The WaPo has an op-ed from two former Reagan Administration officials today, standing up to be counted among the many in this nation who believe that the rule of law and our Constitution are superior to the needs of any one, fleeting term of any President. To wit:
One of us was appointed commandant of the Marine Corps by President Ronald Reagan; the other served as a lawyer in the Reagan White House and has vigorously defended the constitutionality of warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps, presidential signing statements and many other controversial aspects of the war on terrorism. But we cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come....
The Geneva Conventions provide important protections to our own military forces when we send them into harm's way. Our troops deserve those protections, and we betray their interests when we gratuitously "interpret" key provisions of the conventions in a manner likely to undermine their effectiveness. Policymakers should also keep in mind that violations of Common Article 3 are "war crimes" for which everyone involved -- potentially up to and including the president of the United States -- may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions.
In a letter to President James Madison in March 1809, Jefferson observed: "It has a great effect on the opinion of our people and the world to have the moral right on our side." Our leaders must never lose sight of that wisdom.
Standing up for the rule of law and the Constitution is not a partisan issue. It is an American issue.
What the Bush Administration is doing with its systematic disregard for the rule of law is to put the Presidency above the rest of the nation, and to declare that the President may rule by fiat with no recourse for checks or balances because they say so -- to publicly proclaim themselves to be the imperial presidency, the very thing the Founders of this nation feared would occur during time of war.
If you have not done so already, watch the Dan Rather Reports on "The Constitution In Question." It is an exceptional dialogue about the need for adherence to our principles and to the letter of the law -- and the substantial damage which can be wrought in all of our names by a President run amok. Long term damage that will be generations in the undoing, the effects of which will ripple out for years and years to come.
We have work to do over the next few weeks if Congress is, indeed, going to recess. It is time we all -- every one of us -- stood up and let our voices be heard in the cause of liberty.
Make an appointment with staffers or your elected representatives and talk with them about the issues that are important to you, including the restoration of the rule of law. Better yet, put together a local group and go to the meeting -- many voices raised at once for the Constitution carries a lot of weight, because most people never bother to take the time to involve themselves politically at all. Write letters to the editor. Call in to talk radio.
Do something to make yourself heard -- and to make others stop and think about their responsibility to become active citizens. Do not let the only voices that our elected officials hear be those of paid lobbyists and Administration apologists. It is incumbant upon each of us to stand up and say that we have had enough and that we want action...now.
We owe it to our nation's forefathers, and to all of the generations yet to come, to stand up for liberty, justice and the Constitution. What will you do today for your country?
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
zunoed?
Day-uhm! and I stopped and read too…
It is an American issue. There have been many Republicans, Military officials and Historians who have been worried about the radical direction of the Bush administration.
OT
We NEED a back up plan.
What happens if all the on-going investigations
get sidewacked?
What happens if two weeks from now, the Congress adjourns and we are at the same point?
We have to plan a COUP d’etat-rat-a-ta.
We need to hire Fine and pursue this misery.
I wish Thomas Merton and the Berrigan Brothers
were around….
[Mod: We will not permit advocacy of violent overthrow of the government.]
I will of course contact the Execrable Lamar Smith and let him know my feeling on his hypocrisy and placing party over country. And his abdicating and breaking his sworn oath to the Constitution.
I won’t be holding my breath for any changes in his behavior.
“ The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
Patrick Henry
Bay State — Count me in as the sort who thinks a coup isn’t likely. I know too many people who have too many contacts with the folks who would have to take sides with the Bushies and, frankly, most of them are as disgusted as we are (for different reasons, but still, very disgusted). It’s just not going to happen.
Bay State Librul @ 4
No, this is wrong and I will oppose anyone who advocates the violent overthrow of the US. I think you’re in the wrong party and the wrong blog and it is best that you leave. I wont’ tolerate people like you.
I’ve been hitting on this point lately;
abu torture as been claiming ‘we don’t torture” in front of congress…they need to ask him if he means “we don’t torture” using his new definition
his new difinition includes any practice that doesn’t cause death or organ failure.
that is one sick definition of torture, let me tell you
for instance, if your child is raped before your eyes, neither she nor you will loose life or organ failure yet you will both know the fulll measure of torture.
the list goes on and this abu torture guy is a nut
Gee, nothing like choosing your battles. Wanker.
noen @ 8
I’m advocating a bloodless coup…
through demonstrations, etc…
Christy - I want to thank you for the great liveblogging of the recent HJC hearings.
