Philly the Kid wrote:But this other guy Bugliosi, claims he can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, the cirminality of Bush. And I'd like to see more discussion in the mainstream media around that.

Dennis Miller had him on Wednesday night. Granted right wing talk radio isn't the mainstream media, but it is the opposition. I doubt anyone is keeping him off the air. Bugliosi is on a book tour about it. That's hardly the way to prosecute. It is a way to make him richer.

His argument is that it's illegal to mislead the American public into war. I doubt he could prove that Bush knew that Iraq didn't have WMD but led America to believe he did. The intelligence conflicted on WMD.

There is a long history of intentionally misleading the American public to go to war. McKinley did it with the Maine. Johnson did it with the Gulf of Tonkin. Justification for US entry in World War I was so questionable William Jennings Bryan resigned. FDR's lend lease act could be interpreted as an act of war on a country that had not attacked us. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was for American citizens, not enemy combatants as with Bush. Nixon wasn't impeached for mining Haiphong Harbor in violation of Congress.

None of these Presidential acts either brought Presidential impeachment or criminal charges and all were supported by more evidence than exists against Bush.

dajafi wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:I agree, impeachment is too little too late. But would like the American public to become versed in the actual articles, because the mere mention of them -- is important in this land of non-reflection.

Yes, to you and me and maybe another ten percent of the population. Everyone else could care less either way. That's 21st century democracy: the prerogatives of a small group (or a lot of small groups) versus the general inertia.

This isn't even a value judgment. Who are we to say what's important to people? Why is my ideal of good citizenship relevant to someone of totally different life circumstances and background?

The genius of our system is that there's some capacity to shift the inertia over time (women's rights, civil rights, the New Deal, etc). Pretty damn hard though.

I think you are too cynical about the masses and the divided and conquered, and too easy on the powerful manipulators. People may not have the deep context and background -- but sometimes just "seeing/hearing" about something -- helps change the daily rhetoric and it ripples backwards in to the mass media.

Bugliosi claims he can convict W in a court of law. I'm sure many presidents could be, but W is particularly pernicious.

I know in the end, the election is like a game-show, but I'd still like to believe i'm part of something equaling more than 10%.... :?

Philly the Kid wrote:Nixon's crimes paled in comparison to the Bush dynasty.

I assume that you believe that Nixon's crimes aren't as great. They vastly outweigh Bush's crimes. Nixon waged war in Laos and Cambodia, violating the sovereignty of nation's the US was not at war with and in clear violation of Congress. He mined Haiphong Harbor, as I noted above. Under Nixon the FBI had illegal wiretaps on anyone they felt like having one on, most of whom were not suspected of illegal activity. While you may think Bush has illegally wiretapped people, he has done so to ferret out illegal activity. He wasn't impeached for any of these crimes and there were more.

Laexile wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:Nixon's crimes paled in comparison to the Bush dynasty.

I assume that you believe that Nixon's crimes aren't as great. They vastly outweigh Bush's crimes. Nixon waged war in Laos and Cambodia, violating the sovereignty of nation's the US was not at war with and in clear violation of Congress. He mined Haiphong Harbor, as I noted above. Under Nixon the FBI had illegal wiretaps on anyone they felt like having one on, most of whom were not suspected of illegal activity. While you may think Bush has illegally wiretapped people, he has done so to ferret out illegal activity. He wasn't impeached for any of these crimes and there were more.

Patriot Act.

THE PATRIOT ACT PASSED 98-1! 98-1!

Did Bush illegally brainwash the Senate into voting for it?

Laexile wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:But this other guy Bugliosi, claims he can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, the cirminality of Bush. And I'd like to see more discussion in the mainstream media around that.

Dennis Miller had him on Wednesday night. Granted right wing talk radio isn't the mainstream media, but it is the opposition. I doubt anyone is keeping him off the air. Bugliosi is on a book tour about it. That's hardly the way to prosecute. It is a way to make him richer.

His argument is that it's illegal to mislead the American public into war. I doubt he could prove that Bush knew that Iraq didn't have WMD but led America to believe he did. The intelligence conflicted on WMD.

There is a long history of intentionally misleading the American public to go to war. McKinley did it with the Maine. Johnson did it with the Gulf of Tonkin. Justification for US entry in World War I was so questionable William Jennings Bryan resigned. FDR's lend lease act could be interpreted as an act of war on a country that had not attacked us. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was for American citizens, not enemy combatants as with Bush. Nixon wasn't impeached for mining Haiphong Harbor in violation of Congress.

