Biden: "Gen. Betrayus Flat Wrong On Iraq"

[CSM]

This is so predictable. If a report arrives that says that the surge is working, Republicans will cheer and give it more weight and exaggerate the positive points and minimize whatever negatives there are. The Democrats will pick the report apart and ask more questions about places in Iraq that may not be improving. They will criticize the general and provide comments from other military people who would give different opinions.

If the report turns out to be bad, the Republicans will minimize the report’s significance while interpreting it in their own way. The Democrats will exaggerate the negative comments and use it as evidence that there needs to be a change in strategy. This is all so predictable. The same was basically done with a previous report.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289050,00.html

You are soooo right! Somehow, the focus is more on the politics than on the facts. One more reason why I detest politicians!

 

[Edward]

The bottom line is that the general's opinion on matters affecting the militazry situation in Iraq are indeed within his perview! Changes in troop strength are not simply a political matter though you and others would have us believe that. Something you cannot seem to grasp is that the general's opinion on military matters does indeed caryy weight whether YOU like it or not. It is apparent that the Dems FEAR what the general has to say for exactly that reason; thus the pre-emptive attempt to discredit the general.

U.S. policy is not a "military matter" nor does the General have any perview in that respect. I never said the situation in Iraq or the troop strength is simply a political matter. I am saying it is a matter for the people to decide through their elected representatives (including our soldiers who are equal to Mr. Petraeus in this respect). Congress has the right of regulating and governing the armed services which means they have the right to regulate the number of troops, where those troops are sent and how long they are deployed. If Congress does not have that right than our soldiers are placed into a position where they are asked to follow orders without any opportunity to determine the very policy they are fighting for. That a Lt. in the Army doesn't have the same opportunity as Mr. Petraeus to give testimony before Congress means that they as experts in the actual fighting aren't being given the same weight as the general if he is allowed to give his opinion before Congress while they cannot. His opinion as a General doesn't carry anymore weight than the opinion of those who serve or have served in the military who disagree with him.

He is an American just like everyone else who has an opinion. The fact that Jim Webb was SECNAV while he is the Commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq doesn't mean that Senator Webb is more of an expert on military matters than he is or that his opinion carries more weight than Petraeus's. That is plain idiotic but that is what you are arguing. You are arguing that the opinions of lawyers on the Constitution carry more weight than those who are not attorneys or that the opinions of people who have served in the military or who hold a certain position carry more weight than those who have not. This is imply not true regardless of what your opinion is. My advice to David is that he should keep his opinion to himself and cast his vote on election day and give Congress a report on the status of the war and leave his opinion for the ballot box or when he runs for Congress or President. Then we the people (and members of Congress) can determine whether we agree with his opinion or not based on the facts.

 

[CSM]

U.S. policy is not a "military matter" nor does the General have any perview in that respect. I never said the situation in Iraq or the troop strength is simply a political matter. I am saying it is a matter for the people to decide through their elected representatives (including our soldiers who are equal to Mr. Petraeus in this respect). Congress has the right of regulating and governing the armed services which means they have the right to regulate the number of troops, where those troops are sent and how long they are deployed. If Congress does not have that right than our soldiers are placed into a position where they are asked to follow orders without any opportunity to determine the very policy they are fighting for. That a Lt. in the Army doesn't have the same opportunity as Mr. Petraeus to give testimony before Congress means that they as experts in the actual fighting aren't being given the same weight as the general if he is allowed to give his opinion before Congress while they cannot. His opinion as a General doesn't carry anymore weight than the opinion of those who serve or have served in the military who disagree with him.

He is an American just like everyone else who has an opinion. The fact that Jim Webb was SECNAV while he is the Commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq doesn't mean that Senator Webb is more of an expert on military matters than he is or that his opinion carries more weight than Petraeus's. That is plain idiotic but that is what you are arguing. You are arguing that the opinions of lawyers on the Constitution carry more weight than those who are not attorneys or that the opinions of people who have served in the military or who hold a certain position carry more weight than those who have not. This is imply not true regardless of what your opinion is. My advice to David is that he should keep his opinion to himself and cast his vote on election day and give Congress a report on the status of the war and leave his opinion for the ballot box or when he runs for Congress or President. Then we the people (and members of Congress) can determine whether we agree with his opinion or not based on the facts.

