W W W?

President George W. Bush has done it once more. He’s taken the Constitution and pretty much shredded it this time. He wiped his backside with it over wire tapping, tromped on it over the Patriot Act and pretty much stuffed it in the trash with his personal war in Iraq. For a man that took an oath to uphold the Constitution before the people on his inauguration as President he sure finds it to be a pesky little thing to deal with. Apparently, none of the photographs showed his other hand that was not on the bible had his fingers crossed. This is not my President, not your President, this man thinks and acts like a damn King!

As a lame duck President he is enacting laws that no matter who is elected the next President will have a difficult situation to change. W is back room dealing to guarantee our military presence in Iraq permanently and without Congressional approval.

Over at the Washington Post they have this opinion piece on it…

An Agreement Without Agreement

By Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway
Friday, February 15, 2008; 4:30 PM

The Bush administration is so intent on securing its legacy in Iraq that it is once again ignoring the Constitution. Without seeking the consent of Congress, it is well on its way toward a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that threatens to deepen the American commitment without the congressional support the Constitution requires.

President Bush’s plan to cut out Congress has provoked a growing chorus of criticism, joined by both Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In response, the administration has begun to back-track from its vision of a sweeping military and economic agreement. Speaking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the agreement would not contain a security guarantee committing the country to fixed troop levels or permanent bases. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, speaking before the Senate Armed Services last week, stated that the agreement will be “like other Status of Forces Agreements,” which deal with the rights and obligations of the military when operating on foreign soil. Such agreements, the White House is quick to point out, are not usually subject to congressional approval. That is true. But this truth will not suffice, since the administration is still aiming for an agreement that moves far beyond the traditional scope of these limited military accords. We should not allow false advertising to serve as a cover for a constitutional fait accompli.

Snip the Constitution

Worse yet, the administration is keeping most of its plans secret. (Much of what we have learned comes from leaks reported in the press.) Congress has held two hearings — on Jan. 23 and Feb. 8 — on the legitimate scope of the Iraqi agreement, and the administration has twice refused to testify. While Gates and Rice have made a few reassuring remarks, they have fallen far short of full disclosure.

This is unacceptable. Sen. Joseph Biden, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, is a strong critic of the administration’s unilateral approach. But if the stone-walling continues, he should make it his committee’s business to sponsor a congressional resolution declaring invalid any military agreement that seeks to go beyond the traditional limits of the standard Status of Forces Agreement. No president has the unilateral power to impose broad international obligations on the nation without congressional support. But it is especially wrong for a lame-duck president to make such commitments about a controversial policy that is at the very center of the debate among the candidates vying to succeed him. - Washington Post

What is next for W? Is he going to annex Canada because he really likes their bacon? Then he moves on to Mexico because he just happens to like taco night at the White House and we all know them brownies make the best tacos. I didn‘t coin that phrase, the Bush family did… (No offense to Mexican American’s intended… I’m on a rant). W will probably next rename Iraq Haliburtonville in one of his notorious “Screw the Constitution Signing Statements” and his buddy Dick Cheney will have a shorter commute to work from the headquarters in Dubai when they leave office in 2009.

One thing that every President of America had in common prior to Bush was faithfully taking the pledge to defend the Constitution. In doing so George Washington built the Presidency from the ground up not as a King but an office based on the greater good. Thomas Jefferson propelled our nation out of a religious based government into a man made government. To which some today think and believe is wrong but isn’t that what Iran and every Middle East government is. How’s that looking lately? Abraham Lincoln divided but united our nation in the midst of a states rights issue that cost hundreds of thousands of lives but his integrity and place in history is sound because he believed in the greater good for all. Read any news report and you can clearly see that President Bush has no intention of legally upholding the office he was elected too. Full speed ahead for Bush and damn the consequences as he lets the chips fall where they will. There is no historical value to any action he has performed as President that is for the greater good. In all of his actions he has turned the people on themselves and not for the same reasons as Lincoln. He is a rogue President and if the Congress will not reel him in then they are a body without power and Bush has succeeded in his mission.

