Wednesday, August 09, 2006

This Blog Exists For One Reason

The One Reason This Blog Exists....to collect email addresses from people who want to help me kick him out.

You know who I'm talking about.

Sign up here.

11 Comments:

Blogger Lone Pawn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 14, 2006 6:15 PM  
Blogger Lone Pawn said...

Your husband? Your boyfriend? No seriously, who? Is this some in-joke? Is this some site for spurned housewives to talk about kicking out their no-good men?

Or is this a site for wannabe revolutionaries?

What's going on here?

August 14, 2006 6:17 PM  
Anonymous Cat Skyfire said...

You DO realize that the real power in Government rests in Congress? That it was Congress that declared war? (However silly the reason, it was still a 2/3s majority of both houses, which is a LOT of people. And it's not the most frivolous reason for which we've gone to war. (Spanish-American war was entered into on FAR more frivolous reasons.)

And you also realize that, technically, the War has been over for quite some time? What we have now is an Occupation as we attempt to transition governments. (We had the same thing in Germany and Japan after WWII.)

And you also, I hope, realize that his term is limited by the Constitution, and that next year will be the elections anyway?

...Just checking.

August 22, 2006 9:15 AM  
Blogger Wah said...

Lone Pawn said...

Or is this a site for wannabe revolutionaries?

I don't know if I'd go with the "wannabe" label, but the second part of that clause fits.

More coming along later. Usually, the links to this site offer the context of the site. I was...generally..hoping to keep specifics to a minimum (the reasons for which are explained in an upcoming post).

--
Cat Skyfire said...

You DO realize that the real power in Government rests in Congress?

Congress legislates, the Executive branch executes said legislation. Depending on your defintion of 'power', it could go either way. Is it the judge (judiciary), jury (congress), or executioner (executive) that has the power?

That's a real question, BTW.

That it was Congress that declared war?

Actually, we don't declare war any more. It's more of an "authorization to use force". But be that as it may, I do understand what happened, and I also believe that Congress was mislead about the nature of the threat posed by Iraq.

And it's not the most frivolous reason for which we've gone to war.

No, probably not the most frivolous, but certainly the most...selfish. Alternately you can believe that Iraqis are dying by the thousands to protect our freedom (a line still promoted by the Executive and is, to my mind at least, hugely immoral) or you can believe that Iraqis are dying by the thousands to secure strategic resource (oil) in order to continue our culture of consumption unabated.

I'm sure there are other rationalizations at this point, but those seem to be the most well understood ones.

(We had the same thing in Germany and Japan after WWII.)

We had nothing like what is happening in Iraq in Japan or Germany. Nothing even close.

And you also, I hope, realize that his term is limited by the Constitution, and that next year will be the elections anyway?

I understand that Bush's term in limited, but this movement goes a bit beyond one man and his disastrous leadership.

Also, the Executive branch doesn't come up in the election for 2 more years, which is a bit longer than I'd like to wait.

Thanks for you comments, hope you stick around.

August 22, 2006 9:42 AM  
Anonymous Cat Skyfire said...

Wah and Cat debate :

Congress legislates, the Executive branch executes said legislation. Depending on your defintion of 'power', it could go either way. Is it the judge (judiciary), jury (congress), or executioner (executive) that has the power?

The majority of the power rests in Congress. The President can beg, cajole, deal make, pray, and badger Congress to try to pass a law, but it’s ultimately up to them whether they do, or do not, pass a certain law. And with the two houses, it’s an even better question as to how it will come out.

I also believe that Congress was mislead about the nature of the threat posed by Iraq.

Perhaps, but supposedly educated people with supposedly educated staffers doing research still made the choice. I do believe, however, that part of the reason for entering Iraq was to send a warning to North Korea. As the time of the start of the conflict, North Korea was doing heavy saber rattling, and our entering Iraq quieted their Leader very quickly. While he’s started saber rattling again, it’s now his nearby neighbors (and greatest target risks) who are warning him to back down.


No, probably not the most frivolous, but certainly the most...selfish.

Mmm, I rather think that honor goes to the Mexican American war. Defending Americans in Texas who chose not to honor their deal with Mexico, then taking even more land because we could.
Although sending in troops to protect the Kennedy connected tin mines in Vietnam might also count.