You cannot be serious! Do you actually believe the stuff you post? You seriously believe that military matters have no bearing on foreign policy????

As for Congress having the right too deploy troops etc. maybe you had better go read the Constitution again...you are missing something or deliberately being deceitful. Guess which one I think you are?

 

[Edward]

You are soooo right! Somehow, the focus is more on the politics than on the facts. One more reason why I detest politicians!

Somehow, the reports are always biased in favor of the opinion of those who write them. One more reason I detest people who serve in high positions who try to influence us to agree with their opinions by skewing reports to favor their opinions. This happens in almost every aspect of our society and I for one detest those who do it especially those in the military who attempt to mislead representatives and senators by doing more than just presenting the facts so members of Congress can decide on behalf of their neighbors what is in our best interests. Instead, we have assholes like you try to politicize everything and to somehow make it look like the political hacks in the Defense Department along with Petraeus are somehow giving an unbiased report. People like you openly advocate Petraeus giving his opinion to Congress and in essence call it an "expert opinion" based on reports he has written and then when members of Congress do the same sort of thing (i.e., form their own opinions based on the reports and facts) somehow they are being political and being typical politicians while some guy whose Mommy named him David isn't being political.

 

[CSM]

Somehow, the reports are always biased in favor of the opinion of those who write them. well duh! One more reason I detest people who serve in high positions who try to influence us to agree with their opinions by skewing reports to favor their opinions. Unlike yourself right? This happens in almost every aspect of our society and I for one detest those who do it especially those in the military who attempt to mislead representatives and senators by doing more than just presenting the facts so members of Congress can decide on behalf of their neighbors what is in our best interests. Something Congress themselves would never stoop so low to do! Instead, we have assholes I never claimed to be anything but!l ike you try to politicize everything and to somehow make it look like the political hacks in the Defense Department along with Petraeus are somehow giving an unbiased report. And assholes like you who somehow want us to believe everything YOU say is unbiased and true are supposed to be taken at face value, right? People like you openly advocate Petraeus giving his opinion to Congress and in essence call it an "expert opinion" based on reports he has written and then when members of Congress do the same sort of thing (i.e., form their own opinions based on the reports and facts) somehow they are being political and being typical politicians while some guy whose Mommy named him David isn't being political. Oh yeah, Congress is ALWAYS unbiased right?

You are either niaive, stupid or just downright deceitful. By the way, calling me an asshole (even if I am) has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Just like you being an idiot has nothing to do with the general's veracity or Cthe Dems hypocricy.

 

[Edward]

You cannot be serious! Do you actually believe the stuff you post? You seriously believe that military matters have no bearing on foreign policy????

Nice try but that isn't what I said and you know it. You are the ones who have chosen to use the term "military matters" to describe matters of government just like you both have chosen to use the term "political matters" to describe others as if they are separated one from another. The reality is that in respect to foreign relations the Congress has sole power in some instances such as declaring and making war and shares other powers with the President such as appointing people to offices of the United States. I am the one who is pointing out that U.S. policy is not a military matter anymore than it is a political matter instead it is a matter of government and the military doesn't determine U.S. policy and General Petraeus doesn't get to decide what U.S. policy. His duty is to report the facts to Congress and to the President and by extension to the American people so that an informed decision can be made based on those facts.

As for Congress having the right too deploy troops etc. maybe you had better go read the Constitution again...you are missing something or deliberately being deceitful. Guess which one I think you are?

First, I think I will read more than the Constitution including what those who wrote and opposed it said at the time. The term regulate was used to describe the ability of Congress to determine the number of troops, and to direct their activities. The Constitutions gives Congress the power to call up the Militia or what we refer to as the National Guard. They have complete control over the Militia in this respect and can order troops to be deployed. The President has no constitutional authority to order any member of the National Guard to duty in time of war. He doesn't have the power to "regulate" the army and navy of the United States. His power is one of direction when they are in the "actual service of the United States."

