Do you think Bush, is capable of seizing and retaining power by use of the military before or by 2008?

Question

Also do you think it is likely, after all he has acted like a dictator, ignoring the Constitution, and the bill of rights? That is the logical next step, and how , if done do you think he would do it? Also he was never really elected, he was appointed by a court.

Answer 1

He may well attempt something, but is not in nearly so good a position to do so as he had hoped. His bolt-hole being constructed in the heart of the nazi refuge area in Paraguay (at your expense) will be ready when his plans fail.

Due to his hollow protestations of religious faith, we should send him on his way in 2009 with a public lapidation.

Answer 2

I do wish our government would maintain a "stiff-upper lip" with regards to the Falkland Islands. If its inhabitants wish to remain British, there is nothing more to be discussed. Entering into slanging matches with Buenos Aires is just ridiculous. Regarding the comments made by Howarth, the Argentinian military never recovered from its defeat in 1982. The Falkland Islands are better defended now than they ever were. Edit: @ Niall 2nd. – What has your nationality got to do with anything? At least when the British arrived in the Falkland Islands it was a barren rock. The Spanish, on the other hand, invaded Argentina and massacred the native population. Edit: @ phloyd – There is controversy as to who was first to discover the Falkland Islands, with competing Portuguese, Spanish and British claims in the 16th century. Edit: @ Niall 2nd. – I don't deny the British Empire was founded upon bloodshed and injustice. But, for Argentina to accuse the United Kingdom of colonialism over the Falkland Islands is a poor joke. Those in glass houses should not throw stones.

Answer 3

No, at that point the second amendment would come into play, and the military would rightfully refuse to obey his orders. In fact, if both houses of congress say NO to more troups, and the population by a huge majority also says no, I think they are close to the point where they could reasonably disobey his orders and refuse to put more of our brave men and women in harms way to salve Bush's ego.

Answer 4

Can you say Martial Law? 6 months before the next election another terrorist attack takes place in America-one that makes 911 look like a fender bender. Bush calls for martial law. Under martial Law he would have full control and say. He could suspend any elections. Forget your constitution, it wouldnt exist anymore. And the military would be so Gung Ho and ready for revenge on the enemy they would be willing to do whatever it takes, inclucing firing on American citizens. All the sheep go right along with it....to keep their freedoms "Safe".
Probably wont happen. But i certainly dont trust him and wouldnt put it past him.

Answer 5

The way he has treated military commanders I can definitely say that they would give him no support. Military personnel are not obligated to follow illegal orders, and assisting a President to violate the Constitution is an illegal order. Also, the American people would not tolerate it. His own cabinet, out of fear of being put on trial, would revolt against him. If the President would attempt such an act I think he would find himself under arrest. The Constitution makes no provision for such an act, but i think that the Attorney General could assume the right to issue a warrant for the President's arrest for trying to nullify the Constitution.

Answer 6

Uh, no.

He has NOT acted like a dictator, he has not ignored the Constitution and he was not appointed by a court. These may be the liberal shibboleths, but they are not the truth. But, go ahead, keep telling yourself lies, if you think that will serve you well.

It's pretty obvious you have never had any contact or knowledge of the military. The vast majority of the personnel would never support a coup, and would actually fight against it. You see, they did not take an oath to support the President, or Congress, or obey any order given them. They took an oath to defend the Constitution, and to obey only legal orders, of which occupying D.C is not one.

Next logical step! You deal in fantasy and delusions, then talk about logic? Pah!

Answer 7

No this is not possible.

The amusing thing is that people said the same things about Clinton, and Bush Sr., and Reagan, and Carter, Ford, Nixon . . .

Just because you disagree with somebody's politics does not make them evil - or a 'dictator.'

Answer 8

"The Pridefull villager thinks his hometown contains the whole world, and as long as he can stay on as mayor or humiliate the rival who stole his sweetheart or watch his nest egg accumulating in its strongbox he believes the world to be in good order, unaware of the giants in seven league boots who can crush him underfoot or the battling comets in the heavens that go through the air devouring the sleeping worlds." (1)
Such is the people of the United States, they cry, "he could take over the country but the military would save us", and is answered by, "we have elections to prevent men usurping power and laws they have to abide by, don't worry."
Yet they do not know of the laws that are being broken every day until someone has the courage to point them out, and then the messenger is destroyed by the side that idolizes a man or group of men, and the ones who spoke of Law find out it is not on the books anymore, "but don't worry someone will save us."
Their plastic wealth is good, they see new skateboard parks for their kids and people driving grand autos to shopping malls, "the world is in good order"
A city faced with a disaster of natural occurances sees over 2/3rds of its popualce moved without chance of return to be replaced by men with money and rebuilt with a partys of governances access to public treasury yet thir community is in good order.
65% of its populace think its priomary leader whom they elected is a failure in making war upon a defensless country yet he remains and continues to maek war upon that county, yet their hometown is in good order.
teh government has given the Naval Intelligence the authority to oversee domestic spying upon its populace and no one questions why the military and not civilain, but their home town is in good order.
They have a Homeland Security Administration that is so secret only those who work there know what ruels they work under, yet their hometown is in good order.
The government builds secret holding facilitys for some future need that could house over 3 millions of people but refuses to say what could cause such a need, but thier hometown is in good order.
The government says in some situations it is alright to torture even unto death, hold people without trail, invade yoru PC and all without having to tell anyone why they need to do so, yet, their hometown is in good order.
What need worrry about elections fair or foul when those we elect do not have to let the popualce know the rules they rule us under, as long as they keep up the appearnces in the home town that their world is in order?

Answer 9

Its possible but then again i think he has lost too much support. I think he has burned too many bridges with people he would need to do this. People at the Pentagon and your average Joe in the military. Yeah, the military might be mostly republican-but then again they arent stupid enough to go for that.

Answer 10

I really do not think he has that in mind.That will not happen in the USA.People are far more intelligent to allow this.The other countries that this has happened in were and are full of peasants.Corporate America would never allow this,they in fact run this world.I think he is ready to move on.You can look at him and see the stress he endures,and I think he is tired.