## The World Can't Wait! Drive Out the Bush Regime!

 Quote by oldunion it will be against facism because it cant be against anything else. I dont think you could have a country vs country war anymore, no one would support it. So factions will go to war, and when that happens people will stand up to it or they will be suppressed-either way there will be facism and the victor of such a war will be determined when facism is no longer possible.
How do you make an enemy of fascism but not a country? And how do you make fascism impossible?

 Quote by TheStatutoryApe How do you make an enemy of fascism but not a country? And how do you make fascism impossible?
it's a matter of branding. Go look at some news papers from 1930's-40s. The headlines where all "War with Germany" that "War with Japan" this. now-a-days? "War on Terror", the "Communist threat" that. Since Vietnam, Iraq is the only military action that's been named after it's location (afghanistan is part of the war on terror) Guatemala was bombing communists, Nicuragua, Cuba, everything, all of them were causes, not countries. It's part of trying to remove the casualties from the idea of war, there are no casualties, there's collateral. There are no innocents, there are suspects.

(least I think that's what he means, thats what I think)

 You dont have people supporting the country 100 percent. So i say if someone attacked the usa, it wouldnt be against the people, but against its fascist government. In WW2 it was easy, kill the fascist nazis. But now, the usa is becoming more fascist in tendency and fascism will be the enemy, not the 260million people who live here. As Smurf pointed out, its not country vs country, its government of country vs targets in another. When the usa declares war on terror, it isnt 260million people jumping over eachother to get in fatigues and go stop terror; it is a select few who have targeted another select few. Citizens are only there to make money for the government, to serve in the army, and to accept their words as truth so no gets revolutionary ides. I swear every post i make just re-affirms the fear i have of the future.

 Quote by oldunion I swear every post i make just re-affirms the fear i have of the future.

 Quote by oldunion I swear every post i make just re-affirms the fear i have of the future.
Things are not looking brighter with the situation in the Gulf Coast... Since this incident, it appears that the house of cards is beginning to crumble with the polls showing less and less support of the war as well.

As much as I am for change, mass political unrest is also very scary...

When I saw George Sr. on tv talking about his advice to his son not to worry about the blame game, it was an indication that Jr. was focusing on that (to me anyway).

I can personally relate to the the immature and spoiled side of Jr. and what happens when guys like that when they are in a NO WIN situation is they get fed up, frustrated and flip the chess board. I'm going to stop criticizing him for a little while because there is work to be done and he needs to be doing it.

Political unrest in Malaysia & Phillippines has been going on for YEEEars... and it never seems to stop. These countries have extremely rich and extremely poor. I can definately see the USA going in this direction... the middle ground is getting shaky and people are gambling like mad to get across the divide.

There needs to be great change.

 Originally Posted by Skyhunter Good observations, the government doesn't make money, (well I guess literally it does) the private interests it serves make the money.
if i held the keys to my friends future, but could not own anything but the key, then:

if my friend has a gun, I have protection...
if my friend has a car, I have transportation...
if my friend has money, I have power...

i don't have to have anything except the skeleton key and some associates. this is politics.

A community center has a budget... the chairman is supposed to request offers / proposals on all projects... if the chairman's friend is ABC, ABC sees all the competing proposals before making a proposal... then Mr. Chairman, who has pull in the boardroom can present his point of view in favor of ABC, and the ducks will line up to agree. To agree is to build a path towards getting appointed as Secretary or Treasurer in the future.

No one will admit to going along with this kind of voting as it makes them look like a knob, but I personally know that voting against is not the path to gaining support from other board members. People are spiteful and immature to remember that you didn't support their idea and so they don't support yours. I scratch your back, you scratch mine, so the saying goes.

 Finally someone who knows how to get things done! Unfortunately he is the epitome of what most people are in America.

I thought about starting a new thread but decided to post less conspicuously in this older one. I don't know if this should be split off or not.

I was surprised today when a friend told me that a full 50% of Americans think Bush should be impeached. 50%!! I would have thought it would be closer to 20%.

I couldn't believe it. I googled: here it is:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3528

The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs.

 "The results of this poll are truly astonishing," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House."

 Saw this bumper sticker yesterday: Can't wait for 2008
 My honest, considered opinion (based on thinking, reading and analysis) as an outsider looking in (I am not American): Bush (the Republicans) is not the problem. The Democrats would be no different. American imperialism (capitalism) is the problem. Just in case anyone was interested in this slant on the issues... alex

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Since this covers many thread topics (the need for checks and balance, Homeland Security, cronyism, Cheney vs. Powell, Bush's lack of international savvy, etc.), I am posting this here.

