C'mon. There's just no topping Millard Fillmore.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

What about an executive order that is later ruled unconstitutional?

Tipping Sacred Cows

The issuance of the executive order is legal, however.  If it is ruled uncontitutional later on, you cannot prosecute someone for doing something which was legal at the time.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

wow... just think of the possibilities for abuse of power. If Nixon had issued an exectuvie order to spy on his rivals it would have been fine in that case.

Tipping Sacred Cows

It is actually horrifying to consider the long series of US Presidents who have violated the constitution, abused human rights, and committed terrible crimes, without being removed from office.

Yep. Pretty much the only one that didn't was Carter, and he was otherwise a pretty useless and incompetent leader. It's a shame, really - I think the country was maybe ready for a new direction, after Nixon, but Carter was far too much of a step in the other direction. People wanted an ethical, competent, and charismatic leader. Going from Nixon (competent, but neither ethical nor charismatic) to Ford (none of the three) to Carter (charismatic and ethical, but not competent), I think put the idea in peoples' heads that you can have one or maybe two of those three in a leader, but not all three. Since then we've tended to settle, with an emphasis on supposed "competence" over the other two, and a secondary desire for charisma. Consideration of ethics, unfortunately, rarely seems to enter the picture anymore (unless we're talking in the religious sense - although, oddly enough, defenders of the rights of the unborn rarely care much about the rights of living gays, illegal immigrants or "ter'rists").

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Jimmy Carter does seem to have been a remarkably ethical President, and has also been a remarkably ethical ex-President, who has advanced many worthy causes since leaving office.  Even so, he did one thing as President which offended me deeply, which was to bring back draft registration (without an actual draft) as a form of saber-rattling in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.  And incidentally, at the present time it appears that we would have been a lot better off if we had supported the Soviets in Afghanistan rather than opposing them.  We couldn't allow a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan but we wound up invading Afghanistan ourselves.  Pretty ironic.

has also been a remarkably ethical ex-President

So long as you ignore the anti-Semitism, you mean.

And incidentally, at the present time it appears that we would have been a lot better off if we had supported the Soviets in Afghanistan rather than opposing them.

No, just no. The Soviets ongoing debacle in Afghanistan was an important sinkhole in the foundation of the USSR, and hastened its demise. Unless you think that living behind the Iron Curtain was no different from living in the EU today, there's no sensible argument to be made for supporting the USSR. Even with the current woes in south Asia, the world is a far better place than it was in the 80s.

Even though I agree with you that Carter showed undue hostility toward Israel by using the emotionally loaded term apartheit in describing Israel's treatment of Arabs, it would really be an exaggeration to call this anti-Semitism.  I am sure that Carter does not feel hatred of Jews as a race, although he should be more sympathetic toward Israel's need for self-defense against Arab violence.  Nonetheless, few people have worked more diligently and sincerely for peace in the middle east than Carter.

It's interesting to compare the problems of the Cold War with those of the War on Terrorism.  Despite all the problems that the US had with the USSR for so many decades, and the various regional conflicts which were connected to that central conflict, neither the USSR nor any of its satellite states ever launched an actual military attack against the US, whereas Afghanistan, which the US had so generously defended (with clandestine arms shipments) against the Soviet invasion, DID attack the US (I realize that the 9/11 terrorism was directly carried out by a non-governmental organization, al Qaeda, but that organization had the full support of the Taliban regime of Afghanistan at the time, both before and after 9/11, when they refused to extradite the terrorists).  So which enemy was worse?  The world seems far more dangerous and politically unstable today, after the fall of communism.

That said, I agree that eastern Europe fully deserved to be liberated from Soviet domination.  The fall of the USSR was in many ways a very good thing, even though it did usher in new and seemingly worse problems. It may be that the cure was worse than the disease, but even so, communism was a disease.  It's just too bad that we could not bring an end to communist dictatorships without thereby fostering the growth of militant Islam and the resulting global epidemic of terrorism.