On another point, did you see this at TPM Election Central? Reid takes on the WaPoo!
perris @ 9
“I don’t think I remember that at this time, sitting right here but let me update the record and I’ll get back to you on that if I think it’s something I think you should know”
It does not matter what expediency the
Democrats invoke nor the genuine concern
expressed by ex-commanders of the Marines,
ultimately ‘It’s up to us’. Sadly, too many
are too complacent and too comfortable. That simply makes it more difficult (would that the fourth estate would stand up to THEIR necessary
responsibility in a democracy - most probably
will not until it is ’safe’) but it falls to those who understand to pledge life and fortune
in this task. But what better or more worth-
while endeavor could we seek?
Three cheers for the rule of law - rationality must prevail. Yes, I still have hope for our great nation…
-MS
also in today’s Post, Harry Reid smacks down Fred Hiatt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02086.html
if I may borrow a phrase…..BOO YAH!
It is lamentable that most people do not see the danger to this nation. I have never in my life seen so many from prior Republican administrations or former officials of this administration question the integrity of a sitting president. However, we fail to take aggressive or adequate action.
The Democratic Congress must start with the immediate impeachment of Abu Gonzales and the Director of the Small Business Administration. This would send a clear message that the law must be obeyed. It will further provide a basis for intensive discovery of documents and testimony from current and former White House officials.
The Republicans would unite in opposition to the impeachment. However, unlike the Clinton debacle, the impeachment hearings would indeed serve as a basis to educate the public as to the serious attacks on our constitution and liberty by this administration.
The President would attempt to use executive privilege to block documents and testimony. The Democratic majority of Congress should simply point out that the denial of key documents and witnesses would lead in a court of law to the presumption that such documents and testimony would be adverse to the president’s position.
The Republicans would then be faced with blocking impeachment of two lower officials with solid cases against them. Let the fur fly.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 7
my 19-year old son asked me what would happen if Bush/Cheney declared martial law and called off the national election next year. I told him that I thought the military would refuse to go along with it and would simply wait until Congress impeached them before taking any action. Let’s hope we are not sliding towards Banana Republic status.
Bay State Librul says
Ok, that’s different. Though the phrase “Coup d’etat” actually does mean “the violent overthrow of a government” so I am sure you understand my confusion.
This is what we are up against. How do we counter the crazy right wing?
Delay: US and Israel must enjoy second coming
there is a video that I haven’t watched yet.
Kathleen @ 3
If Frist is honest, then Republicans in Congress conspired with the President to deceive their Democratic colleagues, and, by extension, all Americans.
Rummy once said he wouldn’t have a problem lying to our allies. Why should we believe they wouldn’t lie to all of us, as well?
They–BushCo and their Congressional minions–are Easy Liars, the truth is not in them, and they have broken faith with We, the People.
From The Red Nightmare
DING DING DING…we have a winner
From Bush’s ‘fire in the minds of men’, to the list of neo-cons who are former trotsky-ites, worldwide military action to enforce neo-con agendas, this is not far fetched.
All the genuflecting to the founders will not prevent these ‘revolutionaries’ from continuing their plans. They must be identified as revolutionaries, and treated as such.
linky
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/....._0726.html
noen @ 12
I think Abu had a “linguistic malfunction” yesterday.
noen @ 19
No prob.
I’m in my 50’s.
I remember Watergate and how fortunate we
were to dispose of a similar type of
Prez.
But really this Prez is delusional and
thumbing his nose at us and democracy.
The Libby commutation was the last fucking straw for me.
I hope I am proven wrong, but our country
is in danger and, well, I am VERY impatient
You know, if you truly believe in the constitution as I do, it seems that this moment in time has as much potential to strengthen our democracy as it does to destroy it. I think we have been so inundated with the feeling of hopelessness that we have forgotten the part of this that could feed our hope and faith.
At every step of the way, the republicans look worse. There are more and more conservative folks (not needing to be re-elected at any point) who are coming forward and stating what seems obvious. This administration has over stepped it’s bounds.
There is recourse. WE the people need to do the work, and not feel resentful about it. It is our duty to enforce the rules of our constitution and democracy. I have been feeling resentful, like I shouldn’t have to work this hard. Like someone SHOULD be listening.
