Senate Defies Veto Threat

[Gunny]

I didn't like it when the Repubs did it and I'm unhappy now that the Dems are doing it. Bush did the right thing by vetoing the bill. Not only was it overloaded with pork but I suspect that the majority of the equipment that they purchase for the troops won't even reach them in time before the withdrawal date. The people voted the Republicans out for shit like this and I suspect that they'll be more unhappy with the Dems than they will be with Bush. If the Dems want out of Iraq, let them defund the war outright.

IMO, each piece of legislation should stand alone, to include the pork. The political process in this country is a joke, and this is a perfect example of it. Congress is supposed to be doing what's best for this Nation, not furthering their political agenda.

The only difference I apply to the political parties is the Dems are willing to bully Republicans with power while the Republicans are afraid to use it when they have it. Otherwise, the stench from either is the same.

 

[Edward]

"Supreme command and direction of the military forces" would mean that the Commander In Chief should not be saddled with withdrawal deadlines by Congress, no?

No, Madison made it clear as did others that Congress has the power to start wars, continue wars and to conclude wars and ultimately to "make war." If Congress wants to withdraw this very second it is within their authority to do so. If they want to have a phased withdrawal that is also within their authority. This authority was not granted to the President. The Founders understand that when you have a President or a King who can make war at will and to ignore Congress that freedom and liberty would cease. This is true today. It is becoming quite obvious that no matter how the people vote in an election that the President will say to their representatives, "shut the **** up because I don't care if your family, friends and neighbors voted for you or what they want because they don't have a say in this matter." This is simply not the case. This is simply not how our country works or what the Constitution says. It is one thing for the President to act as the "first General and Admiral " of the military and another thing for him to assume powers that not other General or Admiral would have. Generals and Admirals do not set U.S. policy anymore than the President does. This is the legislative power and not the executive power. As time goes on the statutes begin to become clear and every act of the President is cocurrent with the Congress while the Congress has powers that the President does not share in. This is interesting to note because it shows which branch of Government was intended to be the most powerful and shows the attitude of the Founders in favor of liberty as opposed to tyranny. You may not think it is tyranny for the people to vote and to be consistently ignored by the President and for one faction of our society as represented by the President to have the power to over-ride the will of the people but it is surely tyranny.

 

[boedicca]

Where does it say in The Constiution that Congress can tell a President what tactics to use? If they want this war to be over, as others have noted, then they should at least have the honesty to stop the funding and declare it so. This half-assed deadline approach is the worst form of political weaseling. It allows them to be able to position themselves on either side of the result for political purposes by using soldiers in the field as waiting duck pawns.

 

[Edward]

IMO, each piece of legislation should stand alone, to include the pork. The political process in this country is a joke, and this is a perfect example of it. Congress is supposed to be doing what's best for this Nation, not furthering their political agenda.

The only difference I apply to the political parties is the Dems are willing to bully Republicans with power while the Republicans are afraid to use it when they have it. Otherwise, the stench from either is the same.

That's bullshit. What you mean to say is, "Congress is supposed to be doing what I think is best for this Nation, and not furthering their political agenda instead they should be furthering mine as the President is now doing." As for Republicans. They have consistently abused their power and the current President is doing so by ignoring the will of the people as expressed by our Congress instead chosing to take the legislative authority to himself while ignoring Congress.

 

[boedicca]

Your version of how a war should be conducted is rather analogous to viewers voting for American Idol. A war is Never Popular, and the Will of the People to have it over is not a reason to not finish what we have started. Nor is the Will of the People based on complete military and intelligence information. We elect leaders and representatives to exercise judgement and to make decisions on our behalf - not to submit everything to us for a popularity / beauty contest vote.

 

[Gunny]

That's bullshit. What you mean to say is, "Congress is supposed to be doing what I think is best for this Nation, and not furthering their political agenda instead they should be furthering mine as the President is now doing." As for Republicans. They have consistently abused their power and the current President is doing so by ignoring the will of the people as expressed by our Congress instead chosing to take the legislative authority to himself while ignoring Congress.

