In another topic, DaffyGrl makes a comment that deserves its own thread:

I heard this kind of talk before the 2004 elections, and was tempted to place some wagers. I didn't, not because I thought the election would be canceled, but because I thought Bush would likely win and I wouldn't have the heart to demand payment from someone already depressed over a second Bush term. This time around, though, I'm willing to put some money where my mouth is.

The next Presidential election is scheduled for November 4, 2008.

1. Will the election be held as scheduled?

2. Will Bush leave office by noon on January 20, 2009?

1. Will the election be held as scheduled?

Yes. I have no faith in Bush, but I still have some hope for the system. If anything like cancelling elections starts, it’s time for a revolution and if it’s bloody, so be it.

2. Will Bush leave office by noon on January 20, 2009?

I'm quite sure that Bush would like to be a king. Having had George Washington and George H. W. Bush, this would make him George III.

The tradition of succession of power is so embedded in this society, I don't see how Bush could possibly stay on.

His library is already being planned and he's trying to salvage his legacy.Looking at pictures of Bush, when he took office and now, reveals someone tired and defeated. The next eighteen months will be hell for Bush. He’ll look worse than he does now. Like Lyndon B. Johnson, Bush will return to the ranch a broken and defeated man. Bush will be defecated to the ranch in Crawford, without the deification that greeted Ronald Reagan.

I accidentally lost this post when I edited instead of posting a second time. Thanks to Microsoft Word, it's close to the originnal, if not an exact duplicate.

Had the "war" gone better for him, or had Karl Rove managed to place the blame somewhere other than were it belongs, he might have had the political capital to stage a coup.

As it is, the military hates him almost as much as the rest of the country, so he has no power to pull it off.

I have no doubt Rove and Co have "gamed" the takeover, and I have no doubt GW wants a coup, but it just isn't possible now as it was before he squandered the 9/11 hysteria.

I believe bof is right when he says he will be defecated out of DC and plopped down in the Crawford area, a symbol of the worst excesses of executive mis-management and corruption and incompetance in US history.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

I've never been one to believe hyperbole was needed to describe this administration. Plenty to complain about that's well within the realm of reason.

I don't think Bush has planned any coup or even wishes to be King.

I think he wishes he'd be remembered as a good president and that his administration is on the wrong side of corrupt and consistently contemptuous of the limits of executive authority.

Will he refuse to step down?

Nah.

Though when he moves out, you bet they ought to check the silverware.

I don't think GW Bush has the desire to be King. Like turnea I reckon he was always after the title of 'good president', and has simply been incapable of doing the job.

Whats most telling abou the unpopularity of GW Bush is what it means beyond GW Bush. There has been an awful lot of hatred riding on the coat tails of this one man, far too much in my mind to be justified by his actions. I'm very curious to see if the hatred will remain once Bush is gone and how the next president will be perceieved.

Bush has provided justification for a lot of anti-Americanism and I can't see the anti America crowd simply accepting a new president. They will want more. I get the impression a snow ball has been pushed down a hill.

I agree with moif and turnea here. GWB has tried to expand executive power, as most (all?) presidents have, but the Imperial Presidency stuff is laying on the hyperbole a little thick. CR has "no doubt" that Bush wants a coup, and that Rove has "gamed" the takeover. Such certainty is the mark of fanaticism.


We'll see. Clinton inspired a lot of irrational hatred at home, though he was better liked by our traditional allies abroad. I think Reagan inspired a similar fear and loathing in Western Europe (crazy cowboy warmonger, etc.) -- though he was better appreciated by liberal reformers in Eastern Europe, who wouldn't come to power until after he left office.

I expect a Democrat to be elected next year, and the world to breathe a sigh of relief as Bush steps down on 1/20/09. But America will continue to be America, and some people will always hate us for that.

