NationStates Jolt Archive

Looking at what the US' chief executive has been doing really makes me wonder what the hell this country is coming to, and whether or not he ever intends to get his ass out of the White House.

The man has proven to bend the rules until they scream in agony.

First off, the fact that he's used executive branch authority to bypass the very court set up to make getting wiretaps easier, because he felt it wasn't 'expedient' enough.

Second: the signing statements. He's made over 800, while all the other Presidents since Washington COMBINED made 600. And all of them basically say, "As president, I can ignore any part of this law I want to."

Third: now he is, over the protests of both Republican and Democratic senators, attempting to take control of the National Guard away from the governors.

He's grabbing as much power as he can get his hands on and exempting himself from every restriction there has ever been. How long before he decides that he need not step down in 2008?

And what will happen? Will the red-staters cheer on their victory and follow in their glorious leader's wake, or will they finally wake up and smell the coffee?


Disturbing. Very disturbing.

1) He will not be president for life

and

2)The national guard thing will die in the Senate.

What makes you sure, Allegheny County? He's pretty much gotten everything he's put his hands on before.

STOP SCARING US!! He'll go away. Two years. They said two years he'd go away.

2 years.

2 years.

That's what they said.




2 years = Bush gone. They told me so.


I'm drooling...

I don't think this problem will happen until the Republican Prez after the next one (ie whoever follows John McCain's single term, during which everything goes to crap even more).

I'm assuming that will be Jeb Bush, starting his term in 2012 (Vice President will be Dick Cheney again). Therefore, I suggest that all reasonable Americans move to Canada before 2016.

What makes you sure, Allegheny County? He's pretty much gotten everything he's put his hands on before.

Dubai port deal fell through, and he failed to pass his constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

What makes you sure, Allegheny County? He's pretty much gotten everything he's put his hands on before.

Because it is apparent that Congress is fighting back for once in their lives. Not to mention that this is an election year and 33% of the Senate is up for Re-election, as is the entire house. I do not think they want their approval on what Bush wants on their resume when it comes to the National Guard.

I think there's too many laws and precedents from the Watergate era for him to take that kind of command over the US; the closest thing we had to a true power grab was Nixon, and I think that we've done a pretty good job preventing it from happening again.

Bush's support is simply too low for him to do anything like this; even his own party is starting to desert him on issues and that's going to make it a lot harder to advance any nefarious goals he might have.

Second: the signing statements. He's made over 800, while all the other Presidents since Washington COMBINED made 600. And all of them basically say, "As president, I can ignore any part of this law I want to."




What do you meean by signing statements?? Are these executive orders, I don't think my simple mind is comprehending here.... please elaborate..

I don't think this problem will happen until the Republican Prez after the next one (ie whoever follows John McCain's single term, during which everything goes to crap even more).

I'm assuming that will be Jeb Bush, starting his term in 2012 (Vice President will be Dick Cheney again). Therefore, I suggest that all reasonable Americans move to Mexico before 2016.
EFA.

Canada (by that I mean Sin and Bag) decided that Canada only wants America's gays.

What do you meean by signing statements?? Are these executive orders, I don't think my simple mind is comprehending here.... please elaborate..

Signing Statements are Executive declarations of how they will carry out a particular law. Dear Leader has been using them as Line Item Vetoes.

Holy crap I got the chills just by reading the thread title. Holy crap, I'm feeling cold right now. :(

Signing Statements are Executive declarations of how they will carry out a particular law. Dear Leader has been using them as Line Item Vetoes.

It's interesting that when the senate tried to basically say that this is what he was doing, and open legal ramifications for that, the white house basically said "no no, they're just suggestions, they have no legal authority!"

To which I offered a suggestion a few threads back. In that case, make this legal action trigger in the event a signing statement is used as a legal authority. In other words, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. If they're just suggestions, and not any real legal authority, then he has nothing to worry about. But if he tries to use them as a legal authority...hi lawsuit.

Looking at what the US' chief executive has been doing really makes me wonder what the hell this country is coming to, and whether or not he ever intends to get his ass out of the White House.

The man has proven to bend the rules until they scream in agony.

First off, the fact that he's used executive branch authority to bypass the very court set up to make getting wiretaps easier, because he felt it wasn't 'expedient' enough.

Second: the signing statements. He's made over 800, while all the other Presidents since Washington COMBINED made 600. And all of them basically say, "As president, I can ignore any part of this law I want to."

Third: now he is, over the protests of both Republican and Democratic senators, attempting to take control of the National Guard away from the governors.

He's grabbing as much power as he can get his hands on and exempting himself from every restriction there has ever been. How long before he decides that he need not step down in 2008?

And what will happen? Will the red-staters cheer on their victory and follow in their glorious leader's wake, or will they finally wake up and smell the coffee?


Disturbing. Very disturbing.

Amen...

Bush is a horrible president he will break the Ex-President curse of making books and joining goverment, He will proboly just go back to crawford and be stupid. The Senate wone ever get power of the NG. Ever....One day diffrent parties will take power!

EOA.
*Goes off trying to figure out what "EOA" means*

It won't happen unless there is another terror attack in the 2007-08 timeframe. He doesn't have the popular backing to make such a move, and the people aren't quite scared enough to give up their freedoms. But a big terror attack would be just the kind of leverage neccesary to lose the Republic. Remember when Guiliani was offered - by the people of NY - the opportunity to stay on in defiance of electoral law after 9/11? He turned it down. Can we trust President Bush to make the same choice?

It would be a short ass life. :)

*Goes off trying to figure out what "EOA" means*
D'ohth

I meant EFA:Edited for Accuracy.

This is just blatant scaremongering. You are Over exaggerating, just take a deep breath and calm down. Their are term limits in place and it takes 2/3 vote to change that, he doesn't have that and there is nothing scary here. The wiretapping doesn't bother me and I couldn't care less about the national guard thing, I am in no way disturbed by this.

It won't happen unless there is another terror attack in the 2007-08 timeframe. He doesn't have the popular backing to make such a move, and the people aren't quite scared enough to give up their freedoms. But a big terror attack would be just the kind of leverage neccesary to lose the Republic. Remember when Guiliani was offered - by the people of NY - the opportunity to stay on in defiance of electoral law after 9/11? He turned it down. Can we trust President Bush to make the same choice?

What's not to say Al Qaeda's leadership knows this and have timed one of their many years-in-advance attacks plotted just before the 2008 Elections? Remember that his videotape message that supposedly warned Americans of the consequences of re-electing Bush was in fact orchestrated to mobilize the "Fuck You Sand Niggers" Red State votes and give him the Second Term which we are all suffering today.