Another mind-reader presuming to put words in my mouth. Did you two come as a tag team, or what?

I said "what's best for this nation." That's what I meant. Obvciously i think my idea of what's best for this nation is correct, or I'd hold another.

Just takes a little bit of logic to figure that one out.

Who's doing your thinking for YOU?

The President is not furthering my political agenda. That's the kind of statement made by someone who jumps in feet first, THEN looks. I'm all over this board, and you can find where I have disagreed with Bush and/or his actions as much as I agree with them, and I am not a Republican.

This current Congress does not represent the will of the people. It represents shot-sighted Republicans/conservatives thinking they were going to teach Republicans a lesson, and cutting off their noses to spite their faces. This current crop just fell in through the back door as a result.

The will of the American people is not and has not been to cut and run from Iraq. You lefties have taken dissatisfaction with how the war is being conducted and twisted it into that. It's about as real as your crap about the current Congress representing the will of the people.

 

[Edward]

Where does it say in The Constiution that Congress can tell a President what tactics to use?

It doesn't say that and Congress isn't doing that. Congress is setting broad U.S. policy and is not trying to manage the day to day activities of this war. That would be an over-reach of their authority because they would be seeking to be "Commander in Chief" of the military as opposed to the legislature which sets policy. During Lincoln's tenure as President the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War would often appear to exceed their authority but overall the President and the Committee worked well together. There were times when they would try to determine the actual battlefield strategies but they were not able to do so because they lacked the capability but they did help to determine the outcome of the war. This is true of other wars as well including the War of 1812 and the Revolutionary War. If Congress begins to determine battle tactics than they should be prevented from doing so and the Commanders in the field should ignore them but they haven't done so instead they have set U.S. policy and determine the general direction of this war as is their right. You can begin by reading Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution as it outlines the war powers of the Congress and also compare it to Article II, Section 2. When you compare the two you begin to see that the President's authority is concurrent with the Legislature while many of the functions performed by the legislature are not concurrent with the Executive.

If they want this war to be over, as others have noted, then they should at least have the honesty to stop the funding and declare it so.

That is absurd. That isn't the policy or the opinion of those in Congress. They do not want to cut the funding instead the policy of Congress is for a phased withdrawal. They aren't going to undermine the troops or bring this war to an abrupt end. Here you are saying, "either accept the President's position or do something that you do not want to do..." Under no circumstance are they going to cut the funding. That isn't something I would do, and it is doubtful that it is what the Congress will do. It is unreasonable, absurd and ridicolous to argue that Congress should set policy that they do not agree with such as stop funding and declare the war to be over. That is what the anti-war protestors who are protesting Democratic members of Congress are saying Congress should do but time and again Congress like the American people do not want an immediate withdrawal, they do not want an end to funding of the war instead they have consistently made it clear that it is the will of the people expressed in Congress to have a phased re-deployment and that is the policy that Congress has set. This in no way ties the hands of the President because he like the commanders in the field are required to implement the will of Congress when it comes to matters of policy or in other words see that the laws are "faithfully executed..."

This half-assed deadline approach is the worst form of political weaseling.

No it isn't. It is what I and other Americans want them to do. Senator Webb is not going to vote to de-fund the war and to put his son in danger. I cannot imagine Nancy Pelosi or any other member of Congress doing so as it isn't the policy of the U.S. to do so. It is simply absurd and political weaseling to say, "Congress either agrees with the President's position or does something that not one of them wants to do such as stop funding the war..." That's simply absurd and isn't going to happen.

It allows them to be able to position themselves on either side of the result for political purposes by using soldiers in the field as waiting duck pawns.

Senator Webb is not using his son as a pawn. He simply disagrees with your retarded opinion on the subject. He is proud of his son and is proud of those who serve in the military and is tired of the President using them as pawns for his own political purposes. Under no circumstance will the Congress stop funding the war. That is absurd and I cannot imagine a single sane person even suggesting that this is a solution. It is the most extreme action and would only be required if the President ignores Congress and the Courts in continues to defy the American people in favor of those who belong to his faction.

