(no subject)

[winterbadger]

from the BBC

The Supreme Court has pulled the rug out from under President George W Bush in dramatic fashion with its verdict that he has no authority to try terror suspects in military tribunals.

And in his first public appearance after the announcement - alongside Japan's Junichiro Koizumi - he showed how rattled he was by the news.

"It was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship," he said, trying to highlight the remarkable turnaround in relations between the US and Japan - not America - since World War II.

And his annoyance showed a moment later when not just one but two reporters asked him about the ruling.

He said he had not had time to take it in, finishing his answer to the second journalist with: "I'm sorry you wasted your question."

...

But the president has made it clear that he will continue trying to find a way to try the detainees by military tribunal rather than releasing them, giving them courts martial or prosecuting them in the civilian court system.

In other words, he's a stupid, petty, stubborn law-breaker. And our president. Yay. :-(

Comments

[jan-rosencrantz.livejournal.com]

The problem with Bush... the core, absolute problem with Bush.....

is that there's the way he want's to do something



and there's everything else. The everything else does not matter. Remotely. He is willfully occluded to the fact that there is a way other than his way. It's not stubbornness, it's not stupidity, it's absolute tunnel-vision. He *cannot* conceive of there being any way other than the one he wants.

This is why, when he's told 'no, you can't do that', he has no clue. There is no plan B - never has been, never will be. The fact he got on so well with Blair [who is a fucking genius at convincing you that his way really is right, even if you hate it] is precicely because he has the part of brain that Georgie boy is missing. The part that says "well, we do the same thing, just this way. And we win"


only after 10 years, Britain has finally clicked to that one, too. Only we can't get rid of him. which kinda sucks.

[winterbadger]

I think you are exactly right. He is Mr Spoiled Rich Kid who has simply never had to deal with someone telling him "no", so he's developed an inability to comprehend it. It's got to be how he can look at Iraq and say things are going well, we need to keep doing what we're doing, when any fool (let alone half a dozen experienced foreign policy gurus in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs) can see things are falling apart and we need to change our strategy FAST.

Only we can't get rid of [Blair]. which kinda sucks.

I am fundamentally opposed to term limits. I think they are antidemocratic and prevent me from selecting the person I wish to have represent me.

But in Bush's case I'm willing to make an exception...

[jan-rosencrantz.livejournal.com]

thing is, neither the US or UK voting systems are actually democratic in the slightest. It now effectively boils down to convincing he media you've won. Whether or not you got enough votes to genuinely have a mandate for Government is absolutely irrelevant.


The Blair issue is down to both the history of Labour and the lack of Constitutional opt-out.
Since Labour have *never* had a Govt. for more than a single term before, there is no internal system for replacing incumbent Leaders. The leader has to step down. There has been no NEED to oust a leader before.
And the only way to constitutionally depose a PM is by General Election. Guess who calls that? [OK technically the Queen could, but she never will]

[winterbadger]

Since Labour have *never* had a Govt. for more than a single term before,

Well, they did in 1960s and 1970s, they won back to back general elections twice. OTOH, they were all under the same leader (Harold Wilson), who was then replaced by Callaghan, after which the long dark Thatcher years ensued.

there is no internal system for replacing incumbent Leaders.

I'm not sure if that is so much of a hurdle; I think the more serious problem is a lack of credible, organized opposition to Blair within the party. Too many Labourites (from what I read, anyway) seem to feel that if they replace him they will be admitting defeat, that they need to nail their colours to the mast. IMO, *not* replacing him is admitting defeat, and is likely to semi-permanently damage the credibility of the party as a whole.

And the only way to constitutionally depose a PM is by General Election. Guess who calls that?

Yes, but the PM cannot delay elections for more than 5 years. He's been very clever about timing them, but he can't delay forever. And if enough backbenchers had the guts to support a vote of no confidence, the government would be forced to resign and call an election. The key is for the MPs to lose confidence in thier leader. So far, that hasn't happened.

[snolan.livejournal.com]

He is Mr Spoiled Rich Kid who has simply never had to deal with someone telling him "no", so he's developed an inability to comprehend it.

Dude! That is so insightful and explains a lot. I wonder if that's part of why Warren Buffet is not leaving his billions to his kids... to stimulate them to grow on their own.

Perhaps we should do away with inheritance entirely! ;-)

[schizokitty.livejournal.com]

Well he can shore up the "Rich Kid That Never Heard No" act with the Mandate from God. Never underestimate that. Remember -- he still has all this support from certain types of conservatives that don't care that he's stomping all over their rights (remember "freedom"?) or spending money faster than they can print it. As long as he's killing godless Muslim terrorists (we'll ignore all the "collateral damage") and opposing abortions and gay marriage, they'll keep flaunting their "W" stickers until they're carted off by secret police for once having looked up chemicals on the internet that could, if combined with others they didn't research, be fashioned into a bomb.

[winterbadger]

certain types of conservatives that don't care that he's stomping all over their rights (remember "freedom"?)

It's definitely "we had to destroy the village to save it" time. :-(

[schizokitty.livejournal.com]

Soooooooooo, they wanted to impeach Clinton just 'cause he lied about tupping the help, but Bush starts a war on lies, tortures detainees, and breaks laws right and left and bupkis!. Every time I see him caught in flagrante, I keep hoping, but what happens? Precisely dick (pun intended). What the hell is wrong with this country?

To paraphrase someone (anyone have the attribution?): Would someone please just give Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him?

[growl]

[winterbadger]

Yeah, as usual, America doesn't have any problem with violence, just sex.