Given the lengths to which Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf and Russian President Vladimir Putin seem willing to go to hang onto power, it was only a matter of time before somebody raised the issue to President Bush. Asked about Putin’s gambit to become prime minister next year, Bush said, “I’ve been planning that myself.” Hey, at least then he wouldn’t be saddling his successor with the Iraq war, which he says needs another $46 billion.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- minutelady on Open thread 11/24
- minutelady on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on It’s the stupidity about the economy
38 Comments
Yep, Bush needs to stay on top of his investments.
I don’t believe for a minute that 9/11 was a Bush/Cheney conspiracy. But I can understand why some people might think so.
After the SCOTUS coup d’etat of December, 2000, and especially after George WMD Bush governed as if he’d been swept into office by a landslide; after the outing of Valarie Plame, the virtual repeal of the Bill of Rights, the unilateral unprovoked war against Iraq… I’m not quite ready to think there’s any crime against democracy the George WMD Bush administration is capable of.
A month or two before the 2008 election, an airliner crashes into, say, the Statue of Liberty… it’s not out of the realm of possibility that Shrub would declare a state of emergency and call off elections “in the interest of national security.”
A second 9/11 could well be America’s Reichstag Fire. As the recent actions of General Sanchez reveals, our military is highly respectful of the the office of the presidency, even when they know the Oval Office’s policies are wrong.
Ben Franklin walked out of the Constitutional Convention and told a lady they’d created “…a republic, if you can keep it.”
Our republic has always been fragile. And it has never been in greater peril than during the presidency of George WMD Bush.
So if it happened, the only question would be when will the fighting start? Oh he has the power or at least would claim he does something about as a “war President” he can suspend the elections till the end of the war. And since he is the only one that can declare the war over since Congress did not declare war he did.And with the cowards of Congress and yes the Democrats and Republicans are cowards in that the cry is that they do not have the magic number of 60 to pass any measure to stop the Bush agenda. Since it would take a majority, then is it not true that it also takes a majority to NOT vote for the Bush agenda?
If they really wanted to end the Iraq Military actions, they could simple not vote to fund it any more?
Since everyone and I have yet to hear one person say that it the military action that will bring about success. But it is a political solution is needed, if the occupation is no longer funded. What would be left but a political solution! But no one has the guts to stop it because if it went bad then the Democrats would be blamed. Of course it only stands to reason that if it worked out well they would get the credit.
Iraq is once again a souvenir nation or so it is said. Al-Qaeda if in deed ever really was a threat to Iraq has been declared whipped in Iraq. That said that only leaves the Iraqis to be fighting in Iraq, remember those people we are to there to liberate.
But remember…. We only have to put up with Bush till 09. BUT then is that after all just wishful thinking?
Another 46 billion? Is this good money thrown after bad? And how much of this 46 billion will actually go to the soldiers and how much will go the hand-selected ‘contractors’?
Iraq is a mess and is getting messier with each passing month. When will we see real moral leadership? I dare say not until the next president, and even then I am not betting the house on it.
There are too many fat cats getting fatter off this Iraq War – in both parties.
We must spend the 46 bil. to honor/protect the hundreds of billions we’ve already poured down that sink hole!
Dawg,”But no one has the guts to stop it because if it went bad then the Democrats would be blamed. Of course it only stands to reason that if it worked out well they would get the credit.”
The problem with that is that anything that might actually work in Iraq cannot possibly work in the next five years, which is the Dems absolute political necessity. Our system can only utilize solutions that work, or can at least be shown to be working before the next election.
I put the odds that george will leave office in 2009 at…
50/50
Which brings me to ask my con “friends”:
Would you accept this? If bush tried…something… to remain in office another term would you be ok with that? Or would it finally be enough?
When a sitting President uses words like “World War III, there is something to worry about. Never has a sitting president used such a term. $46 billion? Thats only a tenth of what we have spent so far. Why not cut off funding? Because there is enough spines in all of Washington for that to succeed. They cannot override a presidential veto on a time table. Let alone cutting off funding all together. Lets be sensible people. The dems only control congress by a few votes. Not enough votes to stop this president and his merry band of idiots. So the beat will go on….the pres will get his money and our kids will pay the tab soon enough. To hell with the Bush legacy, what about ours? How are you planning to look your children in the eye and tell them that this was in the best interest of the country.