I don't think about the naked emperor pulling something out of his poopshoot the night before he's supposed to pack, granting himself authority to stay in the White House for as long as he determines is necessary. I think about Bush writing an EO that will magically undo the other seven hundred plus magical EOs that challenged federal law, especially 13292. As much as I don't believe in unitary executive theory I wouldn't mind the next president disclosing everything this White House has done to the public before trashing Bush's EOs. Sure, Cheney, Rove and company may be burning (or deleting, as the case may be) evidence of malfeasance and God knows what else, but they can't possibly cover all their tracks.

Other than that, I'll sit tight, watch and wait. If the need arises I'll grab my 21st century pitchfork and die happy.

Anti- Americans will be anti-American for whatever reasons, and we can't change them, and I am not really interested in trying.

However- I have no problem despising a person like GW- and fearing his power greatly. Clinton, well, I had no love for him, never worshiped him or anything- but I found him ho-hum competent snake oil salesman with some concern for his image outside his "base". To me, I don't fear that kind of person, because they are self limiting in what they can damage.

However- GW doesn't care about anything outside his base, and for all his mouthings about values- he really has none when it comes to personal responsibility for himself or others

I think why so many despise him is his smug behavior in deciding stuff he really has no idea about, and his cavalier behavior towards others "sacrifice" = while never, in his entire life, having to sacrifice anything for himself.

When you combine corporate elitism with some religion, and a real disdain for the limitations on power that is enshrined in our constitution- from "it's okay to torture 'cause I say so" to "I am the president, I answer to no one"- you have a recipe for disaster.

I think GW represents a good lesson in that you can be evil, yet personable to the gullible, but that usually evil is inept, and we are lucky for it.

Oh yeah, and evil poeple usually think of themsleves as the good guy.

I think we are also very lucky that he peeved off the military so thoroughly- then it could have very well been a coup, they were following him pretty blindly up to the point he really started to fubar IRAQ

That, and thank gawd each day for our diversity that never really allows one group or another full power- thank whatever diety for checks and balances that have saved our bacon so many times!

Yes.

Yes.

This fantasy that Bush is going to remain in power is just feigned paranoid rantings from folks who really, really, really hat Bushco and realize they've done nothing to stop him, slow him down or get him impeached/out of office. Bush won't be impeached, frog marched at the Hague or any of the other Merry Fitzmas fantasies the KosKids are having.

Much like Y2K, nothing will come of this. Most American's don't even know about this particular line of conspiracy theory.

According to the constitution, amendment 20, the president's term us up on January 20 at noon. That's the case, even if a new president has not been sworn in.



When I started the countdown in my signature line, Bush had 733 days left. It's now down to 548. It's slow, but it's progress. The end is coming. There is an ever so small sliver of light at the end of a very long, dark, nightmarish tunnel. I don't anticipate a consitutional train wreck coming from the other direction.

I foresee no possibility that Bush will try to stay in office.

What I fear is that the extensions of power pressed for for the executive branch under his tenure will allowed to be left in place. That White House is our house and we should be allowed to know a lot more about the daily actions of the public employees that serve our Constitution and our president.

I hope the next person has the ability to not embrace those expanded powers and turn the lights on brighter around the executive branch and defer whenever possible to the legislative branch of government.

I agree with this Eeyore. I think caution and restraint in the use of power is what makes someone great or not so great. When I was teaching, I found principals who macro managed rather than micro managed better. Prudent use of power might make the next president great or something less.

1. Will the election be held as scheduled?

2. Will Bush leave office by noon on January 20, 2009?

When I made the comment, I was referring to something far more sinister than just refusing to leave. Unlike many here, I believe Bush would like to be dictator for life. If it took manipulating events to cause an attack on this country, then I wouldn't put it past him. Say an attack happens in late 2008. Bush issues an executive order granting him extended time in office, much as Giuliani tried to do with his mayorship after the 9/11 attacks (unfortunately for Rudy, he didn't have the kind of unbridled and unchallenged power this president has). Bush is a narcissist, and I don't believe he thinks of himself other than all-powerful, always right, chosen by God, and the only one who could possibly "save" the country.

Yup, that about covers it.