For example, Alexander Hamilton, "A stranger to our politics who was to read our newspapers at the present juncture, without having previously inspected the plan reported by the Convention, would be naturally led to one of two conclusions -- either that it contained a positive injunction, that standing armies should be kept in time of peace, or that it vested in the EXECUTIVE the whole power of levying troops, without subjecting his discretion in any shape to the controul of the legislature. If he came afterwards to peruse the plan itself, he would be suprised to discover that neither the one nor the other was the case -- that the whole power of raising armies was lodged in the legislature, not in the executive; that this legislature was to be a popular body consisting of the representatives of the people periodically elected -- and that instead of the provisions he had supposed in favour of standing armies, there was to be found, in respect to this object, an important qualification even of the legislative discretion, in that clause which forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period than two years: a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops with evident necessity." Here Hamilton is speaking of the "whole power of raising armies was lodged in the legislature, not in the executive." What does this tell us when you take this into context with his comment about the "power of levying troops." We understand what the term levying means. When we do we can clearly see that he is telling us the President does not have the power to levy troops and that Congress has this power of raising troops.

Quoting Hamilton again, "Secondly; the President is to be Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great-Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and Admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British King extends to the declaring of war and to raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the Constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature....The one would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of DECLARING war, and of RAISING and REGULATING fleets and armies by his own authority." Here he goes deeper into what he is talking about. He is describing the role of the Commander in Chief in commanding the troops. He is saying that the President does not have the power of DECLARING war, RAISING armies or REGULATING fleets and armies. Note the use of the word REGULATE here because it is important to note its meaning of the general direction of the land and naval forces.

Madison, states, "those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws." Simply stated, Bush and the military do not decide whether to go to war, continue the war or to conclude the war. That power rests with Congress. Contrary to what you may think the power of "making war" is a Congressional power and not an Executive power. The President doesn't determine the # of troops (especially those who are a part of the National Guard) involved in a war instead that power is possessed by Congress. He doesn't get to call up troops and then to act in a de facto manner. His role has NEVER been to RAISE troops which is what the surge is. He is now arguing he has the power to call up troops and to order them to Iraq which is the exact opposite of what the drafters of the Constitution intended.

Second, I do not support the Constitution and believe it is a tyrannical document and that whatever saving grace it has is largely limited to the Bill of Rights. That being said, I really don't care what you think of my motives because I know your motives when you vote is to impose your choice of who gets a vote on the laws upon everyone else and to deny those who do not vote for the same person as you do an equal vote on all matters before our government. That being the case your credibility is null as is that of those who continue to suggest that Congress has no power over the conduct of the war when in fact they have the power to "govern and regulate the land and naval forces" and anyone with even a basic grasp of the English language understands that this was not intended to be redundant and the two words "govern" and "regulate" have different meanings. When you take their meaning at the time you begin to realize that the King of England had both the power to "govern" the army and to "regulate" the army. Simply stated, he had the power to direct their actions without recourse to Congress which was rejected by those who wrote the Constitution but even beyond that those who opposed it opposed it because it didn't go far enough in this respect and I concur with them (i.e., they proposed an amendment requiring that 2/3rds of the Congress be required to declare war). The reason being that the burden of a war upon a people is so great that the people must decide to enter that war, continue that war and conclude it through their members of Congress. That being said, I believe you are a liar and that you deliberately twist and interpret the Constitution to suit your own sinister and evil motives and purposes as does those who support a unitary executive.

 

[CSM]

Nice try but that isn't what I said and you know it. You are the ones who have chosen to use the term "military matters" to describe matters of government just like you both have chosen to use the term "political matters" to describe others as if they are separated one from another. The reality is that in respect to foreign relations the Congress has sole power in some instances such as declaring and making war and shares other powers with the President such as appointing people to offices of the United States. I am the one who is pointing out that U.S. policy is not a military matter anymore than it is a political matter instead it is a matter of government and the military doesn't determine U.S. policy and General Petraeus doesn't get to decide what U.S. policy. His duty is to report the facts to Congress and to the President and by extension to the American people so that an informed decision can be made based on those facts.



First, I think I will read more than the Constitution including what those who wrote and opposed it said at the time. The term regulate was used to describe the ability of Congress to determine the number of troops, and to direct their activities. The Constitutions gives Congress the power to call up the Militia or what we refer to as the National Guard. They have complete control over the Militia in this respect and can order troops to be deployed. The President has no constitutional authority to order any member of the National Guard to duty in time of war. He doesn't have the power to "regulate" the army and navy of the United States. His power is one of direction when they are in the "actual service of the United States."

