George W. Bush, RESIGN NOW PLEASE!

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Since there seems to be such an outcry and inignant response from so many regarding John Kerry's comments - to the point of asking for his resignation - I thought it in the spirit of Wayne's eternal Clinton comparisons to present these two Bush quotes. If you are concerned about how Kerry has demeaned the troops, and Americans, then I assume you would also be concerned about these two quotes from the person responsible for the troops being where they have been and are now. Kerry resign? How about Bush? Seriously, which is worse - Bush, the "leader" of the troops, or Kerry, an eternally dismissed (by both sides) Senator?

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," Bush joked. "Nope, no weapons over there ... maybe under here?"
 

danmurphy jr

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 14, 2004
2,966
5
0
Does anyone on the planet realize that there are only 2 ways Bush and Cheney can leave office. Either dead or in handcuffs. Everything else(Bush-Ford) is interim. Rumsfeld is a cabinet appointee.
 

Dead Money

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 15, 2005
4,350
64
0
Upstairs watching sports on the big TV.
Why resign? He has set future presidents to be potential Despots...

Why resign? He has set future presidents to be potential Despots...

Home
Sign Up


Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
Written by Frank Morales
Thursday, 26 October 2006
In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."

Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."

For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.

The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.

An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." The report points out that "KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."

Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.

Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently, it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.

Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors."

Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."

A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."

Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."

The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.

The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders."

In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)

It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
"Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," Bush joked. "Nope, no weapons over there ... maybe under here?"


How many did he send to their deaths looking for those WMD and he jokes about iit. Where is the outcry from the apologists on this one?
 

peddler1

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 3, 2002
134
0
0
Ohio
2 years ago we had the choice of Bush or Kerry. Neither one of them where worth a crap then and they aren't now. Bush has never been to war and Kerry made it sound like he was the one who ended the Vietnam War. It is time they both shut the heck up and figure out how to get the many soldiers home.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
How many did he send to their deaths looking for those WMD and he jokes about iit. Where is the outcry from the apologists on this one?

Stevie i wrote about this when Kerry made his statement and i couldn't find one Neocon to frown on it. This is fifty times worse that what Kerry got accused of doing. If the democratics would just take off their dresses and run something like this they just might win. Karl Rove would have been all over this if Clinton did this dispicable thing.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
2 years ago we had the choice of Bush or Kerry. Neither one of them where worth a crap then and they aren't now. Bush has never been to war and Kerry made it sound like he was the one who ended the Vietnam War. It is time they both shut the heck up and figure out how to get the many soldiers home.

Kerry tried to get them home and Bush wants them to stay because there is a couple more billions to steal before they can come home.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Chad i remember in the debates where he acted like he never said that (about bin laden)and i thought to myself bang they finally got this prick. the dems turn around and basically forget about it. How can you win when you just let gems like that rot away?
 

peddler1

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 3, 2002
134
0
0
Ohio
Chad i remember in the debates where he acted like he never said that (about bin laden)and i thought to myself bang they finally got this prick. the dems turn around and basically forget about it. How can you win when you just let gems like that rot away?

That wasn't the only one that got away in the debates. I think it was during the second debate the topic of why the government was cracking down on seniors getting low cost drugs from Canada? Bush said in that debate that the drugs where of low quality and not safe for Americans because ours where better. Than the following debate the topic of the shortage of flu shots came up. He then said We are working with our "Good Friends" from Canada to get them to produce more for us. Why in the heck did Kerry not ask him why they where good enough for flu shots but not low cost prescription drugs for the seniors??:shrug: :shrug: :shrug:
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top