Sure This Isn’t Argentina?
By Michael Reynolds | Related entries in General Politics, The War On TerrorismLet me ask you a question: when Mr. Bush’s term of office is up on January 20, 2009, are you sure he will leave office?
100% sure? Or only 99%? Or maybe some lower number?
Absolutely sure, or only very sure? Pretty sure? Kind of sure?
We have a president who asserts the right to ignore any law that according to his sole discretion impedes his ability to fight terrorists. Any law. At his discretion alone.
We have a president who sanctions torture.
We have a president who believes he has the right to arrest and imprison and hold without charges or counsel, American citizens who he believes to be connected to terrorists.
We have an American president who asserts the right to wiretap American citizens without warrant, without judicial oversight, without limits, at his sole discretion.
We have a president who deliberately refuses to ask Congress to change the law to legalize surveillance. Who deliberately refuses to ask Congress for the legal right to do what he asserts is his divine right.
We have a president who believes that a terrorist attack on this country justifies his every act, regardless of law.
We have, in short, a president who believes that he is the only law.
So, I’ll ask again: are you sure that he will leave when his time is up?
Are you absolutely sure there will be an election in 2008?
100%?
(Cross-posted from Mighty Middle.)
This entry was posted on Thursday, May 11th, 2006 and is filed under General Politics, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 12th, 2006 at 5:40 am
Well, maybe 99.44%.
Keep in mind that in the examples you gave, most Americans sided with the President. If Bush tried to prevent the election for anything short of a major national emergency (i.e. “the big one” in LA, NYC gets nuked, etc), the people wouldn’t stand for it.
May 12th, 2006 at 6:23 am
“Keep in mind that in the examples you gave, most Americans sided with the President. ”
I’m sorry, when did most Americans:
agree the president can assert the right to ignore any law at his discretion alone;
agree a president can sanction torture;
agree a president has the right to arrest and imprison and hold without charges or counsel, American citizens;
agree an American president can assert the right to wiretap American citizens without warrant, judicial oversight or limits
agree a president can do as he wants because a terrorist attack occured
…
This president has done all these things without prior consent. If this administration had asked to do any of these things, MOST American citizens would say “Heck no!”
This administration is dangerous precisely because it acts in secrecy and its party’s is control refuses to act out of either blind loyalty or a self-serving desire to hold onto control
That has nothing to do with MOST Americans. MOST Americans, as evidenced by some of the worst poll numbers in history, do not side with the president.
May 12th, 2006 at 6:31 am
I’m confused. Are you were talking about FDR or Abe Lincoln?
May 12th, 2006 at 7:43 am
There was discussion of postponing the last Presidential election if you’ll recall.
May 12th, 2006 at 8:49 am
This administration is dangerous precisely because it acts in secrecy and its party’s is control refuses to act out of either blind loyalty or a self-serving desire to hold onto control.
(Emphasis added.)
There’s the rub. It’s kind of hard to cancel an election in secrecy. It’s harder still for a president to stick around beyond his term of office in secrecy. Therefore, I’m not too worried about this sort of thing.
BTW, from the “Just Sayin’” Department: Amazingly (given the war and all the hatred directed his way), well over five years into his presidency, George Bush has so far managed to avoid even a close call with the “zero-year curse”.
May 12th, 2006 at 10:22 am
I doubt it. Not because I’m enthused with the fascism-enablers myself, but because that’s not how an advanced, twenty-first century totalitarian system works.
Look at China. Just like us, they change executive leaders every eight years or so. And they also have a rigidly-controlled police state, little meaningful freedom of speech, religion, or press, and disturbingly frequent state-sanctioned torture and executions.
Single-party rule is the thing to look out for. Which is why I’m actually pretty happy about the current set-up. Both parties are unpopular, and they hate each other with a passion. Hopefully, the Democrats will take back the House in the fall, and we’ll start seeing some goddamned dialogue again.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
oh please. The “Bush is a tyrant” meme looks idiotic when worn by the lefties - it looks even worse when used by those who claim to be moderate.
I am 100% certain that, barring the type of emergency which would postpone any other election (i.e. nuke NYC or something of that nature), President Bush will leave office in January of 2009.
All of the items cited are items which President Bush contends are legal, and there are some legal authorities who agree. The fact that there are disagreements about what the law is doesn’t mean that he’s a dictator, much less a dictator-for-life. Get over it.
