Democrats & Liberals Archives

George Lost His Crown

For 5 years, George has used the calamity of 9/11 to crown himself king. By his decree, anyone he, and he alone, named as “enemy combatant,” would be sent to the Guantanamo Dungeon never to be heard from again. All those challenging this decree were declared to be traitors. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, knocked the crown off of George’s head.

Immediately after 9/11 the nation was blanketed with fear. After he declared war on the terrorists, Bush brilliantly used this fear to build up his own executive power at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches. He decided that we were fighting a war but the Geneva Convention did not apply. Detainees were labeled "enemy combatants" to be handled by a new judicial system.

If anyone asked questions, he or she was told that the new rules were necessary for national security. Many in the military fought the new rules because they realized the government was trampling on justice. Here is what Guter, the Navy's chief judge advocate general (JAG) until June 2002 and one of the many in the military that argued against the Guantanamo Dungeon scheme, says now:

"There was another motive. This was seen as an opportunity, a vehicle to restore presidential power and authority. It was a very convenient vehicle. It was perfect. Fear tends to drive power to authority and to the executive branch."

Marine Major Michael Mori, a defense lawyer representing one of the detainees, did not like the system:

"The people who created this have too much of a vested interest in obtaining only convictions. They were involved in the campaign of the war. They were involved in detention policy. They were involved in the interrogation policy...... They could not afford the first four military commissions to result in acquittals. That would undermine the public relations statements that these [detainees] were the worst of the worst."

This is what many military people are saying now. They dared not say anything in public before because they were told that the new Guantanamo Dungeon system was a result of

"Orders from King George. Obey or be labeled a traitor."

King George ruled for 5 years. He depended on loyal royalists in Congress to keep his crown. They were loyal, indeed. For greater assurance, he appointed 2 loyal royalists - Roberts and Alito - to the Supreme Court. As we can see today, this was not enough to subvert our justice system. Despite all Bush's efforts, the Supreme Court grabbed Bush's crown and threw it to the ground.

The royal battle is not over yet. Two loyal royalists Senators Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl are fighting to maintain the monarchy. In a joint statement, they said:

"However, we believe the problems cited by the court can and should be fixed. We intend to pursue legislation ... granting the executive branch the authority to ensure that terrorists can be tried by competent military commissions."

Translation: Let's put the crown back on George's head.

They will lose. Like Humpty Dumpty, they will not be able to restore the monarchy. The judiciary has spoken. Now the legislature will speak - as an independent body.

Americans do not want a king. A president who shares power with a legislature and a judiciary is what we want. We have been bamboozled enough and have seen our justice system deteriorate so much we are being criticized by people all over the world.

Of course, the loyal royalists will proceed with their royal tricks. The tricks will not work. They did not work with Social Security that the king himself tried to destroy with his many misleading speeches. They will not work today with the king making speeches on how only a king can keep us safe. It will be all for nought.

Hooray! George lost his crown. Let's keep it off.

Posted by Paul Siegel at June 30, 2006 10:46 PM
Comments
Comment #163934

So, to the left, or at least you, 9/11 is reduced to a “calamity” due to your hatred of President Bush. That is fine if that’s the way you want to feel. I am sure you would have felt the same way when President Roosevelt suspended various civil rights for national security reasons. For that matter, Presidents Wilson and Lincoln.

For the families of all of those people (liberal, conservative, or even apolitical)that died on 9/11, most of the rest of the country does not feel that September 11, 2001 was a “calamity.”

Posted by: Political_Sniper at July 1, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #163941

So pick a stronger word and we’ll all move on to discuss the point.

Posted by: Loren at July 1, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #163950

Calamity…. 1:great distress or misfortune 2:an event causing great harm or loss and affliction … DISASTER
So Sniper…..which one of these definitions do you find unacceptable? If that is the bit of the post you chose to attack, then you must agree with the rest of it !

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 1, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #163962

The Supeme Court, with 3 clueless, decided that the Constitution of the United States does not have and “on/off” switch. Turn in on when dealing with our selves and friends and turn off with those we deem our enemies. Shades of the Nixon Administration with their “ememies list.”

The next battle with be in Congress. The Bush loyalist will try to pass laws that approves the Kangaroo er Military Courts to judge those the White House have deemed “enemies or evil doers.”
We must remember that whatever bill reaches this President, he can just put a note on it and do what ever he pleases, equil rights, equil justice etc be hanged.

If you are tired of this Congress and Administration we all can do something. It is called the National Election of 2006. Support those candidates that believe in the Constitution over so called values, however compashinate your beleifs are. The Constitution MUST be for everyone or it is for NO ONE!!

Have a fun and sale Independance Day.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at July 1, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #163964

—- Paul- I suppose there is no surprise that all the court jesters are coming out to perform and try defending their King! The wise men jumped ship some time ago, an his puppeteers will continue guiding his lost ship through this fog of deceit and his misguided voyage over the past six years. I am hoping you an the other bloggers, who see the folly of the Republicans will be able to wake the sleeping Democrats in time for the Nov. elections!