For example, Alexander Hamilton, "A stranger to our politics who was to read our newspapers at the present juncture, without having previously inspected the plan reported by the Convention, would be naturally led to one of two conclusions -- either that it contained a positive injunction, that standing armies should be kept in time of peace, or that it vested in the EXECUTIVE the whole power of levying troops, without subjecting his discretion in any shape to the controul of the legislature. If he came afterwards to peruse the plan itself, he would be suprised to discover that neither the one nor the other was the case -- that the whole power of raising armies was lodged in the legislature, not in the executive; that this legislature was to be a popular body consisting of the representatives of the people periodically elected -- and that instead of the provisions he had supposed in favour of standing armies, there was to be found, in respect to this object, an important qualification even of the legislative discretion, in that clause which forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period than two years: a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops with evident necessity." Here Hamilton is speaking of the "whole power of raising armies was lodged in the legislature, not in the executive." What does this tell us when you take this into context with his comment about the "power of levying troops." We understand what the term levying means. When we do we can clearly see that he is telling us the President does not have the power to levy troops and that Congress has this power of raising troops.

Quoting Hamilton again, "Secondly; the President is to be Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great-Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and Admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British King extends to the declaring of war and to raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the Constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature....The one would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of DECLARING war, and of RAISING and REGULATING fleets and armies by his own authority." Here he goes deeper into what he is talking about. He is describing the role of the Commander in Chief in commanding the troops. He is saying that the President does not have the power of DECLARING war, RAISING armies or REGULATING fleets and armies. Note the use of the word REGULATE here because it is important to note its meaning of the general direction of the land and naval forces.

Madison, states, "those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws." Simply stated, Bush and the military do not decide whether to go to war, continue the war or to conclude the war. That power rests with Congress. Contrary to what you may think the power of "making war" is a Congressional power and not an Executive power. The President doesn't determine the # of troops (especially those who are a part of the National Guard) involved in a war instead that power is possessed by Congress. He doesn't get to call up troops and then to act in a de facto manner. His role has NEVER been to RAISE troops which is what the surge is. He is now arguing he has the power to call up troops and to order them to Iraq which is the exact opposite of what the drafters of the Constitution intended.

Second, I do not support the Constitution and believe it is a tyrannical document and that whatever saving grace it has is largely limited to the Bill of Rights. That being said, I really don't care what you think of my motives because I know your motives when you vote is to impose your choice of who gets a vote on the laws upon everyone else and to deny those who do not vote for the same person as you do an equal vote on all matters before our government. That being the case your credibility is null as is that of those who continue to suggest that Congress has no power over the conduct of the war when in fact they have the power to "govern and regulate the land and naval forces" and anyone with even a basic grasp of the English language understands that this was not intended to be redundant and the two words "govern" and "regulate" have different meanings. When you take their meaning at the time you begin to realize that the King of England had both the power to "govern" the army and to "regulate" the army. Simply stated, he had the power to direct their actions without recourse to Congress which was rejected by those who wrote the Constitution but even beyond that those who opposed it opposed it because it didn't go far enough in this respect and I concur with them (i.e., they proposed an amendment requiring that 2/3rds of the Congress be required to declare war). The reason being that the burden of a war upon a people is so great that the people must decide to enter that war, continue that war and conclude it through their members of Congress. That being said, I believe you are a liar and that you deliberately twist and interpret the Constitution to suit your own sinister and evil motives and purposes as does those who support a unitary executive.

Well, ok then. I believe you are an idiot.

It must be very difficult for you to live in a world where reality keeps intruding upon your delusions!

 

[Edward]

You are either niaive, stupid or just downright deceitful. By the way, calling me an asshole (even if I am) has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Just like you being an idiot has nothing to do with the general's veracity or Cthe Dems hypocricy.

First, let me clarify something for your retarded ass. I am not a DEMOCRAT. Let me say that again ************. I am not a DEMOCRAT. Now that we have that little misconception out of the way we can address the substance of your statement. That being, that you are an asshole and it has everything to do with this discussion. Failing to discuss a person's character, motives and general disposition when discussing matters of such vital importance as life and death of Americans including expenditures of our resources is truly ignorant. So let's get to the heart of the discussion and cut through the crap you attempt to pile on. Whether you and the General are generally assholes and ignorant pieces of shit. Also, whether the General shits green turds in the Pentagon toilets has every bearing on this issue as well. Since I am sure his shit smells the same as everyone else if not worst.