Honestly speaking, knowing what you know today, would you really have advised Jimmy Carter to support Osama bin Laden in order to defeat the USSR?  It's almost like saying that we should have defeated Josef Stalin by throwing our support behind the Third Reich.    

We actually defeated the Third Reich by throwing our support behind Josef Stalin. Pick your poison.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Exactly, we picked the poison of the USSR over that of the Third Reich, and then we picked the poison of militant Islam over that of the USSR.  We keep solving problems by creating new and similarly dangerous problems.

The roots of all these problems can easily be traced back as far as WW I, which is when things really started to go wrong.  Since that time, the world has never really recovered its sanity.  And where does it all lead?  It is now very late to adopt workable solutions, as the world slides toward some kind of combined ecological, economic, and political catastrophe, but it could still be done, in theory.  As a species we need to stop fighting with each other, and start dealing with our real problems.

Nazi Germany declared war on us first.  They did so because they had a pact with Japan.  So, once we were formally at war with Germany (and actually we had been informally been at odds with them since 1939 by way of our support of the Brits) the decision to support, as you say, the Soviet Union was a given because the Soviet Union was fighting the Germans from the other side.  And, had not we supported the Soviet Union in their fight with the Germans and had the Germans been able to focus their efforts solely on the Western Front, how long do you think the war in Europe would have taken?  How many more lives would have been lost?

The fact is that FDR and Churchill both mistrusted Stalin (FDR a little less than Churchill) and our love affair with Stalin and the Soviet Union ended when Germany surrendered.  George Patton wanted us to continue to march East and overthrown Stalin and there were political factions in Washington who might have agreed.  I have to believe the cooler heads who decided to accept a partitioning of Europe into West and East took the right path.  Because who is to say how many millions would have been sacrificed in pursuit of Patton's wet dream.  At any rate, American support for Uncle Joe didn't outlast WWII.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

that organization had the full support of the Taliban regime of Afghanistan at the time, both before and after 9/11, when they refused to extradite the terrorists

That's a complete lie. The US never presented Afghanistan with prima facie evidence that OBL was involved in the attacks as the Taliban requested. When the US demanded that the Taliban hand Bin Laden over to them they did not follow any of the internationally recognized procedures for an extradition, the most basic one being that they present some evidence (we're not talking iron clad proof here, just a basic outline of hsi involvement) that the individual was involved. Even with the US unwilling to fulfill that minor requirement, the Taliban were willing to extradite him to Pakistan to stand trial for the Sept.11 attacks (where he would most likely have received the death penalty) as Pakistan was willing to provide those legal requirements which were to onerous for Bush. The US opposed that plan, and even when the Taliban offered to give them Bin Laden through a plan much like the CIA's extraordinary rendition they decided to bomb the fuck out of them.

Sorry, seeing people repeat this lie over and over is a pet peeve of mine.

Tipping Sacred Cows

The US never presented Afghanistan with prima facie evidence that OBL was involved in the attacks as the Taliban requested

I won't call your comment "a complete lie," but it definitely is divorced from some important historical context.

By the time the 9/11 attacks occurred, the US had been actively engaging the Taliban government for over three years due to his earlier terrorist activities:

On Feb. 3, 1999, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Karl E. Inderfurth, the Clinton administration's point man for talks with the Taliban, and Michael Sheehan, State Department counterterrorism chief, went to Islamabad to deliver a stern message to the Taliban's deputy foreign minister, Abdul Jalil: The United States henceforth would hold the Taliban responsible for any terrorist act by bin Laden.

By that time, in Laden had been indicted for his alleged role in the embassy bombings. The officials reviewed the indictment in detail with the Taliban and offered to provide more evidence if the Taliban sent a delegation to New York. The Taliban did not do so...