This is just blatant scaremongering. You are Over exaggerating, just take a deep breath and calm down. Their are term limits in place and it takes 2/3 vote to change that, he doesn't have that and there is nothing scary here. The wiretapping doesn't bother me and I couldn't care less about the national guard thing, I am in no way disturbed by this.

While I disagree about the wire tapping, I have to agree with the overall point. Much of Bush's bending of the rules has been playing and expanding the wiggle room in areas trying to shoehorn in power in spaces left open a fraction by possible interpretation.

Give the man an inch he'll take the mile. But there's no inch here, none what so ever. The constitution is clear, the term limits are solid and immovable. There is no way to possibly manuever around them.

D'ohth

I meant EFA:Edited for Accuracy.

EOA= Edited On Acid. :)

What's not to say Al Qaeda's leadership knows this and have timed one of their many years-in-advance attacks plotted just before the 2008 Elections? Remember that his videotape message that supposedly warned Americans of the consequences of re-electing Bush was in fact orchestrated to mobilize the "Fuck You Sand Niggers" Red State votes and give him the Second Term which we are all suffering today.

It's a possibility, to be certain. I'm constantly suprised by the lack of attacks on America, seeing how easily suicide bombings and the like could be done, even by a handfull of people. Perhaps they're building up to something big?

On the other hand, I'm not sure I invest Al-Qaeda with the desire to win a philosophical/ironic victory over the US, rather than an actual victory.

It won't happen unless there is another terror attack in the 2007-08 timeframe. He doesn't have the popular backing to make such a move, and the people aren't quite scared enough to give up their freedoms. But a big terror attack would be just the kind of leverage neccesary to lose the Republic. Remember when Guiliani was offered - by the people of NY - the opportunity to stay on in defiance of electoral law after 9/11? He turned it down. Can we trust President Bush to make the same choice?
I don't think he wants to remain in power beyond this term. Nothing in his actions lately has worked towards garnering goodwill or public support necessary for such a move. In fact, a lot of what he does seems to flow contrary to public or international opinion, but I think that those kind of actions are limited towards security matters.

Bush seems to be trying to be a "leader and defender of America" of sorts; most of his policies abroad have been focused on the War on Terror while his domestic actions, like signing statments and the National Guard issue, are attempts to increase Executive authority in security matters. Only if he felt it were vital to preserving the country, IMO, would Bush try to go for a third term. Not that he would be doing the country any good, mind, but if he thought it was for the best, he'd do it. That just seems to be his style of leadership.

While I disagree about the wire tapping, I have to agree with the overall point. Much of Bush's bending of the rules has been playing and expanding the wiggle room in areas trying to shoehorn in power in spaces left open a fraction by possible interpretation.

Give the man an inch he'll take the mile. But there's no inch here, none what so ever. The constitution is clear, the term limits are solid and immovable. There is no way to possibly manuever around them.


Very true. This is just democrats trying to scare you into voting for them in 2008. It won't work on me because I vote independent. Forget them both on my part, we need a real change and the democrats and republicans won't give it. If the libertarions would change their drug and immigration policies I would support them.

but if he thought it was for the best, he'd do it. That just seems to be his style of leadership.

The fundamental problem with this sort of leadership style is that it actually requires you to be RIGHT every now and then to be effective.

It's a possibility, to be certain. I'm constantly suprised by the lack of attacks on America, seeing how easily suicide bombings and the like could be done, even by a handfull of people. Perhaps they're building up to something big?

On the other hand, I'm not sure I invest Al-Qaeda with the desire to win a philosophical/ironic victory over the US, rather than an actual victory.

Al Qaeda has become more a business than a terrorist organization nowadays. It would justify and benefit their continued existence a lot more if the United States continued to remain the Islamicidal Great Satan than if the country was to somehow actually fall. The same could be said of Hezbullah; without Israel invading and bombing the shit out of Lebanon they wouldn't have the fearmongering that's a major part of their grip on power.

The fundamental problem with this sort of leadership style is that it actually requires you to be RIGHT every now and then to be effective.
Which is why Bush hasn't had a very good six years. Most of his unilateral moves, Iraq for example, haven't been made wisely.

I don't think this problem will happen until the Republican Prez after the next one (ie whoever follows John McCain's single term, during which everything goes to crap even more).

I'm assuming that will be Jeb Bush, starting his term in 2012 (Vice President will be Dick Cheney again). Therefore, I suggest that all reasonable Americans move to Canada before 2016.


Actually, I think I'll move to England or to Australia, just to be different ;)


Hmmm...I could join the Australian SAS....

God, this is a dumb question. It comes down to this.

DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL ACCEPT SOMEONE THAT TWO-THIRDS OF THEM DESPISE AS PERMANENT DICTATOR?

And not just the people. Congress, the military, the judges...think about all the things Adolf Hitler had when he staged one of history's rare peaceful destructions of a democratic constitution. Bush cannot get them. I don't support him in many ways, but this is whiny liberal nonsense. And there's no use arguing with me because I will never see this thread again.

God, this is a dumb question. It comes down to this.

DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL ACCEPT SOMEONE THAT TWO-THIRDS OF THEM DESPISE AS PERMANENT DICTATOR?

And not just the people. Congress, the military, the judges...think about all the things Adolf Hitler had when he staged one of history's rare peaceful destructions of a democratic constitution. Bush cannot get them. I don't support him in many ways, but this is whiny liberal nonsense. And there's no use arguing with me because I will never see this thread again.


I tend to agree with you, but I'm still enjoying this conversation.

God, this is a dumb question. It comes down to this.

DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL ACCEPT SOMEONE THAT TWO-THIRDS OF THEM DESPISE AS PERMANENT DICTATOR?

And not just the people. Congress, the military, the judges...think about all the things Adolf Hitler had when he staged one of history's rare peaceful destructions of a democratic constitution. Bush cannot get them. I don't support him in many ways, but this is whiny liberal nonsense. And there's no use arguing with me because I will never see this thread again.

The people's willingness to accept Dear Leader is not the issue. Florida and Ohio have become battle cries to critics of the Shrub Adminstrations as an example of how groups can be disenfranchised from the process of power. If something like another conveniently timed Al Qaeda attack on the United States happens, don't be surprised if martial law is declared and the Constitution suspended in the beginning of "V for Vondettuh."

The people's willingness to accept Dear Leader is not the issue. Florida and Ohio have become battle cries to critics of the Shrub Adminstrations as an example of how groups can be disenfranchised from the process of power.