None of these Presidential acts either brought Presidential impeachment or criminal charges and all were supported by more evidence than exists against Bush.

I don't think Bush will ever see a courtroom or tribunal in a world setting. But I like that someone is trying to highlight the misdeeds. Because the mainstream media doesn't talk in these terms. Nixon was a rat, but the stakes are higher today.

We have 70% ofbudget going to private security, (Black Water etc...) these are new and scary times -- unprecedented.

Philly the Kid wrote:

Laexile wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:Nixon's crimes paled in comparison to the Bush dynasty.

I assume that you believe that Nixon's crimes aren't as great. They vastly outweigh Bush's crimes. Nixon waged war in Laos and Cambodia, violating the sovereignty of nation's the US was not at war with and in clear violation of Congress. He mined Haiphong Harbor, as I noted above. Under Nixon the FBI had illegal wiretaps on anyone they felt like having one on, most of whom were not suspected of illegal activity. While you may think Bush has illegally wiretapped people, he has done so to ferret out illegal activity. He wasn't impeached for any of these crimes and there were more.

Patriot Act.

Bush is wrong to comply with the Patriot Act? He shouldn't comply with laws passed by Congress? How does complying with the law equate to what Lincoln and Roosevelt did? I forgot to mention FDR's illegal detention of Japanese-Americans.

But I like that someone is trying to highlight the misdeeds. Because the mainstream media doesn't talk in these terms.

I must not be watching the same mainstream media. That's all I hear.

Nixon was a rat, but the stakes are higher today.

The stakes are far lower today than they were in the past. People have more rights today than they ever did. They have incredible freedom, as they do with the Internet. With a global economy, a high population, and so much opportunity the government can't decide our economic future the way it used to.

The President has less impact than he ever had. We are in a war that every small detail is known and that has produced only 4,000 deaths in five years. 38,000 died in an hour just at Okinawa. We spent 30+ years with every decision possibly sending us to nuclear war. That doesn't exist today. James Buchanon's decisions nearly resulted in the country being torn apart and more than 560,000 deaths. The Dred Scott decision, Missouri Compromise, and other agreements resulted in slavery being continued. Government doesn't have that impact today.

That the crimes Bush is accused of don't compare to those of past Presidents. That they are so well known shows the power the people have today compared to what they had then.

Laexile wrote:The President has less impact than he ever had.

any number of ex-residents of New Orleans would 2nd you there

The flooded people in Iowa have pretty much decided that Dr. Smooth hates white people.

drsmooth wrote:

Laexile wrote:The President has less impact than he ever had.

any number of ex-residents of New Orleans would 2nd you there

They really shouldn't. While the Federal government failed, FEMA's job is to coordinate the response to a disaster that has overwhelmed the resources of local and state authorities. The governor of the state in which the disaster occurred must declare a state of emergency and formally request from the President that FEMA and the federal government respond to the disaster. This usually occurs 2-3 days after a disaster.

The responsibility before Hurricane Katrina was with the city and state governments as well as the citizens of New Orleans. Due to today's technology New Orleans had several days warning that the hurricane was going to hit. Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco failed to implement New Orleans' evacuation plan and for ordering residents to a shelter of last resort without any provisions for food, water, security, or sanitary conditions. The city had hundreds of buses sitting idle that were never used to evacuate people.

Nagin delayed his emergency evacuation order until 19 hours before landfall, even though the National Hurricane Service had warned him of the seriousness two days before. Fifty or one hundred years ago this storm would've hit New Orleans without warning. Because of today's technology most people did evacuate.

While some people certainly did die because FEMA bungled the disaster relief more died due to the ineptitude of Nagin and Blanco. Yet Bush got the blame. Maybe it was because he was a Republican and those two were Democrats or maybe it was because the media was present when FEMA messed up but was not when Nagin and Blanco let it happen.

In fact an ABC News Poll on September 2, 2005 showed that more people blamed the state and local governments than the Federal government. In a later CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll Bush was blamed by 13%, while state and local officials were blamed by 25%. I'm guessing that they wouldn't disagree with me.

The Federal government deserves the most blame in the Army Corps of Engineers shoddy levee construction. This work was done before Bush became President.

The beauty of a successful Bush impeachment is that it would make Cheney the POTUS!

TenuredVulture wrote:However, right now, I'd think both candidates would be in the midwest, filling sandbags and doing other photo op type stuff.

If I were running a campaign, I'd pull a stunt like, "we're suspending campaign activities for the next several days to help with recovery efforts."

