In November, Ted Rall made a compelling case for a national recall. At the time, Rall quoted USA today:
“When a president falls below 40 percent approval in public opinion polls–as President Bush has done twice in the past two months–it’s usually a sign of serious political danger,” —Richard Benedetto, USA Today.It's March already! And Bush's numbers are even worse! As I recall, in November, Bush still held a slight edge on the issue of "terrorism" and/or Iraq, the two issues Bushies love to confuse in the public mind. Bush no longer enjoys an edge on either topic. And also since November Bush has continued to flout the law, assuming absolute powers and judicial authority that the founders never intended to bestow upon one branch of the federal government. Most certainly not the executive. Read James Madison and specifically his notes made during the Constitutional Convention.
Arrogating unto himself the power to define who is "terrorist" and who is not, who is an "enemy combatant" and who is not, Bush clearly seeks to render moot the independent judiciary. Bush, himself, will determine which laws he will enforce and which laws he will ignore. In other ways, Bush will replace the courts with his own Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, an arch enabler whose new job description is that of making legal what Bush has already done. There is a word for this: tyranny! Allowing a man who claims for himself the right to assassinate American citizens is inexcusable and dangerous.
Gop candidates meanwhile are well-advised to distance themselves from George W. Bush. In all but a few entrenched red states, Bush not only has no coattails, he is a liability. The GOP will never lead an impeachment effort as it would tear the party apart at the very moment of its greatest triumph: control of both houses, the High Court and the Presidency. A Democratic move to impeach Bush would be doing them a favor. Likewise, GOP candidates might support a recall movement as it would most certainly pull their own fat out of the fire.Democratic reluctance may be understandable. They don't have the votes on a party line basis to impeach. A failed effort will only strengthen Bush. A successful effort will only embitter GOP hangers-on and radicalize them further. It is better to let the GOP do its own dirty work.
On the other hand, a national movement to recall shifts the paradigm. Millions disillusioned by Bush in both parties could support such a movement without fear. A viable national movement would also give leaders of both parties the cover they need to work for Bush's removal from office.
But punditry aside, removing Bush from office is simply the correct and morally right thing to do for several reasons:
- Bush has set dangerous precedents not the least of which is the bogus "unitary executive" theory. How will Republicans feel about that when a Democratic President, likewise, tries to rule by decree?
- The Constitution is already in tatters and will not survive the precedent of Bush serving out his term. Removal from office by a national recall will set the stage for a sweeping righting of wrongs.
- Iraq is not only a failure, it exposes a fatal weakness in the American pretense of empire. The dollar will not survive another debacle of an Iraq magnitude.
- Bush's removal now will allow some time to heal before the nation is plunged into a campaign of bitter recriminations, name-calling, and throat cutting.
Rall advocated setting up a "...California-style recall system on the national level". The California system requires signatures on a petition of some 12 percent of the number of people voting in the preceding election. Something like that must be set up nationwide. I urge activists to get on with it. I'm not good at that sort of thing myself; just let me know how I can help spread the word. That's something I know something about.
If Bush is removed now, there may yet be time to heal some wounds and, at least, begin to undo the damage Bush has inflicted upon legal precedent and the Constitution. There may yet be time to begin a restoration of our Democratic Republic.
Apparently the "major" media missed this one. Bush has declared that he IS the law. Bush and Bush alone will decide which laws are enforced and which are not; Bush and Bush alone will interpret the laws; Bush and Bush alone will rule by fiat:
It's time to bombard Congress with DEMANDS that Bush be removed from office. We might start with an actual debate on the illegal occupation of Iraq. Check out this site and make your voice heard:
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | March 24, 2006WASHINGTON -- When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.
The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.
In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties." ...
And when Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any detainee in US custody, Bush signed the bill but issued a signing statement declaring that he could bypass the law if he believed using harsh interrogation techniques was necessary to protect national security.
Past presidents occasionally used such signing statements to describe their interpretations of laws, but Bush has expanded the practice. He has also been more assertive in claiming the authority to override provisions he thinks intrude on his power, legal scholars said.
Bush's expansive claims of the power to bypass laws have provoked increased grumbling in Congress. Members of both parties have pointed out that the Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to write the laws and the executive branch the duty to ''faithfully execute" them.
Here's a relevant update from an excellent article:
After three years and more than 2,300 American soldiers dead, there's no end in sight. Sectarian violence rages. President Bush just asserted that U.S. forces are likely to remain in Iraq through 2009. Yet, Congress -- explicitly charged with overseeing military actions by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution -- has done little beyond rubber stamping the President's requests for more and more money to support the occupation.
It's time for Members of Congress to hold an open debate on the occupation of Iraq. But, because Speaker Hastert and the rest of the House Leadership refuses to allow measures critical of the Bush administration to the floor, a bi-partisan group of Representatives are supporting a legislative maneuver called a "discharge petition." If more than half of the members of the House sign the petition, Speaker Hastert will have no choice but to allow a 17 hour debate on the Iraq occupation -- split equally between both sides of the aisle. And members would be able to offer amendments without prior approval from the leadership.
The families who have lost soldiers in Iraq, the veterans returning with debilitating injuries, the taxpayers who are asked to pay for this ever-expanding war, all deserve a frank discussion of our country's role in Iraq. ...
Students of Western Civilization might also recall that Napoleon invaded Egypt in 1798 for "glory" (that's French for empire) and to restore Islam to its genuine teachings (I guess meaning to bring those misguided souls back to their Christian roots). The Little Corporal didn't fare much better there than he did at Waterloo or that a latter day Napoleon wannabe is now doing in Iraq. It's a shame he's not still around to explain that to our current "head dreamer of empire." But I doubt it would do much good as below I explain the only authority our warrior president listens to.
The point from my brief history lesson is to connect it to our own present situation. For the first time ever, we now have a president, at least the first one admitting it publicly, who also believes the Almighty speaks to him, tells him what to, and he's just following orders from that higher authority. I don't think he's kidding when he says God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. I wonder if that same God told him to steal from the poor and give to the rich.
—Stephen Lendman, Peace Journalism