When Ghouliani tried this, NYC didn’t go for it.
If Bush tries to stay in office by pronouncement, the media *may* go along, but I doubt the Joint Chiefs will. They hate his miserable, sorry, failed ass.
I’d like to modify my earlier question.
cons?
Is there ANY circumstance under which you would accept george bush remaining in office beyond his present term? If so, please give examples where you would feel this justified.
He’d have to make them believe he was their “protector”, then they would accept anything to feel like papa was making them safe. Another 9/11 would certainly do it.
Paranoid freaks.
You have to question the intelligence of any candidate that would willingly step into the shit pile that bush is leaving.
“I put the odds that george will leave office in 2009 at… 50/50″
You’re kidding, right, JR? Or are there levels of paranoia yet unexplored; do we need to fit you too for a tin hat?
Bush will step down in 2009, just as his predecessors did. The republic will toddle along. And no, there is no justification that I can imagine that would justify any other outcome.
Frankly, aside from a few paranoid delusional nuts, no one is suggesting otherwise.
Besides, I though we were doing another pointless boycott?
I agree; the next president will have the hardest job of any other president with the possible exception of Lincoln or FDR. IMHO
JR,
take off the tin foil hat. Never happen..
You could have confined yourself to answering the question there GMC.
I SUSPECT there are others who will answer otherwise. If they are honest that is.
BG,
Oh, really? How about this resolution from 2005, co-sponsored by James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) AND Steny Hoyer (D-MD), which would repeal the 22nd Amendment?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:
I’ll take being suspicious over being credulous, thanks.
Is there ANY circumstance under which you would accept george bush remaining in office beyond his present term? If so, please give examples where you would feel this justified.
Posted by: J R | October 22, 2007 at 02:55 PM
To prevent the Socialist, “Her Royal Thighness” Clinton from taking office. :)
ME TOO CF me too.
JR,
Indeed. Anything more incongruous than these big strong Repubican “men” acting like a bunch of scared little girls clutching their dolls at the prospect of big mean terrorists coming to kill them in their beds?
Repubicans hate freedom because they can’t handle it. Judging by their submission to King George, they can’t give it away fast enough.
Suspicious not,, paranoid yes.. gee a resolution.. how many stupid no nonsence resolutions can we come up with. I asume we can find allot better then that one. I could probaly find one banning the constitution. their not worth the paper they are printed on..
Repealing the 22nd amendment is an interesting idea, but it has nothing to do with Bush staying in office. Your question, JR, presumes an extraconstitutional extension of office, not a change in the law.
And as to “just answering the question,” JR, why? What fun is that? Does your question not delve in to the conspiracy theory, tin-foil hat territory? Hell, it doesn’t just delve there, it lives there!
Of course, this is from a poster who once advocated manning the barricades, firearms at the ready, for the “coming revolution.”
Yea, there’s more than a little paranoia there. Add more than a little narcissism, and you’ve got JR pegged about right.
And you can be “suspicious” all you like, CF, but we both know there is no political will to repeal the FDR memorial amendment. Surely you have matters of more substance to worry about.
Your attempts at verbal barb aside GMC..
This particular executive HAS shown a propensity to be very cavalier with the limits of his office. That he has joked about abridging the 22nd Amendment more than once is not reassuring.
Hell, JR, ALL presidents have stretched the limits of their authority; it is the nature of the office, and of the persons who tend to hold it. The Founders expected as much, which is why they built in other institutional actors to check same.
But it’s not new; it’s how we got here. FDR, Truman, Lincoln, among others, did things which would make Bush blush (and no, I’m not attempting to compare Bush’s legacy with theirs – so don’t bother to go there). Bush has nibbled at the edges, as have nearly all presidents. And other institutions push back; we have wobbled back and forth from a “strong” presidency to a “weak” one over the last 200+ years.
And so it goes. There is nothing really new under the sun.
