View Full Version : Think Tank Calls For Bush to Be Dictator For Life
Think Tank Calls For Bush to Be Dictator For Life
Published on Thursday, August 16, 2007.
Source: Rogue Government - Lee Rogers
Family Security Matters a neo-conservative based think tank has published an article advocating that George W. Bush should be a dictator for life. The organization has since taken the article down, but is still viewable via this cached link.
Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy: By Philip Atkinson
The article written by Philip Atkinson states that Bush would fail his country by becoming an ex-President or can achieve greatness by becoming President-for-Life Bush in order to bring sense to Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Atkinson is bluntly advocating that Bush should become dictator for life with these outrageously anti-American statements.
From the article:
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.
Atkinson also advocates that Bush should get rid of everyone in Iraq through military force and repopulate the country with Americans.
From the article:
If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.
Although these statements by Atkinson are completely insane and entirely anti-American, the author also shows complete ignorance as to the type of government the United States is supposed to be. The author states that Bush is a victim of Democracy when in fact the United States is not a Democracy.
From the article:
Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.
The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.
Although I do agree that Democracy is a horrible form of government, Atkinson's argument holds no water since we do not have a Democracy in this country. The United States is in fact a Constitutional Republic, so it is not possible for Bush to be a victim of Democracy.
Unfortunately, Atkinson might get his wish of a Bush dictatorship. The HSPD-20/NSPD-51 directives issued by Bush states that the President is to have complete control over all three branches of government during a catastrophic emergency. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security plans for continuity of government operations have been kept secret from Congress.
Either way, Atkinson the author of this article is clearly an insane individual who hates America. From advocating the colonization of Iraq with Americans as well as a Bush dictatorship, it is clear this individual needs some serious help. It also leaves questions as to the judgment of this Family Security Matters organization considering they openly published this anti-American trash. An investigation by Free Market News Network, found that Family Security Matters is actually a front group for the Center for Security Policy a group that Vice President Dick Cheney is a known associate of. Removing the article was clearly a means of damage control and it shows how rabid and insane the neo-conservative base has become. This article shows that today's neo-conservative is nothing more than the 21st century equivalent of a Nazi in pre World War II Germany.
Thank the deities that we can vote these A-holes out of office... wait is it too late! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
08-20-2007, 07:50 PM
Wasn't it Papa "Doc" Duvalier that first declared himself President of life? One of George's role models
GWB would be open, very receptive to the idea...and there's a few here would vote for that (if you were still allowed to vote)
I like the part about repopulating Iraq with Americans, and I can think of no single group better to send over then the true believers in Bushism. Now while they are busy populating that country...it might raise a few eyebrows from their new friendly neighbors, but once they understand this group doesn't believe in involving themselves in armed combat...they should all live happily ever after.....
08-20-2007, 08:46 PM
Scary to think of...but 9/11 kept GWB in office for a second term. (well, that, and some voting irregularities)...
Another terrorist attack before his term of office is up...could very well, keep him in power.
And since he had our intelligence agencies looking the other way then, which allowed 9/11 to occur...................
[ QUOTE ]
Family Security Matters a neo-conservative based think tank has published an article advocating that George W. Bush should be a dictator for life. <hr /></blockquote> The author is definitely crazy. I believe in this case "neo" is an understatement and that is not a good thing. Our country cannot afford another term by W.
08-21-2007, 06:44 AM
Eg8r Gayle will pass out when reading this post. I nearly did.####
Gayle in MD
08-21-2007, 07:51 AM
As usual, Ed's statement is incorrect! the devastating facts of this administration once again, minimized. It should read, "Our country couldn't afford the Presidency of George Bush."