Posted by: DAVID at July 1, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #163965

-C.T.Rich—does seem our Independence may be up for sale or taken away, ether way I think the good old days are surely gone.

Posted by: DAVID at July 1, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #163972

David,
You mention the “good old days.” Will today, with the assault on privacy, be known as the “good old days” in 20 years. Or will it known as the days that an incompentent President tried to erase that social and legal gains of this country since 1776.

Just an idea but I believe it should be debated.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at July 1, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #163981

—C.T.Rich—I believe that the time for all debate is over, replacing debate with a call for the Vice President an all those Implicated in, THE MANUFACTURE OF FAULCE EVIDENCE leading the United States into a War!!The evidence is well presented by Front Line an many other sources. No matter how any one tries to defend these truths, these defenders should be considered as part of large scale fraud on all Americans.

Posted by: DAVID at July 1, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #163982

—truths should be untruths or down right lies.—

Posted by: DAVID at July 1, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #163985

— THE CRIME IS TREASON AN THE CALL IS FOR HIGH CRIMES AN MISSDEMEANORS

Posted by: DAVID at July 1, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #163986

—-IMPEACHMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: DAVID at July 1, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #164004

Spin it all you want, but the United States has never had a king. President Bush was duly elected by the citizens of these United States and you will just have to accept it.
If you can prove that he broke a law, then have him charged and impeached.

Posted by: Tom D. at July 1, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #164010

Paul,

Good article. I’d have to say you’re more optimistic than I am. I doubt this amounts to much more than a bump in the road.

I truly don’t think anything short of impeachment proceedings will reign Bush in. Hopefully November will spell the beginning of the end for the Bush regime.

KansasDem

PS: I’m still waiting for the right to start crying foul and the demands for impeachment (or worse) of our Liberal activist justices.

Posted by: KansasDem at July 1, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #164015

KansasDem,

I have to agree that at this point the SC decision will do little to change GB’s ways or for that matter the way we treat people that we feel might have information related to terrorism. The rubber stamp congress will see to that. Our best hope is to make the republican majority in the Senate and/or House of Representatives disappear come November.

Posted by: mark at July 1, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #164037

Hmmm.. Bush the king. Lets see..Head of an aristocratic ruling class that pays him fealty check…Inherited position..check..resents any shared power..check…makes his own laws..check personally starts wars..check..claims devine guidence…check…lifetime ruler..we will see 2008

Posted by: BillS at July 1, 2006 10:13 PM
Comment #164073

-BillS- If Bush is the King that must Make Chaney Queen?

Posted by: DAVID at July 2, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #164078

—Tom D- By letting president Bush make his own laws the Senate an House Of Representatives have abdicated their powers, an effectively become pawns for (the King)!

Posted by: DAVID at July 2, 2006 12:42 AM
Comment #164113

Words have meaning. George W. Bush is not a king. He is a president. At least we should be able to get the title right.

Posted by: t at July 2, 2006 4:39 AM
Comment #164114

Sorry about the signature. The above response is mine.

Posted by: Tom D. at July 2, 2006 4:40 AM
Comment #164116

Tom—I think President Bush should start acting like a president. No one is given respect that is something we all must earn, that includes the President!

Posted by: DAVID at July 2, 2006 4:55 AM
Comment #164118

“Tom—I think President Bush should start acting like a president. No one is given respect that is something we all must earn, that includes the President!

Posted by: DAVID at July 2, 2006 04:55 AM”

And exactly how does this make him a king?

Posted by: tomd at July 2, 2006 5:05 AM
Comment #164221


Tom D: ” if you can prove that he broke the law, then have him charged and impeached.”

Many of us think that he broke the law. Many on the other side of the argument believe that he did not break the law. We can’t prove or disprove either. Dou know why we can’t prove either? We can’t get to the truth without your help Tom. The only way we can get at the truth is if your side joins us to demand that the republican controlled Congress fulfills it’s Constitional duty to investigate the doings of the administration.

Tom, do you have any doubt whatsoever that the republican controlled Congress would be investigating the administration if Al Gore or John Kerry were the president? If you are convinced that the president hasn’t violated the laws of our nation, what do you have to fear about investigations, especially since the presidents party controls the Congress. Join with us to demand that the Congress does it’s Constitutional duty. If you believe that truth should prevail and that the president has done nothing wrong, then demand the investigations and you can put us in our place.

Posted by: jlw at July 2, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #164233

“Many of us think that he broke the law. Many on the other side of the argument believe that he did not break the law. We can’t prove or disprove either.”

Investigate all you wish. I see no evidence that any laws were broken so I’m not interested in an investigation.

I believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty. If you can prove it then by all means do so, but don’t expect me to agree with you without proof.