The Republic is much more resiliant than you give it credit for. And the one thing that all of us, across the board, whatever our ideological inclinations, would condemn is such an extraconstitutional grab of power.
Actually Bush Sr could run again.
He only served one term.
Get ready neo cons. Its gonna happen. Doesn’t matter who you run out there. The dem is going to crush the repuke. Keep on dreaming about the days of Bushco I and II. This country will never forget what damage Bushco II did. We won’t forget that we were lied to, cheated, and otherwise suckered into believing their bs. You people lack the most basic credibility. Not only did GW destroy our credibility around the world, he destroyed his parties credibility at home. Call her whatever you like….Hillary and Bill will reside on Penn. Ave again soon enough. That makes me chuckle. Because I know the distain you have for her. The shoe is soon to be on the other foot.
Jr. has killed any future Bush political careers, just ask Jeb.
She will surely appreciate the expansion in Presidential power that GW has given the office. Then it will be a problem right? Its ok if your guy is in office, but don’t let someone else do the same. Typically hypocrisy that drowns out any good message that the right may come up with.
We accuse the Iraqis of not being able to stand up for themselves, of thinking they are so backward as to not being able push comes to shove of governing themselves. Watching the D. PM. today it struck me that this guy is well spoken and a thinking man. Such men can and would do well if given the chance, he not Rice is actively working to avoid a crisis with Turkey, while we are asking the Turks to pretty please not screw up our good thing. The D.PM is talking with the Turks and the regional government of the Kurds to come to an agreement. My point is we need to stop thinking it is the United States will solve the problems in Iraq. It is not our country, it is the Iraqis country and sometimes we tend to forget that. It was the Sunnis that stopped the threat by Al-Qaeda not the U.S. We were stumbling around in our attempt to fight the terrorists. We could not even tell the terrorists from the Iraqis, but you can bet a dollar that the Iraqis could and did.
We forestall them from hashing out their differences because we fear what a civil war would do to our image. Yet in doing so everyday the news report that more innocents are killed by our air strikes and the like. And you think our media is enjoying reporting such losses, the news media in the middle east is doing 24/7 reporting of every time a dog is killed in Iraq while we are there! And like many of the reasons given for us even being there. No one actually knows what will happen when we do leave and we have to leave. To stay in force and a real controlling presents there will only feed into the danger we already face.
We need to prove the enemy wrong, it is foolish to think what the rest of the world thinks does not matter.Right or wrong we are not alone and nor at this point does what we say make a difference. It now is what we do that matters.
It is Interesting that no Conservatives are willing to step up to the typewriter and say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ as to whether they would support a postponement of the Presidential Election by GWBush under any hypothetical circumstances, and what if any those circumstances would be
Haaretz Last update – 10:31 22/10/2007
“Walking a nuclear tightrope”
“By Yossi Melman”
“Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week in Tehran that he supports Iran’s nuclear program. He added that he is interested in a strong Iran and signed an arms deal to provide jet engines for Iran’s state-of-the-art combat plane. But Putin also refused to commit himself to a date when Russia will supply enriched uranium for the nuclear-powered electricity plant it is building in Iran’s port city of Bushehr. Confusing? Definitely.
This confusion is exactly what allows Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s associates, who are experts at spin, to disseminate the claim – as they did over the weekend – that it was the prime minister who convinced Putin not to send Iran the first delivery of enriched uranium the reactor needs to be started. Even Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman (and we can wonder why he was not invited to join the trip) hinted that Israel was involved in the matter. That is utter nonsense, of course.
Russia under Putin does not change its views so quickly. Certainly not because of Israel. Russia has a clear and consistent foreign policy. It was consolidated over the past four years in light of the sharp rise in energy prices, which turned Russia into a rich country, and thanks to Putin’s leadership, which seeks to challenge the United States and restore Russia’s former glory.
Putin is not trying to restore relations with the U.S. and the West to the days of the Cold War, but neither is he willing to waive Russia’s wishes and interests in favor of the West’s. The complexity characterizing Putin’s foreign policy is causing the messages emerging from Moscow on Iran to sound ambiguous and confusing. Russia does not want its Shi’ite Muslim neighbor to have nuclear weapons, but it also sees Iran as an important market for the sale of arms and nuclear power plants for producing electricity. As far as Russia is concerned, Iran has been a target of diplomatic influence throughout history.