...Throughout 1999 and 2000, Inderfurth, Sheehan and Thomas R. Pickering, then undersecretary of state, continued meeting in Washington, Islamabad, New York and Bonn to review evidence against bin Laden. They warned of war if there were another terrorist attack

When the US demanded that the Taliban hand Bin Laden over to them they did not follow any of the internationally recognized procedures for an extradition...

The situation had long since gone way beyond simple extradition procedures. There was a United Nations Security Council resolution in place since 1999 demanding that any nation deal with bin Laden and his associates as terrorism suspects. The reasons for this resolution as well as voluminous supporting evidence was available to the Taliban.

It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine that there are people who continue to claim that the Taliban's refusal to hand over bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks was in any was justified or reasonable under international law or common standards of decency. The Taliban had more than adequate notice that the US would (quite justifiably) hold them responsible for terrorist activities that were being planned, organized, and prepared on Afghan soil.

As I said in my original comment, the Taliban were willing to give him up until Clinton bombed their country.

Tipping Sacred Cows

As I said in my original comment, the Taliban were willing to give him up until Clinton bombed their country

If you would consult the story link in my comment you might realize that is not true.

From this link you wanted me to read again:

"We never heard what they were trying to say," said Milton Bearden, a former CIA station chief who oversaw U.S. covert operations in Afghanistan in the 1980s. "We had no common language. Ours was, 'Give up bin Laden.' They were saying, 'Do something to help us give him up.' "

It's pretty amazing that the point when the US was closest to getting Bin Laden isn't even mentioned in your link, in 1998 between Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, not the Sudan-Saudi link in 96. If you want me to take you seriously, don't give me links to American media (these are the same sites that didn't bother to factcheck on the Iraq war.. either of them)... send me something credible like the BBC or Xinhua (although they weren't around at the time).

Tipping Sacred Cows

It's pretty amazing that the point when the US was closest to getting Bin Laden isn't even mentioned in your link, in 1998 between Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, not the Sudan-Saudi link in 96

It's hardly amazing: we were discussing the Taliban's intransigence, not the myriad other failures of the Clinton Administration's anti-terrorism policy.

If you want me to take you seriously, don't give me links to American media

I also mentioned, and gave you a link for, a United Nations Security Council Resolution. That resolution alone was adequate to serve notice to the Taliban that they were expected to take action to stop bin Laden.

It's hardly amazing: we were discussing the Taliban's intransigence, not the myriad other failures of the Clinton Administration's anti-terrorism policy.

We were? I thought we were talking about deception in reporting by US media concerning the Taliban...

I also mentioned, and gave you a link for, a United Nations Security Council Resolution. That resolution alone was adequate to serve notice to the Taliban that they were expected to take action to stop bin Laden.

The Taliban were listed alongside Bin Laden, not mandated to do anything about it (as I don't believe the Taliban were the UN recognized authorities in Afghanistan, any UN order didn't apply to them). Also that resolution called for an asset freeze, travel ban, and an arms embargo... nothing about taking action, at least not the type of concrete action people expect when someone says 'take action'.

Tipping Sacred Cows

Also that resolution called for an asset freeze, travel ban, and an arms embargo... nothing about taking action...

Those are 'actions" by most definitions of the word. Anyway the point was that you claimed that the Taliban was not given evidence about bin Laden's terrorist activities, and that is plainly not true.

Nah, I claimed that they weren't given evidence of his involvement in 9/11 which was the specific reason that the US was requesting his extradition at that given moment... and guess what, it's true.

Tipping Sacred Cows

The Taliban had previously been given evidence of bin Laden's involvement with other terrorist acts. They were also told that if they continued to shelter bin Laden that they would be held responsible for future terrorist attacks. Yet, despite the fact that they ignored the evidence and continued to shelter bin Laden, the Taliban were given another opportunity to avoid being held responsible for bin Laden's 9/11 attack. It was their perverted sense of honor toward a coreligionist rather than a lack of evidence that prevented them from doing the right thing.

Which completely excuses the US from folowing international norms in even the smallest way... gotcha.