May 12th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
david - I’m against this NSA project as a huge waste of tax dollars and potential civil liberties issue, but I agree with you…all this hyperventilating and literary analogizing is just fantastic for bloggers that spent too much of their childhood rolling dice at a D&D board. For well adjusted adults, like Pelosi (who I find to be a disgusting adult) its an issue and not the end of the world.
May 12th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Never played D & D. Although I will admit to having written quite a bit of sci fi and fantasy.
The fact that “some legal authorities” can be found to sanction Mr. Bush’s law-breaking would be interesting — if any of them were from outside the Bush administration. Attorney General Gonzalez would agree to droit du seigneur if Mr. Bush asserted it.
Mr. Bush is not only breaking the law, he is insisting on breaking the law. He could easily go to Congress and ask for legal changes. He refuses to do so. There is no justification for this refusal. He simply asserts that he has whatever powers he believes himself to have. He denies the right of Congress to pass laws that in any way restrict his powers.
So, explain this to me: if Mr. Bush sincerely believed that his continuation in office was vital to the fight against terrorism, why would he submit to the law when he has asserted his right to ignore the law? Without dismissing me as a D & D afficianado, explain to me why, logically, Mr. Bush would accede to the force of law when he asserts he has no need to obey laws that hamper his ability to fight terrorism.
May 12th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
I am 100% certain that, barring the type of emergency which would postpone any other election (i.e. nuke NYC or something of that nature), President Bush will leave office in January of 2009.
I agree. However, I think that the President might have a slightly more expansive view of what would constitute such an emergency than you or I.
May 13th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
While I’m hardly Bush’s biggest fan, I have to agree with those saying, “Oh Please.” Bush wouldn’t last through a month of angry Americans making the Secret Service’s job a living hell. He’d literally have to declare martial law, enforce curfew, etc, etc, etc for it to be even slightly plausible. And for that, he’d actually need the genuine support of the military enforcers. Bush pulling an “Argentina” would be suicide. Politically, if not literally. He’s not quite that dumb, and neither are his friends.
America may be a nation of apathy, but if we’re faced with something sufficiently important (such as, for example, on 9/11), all that pent-up concern will surface dramatically. Bush just simply wouldn’t be able to pull it off given his approval ratings. And I am 100% sure of that.
May 13th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Naysayers:
Obviously, guys, I’m engaging in a bit of bomb-throwing here, for my own entertainment, but also for the purpose of pushing for revealing and instructive responses.
I do find the responses instructive. You each list practical reasons why this couldn’t happen. You don’t make the argument that Mr. Bush respects the law. You don’t make the argument that Mr. Bush would never consider such a thing. You don’t argue that Mr. Bush’s morality would forbid it.
Now, just for the sake of the thought experiment, let’s say I wrote the same post back in the days of Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush. I suspect your responses would have had a rather different character. I suspect I would have heard that both men were patriots, loved their country, and revered the constitution. Then we’d have discussed other practical considerations. Am I wrong?
May 14th, 2006 at 4:17 am
Bush would IF HE COULD, but ….
HE CAN’T!
May 14th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
First off, I really Doubt if GWB and especially Laura Bush want to stay any longer than their term and I doubt if he would want to be remembered as the first American Dictator.
Now come on, how on God’s earth could he pull this off Who would follow him?
You may not like him or his decisions, but at the core he is a decent man trying to do a near impossible job. He is a patriot who loves his country and its traditions.
May 14th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Why would he need to refuse to leave office? And why would the GOP permit something that blatant? It makes much more sense for the party to work together to cycle various frontmen in and out of high office and the supreme court while they continue with their agenda behind the scenes. Of course the most effective way to do something like that would be through fixing elections…and we know that THAT would be impossible, right?
May 15th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Chalk me up with the “oh please”rs. Reading the OP here really makes me marvel at how a moderate blog can warp in its thinking over time. (”It could happen to YOU!”)
May 16th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
This is why the Republicans haven’t done anything substantive about election vote reform. In 2007 they will suddenly notice that voting systems are insecure, and vulnerable to terrorists. If anyone other than Bush’s designated successor wins, the terrorists hackers will be to blame. So the election will be “postponed” until the security issues can be resolved…. to their satisfaction.
June 3rd, 2006 at 2:10 am
obviously that this isnt Argentina , Argentina doesnt produce the 90%of worlds contamination, doesnt have nuclear weapons to destroy the world a thousand times, is not responsable of the IMF unsuccessful and destructive policies , Argentina has not invade Irak to “find chemical weapons” and killed thousands of innocent civilians, and Argentina would never vote and idiot like Bush twice,there are many other reasons why this is not Argentina.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Bush will never leave office.. Fact to grab you. This is no longer
america under constitution.
