So, is it now officially a dictatorship?

[Cetacea]

Given the widely held belief that Americans voted in overwhelming numbers to end the war in Iraq, our Leader is considering escalating the Occupation there.

At the very least, this sends a signal to the voter that his/her vote means absolutely nothing.

Just sayin'.

[Kelly Rupert]

1. Not even close.

Americans did not vote to end the war in Iraq. They voted to remove Republicans from office and replace them with Democrats. That will go ahead as planned, meaning this is not a dictatorship.

In addition, our leader was (at least nominally) elected, and has not served longer than his constitutionally-appointed terms. He may be irresponsibly ignoring the will of the people, but that's hardly equal to a dictatorship. While he may have a moral imperative to leave Iraq, there is no legal imperative to leave--at least not from the elections.

2006, if anything, was proof that our vote means the world. We will have a governing majority in both chambers. That is huge.

[Cetacea]

2. according to the major media

the vote was a vote against the war, and whatever the msm says is the TRUTH. (sarcasm)
I do agree with everything you wrote but the Media has been delivering a different message. And what happened in November WAS huge, at least in it's potential. It remains to be seen if Dems are going to continue spineless behavoir as they have done in the past six years.

[Homer Wells]

22. Media is controlled by the Corporate Structure,

i.e the Republican power structure. The MSM will say and do what ever their corporate masters tell them to do or say.

However, that said, the people still have a voice, and with control of Congress, it can now have a much better chance of being heard. That, plus the internet and the Blogosphere will have a great hand in keeping the word out there.

The Majority of my news comes from here,and I follow the MSM just to see how much they are lying to us.

[TahitiNut]

16. Switching from Pepsi to Coke ...

... is no way to kick the cola habit.

I find myself noting that the Congressional Black Caucus shrank. I personally regard the CBC (and the Congressional Progressive Caucus) as most representative of my personal political values and principles. So, I ask myself, has the caucus increased or decreased in size? Here're the CBC members from the 109th Congress. How many are left? Any new members?

Sanford Bishop Democrat Georgia
Corrine Brown Democrat Florida
G.K. Butterfield Democrat North Carolina
Julia Carson Democrat Indiana
Donna Christian-Christensen Democrat U.S. Virgin Islands
William Lacy Clay, Jr. Democrat Missouri
Emanuel Cleaver Democrat Missouri
Jim Clyburn Democrat South Carolina
John Conyers, Jr. Democrat Michigan
Elijah Cummings Democrat Maryland
Artur Davis Democrat Alabama
Danny K. Davis Democrat Illinois
Chaka Fattah Democrat Pennsylvania
Harold Ford, Jr. Democrat Tennessee
Al Green Democrat Texas
Alcee Hastings Democrat Florida
Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. Democrat Illinois
William J. Jefferson Democrat Louisiana
Eddie Bernice Johnson Democrat Texas
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Democrat Ohio
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick Democrat Michigan
Barbara Lee Democrat California
Sheila Jackson Lee Democrat Texas
John Lewis Democrat Georgia
Cynthia McKinney Democrat Georgia
Kendrick Meek Democrat Florida
Gregory Meeks Democrat New York
Juanita Millender-McDonald Democrat California
Gwen Moore Democrat Wisconsin
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton Democrat District of Columbia
Senator Barack Obama Democrat Illinois
Major Owens Democrat New York (replaced by Yvette Clarke in 110th)
Donald Payne Democrat New Jersey
Charles B. Rangel Democrat New York
Bobby Rush Democrat Illinois
Bobby Scott Democrat Virginia
David Scott Democrat Georgia
Bennie Thompson Democrat Mississippi
Edolphus Towns Democrat New York
Maxine Waters Democrat California
Diane Watson Democrat California
Mel Watt Democrat North Carolina
Albert Wynn Democrat Maryland

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. Very, Very Well Stated, Reasonable And Factual.

Thank you.

[spanone]

32. I'd say in essence Americans did vote to end the war in Iraq. It was the OVERwhelming issue.

[cali]

38. No it wasn't.

Exit polls showed that the number 1 issue was corruption.

[novalib]

39. POLLS SHOW

Polls show that 70 per cent -- 70 PERCENT!!!!! of the American People think that * is doing a shitty job with the ILLEGAL WAR OF AGGRESSION against the Iraqi people!!!!!

And yet he continues in power.

[cali]

40. oh stop yelling.

I simply made a factual statement to correct an erroneous assertion. Sheesh.

[Double T]

3. The dictator-in-chief is going to show EVERYONE who is really in charge........

and prove to EVERYONE that HE is STILL RIGHT. It is unfortunate that insanity apparently can not be removed from the highest office.

[Benhurst]

4. A nation whose legislature has given its head of state the

power to imprison and even execute citizens who have no recourse to the rule of law is a dictatorship.

Those now living in "the land of the free" have fewer rights under law than any English-speaking people have had since at least 1215, and a case could be made for pushing the date back to the Roman occupation of Britain.

[cali]

13. You win the hyperbole award for the day.

That's just ridiculous. And I mean your entire post. Less rights under the law than any other English speaking people since 1215?? Know anyone who's been hung lately for stealing a loaf of bread? Got friends in Debtor's prison? Know a lot of indentured servents and slaves? I could go on and on.

[Benhurst]

15. Bush can imprison any citizen for anything he wants. We

have more liberal laws, but bottom line, Americans do not have any rights when it comes to the whims of The Leader.

Even in the Middle Ages, Englishmen had the right of sanctuary when pursued by an unjust king.

[Pyrzqxgl]

34. Yeah and the right to be drawn & quartered for talking out of turn to anyone in authority.

[dad]

18. Cali wins the "wake up" award for the day.

The President now has the right to jail any person without a trial, without proof, and without representation. Just because it has not happened, to our knowledge, doesn't mean that we are free. We have the illusion of freedom.

[cali]

23. Wrong.

The Military Commissions Act- heinous as it is - does NOT apply to U.S. citizens? And where did I get that idea? Why from Senator Patrick Leahy. I know, I know, he's just a bushco enabler, and I should take your word, oh anonymous internet poster, over his. The MCA applies to non-citizens, including legal residents. That's awful, and Leahy has said it's the first thing on his agenda, but you are not going to be denied Habeas. In fact, I predict, despite the encroachments on our civil liberties, you'll continue saying whatever you wish with no repercussions.

[nebenaube]

20. uh... yeah, sort of...

try 55yrs for pot, in american prisions with AIDS about... that's a death sentence.

[Norquist Nemesis]

29. Funny, that's the second time today I've seen reference to the 1215

date. Leahy said in his remarks today that (re: The Military Commissions Act 'debate') someone had said to him, "Don't you remember 9/11?" His response was, "Don't you remember 1215? The year?"

I need to google.

[Benhurst]

31. The Magna Carta was signed by King John in 1215 at Runnymede.

[MadHound]

5. Well, we do have one action left,

And that is for our newly elected Democratic majorities to defund this goddamn war. Vote now every war spending bill Bush throws out there, starve the beast, and force the idiot boy to bring the troops home. If they don't, then they're not worth a damn, and should feel our wrath in '08. If Bush starts pulling shit to get around this decision however, then he can be impeached.

It is time for some hard, radical decisions to bring this dangerous man child under control. I hope like hell that these new majorities are up for it.

[nancyr]

6. I fear they are all pretty much one and the same.

I predict our new Democrat majority will not rock the boat very much. They all say one thing and do another once they're elected.

[MadHound]

8. Then we have to make it clear to them that if they refuse to defund the war

Then they should get to comfy in their Congressional office, since they will be gone next time they're up for election. It is past time that we the people exerted our control over our government. Our troops are dying needlessly, senselessly to benefit a few oil soaked corporations, defense contractors, and already wealthy individuals. This monetary and resource extraction is also coming at the cost of tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. The madness has got to end now, and if the Democrats who were clearly elected with a mandate to end this war fail to do so, then we get rid of them and start anew.

It has really come down to that simple of a choice. Bushboy and his corporate cronies aren't going to back down or back out of the war. Thus it is up to those Congressional majorities to do so.

[shain from kane]

17. We can't take the risk that we did with Nixon. Bush* must be forced to end the

occupation of Iraq. He has proven that he can not be trusted. By the same token, the newly elected and returning members of Congress must be forced to do the right thing, and must be informed that they will be held accountable. Evidently, Bush* plans to take the rest of the year off, with no plan forthcoming until 2007. Again, he can not be trusted, and the opinion polls will continue to reflect that mistrust. He has lost it, and will never recover, regardless of what plan he pulls out of his ass.

From Wikipedia ----

"Case study: Richard Nixon's Election promises
In the 1968 Presidential campaign, Richard Nixon stated that "new leadership will end the war" in Vietnam. He never used the phrase "secret plan", which originated with a reporter looking for a lead to a story summarizing the Republican candidate's (hazy) promise to end the war without losing. When pressed for details, Nixon retreated to the position that to tip his hand would interfere with the negotiations that had begun in Paris. Nixon never disavowed the term. In his own memoirs, Nixon stated he never claimed to have such a plan. Nevertheless, Nixon's critics have continued to accuse him of campaigning on a "secret plan" to end the war.

According to one historian: "...it became obvious in 1969 that Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war was a campaign gimmick..."

Another historian wrote: "Nixon never had a plan to end the war, but he did have a general strategy--to increase pressure on the communists issue them a November 1, 1969 deadline to be conciliatory or else...The North Vietnamese did not respond to Nixon's ultimatum...and his aides began planning Operation Duck Hook."

Nixon told Michigan Republican congressman Donald Riegle that the war would be over within six months of his assumption of office.

As this six month deadline approached, in May 1969, Henry Kissinger asked a group of Quakers to give the administration six more months. "Give us six months, and if we haven't ended the war by then, you can come back and tear down the White House fence."

The election promises of the Nixon administration had positive results for the White House. Many potential peace activists were not ready to march on the Pentagon...until Nixon was given a fair chance. After all, troops were being withdrawn, the bombing had stopped, and diplomats were talking in Paris.<7> In addition, as the White House gradually pulled troops from Vietnam, the media shifted from the destruction of Vietnam--even while the U.S. air war and coordinated ground assaults in Southeast Asia persisted at a very high rate of killing.

The executive producer of the ABC evening news, Av Westin, wrote a memo in March 1969 that stated:

"I have asked our Vietnam staff to alter the focus of their coverage from combat pieces to interpretive ones, pegged to the eventual pull-out of the American forces. This point should be stressed for all hands."

And Westin telexed the ABC network's Saigon bureau:

"I think the time has come to shift some of our focus from the battlefield, or more specifically American military involvement with the enemy, to themes and stories under the general heading 'We Are on Our Way Out of Vietnam.'"

American combat deaths for the first half of 1969 increased rather than decreased during the time in which the plan was allegedly being implemented.

In 1972 Nixon also promised that "peace is at hand". On January 27, 1973, at the beginning of Nixon's second term, representatives of the US, North Vietnam, South Vietnam and the Viet Cong signed the Paris Peace Accords, which formally ended US involvement in the war.

The Nixon Administration six month's promise is similar to the Philippine-American War 1900 promise of Republicans who pledged that the fighting in the Philippines would end within sixty days of McKinley's re-election."

[thingfisher]

42. Politicians Lie!!!!?????

[nebenaube]

21. it won't work...

They will still have the missing pentagon $$$ rummy mentioned losing to run the war on. Not to mention the unspent iraqi reconstruction funds and all that oil in the ground. The big bombs have already been paid for... Nothing is going to stop them and we should start getting used to that idea because in the end; we are going to have to deal with what remains.

[MadHound]

25. Then it will be all that much more ammunition to impeach with

And that would be the next step. Besides, the money Rumsfeld says were missing is around ten billion. Hell, we go through that in less than a month over there. In addition, the oil is not flowing in Iraq, and won't be, at least in any meaningful quantity, for awhile. Insurgents are too good at bombing the piplines and tearing up the infrastructure to make meaningful oil extraction a reality. And if Bush wants to raid the reconstruction fund and commit another high crime, for all to see, let him. He'll be gone, along with the Dick he rode in on.

[nebenaube]

26. actually it was 1.3 trillion..... n/t

[Pyrzqxgl]

35. Christ! They haven't even been sworn in yet. Don't they get at least a hundred days?

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Do you believe that Congress will vote to defund the war?

