The Generals finally repudicate neo-con warmongers

[ndebord]

I know, a mixed metaphor, but considering their antecedents, as ex-Leninists, I could not resist.

The Pentagon says "No más!"

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/5-0&fp=4588e2f30ae05f34&ei=PNOIRdyPLZPowgGYjqD-Bw&url=http%3A//voanews.com/english/2006-12-20-voa2.cfm&cid=0

Bush to Pentagon: "Drop Dead."

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=UKNews1&storyID=2006-12-20T005338Z_01_COL947405_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ.xml&WTmodLoc=HP-C1-TopStories-6


FWIW, I think Samuel Johnson's little quote says it all about our mad Prince George. <wry grin>

[Judy G. Russell]

The Pentagon says "No más!"I wonder, when it says they don't want a temporary troop build-up, if they'd take a firm stand against a MAJOR troop build-up too...

[ndebord]

I wonder, when it says they don't want a temporary troop build-up, if they'd take a firm stand against a MAJOR troop build-up too...

Judy,

From the political blogs, etc., it seems they want NO buildup and in addition do not want to have a new war of any kind with Iran.

Can The Lesser Bush's poll numbers actually hit single digits?

[Judy G. Russell]

Can The Lesser Bush's poll numbers actually hit single digits?We may be about to test those waters. The "we're not winning, but if we just -- um, er, uh -- stay the course, we will win" approach seems to be the order of the day.

[ndebord]

We may be about to test those waters. The "we're not winning, but if we just -- um, er, uh -- stay the course, we will win" approach seems to be the order of the day.

Judy,

Nobody said that Bush the Lesser would ever do the right thing, even if by some miracle he could understand the rudiments of any argument. It is Cheney who is the fly in the ointment or perhaps the spider in the web.

[Lindsey]

Impeach them. Now.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Impeach them. Now.I don't think that would work. But turning off the funding for their escapades will work.

[ndebord]

I don't think that would work. But turning off the funding for their escapades will work.

Judy,

This mess could get a lot worse.

[Lindsey]

I don't think that would work. But turning off the funding for their escapades will work.
Turn off funding for soldiers in the field? That sure ain't gonna work!

There's a tricky little thing regarding impeachment, too, as it turns out. I've recently started reading Bruce Ackerman's The Failure of the Founding Fathers: Jefferson, Marshall, and the Rise of Presidential Democracy (http://www.amazon.com/Failure-Founding-Fathers-Jefferson-Presidential/dp/0674018664), a thought-provoking analysis of Marbury vs Madison in the larger political context of the electoral crisis of 1801. (if you thought the 2000 election was a legal/political/judicial mess, it was a cakewalk compared to what happened in the 1800 election.)

I'm only on Chapter 3, but already I've learned a ton of things I never knew. Ackerman spends a full chapter outlining what he sees as key flaws in the 1789 Constitution, chief among them the office of the vice president (which was only instituted as a way to make the Electoral College system work), and the prescribed method for electing a president (something that continues to plague us more than 200 years later). Both are an outgrowth of the failure to anticipate the rise of party politics. And also of hastily trying to cobble together solutions for sticky problems (which had been postponed to the end of the convention) so that the delegates could go home.

At any rate, one of the things they didn't really think through, according to Ackerman, is assigning the vice-president the job of presiding over the Senate. They looked far enough ahead to see that this would present a conflict of interest in the case of impeachment of a president, so the Constitution provides for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preside over the impeachment trial of the president. But the authors of the Constitution apparently never anticipated that a vice-president might be impeached (perhaps because they considered the office to be purely perfunctory?), and there is no similar provision specifying that the Chief Justice should preside over a vice-presidential impeachment trial. The result is that a strict, literal reading of the Constitution would allow the vice-president to preside over his own impeachment trial. Is that a scary notion, or what?

But if those delusional clowns in the White House insist on an escalation of this war that even the Joint Chiefs are opposed to, I still say: Impeach them. Now.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

there is no similar provision specifying that the Chief Justice should preside over a vice-presidential impeachment trial. The result is that a strict, literal reading of the Constitution would allow the vice-president to preside over his own impeachment trial. Is that a scary notion, or what?The Court would read into the Constitution a requirement that the Chief Justice preside. Count on it.

[Judy G. Russell]

This mess could get a lot worse.I think Bush has plans in that direction.

[Lindsey]

The Court would read into the Constitution a requirement that the Chief Justice preside. Count on it.
Oh, but that is common sense. I'm not sure Scalia would allow common sense to get in the way of his overriding philosophy of strict construction, and however Scalia votes, Thomas and Alito are sure to vote as well. That only leaves Roberts and Kennedy to convince...

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Oh, but that is common sense. I'm not sure Scalia would allow common sense to get in the way of his overriding philosophy of strict construction, and however Scalia votes, Thomas and Alito are sure to vote as well. That only leaves Roberts and Kennedy to convince...In this case it's more than just common sense. It's also the preeminence and perquisites of the Court. Even Scalia would vote to uphold those. Count on it.

[Lindsey]

In this case it's more than just common sense. It's also the preeminence and perquisites of the Court. Even Scalia would vote to uphold those. Count on it.
I would hope so, but you'll have to forgive me if I have little faith in Scalia and his groupies.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Iyou'll have to forgive me if I have little faith in Scalia and his groupies.I have faith in them only to do what's in their own interests.

[Lindsey]

I have faith in them only to do what's in their own interests.
Well, on that I will have to agree with you!

--Lindsey