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.!

“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.

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.

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.

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.

HE CAN’T!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.