Visit JoulesBeef's column >>

JOULESBEEF

The measurement of power of an exploding cow.~156.4 gigajoules=1 joulesbeef.
Add To Watchlist
Articles Posted: 93; Links Seeded: 1508
Member Since: 5/2006Last Seen: 2/09/2010

Bush wants to redeclare war in time for the election.

advertisement

Tucked deep into a recent proposal from the Bush administration is a provision that has received almost no public attention, yet in many ways captures one of President Bush's defining legacies: an affirmation that the United States is still at war with Al Qaeda.

Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Bush's advisers assert that many Americans may have forgotten that. So they want Congress to say so and "acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans."

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
4.4
0.7
{"commentId":2656249,"authorDomain":"JoulesBeef"}
n affirmation that the United States is still at war with Al Qaeda.

no they mean a war on "terror" a war against al qaeda can be won. a war against an idea cant be. Thats like saying we are always at war with THE ENEMY. and we will just define enemy as needed.

Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Bush's advisers assert that many Americans may have forgotten that.

yeah yall using it in every election and everytime you want another draconian bill to pass or another power grab.. we are told that a post 9-11 era dictates it.

So they want Congress to say so and "acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of American

so they really want americans to put 2 and 2 together and vote for mccain.
24/7 campaigning never stopped in the bush WH.. they politicize everything even that which didn't need to be politicised. Heck they have run this war political from the start. don't buy the crap about listening to the generals on the ground, he only started to do that after the 06 elections.
Nah they just needed things to last until he got out of office.
it's not like we havent waged wars before.
we made some mistepps in iraq that cant be excused by claiming ignorance.
the too small under equipted military.
the debathification of the government.
the disbanding of the military
the leaving the ammo dumps unguarded for most of the war.(really cant cry iran when we left 10s of thousands of TONS of explosives completely unguarded for 4 years)
sickeningly obvious

{"commentId":2656249,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"JoulesBeef"}
  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Sat Aug 30, 2008 4:37 AM EDT
{"commentId":2656505,"authorDomain":"joseph-iluminou"}

I will admit, it's a little too close to call. Seriously, could there ever be a time when we are no longer at war with Al Qaeda? Is it just in time for McCain's campaign, sure. But there is no head to bite off, just a never-ending snake. So as long as the snake lives, I'm rather sure the "war" will continue, election or no election.

{"commentId":2656505,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"joseph-iluminou"}
    #1.1 - Sat Aug 30, 2008 6:10 AM EDT
    {"commentId":2656967,"authorDomain":"tschreck"}

    we have always been at war with the "terrists"

    we will always be at war with them..

    apologies to mr orwell.

    {"commentId":2656967,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"tschreck"}
    • 1 vote
    #1.2 - Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:17 AM EDT
    Reply
    {"commentId":2656702,"authorDomain":"SuperSaiyan"}

    Well, he could have fooled me after all that happened over the past 5 1/2 years that the US has been in Iraq...

    Also how would we define "victory"?

    {"commentId":2656702,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"SuperSaiyan"}
      Reply#2 - Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:14 AM EDT
      {"commentId":2657322,"authorDomain":"drfade3000"}

      Al-quaeda is comprised of small movable cells spreading in different places , Iraq was not one of them before th war. What,s the meaning of declaing war at al-quaeda? chasing those cells or throwing bombs on all countries they are hiding in like Pakistan,Afghanistan,Yemren,Saudia,Maroc,Algeria and others?

      {"commentId":2657322,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"drfade3000"}
      • 1 vote
      #2.1 - Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:12 AM EDT
      {"commentId":2657581,"authorDomain":"Danielsage"}

      I am still waiting for them to say what Victory and what is the end mission in Iraq. They say we need to stay to the end but have never said in detail what that means.

      So to me I don't think they have an end, this is just more proof.

      {"commentId":2657581,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"Danielsage"}
      • 2 votes
      #2.2 - Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:45 AM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":2656946,"authorDomain":"mattklinghammer"}

      What a bunch of garbage. Is the NYTimes (the most liberal of Mainstream media) this blatant in their Bush and now presumed McCain hatred? What a waste of paper and so called journalism, if this stands out as a NYT article, when will they start publishing the two-headed fish stories.

