Madison,the fourth President predicted Bush in 1795

[taranaki]

The President We Were Warned About
George W. Bush is the imperial president that James Madison and other founders of this great republic warned us about. He lied the nation into precisely the "foreign entanglements" that George Washington feared would destroy our experiment in representative government, and he has championed a spurious notion of security over individual liberty, thus eschewing the alarms of Thomas Jefferson as to the deprivation of the inalienable rights of free citizens. But most important, he has used the sledgehammer of war to obliterate the separation of powers that James Madison enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

With the "war on terror," Bush has asserted the right of the president to wage war anywhere and for any length of time, at his whim, because the "terrorists" will always provide a convenient shadowy target. That's just the "continual warfare" that Madison warned of in justifying the primary role of Congress in initiating and continuing to finance a war — the very issue now at stake in Bush's battle with Congress.

In his "Political Observations," written years before he had served as fourth president of the United States, Madison went on to underscore the dangers of an imperial presidency bloated by war fever.

"In war," Madison wrote in 1795, at a time when the young republic still faced its share of dangerous enemies, "the discretionary power of the executive is extended ... and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people."

How remarkably prescient of Madison to anticipate the specter of our current King George, imperiously undermining Congress' attempts to end the Iraq war. When the prime author of the U.S. Constitution explained why that document grants Congress — not the president — the exclusive power to declare and fund wars, Madison wrote, "The delegation of such powers (to the president) would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments."

Because "no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare," Madison urged that the constitutional separation of powers he had codified be respected. "The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war ...
the power of raising armies," he wrote. "The separation of the power of raising armies from the power of commanding them is intended to prevent the raising of armies for the sake of commanding them."

That last sentence perfectly describes the threat of what President Dwight Eisenhower would describe 165 years later as the "military-industrial complex," a permanent war economy feeding off a permanent state of insecurity. The collapse of the Soviet Union deprived the military profiteers and their cheerleaders in the government of a raison d'etre for the enormous war economy supposedly created in response to it.

Fortunately for them, Bush found in the 9-11 attack an excuse to make war even more profitable and longer lasting. The Iraq war, which the president's 9-11 commission concluded never had anything to do with the terrorist assault, nonetheless has transferred many hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars into the military economy. And when Congress seeks to exercise its power to control the budget, this president asserts that this will not govern his conduct of the war.

There never was a congressional declaration of war to cover the invasion of Iraq. Instead, President Bush acted under his claimed power as commander in chief, which the Supreme Court has held does allow him to respond to a "state of war" against the United States. That proviso was clearly a reference to surprise attacks or sudden emergencies.

The problem is that the "state of war" in question here was an al-Qaida attack on the United States that had nothing whatsoever to do with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Perhaps, to spare Congress the embarrassment of formally declaring war against a nation that had not attacked America, Bush settled for a loosely worded resolution supporting his use of military power if Iraq failed to comply with U.N. mandates.

This was justified by the White House as a means of strengthening the United Nations in holding Iraq accountable for its weapons of mass destruction arsenal, but as most of the world looked on in dismay, Bush invaded Iraq after U.N. inspectors on the ground discovered that Iraq had no WMD.

Bush betrayed Congress, which in turn betrayed the American people — just as Madison feared when he wrote, "Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other."

http://www.creators.com/opinion/robe...ned-about.html


**************************************************

[BNaylor]

James Madison???

Yeah during his presidency we only got into a war with Britain over some bogus trade dispute. War of 1812. The country was so unprepared that the British made it to Washington and nearly burned down the White House and the Capitol. General Andrew Jackson had to bail him and the country out.

However, I guess we can give Madison credit for getting Congress's approval to go to war and getting a declaration of war. Regardless, this Robert Scheer sounds like he smoking crack.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

. Regardless, this Robert Scheer sounds like he smoking crack.

Sure....anything would be preferable to admitting that he has Bush pinned like a moth. There are none so blind as those who choose not to see.