Tipping Sacred Cows

I have no idea what you're talking about by "international norms." I already explained that there was on-going diplomatic action, both before and after the 9/11 attacks, and that the UNSC had long since made public evidence that bin Laden was guilty of terrorism.

By international norms in this case I am talking about the US refusing to hand over evidence of Bin Laden's invovlement in 9/11, one of the primary requirements of any extradition. As for the on-going diplomatic actions, they weren't all that successful, now where they? It's kinda hard to negotiate with someone after you've launched missiles into their country.

Tipping Sacred Cows

By international norms in this case I am talking about the US refusing to hand over evidence of Bin Laden's invovlement in 9/11, one of the primary requirements of any extradition

You keep avoiding the fact that the Taliban had by that point already been given more than enough evidence of bin Laden's earlier terrorist activities that they could not possibly have doubted his guilt.

As for the on-going diplomatic actions, they weren't all that successful, now where they?

That's true, but it was not for a lack of evidence that bin Laden was guilty nor was it for failing to follow diplomatic norms and international law.

I'm not avoiding anything, I explained why the previous extradition attempt failed in my first comment so I don't really feel the need to rehash the subject when you haven't brought anything new to the table. The issue of extradition before and after 9/11 are completely different subject with much different context for all the parties involved yet we saw similar diplomatic efforts form the US (meaning no real diplomacy at all, instead a reliance on the use of force).

Tipping Sacred Cows

I explained why the previous extradition attempt failed in my first comment

No you didn't. You claimed that the Taliban were willing to give up bin Laden, but that is not true. You also said is was "a complete lie" that the Taliban refused to extradite bin Laden because they were never presented with evidence against him. You were wrong, as I have shown, because the Taliban was given evidence, but they continued to resist extraditing bin Laden. Their refusal was not a principled stand for Afghan sovereignty and bin Laden's rights, but a cultural stand based on the idea that they were duty-bound to continue to provide refuge and that a Muslim should not be subject to the justice of infidels.

Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that the Taliban were not given evidence, and you were wrong. You said that the US was "unwilling to fulfill that minor requirement," and you were wrong. This is not a difference of opinion; you were simply incorrect about a basic historical fact.

Since I showed that you were mistaken about the basic facts of these events, you have tried deflecting the discussion in other directions. First you claimed that the Washington Post is not a credible news source, and then, when I pointed out that the UNSC had also put the Taliban on notice, you invented the lame excuse that the Taliban wasn't recognized by the UN and therefore had no obligation to follow its dictates.

You can't have it both ways. Either the Taliban was obligated to act according to a UNSC resolution, or, if they were not the recognized government in Afghanistan, they could not claim sovereign authority as a reason not to extradite bin Laden or complain when the US launched missiles at their soil.  

Your latest attempt at deflecting the discussion away from common sense is your claim that, "[t]he issue of extradition before and after 9/11 are completely different subject with much different context for all the parties involved." The subject was that bin Laden had been carrying out terrorism operations from a base in Afghanistan for years. The context, after 9/11, was that the Taliban had been told that they would be held responsible for any future attacks. The protection afforded bin Laden by the Taliban directly aided the attack on 9/11. That is the context of this discussion and no amount of hand-waving on your part can change that.

Some of your other comments here are also weak attempts to forgive bin Laden and the Taliban for what they did because it was a response to bad acts done by the US, and, more amazingly, to say that the the Taliban was "in the right."

For the first two paragraphs go reread what I wrote as you are mixing up timelines.

Since I showed that you were mistaken about the basic facts of these events, you have tried deflecting the discussion in other directions. First you claimed that the Washington Post is not a credible news source

You didn't, and it isn't.

Either the Taliban was obligated to act according to a UNSC resolution, or, if they were not the recognized government in Afghanistan, they could not claim sovereign authority as a reason not to extradite bin Laden or complain when the US launched missiles at their soil.

