A must read...Bush responds to Sheehan...kindof

[raVeneyes]

Ok, since I can't attack you personally, all I will say is that appearently you have no clue how the balance of powers work. Just because he signs it doesn't mean it's from the Executive Branch. And even if he called for it, he'd still have to convince what, like 2/3 of the Senate and I don't know how many in the House to have it ratified before he even gets it? Sounds like a Bipartisan move to me, but then again, I just am a Fox News watching fool.

I understand how the balance of powers is *supposed* to work. Originally the framers set up the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches to be an adversarial relationship. Unfortunately the way people think about government has changed...and the advent of insta-media means that we all participate in government to a level never anticipated by the framers of the constitution. The Legislative branch was to represent the common man...those many many voices all with their own interests and concerns. The Executive was there to represent the elite...the upper class philosophers...those who have time to think all day. The Judicial was there to settle disputes between the two and determine what was closest to the constitution's intent. The Legislative was also set up to be divided like it is in Great Britain. The Senate is supposed to be mostly liberal and the House mostly conservative (or the other way around). They're supposed to bounce the acts back and forth between each other and arrive at a compromise. We got lost somewhere along the line...the house and senate became the same people, and the Executive came to represent everyone. Well...that's how we end up in situations every four years where we switch from an all conservative to a conservative/progressive to a progressive/conservative to an all progressive government. It's a rhythm we've been following for three or more generations now.

So now we can come to a situation where with insta-media everyone has to support a bill or act even if they don't agree with it because they're career politicians, where in the old days of the founding fathers 90% of our congress would be dead of one ailment or another already.

PROOF???? You can't fool me just by being so sure of yourself. Give me some proof, and I'll say the sem thing that you say below.

I'm sorry...I'm not really up on the whole Halliburton thing because I don't really care about it that much.

So you won't read them? But you know they are crap? You must be a genious. Pure and simple. Even Barry would read a link I think.

I'm just saying what makes sense in the situation...if there is proof of links between 9/11/1 and Iraq, then why hasn't the White House printed banners with that proof on it and started flying them around the country...the lack of proof is one of the biggest hamstrings to the White House accomplishing it's foreign policy initiatives.

If you think it's retarded, then don't participate, that's all. I for one would love to have another lib in here, but if you don't like it, don't complain about it, just don't partake in it.

I love debate...I despise when it's done poorly...just so long as we don't get all party line on each other, and understand that every one of us *can* be wrong, then I will participate.

And in essence you just said you know less than Bush does, so who are you to comment on his performance???

I ABSOLUTELY know less than Bush does about the current situation of American foreign policy...seeing as he's the one making it and I'm not.

I am a citizen of this country which gives me the right and the mandate to comment on his performance. Just as everyone here doesn't know everything that Bush knows, but still feels the need to comment.

 

[raVeneyes]

Uh...Steve Kurtz broke the law. A law that is there for a reason. Maybe if he wasn't a left wing nutjob who wanted to stick his finger in the eye of "da man" he could calmly explain himself and work the issue out with the Federal Government. But instead he chooses to run to the People's Republic of San Francisco (my hometown unfortunately) and cry like a little baby. So screw him...

He broke no laws...none.

He received a shipment of a bacteria sample, which was cultured from a sample originally purchased under a contract that has a no resale clause.

At most, the shipper broke a contract and it's a civil matter, not a criminal one.

 

[raVeneyes]

So my follow up question is:

Is Iraq better off without Saddam?
Will the United States succeed like it has in Japan and Germany and the Balkans, even Afganistan, in bringing a semblance of peace and prosperity to the people who were once our enemies?

Only in North Korea and North Vietnam where we failed to go in and force a surrender and rebuild the country, did democracy not take root and look at where the countries are today ~ at best, 3rd world countries.

I don't know. I suppose only time will tell. I personally think that yes, Iraq is better off without Saddam... We went in almost 20 years too late, and for the wrong reasons, but I can agree the majority of Iraqis will do better without the Bathist regime.

I don't think Japan and Germany are comparable and the difference is where my whole objection to this process comes from. Germany and Japan (don't forget Italy) as sovereign nations and as an allegiance had declared war on the US. When we defeated them it was not as some 'liberation' effort...it was just winning a war. The people we liberated were the French, the Polish, the Dutch, etc... When we set up interim governments there, it was because they had lost...clearly and completely...a war of attrition against us. We didn't go in saying 'your way of life is wrong' we went in saying 'you lost...your government has been destroyed...make a new one'.

The way we went in to Iraq with no clear mandate...no clear motive...and no clear aggression from the other side, leaves a grey area that many Iraqis of the former Bath party and still of the Sunii sect will use to their advantage in recruiting young, impressionable, idealistic men and women who see us as an aggressive arrogant people who need to be taken down a notch.