How dare the dems try to stifle the military vote in Florida. As to Ohio :rolleyes:

Al Qaeda has become more a business than a terrorist organization nowadays. It would justify and benefit their continued existence a lot more if the United States continued to remain the Islamicidal Great Satan than if the country was to somehow actually fall. The same could be said of Hezbullah; without Israel invading and bombing the shit out of Lebanon they wouldn't have the fearmongering that's a major part of their grip on power.

I don't mean an actual fall of America. I agree that the US is 'good for business,' one might say. What I mean is, AQ wants the US to stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, and as such the victory of a fascist movement in the US with a mandate to tackle terrorism, however ironically victorious, would not be preferable to a US who's will to fight in the Middle East has been broken, but is still on the periphery.

I don't mean an actual fall of America. I agree that the US is 'good for business,' one might say. What I mean is, AQ wants the US to stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, and as such the victory of a fascist movement in the US with a mandate to tackle terrorism, however ironically victorious, would not be preferable to a US who's will to fight in the Middle East has been broken, but is still on the periphery.

Our will to fight in the Middle eastis broken?

I believe that at this point, Bush knows he will gain little public support no matter what he does. He's been doing too much against America, he intends only to have a big legacy behind him when he steps out of the Oval Office. Problem is, it'll be a legacy akin to Nixon, Harding, and Grant, the three great presidential failures. On that day of departure, America will have a celebration to remember.

On the other hand, the GOP could be using Bush as a stooge to make their candidates look more moderate. Bush is way out of league by now, anybody following him will look great by comparison, and with the Republicans distancing themselves now, they will have the credibility to put up a candidate "that's not George W. Bush." Probably a good campain slogan. If the Dems can capitalize on that without finding another John Kerry (hint, he just put a movie out that got him both publicity and money) then the White House is theirs. It'll be interesting, but as for Bush himself, he's trying to carve out a statue of himself using only a jackhammer.

The Military would completely ignore him if he tried to order them to stop those from letting him be removed from power. After all, how many soldiers have died because of his bright idea for Iraq?

Unless another Rep takes office on January 2009 I'll be celebrating the removal of George.

The Military would completely ignore him if he tried to order them to stop those from letting him be removed from power.

That would actually be an illegal order if he ordered the troops to stop the transition of power.

Cincinattus would be rolling in his grave. :)

Our will to fight in the Middle eastis broken?
Picture a candidate for election in 2008 attempting to run on a platform that includes adding more troops to the region so that we can hunt down Bin Laden and topple all terrorist-supporting states. Now picture how many votes that candidate will get. That number would be the measure of America's will to fight in the Middle East.

It won't happen unless there is another terror attack in the 2007-08 timeframe. He doesn't have the popular backing to make such a move, and the people aren't quite scared enough to give up their freedoms. But a big terror attack would be just the kind of leverage neccesary to lose the Republic. Remember when Guiliani was offered - by the people of NY - the opportunity to stay on in defiance of electoral law after 9/11? He turned it down. Can we trust President Bush to make the same choice?


I had a LOT of problems with Giuliani and his position on education in NYC, but he was and is a man of integrity. I agreed with nearly everything else he was doing in running New York, and respect the fact that he flat out said, "No, I've served my term and it's time for me to leave."

I don't trust Bush to do the same willingly.

I don't trust Bush to do the same willingly.

He has no choice and he will step down.

This is just blatant scaremongering. You are Over exaggerating, just take a deep breath and calm down. Their are term limits in place and it takes 2/3 vote to change that, he doesn't have that and there is nothing scary here. The wiretapping doesn't bother me and I couldn't care less about the national guard thing, I am in no way disturbed by this.


It's blatent scaremongering to point out what is public knowledge? I mean I haven't made anything up -- he has done these things, and you can Google them.

If you don't care about him bending the constitution and are not disturbed by his attempt to take the power of the national guard away from each state, you're very naive.

The pattern of his actions, which suggest abuse of the system in place, would certainly indicate to anyone who is actually thinking about what the man is doing that this is in fact a plausible possibility. How long before "we are in a time of war" and "in the interests of national security" he decides to give himself the power to extend his presidency?

I bet Alberto Gonzalez, Mr. "Rewrite the definition of torture" would be the perfect person to put on this job.

(Before anyone jumps down my throat -- in war, horrible shit happens. People get hurt, and yeah, prisoners are abused. But to use semantic sidestepping to redefine torture so one can try to deny it later is pretty disgusting.)

Looking at what the US' chief executive has been doing really makes me wonder what the hell this country is coming to, and whether or not he ever intends to get his ass out of the White House.

The man has proven to bend the rules until they scream in agony.

First off, the fact that he's used executive branch authority to bypass the very court set up to make getting wiretaps easier, because he felt it wasn't 'expedient' enough.

Second: the signing statements. He's made over 800, while all the other Presidents since Washington COMBINED made 600. And all of them basically say, "As president, I can ignore any part of this law I want to."

Third: now he is, over the protests of both Republican and Democratic senators, attempting to take control of the National Guard away from the governors.

He's grabbing as much power as he can get his hands on and exempting himself from every restriction there has ever been. How long before he decides that he need not step down in 2008?

And what will happen? Will the red-staters cheer on their victory and follow in their glorious leader's wake, or will they finally wake up and smell the coffee?


Disturbing. Very disturbing.


In case you mised it...the US is at war .

In case you mised it...the US is at war .

And? The Constitution no longer applies?
Previous war-time presidents didn't have to obey the laws they swore to uphold?

In case you mised it...the US is at war .

Every other president that was in office during times of war seemed to get by just fine without 800 signing statements.

In case you mised it...the US is at war .
Are we losing so badly that the President must take more power into his own hands? Is the threat of invasion so great that Bush must take all these steps to make us safer? Or is this really related to war at all?

In case you mised it...the US is at war .
So this kind of stuff happened (when technelogically feasable) every time the US was invovled in a war.

It's blatent scaremongering to point out what is public knowledge? I mean I haven't made anything up -- he has done these things, and you can Google them.

But you are making things out to worse than they are.

If you don't care about him bending the constitution and are not disturbed by his attempt to take the power of the national guard away from each state, you're very naive.


You are paranoid if you are. This is just mild bending and nothing to severe.

The pattern of his actions, which suggest abuse of the system in place, would certainly indicate to anyone who is actually thinking about what the man is doing that this is in fact a plausible possibility. How long before "we are in a time of war" and "in the interests of national security" he decides to give himself the power to extend his presidency?