Daffy, I agree with your characterization of Bush, but I think such a scenario, if pushed to its limits, would be the beginning of a second Civil War. You might have the blue states and more moderate red states lined up against the hard core red states.

Transition of power, however, is so ingrained in us, that we would revolt against any such idea. A new president every four or eight years is our right. We won't let anything stop that. Personally, I'd like to see U. S. Marshals drag Bush out of the White House, but I don't think that will be necessary.

In the meantime, Congress needs to keep investigating, keep turning up the pressure on Bush to honor the constitution he's sworn to uphold. I think Democrats can and should make life so miserable for him, he'll be glad to leave.

Heck, I'm an optimist. I still think Bush's defeating Ann Richards for Governor of Texas in 1994 is a bad dream and that I'm going to wake up any minute and go .

I can't really agree with DaffyGrl's characterization of Bush, but I agree with BoF's prediction of what would follow a canceled election. Only I'd like to think even the reddest states would resist such a naked power-grab. If the election or presidential succession were canceled, I'd lose my bet (assuming anyone took me up on it), and would be happy to have the winnings go to supporting the resistance. If the winner prefers pitchforks or ammunition to dollars, I'm sure we could work that out.

Of course he will step down and the next President will be sworn in and everything will be normal.

While I hesitate to paint with a broad brush, there is some truth to the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome." That so many people believe the hype about this evil, extra-Constitutional "regime," that they are so evil and power-hungry that they would not even step down after 8 years, is just completely irrational.

I just had an anti-Bush person casually tell me at dinner that he believes (not kidding here) that Bush would change the rules for the money, and have the mint put out currency with Bush's likeness immediately. A Bush 3-dollar bill, perhaps? That kind of thinking is insane.

As moif points out, I worry where all of the hatred is going to go when Hillary or Rudy or whomever is sworn in. Especially if a Republican wins, our country could be in real danger of a complete schizm right vs. left. The past 2 Congressional do-nothing terms are great in my eyes, but this kind of divide isn't going to do anything for domestic policy.

Why is it irrational? What, exactly, leads you to believe that this administration is NOT power-hungry? Past acts are a pretty good barometer of future behavior, and whether or not you believe the accounts of election irregularities in 2000 and election fraud in 2004, disregard for consitutional law and any opposing viewpoints, and blatant disregard for the majority of the American people, what could possibly make you think these people would NOT do whatever it takes to hold onto power?

Because it's not based in reality. Plotters of extraconstitutional coups d'etat do not submit to the will of the SCOTUS as to the disposition of their military tribunals . They do not permit the Red Cross to visit their detention camps. They do not permit their opponents to take control of the 2 houses of Congress. They do not compromise on judicial appointees. These are not the actions of a dictator, they are the actions of an executive branch in a Constitutional Republic.


I never said they weren't power-hungry. Try reading my entire statement, highlighted above. No one is more "power-hungry" than a Presidential Candidate, and all those healthy and able to do so have stepped down willingly after 4 or 8 years so far. (I guess FDR was "power-hungry" to a higher degree, but that's the only exception worth noting) I see no reason to break this precedent.


Yes, and George Bush has lost elections and left political office before.


I don't


I've seen this before - Iran-Contra, Teapot Dome ... heck, Lincoln vs. habeus corpus.


That phrasing is tough to answer. I believe that those pulling the strings will try to win the next presidential election, and leave it at that. I do not believe that they will succeed, but it doesn't change my belief that the Republic is safe.

I think there is a remote possibility that the Presidential election in November, 2008 could be cancelled. But it would take a larger attack than 9/11/2001. In that case, I could see George Walker Bush suspending the national election. I pray that doesn't happen.

The electronic voting systems are worrisome, but at least George Walker Bush cannot run again for president.

At this point, none of the candidates running for President, on the Democratic or 'publican side appear to be as bad as what we have occupying the Oval Office right now. Let's hope that this appearance is not deceptive.

