Bush Adminstration Gets Creepier

[Yawn]

OK, I know that we're all paranoid, and that nobody in the White House is looking for an excuse to put a police-state into operation and is just waiting for the next big boom-boom to do so, but this is just weird.
http://www.newhouse.com/congressman-denied-access-to-post-attack-government-continuity-plans.html

A continuity of government plan that they will not share with the Congress.
Yeah, I trust them on that one.

And I'm sure it has nothing to do with this.
http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807

You're absolutely right Fenian. An entity with 14 percent approval needs access to another with 31 percent approval. I mean, it could double their numbers and they'd still be behind Bush. And I'm sure he feels real confident in doing anything with THEM.

Yes. Because as civics class teaches us, the fundamental mechanisms of American government are based entirely on "approval rating." Clearly one of the most overlooked parts of our Constitution.

Maroon.

Well, if it's not, then why have you and your cronies been cawing about Bush's numbers? Oh, I know. It's the war, dummy! But then Congress' incompetence is measured in that 14 percent because they can't force the card on Iraq and they can't come up with some kind of immigration policy, even though we're led to believe that many of these people got to be members of Congress after being strong lawyers and/or business leaders.

But as you say, approval ratings don't mean a thing. And that's why Bush couldn't give a rat's ass about his - or what you think of him.

 

[Yawn]

You know what you can do with your bat, Football?

 

[jgmacg]

OK, I know that we're all paranoid, and that nobody in the White House is looking for an excuse to put a police-state into operation and is just waiting for the next big boom-boom to do so, but this is just weird.
http://www.newhouse.com/congressman-denied-access-to-post-attack-government-continuity-plans.html

A continuity of government plan that they will not share with the Congress.
Yeah, I trust them on that one.

And I'm sure it has nothing to do with this.
http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807

You're absolutely right Fenian. An entity with 14 percent approval needs access to another with 31 percent approval. I mean, it could double their numbers and they'd still be behind Bush. And I'm sure he feels real confident in doing anything with THEM.

Yes. Because as civics class teaches us, the fundamental mechanisms of American government are based entirely on "approval rating." Clearly one of the most overlooked parts of our Constitution.

Maroon.

Well, if it's not, then why have you and your cronies been cawing about Bush's numbers? Oh, I know. It's the war, dummy! But then Congress' incompetence is measured in that 14 percent because they can't force the card on Iraq and they can't come up with some kind of immigration policy, even though we're led to believe that many of these people got to be members of Congress after being strong lawyers and/or business leaders.

But as you say, approval ratings don't mean a thing. And that's why Bush couldn't give a rat's ass about his - or what you think of him.

Approval rating has nothing to do with the right of Congress to have access and oversight of those things for which the Constitution provides.

You gutless maroon.

ADD: Do you even know what this thread's about?

 

[zagoshe]

I see another productive political thread aimed at starting intelligent debate.

 

[Yawn]

OK, I know that we're all paranoid, and that nobody in the White House is looking for an excuse to put a police-state into operation and is just waiting for the next big boom-boom to do so, but this is just weird.
http://www.newhouse.com/congressman-denied-access-to-post-attack-government-continuity-plans.html

A continuity of government plan that they will not share with the Congress.
Yeah, I trust them on that one.

And I'm sure it has nothing to do with this.
http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807

You're absolutely right Fenian. An entity with 14 percent approval needs access to another with 31 percent approval. I mean, it could double their numbers and they'd still be behind Bush. And I'm sure he feels real confident in doing anything with THEM.

Yes. Because as civics class teaches us, the fundamental mechanisms of American government are based entirely on "approval rating." Clearly one of the most overlooked parts of our Constitution.

Maroon.

Well, if it's not, then why have you and your cronies been cawing about Bush's numbers? Oh, I know. It's the war, dummy! But then Congress' incompetence is measured in that 14 percent because they can't force the card on Iraq and they can't come up with some kind of immigration policy, even though we're led to believe that many of these people got to be members of Congress after being strong lawyers and/or business leaders.

But as you say, approval ratings don't mean a thing. And that's why Bush couldn't give a rat's ass about his - or what you think of him.

Approval rating has nothing to do with the right of Congress to have access and oversight of those things for which the Constitution provides.

You gutless maroon.

ADD: Do you even know what this thread's about?

You're obviously ignorant of the use of sarcasm. I bet you've been accused of putting quotes out of context oh, about 756 times.

 

[jgmacg]

OK, I know that we're all paranoid, and that nobody in the White House is looking for an excuse to put a police-state into operation and is just waiting for the next big boom-boom to do so, but this is just weird.
http://www.newhouse.com/congressman-denied-access-to-post-attack-government-continuity-plans.html

A continuity of government plan that they will not share with the Congress.
Yeah, I trust them on that one.

And I'm sure it has nothing to do with this.
http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807

You're absolutely right Fenian. An entity with 14 percent approval needs access to another with 31 percent approval. I mean, it could double their numbers and they'd still be behind Bush. And I'm sure he feels real confident in doing anything with THEM.

Yes. Because as civics class teaches us, the fundamental mechanisms of American government are based entirely on "approval rating." Clearly one of the most overlooked parts of our Constitution.

Maroon.

Well, if it's not, then why have you and your cronies been cawing about Bush's numbers? Oh, I know. It's the war, dummy! But then Congress' incompetence is measured in that 14 percent because they can't force the card on Iraq and they can't come up with some kind of immigration policy, even though we're led to believe that many of these people got to be members of Congress after being strong lawyers and/or business leaders.