      {"commentId":2656946,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"mattklinghammer"}
        Reply#3 - Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:13 AM EDT
        {"commentId":2657181,"authorDomain":"dwemmy"}

        How is this article just a "bunch of garbage"? Are there lies, hyperbole or other distortions within the text itself?

        {"commentId":2657181,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"dwemmy"}
        • 4 votes
        #3.1 - Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:54 AM EDT
        {"commentId":2657645,"authorDomain":"therealistparty"}

        Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said he wanted to make sure the Bush administration — or a future president — did not use that declaration as "another far-fetched interpretation" to evade the law, the way he believes Mr. Bush and aides like Alberto R. Gonzales, the former attorney general, did in using the wiretapping program to avoid the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "I don't want to face another situation where we had the Sept. 14 resolution and then Attorney General Gonzales claimed that that was authorization to violate FISA," Mr. Specter said.

        So, even though a newspaper quotes a conservative republican senator (I know that it's unusual for one to be grounded in reality, but this one is) it has a liberal agenda. Conservidiot talking point 101 when they have no argument based on facts. Ya know, more and more people or getting tried of conservatives trying to use the word liberal as a bad thing. As if being open minded and questioning status quo is somehow un-American. I'm sure that the neo-cons see this type of questioning as a threat to their world corporation agenda. But thanks to liberals like James Monroe we have a little barrier to their oppressive agenda called the Constitution. Heck, it even protects the cons right to spew their player hater views on fox.

        {"commentId":2657645,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"therealistparty"}
        • 3 votes
        #3.2 - Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:54 AM EDT
        {"commentId":2658246,"authorDomain":"JoulesBeef"}

        all the hybole was mine added.
        this is fact.
        also it is pretty laughible to continue to cal the NYT "(the most liberal of Mainstream media)".. concidering the NYT was the bush administrations favorite place to leak information. Don't think ole bushie would leak to the daily kos would you? concidering people like cheney refuses to do an interview with anyone but fox.

        {"commentId":2658246,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"JoulesBeef"}
          #3.3 - Sat Aug 30, 2008 11:02 AM EDT
          Reply
          {"commentId":2657236,"authorDomain":"rickcavender"}

          The John W. Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2006 (PL 109-364), "named for the longtime Armed Services Committee chairman from Virginia," was signed October 17, 2006, by President George W. Bush. The Act "has a provocative provision called 'Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies'," the thrust of which "seems to be about giving the federal government a far stronger hand in coordinating responses to [Hurricane] Katrina-like disasters," Jeff Stein, CQ National Security Editor wrote December 1, 2006.

          "But on closer inspection, its language also alters the two-centuries-old Insurrection Act, which Congress passed in 1807 to limit the president's power to deploy troops within the United States ... 'to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy'," Stein wrote.

          "But the amended law takes the cuffs off" and "critics say it's a formula for executive branch mischief," Stein wrote, as "the new language adds 'natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident' to the list of conditions permitting the President to take over local authority — particularly 'if domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.'"

          "One of the few to complain, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., warned that the measure virtually invites the White House to declare federal martial law. ... It 'subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law,' he said in remarks submitted to the Congressional Record on Sept. 29." [1]

          {"commentId":2657236,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"rickcavender"}
          • 2 votes
          Reply#4 - Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:03 AM EDT
          {"commentId":2657246,"authorDomain":"rickcavender"}

          Should President George W. Bush proclaim and put into effect Executive Order 12919, "the President would put the United States under total Martial Law and Military Dictatorship." [2]

          "The President need not wait for some emergency to occur, however. He can declare a National Emergency at any time, and freeze everything. Congress, and the States, are powerless to prevent such an Executive Dictatorship, as long as the President advises Congress in a timely matter."

          {"commentId":2657246,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"rickcavender"}
          • 1 vote
          Reply#5 - Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:04 AM EDT
          {"commentId":2657249,"authorDomain":"rickcavender"}

          Executive Order 12656 "Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities", February 16, 2004 plus Executive Order 13074, Amendment to EO 12656, February 9, 1998.

          "Executive Order Number 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and grant the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry." [4]

          Executive Order 11921 "Adjusting Emergency Preparedness Assignments to Organizational and Functional Changes in Federal Departments and Agencies" allows the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) [stated as the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency] to "develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months." [5]

          "FEMA's powers were consolidated by President Jimmy Carter to incorporate: The National Security Act of 1947, which allows for the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and other essential economic activities, and to rationalize the requirements for manpower, resources and production facilities; The 1950 Defense Production Act, which gives the President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy; The Act of August 29, 1916, which authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take possession of any transportation system for transporting troops, material, or any other purpose related to the emergency; and The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which enables the President to seize the property of a foreign country or national. These powers were transferred to FEMA in a sweeping consolidation in 1979." [6]

          For the first time in American history, the reigns of government would not be transferred from one elected element to another, but the Constitution, itself, can be suspended.