I find it interesting that former soldiers in Iraq who now serve in Congress as Democrats don't agree with your position and I find it just as interesting to see those who want a phased re-deployment of our troops as is Congress's perogative being denounced for not taking the straw man offered by jackasses like you who are saying, "if Congress wants to do something they can vote to kill Senator Jim Webb's son by not funding the war because we win and there isn't anything they can do about it unless they stop the funding. They have two options: either agree with Bush and allow him to continue as is or to risk the lives of our troops." That would put our soldiers in danger and no one is going to do so. How dare the President and how dare you give Congress an ultimatum of, "put the soldiers in harms way or do as we say because there is no other choice. Ha, we gotcha. Senator Webb, if you want this war to end you will vote to put your own son in harm's way or you will do what George Bush wants you to do."

That's absurd and it's time for those who support the President in this to be honest and to stop being idiots and liars.

 

[boedicca]

B'loney. Congress setting a deadline is the equivalent of interferring with the President's role of managing the strategy and tactics of carrying out a war.

Nor is The Will Of The People monolithic. What you are promoting is what de Tocqueville labelled "The Tyranny of the Majority". A slight numerical advantage does not give a majority a right to trammel over a minority - which is why our system of government was designed as a Republic, not a pure Democracy.

 

[Gunny]

It doesn't say that and Congress isn't doing that. Congress is setting broad U.S. policy and is not trying to manage the day to day activities of this war. That would be an over-reach of their authority because they would be seeking to be "Commander in Chief" of the military as opposed to the legislature which sets policy. During Lincoln's tenure as President the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War would often appear to exceed their authority but overall the President and the Committee worked well together. There were times when they would try to determine the actual battlefield strategies but they were not able to do so because they lacked the capability but they did help to determine the outcome of the war. This is true of other wars as well including the War of 1812 and the Revolutionary War. If Congress begins to determine battle tactics than they should be prevented from doing so and the Commanders in the field should ignore them but they haven't done so instead they have set U.S. policy and determine the general direction of this war as is their right. You can begin by reading Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution as it outlines the war powers of the Congress and also compare it to Article II, Section 2. When you compare the two you begin to see that the President's authority is concurrent with the Legislature while many of the functions performed by the legislature are not concurrent with the Executive.



That is absurd. That isn't the policy or the opinion of those in Congress. They do not want to cut the funding instead the policy of Congress is for a phased withdrawal. They aren't going to undermine the troops or bring this war to an abrupt end. Here you are saying, "either accept the President's position or do something that you do not want to do..." Under no circumstance are they going to cut the funding. That isn't something I would do, and it is doubtful that it is what the Congress will do. It is unreasonable, absurd and ridicolous to argue that Congress should set policy that they do not agree with such as stop funding and declare the war to be over. That is what the anti-war protestors who are protesting Democratic members of Congress are saying Congress should do but time and again Congress like the American people do not want an immediate withdrawal, they do not want an end to funding of the war instead they have consistently made it clear that it is the will of the people expressed in Congress to have a phased re-deployment and that is the policy that Congress has set. This in no way ties the hands of the President because he like the commanders in the field are required to implement the will of Congress when it comes to matters of policy or in other words see that the laws are "faithfully executed..."



No it isn't. It is what I and other Americans want them to do. Senator Webb is not going to vote to de-fund the war and to put his son in danger. I cannot imagine Nancy Pelosi or any other member of Congress doing so as it isn't the policy of the U.S. to do so. It is simply absurd and political weaseling to say, "Congress either agrees with the President's position or does something that not one of them wants to do such as stop funding the war..." That's simply absurd and isn't going to happen.



Senator Webb is not using his son as a pawn. He simply disagrees with your retarded opinion on the subject. He is proud of his son and is proud of those who serve in the military and is tired of the President using them as pawns for his own political purposes. Under no circumstance will the Congress stop funding the war. That is absurd and I cannot imagine a single sane person even suggesting that this is a solution. It is the most extreme action and would only be required if the President ignores Congress and the Courts in continues to defy the American people in favor of those who belong to his faction.