You need to read up on what he can and cannot do before you get frantic. He doesn't have the power to do that. He hasn't shown any interest in doing that and has even said this is his last campaign. Don't panic, he needs approval of congress to do that and he doesn't have it.

I bet Alberto Gonzalez, Mr. "Rewrite the definition of torture" would be the perfect person to put on this job.

Sorry, he doesn't have the power.

Dubya tries for anything like a term extension - can you say Siege of the White House?

We'll see which military commanders are truly loyal to the Union and the Constitution and which ones are party hacks.

Better yet (for moving the world towards a more stable equilibrium) The Second United States Civil War .

Our will to fight in the Middle eastis broken?

No, not now. I listed two hypothetical US's - a pseudo-fascist US under President for Life Bush with a mandate to destroy terrorism, or a US who's will to meddle in the US is broken. However ironic the victory seen in the first would be, I'd say Al Qaeda would prefer the second.

But you are making things out to worse than they are.

You are paranoid if you are. This is just mild bending and nothing to severe.

You need to read up on what he can and cannot do before you get frantic. He doesn't have the power to do that. He hasn't shown any interest in doing that and has even said this is his last campaign. Don't panic, he needs approval of congress to do that and he doesn't have it.

Sorry, he doesn't have the power.

And if you're not concerned by his tendency to rewrite things so that he's not beholden to any of them, you are naive.

His warrantless wiretaps certainly bend the 4th Amendment. Considering that an official court was created JUST so that warrants for wiretaps could be issued at any time, and he's declined to have it used because it would actually oversee who's being monitored is troublesome. Do I think they are catching people who intend harm? Yes. Do I think that it's a small step to monitoring people who are political opponents? Yes.

The slow, steady number of exceptions to the rules that he's made over the past two terms, and all in the name of "we're at war" should disturb people. I'm not calling for rioting in the streets or civil war, but to ignore the steady loss of respect for the laws of the land and the "minor freedoms" we've already lost should be a concern to anyone, a Bush supporter or opposition member.

You should look back at my post history and see what I had to say in 2000 before blithely dismissing my concerns as "paranoia." Paranoia would be thinking that the men in black will be kicking my door in just for posting this. But then, I suppose it's much easier to simply go with the flow and hope for the best than actually look at what's going on.

So this kind of stuff happened (when technelogically feasable) every time the US was invovled in a war.

If congress would have DECLARED war the President would have at his diposal all the power...most think..too much power , so as a compromise you have a congressional resolution to get around giving the President war powers.
He still must fight a war..so you get signing statements.

No fucking big whoopy ...all nice and legal and all under congressional and judicial oversite .

In november if you dont like it vote for the democrats of your choice and watch them fuck shit up beyond all recognition...:D

Then in 2008 watch the Dems get wiped off the map . And pick your new republican President . AGAIN...it wont be Good ol George ..he's done ...nothing short of a constitutional ammendment can change that .

So what the fuck is this thread about ?

Someone scared of an impossibility and overreacting a bit ?:rolleyes:


Things are being done differently...?

well ask yourself when the last war the US had was against terrorist organizations and a Islamic terror philosophy that uses a quasi religion / political doctrine to replace a STATE that can be targeted or defended against .

Hmmm seems to be neever .

So shit gets done a bit different .

The same way the war gets done a bit different .

Get used to it .

Bush: President for Life?

SSHHH! Don't say things like that - you'll scare the children!

And if you're not concerned by his tendency to rewrite things so that he's not beholden to any of them, you are naive.

His warrantless wiretaps certainly bend the 4th Amendment. Considering that an official court was created JUST so that warrants for wiretaps could be issued at any time, and he's declined to have it used because it would actually oversee who's being monitored is troublesome. Do I think they are catching people who intend harm? Yes. Do I think that it's a small step to monitoring people who are political opponents? Yes.

The slow, steady number of exceptions to the rules that he's made over the past two terms, and all in the name of "we're at war" should disturb people. I'm not calling for rioting in the streets or civil war, but to ignore the steady loss of respect for the laws of the land and the "minor freedoms" we've already lost should be a concern to anyone, a Bush supporter or opposition member.

You should look back at my post history and see what I had to say in 2000 before blithely dismissing my concerns as "paranoia." Paranoia would be thinking that the men in black will be kicking my door in just for posting this. But then, I suppose it's much easier to simply go with the flow and hope for the best than actually look at what's going on.


He is just mildily bending things, I am not some paranoid person digging a bomb shelter. I am not worried nor scared, He hasn't massivly violated my rights nor do I fear the men in black for me speaking out against him. This isn't as bad as you think, and he can't extend his term, no president can. Don't panic, there is no reason to and anyway everything would be changed in 2008 if a democrat wins anyway.

If congress would have DECLARED war the President would have at his diposal all the power...most think..too much power , so as a compromise you have a congressional resolution to get around giving the President war powers.
He still must fight a war..so you get signing statements.

If congress does not give him the authority, then congress does not give him the authority, period. End of freaking discussion. To say "if congress doesn't do it then he has to somewhere else" cuts out the fundamental principle of seperation of powers. He DOES NOT GET that authority unless congress GIVES it to him. If it choses not to give it to him, tough shit.

To say "either congress gives it to him, or he gets to take it" goes against the fundamental core of the constitution, which says either congress gives it to him....or he doesn't have it.

So shit gets done a bit different

If it gets done using powers not given to the executive as part of the executive powers granted by the constitution, nor done using powers granted to the executive by the legistlative, pursuant to the constitutional powers of the legislative, then it is done in opposition to the constitution, which would make it unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.

on the topic of "all in the name of war" what happens if bush takes us into isreal's fight with lebonon. It is a real possability and it scares the shit out of me because that means something very close to world war 3. All of the middle east against the US and our allies. that would be a legitamit reason to keep a president in office like Rosevelt exept Bush isn't really qualified for the role

He is just mildily bending things, I am not some paranoid person digging a bomb shelter. I am not worried nor scared, He hasn't massivly violated my rights nor do I fear the men in black for me speaking out against him. This isn't as bad as you think, and he can't extend his term, no president can. Don't panic, there is no reason to and anyway everything would be changed in 2008 if a democrat wins anyway.
It's people like you that give rise to strongmen.

It's people like you that give rise to strongmen.


By not being paranoid and sounding the alarm over every tiny thing? Its people like you who cause mass panic over a brush fire. CHILL! The world isn't ending and america isn't turning into a dictatorship, so you can hold off on that bomb shelter.:rolleyes:

Viva la Revolucion!

