Bush's State Of Union Speech

[darkboong]

Seriously doubt if the rules will be changed. The process to amend the Constitution takes quite a while.

Is there the possibility or precedent of that limit being suspended/removed while a state of War continues to exist ? Several elements of the consitution have already bitten the dust in the name of National Security, why would the limit of terms be sacrosanct ? I don't think it's a serious problem because I figure they'll have another Bush in the wings to perch on the throne.

 

[jhuskey]

Is there the possibility or precedent of that limit being suspended/removed while a state of War continues to exist ? Several elements of the consitution have already bitten the dust in the name of National Security, why would the limit of terms be sacrosanct ? I don't think it's a serious problem because I figure they'll have another Bush in the wings to perch on the throne.

I believe there is a provision ,but I will need to look it up and review it before I make comment and appear more foolish than usual.
I believe a state of national emergency must be declared and yes there is another Bush presently serving as a governor at present.

BTW: Bill Clinton has been the most vocal in recent times about modifying the 22nd amendment making a third term possible.

 

[jhuskey]

good and evil?

that explains that then.

It should read no more than two terms or one bad term, which ever comes first.

 

[MountainPro]

You seem to be overly fixated on pop-culture icon's Madonna, Schwarzennegger, Mohammed Ali, ect...are you of the mindset that popularity determines ability.

it seems that it's the people of California that are overly fixated with pop culture, hence the blurring of borders between showbiz and 'politics' and the political appontment of a movie star.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Is there the possibility or precedent of that limit being suspended/removed while a state of War continues to exist ? Several elements of the consitution have already bitten the dust in the name of National Security, why would the limit of terms be sacrosanct ? I don't think it's a serious problem because I figure they'll have another Bush in the wings to perch on the throne.

Why would the limit of terms be sacrosanct? Here is the process for an amendment to change the Constitution.

The Constitution provides two processes by which amendments can be proposed and approved

1. Congress proposes amendments.
   As is the case with the flag burning amendment, both houses of Congress approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. The resolution does not require the president's signature. To become effective, the proposed amendment must then be "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven years for ratification by the states.
2. The states propose amendments.
   The legislatures of two-thirds of the states vote to call for a convention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed. Amendments proposed by the convention would again require ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

All twenty-seven amendments, including the Bill of Rights have been added through the first method. The Constitution has never been amended using the second process.

While over 10,000 have been proposed, only twenty-one amendments to the Constitution have been adopted since final ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.

 

[davidmc]

It should read no more than two terms or one bad term, which ever comes first.

Exactly. I wouldn't worry about Dubya sticking @ as he is the only president to have knowingly/complicitly committed an impeachable offense according to John Dean. Additionally, he has the fewest accomplishments (unnecessary tax cuts & screwing up medicare, among other transgressions; are not considered accomplishments ) of any president in modern history.
To take a phrase from Wurm, "Harken ye sheep":

Washington, D.C.– U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean’s statement that President Bush admitted to an "impeachable offense" when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.

Boxer said, "I take very seriously Mr. Dean's comments, as I view him to be an expert on Presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future."

Boxer’s letter is as follows:

On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.

On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon’s counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is “the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.” Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.

 

[Carrera]

Maybe you have a point. Perhaps I have an inner yearning to become rich and famous and it's funny I read several biographies on all the characters you mentioned including Madge.

You seem to be overly fixated on pop-culture icon's Madonna, Schwarzennegger, Mohammed Ali, ect...are you of the mindset that popularity determines ability. It would appear that way reading many of your posts Taking a line from Monty Python-"Now for something completely different." See pic's.

 

[Carrera]

Most Americans seem to be realsing Iraq was basically a lame duck where threats are concerned which is why Bush is in trouble. My main concern over Bush, in truth, has been due to his failure to adhere to Geneva Convention rules and his exporting of terror suspects to face torture.
Colin Powell opposed all of that from the onset.
What I said was it was a good speech in some ways that Bush delivered but that doesn't mean Bush is off the hook by a long shot. I just meant it had been delivered well and I agreed with one or two points.
I agree that freedom and libery should be exported overseas but never at the point of a gun.
I think Arnold Schwarzennegger should become President.

You guys are all taking Bush way too serious on this speech. It was a publicity speech meant to make us US citizens feel good about ourselves. Karl Rove knows how to appeal to the people and make us feel good.