If there is a problem PE, it's this. Even if we had a state of national emergency that brought about suspending or delaying the 2008 electons, Bush's term ends via the constitution (amendment 20) on January 20 at noon. The constitutional crisis might be that we wouldn't have a president. Of course, in "BoF World," no president is better than a prolonged Bush Presidency.

Edited to add:

I don't want to wish more than a year of my life away, but It seems as if these next 547 days will never pass. Waiting for Bush to leave town, is like a kid waiting for Christmas. As George H. W. recently put it, "Bush fatigue." Yeah, that's it "Bush fatigue."

1. Will the election be held as scheduled?

I sincerely hope so - and I'm about 93% certain that it will.

2. Will Bush leave office by noon on January 20, 2009?

Unless we're dealing with the 7% possibility mentioned above, yes.

I don't believe that George W Bush wants to be "king" or "dictator" or "emperor", but I definitely believe that he would like to see his divinely ordained mission succeed - and if he could remain president for another four years or ten years or twenty years or however long it would take for his perceived Good to triumph over his perceived Evil, he would.

President Bush has been convinced from the outset that his presidency is part of a divine plan, that he is acting in accordance with God's will and, indeed, that God wanted him, personally, to run for the highest office in America in order to lead the fight against Evil. In Bush's binary world, every human being can be placed in only one of two categories: Good or Evil. Those on his side are Good and anyone who is not an absolute disciple is Evil. The same goes for every policy that he embraces and promotes: they are part of a divine plan that will ultimately lead to a triumph of Good over Evil (and anyone who opposes or even questions them falls into the latter camp). This is why he is incapable of admitting to errors or failures (which would be tantamount to acknowledging that God was wrong) and why, no matter how much criticism he receives, no matter how unpopular he or his policies may be, no matter how much havoc his policies reap, he cannot change any position on any issue ever.

Indeed, he no doubt sees his (necessarily Evil) critics as a vindication of just how Good and Just and Right his positions are. The more Good his crusade is, the more the forces of Evil will rise up to oppose him. Similarly, were Bush able to continue his valiant mission to make the world Good, by any means necessary, he would. We already know that he will not let the law or the Constitution or the will of the people he is meant to represent or world opinion stand in the way of his divinely ordained power, why would he balk at something so petty as a national election? Would he like to remain in power beyond January 20, 2009. Oh yeah. After all, God would like it, too. But does he have the skill to completely usurp the rule of law? Probably not. Then again, he has got away with every transgression so far - transgressions that, in other times, would have got heads of state executed. We should not be quite so blithe in our dismissal of an extended Bush administration. After all, who would stop him? Those who have stopped him from trashing our Constitution and our laws and our treaties at will? Okay...

Those who have been bolstering the Bush administration - financing its campaigns, setting its specific policies, promoting its unitary executive despotism - probably don't share Bush's religious zeal. But that doesn't mean that they haven't been willing to exploit it to the fullest. After all, it is much easier to play on peoples' fear of pure Evil and paint Bush as some sort of latter-day prophet than it is to sell war profiteering and an American hegemon at face value.

So would Rove and Cheney and Rice like to see their boy remain in power? You betcha. Do they have the political clout to effect such a radical transition in our form of government? Absent a major attack on US soil prior to the 2008 election - or 2009 inauguration - I would have to say no. Would Bill Kristol and Irwin Stelzer and Richard Perle and Mona Charen and Norman Podhoretz and Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Mellon Scaife and Gertrude Himmelfarb and Michael Novak like to see their puppet remain in power? Oh, hell yeah. But they are not as sold on Bush's Manichean vision, apart from using it as a means of selling their agenda to a gullible public, and probably realize that he isn't quite the figurehead they were looking for. I suspect that, rather than bankrolling and promoting a coup, they're shifting their allegiance to more sellable candidates.


I don't doubt that, for many, there is pure hatred of George W Bush. For many of us, though, it is more a matter of outrage. For many of us, it is the the contempt for the Constitution, the war crimes (and war profiteering), the destruction of the balance of powers, the illegal activity, the cover-ups and lies that are of more concern than some irrational emotion. It is also this lawlessness - and the fact that it has gone almost entirely unchallenged - that leaves a bit of room for doubt about the next election. For many of us, it is exactly his actions that have led to strong feelings - and where there is hatred of the man who provides the public face for those actions, then it is justified a thousand times over.