The damage has already been done. When the Republilcan Congress of Clinton's era blocked his efforts to destroy bin Laden, and alQaeda, and was responsible for distracting the country away from the existing threat. Hence, bin Laden was successful on 9/11 during Bush's watch. And more terrorist attacks have occured all over the world since George Bush took office, than ever before. Those are the facts. Republican voters have selective memory disorder. Rove's game has always been to accuse the other side of doing exactly what in fact, the Republicans did. Painting Democrats as weak on terror, is pretty funny, when the Republican Party made fun of Clinton's correct efforts to destroy alQaeda, and limited Clinton's ability to fully address the weakness at the time in the CIA and FBI, through their pointless, damaging mud slinging.
A vote for Republicans, is a vote for Fascism.
Well #### was wrong, Gayle is unable to get her head out of her butt. I am sure that we will see, sooner or later but certainly without any brain activity, a post from Gayle that states that those on this board that do not agree with her fully support the current admin 100%. Gayle does not have the capacity to read and think any more. She needs to be spoon fed from her liberal biased authors and that is a shame.
08-21-2007, 10:05 AM
It appears that Hugo Chavez is doing exactly what this think tank is advocating as well as shutting down independent newspapers in the process. Of course, in the case of this darling of the left, that's not a problem as long as he continues to bash Bush, he's safe.
If I remember correctly, Hugo (the Dems best friend) actually said the US was standing in his way of becoming Dictator for life. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Gayle in MD
08-22-2007, 02:19 PM
Terrorist attacks are happening everyday, now. Our troops, are the recipients. Bush's "Surge" has failed. Most of us knew it was too little, too late, but not Bush.
<font color="red">From McClatchy News... </font color>
U.S. ambassador rates Iraq progress as poor
By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 email | print tool nameclose
tool goes here
BAGHDAD — The top U.S. diplomat in Iraq on Tuesday called the country's political progress "extremely disappointing" and warned that support for the government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki is not unlimited.
Ambassador Ryan Crocker's remarks to reporters were the harshest criticism yet by a Bush administration official of Maliki's government and may be a prelude to what he'll tell Congress in a report that he and Army Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. military commander in Iraq, will give next month.
"The progress on the national level issues has been extremely disappointing and frustrating to all concerned — to us, to Iraqis, to the Iraqi leadership itself," Crocker said.
"We do expect results, as do the Iraqi people, and our support is not a blank check."
The Bush administration has long met criticism of Maliki with words of support, but in the past few months Maliki's government has been unraveling as factions have resigned from Cabinet posts or announced boycotts.
Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, also has been openly critical of U.S. efforts to bring former Sunni insurgents into the Iraqi security forces, saying that some of the former insurgents are potential enemies of his government.
Crocker acknowledged Tuesday that the decision by some Sunni tribes in Anbar to align themselves with the United States against al Qaida in Iraq wasn't a sign of reconciliation between Iraq's Sunni minority and the Shiite-led government.
"It is probably an essential prerequisite for reconciliation," he said. "But it isn't reconciliation."
Crocker's comments are in line with what seems to be growing disaffection with Maliki's government as the Sept. 15 deadline for a congressionally required assessment of Iraq progress nears. On Monday, the chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., called for the Iraqi parliament to replace Maliki.
Last week, the No. 2 commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen Raymond Odierno, also told reporters that the government didn't have a "blank check" when asked how long the U.S. would wait for Maliki to reach out to Sunni groups working with the military.
On Tuesday, President Bush in Canada offered little support for Maliki. "If the government doesn't ... respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government," he said. "That's up to the Iraqis to make that decision, not American politicians."
Meanwhile, Maliki made his first official visit to Syria, which the U.S. has long criticized for allowing foreign fighters to enter Iraq. Last week, Maliki visited Iran, where he was seen laughing and smiling with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The criticism of Maliki comes as a battle between Shiite militias seems to be heating up in southern Iraq. On Tuesday, firebrand cleric Muqtada al Sadr denied that his followers were responsible for the recent assassinations of the governors of Diwaniyah and Muthanna provinces. Both men were members of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, a political rival to Sadr's Mahdi Army militia.
Sadr said U.S. forces were to blame, calling the killings "an extension to the colonization plans of the occupation that want to create the atmosphere and excuses that allow for them to stay in our lovely country."
