Tuesday, April 1, 2008

From FDL -- Third term for Bush!

"The White House today announced that prior to his leaving for his victory tour of NATO, the President issued a signing statement announcing that he was not bound by the Constitution's term limits. As a result of overwhelming public demand, Bush said, he would seek a third term.
"It would be irresponsible to leave Iraq, Afghanistan, and the US economy in near shambles without finishing the job," the President said. "And besides, Dick Cheney says there's so much more he can do for the nation's honor with another four years."

At a White House briefing, Dana Perino parried questions from an astonished press corps. When MSNBC's Gregory asked Perino if the President "hasn't gone too far," she noted that Bush's actions were no more unconstitutional than dozens of other actions the President has taken in the last eight years, and all of them had been eventually sanctioned by the Democrats and the media.

"We've broken treaties, waged aggressive wars, committed war crimes, kidnapped people, tortured them, put them in secret prisons, suspended habeas corpus, politicized the Justice Department, demolished the Fourth Amendment, defied Congress' requests for information, corrupted the regulatory system, kept a three trillion dollar war off budget while adding trillions to the national debt, and presided over the worst economic stewardship since Herber Hoover." "Why are you making such a fuss about this," Perino asked? Perino did not respond to Helen Thomas' who asked, "why shouldn't the American people run you crooks out of town?"

Official Washington was shocked by the White House announcement, although reactions were spllt along party lines. Democrats denounced the President's decision, promising that they would try to pass a resolution condemning the President's decision. Senate leaders said they might even try to attach the non-binding resolution to the next Iraq funding authorization. "This will not stand," Senator Reid declared. In the House, reporters asked Speaker Pelosi whether she thought the House should consider impeachment proceedings, but Pelosi claimed that impeachment proceedings would be a distraction for the entire third term.

Speaking from the campaign trail, Senator Clinton said the President's actions were "too little, too late." She added, "If I got a third term, I'd be ready on day one." Senator Obama gave a major policy speech explaining that this was the inevitable result of indulging a frat-boy President without any accountability, and that both parties must bear some responsibility. "We need a different kind of President," he declared.

Most Republicans expressed support for the President's decision. "We're teetering on the brink of the worst recession since the Great Depression and in the middle of an endless war and it's clear only this President has the faith to think we can get out of this mess," said Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader. Other Republicans, speaking anonymously, hinted they were relieved; they were fearful of a McCain Presidency because, they said, in some "McCain moment," he might become confused or angry and start a war with the wrong country for no reason.

John McCain expressed his support for what he called the President's "courageous decision," noting that all he ever wanted to do was serve a Presidency larger than himself. Speaking to reporters, McCain first noted that he supported Bush's decision to invade Iran after 9/11, but when told by Senator Lieberman that Bush had invaded Iraq, McCain changed his statement to refer to "those extremist Arabs." Reporters then overheard Lindsey Graham whispering "they're Persians, John; Persians." "Oh yeah," McCain added, "that's what I meant."

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh called the President's decision, "the most patriotic act I've ever seen. We've finally got a President who understands that what America needs is strong ruler to keep the liberals' hands off our country." Lou Dobbs, however, asked whether the President's decision wasn't a secret socio-ethno-centric plan to reintroduce amnesty for lawless aliens.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann promised "the mother of all special commentaries" tonight.

Predictably, the liberal blogosphere was apoplectic. Several noted that Bush had previously said he would not seek a third term, while others focused on the fact that McCain had repeatedly confused Persians and Arabs. Kos, not negotiating to sell out to Rupert Murdoch, (h/t LS) promised to add a new panel to the next Yearly Kos to discuss what to do, but it's likely to include another petition.

Happy April 1st, everyone."


Leo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Leo said...

Ah, come on now...is an amendment ratified by a Republican Congress and State Legislatures that hated FDR really something that you'd like to perpetuate? Besides who has united Americans like GWB?

dmarks said...

Has Bush broken any treaties? I most often hear Kyoto and ATM mentioned. The US never signed on to Kyoto, so i can't break it. The ADM treaty includes an escape claus: leaving the treat is part of its specifications (not breaking it). Or is there another you had in mind... or was it all made up?

Andrew said...

I actually copied this from another site and found it funny as it poked fun at absolutely everyone and had a scant grain of truth to it.

You are correct, as far as I know, about Bush not breaking treaties. It did mistify me at the time as to why Bush would issue a statement that he would throw out Kyoto. At the time he could have said nothing. He would not have had to follow the treaty because it was not ratified and most likelywould not be. He could have let the rest of the world work on it and let us work on it at our own pace. After all, global warming aside, pollution is sometihing we should try to reduce.
Instead he not rubbed the world's noses in the fact that we would not abide by Kyoto. From a diplomatic prospective, his stance was just plain stupid to my mind. He could have had his cake and ate it too, but he decided to piss off the other 100 or so ratifying countries by announcing that he would not follow the treaty even though he was getting a free pass on not following it any way.

Andrew said...


You are trying to torture me, and it is working.


dmarks said...

"Instead he not rubbed the world's noses in the fact that we would not abide by Kyoto"

Kyoto is designed to have China increase greenhouse gas emissions. How does that help the global warming situation?

Also, it has been found that countries that signed the Kyoto Accords have increased greenhouse gasses at a greater rate than those that did not sign them.

Andrew said...

You are absolutely correct. Kyoto was terrably flawed. Unfortunately Bush did not bail on it because it was flawed, he bailed on it because he had no intention of addressing the issue of green house gasses at all. His excuse was that the agreement was flawed. If it was so flawed then suggest something else.

Right now 18 states are suing the EPA because a plan was developed and that plan now sits under wraps by the White House. They have no intention of doing anything and will just run out the clock.

We have lost seven years on dealing with green house gasses and seven years on dealing with health care. Both science and our system of justice have been politicized. How are the people of the US supposed to make reasonable decisions if we are not allowed to get unadulterated informantion from scientists?

dmarks said...

"Both science and our system of justice have been politicized"

Since when haven't they, by both sides?

Andrew said...

Perhaps they always have been. I am just not aware of agenda driven non-scientests being put in charge of organizations and then redacting reports to suit their agenda. I am not saying it has never happenend. I do know that the scientific community is very concerned and frustrated with the current administration.