I find it interesting that former soldiers in Iraq who now serve in Congress as Democrats don't agree with your position and I find it just as interesting to see those who want a phased re-deployment of our troops as is Congress's perogative being denounced for not taking the straw man offered by jackasses like you who are saying, "if Congress wants to do something they can vote to kill Senator Jim Webb's son by not funding the war because we win and there isn't anything they can do about it unless they stop the funding. They have two options: either agree with Bush and allow him to continue as is or to risk the lives of our troops." That would put our soldiers in danger and no one is going to do so. How dare the President and how dare you give Congress an ultimatum of, "put the soldiers in harms way or do as we say because there is no other choice. Ha, we gotcha. Senator Webb, if you want this war to end you will vote to put your own son in harm's way or you will do what George Bush wants you to do."

That's absurd and it's time for those who support the President in this to be honest and to stop being idiots and liars.

Absurd is telegraphing your enemy when you're going to quit and let him have the field. So when are you going to quit being an idiot, liar, and mannerless prig?

 

[Edward]

Another mind-reader presuming to put words in my mouth. Did you two come as a tag team, or what?

It appears that you are an asshole who presumes to put words in my mouth. I know what I meant, and I know what I said and you can twist it like the ass that you are but that will not change what I said. But of course you can read my mind? Right? You know what I am trying to do? You know by some psychic power that I am "presuming to put words in your mouth" when I am not Tell me what else I am going to do? So I can get a ******* laugh at how stupid you are.

I said "what's best for this nation." That's what I meant. Obvciously i think my idea of what's best for this nation is correct, or I'd hold another.

That's is stupid and you do not speak for me ***** so do not tell me what I meant or what I said. I know what I meant and I know what I said asswipe and if you don't like it than don't twist what I have said to serve your own purpose.

Just takes a little bit of logic to figure that one out.

It was easy to figure out. It is stupid, and retarded because the asshole who said it is retarded enough to not know what logic is. How you arrived at me being a "mind reader" is beyond me but being so stupid you presume that I am presuming something that I am not and than you presume the idiocy which you have stated here is logical and would require any logic to figure out.

Who's doing your thinking for YOU?

Apparently not you asshole because I don't agree with your retarded assertions. You have yet to say one intelligent thing and have made stupid comments about the Constitution and about the role of the Commander in Chief which I am sure he being a retard shares with you.

The President is not furthering my political agenda. That's the kind of statement made by someone who jumps in feet first, THEN looks. I'm all over this board, and you can find where I have disagreed with Bush and/or his actions as much as I agree with them, and I am not a Republican.

I wasn't speaking of the fact that you always agree with Bush and I never said that and I am getting tired of your retarded ass speaking for me and twisting my words. I am not going to sit here and idly listen to one more ******* retard twist what I have said it like you have. So stop putting words in my mouth you ******* moron. I was speaking of this instance retard and if you cannot grasp that than you are clearly more stupid than most people. At least a lot of people here make sense with their arguments and assertions but you on the other hand make absolutely no sense because it is apparent that you are so stupid that you can't understand what I said.

This current Congress does not represent the will of the people. It represents shot-sighted Republicans/conservatives thinking they were going to teach Republicans a lesson, and cutting off their noses to spite their faces. This current crop just fell in through the back door as a result.

Not only does this Congress represent the will of the people. It represents our will in telling fuckers like you to go to hell.

The will of the American people is not and has not been to cut and run from Iraq.

No it isn't and we won't cut and run no matter how much you tell us that we either agree with your retarded ass or cut and run. You may be a ******* traitor like Bush but some of us love our country and find it digusting how much you hate this country. If you don't like what I am saying than you can **** off you piece of shit because traitors mean little to me.

You lefties have taken dissatisfaction with how the war is being conducted and twisted it into that. It's about as real as your crap about the current Congress representing the will of the people.

You fascists have taken your opinion and tried to force it on the rest of us and that is about to come to an end.

 

[Edward]

Absurd is telegraphing your enemy when you're going to quit and let him have the field. So when are you going to quit being an idiot, liar, and mannerless prig?