Alternately you can believe that Iraqis are dying by the thousands to protect our freedom (a line still promoted by the Executive and is, to my mind at least, hugely immoral) or you can believe that Iraqis are dying by the thousands to secure strategic resource (oil) in order to continue our culture of consumption unabated.

Or C: They’re dying because other Iraqis are killing them. The majority of bombings, attacks, and so on are not against the US soldiers, but against other Iraqis in places not associated with US efforts (mosques, weddings, markets).

We had nothing like what is happening in Iraq in Japan or Germany. Nothing even close.

I was primarily referring to the occupation. The fact that you cannot leave a country until it is restabilized. (And, to a degree, we never left either country.) Although we likely would have had more issues with Japan had they not had a fairly stable government in place.

I understand that Bush's term in limited, but this movement goes a bit beyond one man and his disastrous leadership.

Then where is it intended to go? Will it also come up for each president? (Historically, most presidents are considered disastrous in one way or another by different factions, until history shows them to be greater or worse than their own eras felt.)

Also, the Executive branch doesn't come up in the election for 2 more years, which is a bit longer than I'd like to wait.
And what do you actually hope for? Should your campaign (and that of others) actually occur? If the President steps down (or were actually impeached) the position would go to the vice president, Cheney. Should you manage to get rid of both of them, it would fall to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, also a Republican. There would be no full change of power without elections, and to accomplish mid-term elections for the presidency would require some adjustments to the laws, if not the Constitution itself.


Thanks for you comments, hope you stick around.
I might. I found your link via the ad on Fark, and it seemed interesting. Makes me tempted to start a blog to discuss the worst presidents, with a proviso that it has to start at least 50 years ago. Pierce could be argued to be one of the worst, as could Harding. Lincoln was vilified in his day. And even Washington had some absolutely boneheaded moves. I generally feel that no President (or any leader) can be truly analyzed until 50-100 years has passed. Secrets come out, and things that seemed urgent and vital turn out, historically, to be relatively insignificant. Even as the veneer of Camelot has worn thin on the Kennedy administration, it will be interesting to see what History has to say about others, Carter, Reagan, George W, and whomever comes next.

August 23, 2006 8:28 AM  
Anonymous Cat Skyfire said...

Just some additional notes: I'm neither for or against our current President. I know he's not the brightest bulb in the tulip bed. I also don't think he is, as some other individuals claim, a dictator, the worst president ever, or akin to Hitler.
I admit I voted for him, both times. In the case of Gore, I didn't agree with his policies, most of his ideas, and he seemed distant. In the case of Kerry, I considered voting for him until I listened to the debates. Specifically, when he was talking about what he would do for education. And I realized that all the things he was saying would have to start in Congress, where he had been a Senior Senator from a powerful state. And he was talking of what he -would- do, and never including things he -had- done and would continue pushing for.

Is Bush the best president? Nope. But he is, at the moment, the one we have. We could have far worse.

August 23, 2006 8:33 AM  
Blogger Dee said...

i'm down.

August 23, 2006 4:17 PM  
Blogger Wah said...

Cat Skyfire said...
Wah and Cat debate :

Nice phrasing. :-)

I'll try and keep this short (and probably fail), as blogger comments aren't the greatest forum for long, detailed debate. And I'll add "put up a forum" to the todo list.

The majority of the power rests in Congress. The President can beg, cajole, deal make, pray, and badger [but not lie to] Congress to try to pass a law, but it’s ultimately up to them whether they do, or do not, pass a certain law. And with the two houses, it’s an even better question as to how it will come out.

I added the bold, as I believe there was something of a misinformation campaign coming from that Pentagon office (see Seymour Hersch's articles). Also, considering the state of panic the country was in when force was authorized...it was political suicide (for anybody in a contested in 2002 seat) to oppose it. But yes, Congress did approve.

I do believe, however, that part of the reason for entering Iraq was to send a warning to North Korea. As the time of the start of the conflict, North Korea was doing heavy saber rattling, and our entering Iraq quieted their Leader very quickly. While he’s started saber rattling again, it’s now his nearby neighbors (and greatest target risks) who are warning him to back down.