          {"commentId":2657249,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"rickcavender"}
          • 1 vote
          Reply#6 - Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:04 AM EDT
          {"commentId":2659198,"authorDomain":"ScarlerTermite"}

          And is the Bush Administration saying this and hoping for a Category 4 Gustav to hit New Orleans so there is a reason to use the Executive Order?

          {"commentId":2659198,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"ScarlerTermite"}
            #6.1 - Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:37 PM EDT
            {"commentId":2663965,"authorDomain":"Danielsage"}

            Scarlet,

            How they list a national disaster is it could be anything. Say a plane hitting a building, or a major riot, or even yes a hurricane. But he can say it is anything, and Congress can't review it for 6 mo Executive Order 11921.

            I found out of those provisions when I read an article a few years ago that had the guy from the Regan Administration that did the Trickle Down Economics. He said those new articles scared him and asked why would it be put in there that the Constitution could be suspended. That was coming from a Republican not a Leftest.

            It is scary to think that Hitler did take over his country by using Executive Orders.

            Here is a link of a Conservative group that talks of their fears of these orders too. A lot on both sides have fear of these things.

            {"commentId":2663965,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"Danielsage"}
            • 2 votes
            #6.2 - Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:20 PM EDT
            {"commentId":2672355,"authorDomain":"incydius"}

            Bush must have been getting worried, and seeing how low the approval is of him, and started getting scared that people might decide Thomas Jefferson had the right idea.

            However, the twit that he is, hr'd forgot that he already screwed up the military too much to be effective nearly enough should "something" happen....

            {"commentId":2672355,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"incydius"}
              #6.3 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 6:05 PM EDT
              Reply
              {"commentId":2657272,"authorDomain":"rickcavender"}

              The last three comments are an excerpt from "Establishing martial law in the United States" from Sourcewatch.org.

              {"commentId":2657272,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"rickcavender"}
              • 1 vote
              Reply#7 - Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:07 AM EDT
              {"commentId":2660292,"authorDomain":"JaRagga"}

              I would like to point out that it is not so far fetched to believe that George Bush and his associates desperately want to see another Republican in the White House and that this is another attempt to scare Congress and the American people into voting Republican in another election.

              The article did a great job at pointing at the most obvious of reasons. What it did not do was remind Americans that the next President will be appointing as many as 3 Supreme Court Justices, which today is split 4-4-1 conservative-liberal-and one man acting as the critical swing vote. I will tell you that the potential for conservatives to seat 3 more Justices has far more chilling implications to our future than anything else in that article.

              {"commentId":2660292,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"JaRagga"}
              • 2 votes
              Reply#8 - Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:39 PM EDT
              {"commentId":2670447,"authorDomain":"davids-light"}

              What truely concerns me is what Bush will do once the election is over. In my heart, I believe that he will bomb Iran before leaving office. I think he feels it is his duty.

              {"commentId":2670447,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"davids-light"}
                Reply#9 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:50 PM EDT
                {"commentId":2676079,"authorDomain":"whatley-s"}

                Pelosi should start listening to Kucinich and find the cajones to impeach Bush.

                Not only for the overstretch of executive powers, but the constitutional laws he has willfully violated.

                Anyone remember the Gulf of Tonkin?

                {"commentId":2676079,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"whatley-s"}
                  Reply#10 - Mon Sep 1, 2008 12:06 AM EDT
                  {"commentId":2676430,"authorDomain":"tappymcwidestance"}

                  I think Bush meant to say he needed to remember we were at war with the people who attacked us on 9/11.

                  {"commentId":2676430,"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539","authorDomain":"tappymcwidestance"}
                    Reply#11 - Mon Sep 1, 2008 12:47 AM EDT
                    {"canLink":false,"threadId":"344125","isPrivate":false}
                    Leave a Comment:
                    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                    {"threadId":"344125","contentId":"1805539"}
                    Start TrackingStart Tracking
                    Stop TrackingStop Tracking