Have we officially entered the Bizarro World or what?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

The most blatant flipflops:

BEFORE: Bush said it would be a disaster to send more troops.
NOW: Bush wants more troops.

BEFORE: Many Dems criticized Bush for not sending enough troops.
NOW: Many Dems are against sending more troops.


The constants:

BEFORE: Bush didn't listen to his generals - "Send more troops"
NOW: Bush still not listening to his generals - "Don't send more troops"

BEFORE: Many Dems listened to generals - "Send more troops"
NOW: Many Dems still listening to generals - "Don't send more troops"


The only consistent and true position
BEFORE: Never go there
NOW: Get out

[magellan]

1. lol -- excellent analysis!

:yourock:

[KittyWampus]

2. Swear to god, I went through just those points this morning.

the constant? Bush not listening to the generals.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

4. Yes, it's quite outstanding, isn't it. Yikes, who in the hell is he

listening to?

Against sending more troops:
THE PEOPLE
THE GENERALS
THE CONGRESS
HELL, PROBABLY THE POOR SCHMUCKS WHO HAVE TO GO

I am serious as a heart attack isn't it truly unf#%kingbelievable that he is allowed to do this without any support whatsoever? And, isn't it unf#%kingbelievable that the press isn't asking
the question:

"Mr. pResident, exactly who is advising you to do this when the people, the generals, and the congress are against it?"

[walldude]

5. The "advisors" name is Frederick W. Kagan

You can read his "surge" plan here:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25396,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

It's all laid out. The other "architects" include LIeberman, McCaine and a retired General, Jack Keane.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. Yes, saw Kagan on C-span - thought his eyeballs were going to

pop out of his head.

Well, now I feel better that he's relying on at least four people and not just himself and God. Hmmm, that's 4 people against a couple hundred million. Good choice! :sarcasm:

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

9. The real constant

the constant? Bush not listening to the generals.

The constant is Bush not listening to anyone - except maybe, the Corpocracy.

[Philosoraptor]

3. It's the 'post nine eleven world' now, things don't have to make sense.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

17. What's 9/11 got to do with it?

We went in there in 1990, and just stayed, in varying degrees of overseeing the country.

9/11 was just GWB's excuse to try to finish what his old man started.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. The era of the Bizarro World began in the 90s.

When we watched in shock as a sitting president faced what no other sitting president ever had to tolerate before. When his private life was scrutinized, when the laws were changed so he could be sued in civil court, when his own White House counselor's notes were no longer privilege information.

Then Bizarro World continued with the stolen elections where the presidential candidate denounced nation building as a failed liberal policy, only to make it his main strategy after lying for war in Iraq.

And the beat goes on...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

8. Amen. You are so right ! It just is amazing that Clinton managed

to accomplish so much despite it all. I will never, ever understand
how Bush was allowed to get away with lying about the invasion.

I hope it is not too late, that the roots are not too deep, to
get our country back.

If Bush is allowed to proceed with the war escalation, unhindered, I am
not very optimistic.

[liberal renegade]

10. We're in

bizarro world because (Commander Cuckoo Bananas) took us there.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. You made me think - it really wouldn't be as bad IF he took us

there. It would be an enemy we could see and know. But he doesn't have the sense to take us anywhere. He got taken himself. It is that huge, unknown force that scares the hell out of me.

[pat_k]

12. Impeachment is the ONLY way out of the insanity of Bush World.

The nation knows Bush's "bizzarro world" has destroyed the nation we established in our common contract, the Constitution of the United States. They've known it for some time. On November 7th, the voters message was loud and clear: "Get us the heck out of Bush World."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/19

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. cheney 2?

[pat_k]

18. Absolutely. Rescuing the constitution demands the impeachment of both.

. . .Whether architect or figurehead, it doesn't matter. They abused the massive power of the American presidency to turn Americans into torturers, spies, profiteers. . .the list tragically goes on.

A note for those who fear accusations that Pelosi is leading a partisan impeachment to make herself President, see http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12">Turning accusations of "partisan coup" against them is simple. . .

[Laura PourMeADrink]

19. Has anyone ever tried to impeach a VP? I wonder, since

technically they are not making the decisions (of course in this case Cheney probably does call all the shots). Don't get me wrong - would love to see him out too - maybe charge him with lying about the war?

don't you think that if Cheney wasn't second in line, Bush probably would have been impeached by now?

[pat_k]

20. "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from. .

. . .Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

--Article II, Section 4 of http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/print_friendly.html?page=constitution_transcript_content.html&title=NARA%20%7C%20The%20Constitution%20of%20the%20United%20States%3A%20A%20Transcription">The Constitution of the United States

[Laura PourMeADrink]

21. Pat, I didn't make myself clear. I know that we can remove

Cheney. What I don't understand is the difference between the two (prez and VP).

For example, Bush ordered the illegal invasion of Iraq under false pretenses. It was his direct action, under his authority, that would be his high crime.

Now, every single on of us knows, in reality, it was probably Cheney who orchestrated the whole thing. But, Cheney didn't order anything - he didn't/doesn't have the authority. Couldn't he just say that? Now, there are plenty of false and misleading statements that he made about the war, but couldn't he just say he was going on intelligence he was told and just claim free speech and he didn't order any action and therefore no crime?

[pat_k]

22. Cheney's facist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive is an attack on the Constitution. . .

. . .both Bush and Cheney declare themselves intolerable threats with their own words.

It is critical to recognize that impeachment is NOT a legal proceeding. It is a political proceeding. We can impeach any official on anything we have the political will to impeach on. Even if we did not have their war crimes and indefensible violations of our laws to impeach on, we could impeach for stupidity and incompetence. All that would be required is a consensus that their reckless incompetence poses an intolerable threat and the political will to impeach in defense.

You are correct that they have a defense to the charge that they terrorized us into war with their lies and threats of mushroom clouds. Bush, Cheney, and other parties to that crime can indeed claim to have believed their own lies. We can make the case that their failure to recognize reality is tantamount to criminal neglience, but we have stronger cases.

To effectively generate the political will we should impeach on the acts for which we can mount the simplest and strongest case. They have no defense for their policy of torture and spying. They confessed to those crimes in their public statements. Our own Supreme Court found them guilty. Whether or not Cheney personally ordered subordinates to violate Geneva is irrelevant; he did nothing to stop it and that failure is itself a crime under the conventions. State of mind is irrelevant when it comes to war crimes. Once committed there is no "taking it back."

Cheney's (and Bush's) enthusiastic and single-minded promotion of their Unconstitutional and Un-American torture policy is not only a violation of Geneva, it is an undeniable and indefensible declaration of war on the Constitution. With their public statements, signing statements, and campaign to "redefine" Geneva they have confessed their guilt, just as they have publicly and frequently confessed to breaking our laws against spying on citizens without a warrant.

Impeachment is the weapon we gave Congress to defend against the war they are waging on the Constitution. After we remove the bushcheney threat, we must root out and impeach their minions and fellow advocates of their fascist fantasies (Alito, Scalia, Gonzales. . .there are so many).

[GeorgeGist]

13. Dec 12, 2000

it became official.

[pat_k]

14. Thank You. Dec. 12th the Constitution went into breach; Jan 6th Congress failed in their duty. . .

. . .to enforce the terms by tossing out the illegitimate Florida electors.

[Kadie]

16. .

:kick:

[lectrobyte]

23. We passed the Bizarro World city limits sign about 2 years back, don't you

remember putting down the tequila bottle and shooting it with the 12 guage?