It really is the way it was meant to work. We really are facing a despotic leader who has shown through action that he has no respect for the rule of law, and that he has little regard for human life or loss of life.
This is exactly the scenario that impeachment was meant for. And where did it say anywhere in the constitution that it should be easy or that the American people would not have to make a very loud noise to get it to happen? Where does it say that it’s an easy and clean process?
I have changed my down trodden view and feel more willing and less resentful about the work at hand. Of course Bush/co is fighting at every point possible. He is a despotic leader. Should we expect him to behave in any other way if we radically accept the truth of his leadership??
If I am truly accepting the truth, then the calls and letters required only make sense. I don’t have to feel angry or upset that this is what is it will take. I just need to do it, knowing all the way to my toes that the process is part of fate. It’s the next required move.
Okay, I am done being incredulous about the behavior of this pres. I am done being resenful because of all the calls and letters I have had to make. Instead I will go into this day and time expecting to fight for my democratic rights.
I feel better. I just needed a pep talk and dose of reality.
Yesterday, the Bulgarian nurses and Palestinian medic were released from Libyan jails where they had been sentenced to death. One of the nurses revealed that she had attempted suicide after having been repeatedly shocked with an electrical device.
I am glad she was only shocked with such a device, not tortured. Just think what she might have done if she had been tortured?
BTW, after such “interrogation techniques” all of the nurses confessed to infecting children with the HIV virus. Too bad there is scientific evidence that the virus was rampant in the hospital before the nurses arrived in Libya.
Extreme interrogation methods don’t seem to work on nurses, but I am sure they work on jihadists…
JMOHR @ 17
I support impeaching Gonzales though as I understand it Conyers is pursuing criminal charges against him through the contempt citation. I think this might be even better than impeachment if they succeed because it means time in jail. Impeachment simply removes the offender from office and is a political and not a criminal proceeding.
here’s another reason the president can’t unilaterally redifine the terms of treaties he is not signator;
one of our most valuable tools for international relations is the ability to broker treaties for ourselves and others
once we loose that ability we will never be able to guarantee we will perform according to aggreements, nor will be be able to suppose other countries will adhere
in fact, other countries will be free to “redifine” terms anytime they damn well please
the only people that can “redefine”, or even “define” the terms of a treaty are the signators.
the president has no authority to void our treaties, that is left to congress and the other signators
once he “redifines” terms he hasn voided the treaty, he is not allowed that priviledge
I did not understand this on the last thread, for some reason. Could someone explain it to me, verrry sloowly? Thanks.
TiredFed @ 18
yes. I don’t know anything about the military myself but I have heard others who do agree that they would not go along with it. That’s a relief.
Certainly would be a hair-raising spectacle, though.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 7
Christy, I respect you, though I disagree with you. I do believe, however, that you are going to have to patiently wait until the next election where such things are decided. The Bush Administration gets its turn; I very much doubt the President or the Vice President would want another term even if someone were to make the option available. These are people who will work until the last day of their term to do what they see as right and then dutifully hand over the reins to someone else. They hope it will be an R. You hope it will be a D. May the best person win.
JMOHR @ 17
The director of the SBA? I thought that I kept up with things, but this is the first I’ve heard the SBA mentioned.
Have you been watching the U.S. military of late? Generals who are complete whores of the Administration, and brutes in the enlisting forces. I would not count on those guys doing the “right” thing.
TiredFed @ 17
I agree with both of you. The military would never turn on the United States, and the citizens are not behind Bush. If Bush declared Martial Law, I think it would be be summarily disregarded, and they would be arrested. That won’t happen. What can happen, as long as they are in power, is that they can get the country involved in more military actions; such as Iran or Syria. They can cause havoc, and they can drive us crazy with their non-cooperation with regard to legal issues such as we are seeing today, but other than that, there is no way they can literally “takeover” the citizenry. If they refuse to leave, they will be frogmarched out. They only have the power of words and media, they don’t have the power of the people. Won’t happen. No way.
can we impeach gonzalez now?
and move on to his bosses.
seriously, why is congress going recess during war time and in the teeth of a constitutional crisis?
this is a democratic congress, even if chimpeachment fails, they have the records of the goopers’ votes to use in 2008.
does anyone seriously think that we are going to turn Iraq around as occupiers by then?
the only wild card is some kind of real attack in the US. anything short of that–the usual hype by Bushco–will be seen through. they have lied and screwed the pooch and truly they have jumped the shark.