You got to watch where Bush's feet take him. What he says, and then what he does are two different things. He says we got to win in Iraq, but he is not willing to committ the resources necessary to finish the job. But then I think Iraq is just a modern day Vietnam, the war is unwinnable because anything the US wants, the Iraqi people will be against. It is the occupation that is the problem.

With all the scandals involving the Republican Party, and the trouble caused by Bush's illegal wire tapping, he will be busy just trying to survive. But beware, there is nothing like a new war as a distraction for domestic problems.

 

[davidmc]

Most Americans seem to be realsing Iraq was basically a lame duck where threats are concerned which is why Bush is in trouble. My main concern over Bush, in truth, has been due to his failure to adhere to Geneva Convention rules and his exporting of terror suspects to face torture.
Colin Powell opposed all of that from the onset.
What I said was it was a good speech in some ways that Bush delivered but that doesn't mean Bush is off the hook by a long shot. I just meant it had been delivered well and I agreed with one or two points.
I agree that freedom and libery should be exported overseas but never at the point of a gun.
I think Arnold Schwarzennegger should become President.

You were doing quite well up until your last comment. General Powell realized that he had been lied to & shut-out of the loop by Cheney/Rummy. He did the right thing-resign. I like his Pottery Barn rule about Iraq & other foreign entanglements-"You break it, you own it." Seems as desperately as the congressional repub's want to get out of Iraq so that they have a chance of reelection in 06', thier wish is far from being fulfilled. Casualties continue to mount daily Nice going Cheney errr...I mean Bush

 

[buckybux]

Most Americans seem to be realsing Iraq was basically a lame duck where threats are concerned which is why Bush is in trouble. My main concern over Bush, in truth, has been due to his failure to adhere to Geneva Convention rules and his exporting of terror suspects to face torture.
Colin Powell opposed all of that from the onset.
What I said was it was a good speech in some ways that Bush delivered but that doesn't mean Bush is off the hook by a long shot. I just meant it had been delivered well and I agreed with one or two points.
I agree that freedom and libery should be exported overseas but never at the point of a gun.
I think Arnold Schwarzennegger should become President.

And...we all know the steroids don't affect the brain!!!

 

[limerickman]

I think that Bush is a lame duck President.
Having taken the correct decision to invade Afghanistan (which did harbour the people who plotted the attack on the USA) Bush then made a fatal error in invading Iraq.

Not only did he invade Iraq on a tissue of lies, he took his eye off the ball about the Afghanistan issue.
Now you have one country, Iraq, in a mess and you have another country Afghanistan on the verge of civil war.
And the main culprits of the attack on the USA are still at large.

It is clear that the Bush Presidency has mired his country with a growing list of needless slaughter (both American/Iraqi).
He has also saddled his country with an enormous debt in funding a "war on terror" which has delivered little with regard to tangible results.

We're told that attacks on the USA have been prevented - we have no measure to conclude if attacks have been
prevented.
We're told that the war on terror is working - yet the culprits still appear to be alive.
We're told that the USA has widespread support in the war on terror - yet Blair his biggest ally is himself being pilliored as we speak about the mounting death toll in Iraq.

Throw in the domestic issues which dog Bush (Abramoff, DeLay, jobs being exported, Katrina) and you have a very lame President.

The real concern is that Bush cried wolf once and has been found out.
If indeed the real wolf is at the door, who'll heed Bush?

 

[Carrera]

They interviewed the mother of a U.K. soldier who was killed in Iraq on T.V. and she stated the situation over there is grim. The troops complain that the oil is flowing but hardly not enough has been done to provide Iraqi civilians with fuel, running water and electricity. Of course, I did see another report elsewhere that contradicted her and it claimed more Iraqis owned satellite T.V. than under Saddam. So, there are all manner of reports.
But, however, the case may be, I agree. Bush figured all he had to do was invade, install a U.S.-friendly Government within Iraq and then hold a monopoly the oil revenues, displacing France and China as Iraq's main trade partner. The democratic Iraq would then cause other surronding regimes to ditch the clerics and embrace western democracy. It's a childlike view.
There were catastrophic failures when they removed the whole infastructure of the country and failed to provide Iraqis with jobs or welfare directly after the war. Little wonder so many joined the insurgency. Also excluding the Sunni Moslems initially from the democratic process was a huge mistake.
Yes, it has been a monumental ****-up and it looks pretty certain Bush will pull out altogether or maybe Blair will agree to send U.K. troops in their place.