Second, I do not disagree that Democrats are hypocrites. I just think they are less of hypocrites than Republicans who have demonstrated that they are not only hypocrites but are also evil people by nature. We have seen time and again their arrogance in taking us into this war and ignoring us when we do not want to be there. In simple words, "It cannot be the rule that the President needs a vote of only one-third plus one of either House in order to conduct a war, but this would be the consequence of holding that Congress must override a Presidential veto in order to terminate hostilities which it had not authorized." To give the President the power to veto an action of Congress declaring a war at an end or to draw down the troops is flagrantly unconstitutional but worst it is violation of our rights by him and those who support and agree with him.

In short, it is our fellow Americans who are sending our loved ones to die for their opinions while subverting our ability to even have a vote on the war which ultimately goes to the heart of the treason being committed against us by those who support this war. Whether Democrats are hypocrites or not has no bearing on this since I do agree with you that they are no different than Republicans and belong to the same faction which drafted the Constitution and continues to apply the principles of conservatism to this nation. You can label yourself whatever you want but people like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and many others have demonstrated that they are nothing more than conservatives masquerading as liberals. So if you have a point make it otherwise shut the **** up.

 

[Bern80]

Who does David Petraeus think he is? He needs to keep his nose out of U.S. policy and deal with the business of the day to day operation of the war. If Congress wants his input regarding what U.S. policy should be they will ask for it as a private citizen. Also, Rep. Murphy who served in Iraq and who is now a member of the House of Representatives agrees with Biden. So the only person the General speaks for is himself. He doesn't speak for the soldiers and no one voted for him. On the other hand Biden does speak for those soldiers in Iraq who do not agree with you, and it is his duty to say what they cannot say and to be where they cannot be. This is why Biden and others should drill Petraeus.

Why did you even bother to quote me? You're response has nothing to do with what I said.

So basically what you're saying is that Patreus called these hearings himself which congress agreed to so he could have the floor and say whatever his opinion is about Iraq?

 

[Edward]

Why did you even bother to quote me? You're response has nothing to do with I said.

So basically what you're saying is that Patreus called these hearings himself which congress agreed to so he could have the floor and say whatever his opinion is about Iraq? Yeah, that's plausible.

No that isn't what I was saying liar but nice try. Do you have something of substance to say?

 

[Bern80]

No that isn't what I was saying liar but nice try. Do you have something of substance to say?

Actually that is exactley what you said:

He needs to keep his nose out of U.S. policy and deal with the business of the day to day operation of the war. If Congress wants his input regarding what U.S. policy should be they will ask for it as a private citizen.

That quite clearly implies that you believe he gave an unsolicited opinion about Iraq to congress and engaging in behavior outside of his job funtion. Further what he did say took place during congressional hearings. How exactley did Gen. Patreus get congress to convene hearings without congress asking him?

 

[mattskramer]

Good grief you two. Look. All that is going to happen is that Republicans are going to put their spin on it and Democrats are going to put their spin on it. I think that each party has already made up its mind about the war in Iraq. Bush will stay the course practically no matter what. Democrats will continue to call for a change of strategy and bring more of our soldiers home. That is basically all that there is to this. The report is a political football that each party will get to play with but it won’t change anything.

 

[CSM]

First, let me clarify something for your retarded ass. I am not a DEMOCRAT. Let me say that again ************. I am not a DEMOCRAT. Never said you were... I guess you cannot read eh? Now that we have that little misconception out of the way we can address the substance of your statement. That being, that you are an asshole and it has everything to do with this discussion. Failing to discuss a person's character, motives and general disposition when discussing matters of such vital importance as life and death of Americans including expenditures of our resources is truly ignorant. You are indeed correct. that is why it is vitally important that folks reading these posts realize what an idiot you truly are; So let's get to the heart of the discussion and cut through the crap you attempt to pile on. Whether you and the General are generally assholes and ignorant pieces of shit. Also, whether the General shits green turds in the Pentagon toilets has every bearing on this issue as well. Since I am sure his shit smells the same as everyone else if not worst. Says you... your immature fascination with naughty words; while thrilling to yourself, is truly irrelevant to this discussion.