You can blame the international community for not recognizing the Taliban as the legitimate government of Aghanistan. The UN wouldn't legitimize them, but if you wanted to get anything done you had to deal with the truth that they were indeed in control of the country. Without UN recognition, the Taliban did not have any responsibilities according to the UN Charter. So it was both ways, not my fault, and that was entirely due to the choices made by the international community.

The subject was that bin Laden had been carrying out terrorism operations from a base in Afghanistan for years.

And the US had the opportunity to have him extradited but destroyed any possibility for that after Clinton's response to the American embassy bombings (which I may have mistakenly claimed was in response to the attack on the USS Cole previously). At the time of the bombing, the Taliban were willing to extradite Bin Laden to Saud Arabia to stand trial but reneged on the deal following the air strikes in their country.

The context, after 9/11, was that the Taliban had been told that they would be held responsible for any future attacks.

And following through with that didn't get the US Bin Laden, did it? Keep defending failed decisions, it doesn't really bother me too much. Just stop making stuff up about it.

Some of your other comments here are also weak attempts to forgive bin Laden and the Taliban for what they did because it was a response to bad acts done by the US, and, more amazingly, to say that the the Taliban was "in the right."

I think Al Qaeda is in the right (at least in their war against the US... not so much with their other policy goals) and that 9/11 was probably the greatest strike for freedom the world has ever seen. As for the Taliban, the only time I agreed with them was when they actually followed international law (in demanding proof of Bin Laden's invovlement before extradition).

Tipping Sacred Cows

I think Al Qaeda is in the right...and that 9/11 was probably the greatest strike for freedom the world has ever seen

You know, rEv, you should have simply led with that and saved us all a lot of time.

You should already knot that by now though.

Tipping Sacred Cows

But Afghanistan did refuse to extradite the terrorists.  You are now telling me that this isn't true because the US failed to make a sufficiently good case for extradition, but as I recall, the response of the Taliban was not that the US needs to make a better case, but that bin Laden & the gang could only be tried in Afghanistan by an Islamic court - in other words, terrorists get to be tried only by people who agree with them that the un-Islamic Western world does deserve to be destroyed.

For you to try at this late date to imagine that the Taliban was actually cooperative in fighting terrorism, and it was just the US which dropped the ball by failing to present a stronger legal case against the terrorists, seems perverse.  I would say that you are engaged in historical revisionism.  Many people find it tempting to re-write history in order to better support their own particular point of view.  In your case the point of view seems to be that all things are the fault of the US, no one else can ever be at fault.  You & I could certainly find a great many areas in which we would agree that the US is at fault.  The US is guilty of many terrible errors and crimes, and has often violated the principles upon which it was founded.  But it is not ALWAYS to blame.  The world is full of corrupt governments and deranged zealots who cause problems.  And the Taliban falls into that category.

Afghanistan refused to extradite the alleged terrorists without evidence that they were involved. They said they would make a judgement regarding the extradition once they were presented with evidence. In the face of US aggression, they finally capitulated and suggested extradition to Pakistan witout being presented any evidence but that also was rejected by the US. The whole islamic court thing was necessary to the extradition process. Lets say Canada wanted to extradite some murderer from the US. We already have an extradition treaty, so the process would be more streamlined than with a non-treaty nation, but here are (some of) the steps we would have to follow (ignoring appeals and such).

1. We'd have to make an extradition request for the suspect in regards to a specific crime.
   
2. We'd be asked to provide evidence that the person in question may be guilty of said crimes.
   
3. a US court would determine whether or not to proceed with extradition.

What the US asked of the Taliban was to ignore both parts 2 and 3. I've centered my argument on the US wanting to skip step 2, but since you brought up the Islamic courts... who else do you think would be ruling in step 3? Under the Taliban, all of the courts followed sharia so it would be impossible to complete the legal process of extradition without getting the Islamic courts involved.