Posted by: Tom D. at July 2, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #164252


Tom D: Not once did I ask you to agree with me on the innocence or guilt of the president. I asked you to join with us to find out the truth. Aparently you see no need in having the republicans investigate the president. Perhaps it could be that you think you know the truth without knowing the facts or that you fear what an investigation might reveal. How can you prove innocence or guilt without investigating to find out what the facts are? Does a jury determine guilt or inocence without hearing the evidence and making a determination based on the facts. What the republicans in Congress are doing is denying the jury ( The American People ) the facts and forcing them to render a verdict on hearsay evidence. The jury has done just that and the only thing the republicans can say about it is that the verdict doesn’t count because it is not unanimous.

Posted by: jlw at July 2, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #164282

“How can you prove innocence or guilt without investigating to find out what the facts are? Does a jury determine guilt or inocence without hearing the evidence and making a determination based on the facts.”

It’s not up to the defense to prove innocence. It is the accuser’s job to prove guilt.

” Does a jury determine guilt or inocence without hearing the evidence and making a determination based on the facts. What the republicans in Congress are doing is denying the jury ( The American People ) the facts and forcing them to render a verdict on hearsay evidence. The jury has done just that and the only thing the republicans can say about it is that the verdict doesn’t count because it is not unanimous.”

The american people are not the jury. If the President is impeached he will have a “jury” of his peers. It’s a little early to have a jury when there are no charges.

Like I said before, words have a specific meaning and the american people at large cannot be considered a jury.

Posted by: tomd at July 2, 2006 3:47 PM
Comment #164283

—Tom— I believe the questions you are trolling for are on Rushes web site, sorry I can’t tell you how to go there!

Posted by: DAVID at July 2, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #164287

“—Tom— I believe the questions you are trolling for are on Rushes web site, sorry I can’t tell you how to go there!

Posted by: DAVID at July 2, 2006 03:49 PM”


The only question I asked was in response to the post when I asked how these things made him a king.

Now, I’ll ask another question…How is this a troll post?

Posted by: tomd at July 2, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #164298

tomd—Because both my posts were trick questions designed for troll food, an have no answers.

Posted by: DAVID at July 2, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #164310

comment for alw - How can we try him, when everytime someone in his administration is brought up on charges they get the guy off saying the information needed to plead is case/innocence is classified information and cannot be released. And nobody can get past that.

Posted by: janey at July 2, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #164315

—tomd— Had you read the original post by Paul Siegel at the top of this page, all your questions plus would have been answered!

Posted by: DAVID at July 2, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #164319

Tom D, If your president has nothing to fear, then you have nothing to fear. Support Conyers’ H. Res. 635 and let’s allow an investigation into the actions of this administration. If he is innocent, then he walks. If you think justice is important, and you feel that our Constitution is important, then don’t let the Republican controlled Congress stonewall any real investigation into the facts.

Fact are good for the reality-based community, and America needs to be a reality-based community if it is to survive as a democracy.

Posted by: Michael at July 2, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #164328

David,

“—tomd— Had you read the original post by Paul Siegel at the top of this page, all your questions plus would have been answered!

Posted by: DAVID at July 2, 2006 05:10 PM”

I read Paul’s original post at the top of the page and I take exception to President Bush being called a king. I believe words are important and have specific meaning. president don’t equal king.


“tomd—Because both my posts were trick questions designed for troll food, an have no answers.”

Posted by: DAVID at July 1, 2006 03:57 PM
Posted by: DAVID at July 1, 2006 04:05 PM
Posted by: DAVID at July 1, 2006 05:34 PM
Posted by: DAVID at July 1, 2006 05:37 PM
Posted by: DAVID at July 1, 2006 05:46 PM
Posted by: DAVID at July 1, 2006 05:47 PM
I made my response to Paul’s post here
Posted by: DAVID at July 2, 2006 12:23 AM
Posted by: DAVID at July 2, 2006 12:42 AM
Posted by: DAVID at July 2, 2006 04:55 AM
Posted by: DAVID at July 2, 2006 03:49 PM

Which “both posts” are you refering to?

Posted by: tomd at July 2, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #164343

—tomd— I guess it shows that you have been tricked at least 10 times, would you like another trick question that is a little easier?

Posted by: DAVID at July 2, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #164346

No David,
I’ve made my point. I’ll leave the childish tricks to you.

Posted by: tomd at July 2, 2006 6:43 PM
Comment #164488

It would appear that King George Bushie the II is attempting to take the same route as Nixon did years ago. That is to suggest that anyone who was opposed to his policies was anti-american. Least we forget at the 230th anniversery of the Declaration of Independence, from England and all (or any) other tryants,including those within this fine republic, that we have not only the right, but the responsibility to question our elected (were they really elected?) leaders and our government, but to also replace those leaders with those who reflect the desires/wishes of the people. Considering the approval rating of King George Bushie the II, it appears that the majority of the population of this grand republic is desireous of not only a different leader, but a better one. Remember the words of Nathan Hale: “Give me liberty, or give me death!” The same holds true today!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Roy T. at July 3, 2006 1:04 PM
Post a comment