But as you say, approval ratings don't mean a thing. And that's why Bush couldn't give a rat's ass about his - or what you think of him.

Approval rating has nothing to do with the right of Congress to have access and oversight of those things for which the Constitution provides.

You gutless maroon.

ADD: Do you even know what this thread's about?

You're obviously ignorant of the use of sarcasm. I bet you've been accused of putting quotes out of context oh, about 756 times.

What sarcasm?

Is this like you trying to get off the hook last time around by claiming you'd made a 'pun?'

And what did I quote? And what did I quote out of context?

You gutless maroon.

 

[Football_Bat]

Power tool.

 

[JayFarrar]

Before this gets locked, my question is what would have been the reaction if a Democratic White House had done the same to a Republican congressman?
Without putting words into JG's mouth, I think his reaction would have been the same. The constitution is still the most important thing and any WH that does what they have done, clearly cares not for the people it represents.
Shameful.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

And some prominent Dems better speak up on this, in a significant way, in the next couple of weeks,
or shame on 'em . . .

 

[Flying Headbutt]

It seems, at least with this particular congress, that the Republicans on Cap Hill only care about the constitution when it suits them. And when their president thumbs his nose at it, it's okay. This **** would not fly at all with a Dem in the White House.

 

[Yawn]

Headbutt, I get accused of listening only to the conservative talkshow pundits.

It seems as though you believe only what you want to believe. Democrats above reproach? Right.

 

[markvid]

It seems, at least with this particular congress, that the Republicans on Cap Hill only care about the constitution when it suits them. And when their president thumbs his nose at it, it's okay. This **** would not fly at all with a Dem in the White House.

How could he possibly think that this could pass constitutionality?
Maybe this is in case Congress and the Supreme Court get wiped out?
Sounds like someone in the Bush admin read the Clancy novel that came after Debt of Honor (the name escapes me now).

 

[Flying Headbutt]

No, if there was a Dem in the White House, the GOP would cry armageddon, treason, and everything else if they tried the same thing. And justifiably so I might add. There are plenty of clowns in both parties. But you can't seriously contend that Republican lawmakers haven't rolled over for Bush, at their own expense.

 

[Boomer7]

I see another productive political thread aimed at starting intelligent debate.

It was going just fine until ****nuts got involved.

 

[Tom Petty]

i trust him emphatically. the administration did such a fine job with katrina, how could we all not rally in support?

 

[Ace]

i trust him emphatically. the administration did such a fine job with katrina, how could we all not rally in support?

I like your positive thinking ... then again, perhaps you've been sitting in a FEMA trailer contaminated by formaldehyde for too long.

 

[hondo]

Link worked for me. Here's the lede:

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.

In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a ?catastrophic emergency.?
Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility ?for ensuring constitutional government.?

He laid this all out in a document entitled "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20."

The White House released it on May 9.

And because the White House didn't, in your opinion, have plans for a government response to a catastrophic condition such as Katrina, you and your buddies lambasted him.

Can't have it both ways Fens. But Lord knows you'll try.

 

[Ace]

Link worked for me. Here's the lede:

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.

In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a ?catastrophic emergency.?
Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility ?for ensuring constitutional government.?

He laid this all out in a document entitled "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20."

The White House released it on May 9.

And because the White House didn't, in your opinion, have plans for a government response to a catastrophic condition such as Katrina, you and your buddies lambasted him.

Can't have it both ways Fens. But Lord knows you'll try.

So, hondo, you're saying that at the next stiff breeze, Bush will take over the federal government and that works for you?

He is doing a heckuva job, and all.

 

[alleyallen]

Link worked for me. Here's the lede:

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.

In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a ?catastrophic emergency.?
Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility ?for ensuring constitutional government.?

He laid this all out in a document entitled "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20."

The White House released it on May 9.

And because the White House didn't, in your opinion, have plans for a government response to a catastrophic condition such as Katrina, you and your buddies lambasted him.

Can't have it both ways Fens. But Lord knows you'll try.

Great absolutist thinking Hondo. How about thinking realistically. The beef isn't that Bush came up with a plan, but the substance of his plan was, how to put it, Constitutionally questionable.

When you're actually ready to address that point, get back to us.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Link worked for me. Here's the lede:

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.

In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a ?catastrophic emergency.?
Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility ?for ensuring constitutional government.?

He laid this all out in a document entitled "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20."

The White House released it on May 9.

And because the White House didn't, in your opinion, have plans for a government response to a catastrophic condition such as Katrina, you and your buddies lambasted him.

Can't have it both ways Fens. But Lord knows you'll try.

This is beneath you.
There was a plan for handling storms like Katrina. There was once a FEMA that actually worked. This administraion came in and wrecked both of those -- the former by ignoring it, and the latter by infesting it with incompetent cronies. So your basic point would be incorrect on the facts even if it were coherent, which it isn't.
This is an administration which, literally, believes that there are no limits, constitutional or otherwise, on the power of the Executive. They -- and their legal enablers -- have stated this very clearly, and some of them (like the VP) have been saying it for a very long time. It is the function of every administration to have disaster plans in place. It is this one, and this one alone, that refuses to let members of Congress see it, and demands that we trust it to do the right thing, despite having dissipated its credibility in this area for the past seven years.
Yeesh.