As to your assertion about being only tried in front of Islamic courts, that too is false. The Taliban said that once given evidence the Islamic courts would either rule to proceed with extradition OR try Bin Laden themselves. They also suggested the possibility fo extraditing him to another Islamic country but they enver ruled out extradition to the US (even though that would violate one of the central tenets of extradition that you do not extradite suspects to countries where they are not guaranteed a fair trial).

For you to try at this late date to imagine that the Taliban was actually cooperative in fighting terrorism, and it was just the US which dropped the ball by failing to present a stronger legal case against the terrorists, seems perverse.

I've been saying the same thing since it happened, and the news said that as well... it's only later that the American media started to change the story to the twisted fabrication that people parrot now.

The world is full of corrupt governments and deranged zealots who cause problems.  And the Taliban falls into that category.

One thing you need to understand is where the Taliban falls exactly. They are the deranged zealots that replaced the corrupt government witht he support of the people of Aghanistan (and have now been replaced once again by memebers of that same corrupt governemnt). I'll admit I've never like them, from the time when they first captured Kabul I wondered how well a bunch of religious people could run a  country and I realized just how badly when they blew up those statues... the fact that it just got worse after that is no surprise.  My opinion of them doesn't change the fact that when it came to the extradition of Bin Laden, they were actually in the right.

Tipping Sacred Cows

We get into a kind of twilight zone when we insist on following meticulous legal procedures in a country where the government and courts are run by religious fanatics who have no actual sense of justice, and work solely on the basis of their ridiculous religious delusions.  Personally I would say that given the seriousness of the situation, which was obviously going to lead to war if it was not handled correctly, the Taliban should have been a bit more cooperative in extraditing terrorists, rather than creating legalistic obstacles to extradition.  If it was a case of an ordinary crime, whether a murder, a kidnapping, perhaps a credit card forgery, an unauthorized copying of DVDs, and so forth, then you can follow normal procedures.  When you have what amounts to a major military assault on another country (even if it was not committed by the official armed forces) things get more serious.  The US cannot fool around when it is under attack.  That is not a time for legal niceties.

As far as the claim that the Taliban is the government that has the support of the people of Afghanistan, certainly there is a lot of popular support, although it was and remains far from unanimous.  It is worth noting that the civil war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance was still in progress at the time of the NATO invasion (which, of course, greatly facilitated the overthrow of the Taliban).  Even in the regions most loyal to the Taliban there were certainly those who did not like the theocratic government; for example, many women were not happy with the sub-human status to which they were relegated.

It is much better, I believe, if countries with various forms of repressive and/or psychotic governments are reformed from within, by their own citizens, rather than being reformed from without, by means of foreign troops.  War is just too destructive and debilitating.  The US doesn't even have the resources that it would need to really function as the world's policeman, which it has been attempting to do ever since WW II.  In theory the UN could carry out such a role, but it would have to have far more support from its member nations than it now enjoys.  So let the citizens of every nation concern themselves with making their own nation better, rather than interfering in other nations.  Nonetheless, once the US is attacked, it must respond in a suitably forceful manner.  At that point, peaceful coexistence fails as a policy.

Wow, I'm glad I don't know you. I hope you get killed in the next 9/11-style attack cuz you are the type of person the world doesn't need. Your entire essay boils down to: We got guns, do as we say! Nice ethics for a bank robber, senseless and destructive for international politics.

Now that I've said my feelings about you, here's why I'm saying it:

Personally I would say that given the seriousness of the situation, which was obviously going to lead to war if it was not handled correctly, the Taliban should have been a bit more cooperative in extraditing terrorists

It lead to war because the US wanted it to lead to war or because they didn't handle the situation correctly (the US has mishandled every chance they had to capture Bin Laden before and after the invasion).

If it was a case of an ordinary crime, whether a murder, a kidnapping, perhaps a credit card forgery, an unauthorized copying of DVDs, and so forth, then you can follow normal procedures.

This kind of thinking leads to a police state.

The US cannot fool around when it is under attack.  That is not a time for legal niceties.