Looking at what the US' chief executive has been doing really makes me wonder what the hell this country is coming to, and whether or not he ever intends to get his ass out of the White House.

The man has proven to bend the rules until they scream in agony.

First off, the fact that he's used executive branch authority to bypass the very court set up to make getting wiretaps easier, because he felt it wasn't 'expedient' enough.

Second: the signing statements. He's made over 800, while all the other Presidents since Washington COMBINED made 600. And all of them basically say, "As president, I can ignore any part of this law I want to."

Third: now he is, over the protests of both Republican and Democratic senators, attempting to take control of the National Guard away from the governors.

He's grabbing as much power as he can get his hands on and exempting himself from every restriction there has ever been. How long before he decides that he need not step down in 2008?

And what will happen? Will the red-staters cheer on their victory and follow in their glorious leader's wake, or will they finally wake up and smell the coffee?


Disturbing. Very disturbing.
hmm thats ridiculous youre one crazy mod

And in today's new, President Bush adds a signing statement to the 22nd Ammendment decades after its inception.

I don't think this problem will happen until the Republican Prez after the next one (ie whoever follows John McCain's single term, during which everything goes to crap even more).

I'm assuming that will be Jeb Bush, starting his term in 2012 (Vice President will be Dick Cheney again). Therefore, I suggest that all reasonable Americans move to Canada before 2016.



Way ahead of you there. Depending on how the '08 election turns out, I'm making plans to leave Jan. 21, 2009.

He is just mildily bending things, I am not some paranoid person digging a bomb shelter. I am not worried nor scared, He hasn't massivly violated my rights nor do I fear the men in black for me speaking out against him. This isn't as bad as you think, and he can't extend his term, no president can. Don't panic, there is no reason to and anyway everything would be changed in 2008 if a democrat wins anyway.


Who said anything about the Democratic party? They've not fielded anyone I consider viable yet.

And why do you keep saying I am panicking? There are miles of difference between being concerned and "digging bomb shelters" and "being scared".
Who here is overexaggerating?

Way ahead of you there. Depending on how the '08 election turns out, I'm making plans to leave Jan. 21, 2009.


Bye bye. Try vancouver.

Bye bye. Try vancouver.


Too far. I'm in New England. I'm thinking of Toronto. BTW, I know you're mocking me, I simply don't care.

hmm thats ridiculous youre one crazy mod

Hmm, that's ridiculous. You've offered no argument, flamed me, and understand nothing about punctuation or capitalization.

Too far. I'm in New England. I'm thinking of Toronto. BTW, I know you're mocking me, I simply don't care.
AH, but Vancouver has the Canucks.
If you go to Toronto, you're stuck with the Maple Leafs.

Hmm, that's ridiculous. You've offered no argument, flamed me, and understand nothing about punctuation or capitalization.
No not quite true. The American government system would never allow for a "president for life." There are to many whistle blowers and liberals for that to happen. Its just unpheasable, not possible, and another anti-bush rant. TYVM

Too far. I'm in New England. I'm thinking of Toronto. BTW, I know you're mocking me, I simply don't care.


I'm not mocking you, I am leaving to. I am just going to Japan and not Canada, But in all honesty Vancouver is pretty.

I'm not mocking you, I am leaving to. I am just going to Japan and not Canada, But in all honesty Vancouver is pretty.


Oh, sorry. Misunderstood.

AH, but Vancouver has the Canucks.
If you go to Toronto, you're stuck with the Maple Leafs.



Doesn't matter. I'm a Ducks fan.

No not quite true. The American government system would never allow for a "president for life." There are to many whistle blowers and liberals for that to happen. Its just unpheasable, not possible, and another anti-bush rant. TYVM
Now you have an argument.
Until you post that anything else you post is totally ignorable.
And thus it was a huge tactical mistake to post your position in a seperate post to your argument.

Doesn't matter. I'm a Ducks fan.
Out of all of the things you've said, this is the statement I find really offensive.

Who said anything about the Democratic party? They've not fielded anyone I consider viable yet.

And why do you keep saying I am panicking? There are miles of difference between being concerned and "digging bomb shelters" and "being scared".
Who here is overexaggerating?


I am just getting a auora of fear from you. You really do seem scared over all this.

I don't think this problem will happen until the Republican Prez after the next one (ie whoever follows John McCain's single term, during which everything goes to crap even more).

I'm assuming that will be Jeb Bush, starting his term in 2012 (Vice President will be Dick Cheney again). Therefore, I suggest that all reasonable Americans move to Canada before 2016.
You really think Dr. Jarvik's number one customer will be around then?

I am just getting a auora of fear from you. You really do seem scared over all this.
Kat only seems concerned to me. See, here's the thing: apparently, since you do not feel there is a need for concern, you see anyone that shows any concern as some sort of scared conspiracy-believing wacko.

While I am not as concerned as Kat, I am somewhat concerned, in that the way he has run amok nigh unchecked with all of these, even minor, removal of rights and whatnot may set a nasty precedent to be followed in the future by other Presidents. As I distrust both the Republican and Democratic party, I will not necessarily be all that happy should Democrats take over Congress this year. That said, it is still preferable to a Congress that still tends to agree with most of Bush's judgements. I would appreciate a foil, even if it is not exactly a foil I am fond of.

Now you have an argument.
Until you post that anything else you post is totally ignorable.
And thus it was a huge tactical mistake to post your position in a seperate post to your argument.
yes i have a habit of doing that if youve noticed:D

If the Dems take the Senate or the House, that makes a mighty nice check on Republican power. Under those circumstances, a Republican in the Presidency would be mighty fine.

Furthermore, the only President who's stuck around beyond the two term tradition is Roosevelt, and he benefitted greatly from national emergency. The country still seems to be standing, even in light of his peacetime mismanagement of the economy before 1939

on the topic of "all in the name of war" what happens if bush takes us into isreal's fight with lebonon. It is a real possability and it scares the shit out of me because that means something very close to world war 3. All of the middle east against the US and our allies. that would be a legitamit reason to keep a president in office like Rosevelt exept Bush isn't really qualified for the role

It would be highly unlikely that it would be a "World War III". Conflict between the Middle East and the US? Sure. Why? Because I severly doubt many of our current allies are going to help us if we get involved in there. We already have trouble in Iraq anyway. If we want to loose badly, all we need to do is start another "war" in which there is no winner.

Also, dictionary.com helps explain world war better too.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/world%20war

In addition, if Bush got us into another conflict, his approval rating would probably drop dramatically. There is no reason for us to get involved over there anyway...currently. (Even then, still likely won't be a good reason.)