Absurd is the above statement. Not only is this what we must do, but it is only proper that we do it and that we set U.S. policy regarding re-deploying and these guidelines do not tell our enemies when we are going to quit. At most it is telling the Iraqi's when they will have to be prepared to bear the major part of their civil war and gives them advance notice. Only assholes like you would wait until the day before we withdraw to tell the Iraqi's that they are on the own and then when they aren't prepared to handle the situation we will be forced to return and aid them. This is an unacceptable situation and it simply is absurd that this would happen. It is also absurd to prevent the American people from having a say in U.S. policy for fear that our enemies may know what we plan. They do not know our battle tactics and don't know how we will go about implementing it and it shouldn't matter that they know what our policy is so long as they do not know our tactics. It's the same for law enforcement and every other department of government. Knowing what U.S. policy is and what we intend to do does not harm the work that is being done.

It is simply absurd that we allow one man (i.,e George W. Bush or GunnyL) decide when we will stop fighting out of fear that the enemy might know what we intend to do. It is becoming apparent that you do not understand our system of government and do not understand the Constitution because what you are advocating is that the people have no say in U.S. policy to keep it secret from our enemies. This fails to take into account the fact that this also keeps Americans from knowing what U.S. policy is and from having a say in it. Maybe you hate the fact that we are a democratic Republic but I love this country unlike traitors such as yourself.

 

[Gunny]

It appears that you are an asshole who presumes to put words in my mouth. I know what I meant, and I know what I said and you can twist it like the ass that you are but that will not change what I said. But of course you can read my mind? Right? You know what I am trying to do? You know by some psychic power that I am "presuming to put words in your mouth" when I am not Tell me what else I am going to do? So I can get a ******* laugh at how stupid you are.

I see. You presume to tell me what I think, and when I tell your wrong, you accuse me of doing it? Retard.


That's is stupid and you do not speak for me ***** so do not tell me what I meant or what I said. I know what I meant and I know what I said asswipe and if you don't like it than don't twist what I have said to serve your own purpose.

My statement is self-explanatory. If this this is the best you can do, I suggest you go find the romper room message board and debate with your peers.


It was easy to figure out. It is stupid, and retarded because the asshole who said it is retarded enough to not know what logic is. How you arrived at me being a "mind reader" is beyond me but being so stupid you presume that I am presuming something that I am not and than you presume the idiocy which you have stated here is logical and would require any logic to figure out.



Apparently not you asshole because I don't agree with your retarded assertions. You have yet to say one intelligent thing and have made stupid comments about the Constitution and about the role of the Commander in Chief which I am sure he being a retard shares with you.



I wasn't speaking of the fact that you always agree with Bush and I never said that and I am getting tired of your retarded ass speaking for me and twisting my words. I am not going to sit here and idly listen to one more ******* retard twist what I have said it like you have. So stop putting words in my mouth you ******* moron. I was speaking of this instance retard and if you cannot grasp that than you are clearly more stupid than most people. At least a lot of people here make sense with their arguments and assertions but you on the other hand make absolutely no sense because it is apparent that you are so stupid that you can't understand what I said.

I can easily undertand what you said. You're an idiot and don't know what you're ******* talking about.
Not only does this Congress represent the will of the people. It represents our will in telling fuckers like you to go to hell.

You wish.


No it isn't and we won't cut and run no matter how much you tell us that we either agree with your retarded ass or cut and run. You may be a ******* traitor like Bush but some of us love our country and find it digusting how much you hate this country. If you don't like what I am saying than you can **** off you piece of shit because traitors mean little to me.

You're a vile, peice of shit extremist hater. This country doesn't need your kind of "love." It needs a whole lot less fucktards like you in it. If ANYONE is a traitor, it's pieces fo shit like you.

And again, your statement presumes you know what my stance is, and you're so busy running your suck, you couldn't possibly have a clue.




You fascists have taken your opinion and tried to force it on the rest of us and that is about to come to an end.

