Will the Bushistas willingly step down on January 20, 2009?

[Fridays Child]

Will those who now operate the levers of power in this country and who have been systematically shredding the Constitution, bit by bit, "go gentle into that good night," come January 20, 2009? Will the neocons pat each other on the back and say, "We've had a good run but it's time to step aside because that's how this great democracy works?"

Or do they have a plan that will ensure their continued control, by hook or by crook?

What does your gut tell you? What does your head tell you?

[daninthemoon]

1. Ask me in about two weeks.

[Fridays Child]

2. What's going to happen in two weeks?

[daninthemoon]

4. after patreusspeech, bushlerspeech, 9/11 anniversery,9/15 peace rally.

[Fridays Child]

8. Oh, okay. But I'm not sure how those events will make any difference.

Enough evidence exists to conclude that they plan to sit tight. They just haven't undermined civil rights and created a unitary executive with the intention of handing over the reins of power to someone not under their control.

[grasswire]

3. of course they can override the Constitution

That's silly. They CAN stay. Whether they do will depend on the level of guts the Decider has.

[Fridays Child]

5. Yes, it depends on the decider but, maybe, more so on Cheney.

And I don't think Cheney wants to step down.

[Ghost in the Machine]

6. They haven't subverted our government and shredded the Constitution to give

themselves all this unilateral power just to walk away into the sunset and hand that power over to someone else. It doesn't take critical thinking skills to reason that out....

[Fridays Child]

7. This is my view, too. They haven't done all of this just to shut up and go home.

The only conclusion that makes a lick of sense to me is that they have every intention of remaining in power, after 1/20/09.

[Ghost in the Machine]

10. I'm hoping this analysis bears fruit

Conclusion: Exposing those Responsible for the B-52 Incident

Consequently, there is considerable circumstantial evidence to argue that the nuclear armed B-52 was part of a covert operation, outside the regular chain of military command. The most plausible authority responsible for this was Vice President Cheney. He very likely used the Secret Service to take charge of a contrived National Special Security Event involving a nuclear armed B-52 that would be flown from Minot AFB. The B-52 was directed to Barksdale Air Force base where it would have conducted a covert mission to the Middle East involving the detonation of one or more nuclear weapons most likely in or in the vicinity of Iran. This could either have occurred during a conventional military strike against Iran, or a False Flag operation in the Persian Gulf region.

- snip -

While the general public is likely to be given a watered down declassified report by the Air Force over the B-52 incident on September 14, the real investigation will reveal that it was part of a covert operation that intended to bypass the regular chain of command in using nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This will likely result in a furious backlash by key figures in the regular military chain of Command such as Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and the Commander of Central Command, Admiral William Fallon, who have direct responsibility for the conduct of military operations in the Middle East.

The US. Air Force, the Secretary of Defense and Commander of Central Command, is now aware of what was likely going to be the true use of the B-52 and the responsibility of the Office of the Vice President. It is very likely that the exposure of the B-52 incident will lead to an indefinite hold on plans to attack Iran given uncertainty whether other nuclear weapons have been covertly positioned for use in the Middle East.

Significantly, public officials briefed about the true circumstances of the B-52 incident will almost certainly place enormous pressure on Vice President Cheney to immediately resign if it is found that he played the role identified above. It is therefore anticipated that in a very short time, the public will learn that Cheney has resigned for health reasons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x173147
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember what that 'mystery poster' said about Cheney being gone in 3 weeks??

[Fridays Child]

20. Jeebus! That's frightening.

I'm going to look at that thread, thoroughly, including the links. In the meantime, could you direct me to information regarding the mystery poster who said that Cheney would be gone in three weeks? I've not read anything about that.

[Ghost in the Machine]

22. Link: - - - - >>>

Terri S (730 posts) Mon Aug-27-07 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
16. Mystery Poster says....
"Now that the Justice department is finished with it's house cleaning, The rest of the deal Bush made to spare himself impeachment will begin. The Cheney resignation will be forth coming within the time frame I estimated last week. There are three weeks left on that clock. If you look through obscure posts from three weeks ago until last week, you will see my original predictions about Rove (perfectly timed) and Gonzales (also one week prior as stated) Deny my accuracy and attribute it to coincedence or guessing if you like, but within three weeks from this day the dark one falls. The deal has been made and the substance of it is out. I am not a mystic and do not own a crystal ball. I do however own many devices that are able to communicate messages through the air. These have been put to great use.. Cheney is next, and you heard it here first. AS I STATED WITH MY OTHER POSTS MARK THIS ONE! Do not talk of it, Just mark it! It will be a great remebrance!" --- from TPM post

Mark your calendars!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1675103#1675834

[n2doc]

9. depends on november 08

If Ghouliani wins, they get to keep going with someone even more dishonest than dumbo. If a Dem wins, especially if they are on the more liberal side of the spectrum of candidates, then maybe. If it is Kucinich, Certainly.

[Flabbergasted]

11. No - they're is no incentive to stay in power and overide the constitution.

[Fridays Child]

14. Seriously?

Or are you just being snarky? Becuase I can imagine all kinds of incentives for staying in power, and they all boil down to greed.

[Flabbergasted]

15. These guys make more money outside of government.

[Fridays Child]

17. Well, I hope that idea will lure them away.

But I'm not confident.

[Flabbergasted]

19. Believe me they know as well as us that the US economy is a vehicle that no one will wish

to drive once Bush is done. It may take ten more years but they can get the job done with Thompson or Guiliani as well.

[grytpype]

12. They will be glad to get out of office and and the Iraq War to a Democrat.

Then the blame-shifting begins.

[lpbk2713]

13. Other ....

... they'll remove all the (D)'s from all the keyboards.

[Danieljay]

16. yes, and probably hand the baton to whoever beats Hillary in the general election.

Ouch, did I say that?

[silverweb]

18. I just don't know.

My best hopes and my worst fears are at war with each other.

[Fridays Child]

21. I know exactly what you mean. But, lately...

...it is my worst fears that have been winning.

[silverweb]

24. Never give up hope.

Ever.

:hug:

[Fridays Child]

25. Thanks...

I think we all definitely need to hear that, from time to time. :hug:

[billyoc]

23. Of course they'll leave. They've wiped out the tax base and the treasury's empty.

There's nothing left to steal. They haven't left a scrap of flesh on America's carcass for
the buzzards to peck at.

They won.