If congress would have DECLARED war the President would have at his diposal all the power...most think..too much power , so as a compromise you have a congressional resolution to get around giving the President war powers.

In reality, Congress did declare war when they authorized the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

In case you mised it...the US is at war .

Bah. We have a war every generation or two. We're good at it. :)

No not quite true. The American government system would never allow for a "president for life." There are to many whistle blowers and liberals for that to happen. Its just unpheasable, not possible, and another anti-bush rant. TYVM

On top of that, there are to many constitutionalists who will not let him do that and the military will have to prevent him from becoming President for life as their oath is uphold the Constitution.

Their are term limits in place and it takes 2/3 vote to change that, he doesn't have that and there is nothing scary here.

thank god that constitutions are imbued with magical powers

On top of that, there are to many constitutionalists who will not let him do that and the military will have to prevent him from becoming President for life as their oath is uphold the Constitution.

thank god the military always sides with the old system against coup attempts

thank god that constitutions are imbued with magical powers

*nods* Yes. Thank God indeed.

thank god the military always sides with the old system against coup attempts

The UCMJ is a marvelous thing.

As sensationalist as it may or may not be, the prospect of Bush being in office TOMORROW scares the hell out of me, nevermind him being in office for the rest of his life.

thank god the military always sides with the old system against coup attempts

speaking of which, anyone seen any recent polling data on bush movement support within the military these days? i know that it has historically been at full on right-wing nutjob levels since the authoritariansim of the bush movement became apparent, but i haven't seen any recent numbers.

The UCMJ is a marvelous thing.

yes, because respect for the law is quite obviously one of the mainstays of the bush movement

The US has checks and balances, he will leave office in two years. period. I would also point out that the exective has special powers, this is not a bad thing. It is necessary for someone to fill the role, in this case Bush. It has a lot of power, thats why everyone wants it. I would hate to see a country without a strong exective in a time of war.

President for Life = Emperor ...

Looking at what the US' chief executive has been doing really makes me wonder what the hell this country is coming to, and whether or not he ever intends to get his ass out of the White House.

Your tinfoil hat needs adjusting. It's just not plausible.

President for Life = Emperor ...


Vive Napoleon!!!!

Vive Napoleon!!!!

Vive Bush!!!

Doesn't work so well ...

Your tinfoil hat needs adjusting. It's just not plausible.

Isnt it?

Its highly unlikely, I grant you that...

But consider this:

Supposing a major terrorist attack hits in early November of 2008, tight before the elcetion.
As President, ity would be possible for Bush to temporarily suspend the election, and declare a national state of Emergency.

Mind you, Congress would howl, but what can they really do?

Another thought for you:

Doesnt the Constitution say that a president may not be elected more than twice?

Or does it say that no president can serve more than two terms in office?

Cuz Bush was only elected ONCE.
He was appointed by the Supreme Court the first time.

Another thought for you:

Doesnt the Constitution say that a president may not be elected more than twice?

Or does it say that no president can serve more than two terms in office?

Cuz Bush was only elected ONCE.
He was appointed by the Supreme Court the first time.
I'm pretty sure it says they can't serve more than two terms. And like it or not Bush won both times fair and square. Granted the 1st time was a little unconventional but it is the electoral college that counts.

I'm a bit too lazy to read seven pages of text at this hour, but I have to wonder, does anyone actually believe Pres. Bush is going to stay on for another term, or did this start off as a joke thread, and then snowball into something different? :p Funny stuff.

In any event, no, G.W. would not declare himself dictator, nor could he... when Jeb takes office in 2009, G.W. steps down. :)

I'm pretty sure it says they can't serve more than two terms. And like it or not Bush won both times fair and square. Granted the 1st time was a little unconventional but it is the electoral college that counts.


Like or not..we arent talking about the shady election results of 2000, nor of 2004.
And just so you know...the electoral College had nothing to do with Bush winning the election in 2000.

As for the Constitution....Im gonna have to look it up, now.

Vive Bush!!!

Doesn't work so well ...


*dresses up as Viv from the Young Ones*

Viva el Presidente!

I don't think this problem will happen until the Republican Prez after the next one (ie whoever follows John McCain's single term, during which everything goes to crap even more).

I'm assuming that will be Jeb Bush, starting his term in 2012 (Vice President will be Dick Cheney again). Therefore, I suggest that all reasonable Americans move to Canada before 2016.

I got my winter bunker all set up there... I can go now...

jk. I have no bunkers... I want one tho...

He was appointed by the Supreme Court the first time.

That's a stretch. He wasn't appointed.

*adjusts Backwoods tinfoil hat*

Like or not..we arent talking about the shady election results of 2000, nor of 2004.

Actually you are.

And just so you know...the electoral College had nothing to do with Bush winning the election in 2000.

Yes it did.

As for the Constitution....Im gonna have to look it up, now.

He cannot serve more than 2 terms as president and no more than 10 years.

Actually you are.



Yes it did.



He cannot serve more than 2 terms as president and no more than 10 years.
yeah, what he said *nods*

He cannot serve more than 2 terms as president and no more than 10 years.

Since a term is 4 years long, where do the extra 2 years come from?

Since a term is 4 years long, where do the extra 2 years come from?

In the event of a VP taking over, I'd suspect.

In reality, Congress did declare war when they authorized the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq.


They deliberately did not declare war . they authorised the use of force for a list of reasons and gave the president the right to do a list of things under the scrutiny of congress.

This is why..

In 1942, in Ex Parte Quirin, the Court considered the constitutionality of an order of President Roosevelt authorizing trial by military commission of eight German Nazi saboteurs arrested after entering the United States. The eight had planned to blow up munitions factories and military installations in the United States. The Court, voting 8 to 0, upheld the legality of trying the Germans (who the Court found to be unlawful combatants) in a military tribunal without the usual safeguards of the 5th and 6th Amendments. The Court found the authorization of trial by tribunal supported by legislation enacted by Congress, and noted that it need not decide whether a presidential order of trial by commission would be constitutional in the absence of congressional action.


When is a Formal Declaration Necessary?
These cases settled the issue whether a state of war could exist without formal declaration by Congress. When hostile action is taken against the Nation, or against its citizens or commerce, the appropriate response by order of the President may be resort to force. But the issue [that has been] so much a source of controversy in the era of the Cold War and so divisive politically in the context of United States involvement in the Vietnamese War has been whether the President is empowered to commit troops abroad to further national interests in the absence of a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization short of such a declaration.\1431\ The Supreme Court studiously refused to consider the issue in any of the forms in which it was presented,\1432\ and the lower courts generally refused, on ``political question'' grounds, to adjudicate the matter.\1433\ In the absence of judicial elucidation, the Congress and the President have been required to accommodate themselves in the controversy to accept from each other less than each has been willing to accept but more than either has been willing to grant.\1434\


http://www.daveross.com/war.html


And the clincher...