I think that Bush is a lame duck President.
Having taken the correct decision to invade Afghanistan (which did harbour the people who plotted the attack on the USA) Bush then made a fatal error in invading Iraq.

Not only did he invade Iraq on a tissue of lies, he took his eye off the ball about the Afghanistan issue.
Now you have one country, Iraq, in a mess and you have another country Afghanistan on the verge of civil war.
And the main culprits of the attack on the USA are still at large.

It is clear that the Bush Presidency has mired his country with a growing list of needless slaughter (both American/Iraqi).
He has also saddled his country with an enormous debt in funding a "war on terror" which has delivered little with regard to tangible results.

We're told that attacks on the USA have been prevented - we have no measure to conclude if attacks have been
prevented.
We're told that the war on terror is working - yet the culprits still appear to be alive.
We're told that the USA has widespread support in the war on terror - yet Blair his biggest ally is himself being pilliored as we speak about the mounting death toll in Iraq.

Throw in the domestic issues which dog Bush (Abramoff, DeLay, jobs being exported, Katrina) and you have a very lame President.

The real concern is that Bush cried wolf once and has been found out.
If indeed the real wolf is at the door, who'll heed Bush?

 

[Wurm]

Having taken the correct decision to invade Afghanistan (which did harbour the people who plotted the attack on the USA)

I guess that would be the correct thinking, IF you didn't know the real motivations behind invading A'stan, and the fact that it was planned before 9/11 occured. For 9/11 itself, the skids were well-greased by BushCo to allow it to happen on purpose, or they made it happen on purpose.

One thing is certain: there is overwhelming evidence that shows they aided & abetted whomever/whatever was steering those planes.

A quick synopsis on A'stan:

(*Editors Note | Since September 11th, 2001, there has been intense speculation regarding Bush administration negotiations with the Taliban regarding this very project prior to the attacks. American petroleum giant Unocal very much wanted this project for years, but it was stymied in 1998 after bin Laden blew up two American embassies in Africa, causing the Taliban to be diplomatically isolated. There are a number of reports that describe a reinvigoration of this pipeline plan after Bush took office, and further describe the Bush administration's negotiations with the Taliban including threats of war if the project was not allowed to pass through Afghanistan. Some say these threats, in the name of the pipeline, triggered the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban is gone, Afghan President Harmid Karzai is a former Unocal consultant, and the pipeline deal is finally done. - wrp)

Link

On a map of A'stan with the US military bases depicted, you can overlay the route of this pipeline and see that most of the major bases follow the pipeline throughout its course.

 

[Hypnospin]

if i had just dropped in from another planet
(yeah, i know, this may seem not too far fetched at to some at times)
and watched the afformentioned speech, i might have made the following conclusions:
-this was a pres concerned with the welfare of the nation
-his diction and speaking manner were fair, though obviously not natural, so he must have practiced a good bit
-he showed signs of sincerity
-was able to cite progress during his adminstration
-showed ony slight signs of negativity, an overall positive delivery

but given the fact that i have been aware to some extent the reality of what preceded this bogus display of attempted merit, the whole thing was reduced to farce.

if the us citizenry is not sufficiently, albeit painfully, aware of the reality behind the criminal bush syndicate enough to continue being vigilant in rejecting this sorry attempt at damage control propaganda, the staged approval ratings might be manipulated up to near 50% again as a temporary result.
at best.
this might just depend on if your kid is still alive and you still have a job.

these things have become a major concern of the outlook towards the us in nations the us has chosen to liberate even moreso than in the us...proven approval rating killers to say the least.

and the world is watching as the us slips further in international standing in most any, if not all categories you could mention. certainly in matters of foreign policy.

as for a two term limit, even this hallmark of democracy as we have come to know it may not sacred if bush does not wish to step down, you know, in the interest of national security and the crisis of the hour to come. another attack may well do the trick...
after all, look at all the us citizens and their elected officials have granted him with impunity thus far...under the decpetive premise it is all somehow for our own good.

I guess that would be the correct thinking, IF you didn't know the real motivations behind invading A'stan, and the fact that it was planned before 9/11 occured. .