I can understand that angle, but again, I don't think it was a very good strategic decision. Besdies, given the outcome (so far), it wasn't much an object lesson. However, given the neocon dream...I think the NK rationalization is quite weak.

Mmm, I rather think that honor [of most selfish war] goes to the Mexican American war. Defending Americans in Texas who chose not to honor their deal with Mexico, then taking even more land because we could.

Yea, that's a good candidate. As a Texan, of course, my opinion is a bit biased there, but it is a good example. We also had that "Manifest Destiny" idea we ended up using genocide to achieve. Now, IMHO, it would take the same level of violence and destruction of culture to achieve the "Pax Americana" the neocons are shooting for (pun intended).

Or C: They’re dying because other Iraqis are killing them. The majority of bombings, attacks, and so on are not against the US soldiers, but against other Iraqis in places not associated with US efforts (mosques, weddings, markets).

This raises a couple of points. 1) I still think there are still more attacks against U.S. forces, yet more casualties among civilians (the statistics I've seen bear this out). 2) The Pottery Barn Principle still applies (it is our responsibility after overthrowing the sitting government).

I was primarily referring to the occupation [of Japan and Germany]. The fact that you cannot leave a country until it is restabilized. (And, to a degree, we never left either country.)

Yea see..it's that "never left" part that is fueling part of the insurgency...and making stabilization more difficult. Considering that establishing a power base in the ME is part of the neocon plan, it can't be considered NOT part of the plan (and therefore help with stabilization) until the neocon vision loses power.

I like your idea for the other blog (it's not like they are hard to start), but maybe you could focus on both best and worst to see how people judge such things. And you make a GREAT point about the secret eventually getting out. This is why I'm a general supporter of the "open society", as an uninformed electorate is not terribly good for a democracy.

And what do you actually hope for? Should your campaign (and that of others) actually occur? If the President steps down (or were actually impeached) the position would go to the vice president, Cheney. Should you manage to get rid of both of them, it would fall to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, also a Republican.

I addressed this in the fark thread (further down). The list goes well beyond Hastert, thanks to the 25th amendment.

Thanks for not sptting at me (as a 2-time voter for Bush). I don't think he's Hitler (that was a stupid analogy for Hussein as well, IMHO), but I do think the "unitary executive" stuff is a bit...farfetched. The detaining of American citizens for years without charges or trial is rather disturbing, as is the warrantless wiretapping.

Analyzing my own server logs (for another site), I am well aware of government surveillance of people who are extremely dissatisfied with the current administration. That's why I emphasize the peaceful nature of this movement...and the second part of the first amendment.

Anyway, I'll end this comment now, as it's time to go, and late on a Friday afternoon!

have a good weekend.


Dee

Good to hear. Read your blog. Good luck with the transition...mine nearly destroyed me....but then again...I'm a bit more intense about that kind of stuff than most people. :-)

August 25, 2006 2:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 26, 2006 1:57 PM  
Anonymous Cat Skyfire said...

Just a final couple notes:

I try not to spit on people, actually. One of the nice things about our system of government is that we are allowed our own opinions, which may different from the government and each other. While these differences can cause more violent outbursts, I try to stay one of the rational ones. (Besides, there's plenty of spitters on both sides of various arguements, and if you get to close, you get drenched. :) )

And I do agree that the list of 'who gets to be President' goes beyond Hastert. It is, also, one of the nice things about our government. In the event of death or disaster, our government doesn't collapse. It may be a bit shaky, and people may be stunned, but it keeps going, as has been proven too many times by assassins.

I wish you luck with your endeavor. In the meantime, I'm preparing for next year's endless campaigning, the thought of which already scares me. (And makes me so grateful I do not live in Iowa.)

August 29, 2006 9:54 AM  
Blogger Wah said...

cat skyfire,

Thanks for your comments. I occasionally make forays into "right blogistan" and there's generally a good bit of spitting involved (for example...durn, have to post my final comment on my own blog...)

And I agree as well, our government would and SHOULD survive the resignation of the top 5 or 6 people. :-)

Yea, the campaigning will get pretty rough, I'm sure. Should be an interesting, if exasperating, couple of years.

Take care, and have a good one.

August 29, 2006 11:19 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home