Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

Tom Engelhardt, in his Asia Times Online article "Plebiscite on an Outlaw Empire" writes "A majority of the American people - those who voted anyway - did not ratify Bush's Outlaw Empire. They took a modest step toward sanity. But what will follow?

Here, briefly, are five "benchmark" questions to ask when considering the possibilities of the final two years of the Bush administration's wrecking-ball regime:

[The last one he writes about is: ]

What happens when the commander-in-chief presidency and
the unitary executive theory meet what's left of the republic?


The answer on this one is relatively uncomplicated and less than three months away from being in US faces; it's the mother of all constitutional crises. But writing that now, and living with the reality then, are two quite different things.

So when the new Congress arrives in January, buckle your seatbelts and wait for the first requests for oversight information from some investigative committee; wait for the first subpoenas to meet Cheney's men in some dark hallway. Wait for this crew to feel the "shackles" and react. Wait for this to hit the courts - even a Supreme Court that, despite the president's best efforts, is probably still at least one justice short when it comes to unitary-executive-theory supporters. I wouldn't even want to offer a prediction on this one. But a year down the line, anything is possible.

So the US has finally had its plebiscite, however covert, on the failing Outlaw Empire of Bush and Cheney. But what about their autocratic inclinations at home? How will that play out?

Will it be: all hail Caesar, we who are about to dive back into prime-time programming?

Or will it be: all the political hail is about to pelt our junior Caesars as we dive back into prime-time programming? Stay tuned.

***

The rest of the article is worth your time too: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HK10Aa03.html


The potential for a major constitutional crisis had not occured to me when I thought about Congressional use of its subpoena power in exercising its oversight powers. What with the Administration's use of presidential signing statements and its extreme secrecy, they do have an 'imperial presidency' conception of presidential power. They are likely to fight tooth and nail to prevent their secrets from being exposed in public.

This could get bloody.

[EFLtrainer]

First thought: and they wonder why Average Joe doesn't get involved in politics. That was written in a style about as accessible to Averge Joe as a musical by Brecht chreographed by Thwarp and scored by Webern.

Second thought: The more blood the merrier, figuratively speaking. Try them, condemn them, commute their sentences.

[cbclark4]

I am more concerned about were the money went.

Haliburton or some of their companies may come under scutiny.

I saw the expose on the mispending for arms by the Iraqis.

There are probably some other problems.

Giving one party all the power does have it's downside.

The other problem is the over confidence that is brought by pride.

I think this is the crux of the Abramoff situation.

Some will suffer.

cbc

[W.T.Carl]

You people are beyond belief. The American People voted for divided government. Those new Democrats that got elected are moderate to conservative. The Democratic leadership is liberal. Look for a fight in THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

[ddeubel]

I think Carl's scenario is more likely and I don't forsee a lot of real "justice". Yes, I'd love to know where the money went and who lied about what......unfortunately, despite Pelosi's combative spirit, at the end of the day they are all kinda in bed together. There is a kind of symbiotic relationship that "those that go to Washington" use to nourish themselves.

I really think that the main issue is being discussed but little publicized. The appellate courts pending decision about the Bush's rebuke of habeas corpus through last month's congressional military commissions act. I see this as the weak link. IF, there can be a complete and successful decision which rebukes the president and congress on this issue, you will see all sorts of other things happen. Unfortunately the 3 person panel consists of two "hard" republicans and the token woman democrat.....

It is time that the court start protecting Americans from themselves and withdrawing a lot of the power that the administration and crooked politics has hoarded.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/07/news/gitmo.php

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Nowhere Man]

Interesting point, Ya-ta.

But, pre-election, I read an IHT article (I think it was IHT) saying that Pelosi (specifically) thought investigations needed to be calculated ones, meaning that they would focus on money and not things terrorism-related that might be misconstrued by the public. The article was based on how Gingrich's popularity plummeted a few short months after he assumed the same post.
The article also ruled out impeachment.

As such, I expect any investigations to be relatively tame in scope. This follows the argument that there should be an earnest attempt to be bipartisan. However, were the glove on the other hand, would the GOP try to be peaceful and bipartisan? No way. Hence, the democrats get this reputation for being weak. Newt Gingrich's popularity rating didn't hurt the GOP in subsequent elections, and I don't honestly think there will be an end of partisanship until the Republicans are met with the same fire as they put out.

That said, it doesn't seem to be in the game plan at this point.

Personally, I'd say put the screws to them.

Objectively, I'd say that investigations ought not depend on popularity but on the worthiness of the investigations. Secret prisons and torture should be investigated.

But, at this point, I don't think they will.

Rather, I expect it to be a money chase. And, like the 9/11 Comission, I expect Bush to begin screaming "partisan" immediately.

Which, I suppose, could in itself result in a Constitution crisis. But that's only because he'll kick and scream when confronted with the tamest of the tame.

Plus, how can you rule out impeachment before you investigate what's been happening?

Finally, to be bipartisan, I can't imagine how people want any president to be ducking the law. If you say it's ok now, it will only come back to bite you when someone else that you don't like is in office.

[Ya-ta Boy]