The level of "hatred" will doubtless continue following the next election. The last two administrations have been incredibly divisive and, even if the next president were an affable moderate, there are several decades worth of contention to get over and that won't happen during the course of a mere four years. Whether or not the outrage continues is a matter of the policies espoused by the next president.


I couldn't agree more - and I'm glad it was a more moderate voice than my own that raised this issue.


I wouldn't hold my breath. This has been one of my main fears over the past six years or so - that the powers seized and laws broken by the Bush administration have set deadly precedents for anyone who may succeed our current Messenger of God. The actions taken by this administration will have grave consequences for years to come, many of them may be irreversible. It will take a man or woman of enormous will to spurn the extraordinary powers they will be handed in the wake of the Bush administration. It is not enough that they refuse to use them, they must repudiate them and restore the values on which this country was founded, before an even more despotic or divinely inspired executive receives the reins of power . No easy task, even for a Gandhi - and I don't see many mahatmas in the running.


I agree with your first belief, but I'm not as sure about your disbelief - which leaves your further belief about the safety of the Republic a bit up in the air. Even if the Republic is safe, it has been radically reshaped over the past several years - and it may be many more years before we know exactly how much damage has been done to our institutions and values. A lot will depend on the next few administrations and whether they choose to start repairing the damage or whether they compound it. The Republic may have the semblance of "safety" and the transfer of power will most likely take place as scheduled, but it is not the same Republic it was in 2000. And the change has decidedly not been for the better.


Then you need to take a closer look at Rudy Giuliani. And, should he run, Fred Thompson. That pair makes George W Bush look like Ben franklin. Okay, maybe they make him look like Alexander Hamilton. Anyway, those fascistic creeps really would place free elections in serious jeopardy. Hell, Giuliani's already tried it - and attempting to scuttle our electoral process altogether is apparently one of things that contributed to his being considered "America's mayor". Jesus.

Okay, there's only one scenario that I can forsee where Bush would remain in office after 20 Jan 2009. The scenario would involve a WMD attack between the election and the Inauguration, an attack that killed not only the President Elect, but also the Veep Elect, and most if not all of Congress. In short, nuking DC on the opening day of Congress while Bush isn't there, plus getting the incoming duo somehow.

Not very likely.

Or, Bush could have a double stand in for him during the Inauguration, make sure DC is nuked and subsequently pop up to rescue the country and visit hellfire and damnation on the alleged perpetrators. Not that anybody would be at all suspicious in such a circumstance.

Even then, Bush would be acting without constitutional authority, since his term ends on January 20 at noon via amendment 20.

What concerns me more, is a close, disputed election like we had in 2000, where no winner is declared by January 20.

I think the founders saw the House of Representatives closer to the people than any other body. I would support a constitutional namendment putting the Speaker-of-the-House (be it Nancy Pelosi or even Dennis Hastert ) temporarily in charge until a winner is declared. I would not support continuation of a sitting president.

Y'all gotta remember, I've had to deal with Bush longer than rest of you. He was Governor of Texas for six years before he ran for president. Enough's enough. :choke:

The next Presidential election is scheduled for November 4, 2008.

1. Will the election be held as scheduled?

How could it not be? Any one want to explain how? As far as the insinuation of fixed voting machines addressed in another thread no one has ever found a fixed machine.

2. Will Bush leave office by noon on January 20, 2009?
How could he not? The “Bush derangement syndrome” seems to be heavy here.

Maybe the real question is this – is Bill trying to back door another presidency by helping his wife get elected? Certainly he would have influence over her in office.

