far-fetched? Not at all. Cabinet secretaries have long had the power to
convert some key appointees to SES positions although - until Bush
signed his executive order granting broad policy making powers to such
appointees - they did not have the ability to continue a President’s
programs long after he leaves office.
Bush is still hoping for at least one more vacancy on the Supreme Court
before his second term ends, giving him a chance to control judicial
rulings well into the next decade.
Such is the pattern of a man determined to control all phases of
government without any checks and balances.
“The White House has been gaming the system for six years,” says
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and an
acknowledged national expert on Constitutional law. “He has shut down
Congress and slowed down the courts.”
Some hoped the Democratic takeover of Congress would stop Bush’s power
grabs but he continues and the overly-cautious and gun shy leadership on
Capitol Hill appears powerless to stop him.
While they consider “non-binding” resolutions on withdrawing troops from
Iraq, Democratic leaders of Congress have asked for a “legal
interpretation” on what power, if any, it has to stop Bush.
And who did it ask for this “interpretation?” The Attorney General of
the United States, Alberto Gonzales, a Bush appointee who believes the
President’s power is absolute and the one crafting the program to extend
that power and influence far beyond his Constitutionally-limited two
terms in office.
“If you listen to the president and some Democratic leaders, Congress
can do little to stop the hemorrhaging of lives in Iraq,” Turley says.
The truth is that there is a lot that Congress could do. Among other
things, it could stop the war. But neither the president nor many
Democrats want to publicly entertain such a possibility. Indeed, the
president has insisted, again, that he alone makes such decisions. When
asked about what Congress can do if it opposes his build-up, Bush was
dismissive and said, “Frankly, that’s not their responsibility.” Of
course, the president acknowledged, “They could try to stop me from
doing it…but I made my decision, and we’re going forward.”
Democratic leaders seem to be encouraging the same view of an unchecked
executive. The new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and other members suggested last week that it
may be unconstitutional for Congress to cut funds for an escalation.
All of this would have come as a great surprise to the framers. Far from
being some type of constitutional eunuchs, legislators hold the very
power that determines whether a war will continue, expand or end: the
power of the purse. The framers specifically justified this
congressional power as a check on the president’s ability to entangle
the nation in disastrous foreign adventures.
But the Democrats, to date, seem too politically timid to make the hard
decisions to curb the reign of terror by Bush and his legions. They
tiptoe around problems that demand quick and firm actions.
While they keep talking and debating and holding hearings and
considering “non-binding” resolutions, Bush consolidates his power base
and expands his unchecked authority.
The Democrats may have fiddled too long already. It may be too late. For
six years, George W. Bush has worked diligently to dismantle the
Constitution, rip away the freedoms that provided the foundation for
this country and destroy a once-great nation called the United States of
America.
And, unlike his war in Iraq or his many other failed programs, this may
be the one mission he might actually accomplish.
--
"We are creating enemies faster than we can kill them"
- bumper sticker in Washington DC
America will lose another war ...just like Vietnam. I am willing to add
more troops but I think it will fail. We have been screwed.

HH
Loading...