This is the reason why Republican’s will not see the White House in the next election. Our so called defender of our Constitution thinks it is just a piece of paper and it is not. In the same respects that our flag is just a piece of cloth, burn it, shred it, stamp your dirty boots on it will never kill or mame the meaning behind it. He hijacked our nation and his own political party to serve his own personal, political and financial gains. AKA Dick Cheney and his net worth going through the roof on a VP’s public servant salary. President Bush does not like our form of government and he has proven it over and over again and still he is not called to task for it. Both political parties should be screaming at the top of their lungs over this sidestep of the Congress ensuring our military presence in Iraq for any time the secret documents will make law. If our President is never to be held accountable then he does in fact have a monarchy. Should that fact alone inspire you to contact your representative in government with your anger?

Our Constitution is our government. That is the foundation of America no matter how we look at it from any perspective. No matter who you are as an American it still starts out with “We the People…”

W, W, W, what are we going to do with you? In less than a year there will be no problem with the door hitting him in the back side as the ghosts of Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington will be the ones slamming those doors on the White House as he exits. Thanks for visiting W. Somebody else will clean up the mess you left behind.

Papamoka

Originally posted at Papamoka Straight Talk

Feel free to link to this post or borrow it…

4 Responses to “W W W?”

  1. The Sirens Chronicles » Dizzy’s Ten Post Round-Up Says:

    […] his usual tricks. It’s as if Congress (and the US Constitution) don’t even exist… W W W?–Bring It […]

  2. manapp99 Says:

    Talk about getting your panties in a bunch over nothing. Google status of force agreements, of SOFAs and you will find we have more than 90 currently in force worldwide and, as noted in the article, they do not require congressional approval. The are only agreements with countries we have a presence in that govern how US military personel, families and contractors are dealt with in logistical and legal issues. The article you link has this:

    “Such agreements, the White House is quick to point out, are not usually subject to congressiona l approval. That is true. But this truth will not suffice, since the administrati on is still aiming for an agreement that moves far beyond the traditional scope of these limited military accords. We should not allow false advertising to serve as a cover for a constitution al fait accompli.”

    So they agree that the President is not “trashing the constitution” as these agreements are not usually subject to congressional approval and they say ” the administration is aiming for an agreement that moves far beyond the traditional scopes” . They do not elaborate on what part of the agreement moves beyond anything or compared to what. Then they say:

    “Worse yet, the administrati on is keeping most of its plans secret. (Much of what we have learned comes from leaks reported in the press.) Congress has held two hearings — on Jan. 23 and Feb. 8 — on the legitimate scope of the Iraqi agreement, and the administrati on has twice refused to testify. While Gates and Rice have made a few reassuring remarks, they have fallen far short of full disclosure.”

    Ohhh, the plans have been kept secret! OMG. So they admit they do not know what is in the agreement and that the “few” remarks made have been reassuring but still they are crying foul. They do not even know what they object to, they just object.

    The article even has these quotes:

    “Speaking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the agreement would not contain a security guarantee committing the country to fixed troop levels or permanent bases. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, speaking before the Senate Armed Services last week, stated that the agreement will be “like other Status of Forces Agreements,” which deal with the rights and obligations of the military when operating on foreign soil.”

    So Rice says no fixed troop levels or permanent bases and Gates says an agreement like other agreements.

    No where in the article does it give one single thing from the “secret” agreements it has a problem with.

    And this sets you off in a rant about supposed “shredding of the constitution’?

    Check out this SOFA for the Marshall Islands if you want to see a standard agreement. Just nuts and bolts stuff. All countries, not just the USA, have SOFAs with other countries they operate in.

    http://www.fm/jcn/compact/sofa.html

    Why is the left so into fear mongering?

  3. Christopher Radulich Says:

    In seeking authority to conduct combat operations, the Bush administration is seeking something similar to the current United Nations Security Council resolution, which allows the United States and other coalition forces to operate in Iraq “in support of mutual goals,” one Bush administration official said.

    It sounds pretty much like he is trying to finesse calling it a treaty.

  4. Presidential election 2008 |Republicans Vs. Democrats » WWW? Says:

    […] February 16th, 2008 Boo Dog wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptHillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In […]

Leave a Reply


Fish.Travel