Wednesday, December 21, 2005

The consequences of Not Impeaching bush

mr bush Has set a dangerous precedent. He has said clearly that he has absolute power in this country. He can do whatever he wants with impunity. Sure, he's out in a couple of years anyways - or is he? If he decides he can break the law and undermine the constitution as he sees fit, why should he leave? Why relinquish his power or at least the power of his presidency? Even if he were to go peaceably what is to keep his predecessor from taking even worse totalitarian stances. We just bottomed the slippery slope and went off the cliff. If this maniac is not removed from office the damage he has done to our already tenuous democracy will be irreparable.

A false sense or even a real sense of security is just not worth it. Even if we really were more secure because of these draconian, fascist measures it would not be worth it. Hundreds of thousands have given their lives so that we might have these freedoms that this son of a bitch is pissing away. And the truth is we are not a modicum more secure because of it. When will people wake up and understand that with every illicit act, with every divisive stance this regime takes, the fucking terrorists are winning. They want us afraid, they want us to change - that's the point. Every freedom we let this regime take from us is another point for them. bush Is their kind of people. He's a fundamentalist that absolutely thinks he is right and that frees him to do anything he sees fit - so does Osama, so did Saddam, so did Hitler - need I continue? There is no difference between them - they think they have the authority, God given in the case of all but Saddam.

And that is the crux. bush Thinks his authority comes from God not his constituents so he doesn't need to heed the will of the people. If he isn't stopped he will destroy America and much of this planet with it. . .

16 comments:

Beth said...

You act as if President Bush is the first president to allow such actions.

DuWayne Brayton said...

He is since Nixon. . .

DuWayne Brayton said...

If your refering to the presidential orders from Clinton, Carter, Reagon that are floating around the net,they all are clear that they work within the framwork of the FISA laws which allow taps and searches without warrents for communications outside the US. This country is sacrosinct since the abuses of the Nixon Administration caused those laws to be enacted. We will cetainly learn a lot more after the bipartisan commission investigates. I honestly don't understand how you can think it's ok for the prez to trash our constitution. Do you really think so little of what this country stands for? We are talking about our country spying on us without any of the safeguards provided by secret courts and our legislature.

Beth said...

DuWayne, you think the terrorists are winning because they are changing the way we live in America. They don't care about that, they want us DEAD.

What do you think about going through metal detectors at airports and having your baggage x-rayed? Sometimes we compromise civil liberties for the sake of prevention. Innocent until proven guilty? Ha! Would you board a plane where all passengers were not put through security??

We are at war, DuWayne. During WWII, Americans realized that civil liberties sometimes needed to take a back seat during a time of war. I don't like it, but I also don't like extremists plotting against Americans.

DuWayne Brayton said...

Airport security has, for many years had the right to do the searches they do now they just wern't required to in every circumstance. When the terrorists have succeeded in us relinquishing all of our civil rights for the duration of this amorphous "war on terror" that will be neverending they have indeed won. Teh "war on terror" is not a real war any more than the "war on drugs" is. They are both rhetorical wars. They do not give the president the right to steal all of our civil liberties. The war on drugs is decades old - we didn't allow our government to take away our civil liberties for that. For that matter the Republican'ts didn't let Clinton take away our civil liberties when he proposed anti-terror legislation (a move I applauded) so why are we so willing to give up what makes us Americans? Our bill of rights is the basic stronghold of what America is - we cannot allow it to be taken from us or the terrorists have indeed won. When they take that away from us, when they turn us into a fascist, totalitarian state such as bush envisions - yes they have won. If this lunatic in the oval office isn't removed - yes they have won. And any American who would say, "go ahead take away my rights" not only doesn't deserve those rights, they are pissing on the graves of the men and women who gave their lives for our liberties. . .

Beth said...

DuWayne, do you really think it is President Bush's intention to simply intrude in Americans lives, and that he does not care about our safety?

You and I may disagree as to his methods, but I truly believe the President has honorable intentions.

DuWayne Brayton said...

I do not believe that the presidents intentions are honerable. Even if they are - even if he only wants to protect Americans - he is trying to take on irrivocable powers that would turn the presidency into a position of totalitarian role. He is going around every check and balance provided by our constitution. This is not something we cabn just take back. When we lose these liberties they are gone. We might as well disband congress and the courts - he has gone around them and if he is not removed from office for it we are saying it's ok to do so.

Beth said...

What possible motivation, besides national security, could the President have?

Why can you not think that these are temporary measures while fighting the war on terror?

This war is not like the war on drugs. There are actual battles that need to be fought. There are sacrifices made during wars. I would think while our troops are fighting for our liberties, they'd like to see every effort made to prevent any attacks, foreign or domestic. We owe it to them to make sacrifices on their behalf, not make their job all the more difficult.

DuWayne Brayton said...

Blind, power-greed. After 9/11 we had a huge international consensus to fight a global war on terror. We had traditional enemies will to work with us. Then bush allowed the Project for a new American Century to take over and we went to war in Iraq. This regime was looking for an excuse and they manipulated intelligence to make one. Then they alienated a massive international consensus outraged at teh attacks on our nation and invaded Iraq. In Iraq they have created a breeding ground for terror and have not made us any safer.

These people believe that international cooperation is a quaint idea. They believe America should run the planet. The policies of this administration and it's globalization have not only hurt our economy they are creating a whole new run of terrorists in South and Central America. They spy on us like they have a right to do it. These fucking people are putting our safety, our economy, our freedoms down the shitter and don't care because they are the haves and the growing number of have nots is good for them because it's less competition. They are like the mad scientists in old movies who are plotting to take over the world only they are doing it.