Second, I do not disagree that Democrats are hypocrites. I just think they are less of hypocrites than Republicans who have demonstrated that they are not only hypocrites but are also evil people by nature. Again, says you. I do not think Republicans are the evil ones...I think YOU are the evil one. We have seen time and again their arrogance in taking us into this war and ignoring us when we do not want to be there. In simple words, "It cannot be the rule that the President needs a vote of only one-third plus one of either House in order to conduct a war, but this would be the consequence of holding that Congress must override a Presidential veto in order to terminate hostilities which it had not authorized." To give the President the power to veto an action of Congress declaring a war at an end or to draw down the troops is flagrantly unconstitutional but worst it is violation of our rights by him and those who support and agree with him.

In short, it is our fellow Americans who are sending our loved ones to die for their opinions while subverting our ability to even have a vote on the war which ultimately goes to the heart of the treason being committed against us by those who support this war. A really warped view of things symptomatic of your anti US stance. Whether Democrats are hypocrites or not has no bearing on this since I do agree with you that they are no different than Republicans and belong to the same faction which drafted the Constitution and continues to apply the principles of conservatism to this nation. You can label yourself whatever you want but people like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and many others have demonstrated that they are nothing more than conservatives masquerading as liberals. So if you have a point make it otherwise shut the **** up. Oh yeah, I'll get right on that, as if I will do anything you tell me to!:cuckoo:

Don't like what I have to say so your final thought is to shut me up! I'll make my point: you are wrong. You are not only wrong, you are willfully deceitful and worse.

 

[Edward]

Actually that is exactley what you said:

I never said that Petraeus offered to testify before Congress or sought the opportunity to testify before Congress. In fact, I made it clear that Congress expects him to testify and that they would ask him questions and expect him to answer those questions by giving them the facts and not his opinion. His opinion on the war itself or on U.S. policy was never asked for and has no bearing on his purpose in testifying before Congress which is to allow them as experts on Foreign Relations and the Armed Services to make informed decisions based on the facts and not on his opinion.

That quite clearly implies that you believe he gave an unsolicited opinion about Iraq to congress and engaging in behavior outside of his job funtion. Further what he did say took place during congressional hearings. How exactley did Gen. Patreus get congress to convene hearings without congress asking him?

The fact that he gives his opinion during Congressional hearings (which is not what Biden said liar because the hearings had not happened at the time he said what he did) has no bearing on whether engaging in such behavior is acceptable in a Congressional hearing where Congress is seeking testimony from people in order to allow them to make the decisions they need to make. (please note that I did not say that he did any such thing because the opinion Biden is responding to was not given in a Congressional hearing) So continue trying to put words in my mouth. I never said that Petraeus sought the opportunity to testify before Congress. Many people who present their opinions before Congress do not seek the opportunity to testify before them but that doesn't negate a) that they did testify, and b) that they gave their opinion when doing so. IF, and note the word IF, Petraeus gives his opinion during his testimony he can expect to have his ass drilled by Congress and he as a private citizen and as a voter can expect to be treated no differently than any other constituent with an opinion. George Bush's Senator and Representative from Texas shouldn't give him more weight than the people of Texas simply because he is the President anymore than Petraeus should be given any greater opportunity to speak and to be heard in order to give his own personal opinion. It doesn't matter that you have a problem with that because Congress's duty isn't to give weight to the opinions of people who testify before them but to collect facts and use those facts to make decisions. This is something you don't quite grasp which is that members of Congress who serve on the various Committees are experts in their fields and don't need the opinions of those who testify before them instead they need them to provide the facts (i.e., the lawyers on the Judiciary Committee do not need the legal opinion of the lawyers testifying before their Committees instead they need the lawyers to present the facts that they were asked to testify about). Do you get it yet retard or are you just going to say I said something I did not say?

 

[Edward]

Good grief you two. Look. All that is going to happen is that Republicans are going to put their spin on it and Democrats are going to put their spin on it. I think that each party has already made up its mind about the war in Iraq. Bush will stay the course practically no matter what. Democrats will continue to call for a change of strategy and bring more of our soldiers home. That is basically all that there is to this. The report is a political football that each party will get to play with but it won’t change anything.

