Don't believe those other schmucks. This is the REAL reason for Miers

[jmowreader]

Call her a distractor.

In the next few months, through Fitzmas, DeLaygate, Fristgate and whatever other scandals Bush's people will be involved in, you're going to see one distraction after another.

Unfortunately, terror threats are right out. They tried one recently and the purported target said "yeah, right George" and went on with their lives. Terror threats are worn-out as distractors.

I don't think he's stupid enough to try a real terrorist attack. Enough of the world is on to him that he would get caught. During his impeachment hearing, he would do something or say something stupid enough that a Republican congressman who hunts would just borrow a gun from a Secret Serviceman and shoot the son-of-a-bitch.

He also can't start another war. Congress would never approve it 'cause we have neither the money nor the army needed to run three wars at once, and if he attacked Iran on his own the Joint Chiefs would force him to commit seppuku with a chef's knife and a West Pointer's saber.

So he's got to use new and creative ways to distract the populace. He first appointed Miers. Look what the press has been talking about--not the traitor Bush, but the corporate lawyer Miers. (She may be a good corporate lawyer. She probably IS a good corporate lawyer. But corporate law and constitutional law are not the same thing, and very few corporate cases wind up on the Supreme Court's docket.)

Now, what's the next distractor? Probably a piece of legislation. The cheeseburger bill worked for a while but it's not big enough to really distract the press. The bankruptcy bill worked okay, and its provisions are just kicking in so it's the gift that keeps on giving, but it's not enough. It can't be a cocaine bill because cocaine is already illegal and it's already evil so there's not much new ground to be broken there. Same deal with meth, serious porn and all the other shit Jerry Falwell doesn't like. I'm thinking a federal debtors' prison act for people who are more than three months behind in their credit card bills. Man, the Debtor's Prison Act of 2005 would completely lock up the press for the next six months. So what if they never plan to approve it? Just the existence of it would completely shut off discussion of DeLay, Frist and Rove.

[ixion]

1. Didn't they just start up the death penalty debate again?

That would fit in nicely with your theory.

[Patchuli]

2. Debtor's prison? Ha!

Then they'd have to feed and house the prisoners on their (our) dime! That'd cut down the profits, wouldn't it?

[napi21]

3. Don't be too sure about the "another war" part!

He also can't start another war. Congress would never approve it 'cause we have neither the money nor the army needed to run three wars at once, and if he attacked Iran on his own the Joint Chiefs would force him to commit seppuku with a chef's knife and a West Pointer's saber.


This past week, during testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, Rice said "the President doesn't have to ask for permission to attack Syria or Iran. All of that is covered by the authorization to fight the War on Terror!!"

I must say, that remark, coming from the Sec. of State, is extremely frightening! Coulpe it with Shrubs statement about asking for UN involvement in the Syria thing is much more than a distraction. It COULD be another WAR!

[ducque]

4. But Bush already has started another war

The administration does not deny that they have already made incursions into Syria, and have killed Syrian troops on Syrian soil.

Can anyone spell CAMBODIA?

[stop the bleeding]

5. I totally agree with you and Napi21 on this its scary as hell, and BTW

Welcome to DU!:hi:

[dutchdemocrat]

6. Bush doesn't need Congress to go to war with him.

You wrote, "Congress would never approve it".

Problem is, Congress doesn't have too. That's the scary part. Congress gave him the sweeping power to forge ahead in the War on Terror without them.

In her opening statement to US Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, she went out of her way to criticize Iran and Syria. They “allow fighters and military assistance to reach insurgents in Iraq,” she said. “Syria and Iran must decide whether they wish to side with the cause of war or with the cause of peace.”

Then she calmly refused to rule out military options against Iran and Syria. Nor did she reassure the panel - said she didn’t want to "circumscribe" his powers as commander in chief.

[rodeodance]

7. but even Condi admitted this week that Jr does not have this power.

.......Problem is, Congress doesn't have too. That's the scary part. Congress gave him the sweeping power to forge ahead in the War on Terror without them.

[dutchdemocrat]

9. Can you provide a link on her statement?

Link?

Mine is here.

Nor did she reassure the panel that Bush would ask for Congressional approval first.

http://progressive.org/mag_wx102105

Or here

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has refused to rule out military action against Syria and, under fierce questioning during her appearance before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said she could not say whether US troops would still be in Iraq in 10 years.

Asked whether military action against Syria would require congressional approval, Dr Rice said she "didn't want to try to circumscribe presidential war powers . . . and the President retains those powers in the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq".

"I'm not going to get into what the President's options might be," she said. "But the course on which we are now launched is a diplomatic course vis-a-vis Syria."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/rice-wont-rule-out-attack-against-syria/2005/10/20/1129775901823.html

[ComerPerro]

8. Great points

Sometimes I wonder if she is their serious appointee.

Part of me thinks she is out there as a martar, so she can be refused and the conservatives will be able to dress up as victims yet again.