Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You haven't read HIS INSANE DRIVEL BEFORE? He thinks only people that think like him should have a vote and that only THEY matter. Thats why he keeps claiming that Congress doesn't have the right to not end the war. somehow because they do not have the majority needed to do it, they should still be able to ignore the Constitution and the laws that Govern our Country.
Now mind you when someone he doesn't like does EXACTLY what he wants done, they are evil, bad, nasty... pick an adjective. But if they do what he wants... all is good in the world. Ohh ya and he thinks our Constitution is illegal as well.
Oh ya---he's just a fine example of how the democrats vote for something thinking that it just might work and they want to go on record as having supported it. Then they bitch and moan when it doesn't work out for them politically. It's classic how Petraeus is being called the presidents' patsy after they were part of a unanimous vote approving him.
On the other hand we always have Republicans who you are a fine example of "how Republicans vote and when others die because of their votes they go home and take a shit in their toilet and go on about their daily lives all the while choosing to debate with those WHOSE LOVED ONES THEY MURDERED WITH THE BULLET THAT THEY CALL A VOTE. 
.
I'm confused as to how I not being a Democrat can be a "fine example of how democrats vote for something thinking that it just might work...."
People who join the military choose to do so for many different reasons and some do so out of a pure desire to defend their country from our enemies. That isn't what is at issue here. Once a soldier joins the military they no longer have as much freedom to decide where they are deployed and on whether they will fight because it is their duty to do so. This is where the right of soldiers in respect to being able to vote for their member of Congress and to ultimately have the ability to influence the direction of the war and U.S. policy comes into play. Here we have Congress's authority to commence, continue and conclude a war being subverted by the President and those who agree with him and that is a violation of the rights of the soldiers right to have a say in U.S. policy. They can't walk up to their commanding officer and start telling them their opinion or what they want instead they must rely on their basic right to vote and by extension the right of their member of Congress to defend their right to determine which war they will be a part of. This is true of those who do not serve in the military as well and this right is an equal right. Simply stated, soldiers do not give up their right to a say simply because they join the military because they still remain Americans with fundamental rights. It is this right which is being violated here. When no matter how they vote 38 men and women can essentially say whether this war will end.
You seem to have this twisted concept here of who elects the President and whose rights are being infringed. I am not arguing THAT THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR BUSH DON'T THINK WE SHOULD REMAIN IN IRAQ. They believe as he believes it but they don't get to put their interests ahead of ours. We do not wait for the President to be elected and rely on one man to decide whether we will be in a state of war. That power is a legislative one because it requires people to sacrifice more. Bush doesn't have to come home to my town every time Congress leaves session nor does he have to answer to those in my community or state. He is by virtue of his office removed from the people and their concerns. So what it comes down to is that the position of Republicans on this matter is that THE PRESIDENT ALONG WITH 34 OTHER PEOPLE WILL DECIDE WHEN THIS WAR IS OVER and that is the crux of the matter. No matter how we voted in 2006 we still do not have enough to end the war and the only way we can truly end this war is if we elect an overwhelming majority of the Congress and the President. In essence we need to elect 2/3rds plus 1 of the House and 2/3rds plus 1 of the Senate and the Presidency if we want this war to end. That means that it takes only a handful of people to take us into a war (i.e., the President) but it take 358 people to get us out of it. Now if that isn't idiotic than I do not know what is. The entire argument about how soldiers do not have to join ignores the fact that soldiers join because of their love for their country and their desire to defend it and it is the ultimate act of betrayal to send them to die for your own opinion in a war of offense and not defense. No soldier in his right mind thinks he will be sent to fight and die in a war of offense when joining the military and the liberals of the 1770's and 1780's stated this quite eloquently when they condemned wars of offense as purely evil. There is a reason for that and that is that we are basically telling our soldiers: IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE ARBITRARILY DISPOSED OF AND DEPLOYED IN WARS OF OFFENSE THAN DON'T JOIN SINCE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE ISN'T THE PROTECTION IT USED TO BE AGAINST US ENTERING WARS OF CHOICE. The one reason the drafters of the Constitution wanted Congress to have the power to declare war is that they wanted them to debate it, discuss it, and ultimately come to a conclusion about whether we should be in a state of war. The days where the King could simply take us into a war were something they did not want to re-hash. This is the fundamental right I am speaking of. There isn't a single consitutional provision that gives the President a veto power over Congress on starting a war, continuing a war or concluding that war. He has no co-equal power with Congress in this area and his role is that of the "chief general and admiral of the land and naval forces" and the drafters took the term "commander in chief" from the British military system where the person who oversees the day to day operations of the military is the commander in chief. This wasn't the King instead it was the chief general or admiral and he often was on the ships or in the field in that time. Now we don't conduct war that way but the principle remains the same. The President was not delegated the power to set U.S. policy in respect to war. He does not share this power with Congress and they retain it exclusively.
Okay. I think that I understand what your issue/gripe is about. It is your position that the president is assuming too much authority on the Iraq war when it is congress that declares war. Is this somewhat your issue? If so, it is my understanding that with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq, congress authorized the presidnet to practically declare war. In Bush’s second campaign – the one against Kerry – didn’t conservatives make fun of Kerry’s flip-flop comment about authorizing the war?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml
Hillary regrets authorizing military action. Hillary Clinton told the “Today” show that she wouldn’t have voted for the war in Iraq if only she knew then what she knows now.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ar...ton_says_she_wouldnt_have_voted_for_iraq_war/
So as I understanding, congress gave Bush the “go ahead” to declare and run the war” while congress can still vote to withhold funds. I’m not sure but I think that it can even vote to end the war. Anyway, wheter it can or it can’t, congress did allow Bush to practically declare war and run it.
I'm confused as to how I not being a Democrat can be a "fine example of how democrats vote for something thinking that it just might work...."
In this particular case, the question is "why the hell not?.Notice, as I said, the Dems are attacking the general BEFORE he even presents any information to Congress. Before they even ask him any questions they are already proclaiming anything he has to say is "wrong" How convenient that is.
OF course, they really had no choice since Bush had already fired all the preceeding generalsthat disagreed with him. so they had to agree to someone.Congress assigned Patraeus to Iraq ?
In this particular case, the question is "why the hell not?.
Betrayus got his job because he held his mouth the right way when talking to Bush,
Bush said he would listen to his Generals. and he did exactly that- then promptly fired them for having a different opinion from him.
Betrayus for the Fourth or fifth general to get the nod before Bush found one that would agree with him.
Now Bush says he is buying into Bertayus's plan, when in truth, it is Bush's plan that Betrayus is Buying into, and most of us knew it long before Betrayus spoke his peice.
Dishonorble no. dishonest, most definitely, (or at least dilusional). Yep, I think that is betrayal. and the friend of my enemy becomes my enemy ----BUSH IS MY ENEMY. at least politically, and philisophically)That isn't quite fair. First off, I don't think anyone thinks Petraus is dishonorable. I think he bought his boss time to get out of Dodge and leave the problem to the next president. Is that betrayal? I don't think so. The military doesn't make policy, it effectuates a mission. The mission right now is to tamp down some of the violence to the extent possible.
You might do yourself some good if you enlisted in the Armed Forces of the United States and go see the truth first hand.