The following are excerpts from a talk given by Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January. Originally from the Financial Times, updated by MSNBC Oct. 20, 2005, his talk focuses on the 1947 National Security Act:
 ...Now there are many critics who will say you cannot in our system of government force the executive branch to do something that it doesn't want to do. The framers of the 1947 act I don't think would agree with that. ---------- We need something like that today. Let me tell you why I say that. Decisions that send men and women to die, decisions that have the potential to send men and women to die, decisions that confront situations like natural disasters and cause needless death or cause people to suffer misery that they shouldn't have to suffer, domestic and international decisions, should not be made in a secret way. That's a very, very provocative statement, I think. All my life I've been taught to guard the nation's secrets. All my life I have followed the rules. I've gone through my special background investigations and all the other things that you need to do and I understand that the nation's secrets need guarding. But fundamental decisions about foreign policy should not be made in secret… ---------- When you cut the bureaucracy out of your decisions and then foist your decisions on us out of the blue on that bureaucracy, you can't expect that bureaucracy to carry your decision out very well and, furthermore, if you're not prepared to stop the feuding elements in that bureaucracy, as they carry out your decision, you're courting disaster. And I would say that we have courted disaster, in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran, generally with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita and I could go on back, we haven't done very well on anything like that in a long time. And if something comes along that is truly serious, truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence. Read it some time again. …Read in there what they say about the necessity of people to [UI background voice] tyranny or to throw off ineptitude or to throw off that which is not doing what the people want it to do. And you're talking about the potential for, I think, real dangerous times if we don't get our act together. Now, let me get a little more specific. This is where I'm sure the journalists will get their pens out. Almost everyone since the '47 act, with the exception, I think, of Eisenhower, has in some way or another, perterbated, flummoxed, twisted, drew evolutionary trends with, whatever, the national security decision-making process. I mean, John Kennedy trusted his brother, who was Attorney General, made his brother Attorney General, probably far more than he should have. Richard Nixon, oh my God, took a position that was not even envisioned in the original framers of the act's minds, national security minds, that are not subject to confirmation by the Senate, advise and consent. Took that position and gave it to his Secretary of State, concentrating power in ways that still reverberate in this country. ---------- …Another one in my study of the act's implementation has so flummoxed the process as the present administration. What do I mean by that? Remember what I said about the bureaucracy if it's going to implement your decisions having to participate in those decisions. And let me add one other dimension to that. ---------- The complexity of the crises that confront governments today are just unprecedented. At the same time, especially in America, but I submit to you that in Japan, in China and in a number of other countries soon to be probably the European Union, it's just as bad, if not in some ways worse. …That doesn't mean you have to add a Department of Homeland Security with 70,000 disparate entities thrown under somebody in order to handle them. But it does mean that your bureaucracy has got to be staffed with good people and they've got to work together and they've got to work under leadership they trust and leadership that, on basic issues, they agree with. And that if they don't agree, they can dissent and dissent and dissent. And if their dissent is such that they feel so passionate about it, they can resign and know why they're resigning. That is not the case today… ...the case that I saw for 4 plus years was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberration, bastardizations, [UI], changes to the national security [UI] process. What I saw was a cabal between the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the Secretary of Defense and [UI] on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made. Read George Packer's book The Assassin's [UI] if you haven't already. …if you want to read how the Cheney Rumsfeld cabal flummoxed the process, read that book. And, of course, there are other names in there, Under Secretary of Defense Douglas [UI], whom most of you probably know Tommy Frank said was stupidest blankety blank man in the world. He was. Let me testify to that... And yet, and yet, after the Secretary of State agrees to a $400 billion department, rather than a$30 billion department, having control, at least in the immediate post-war period in Iraq, this man is put in charge. Not only is he put in charge, he is given carte blanche to tell the State Department to go screw themselves in a closet somewhere. That's not making excuses for the State Department. That's telling you how decisions were made and telling you how things got accomplished. ...[UI] tell you how many contractors who did billion dollars or so business with the Defense Department that we have in 1988 and how many do we have now. …They've got every Congressman, every Senator, they got it covered. …So you've got this collegiality there between the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President. And then you've got a President who is not versed in international relations. And not too much interested in them either.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9757219/

 Quote by SOS2008 Since this covers many thread topics (the need for checks and balance, Homeland Security, cronyism, Cheney vs. Powell, Bush's lack of international savvy, etc.), I am posting this here. The following are excerpts from a talk given by Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January. Originally from the Financial Times, updated by MSNBC Oct. 20, 2005, his talk focuses on the 1947 National Security Act: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9757219/
I guess he is next to have his character assassinated.

Although Rove and Libby are a little distracted ATM and not real anxious to leak classified info to smear someone.

I would like to hear Powell's take on his comments.