Cheney Urged Sending Troops Into Buffalo in 2002  

Well based on that and a few other stories I've read it seems clear that Bush wasn't afraid to stand up to Cheney. That would have been a horrendous violation of the constitution and clearly, was not the best, or a necessary way of doing things. We have plenty of domestic law enforcement divisions that are trained and equipped to deal with these situations. The military is not.

At the same time, I would like to point out that sometimes a president wants ALL options, even those he wouldn't dare consider. Just because the option was on the table doesn't mean it was really being pushed that hard.

I was reading that the other day and I was very impressed with Bush for making the right decision. I can now say that Bush did 2 right things while in office, and both had to do with with standing up to Dyck. I suppose Dyck doesn't have much value of the Constitution, shockingly aren't all conservatives bytching about Obama having the same problem? LOL

Bush had almost no reguard for Posse Commitatus for the most part, he demonstrated that when he signed the repeal of the act that allowed this type of thing by including a statement that the executive branch STILL did not "feel compelled" to comply with the original text of Posse Commitatus. I have to admit I'm suprised he didn't go through with this and it almost nausiates me to have to give him credit for it.
I have been pulling the warning alarm cord on this whole issue for a year now and was largely ignored, branded a conspiricy theorist and generaly told I was an alarmist. All this despite putting up links to actual articles from the military times.MIL website and NorthCom's website.
It still goes on, this isn't over. There are STILL troops stationed on U.S. soil who's mission is readiness to enforce civil law on home soil and in fact, it has already happened once in Alabama. Obama has not repealed it, he has not re commissioned those troops. If you are this outraged over Cheny being willing to do this, you should be expressing equal outrage over Obama's same stance. Untill these troops are stood down, we still have the same threat to deal with.

It wouldn't have been and "unprecented" use of military power. Though it would have been as unconstitutional and illegal as the military attack on the Branch Dividians at Waco.



"You probably never expected to read this by me, but I'm very thankful nothing happened to George W. Bush during his term and that nobody got any bright ideas about impeaching him and leaving the D1ck Cheney in charge!"

That's why I call the office of VP "the flak jacket". The person chosen needs to be someone the opposition would hate to see in the Oval Office more than the one whose president.

I suspect that one of the reasons they didn't impeach Bush when they had the numbers was Cheney. They didn't want him in charge and to take both of them out of the picture would have created such an overwhelming, time-consuming and expensive process that even less would get done in Congress than is done now. Not to mention, it would leave the position at the top open for Nancy Pelosi to fill, which for me anyway, isn't all that good, either. Cheney is a dangerous, dangerous man. We are well rid of him.

Wow... I always thought he should be on the nut farm, this proves it.

I very well recall there was a person with a level head that took the reigns when FDR died. Harry "the buck stops here" Truman.