[YogsVR4]

now Madison was a prognosticator

About the only thing that author got right in that opinion pieces was the spelling.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

now Madison was a prognosticator

About the only thing that author got right in that opinion pieces was the spelling.

'Opinion piece' being the relevant part of that comment......does nobody have any opinions of their own in this forum that actually counter those placed in this thread or has the level of debate fallen to simply denying everything and attempting to ridicule the writer?


I have seen many well written articles that contend that this President is incompetent, corrupt,and egotistical.

If anyone here has sufficient intelligence to make a case that asserts that Bush is anything other than an utter failure and a global embarrassment to the people of America, or even find a column that lists his many great successes, bring it on. It might be worth reading.

I'm tired of seeing the world fucked over by an incompetent superpower.If anyone here can put up an argument that justifies the deaths of thousands of troops and hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq, or justifies the widespread American corruption and interference in the Iraqi economy,then bring it.
If anyone can point to statistics that show how much better off the average American is under Bush, or how he has solved his immigration and poverty issues, or upheld and strengthened the Constitution, or figured out how to prevent mass shootings,bring it on.Hell, if anyone can even find statistics that contend that America is leading the world in any significant sporting fields, bring it down.There's so little that sets America above mediocre thesedays, I'll take anything!
From the comments I've read in this forum of late,it would appear that there's nobody on this forum who can intelligently defend their President. I contend that this is because no intelligent person would defend him.
Prove me wrong.Anything is more interesting than listening to the blind illiterate uber-patriots who think that flatly denying every problem that exists will make it go away.

[00accord44]

Hell hath frozen over for I find myself in agreement with naki

I fail to find much positive in the resume of the second Bush administration. While the writings of Scheer/ Madison can be contested at points, I agree with the underlying sentiment that Bush has managed to skirt the guidelines of the Constitution and continue an occupation of a foreign nation on flimsy rationale without the support of his nation or his legislature. I don't know what else would be expected of a man who lost the popular vote, somehow flipped a state, and took office. War keeps presidents in office although Bush was aided in his reelection by a completely inept democratic party I am very interested to see how the upcoming elections will play out and if the democrats will manage to fuck up an office practically being handed to them by lack of a viable competitor. President Mitt??? I hope not. Plus I'll finally get to change my avatar

Originally Posted by taranaki

Hell, if anyone can even find statistics that contend that America is leading the world in any significant sporting fields, bring it down.

Hey, we still got football... American football that is (Go Bears)

[Andydg]

Originally Posted by 00accord44

Hey, we still got football... American football that is (Go Bears)

Haha, the US of A did win the American Football World Cup!

[BNaylor]

.......................

If you weren't so anti-American overall in general it would probably be worth responding and getting into a worthy debate. But IMO an exercise in futility.

Add to that the 2004 Summer and 2006 Winter Olympics. And I'm quite sure there are other major world sporting events such as tennis and the PGA, etc.

Distribution of Olympic Medals 2004:
Click here

Distribution of Olympic Medals 2006:
Click here

[freakray]

Originally Posted by Andydg

Haha, the US of A did win the American Football World Cup!

Although Japan has won more American Football World Cups than USA....isn't that a little embarassing?

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

.......................

If you weren't so anti-American overall in general it would probably be worth responding and getting into a worthy debate. But IMO an exercise in futility.

Add to that the 2004 Summer and 2006 Winter Olympics. And I'm quite sure there are other major world sporting events such as tennis and the PGA, etc.

Distribution of Olympic Medals 2004:
Click here

Distribution of Olympic Medals 2006:
Click here

Congratulations...I throw in sport as a sarcastic add-on, and it's the only one that you can run with!

The 'Anti-American' tag amuses me. It's been regularly bought out in this forum by people who lack the wit to enter the debate at hand. It's not your country who is the worst President in living memory.It is not your country that chose to start a war despite being told that the WMD did not exist. It is not your country that attempted to install a puppet government in an oil-rich nation and caused a massive civil war.