Also on Tuesday, the trial began for 15 former officials of the government of Saddam Hussein, including the infamous "Chemical Ali," Ali Hassan al Majid, in connection with the killing of Shiites after a failed uprising that began after U.S. troops drove Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
The court session included testimony from the first of an expected 90 witnesses. Khrebit Jabbar, Risan, 65, of Basra, told how Saddam's Republican Guard killed his son, cousin and nephew after the uprising.
(McClatchy special correspondent Laith Hammoudi contributed to this report.)
McClatchy Newspapers 2007
<font color="red">Today, Bush made statements confirming his support of this incompetent nincompoop in Iraq, but then, he also kept Gonzales, after overwhelming proof of his incompetence, and also Rumsfeld, the worst of the worst.
Maliki suffers from the same disease as Bush, and the rest of the Neocons, arrogant incompetence, the worst kind. here's some more on Maliki...
DAMASCUS, Syria — Iraq's prime minister lashed out Wednesday at U.S. criticism, saying no one has the right to impose timetables on his elected government and that his country "can find friends elsewhere."
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki blamed the U.S. presidential campaign for the recent tough words about his government _ from President Bush and from other U.S. politicians.
Bush on Tuesday said he was frustrated with Iraqi leaders' inability to bridge political divisions. But he added that only the Iraqi people can decide whether to sideline al-Maliki.
"Clearly, the Iraqi government's got to do more," Bush said. "I think there's a certain level of frustration with the leadership in general, inability to work _ come together to get, for example, an oil revenue law passed or provincial elections."
Top NewsTop Posts
Media: Steve Young: O'Reilly's Countdown Reaches 00:00:00: Will Bill Cut & Run Today?
Living Now: Keith Leon and Maura Leon: Breaking Up Is Hard To Do
Business: Barbara Ehrenreich: Smashing Capitalism
Politics: Arianna Huffington: Connect the Dots: Karl Rove's Politics Uber Alles Strategy and the Utah Mine Disaster
Entertainment: John Ridley: Forty Years Ago: The Most Significant Music Album Ever and Unfortunate Questions of Blackness
Politics: Bush Scrambles To Show Support For Iraqi PM: "Maliki's A Good Guy"
Business: Next Fed Cut Not Until September
Media: Google To Introduce Video Ads On YouTube
Living Now: How To Build A Better Work Ethic
Entertainment: Bill Murray Pulled Over In Golf Cart, Smells Of Booze, Refuses Breath Test
On Wednesday, however, Bush scrambled to show he had not abandoned al-Maliki, wary of how his comments the day before had been widely interpreted.
"Prime Minister Maliki's a good guy, good man with a difficult job and I support him," Bush said in a speech to military veterans.
"And it's not up to the politicians in Washington, D.C., to say whether he will remain in his position," Bush said. "It is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy and not a dictatorship."
Al-Maliki, on a trip to Syria, reacted harshly when asked about the earlier comments from U.S. officials.
"No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people," he said at a news conference in Damascus at the end of the three-day visit to Syria.
"Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere," al-Maliki said.
Without naming any American official, al-Maliki said some of the criticism of him and his government had been "discourteous."
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said Monday that al-Maliki, a Shiite, should be ousted and replaced with a less-sectarian leader.
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said he was disappointed and frustrated by the lack of political progress by al-Maliki's government. Crocker said the Iraqis themselves and Iraqi leaders were also frustrated.
The harsh exchanges erupted just a few weeks before Crocker and the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, are to report to Congress on military and political progress in Iraq.
The two are expected to point to some signs of military progress in Iraq. But the political situation in Iraq remains fractured, with wide distrust between Shiite and Sunni factions and no progress by al-Maliki's government on key issues.
Bush's statement on Tuesday was a marked change in tone from his endorsement of al-Maliki in November 2006 at a meeting in Jordan as "the right guy for Iraq."
In recent months, Bush has continually prodded al-Maliki to do more to forge political reconciliation before the temporary U.S. military buildup ends. But his statements Tuesday were the sharpest he has made about whether the Iraqi prime minister will survive.
"The fundamental question is, Will the government respond to the demands of the people?" Bush said. "And, if the government doesn't demand _ or respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government. That's up to the Iraqis to make that decision, not American politicians."
Al-Maliki has faced numerous defections from his ruling coalition in recent months. Nevertheless, it is unclear that any group has the political pull to push him aside and put in place a new government.
Ousting al-Maliki would require a majority vote in the 275-member Iraqi parliament. As long as the Kurdish parties and the main Shiite bloc stand beside al-Maliki, his opponents lack the votes to do that.
Any change in leadership also would also greatly complicate U.S. military efforts to stabilize the country, especially if the change resulted in the government falling and negotiations to create a new government. The process of forming al-Maliki's government took months of wrangling as the Sunni insurgency and Shiite militias gathered strength and influence.
Associated Press Writer Robert H. Reid contributed to this report.
Top News and Opinion
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malki speaks during a joint press conference with his Syrian counterpart, Mohammad Naji Ottari, Damascus Wednesday, Aug. 22, 2007. Al-Malki is on a three-day visit to Syria for talks with Syrian officials on ways of boosting bilateral relations and achieving a national reconciliation in Iraq. (AP Photo/Bassem Tellawi).
<font color="red">No wonder Bush is illogically turning to stories about Vietnam. He'll say and do anything to avoid saying one simple thing..."I F-ed Up Royally." Problem is, it has absolutely nothing to do with Vietnam. And, he is revving up the bin Laden rhetoric, threatening Americans with bin Laden's words, and building power into bin Laden's threats. You'd think he'd close the damn borders if he's so concerned about what's going to happen when we leave. These devastating consequences he keeps talking about, are the results of his own foreign policy, he failed to get bin Laden. He had not one, but two chances, both documented, and he failed, and because his attention was on the oil in Iraq, period. He never mentions what those benchmarks are all about. they are about getting the Iraqis to sign off on giving American Oil Companies the rights to get the oil for thirty years. WMD's? Never had a damn thing to do with this illegal occupation. Our troops are dying for Bush's legacy, and his friends future oil profits, period. </font color>
Gayle in Md.
08-23-2007, 10:25 AM
Eg8r I am never wrong there is only one person on this planet with his head up his ass and that is GWB.####
08-23-2007, 11:15 AM
I believe he has made a huge mistake referencing Viet Nam.
Most of us now think that was also a waste of American lives,
and ruined the lives of many that survived...with their exposure to agent orange...our Gov't has finally owned up to the damaging effects of that.
It was another unwinable war,one we shouldn't have been involved in, and one with a tragic ending for many that had sided with us, and were left behind.
But maybe that's what our puppet leader was referring to???
The real evil in the WH is Cheney...Bush doesn't have the organizational skills to pull off this grand deceit (look at his prior failed track record)
Probably why the Dems ain't calling for his impeachment...Cheney would make Bush's Presidency look good.
Gayle in MD
08-23-2007, 11:42 AM
No doubt, Vietnam was a huge mistake. Interestingly, the country is now a thriving country, and the communistic domino theory, was never to be. I'm quite sure that Iraq, given their easy access to easily refinable oil, will also be free of the terrorist element, once we get out, and give their country back to them, that is, if this administration hasn't stolen all of it, that is.
Bush, made a complete fool of himself, as usual. thankfully, many are now on to him. Most of us know that this quagmire in Iraq, has absolutely nothing to do with our safety here at home from terrorist attacks. Trying to turn a terrorism attack, into a reason to occupy another country, and launch a pre-emptive war for oil, by skewing intelligence, and lies, will long be a black mark against our country, the price in American credibility, loss of life and treasure, all for naught.
The decietful use of tax cuts, and resulting deficits, for which future generations must pay, and suffer for, is also, disgraceful.
Gayle in Md,
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.