Now I'm a fascist. Dude, get a clue. Dude, what you posted is prety damned clear. So is my response. Inserting an insult every-other-word and just being a general a fucktard of the highest order doesn't change that a bit.

Get a ******* brain and get some ******* manners, THEN get back to me. I reject your pathetic attempt at defelction via insult as a response to anything I posted.

 

[GeeWhiz]

B'loney. Congress setting a deadline is the equivalent of interferring with the President's role of managing the strategy and tactics of carrying out a war.

Nor is The Will Of The People monolithic. What you are promoting is what de Tocqueville labelled "The Tyranny of the Majority". A slight numerical advantage does not give a majority a right to trammel over a minority - which is why our system of government was designed as a Republic, not a pure Democracy.

Boy are you way off the wall.

Only Congress has the power to declare war.

Congress created the War Powers Act an act which reguires a exit plan; Bush has no exit plan.

Congress has the power of the purse and they can cut the funds to Bush's little rape the taxpayer and fatten the pocket of war profitteers policy.

Your Tocqueville ananlogy is baloney. The people can act through their representatives and demand an end to this war. The members of Congress can then repond to the people's wishes and cut the funds to Bush's grease the palm of the war profitteers gig.

 

[Edward]

B'loney. Congress setting a deadline is the equivalent of interferring with the President's role of managing the strategy and tactics of carrying out a war.

No, Congress setting a deadline is actually within the authority of Congress to declare war, make war, to continue the war and to conclude the war as they see fit. If they choose to conclude it by a single legislative fiat and to have it take effect immediately than that is their right but they are instead choosing to conclude it through a phased withdrawal. Your assertion is that the President should decide when the war ends and this is contrary to that "great principle of free governments" that Madison spoke of.

Nor is The Will Of The People monolithic. What you are promoting is what de Tocqueville labelled "The Tyranny of the Majority".

No it is not and de Tocqueville wasn't speaking of what I am promoting. While I enjoyed reading de Tocqueville I do not agree with you that the majority not allowing a minority to over-rule the majority in this case is a "tryanny of the majority" I also find it interesting that you quote de Tocqueville and not Madison who spoke on this same subject.

In the words of Madison, "But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit."

He goes on to say, "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority -- that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable."

It also should be noted that Madison spoke of how the majority must prevail and how the majority faction can be checked so that it does not violate the rights of the minority. In his words, "If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote: It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government on the other hand enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest, both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good, and private rights, against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our enquiries are directed: Let me add that it is the great desideratum, by which alone this form of government can rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind."

So what was his solution? A republic and what did he mean by this? He stated the need for us to delegate as a society our authority to govern to a smaller group of people thus allowing for consideration to be given to our will. This is where the Senate and House comes in and why they are divided as they are but our Founding Fathers understand that the "legislature must predominate" and for good reason. Your view is inconsistent here and was not accepted by the Founders. They understand the role each department of government played and understandably understood that the branch that set policy would have to be divided between two different houses to prevent factions from controlling. They even went so far as to outline the need for different mode of election and operations and for different constituencies. This does not exist in the Executive and he is not checked in himself and this is why he is always checked by the Congress and why his authority is concurrent with Congress. There is not a single power that he hold which is not checked by the Congress yet there are quite a few that he has no say in whatever.

A slight numerical advantage does not give a majority a right to trammel over a minority - which is why our system of government was designed as a Republic, not a pure Democracy.

Indeed, that is what Madison said and yet we aren't speaking of majority rule here but the will of the various factions represented in Congress which make up a majority of the Congress. Here you are promoting the idea that the majority has no power at all and that unless the minority acquiscece to them that nothing can be done. This in truth is government by the minority and not by the people. Your position is not supported by the Constitution, by the Founding Fathers or by de Tocqueville.

 

[Edward]

Boy are you way off the wall.

Agreed. What is being said here is appalling considering the view behind it is driven by the position that the minority or in this case those who agree with Bush should be able to prevail over the majority and our representatives. The reference to de Tocqueville is even more appalling because it shows a general lack of understanding of what he was speaking of and how it relates to what our Founding Fathers actually instituted in the United States.

