Seen on the street in Kyiv.

Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

“The Mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” -- The TOFF *

"Foreign Relations Boil Down to Two Things: Talking With People or Killing Them." -- Unknown

“Speed is a poor substitute for accuracy.” -- Real, no-shit, fortune from a fortune cookie

"If you believe that you are talking to G-d, you can justify anything.” — my Dad

"Colt .45s; putting bad guys in the ground since 1873." -- Unknown

"Stay Strapped or Get Clapped." -- probably not Mr. Rogers

"The Dildo of Karma rarely comes lubed." -- Unknown

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

* "TOFF" = Treasonous Orange Fat Fuck, A/K/A Dolt-45,
A/K/A Commandante (or Cadet) Bone Spurs,
A/K/A El Caudillo de Mar-a-Lago, A/K/A the Asset., A/K/A P01135809

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

So, Now For the Big Question: Why Didn't They Go Through With It?

As you probably know by now, the legal whores in the Bush Justice Department prepared an entire series of memorandums justifying ignoring Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, as well as the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. As more of those memos come out, I have no doubt that those scumbags also justified suspension of Congress and suspending elections. The Bush Administration had in place its legal justification for imposing a military dictatorship.

Why didn't they carry through? Was it, as I posited, because they were incompetent? Was it, because, as BadTux theorizes, because Bush was lazy? Did they approach the military and found out that there was a risk that the armed forces would refuse to carry out such orders? Were they afraid of a risk of armed resistance from Americans?

Or did they stare into the abyss of dictatorship and decide not to go there?

5 comments:

Mule Breath said...

Or perhaps they stared into the eyes of America and saw a sufficient number of us unwilling to allow such foolhardiness.

Not all liberals are unarmed.

Anonymous said...

I could also be that he got the troops mired in two wars such that trying anything was not feasible.

Mule Breath said...

One more little ditty that your readers may find of interest. On October 25th of last year, in an appearance with Sarah Palin at a Souix City school, Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King stated the following:

“When you take a lurch to the left you end up in a totalitarian dictatorship. [and] There is no freedom to the left. It’s always to our side of the aisle.”

Interesting difference in perspective, isn't it?

Cujo359 said...

The military were, ironically, among the most consistent upholders of the rule of law in the Bush Administration. The JAG tried to make the "tribunals" into real trials, sometimes at high cost to their careers. My guess is that attitude, coupled with the problem Terrant mentions, decided the Bushies against trying to pursue dictatorship. In the end, they just couldn't get enough of their cronies into the positions they needed to be, because at least in the military you have to display some competence before they bump you up the ladder.

Karen Zipdrive said...

If you watch Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, they are constantly pounding the drums for a complete inquisition. They frequently interview prominent Senators and Congress Reps whose comments are growing in ferocity toward the Bush war criminals and dictators.
I have a happy feeling that AG Eric Holder is Obama's pointman for going after those criminal bastards.
Obama's taking the high road, but in his administration the Justice Department works independently.
With the GOP practically neutered, it's a great time to pounce.
If I had to bet on it, I'd go with Holder over BushCo.