I agree. I am not very optimistic. Democrat or Republican, a president is usually known to exercise whatever limits of power they have. While I will agree with the Republicans who will be up in arms at the Democratic president using these expanded powers, I will be sure to note the irony of the dog they set loose turning and biting them. It'll be interesting to see all the Bushbots screaming about Hillary's use of power when they adamantly defended Bush for doing the same thing. I guess I'm a bit jaded, but these duopolistic partisans are pretty laughable in how they will defend and attack the same sorts of behavior, depending if it's "their guy" or not.

I think Bush wants history to see him as a great president, but that's not very likely. We'll be dealing with the fallout of his actions for a long time to come, whoever succeeds him.

Cool little talking points. Same ol' jazz QH. I wonder what you'd have said about Reagan. Probably not the most positive things. I personally am tired of GW too. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Once his term is up, he'll be gone.



Pray that doesn't happen. Hillary is a vile and terrible person, not for political reasons but moreover because of her personal choices and because she should be in prison for Whitewater.

What is this thread about again? Oh. Another crazy conspiracy theory thread. I suppose it's like the time that JFK got eaten by a tiger...

Certainly he would be acting without constitutional authority, my question for you though is this: what's the alternative? Who would have "constitutional authority?" Congress is dead, so there's nobody in that line of succession around. One of the existing Cabinet members? Well, strictly speaking they would theoretically have the authority, except for the fact that they can only take office if the President is dead or incapacitated. Old President is gone, no new President has been sworn in, ... 'Tis a knotty conundrum.

Not gonna happen. Close and disputed, sure, run out to January 20th, no way.

I believe the 25th Amendment already covers that. The catch is, you have to have a Speaker and President Pro Tem to do it. This, btw, is one reason why, even during the Inauguration and State of the Union Address, as well as other "all government functions", one Cabinet member, and since 9/11, one Congressman and one Senator are "elsewhere." This is important, because if the entire House of Representatives, or even more than half, including the Speaker, were killed, you can't actually reconstitute the House w/o special elections. No House quorom, no new Speaker. The Senate can be reconstituted by state action, i.e. gubernatorial and/or legislative appointment.

1) Of course [the election will be held on time and we will honor its results, as we always have for well over 200 years].

2) Of course [Bush will leave office and we will have an orderly transfer of power, as we always have for well over 200 years].

(noid noid)

Wow the whole tone of this thread is just that .... yaknow the reason the 20th amendment is in place is because of a democrat... (FDR)

I dont think bush wants to stay in power beyond jan 20, 2009 but i do think he wants his policies carried out... all of the hate has everything to do with the ® after his name... Europeans hated Bush from the moment he took office, because he actually meant what he said ....

will the election happen on nov 4 2008, absolutely. will GWB want a republican to win and carry on the WoT absolutely. I think the dems who are calling for us to pull out of iraq and end the WoT will be singing a different tune if they get elected in 2008....

Will Bush leave office on jan 20, 2009, I can contemplate no circumstance where this would not happen... but it is funny to listen to the deranged rantings of those suffering from BDS...



Was that the tiger LBJ sent after him for getting us into vietnam? or the one Nixon set on him for stealing the election by having dead people in chicago vote for him ?

First Quarkhead said :


It'll be interesting to see all the Bushbots screaming about Hillary's use of power when they adamantly defended Bush for doing the same thing. I guess I'm a bit jaded, but these duopolistic partisans are pretty laughable in how they will defend and attack the same sorts of behavior, depending if it's "their guy" or not.




Intresting comment Aevens- it really shows the hypocrisy we have been discussing on threads from Funeral gate to Scooter libby-by your measure of "proof" for the GW admin- Hillary should sue the RNC for violating her civil rights

What you have done is made quarkhead's point be true with about 10k exclamation points.

I mean, you get upset because she possibly lied about a losing busines deal in Arkansas, before Bill was even president- but you are okay with Scooter walking, don't want any investigations of GW, don't want him to testify.

Contemptably laughable.

It is posts like that make many think there are poeple in this world that will allow GW to stay in power- you are exactly the example of someone that would back bush up if he decided to stay in power- you simply can't let it go about how much worse a prez the republicans can put in office, even after a horrible dem

For folks like GW to stage coups, they need loyal followers, someone that will give them a "pass" no matter how bad they behave, or how much they break the law, even when it involves treason, like with Valerie Plame.