Commentary
What if Congress Declared War?
April 20, 1999
Investor’s Business Daily



Declaring war against Yugoslavia could give President Clinton the ultimate excuse to interfere with the economy and crack down on critics.

In a declared war, the president could assume almost unlimited powers over the economy and the public, scholars warn. He could temporarily nationalize war industries. He even could arrest and detain people without trial.

Historically, government power has expanded greatly during declared wars, at the expense of civil rights and economic freedom.

“(Declaring war) gives rise to extraordinary as opposed to ordinary powers,” said Roger Pilon, director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. “The executive branch has something of a free hand (in a declared war). Contracts can be abrogated. Ships can be requisitioned.”

Some say Congress should declare war to clarify the aims of the Yugoslav campaign and clear away objections to expanding it, including the use of ground troops or even an invasion of Yugoslavia.

Tuesday, eight senators—Republicans John McCain of Arizona, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Democrats Joseph Lieberman and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Charles Robb of Virginia and Joseph Biden of Delaware—offered a resolution that would let Clinton use “all necessary means” to win in Kosovo.

“We are engaged in a war,” Hagel said on the Senate floor.

But this resolution falls short of formally declaring war—a move other lawmakers say Congress has a constitutional duty to debate and decide.

Rep. Tom Campbell, R-Calif., has introduced two resolutions in the House. One would declare war on Yugoslavia. The other would withdraw congressional authorization of military operations against Yugoslavia.

Campbell has said he’ll vote against war and for an end to bombing. If Congress votes down both resolutions, Campbell says he’ll file a federal lawsuit seeking a ruling on the legality of the Yugoslav campaign.

Declaring war might be a way for Congress to cover its constitutional bases, but legal scholars and wartime historians warn that a declared war would make more of a difference here in the U.S. than in Yugoslavia.

“Under national law, we're already in a state of war,” said John Yoo, professor of constitutional law at the University of California, Berkeley. “A declaration of war is really more important now for domestic reasons.”

In World War I, Washington levied price and rent controls, confiscated private property, nationalized the railroads, assumed control of all shipping, regulated the allocation of coal and oil, subsidized wheat production and instituted a draft.

“Most of the government controls were the result of executive orders,” said Robert Higgs, senior fellow at The Independent Institute in Oakland, California, and author of Crisis and Leviathan (Oxford University Press, 1987), a book that outlines the growth of federal power since the nation’s founding.

“Any time (lawmakers) declare war, that just strengthens the president’s hand,” Higgs said.

President Wilson created the War Industries Board, which spawned scores of committees that took control of various industries. He also created the Committee on Public Information, better known as the Creel Committee, after its chairman, advertising executive George Creel.

The Creel Committee subjected Americans to a massive campaign of pro-war propaganda. It recruited scholars to write pro-war articles and entertainers to make pro-war statements. It even recruited religious leaders to preach pro-war sermons.

At the same time, Wilson suppressed dissent by having the Post Office deny the privilege of the post to hundreds of newspapers and magazines. Many went out of business.

Thousands of resident aliens were summarily arrested and deported. These included not just Germans, but suspected Communists from many countries.

Some who were arrested but not deported languished in jail until President Harding freed them in 1921—three years after the war ended.

Article I of the U.S. Constitution permits the federal government to suspend the writ of habeas corpus “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” This permits the president to arrest and detain anyone without trial for indefinite periods.

The U.S. faced little threat of invasion in World War I, but the clause has been interpreted to apply during time of war.

In World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt held captive more than 110,000 Japanese-Americans, whose loyalty was suspect solely because of their Japanese heritage. Many were U.S. citizens.

FDR also took even fuller control over the nation's economy. He instituted the same controls Wilson did in World War I and added to them comprehensive wage and price controls, nationwide rent control, rationing of many consumer goods and central planning of production.

Price controls were applied again during the Korean War. President Truman also seized control of the steel industry in the midst of a strike, but that move was later ruled unconstitutional.

During the Cold War, many wartime presidential powers were made statutory by acts of Congress. Much of what presidents once did only during wartime can be done now under existing powers and the right circumstances.

“Because of the expansion of presidential powers during the Cold War, (the president) can do pretty much as he wants,” said Joan Hoff, director of the Contemporary History Institute at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio. “(Declaring war is) not really going to enhance his powers.”

Congress already has given the president extraordinary powers through various statutes. Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the president need only declare a national emergency to assume wartime control over the economy.

But many scholars believe a declared war would provide strong political cover for the actual exercise of extraordinary powers.

“A declaration of national emergency is less than a declaration of war,” Yoo said. “A declaration of war is the most far-reaching step the government can take. If they went as far as a declaration of war, all kinds of things would or could change.”

With the military already suffering severe recruiting and retention problems, a declared war would make it easier for Clinton to justify a draft. He could also extend service commitments indefinitely, keeping service members in uniform "for the duration."

Penalties increase for many crimes during wartime. Espionage becomes punishable by death. Police powers are often strengthened by zealous enforcement and deferential courts.

The Supreme Court approved the first use of rent controls during World War I, citing “exigent circumstances.” It also turned a blind eye to the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II.

The public is more likely to accept onerous burdens like the draft or the use of dictatorial powers when the excuse given is a declared war.

“There’s arguably a lot more inherent power in the president during a declared war by Congress,” said Michael Ratner, international human rights attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York.

“Under a declaration of war, the president has probably quite broad powers to take a lot of domestic actions,” Ratner said.

Ratner said many statutes could be used by the president to curtail civil liberties and suppress dissent during a declared war with Yugoslavia.

Travel to Yugoslavia or neighboring countries could be restricted by the Passport Act. Financial transactions related to travel could become crimes under the Trading With the Enemy Act.

Critics of the war might run afoul of the Foreign Agents Registration Act by merely downloading and distributing information off Yugoslav Web sites. The government might even attempt to jam foreign Web sites and intimidate domestic Internet service providers from hosting pro-Serb sites.

“A person strongly supporting the Serbs, especially a Serbian-American, could invite an investigation,” Ratner said. “People will start being careful about what they do.”

Higgs added: “The government is not going to sit still and let people mount effective criticism. When the president is a person totally without scruples, that is especially unsettling.”


