Comments on: Can we say it together? Hubris

By: lemoose

lemoose — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 20:10:06 +0000

What’s wrong with Saddam wanting to assasinate ? What’s wrong with Bush wanting to assasinate Saddam?

It’s all about civility if you ask me. If you want to kill a man, at least have the balls to challenge him to a duel.

We could have settled Iraq with a Bush v. Saddam brou-ha-ha involving pistols at 50 paces. We could have erased out national deficit with the pay-per-view rights alone!

It’s all pointless anyway, war is not an extention of politics or diplomacy. No, war’s just like the Sex Pistols - a money-making scheme.

By: blurb

blurb — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 05:06:27 +0000

Mistee, it’s illegal for an employee of the U.S. government to assassinate members of foreign governments.

Y’all are some cynical fuckers. More cynical than even I.

By: Mistee

Mistee — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 03:45:20 +0000

Um. What’s wrong with wanting to assasinate Saddam Hussein?

By: blurb

blurb — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:13:22 +0000

shit, I did say that. I want to blame it on the Alka Seltzer plus.

Geneva Convention = broken (tried to alter definition of torture. it depends on what your definition of is is).

WMD = lied, mislead and conspired to mislead.

Treason = allowed staff to break the law involving revealing identity of CIA agent.

Hubris was not meant as a legal term. It was used to illustrate why I feel the president is where he is today. I believe he exhibits the traits every time he speaks. Even when he “accepts responsibility” for the shitty way he and his staff have dealt with the aftermath of two natural disasters. There isn’t an ounce of humility. He can sell a war, but he can’t sell that he cares.

By: ahlain

ahlain — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:54:14 +0000

Actually, you just did say that W broke the law: “Executive Orders have been and are legally binding. The current president has broken the law.” Also, I’m not sure what you mean when you say “My hope is that the hubris would apply to the President after he was prosecuted for violating the laws of the land.” — another way of saying he broke the law — since the word “hubris” means “exaggerated pride or self-confidence” and is not a legal term.

By: blurb

blurb — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:37:20 +0000

I didn’t say that W broke the law. I said he has a disregard for the law. He has the desire to be King and remake the law, which is what the executive order accomplishes. I don’t think he’d get very far if he issued an executive order that said it was okay to assassinate foreign heads of state.

By: Burgie

Burgie — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:52:30 +0000

Even assuming that the executive order is legally binding, Bush didn’t violate it by talking about assassinating Saddam. If he had decided to do so, he could have issued his own executive order overturning Ford’s (like Don said).

By: Angela

Angela — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:15:14 +0000

Tony Blair’s thoughts “Is this guy fucking serious? I can’t say anything, I am just going to sit here and pretend like I didn’t hear him…My God this guys an Idiot!”
Bush’s thoughts ” I am a genious, look at me go. I am the ruler of the WORLD! Tony Blair is looking at me with such admiration(although we know this isn’t the exact word he used…words this big aren’t in his vocabulary), he knows I am the best, he wishes he was super like me…” It goes on and on. You almost have to feel sorry for a guy this inadiquate for the job…okay you don’t.

By: blurb

blurb — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:50:22 +0000

Geof:

http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html
“Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.”

Every president uses them and they are supposed to be legallly binding. Unless you are the King.

Here’s some testimony found on the Cato Institutes website:
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wo102799.html
“Lastly, I would say that concerns about presidential lawmaking must not be written off as attacks on the policies underlying the executive orders. This is not partisan politics masquerading as separation of powers issues. It is true that it finds fault with President Clinton, but it is also finds fault with Presidents Reagan, Bush, and others.”

Executive Orders have been and are legally binding. The current president has broken the law. His staff has broken the law. He’s flip flopped on his own statements about firing people who break the law.

By: Jezzie

Jezzie — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:43:30 +0000

Right on Janell, that why the gospels were originally taught “ideas” and not rigid dogma to be used by bigots as justification for their murderous rage or ability to classifiy others below them on the fundamentalists’s scale of whos the best at being human.
Clinton against Bush, people? it’s over!. Alot of covert ops and out and out deceit ran strait through the last God only knows how many admistrations with regard to our foriegn policy agenda, for every world leaders handshake on the front page was some poor slob (probably with brown skin) getting wiped out or jailed for wanting big fat assed America out of their politics.
I know this is seriously unpopular thinking. That God and country hold us above others in our governments doings and tint us with white light is just juvenile and ignorant assumption.
Hi-eveah, as my southern granny would have said…Jon, I am so with you! we deserve some fucking accountability, I am a member of a free republic, not a socialist system patched together with a corporate band-aid subsidized by big govenments welfare handouts.
Who’s there? ooops, gotta run, Ashcroft is up my tailpipe, he’s determined to quiet me as I am apparently no “Patriot”.
Jess