The blame lies with the Bush administration. Calling me 'anti-American' for not supporting the greedy,dishonest and manipulative warmongers is as stupid as trying to tell me that I'm anti-American for arguing that Fred Phelps is a vile little man who is unfit to preach.

But back to the topic at hand.

Is there anyone in this forum who is prepared to speak in George Bush's defence in this forum [as opposed to those who would rather slam anyone who points out his shortcomings].

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by taranaki

Is there anyone in this forum who is prepared to speak in George Bush's defence in this forum [as opposed to those who would rather slam anyone who points out his shortcomings].

NO! And I repeat what the hell for? To satisfy your peace of mind. The only one slamming is you.

All you are pointing out is your hypocrisy and inability to let the G.W. Bush issue rest as pointed out to you numerous times in past threads. He will be out of office in about 16 months. What more can you ask for. The American people spoke during the last election and that is fine with me.

How have the actions of Bush affected you personally and your country?

[RSX-S777]

Let me preface this by stating that I am an American. This is simply to appease those utter simpletons who believe you must be a citizen of this country to have an opinion that matters, or be affected by this country's foreign policy.

I find the "he will be gone soon" argument a cop-out of the highest order, and of little consolation. Who the hell are any of you to vote this abomination into office not once, but TWICE, and then turn your back on the carnage? As if the damage will disappear with him as he struts out of office. It's elementary: Americans are responsible for the actions of the leaders they elect to office- or unfortunately, those they see elected to lead them despite their greatest protest. I think perhaps people like myself or Taranaki expect a level of responsibility and (god forbid) accountability from some of the fine citizens who made this all possible. But arrogance and ignorance are wonderful- and all that we get in response are excuses, cockiness, evasive answers, flippant retorts with little or no substance, outright denial. Who do YOU think is going to pay for Bush's mistakes- and how long is it going to take to repair the damage done? These are questions that you all damn well better worry about, if you can possibly find the fucking time. If you think that brushing this asshole's MASSIVE shortcomings and blatant failures (which have become, by default, OUR failures) under the rug is the appropriate response, then I'm embarrassed. Is it guilt, pride, malaise, stupidity or selfishness that allow some of you to turn an easy blind eye to what has happened and continues to happen here? It's disgusting...

[03cavPA]

Look, I voted libertarian in the last election, and I'm registered independent, but you guys bore the hell out of me.

So, Bush is a fuck-up and he needs to be gone. We get it, we understand your perspective. BFD.

And it pisses you off when Bob says the guy will be gone in 16 months. As if Bob can do anything else about it. We'll all get a chance to pick the next loser out of the latest sorry pack of candidates. Good grief.

Learn a new damn song already. The old one is gettin' screechy.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

Learn a new damn song already. The old one is gettin' screechy.

I kinda like it. It must really suck for you to have to listen to the truth,especially coming from a foreigner. Just do us all a favour and don't elect such a waste of oxygen next time.

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

And it pisses you off when Bob says the guy will be gone in 16 months.

Not at all. Bob has a knack for stating the obvious at times. Actually, it's funny watching a man who has lost the credibility of his office trying to salvage some dignity from the biggest fuck-up since Vietnam. Almost as funny as knowing that deep down, even the most strident and xenophobic of blinkered patriots know that they got it wrong.

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by taranaki

I kinda like it. It must really suck for you to have to listen to the truth,especially coming from a foreigner. Just do us all a favour and don't elect such a waste of oxygen next time.

Show me a post where I've disagreed with your assessment of Dubya. The "truth"? You're entitled to post whatever you like, but it's nothing new, and it's a broken record you drag out all the time to regale us with.

As for the waste of oxygen, the soapbox here works for everyone, not just you, 'naki. Perhaps you should do us the same "favour" that you ask of us.

opcorn: