It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Do You Think Bush is Truly A Dictator?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:51 PM
I hope that this topic does not become ugly. I just want a great discussion about what constitutes executive powers. But, with all the discussion of the POTUS ignoring the Constitution and restoring more executive privileges to his office, do you guys think that he is bordering on setting up a dictatorship?

I don't know if his actions warrant a Juan Peron, but what do you think? Do you think he even listens to the Congresspeople? Or do you think that he only listens to himself?

With that being said, for the followers of GWB: What makes him so compelling that you must follow him good or bad? And despite his doctrine of more "executive power", why do you follow him?

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 07:26 PM
Not even remotely. There are far too many checks to a presidents powers even in a time of war such as now. Yes, he does wield enourmous power, but hardly dictatorial.

To assume to mantle of a dictator, Mr. Bush would need the military solidly behind him, and that would simply not happen, despite opinions to the contrary that will undoubtably show up here shortly.

Have fun watching the fireworks

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:47 PM
seagull, then why aren't those checks working? Mr. Bush clearly abused his power in wire taps. He also clearly abused his power when he took this country to war. He also overstepped his bounds with bringing religion into state matters.

Is it okay that Mr. Gonzales, the Atty. General, backs him up when clearly these abuses are in place?

Are you truly sure the system of "checks and balances" is working?

I don't see the judiciary, nor the Congress doing anything to check his power, except for Mr. Feingold's push for a Censure.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:30 AM
To the best of my knowledge, and I freely admit that I am no expert on these matters; the legality or illegality of the wiretaps fall into a gray area of neither one nor the other.

As far as the Attorney General approving the wiretaps, that is his job, to find ways within the law as it is written to support the presidents decisions.
Does that mean that I am particularly comfortable with this? I'm not comfortable with this at all. However...this is a time of war, and comfortable and war don't often go together.

A censure of a sitting president, particularly a president who is in his last term, is a potent message that lameduck status isn't far away. Not to mention that some Republicans are becoming disenchanted with him as well. Not a check as defined by the constitution maybe, but a check nevertheless.

I don't think that Mr. Bush is part of any nefarious plan for global domination, or has any plan for a dictatorship here in the states. Does he bear watching? Of course. As much as any leader with the kinds of power that the President of the United States is capable of wielding. That is our job as citizens of this country. It's our job to keep the leaders honest.

To your comment about the judiciary, I am sure that somewhere some member or members of said judiciary are indeed looking into not only the wiretaps themselves, but the thinking involved in justifying them. I would truely be surprised if there weren't.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:22 AM
Nah, I don't think so. A dictator would care one whit about medicare or tax breaks or anything that even amounts to social charity. Besides what is the first thing that goes in a dictatorship, religion. We ain't seen that disappear so no, we aren't in one yet.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:49 AM
Regarding the wiretaps, I have a question: If the NYT had not leaked the story of the program, do you think it would still be in existence? Of course it would.

So what does that tell us about the bi-partisan group of eight Senators who received regular briefings on the matter, and who never complained before?

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:00 AM
I would say there are two possible explanations: 1) The eight senators of the oversight group were in on it. Which is unlikely. Or, 2) The wiretaps were exactly what the administration said they were, the tapping of calls to suspected terrorists, or proven terrorists. There is a third I suppose, that will undoubtably be a popular one, 3) The administration is lying and they are actually monitoring all calls to everyone, everywhere.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:26 AM

Originally posted by ceci2006
But, with all the discussion of the POTUS ignoring the Constitution and restoring more executive privileges to his office, do you guys think that he is bordering on setting up a dictatorship?

emphasis added. Well-said.

And I think yes, the USA is bordering on setting up a dictatorship. Not a conventional one with one single man, as the dictator, making all the decisions, rather a small group as the ruling body. And I'm not convinced George Bush is actually one of those people, rather I think he's a mouthpiece, a figure head. This group of people, I call BushCo, for lack of a better name.

Are we living in a dictatorship yet? Obviously not. But are we headed there in a handbasket? Definitely. To say that we're not currently in a dictatorship, is similar to observing a carload of people heading full-speed right toward the Grand Canyon and claiming that the people in the car are not dead, so there's nothing to worry about.

I mean, can we not see the signs? Those people are going to die if something doesn't change. And if something doesn't change in our government, we will be under a dictatorship. It's moving that way. And more obviously (to me) every day.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:52 AM
This is a question that I keep meaning to ask, but for some reason I never do. So here goes.

Assuming for the moment that the evil neocons are attempting to set up a dictatorship...who are the movers and shakers involved in this huge conspirecy? Could someone come up with some names?

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:09 AM

Originally posted by seagull
Could someone come up with some names?

I can only guess, but I suspect the PNAC crowd. And they're probably really the front men for a group of guys we've never heard about.

Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
John Bolton
James Woolsey
Richard Perle
Bill Kristol

The PNAC Primer

In the early-1990s, there was a group of ideologues and power-politicians on the fringe of the Republican Party's far-right. The members of this group in 1997 would found The Project for the New American Century (PNAC); their aim was to prepare for the day when the Republicans regained control of the White House -- and, it was hoped, the other two branches of government as well -- so that their vision of how the U.S. should move in the world would be in place and ready to go, straight off-the-shelf into official policy.
1. In 1992, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had a strategy report drafted for the Department of Defense, written by Paul Wolfowitz, then Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy. In it, the U.S. government was urged, as the world's sole remaining Superpower, to move aggressively and militarily around the globe. The report called for pre-emptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions, but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The central strategy was to "establish and protect a new order" that accounts "sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership," while at the same time maintaining a military dominance capable of "deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." Wolfowitz outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.

But I could be wrong...

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:30 AM
Those are the same names I always run across when the subject comes up. I was really hoping for some new ones. Oh well, back to looking again.

My opinion of these people mirror yours to a large degree, if they are indeed involved in an attempt to start a dictatorship, they are far too exposed to be anything more than puppets. There are movers and shakers behind the scenes somewhere.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 11:03 AM

Originally posted by seagull
Those are the same names I always run across when the subject comes up. I was really hoping for some new ones. Oh well, back to looking again.
There are movers and shakers behind the scenes somewhere.

If you accept the premise that somewhere in our world, there is a group of men whose goal in life is to make the lives of the common man miserable, then you should look at who has the ability to shake the world's commerce and finance. Everything else is a fallout from that.

I'd also ask myself why someone would want the pain and trouble of establishing a US dictatorship. There must be a million better ways to practice masochism.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 11:19 AM
I don't except the notion of an attempt to create a dictatorship here in the US. It's a notion with far too many insurmountable problems to be even remotely possible. It would require the aquiesence of not only Congress, but the military, not to mention the American people, who aren't the doorknobs that some seem to think they are. None of these are going to go along with any sort of attempted dictatorship.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:32 PM
Ok, I guess we are talking theory here. Let's say the carload of folks headed over the edge is true. You'd have the constitutionalist assasinating folks of office. I think that there are some groups who are true patriots who will not let this thing get out of hand like that. I would tend to agree that most folks aren't going to be turned by an outright flick of the wrist at the doorknob, but I think also that if we are being set up it is by degrees. Like cooking a live frog and the old saying about that. Possible but I still think improbable. You'd have a few skilled snipers to thank for taking out anyone who tried...IMHO. BTW I can't shoot that well (maybe out to 600-800 yards in a 4-8 inch group so don't come calling saying I am advocating shooting the President or anything, I happen to like the guy and I think he is getting a bum rap from the media). I have seen PDB's and you guys don't know half of what is going on. So there is my .02

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 01:52 PM

Originally posted by seagull
I don't except the notion of an attempt to create a dictatorship here in the US. It's a notion with far too many insurmountable problems to be even remotely possible. It would require the aquiesence of not only Congress, but the military, not to mention the American people, who aren't the doorknobs that some seem to think they are. None of these are going to go along with any sort of attempted dictatorship.

This is the big, overlooked factor that the naysayers fail to take into account. The will and the strength of the American people... it will ultimately overcome the negative attitudes that are becoming more prevalent each day.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 05:44 PM
The only way that can persuade me that we are in a country rule by dictatorship is that you watch tv that shows Bush only on one channel and no other channels exist and that it displays Bush's face and voice 24/7. Also that we are forced out of our homes and stand outside and cheer for America's military might roaring down the streets as Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles are passing by and we see Bush saluting. Also that all books in libraries about criticizing Bush or his policies must be burned or banned. Thats dictatorship right there.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:44 PM
People fail to think past the linear, past the text book definitions of "fascism" & "dictatorship" and "oligarchy", all of which are here now in America.
The caveat emptor is the adjective - hybrid.
Bush is the figurehead of a Party Dictatorship. One that has illegally placed that figurehead in power in 2000 via the corrupted judicial branch, gerrymandered districts & left 90% of voter tabulation to GOP owned companies with no papertrail or no access to source code for the voting kiosks to ensure the Legislative branch and margin of victory in 2004 in the Executive.

THAT IS A DICTATORSHIP, but with an entity other than a single human, like a corporation.
Stop looking for a funny mustache or holly around the head & togas......the dictator has been in front of your eyes hiding in plain sight for 6 years.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:28 PM
you sure the plan isn't to just run the us into the dirt, drag it a few million miles and leave it's dead corpse for the buzzards and then move on to china or some other emerging "superpower"?

sorry, but had to ask...seems like by the time these guys get done with it, no self respecting dictator would want her, what with all the debt and other headaches....

[edit on 21-3-2006 by dawnstar]

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 12:28 AM
Gee, a day of doing work in the real world and I come back to a sensational debate about executive powers....


Well, after reading everyone's comments, I have done a lot of thinking about this matter. I would have to agree with Bout Time and Benevolent Heretic. We are not in a "dictatorship" in a sense. However, we are headed there in a handbasket. Mr. Bush is not a "dictator", but I truly think he has abused the rights of the constitution. Two sections of the Constitution sets this up to a degree:

Article II of the Constitution sets up the Executive Powers. What caught my eye is section four:

The President, Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

Why is this section compelling? Because the POTUS has clearly participated in "high crimes and misdemeanors". I'm sure the list is long, but I will name a few that has particularly troubled me since the 2000 elections:

1)As Bout Time mentioned, the tampering of the vote machines. In Florida, people in Broward and Dade counties were allegedly falsely accused of felonies and were unable to vote. This also counts with the use of the DieBold machines across the country, namely Ohio. Without an "accurate" count of who actually voted (without a paper trail) propelling the POTUS in office, I would certainly think that this was a "high crime and misdemeanor".

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked
Black Box
Voter's Rights

2)Going to war without the consent of Congress. I'm sure that this has been covered in many times or many ways, but I would also think that this is a illegitimate expansion of Executive privilege.

Congress Explicitly Said War Resolution Did Not Expand Executive Power

3)Domestic Illegal Wiretapping of American Citizens. Okay,seagull made an interesting observation in his second point that possibly Bush might have been telling the truth and actually used this to root out terrorists. However, how does one explain the spying of a Quaker peace group?

Bad Targeting
Checking Big Brother

The second section has to do with Article III, section 3 which defines the act of treason against the United States. Article three sets up the Judiciary, BTW:

Treason against the United States, shall consists only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

I'm not sure about the "treason" part yet, but certainly there has been a lot of "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy. The Bin Ladens and the Bushes have been long time partners and friends. Can anyone tell me why a plane load of the Bin Laden family could fly out of the country when all of the other airplanes in America were grounded? Furthermore, I still am bothered that Bin Laden has had a long association with the US military in the war of Afghanistan and Russia. And then, he suddenly turned into an enemy in the last part of the Clinton presidency and on 9/11? Where did the love go? Perhaps, it never died. After all, instead of striking up a war with Saudi Arabia, we go into Afghanistan and Iraq. And Bin Laden remains undiscovered by anyone. Gee, I wonder why.

So, do I think that we are in a "dictatorship"? Not likely yet. But does the media give more face time to Bush all six years (counting even today)? Yes, and not only on FOX News. Did Bush circumvent the constitution in order to execute the wishes of the PNAC'ers and benefit from giving "aid and comfort to the enemy"? Allegedly right into his and Cheney's pockets. Are our First(free speech) and Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) rights slowly eroding as we speak? You betcha.

As Benevolent Heretic said, we are on that slippery slope toward an ogliarchy that solely want to benefit themselves under the guise of "superpatriotism" (not my term, Michael Parenti wrote a book defining the phenomenon happening in America since 9/11).

This has nothing to do with an anti-Bush point of view. I'm sure Mr. Bush is a likable guy. You could probably have beer with him. But, when it comes to policy and matters that affect the citizens of the United States, Mr. Bush's likability is not important at all.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by ceci2006]

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:06 AM
cici and Bouttime,

You guys are funny. I'd give you my vote for best comedy if ATS had one.

<<   2  3 >>

log in