 

[davidmc]

I guess that would be the correct thinking, IF you didn't know the real motivations behind invading A'stan, and the fact that it was planned before 9/11 occured. For 9/11 itself, the skids were well-greased by BushCo to allow it to happen on purpose, or they made it happen on purpose.

One thing is certain: there is overwhelming evidence that shows they aided & abetted whomever/whatever was steering those planes.

A quick synopsis on A'stan:

Link

[/i][/size][/font]On a map of A'stan with the US military bases depicted, you can overlay the route of this pipeline and see that most of the major bases follow the pipeline throughout its course.

Bush to Blair:

"Tony, don't worry about it. If I can get 60 million of these dumbasses to vote for me, believe me, they'll fall for anything ... They're nothing but stupid little sheep..."

and:

Bush knew there was "no evidence" of WMDs

"A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.

"Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".

What more proof does this country need that Bush lied us into needlessly invading Iraq? Bush was "so worried about the failure to find hard evidence", that he, Cheney, Wolfowitz and the rest of these conspirators, made it up.

This should be the final straw that leads to the impeachment and conviction of George Bush who should now be considered a war criminal. He needs to be held accountable for the massive loss of lives, the 16,000 gravely wounded Americans and the incredible waste of $500 billion."

http://wyliepost.blogspot.com/

 

[limerickman]

Reading this mornings Guardian Newspaper : a memo has surfaced of the Bush/Blair meeting in January 2003.
The minutes to the meetings state that Bush told Blair that the decision to go to war had been taken by the Bush Administration.
Bush proposed that regardless of the UN weapons inspectors findings that an attack on Iraq would happen.

Bush even floated an idea to speed up the process of going to war.
It seems that the Americans had suggested sending planes, with the UN design logo over Iraqi airspace, in the hope that Iraq would shoot down the planes - thus causing a pretext to invade sooner rather than later.
This plan was dicussed and approved at Bush cabinet level.

The problem with this new memo is that it furthers scorches Blairs statement to parliament in February 2003, that "Saddam has one final chance to avoid confrontation - he can give up his WMD and avert what may well be dire consequences".
This statement by Blair was uttered in parliament as Colin Powell was addressing the UN at 5th February 2003, with the doctored evidence of mobile WMD graphics and "conclusive evidence" of WMD movements in Iraq.

We know (and knew) that Bush was an utter liar.

Now it seems that Blair has once again been shown to have lied to Parliament.

 

[davidmc]

Reading this mornings Guardian Newspaper : a memo has surfaced of the Bush/Blair meeting in January 2003.
The minutes to the meetings state that Bush told Blair that the decision to go to war had been taken by the Bush Administration.
Bush proposed that regardless of the UN weapons inspectors findings that an attack on Iraq would happen.

Bush even floated an idea to speed up the process of going to war.
It seems that the Americans had suggested sending planes, with the UN design logo over Iraqi airspace, in the hope that Iraq would shoot down the planes - thus causing a pretext to invade sooner rather than later.
This plan was dicussed and approved at Bush cabinet level.

The problem with this new memo is that it furthers scorches Blairs statement to parliament in February 2003, that "Saddam has one final chance to avoid confrontation - he can give up his WMD and avert what may well be dire consequences".
This statement by Blair was uttered in parliament as Colin Powell was addressing the UN at 5th February 2003, with the doctored evidence of mobile WMD graphics and "conclusive evidence" of WMD movements in Iraq.

We know (and knew) that Bush was an utter liar.

Now it seems that Blair has once again been shown to have lied to Parliament.

This could all have been averted had we tapped "Dubya's" (W's) phone

 

[roadhog]

I think Arnold Schwarzennegger should become President.

Schwarzennegger is nothing but a movie actor to people outside of California, which - believe it or not - is not the center of the universe at all.

And the State of the Union is only meaningful for propaganda purposes. None of the proposals made in them ever come to fruition - much like campaign promises. It is a tradition begun in a different time - and these days has very little relevance except as a shameless public relations event.

 

[ptlwp]

Lots of folks will be happy to make it out alive by the time a new president is inaugurated, speech or no speech.

 

[davidmc]

Lots of folks will be happy to make it out alive by the time a new president is inaugurated, speech or no speech.

-You said it "sister" This totalitarian regime, currently in place, gives me the "willies" I hope there is a country left after "Bushco." leaves office whether voluntarily or involuntarily