As an add-on to me @ 33, I read somewhere this morning that, in the services he is being call General Betrayus.
Bay State Librul @ 25
I am 50 too and I have many of the same fears and concerns that you do. I agree that these are very trying times but I really balk at advocating the overthrow of the government. We need to do this through legal channels.
“We have a republic if we can keep it,” ben franklin.
ditto the entire Constitutional structure of checks and balances. You expect some administrations to try to grab excess power. but then it is the JOB of the Congress to stand against that.
If they don’t do their job why are we paying their salaries?
Helpless Dancer @ 10
This is just their way of supporting calls for impeachment. And they are giving cover to quasi-fascist republicans who don’t want to look in the mirror. At least they have drawn a line in the sand on an impeachable offense. And Bush is one hair closer to the political guillotine.
LS, TF, CHS
I think you’veall been brainwashed. The military will do whatever it is told from the top. Cast in concrete tradition of civilian rule, so SecDef is The Decider. Others just follow orders. You’ve seen what has happened to the couple of handfuls of retired generals who have spoken out. Like a tree falling in a forest with no one around.
LibertyLee @ 32
I think I’m going to be sick !
Lee at 32 — I just said I didn’t think a coup was likely. Meaning, I don’t think it is going to happen. Not sure we disagree on that one. (But I do hope the next President is a “D.” *g*)
TiredFed @ 18
I think it’s too much to count on our military personnel actively disobeying orders when our congresspersons can’t even get enough votes to start an investigation.
I’m terrified that history will write that we lost our democracy because we couldn’t believe that it would happen.
Harry Reid also has a very satisfying Letter to the Editor in which he criticizes the Post for spinning Republican obstruction:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02086.html
LS @ 35
All they need is to cut off the gas, then people will begin to starve, and will be ready to believe or follow anything.
Every revolution in modern history at some point involved a period of dire poverty and starvation, leading to a breakdown of civil authority, that is all it will take.
Interestingly enough, a false flag attack on the U.S.A. leading to war with Iran would accomplish this.
The ‘new world order’ alarmist texts going back thirty years talk about how taking food production away from the civilian population is a necessary first step before ‘overthrowing the old order’, we’re pretty much on the cusp of that.
Yep.
One such opportunity exists.
U.S. Representative Mark Kirk (R) represents the very affluent North Shore area just outside of Chicago, IL. Kirk refuses to take a stand on the Iraq war and any of the wretched excesses of the current administration.
But instead of just nodding and waiting till the next election, war protesters follow Kirk’s every appearance, with signs “Keep ‘em safe”, “Bring them home” and the classic “Iraq War - Wrong Way” with a “traffic sign” in the middle.
That picture, of people standing on the sidewalk next to a boulevard is mighty impressive, enough so to make the front page of the Metro section of the Chicago Tribune.
That 10th Illinois district was long owned by Rep John Porter (R) a handmaiden for the Republican President and Kirk won last election by a very, very close margin to a novice Dan Seals, who lost the previous election by a narrow margin, despite being outspent 2-1.
Determined liberals throughout Illinois have either beaten Repubicians (see Melissa Bean) or come within a hair’s breath (Iraq vet who lost both her legs, Tammy Duckworth.)
There are dozens of examples like this across the nation. All it takes to turn it around is some “body time” (working the campaign) or maybe a $25 contribution.
It’s not going to be enough to elect a Democrat President, or even have a majority of Congresspersons Democratic. I think there has to be an overwhelming Democratic victory mandated to turn the ******* clock back to being a recognizable United States, which means a lawful Justice Department and rejection of dozens of laws like the Military Commissions Act and those insidious Presidential signing statements which say, yeah, you passed a law and I’m going to ignore it.
Kirk has amassed more than $1.1 million to
Christy Hardin Smith @ 43
I am pretty certain we are already under a coup
the first bush election was decided by the legacy of reagan and bush sr in the supreme court, the second was decided by paperless voting machines
as far as I am converned we are the victims of a bloodless, silent coup
Yeah, so? Nothing I can do about it. If the Republican party is determined to dismantle the republic in favor of a facist corporate controlled government, there is nothing anyone can do. After all, how many divisions does the Democratic party have? None. Power flows from the barrel of a gun after all. How cold does it get in Canada again?
Katie Jensen @ 26: Thank *you* for the pep talk. :)
eCAHNomics @ 33
Not to mention that the chain of command and the principle of obeying orders is deeply engrained - is in fact the foundation of any functioning military. Without discipline - no army.
