Why doesn't Bush just arrest Harry Reid and Howard Dean for treason

[kpete]

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Why doesn't Bush just arrest Harry Reid and Howard Dean for treason, have them shot, and be done with it?
by John in DC - 1/10/2006 07:03:00 PM


Seriously. If Bush is going to go on national TV and declare that the Democratic leader in the Senate (Harry Reid), the head of the Democratic Party (Howard Dean), and a lead Democratic Senator (Dick Durbin) are committing treason by "giving comfort to our adversaries" by criticizing Bush's disastrous handling of the Iraq war, then arrest all three of them and have them summarily shot without a trial and let's be done with it.

I'm serious. If our president is going to argue in favor of America embracing the ideals of a Soviet police state, if that's the reason hundreds of thousands of Americans gave their lives during WWII, if that's the reason 160,000 US soldiers are risking their lives in Iraq right now, all for the purpose of America touting the ideals of our worst enemies, some of the most repressive and hated dictatorships in the history of the world, then be enough of a man to admit it, do it, and be done with it.

Otherwise shut up and start acting like the commander in chief of the greatest democracy on earth rather than some sniveling coward who doesn't even known enough about his own country, let alone the world, to understand what it is we're really fighting for.

http://www.americablog.org/

[flordehinojos]

1. he will, just as soon as he can come up with more iron power and a good

excuse as to why he is arresting them.

[toymachines]

2. from wiretapping to death

There is a gap between wiretapping political adversaries and killing them. But the slope has been made slippery.

[Joe for Clark]

3. Your logic is dead on.

All B*sh can do here is try and blame someone else for the mess he created.

If he really believed what he said, why no follow-thru??

I know why, you know why and I think about 2/3 of the country knows why. It does seem for some reason about a third of the country does not seem to even know what country they are from.

Anyway, your point is right-on.

Joe

[Sparkman]

4. The Neo-Cons have become similar to Royalty...like the Nixon W/H in '72

thinking they can appoint whomever fits their "criminal enterprise" business plan.
And let's be realistic, corporate amerika has more wealth than to corrupt politicians than at any time in U.S. history. As time elapses, their reign will only deteriorate, because what's to stop them. Money is the name of the game, and 2000 election results prove that they will do anything to steal power away from our once upon a time democracy.

[Canuckistanian]

5. What's the limit, then?

Exactly which laws can he ignore? Which ones does he intend to follow?

And what do those 'signing statements' say?

There should be a national debate about presidential limits, the sooner, the better.

[JuniperLea]

6. If he truly believes they are guilty of treason

and does not take action, he is falling down on the job... so what's new? heh!

Seriously though, if he or any president believes that, then they must do something about it! That is all part of the job. Yeah, let's put that on the list of things he has not done that he should do as part of his job!