That is the kind of thinking that leads to genocides and other abuses.

So let the citizens of every nation concern themselves with making their own nation better, rather than interfering in other nations.

You do of course understand that Al-Qaeda was formed in response to nations interfering with other nations... Actually, I know you don't, otherwise you wouldn't have posted this crap.

Nonetheless, once the US is attacked, it must respond in a suitably forceful manner.

So I guess the appropriate response to a US attack is to roll over and die then.

At that point, peaceful coexistence fails as a policy.

Read your fucking history! Not from way back.. just the last 30 years. There is no peaceful coexistance when one country with troops all over the globe decides that it's "interests" supercede sovereignty.

You disgust me. Others here might have voiced similar thoughts, but they backed up those thoughts with at least a semi-rational argument rather than falling straight back into "might makes right". Even those who STILL support the Iraq War usually have a better reasoning for it than you have for this bullshit you posted. Grow the fuck up and start looking at how many people suffer from war; how many lives are lost, livelihoods destroyed, how many children are crippled and maimed, and then tell me you still think that going to war to get ONE FUCKING MAN is really a rational response.

Tipping Sacred Cows

Your comment is far too insulting to deserve any serious reply.

My sentiments exactly.

Tipping Sacred Cows

When the US demanded that the Taliban hand Bin Laden over to them they did not follow any of the internationally recognized procedures for an extradition

No doubt the Taliban breathed a sigh of relief when the US returned to the internationally recognized procedures for starting a war by invading their asses.

that should read as "the internationally recognized procedures for the US to start a war (with lies)".

Tipping Sacred Cows

Given that the US shown little actual interest in Bin Laden and the President himself as said we're not interested in capturing Bin Laden, it's difficult to accept as fact any assertion that presupposed the opposite.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Given the shenanigans that took place in the last presidential election, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Bush/Chaney declare any upcoming election null-and-void and try to retain power in office.  They've already done a fine job of raping the constitution, so why stop now?  This Republican leadership is contemptible, and the Democrats are weenies for letting it continue.  If the Libertarians could come up with a halfways decent candidate, I'd probably vote for them.  I did vote for Ed Clark in the 1980 election, but since then the candidates have been a little too weird for me.  I'd still love to see a Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich face-off for the Presidency, and I honestly don't know which I would vote for.  It's a moot point, since it will never happen.

there's only one way to find out...

...I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Bush/Chaney declare any upcoming election null-and-void and try to retain power in office

How would that work, exactly? Would the state and local elections officials simply acquiesce? The Electoral College would decide not to meet because Cheney would threaten to take them quail hunting?

You must have some mechanism in mind that makes you think it is plausible to annul an election. So what is it?

I dunno, how does Musharraf do it? I'm sure there's a guy or two with the technical know-how around the office.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

The armed forces is loyal to Musharraf, and he seems to be able to put whomever he wishes onto the supreme court.

whomever he wishes onto the supreme court.

Well, he got Roberts and Alito and daddy got Souter and Thomas.  Be patient, these things take time.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Souter nearly quit over Bush v. Gore.  Check out Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine for an excellent blow-by-blow of Bush v. Gore.

Souter dissented on the first two points of the case (ceasing the recount and the Equal Protection issue), and was in the majority on the rejection of the assertion by the plaintiff that the FL Supreme Court acted in contravention to the state constitution.  In fact, Souter was in the minority of 2 on the Equal protection issue.

In other words, there's no way he would back a power grab like that.  

Thomas, well, ya know...

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

Cheney does not go quail hunting, at least not in the way I know it.  I also don't have wealthy campaign contributors footing the bill for 4-start accomodations and a collection of $10,000 Italian shotguns.  

Getting driven out to a designated location where a guy lets some quail out of a box down range so you can shoot them is not "hunting", now is it?  Cheney's hunting expeditions are as fake as Bush's "ranch" with no cattle on it.

God, when they go fishing do they have a guy in SCUBA gear putting fish on the hooks for them?  What a bunch of wimps.  