Only Congress has the power to declare war.

Agreed. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the war powers and the President is simply exercising those functions as Commander in Chief. In this his power is concurrent with the Congress but he does not act alone. The assertion is being made that the President as Commander in Chief acts independent of the legislature and this is simply not true and is a distortion of the checks and balances and separation of powers of our system of government.

Congress created the War Powers Act an act which reguires a exit plan; Bush has no exit plan.

Congress has far more authority than these people want us to believe and I suspect that they want us to believe it because they want the President to have this power and want to claim that it is an exclusive power. This ignorant position fails to take into account the most important part of our government which is that the "legislature must predominate" and must control in the end as it is representative of the various factions. If the President prevails here it is because he represents one faction and that faction happens to be in the minority and this idea is repugnant because it is rule by a minority. You hear Republicans complain about this when the Supreme Court prevents them from doing what they want but when it comes to them they think different rules apply.

Congress has the power of the purse and they can cut the funds to Bush's little rape the taxpayer and fatten the pocket of war profitteers policy.

Congress also has the constitutional authority to end the war and to set our Iraq policy and it is extreme to have to cut the funds and I suspect that Congress will only have to do so if Bush seeks to upsurp their authority in violation of the Constitution. In doing this, there will be a constitutional show-down between the legislature and the executive and the legislature will necessarily prevail.

Your Tocqueville ananlogy is baloney. The people can act through their representatives and demand an end to this war. The members of Congress can then repond to the people's wishes and cut the funds to Bush's grease the palm of the war profitteers gig.

This is something they will refuse to accept because they are opposed to the idea that anyone outside of their faction would have a say in this war and that is completely unacceptable to everyone else. I cannot imagine Senator Jim Webb accepting that he as a Senator would have no say in a war that his son is fighting in. I am also sure that LCpl Webb isn't happy with the state of things. Recently, Democratic members of Congress were elected who have fought in this war and they have spoken out in favor of re-deploying the troops and for a phased re-deployment and they consider the Republican position of "stay the course" to be undermining the troops and to be putting them in harms way. These men and women in uniform in Iraq deserve to have a say in this war through their elected representatives and it is wrong for Bush and others to deny them that. They shouldn't be forced to go AWOL or to do something extreme because they have no options other than to follow the orders given them. Our military must be a heirarchy and this is why it is absolutely essential that these men and women in the military have a way to influence U.S. policy without disobeying orders and that way is through their elected representatives.

 

[Edward]

Now I'm a fascist. Dude, get a clue. Dude, what you posted is prety damned clear. So is my response. Inserting an insult every-other-word and just being a general a fucktard of the highest order doesn't change that a bit.

Get a ******* brain and get some ******* manners, THEN get back to me. I reject your pathetic attempt at defelction via insult as a response to anything I posted.

I really don't give a shit what you reject asshole. As for your response it isn't clear to anyone but an imbecile. You have yet to say a single thing of value or to add any real insight into the issue and it is obvious you are a retard who just likes to take issue with other people ******* telling you like it is. I will get manners when you get a ******* clue. I am not going to play nice with a ******* fascist traitor like you.

Apparently, I forgot that you get to call me a liar and a coward and if I call you a fascist it is not having manners. Well **** you. You ******* fascist piece of lying cowardly shit. If you don't like that I speak the truth about how retarded you are and decide to consider it an insult to point this out than you can **** yourself. You have yet to respond to a single point I have made with anything other than your arrogant ******* opinion about how you are right and everyone else is wrong. I for one won't put up with your shit and will tell you to **** off because I will vote next November to make sure that assholes like you aren't able to continue betraying this country. You psychotic piece of shit. It is obvious to even that your security mechanism requires you to say that I am insulting you and to do so over and over. Well, guess what. You aren't that intelligent and in fact you are a moron. That isn't an insult and don't put words in my mouth. I believe you to be a moron because you are a moron. You have demonstrated this by what you have said.