Therein lies the problem with your attitude. Republicans are playing with the lives of American soldiers (to a greater degree than Democrats) and ignoring the right of them, their parents and their loved ones to have a vote on the war in Iraq. The basic principle of the Constitutional authority of Congress over matters of war was that the colonials were tired of being taken into wars that they had no say in. They had dealt with it for hundreds of years and it didn't matter to them that they were "virtually represented" in Parliment anymore than it matters to people alive now that they are virtually represented by a person someone else voted for. What matters to them is the right to have an equal say and this is why you see so much anger from liberals (as opposed to Democrats) on this issue. They somehow sense something wrong with this (in essence they agree with those who proposed an amendment to the Constitution requiring 2/3rds of Congress to vote in favor of war before we can be taken into a war). There is not a single part of the Constitution that grants the President the right to determine when this war will end. Contrary to what this guy George may think the President has never have that right even though he is exerting it. That is the one difference between a King and a President that he refuses to accept. He literally thinks of himself as a King in this respect. When 37 members of the Senate (and I say that literally) along with the President can prevent us from ending a war that is tyranny. That is basically what is being argued. So long as the President has at least 1/3rd plus 1 of either House of Congress agree with him he can do whatever he wants on matters of war and WE THE PEOPLE through our representatives don't have a say. That is one of the reasons why the American Revolution happened. The colonials were expected to fight in wars that they had no ability to vote on.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, it is sure to be a winning strategy to attack the General. The Democrats just keep digging their hole deeper and deeper.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/w...a617d486cca2eb&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[mattskramer]

Therein lies the problem with your attitude. Republicans are playing with the lives of American soldiers (to a greater degree than Democrats) and ignoring the right of them, their parents and their loved ones to have a vote on the war in Iraq. The basic principle of the Constitutional authority of Congress over matters of war was that the colonials were tired of being taken into wars that they had no say in. They had dealt with it for hundreds of years and it didn't matter to them that they were "virtually represented" in Parliment anymore than it matters to people alive now that they are virtually represented by a person someone else voted for. What matters to them is the right to have an equal say and this is why you see so much anger from liberals (as opposed to Democrats) on this issue. They somehow sense something wrong with this (in essence they agree with those who proposed an amendment to the Constitution requiring 2/3rds of Congress to vote in favor of war before we can be taken into a war). There is not a single part of the Constitution that grants the President the right to determine when this war will end. Contrary to what this guy George may think the President has never have that right even though he is exerting it. That is the one difference between a King and a President that he refuses to accept. He literally thinks of himself as a King in this respect. When 37 members of the Senate (and I say that literally) along with the President can prevent us from ending a war that is tyranny. That is basically what is being argued. So long as the President has at least 1/3rd plus 1 of either House of Congress agree with him he can do whatever he wants on matters of war and WE THE PEOPLE through our representatives don't have a say. That is one of the reasons why the American Revolution happened. The colonials were expected to fight in wars that they had no ability to vote on.

I am not following your train of though very well. Perhaps I am tired. I will try to reply anyway. On the one hand, people have a choice whether or not to join the military. They take a risk in that they may be called on to participate in a war that they do not want. So if they don’t want to take that risk, they do not have to join. On the other hand, we do have a voice. One third of Senators are elected every two years. Members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years. The president is elected every 4 years. If the people did not like the way that Bush was handling the Iraq war, the voting public could have voted him out of office and elected Kerry back in 2004.

 

[Edward]

I am not following your train of though very well. Perhaps I am tired. I will try to reply anyway. On the one hand, people have a choice whether or not to join the military. They take a risk in that they may be called on to participate in a war that they do not want.

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.

So if they don’t want to take that risk, they do not have to join. On the other hand, we do have a voice. One third of Senators are elected every two years. Members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years. The president is elected every 4 years. If the people did not like the way that Bush was handling the Iraq war, the voting public could have voted him out of office and elected Kerry back in 2004.

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Are you just now discovering the importance of who gets elected and how our form of government operates ? Your numbers game--is that the new talking point of the left?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you just now discovering the importance of who gets elected and how our form of government operates ? Your numbers game--is that the new talking point of the left?

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.