On top of which - to violate the principle of civilian control of the military is one small step from have a country run by a military junta.
eCAHNomics @ 41
They will follow orders involving missions that they see as defending the country in overseas conflicts, but they won’t turn on the populace of their own country. They won’t.
As far as the “swiftboating” of retired generals who speak out, that again, is just “rhetoric”. They aren’t getting arrested and hung for speaking out. If something like that were happening, that would be a different story. I don’t see that happening.
What I do see as a huge danger is what is happening in the attack on our system of government. That, is the biggest danger. IMHO
eCAHNomics @ 34
Here’s the oath: The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm
The oath invokes the soldiers to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;”
So the question would be if the soldiers consider Bush as the domestic enemy subverting the constitution or if the “people” are?
eCAHN at 41 — Oh, really? Brainwashed? Gosh, that’s a first for me…esepcially considering the military folks with whom I am acquainted are both officers and grunts, lifers and more recently enlisted, higher ups, retired folks, and some high profile names as well. And to a person, I do not believe that one of them would take a coup order from this President because that would be treason. Some of these folks I have known for a long, long time — they may hold very different political beliefs from mine but, again to a person, they are honorable, decent people who don’t truck to bullshit very well. And none of them — especially the retired folks who have the luxury of being able to speak freely now that they are out from under UCMJ restrictions which severely limits their public statements when in uniform — they are very vocal about the abysmal policies and their horrid effect on the institutions they served for a lifetime.
Your factual basis for asserting otherwise would be what, exactly?
David @ 49
Less cold than it used to get.
“Long term damage that will be generations in the undoing, the effects of which will ripple out for years and years to come.”
Tom Petty said it best, “the waiting is the hardest part…” The urgency in correcting the Bushies’ damage to our country is something we all feel. Unfortunately, it’s not up to us alone here at FDL. The work is a long hard slog by many, many people including private citizens, business leaders, and politicians. It will take years.
But just look at what has happened in the past two years. I would argue that the blogosphere influenced, in a huge way, the 2006 election. And look where we are now-former Reagan officials are hinting at trying the President of the United States for war crimes. The WaPo doesn’t print editorials like that without some heavy shit going on behind the scenes.
I think we are also seeing a paradigm shift. There are some powerful players who understand that Bush and his cronies have run amok and are an extreme threat to the status quo.
I don’t think I’m being tinfoil hattey here. I just think that in board rooms and golf courses across the country, the men-and women-who really run this land (thanks, D. Crosby) have decided that enough is enough.
That combination of grassroots activism and backroom dealing will finish off the crooks in the White House today.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 54
My factual basis is watching their behavior, not listening to the words that come out of their mouths.
CHS “We have work to do over the next few weeks if Congress is, indeed, going to recess. It is time we all — every one of us — stood up and let our voices be heard in the cause of liberty.”
Inspirational words Christy. Thanks
Worrying about a “coup” is an act of self-dramatization. As CHS says: “It’s just not going to happen”.
That said, everyone here knows how badly rule of law has been eroded and even in some respects abolished. As far as the military goes, some bad precedents have also been set, even if in a good cause — namely, evidence of the military’s resistance to civilian control:
http://www.boomantribune.com/s.....135124/400
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/M.....7Ak03.html
Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be “willful” under this article).
In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.
I mean no disrespect to any member of the military. But you really expect them to risk death by disobeying when Congress won’t risk voting for investigation?
The former Marine commandant in the article is Gen. PX Kelly - a living legend in the military, a soldier’s soldier.
The article says that torture in violation of Article 3 of the conventions is a war crime that can be prosecuted against offenders, all the way up to the president of the united states.
As I see it, Bush’s recent EO on torture carefully skirts, neither condemning nor condoning, five specific interrogation techniques - that are likely war crimes material under article 3.
In essence, Bush is saying - I’m not admitting these five techniques have or have not been used, and I’m not saying these five techniques are or are not within our policy.
For Bush, torture is not a question of morality, but one of liability, instead. Bush is saying - I’ll never admit to torture, you’ll have to catch me first, and then stop me.
Bush’s limited sense of personal liability leaves our troops exposed to the same ‘grey torture’ that Bush is implicitly endorsing as ‘ok’ for us.