Above all, Russia is opposed to solving the crisis of the Iranian nuclear program by military means. It believes the Iranian leaders can still be convinced to postpone, at least for a while, the realization of their right to enrich uranium by themselves on a low level for civilian needs. That means Putin will not agree, at least not publicly, neither by silence nor by a wink, to an American military attack against Iran, not to mention an Israeli one.
For several years the European Union countries, backed by the Bush administration, tried to formulate a “carrot-and-stick” policy toward Iran. They offered it benefits and diplomatic, economic and technological incentives, including nuclear ones, if it would agree to stop enriching uranium. This approach worked for a year and a half during the term of the previous president, Mohammed Khatami. But in 2005 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president and reshuffled the deck.
In his approach to Iran, Putin is actually improving on the European carrot-and-stick method. When it comes to Israeli and international demands, if there is a chance Iran will listen to anyone, it will listen to Moscow. Russia’s message to Iran is: You have a right to enrich uranium for civilian needs, but you don’t have to do it now. Russia supports you, but you are liable to lose our support if you are too stubborn.
For Russian diplomacy to be effective, it is accompanied by a double game and ambiguous statements. Russia joined the sanctions imposed on Iran by the UN Security Council, but for the time being opposes additional sanctions. All these steps were meant to preserve Russia’s deterrent power against Iran. This is a policy of walking a tightrope, which is like riding a wild horse. Though there is a chance the rider will succeed in restraining the horse, he is also liable to lose the reins, and with them, control.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/915305.html—–
It is Interesting that no Conservatives are willing to step up to the typewriter and say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ as to whether they would support a postponement of the Presidential Election by GWBush under any hypothetical circumstances, and what if any those circumstances would be
Posted by: brian | October 22, 2007 at 05:57 PM
I only post here occassionally any more. too much bullshit. Like the above. I’ll take that bet sonny, and raise you five. Bush tries to get an extra term by decalration, I’ll be there, organizing resistance. THere’s all kinds of resistance. Care to join me, or just want sit on the sidelines and swipe and others? I”lltake a pledge from you right now that you will aid in any resistance necessary to stop such an atrocity!Back it sonny, or go home and quick complaining about others. Of course, it’s just pablum anyway, but everybody here knows that such circumstances are just plain conspiracy bs. I heard the same crap went Clinton was office. Poor whiny babies. Pathetic
Whoa you might wanna dial it back a littlejohn.
What is the topic of this thread? bush made a “funny” about not leaving office. It is not the first time.
I asked a question along the lines of that topic. Brian just basically re asked it. No need to go volcanic about it.
Hey I’m glad to hear your answer is what it is. And I thank you for it. You and GMC restore a bit of my faith.
But you and me and a chimpanzee know that there are folks who would not even NOTICE if bush did such a thing. No small supply of them either. And there’s undoubtedly more than a few who would have no problem with it if they DID know.
I don’t expect any of the two other groups I mention to weigh in here. I’m glad you did.
Chill
I’ll tone it down. In fact, I will just drop it. But I meant what I said. about resistance. and about those (on both sides) that at every opportunity, sit back and throw bs, and will not get off their ass and do something constructive.
Hey if I wasn’t up for fighting such an event why would I ask the question?
You’re right to be angry. I bet half the population wouldn’t even notice. That is unless the announcement interrupted American Idol.
You’re right to be angry. I bet half the population wouldn’t even notice. That is unless the announcement interrupted American Idol.
Posted by: J R | October 22, 2007 at 08:20 PM
As usual J R, you give yourself too much credit and the American Public too little credit.
How about expanding the 22nd amendment to include all congressional seats. That is an idea whose time has come.
I think there is a very real possibility that Bush will stay in office. There are any number of unfolding events that could lead up to him delcaring himself a “unitary executive”, new name for dictator. He has signed several Executive Orders, and an amendment to the Insurrection Act, back in Feburary of 2007(which the media failed to reveal). I’m wondering why he would even leave office after having assinged to himself so much authority and power.