They can't keep us safe in disasters. What fucking difference do you think there will be if we sustain a terrorist attack - say nukes in a major city? There will be no difference than what happened in New Orleans -that city and it's people will be lost.

DuWayne Brayton said...

How can we take back these measures? How do we demand back our freedoms and liberties? How do we know whats going on when the administration controls more and more media?

And this bloody well is just like the war on drugs. There are battles still being fought in that and more importantly the parameters of the declarations were exactly the same. They were not declarations of war on a viable entity (i.e. a nation) they were declarations of war on a concept. The world has been dealing with terrorism for over a thousand years. As long as there is percieved injustice in the world and fundamentalists - there will be terrorists. . .Do we then demand our rights back in another thousand years or so?

Beth said...

Most of what you write has no evidential basis or is speculation. Innocent until proven guilty is another tenent of our country. Aside from the wiretapping "accusations" you have made to which the President has admitted to, you have no evidence of the things you write. The survellience President Bush admits to, by the way, he has been given the power through Congress and as such is working within his legal rights to do so to protect American lives.

Beth said...

Anyway, DuWayne, I am curious what in fact would be your plan to fight terrorism, or would you only care to plan for the disaster after it happens again?

DuWayne Brayton said...

Innocent until proven guilty left with the patriot act and I am not a court. Congress did not authorize the president to do this. Only 14 in congress knew about it, they could go to prison if they talked about it, some of them objected and all of them questioned it.

Read the project for the new american century, then look at the people who signed it. And if your bloody well going to make me present evidence your going to have to wait. I don't like spending tedious time inserting links and going back through things I have read to find them. But you can google the "Project for a New American Century," read it and look at who signed it. Just think about this, they made no secret of their desire to fuck us any way they could. . .

And as for the bush regime alienating the international community that was very supportive after 9/11 there is plenty of evidence on that. The way this fucking moron ran roughshod over the UN instead of letting a little better intelligence be gathered to prove his accusations against Saddam, which turned out to be false. The reason he pushed hard and fast at the UN was likely because he knew he couldn't make a case for it so he wanted to use that solidarity - only the UN didn't bite. Even befor that he was using domestic wire tapping without a warrent. The only possible reason he could have is that he couldn't (the justice department couldn't) make a case to justify the warrents. The FISA court has autherized all but 5 of the warrents requested since their inception in 1978. Unless he was breaking the law there is no reason they shouldn't get warrents and a growing consensus of judges, lawyers, and constitutional scholars are speaking very harshly and in terms of impeachment - so are many republicant' lawmakers.

Beth said...

I have only heard impeachment talked about from the left. It won't happen. The GOP may be calling for hearings, that does not equate to impeachment.

I do regre the loss of international support after 9-11, but some of the players motivations for keeping Saddam in power are suspect as well. International intelligence om Iraq was supporting the same claims ours were, so I am not sure how you can pin that all on our President.

It has been a while since I read up on PNAC, when I have a chance I will look it up again, but I do not recall the topic of wiretaps coming up there. I'll get back to you on that.

I notice you have no alternative plan for terrorism, so I am guessing you'd rather put resources in responders to disasters instead of preventative measures. Weren't you ever taught an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure?

DuWayne Brayton said...

The intelligence of Britain and Israel was the only international intelligence supporting ours and no matter how questionable a few countries motives were the bush regime wanted intelligence to that paved the way to war so thats what they got. I've heard that from militry, intelligence and Colin Powells chief of staff in a variety of interviews and press conferences.

My point is that the bush regime ignored pressure from everyone who had been supportive of our efforts against terror, told them they were irrelavent and invaded Iraq with minimal international support. He well should have waited for inspections to wrap up and learned that There were no WMDs. But according to the PNAC they want a base in the mid-east and Iraq was ther place to go - look at the signatories of PNAC - then look at the folks talking about war in Iraq before 9/11 and pushing it the hardest after.

First thing I would have done to make Americans safer after 9/11 would have been to use that huge international consensus - that included traditional enemies - and built an intelligence network the likes of which this planet has never seen - and thnks to buhsy, probably never will.

I would have focused on Al Queda and tracking down Bin Laden. While developing a a number of strike forces to go after targets such as training camps - others to raid various urban settings while absolutely minimizing collateral damage - I realize it is impossible to prevent it completely bu the people in such a force should be risking their lives above innoccent lives if we can call any warlike behaviour ethical.

I would also explore reasons people committ terrorist acts, what makes a terrorist. Because if we truly want to end terrorism we need to adress what makes a terrorist. I am not talking about the "leaders" but those who are so discontent they would sacrifice themselves to fight so savage a cause. We will never be able to address all the issues that make terrorists but we can address many. If a young person has a job and a future he is not very likely to strap a bomb to his chest to make a point. The ringleaders feed on dislocated young people. If we were to push for policies that would increase jobs growth and social change we would dramaticly limit the "pool" that the terror leaders have to work with.

And lastly I would make sure this country had the best fucking disaster response in the world. I would make sure that if a natural disaster or God forbid a terror attack managed to get through (which is still a possibility, the bush regime reminds us of that often enough)we would be able to minimize death and destruction.

What I would not do is break the law. I would not try to tap mass data streams. I would make sure that the laws effected to fight terror that might infringe on civil liberties were set for experation and renewed as necc. rather than try to make such measures permanent. I would follow the constitution because whatever modicum of safety I might believe could come from ignoreing it is not worth the destruction of the American way.

Beth said...

You make some fine points, my friend. Fine points.

What is done, is done, however, and so now we must pray that the outcome of the war in Iraq is a positive one, I do in fact think there are good things happening there that get lost in the reporting of the bad.

This Christmas and New Year, let's continue to pray for peace.