Unfortunately, there are enough gullible folks out there that actually believed the swift water liars, that believed that John Kerry was going to "steal thier bibles" - and confiscate all thier guns, that folks like Rove can exploit right out of thier very basic freedoms.

I think as long as we have poeple that are willing to let GW get away with anything he wants, there is the risk of a takever by GW- fortunately, he has alienated the folks that used to support him the most- the military. It doesn't take much to see what a "cluster" he made out of his idiocy in Iraq- and for that, we can thank our founding fathers for the checks and balances.

I voted for a normal transition, though I must admit that I am not 100% certain that Bush and his backers might not try something extraconstitutional. Call it paranoia, but it seemed rather surreal to me that the military had drawn up a plan for business as usual in Iraq through 2009. I have said elsewhere on this board that I consider the threat of a military takeover of the United States, in the name of "Freedom," of course, to be a nontrivial and increasing risk.

I think the consensus of the board is that we will have a normal election and transfer of power. I agree.

In the very remote case we don't, there is nothing in the 25th Amendment that allows Bush to continue in power after January 20, 2009.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am25.html

Try another smokescreen.



I already gave my answer earlier in the thread, but here it is again, just in case you missed it. If it came to it, I would rather haveNO! president than allow Bush to continue a nanosecond beyond the constitutional expiration of his term.

I'd also like to let the air out of his tires before he heads back to Texas.

Edited to add:

I've already changed my mind. If someone let the air out of Bush's tires, he'd might think it was a terrorist attack, but more likely he would see it as a prank played by one of his Skull and Bones buddies from Yale days. Seemingly he han't grown out of that mold and would likely dismiss it as a welcome home George gesture.

I would call it paranoia. You have claimed in other threads to have military experience/knowledge and given that, you should know that one of the things military planners do is plan for all kinds of "what-ifs". In this case the question they were tasked with answering probably went along the lines of "If we were forced to continue 'business as usual' in Iraq until 2009, how would we do that?" Doesn't mean it's a done deal that's going to happen by any means, but should the next President decide on that course of action, the military damn well better have a plan for it.


Aquilla

Sounds like a case of "cutting of nose to spite face" brought on by the aformentioned Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Nonetheless, your stance raises some mighty interesting questions, which I've posed in this Thread here.

In fact you can read all about this in Tuesday's New York Times. There is quite a lot of explanation there as to how and by whom this plan was produced. It is no mere contigency plan, that is certain. Of course it doesn't mean it's a done deal, but it is a little bit stunning that no plan has been prepared for withdrawal, only one for continued engagement at close to current troop levels.

Parenthetically (since it has no relevance to this discussion), I don't claim to be a military expert, but I have read a lot of military history. And yes, I did serve for eight years during the Vietnam War period. That doesn't make me the crown prince of opinionators upon military matters, but at least I have some slight idea of what it means to serve. Mainly it signifies that I don't have to take the back seat in the patriotism department.

Yes. Of course it will.

I think Bush has been given too much credit by his opponents. Bush causes global warming. Bush was responsible for Hurricane Katrina. Now, Bush is going to stop elections. This is almost getting ridiculous.

If Bush actually controlled this stuff like the press says he does....

Yup.

And he probably won't be stuffing his suitcases with historical White House artifacts.

I don't hate Bush. But I am ready for some new leadership. I think the American People deserved a lot more answers for honest bi-partisan questions.

But sticking around and claiming the right to stay? Nah, I don't see that happening for a minute.

Let's be honest here azwhitewolf. I don't think many people have accused Bush of causing global warming or Hurricane Katrina. Many of us, however, don't think he's done enough about global warming and that he didn't respond quickly enough or adequately enough to Katrina.

I agree, though. Bush is gone at noon on January 20, 2009. I'm grateful he doesn't even get the whole day.

Edited. I put 2008 originally. I'd love to kick his butt back to Texas a year early.