Obama campaign helping to organize flood relief

Granting that this is an enormous oversimplification, I can't think of too many better ways to contrast the "WITT" (We're In This Together) orientation of the Democrats, particularly but not exclusively pertaining to the economy, with the Republicans' "YOYO" (You're On Your Own) philosophy.

Laexile wrote:Dennis Miller had him on Wednesday night. Granted right wing talk radio isn't the mainstream media

It's not?

Laexile wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Laexile wrote:The President has less impact than he ever had.

any number of ex-residents of New Orleans would 2nd you there

They really shouldn't. While the Federal government failed, FEMA's job is to coordinate the response to a disaster that has overwhelmed the resources of local and state authorities. The governor of the state in which the disaster occurred must declare a state of emergency and formally request from the President that FEMA and the federal government respond to the disaster. This usually occurs 2-3 days after a disaster.

The responsibility before Hurricane Katrina was with the city and state governments as well as the citizens of New Orleans. Due to today's technology New Orleans had several days warning that the hurricane was going to hit. Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco failed to implement New Orleans' evacuation plan and for ordering residents to a shelter of last resort without any provisions for food, water, security, or sanitary conditions. The city had hundreds of buses sitting idle that were never used to evacuate people.

Nagin delayed his emergency evacuation order until 19 hours before landfall, even though the National Hurricane Service had warned him of the seriousness two days before. Fifty or one hundred years ago this storm would've hit New Orleans without warning. Because of today's technology most people did evacuate.

While some people certainly did die because FEMA bungled the disaster relief more died due to the ineptitude of Nagin and Blanco. Yet Bush got the blame. Maybe it was because he was a Republican and those two were Democrats or maybe it was because the media was present when FEMA messed up but was not when Nagin and Blanco let it happen.

In fact an ABC News Poll on September 2, 2005 showed that more people blamed the state and local governments than the Federal government. In a later CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll Bush was blamed by 13%, while state and local officials were blamed by 25%. I'm guessing that they wouldn't disagree with me.

The Federal government deserves the most blame in the Army Corps of Engineers shoddy levee construction. This work was done before Bush became President.

wow, that's a lot of yammering in response to a 1-line post. And some here feel I ramble on incoherently.

allow me to summarize: when the POTUS is disinclined to act, 'the law' keeps him from it; when he is, it doesn't.

I believe we agree that that's what happened.

I really wish the Democrats would not allow Stephanie Cutter to speak anymore.

Watching the Beltway Boys try to analyze the Guantanamo detainee decision is high comedy. Apparently now Justice Kennedy is a prime example of judicial overreach/activism. I would love for Republicans do continue leveling this type of crap at Kennedy and sway him enough to be a complete moderate swing vote and replace the O'Connor factor that is missing from this Court.

drsmooth wrote:wow, that's a lot of yammering in response to a 1-line post. And some here feel I ramble on incoherently.

Thanks for summing up my response as "yammering" and "incoherently" rather than addressing how it responded to your statement.

drsmooth wrote:allow me to summarize: when the POTUS is disinclined to act, 'the law' keeps him from it; when he is, it doesn't.

I believe we agree that that's what happened.

I don't know what your statement means, so I can't agree with it.

Laexile wrote:I don't know what your statement means, so I can't agree with it.

it means bushco generally employs the cover of 'law' when it suits it. It finds no support in law to do things that a capable executive body could be expected to do (make humanitarian order out of local government chaos); it finds no barrier in law to the many execrable things it has done (pick your favorite example).

in the case of NO, bush could have taken the path many an executive does when there may be doubt of its authority; assume permission & ask for forgiveness later. Instead, bushco is more prone to assume that permission in the one area it should be most reluctant to: the exercise of the federal government's monopoly on use of military force.

for the sake of your clarity, I really don't care if you agree; that was merely a rhetorical flourish.

Laexile wrote:

drsmooth wrote:wow, that's a lot of yammering in response to a 1-line post. And some here feel I ramble on incoherently.

Thanks for summing up my response as "yammering" and "incoherently" rather than addressing how it responded to your statement.

drsmooth wrote:allow me to summarize: when the POTUS is disinclined to act, 'the law' keeps him from it; when he is, it doesn't.

I believe we agree that that's what happened.

I don't know what your statement means, so I can't agree with it.

This is one of the few things that I actually understood from the mighty doctor.

When Bush doesn't want to do something the law mirculously keeps him from doing so (to save face) but when he does, it seems like the law always tends to bend his way.