I'm rather sceptical that this would happen.

[MadHound]

14. If we the people make it clear to them that their jobs are on the line, yes

I've written my new Democratic Senator on this issue, it is time that we all did and make it crystal clear to them that this is the issue that their future hinges on. If this message gets through to them, then they will respond. It is time for we the people to regain our control of our government.

[bryant69]

7. We don't live in a Democracy we live in a Republic

The will of the people is at best a metaphor.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ProfessorGAC]

11. It's A Democratic Republic

The democracy is the political philosophy and the republic is the structural mechanism. Therefore, you're both correct.
The Professor

[Benhurst]

12. People living in republics are not subject to the whims of a

leader, an unelected one at that, over they their freedoms and very lives.

Republic, indeed. Unless the Supreme court invalidates the unconstitutional legislation enacted following 9/11, which is unlikely given its two new members and three fascist holdovers, the Republic is dead, very truly really dead.

[Scurrilous]

9. Not a dictatorship...

...a decidership. :thumbsup:

[EstimatedProphet]

19. It was officially a dictatorship when Bush took office

It amazes me how many people back Bush precisely because of the fact that he does what he wants and doesn't care whether people like it or not. I get the 'don't follow the polls' thing, but freepers apparently think Bush was put into office to do whatever he wants, with no accountability at all! Is there anyone in the world that is employed ina job where they are expected to have no accountability?

[nam78_two]

24. No-but give them time. They are working on it

The MCA, NSA wire-tapping etc. indicate that they are giving it the good old college try.
Right now its more like thugs with dictatorial aspirations.

[Vidar]

28. It's been a fairly ineffective dictatorship for six years.

[novalib]

30. Is It NOW A Dictatorship??!!!

It HAS BEEN a DICTATORSHIP for some time now!!

Start with the STOLEN ELECTION of 2000 -- when AL GORE, the candidate with the most votes for him, was DENIED OFFICE by a corrupted Supreme Court -- over an issue in a State Governed by the brother of the usurper!!

Then there's the PATRIOT ACT!

WE MUST IMPEACH!!! NOW!!!

[L A Woman]

36. Sometimes I think it would be good for Americans to live under a dictatorship...

just long enough to know what an actual dictatorship is. We do not live under a dictator by any stretch of the imagination and it to say otherwise only serves to emphasize the embarrassing lack of understanding of world concepts that Americans have. * might be incompetent and an asshole but he is hardly a dictator.

Give me a break.

[novalib]

37. "GOOD" To Live Under a DICTATORSHIP?!?!?! WTF???!!!

So, you think it would be a good thing for Americans to live under a dictatorship???!!!!

Whatever.

Just because YOU live in a nice little part of America where, apparently, YOU do not suffer under the bootheel of an oppressive dicatatorial thug regime/cabal intent on (and doing a pretty good job at it) TAKING AWAY ALL THE CIVIL RIGHTS WE HAVE, does NOT mean that some of us do not REALLY SUFFER under this tyrannical dicatorship!!!!!

Give ME a break!!!!!!!!!!!

[L A Woman]

44. i don't think you understood my point...

I spent three years living in a dictatorship when I was in the Navy. I DO understand it and that is why I understand that we do not live in one. I think it would be good for some of the (younger, usually) Americans to experience real hardship to put things into perspective for them.

This is not tyranny and it's not a dictatorship; we actually have a very nice system of checks and balances that prevents such a thing.

I have mixed feelings - embarrassment that you don't understand what tyranny really is, and happiness that you don't understand what tyranny really is.

[Initech]

33. Yes. Read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

:scared: :nuke:

[thingfisher]

45. I think Bush

just wants to make it look like America brings something that looks like stability to Baghdad before the withdrawal, to "save face".
Forget the fact that half the face has already been blown off by an IED.
His focus is now on his "legacy" on his place in history. Even though he is so blind that he doesn't realize his place in history is already guaranteed - WORST DECIDER EVER!

[thingfisher]

41. What else is new?

[HughMoran]

43. Unfortunately, it's the form of government in the United States

Bush might be an imbecile who thinks he's a dictator, but he does not have to care who people voted for in a Congressional election if he chooses.