In addition, our national honor in the global community of nations, today, reflects a suitably low standing due to the lack of a moral compass that the rest of the world finds shocking.
eCAHNomics @ 56
Had friends who tried to convince me to move to Canada in 1970, they are still there.
Should have taken their advice then, instead of banging my head against a brick wall here in the states.
LibertyLee @ 32
Good Snark! But you do know that KommanderGuy thinks the Constitution is a “G*d*m piece of paper”. They also have a secret plan for a dictatorship that Congress cannot see. Oh, and they can “block”, that is steal our property without the Courts.
The Bushies are insane, and therefore they are almost funny. I should also mention any speech must praise Caesar, I mean KommanderGuy three times a page. Liberty, you have praised him three times in one paragraph.
eCAHNomics @ 55
Colder in some places than others. Southern Ontario is roughly on the same latitude as northern California.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 55
None
But people are very frightened. I am. I think that is where a lot of this is coming from.
We will get there. The investigations will continue to expose them for what they are.
But brainwashed? You? Bwaaahahahahaa!
Christy Hardin Smith @ 43
Thanks, because I lived in the Vietnam era too, and I fear for the Republic in a different way than you do. I think we both, in our different way, stand for the electoral procedures that have resulted in peaceful transitions of power since the Founding. I happen to hope it will be an R *g*, but may the best persons win.
Everyone is talking about the likelihood of cancelled elections. What about the possibility of another stolen election?
eCAHNomics @ 58
A long list of Military folk who came out against the pre-emptive invasion. Many who have come out since. I was amazed by how many military people (most of my family work or worked at Wright Patterson Air Force Base) and many more Vets who attended the anti-invasion marches.
How anyone could think positively about the U.S. military after Maryam’s comments on this blog a couple of nights ago is in denial.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 7
Christy:
What’s not going to happen, a revolution, or King George declaring martial law?
Personally, I do not favor a revolution, knowing what will come of it from having read history. That is whay it’s so important to impeach this king.
On the other hand, the Bush family was involved in a plot to overthrow FDR, and I think they might have the same agenda going. It would not surprise me if there were a mysterious fire in the houses of Congress during the recess. For those who do not read history, the parallel is the Reichstag fire that helped bring Hitler to power.
I don’t think Bush understands that a real upheaval in the government would bring down our entire economy, nor do I think he cares.
A revolution would leave this country in awful shape, and might look more like a civil war than a revolution, and there are powers in this world that would use it as an excuse to jump us. I think the military understands that. I’m not sure Bush or Chaney do, and obviously, Rove doesn’t.
I sincerely hope, Christy, that you’re right. My own jury is still out on that, however.
TJ @ 61
They own you
Solai @ 67
With a Supreme Court that has been stacked to prevent recourse.
eCAHNomics @ 41
See my #60. Generals (forgive my layman talk) have actually used the threat of resignation to alter policy.
As bad as things are I’m not at the point where I believe these crooks would resort to martial law. Having said that those who believe our military would never go along with it are giving the military (especially its leadership) too much credit.
The invasion of Iraq was illegal. Did we see mass resignations from the Pentagon over it? No. For the most part we saw soldiers following orders without questioning the legality of those orders. This is not meant as an indictment of those serving in the military, but I cringe when I hear troops serving in Iraq characterize their service there as “defending our freedom.” I don’t buy that. In my opinion they are in Iraq, by and large, to serve the interests of corporate America, but have been convinced otherwise. So if they can be convinced they are in Iraq to defend our freedom it seems they could be likewise convinced that martial law is somehow defending our freedom
Countdown with Keith Olbermann was inspiring last night. Instead of the usual wankers, (Richard Wolfe and Dana Milbank) who soft-peddle and often negate Keith’s incisive commentary, Keith had Bruce Fein and Pat Leahy as guest commentators. They were awesome.
Coup?
Not a chance. If the military sided with the Bushies, you’d see a Civil War in this country that would make the first one seem like quail-hunting.
The NRA has ensured that there are plenty of guns that the military does not possess. Jihadists would be the least of the government’s worries.
Solai @ 68
You’ve got a point there. That remains a possibility.
Kathleen @ 71
Could you explain? I’m not following you.
As I said above, like trees falling in the forest with no one around. Theseare truly the exceptions that prove the rule.
Solai @ 68
Other big news in the testimony was the news to DOJ guidelines for election fraud cases were scratched to allow such prosecutions at election time.
Frank33 @ 64