Trying to stay warm at dawn cradling a well-loved FN Auto-5 I inherited from my uncle, that's hunting the way I and about 99% of everyone else who has hunted upland game birds experiences it.  

When one goes hunting, one must contend with the possibility that you may come home empty handed.  When you finally do get something, it makes it just that much more rewarding.  

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

Getting driven out to a designated location where a guy lets some quail out of a box down range so you can shoot them is not "hunting", now is it?

No, it's skeet with tasty targets.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Bush/Chaney declare any upcoming election null-and-void and try to retain power in office.

Not going to happen. In fact, I'm so sure that will never happen that I'll willing place hard money on the line. Anyone want to take the other side of that action?

Even so, I do still think Bush is the worst ever, simply given the sheer magnitude of invading another nation (on the other side of the globe) for no justifiable reason

No, that award would go to Lyndon Johnson, who killed far more people for no good reason than Bush has.

...don't forget to thank the Democrats like Hillary who essentially gave him a blank check for this mess (due to September 11th, sure, but that's a shitty excuse)

September 11th really is a shitty excuse considering that the Iraq use of force resolution was passed more than a full year after 9/11.

No, that award would go to Lyndon Johnson, who killed far more people for no good reason than Bush has.
The Vietnam War?

I thought John F. Kennedy was the man who got the blame for that mess. I guess I don't have a problem with revising my revisionist speculative fiction (AKA history). So, we can spread the blame between JFK + LBJ, and give the latter the lion's share. Fine by me, mother would approve. But consider the object lesson Geo. W. Bush was given (Hell, he even avoided combat in same!) by that snare, and he chose to ignore, or utterly discount, the risks. Like as not, we'll be in Iraq for at least 5 to 10 years. So, while the atrocities of the Vietnam War are high, those numbers are done climbing, while in Iraq the day ain't over yet, sister.

September 11th really is a shitty excuse considering that the Iraq use of force resolution was passed more than a full year after 9/11.
I know! It's pretty sad.

"WMD! WMD! We don't want another September 11th, this time with a nuke!" ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
Hell, it's the same subtext they're using for why we really, really should invade Iran, too.

Being 1/2 smart, I'm cursed. True ignorance is bliss, but I know just enough to realize how freaking ignorant I am, and given my foolishness, it's a bit terrifying to think of my countrymen.

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

I thought John F. Kennedy was the man who got the blame for that mess. I guess I don't have a problem with revising my revisionist speculative fiction (AKA history). So, we can spread the blame between JFK + LBJ, and give the latter the lion's share

The Tonkin Gulf Resolution came nearly a year after JFK's death. More to the point, however, JFK's Vietnam policies were a fairly modest change in US policies that had been on-going since the end of World War II.

Johnson's escalation of the war was different both in quality and quantity. By the end of his presidency three times as many US troops were killed in battle in a single year than have been killed in Iraq in nearly five years.

I like the cut of your jib, on this comment, zyxwvutsr.

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

By the end of his presidency three times as many US troops were killed in battle in a single year than have been killed in Iraq in nearly five years.

Does this sentence have a conclusion you're attempting to imply? The only reason fewer Americans are killed in Iraq is because of improved armor, not any lessened proclivity of a President to put them in harms way. As has been well documented throughout the media, vastly more soldiers are being injured in this war and the hidden medical costs well into the future will be stratospherically higher.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

As has been well documented throughout the media, vastly more soldiers are being injured in this war...

As a percentage of all casualties, but not in absolute numbers. Not even close. So what's your point?

That the gross death count is not for the lack of trying.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

simply given the sheer magnitude of invading another nation (on the other side of the globe) for no justifiable reason

Surely President Polk's justification for the Mexican-American war was far flimsier.  And the casualties might have been worse.  And while we're now going to be stuck in Iraq for a couple of decades, is that really worse than sticking the United States with New Mexico, forever?