War Powers At Home
The president's powers can expand dramatically during wartime.

U.S. Constitution: Allows habeas corpus to be suspended, letting the president arrest and detain U.S. citizens without due process

Alien Enemy Act of 1798: Lets the president summarily arrest, intern and deport suspect aliens

Defense Production Act of 1950:Authorizes comprehensive controls over the economy.

International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977: Permits limits on financial transactions with foreign countries during a “national emergency” declared by the president.

TradingWith The Enemy Act of 194l: Allows additional limits on financial dealings with foreign countries during declared wars

War Time Passport Act of 1952: Prohibits use of U.S. passports for persons wishing to travel to countries at war with the U.S.

Logan Act of 1798: Prohibits U.S. citizens from acting as unofficial diplomats with foreign counties

Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938: Requires U.S. residents acting on behalf of foreign governments to register as foreign agents.




Would you rather have " signing " statements and congress involved or THIS above power after "declaring " WAR


Do any of you non tin foil hat crazy leftist or other nuts see why we are reluctant to DECLARE WAR ? And do our best to wage it without giving the President Dictatorial powers ?

Do sane people see why this thread is dumb ...especially when you consider WHAT IF CONGRESS DECLARED WAR AGAINST TERROR ?


The Bush administration as a defacto dictatorship and all nice and LEGAL .:rolleyes:


http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=140

Since a term is 4 years long, where do the extra 2 years come from?

If the Vice President takes over halfway through a term=2 years. Now if he chooses to run for president and wins there is another 4 so that brings us up to six. If he runs again and wins, that equals 10.

They deliberately did not declare war . they authorised the use of force for a list of reasons and gave the president the right to do a list of things under the scrutiny of congress.

And if you look at the Constitution, it never says that it has to be a formal declaration of war.

And if you look at the Constitution, it never says that it has to be a formal declaration of war.


I did address that....

Quote:
When is a Formal Declaration Necessary?
These cases settled the issue whether a state of war could exist without formal declaration by Congress. When hostile action is taken against the Nation, or against its citizens or commerce, the appropriate response by order of the President may be resort to force. But the issue [that has been] so much a source of controversy in the era of the Cold War and so divisive politically in the context of United States involvement in the Vietnamese War has been whether the President is empowered to commit troops abroad to further national interests in the absence of a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization short of such a declaration.\1431\ The Supreme Court studiously refused to consider the issue in any of the forms in which it was presented,\1432\ and the lower courts generally refused, on ``political question'' grounds, to adjudicate the matter.\1433\ In the absence of judicial elucidation, the Congress and the President have been required to accommodate themselves in the controversy to accept from each other less than each has been willing to accept but more than either has been willing to grant.\1434\



http://www.daveross.com/war.html

I did address that....

Actually, it does not address it at all.

So what, precisely, is speculated reason for the president's strategy behind having 800 signing statements when the other 42 presidents combined wrote only 600?

Why, precisely, did he choose to sidestep the very court set up to oversee warrants to wiretap US citizens?

What, precisely, would be the purpose of trying to remove control of the National Guard from the individual states?

Dismissing those questions with flip remarks about tinfoil hats shows the quality of the responses one chooses not to share about them.

What, precisely, would be the purpose of trying to remove control of the National Guard from the individual states?

I guess you did not like the "Congress will block this" line did you? That line renders the question moot.

As to others, go read up on the Constitution.

America rejected King George III, now they seem to be getting King George I of America. Interesting eh?

So what, precisely, is speculated reason for the president's strategy behind having 800 signing statements when the other 42 presidents combined wrote only 600?
Because it's legal.

Why, precisely, did he choose to sidestep the very court set up to oversee warrants to wiretap US citizens?
Because he wanted to find terrorists. Not saying that it was effective - but he had to find some way.

What, precisely, would be the purpose of trying to remove control of the National Guard from the individual states?

Actually, the history of that struggle goes back into the Clinton years, where Clinton was trying to do the same thing. And the National Guard is not, by definition, the "militia" mentioned in the Constitution. The National Guard is, on paper, a Federal force.

Dismissing those questions with flip remarks about tinfoil hats shows the quality of the responses one chooses not to share about them.

Maybe it's because even if all of those things are true in the sinister sense you give them, it still doesn't add up to "Bush for life".

So what, precisely, is speculated reason for the president's strategy behind having 800 signing statements when the other 42 presidents combined wrote only 600?

Why, precisely, did he choose to sidestep the very court set up to oversee warrants to wiretap US citizens?

What, precisely, would be the purpose of trying to remove control of the National Guard from the individual states?

Dismissing those questions with flip remarks about tinfoil hats shows the quality of the responses one chooses not to share about them.
I dont know. Why is it hard for people to understand the exectutive has special powers granted to them to protect the country?

I guess you did not like the "Congress will block this" line did you? That line renders the question moot.

You may have missed the part where I said "trying to remove". And while I hope that's what happens, I'd like to wait and see what the response actually is.

Because it's legal.
It's certainly not USUAL, however. It is an UNUSUAL use of this power, which is entirely the point. Other wartime presidents have not felt the need to sign so many laws into effect with the caveat, "But I don't need to follow this law if it's not expedient."

Because he wanted to find terrorists. Not saying that it was effective - but he had to find some way.
So you're saying that he would not have found terrorists if a special court set up to issue warrants for wiretaps issued the warrants for wiretaps? I don't have a problem with wiretaps -- as effective or ineffective as they may be. I wonder, though, at deciding that the court given the specific power to do this is moot. This goes back to 'checks and balances', and that in the name of expediency he seems to be reinterpreting his own powers as he goes along.

Actually, the history of that struggle goes back into the Clinton years, where Clinton was trying to do the same thing. And the National Guard is not, by definition, the "militia" mentioned in the Constitution. The National Guard is, on paper, a Federal force.
So if it was tried and defeated before, why now again?

Maybe it's because even if all of those things are true in the sinister sense you give them, it still doesn't add up to "Bush for life".
Perhaps, but it certainly does not seem to add up to "checks and balances" that other presidents have managed with just fine.

So if it was tried and defeated before, why now again?

It wasn't defeated. If anything, during the Clinton administration, the National Guard moved further under the Federal umbrella.

Really, you should have read a lot of the supposedly tinfoil stuff during the Clinton administration.

You remember them. The administration that gave a medal and a promotion to an FBI agent whose act of heroism was shooting an unarmed woman holding a baby right in the face. The administration that gassed children from military vehicles and then burned them alive.

Selective reading on your part.