From: Gene McAloon 

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:46:16 +0200, Phil Payne
 wrote:

>> Such a thing couldn't possibly happen because there is no mechanism to bring
it
>> about, nothing. Further, it would be unconstitutional on the face of it. Why
in
>> heaven's name is anyone even discussing this twaddle?  Have you all gone
insane?
>
>The fact that something is unconstitutional has no effect on Shrub.  I can
>well imagine him using the same language that was used about the Geneva
>Conventions - wasn't the word "quaint"?

Even though Bush is a born-again Christian, a far-right ideologue and about
the dumbest president we have had in modern times, not taking a back seat
even to Reagan in that regard, there are limits even for a man like him. If
he is not aware of them, his advisors are, not to mention the courts.

Bush could say what he did about the Geneva Conventions because most
Americans don't really know much about them and care less. At that, they
know that a country like the US can violate the Conventions mostly with
impunity. So, Bush can describe the Conventions as "quaint" and
easily get away with it, but were he to describe the Constitution or even a
law that way there would be hell to pay and he would have no chance
whatsoever of re-election.  In fact, it would be
an unprecedented scandal that would shake up this country as no other has,
including quite possibly impeachment.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5