 

[Gunny]

I really don't give a shit what you reject asshole. As for your response it isn't clear to anyone but an imbecile. You have yet to say a single thing of value or to add any real insight into the issue and it is obvious you are a retard who just likes to take issue with other people ******* telling you like it is. I will get manners when you get a ******* clue. I am not going to play nice with a ******* fascist traitor like you.

Apparently, I forgot that you get to call me a liar and a coward and if I call you a fascist it is not having manners. Well **** you. You ******* fascist piece of lying cowardly shit. If you don't like that I speak the truth about how retarded you are and decide to consider it an insult to point this out than you can **** yourself. You have yet to respond to a single point I have made with anything other than your arrogant ******* opinion about how you are right and everyone else is wrong. I for one won't put up with your shit and will tell you to **** off because I will vote next November to make sure that assholes like you aren't able to continue betraying this country. You psychotic piece of shit. It is obvious to even that your security mechanism requires you to say that I am insulting you and to do so over and over. Well, guess what. You aren't that intelligent and in fact you are a moron. That isn't an insult and don't put words in my mouth. I believe you to be a moron because you are a moron. You have demonstrated this by what you have said.

In other words, you are incable of debate; rather, only spewing left-wingnut extremism, hate and insults. I repsonded to your posts. Shooting your closed-minded shit full of holes isn't even a challenge. You responded with insults.

You have proven yourself unworthy of the time an effort involved in responding to any point you may have well-camouflaged in your diatribes. I don't need to put words in your mouth. They're right here for everyone to see.

 

[Edward]

In other words, you are incable of debate; rather, only spewing left-wingnut extremism, hate and insults. I repsonded to your posts. Shooting your closed-minded shit full of holes isn't even a challenge. You responded with insults.

You have proven yourself unworthy of the time an effort involved in responding to any point you may have well-camouflaged in your diatribes. I don't need to put words in your mouth. They're right here for everyone to see.

Dream on moron because it is apparent that your only argument is that others respond with insults. I don't give a shit enough about your or your retarded ass to care that you take what I say as an insult as everything you have said is insulting you stupid ass ************. You have not even made a serious attempt to even quote the Constitution, the Founding Fathers or any reliable source and you say you have shot my "closed-minded shit full of holes." Only in your dreams. If you have something to say other than, "debate as I want you to debate and play by my rules or I won't condescend to your level" than you can **** off and take that as an insult you stupid ass ***** and then you can go vote for your retarded ass or the retarded ass who agrees with you because it is obvious you have not even attempted to debate and the only ******* reason I insult others is to ******* mess with the minds of stupid ass trolls who jump at the chance of attacking others for insults instead of having a serious debate and it is obvious that it worked you ******* moron.

When and if you are ready to respond with something other than, "I am right and you are wrong" and "you are insulting me" than we might have something to discuss *****. Oops, there I go with insulting the ************ who has done nothing but insult me.

 

[jasendorf]

As you believe you are able to predict the future, please provide the winning numbers for the next $300M+ Powerball.

The BA has said since the beginning that we would not know how long the war would take, but that we should expect a long campaign and transition time for the new government to become self-sufficient in handling Iraq's security. And what did the Dems do? Start yelling "Quagmire" after a few weeks. In such an environment, it is impossible to do any long range funding because the opposition is undermining the objective.

So the Bush Administration is incapable of knowing whether we'll be at war next year... and have been lying to us when they say they know we'll be at it for a long time?

Here's an option. Ask for what they think they'll need and if they need more, ask for it in an emergency bill... if they need less, don't spend it all. But, asking for ALL these wars' funds in an emergency bill either says, 1) we have no idea about what is going on in Iraq or 2) we want to hide these wars' funding to play games with the federal budget.

 

[jasendorf]

The President is Commander in Chief, period. Not Congress. And using the military budget to push their political agenda is bullshit.

Why do you feel the Constitution is bullshit? The Congress is specifically charged with the purse strings. You don't have to like it... but that's what the Constitution explicitly states.

And, they're not using the military budget. The President conveniently "forgot" that there are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when he requested funding for the military budget; hence, the need for "emergency" funding. Emergency funding does not equal budget.