Bush will exercise his jerk off executive orders prior , marshal law, you name it.
Bush is anti christ, very power drunk. When hell fire is consuming his soul,
he will still demand more fire.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Seems hard to believe, but I felt compelled to find this blog today. There’s already somethings that just don’t wash about the “cold wind coming from the highest hi-rise”.
What about a financial collapse? Would that be enough to postpone elections? Don’t be smug. Nobody thought Rome would be sacked or that Constantinople’s walls would be destroyed either. Don’t say ‘Oh Please!’ you don’t know the future no matter how alpha and intelligent you think you are.
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:47 pm
This is not without precedent. Remember, Rudy Guiliani tried the same thing to postpone the succession of Mayor Bloomberg.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I am very frightened. I truly believe this is the end of the American democracy and that most Americans are too ‘busy’ to take note. We are in serious trouble. America does not equate to immune. It has happened all through history, we have nothing that can keep us safe. We have a madman at the helm & I am convinced that prior to Jan 2009 there will be some ‘national disaster’ that will allow him to state that he is not leaving office b/c of it, and it will never end. Bush is a deeply cruel man, he cares not one bit about you or me. But then, we celebrate Thanksgiving here in America, the celebration of white man invading another country and killing it’s people. Maybe for centuries there will be celebrations of Bush. There are oh so many opportunities for error in the creation of the homo sapien, the mistake of mother nature. The world should be frightenend…..
February 8th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Ask yourself why Bush would create signing orders authorizing him to declare a state of national emergency, decide what constitutes a state of national emergency and establish exclusive authority in the executive branch. Ask yourself why Bush would fund a private army (Blackwater) that by all accounts is 40 to 60 thousand strong, well trained, well equipped and has bases here in the US. Ask yourself why Bush (& president Cheney) would do these things with absolutely no intention of exploiting them to remain in power.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:14 am
tom allan Says:
May 14th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
“First off, I really Doubt if GWB and especially Laura Bush want to stay any longer than their term…You may not like him or his decisions, but at the core he is a decent man trying to do a near impossible job. He is a patriot who loves his country and its traditions.”
and on May 12, 2006 *David* (I am sure a different one that I have come to know) wrote:
“oh please. The “Bush is a tyrant” meme looks idiotic when worn by the lefties - it looks even worse when used by those who claim to be moderate.
I am 100% certain that, barring the type of emergency which would postpone any other election (i.e. nuke NYC or something of that nature), President Bush will leave office in January of 2009.
All of the items cited are items which President Bush contends are legal, and there are some legal authorities who agree. The fact that there are disagreements about what the law is doesn’t mean that he’s a dictator, much less a dictator-for-life. Get over it.”
Kudos to them and the others that have clear thinking.
To the others: get a life!
President Bush is a decent man despite all the nasty liberal propaganda.
Look at the Clintons as a real example of individuals that would do ALL in their power to remain in the White House.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Lillie, people are frightened for 2 reasons: real danger or danger created by their minds.
What makes me shudder is listening to cowards/fools that put terrorists’ “rights” ahead of security. Cowards/fools that endanger all of us because instead of taking strong stances and supporting our military and our C.I.C. they are more concerned with being popular with the U.N. or corrupt governments. Just to be liked.
These cowards toggle America as the bad guy and create all kinds of excuses for the terrorists. In their minds, peace is gained by negotiating with the latter.
Those are my real concerns.
Regarding President Bush, he is going to leave office next January and God help us all if we get a coward/fool in the W.H.!
February 9th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Elisabetta,
A good parent is firm with their children and sometimes punishment is the only option. However, a smart parent will try to get inside a child’s head to determine the reason for the behavior. If the behavior is triggered in part by something the parent is doing, the parent must decide if they can change to help the situation. As adults, we have most of the power in these relationships and it comes with a great responsibility.
I would like to think that America plays this role in the world, but I fear that the current administration comes from a different school of thought. I think they believe that when a child displays bad behavior the only recourse is to hit it, and when the behavior continues, hit it harder. Worse yet, they claim the right to apply this technique to their own children (the American public) without answering to anyone. We should all fear an abusive parent who has declared himself to be above the law.
If you don’t share this fear, who’s the fool?