 

[raVeneyes]

I've also just noted that no one refutes the fact that President Bush perjured himself in front of Congress when he testified he had clear evidence of a link and then later was proven a liar when he couldn't produce said evidence.

 

[MAllen82]

I understand how the balance of powers is *supposed* to work. Originally the framers set up the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches to be an adversarial relationship. Unfortunately the way people think about government has changed...and the advent of insta-media means that we all participate in government to a level never anticipated by the framers of the constitution. The Legislative branch was to represent the common man...those many many voices all with their own interests and concerns. The Executive was there to represent the elite...the upper class philosophers...those who have time to think all day. The Judicial was there to settle disputes between the two and determine what was closest to the constitution's intent. The Legislative was also set up to be divided like it is in Great Britain. The Senate is supposed to be mostly liberal and the House mostly conservative (or the other way around). They're supposed to bounce the acts back and forth between each other and arrive at a compromise. We got lost somewhere along the line...the house and senate became the same people, and the Executive came to represent everyone. Well...that's how we end up in situations every four years where we switch from an all conservative to a conservative/progressive to a progressive/conservative to an all progressive government. It's a rhythm we've been following for three or more generations now.

That's so wrong I can't believe I'm dignifying it with a response. The House and the Senate are their to represent us more thoroughly because they are the ones who make the laws, therefore, we have more say in what laws are ratified. The Executive Branch doesn't need such a local representation because he is the enforcer of the law. We already set the parameters, and now he has to follow those rules. The President was never to represent the elite or the philosphers, what is this, an Aristotalean society ruled by Philospher Kings?? NO!!! Man, you really need to read a socail studies book or something. Legislative makes the law, Execuive enforces the law, and the Judicial is there to make sure everyone plays by the rules. Judicial dones't settle disputes between the two branches. LORD!! And neither the House nor the Senate is "supposed" to be liberal or conservative. Senators are more dignified and intelligent generally, but the House gives representation on a much more local level, making sure each district gets its own personal voice.

I'm sorry...I'm not really up on the whole Halliburton thing because I don't really care about it that much.

So according to this logic I can write a textbook on the fundamentals of Economy even thoguh I know nothing about economy?? If you don't know anything, you can't make claims on it, that's just common sense. If you make a statement, back it up with proof.

I'm just saying what makes sense in the situation...if there is proof of links between 9/11/1 and Iraq, then why hasn't the White House printed banners with that proof on it and started flying them around the country...the lack of proof is one of the biggest hamstrings to the White House accomplishing it's foreign policy initiatives.

I believe fossten said Al Qaeda, not 9/11. You know, they have done other things besides 9/11. It's a known fact that Iraq had ties to terrorism. Saddam hired terrorists on multiple occasions, for example, he hired them to kidnap the Saudi Minister of Oil, and hijack his plane. THAT'S A KNOWN FACT!!

I love debate...I despise when it's done poorly...just so long as we don't get all party line on each other, and understand that every one of us *can* be wrong, then I will participate.

Well, you are the one saying we can't debate here according to you principles, so them don't partake. I mean I don't wanna discourage anybody, but again, I don't wanna hear complaints about the way we debate here.

I ABSOLUTELY know less than Bush does about the current situation of American foreign policy...seeing as he's the one making it and I'm not.

Funny, because you said that we on the right know less than "even Bush does" or something. I detect some negative connotation in that remark, somehow implying that he's stupid and doesn't know anything about foreign policy, but we're even stupider for knowing less. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy is all.

Look, for you to ever admit that you were wrong(besides on the order of events in history) you need to read both sides. I KNOW that Brian, fossten, freefaler, and I read the leftish articles posted here everyday. You can't form an opinion without knowing both sides of it. For you to assume that you can is ignorant.

 

[MAllen82]

I don't know. I suppose only time will tell. I personally think that yes, Iraq is better off without Saddam... We went in almost 20 years too late, and for the wrong reasons, but I can agree the majority of Iraqis will do better without the Bathist regime.

I don't think Japan and Germany are comparable and the difference is where my whole objection to this process comes from. Germany and Japan (don't forget Italy) as sovereign nations and as an allegiance had declared war on the US. When we defeated them it was not as some 'liberation' effort...it was just winning a war. The people we liberated were the French, the Polish, the Dutch, etc... When we set up interim governments there, it was because they had lost...clearly and completely...a war of attrition against us. We didn't go in saying 'your way of life is wrong' we went in saying 'you lost...your government has been destroyed...make a new one'.

The way we went in to Iraq with no clear mandate...no clear motive...and no clear aggression from the other side, leaves a grey area that many Iraqis of the former Bath party and still of the Sunii sect will use to their advantage in recruiting young, impressionable, idealistic men and women who see us as an aggressive arrogant people who need to be taken down a notch.

Since when is a tyranny a government of the people. It's the same thing as freeing people in France because they were being opressed by a regime that they didn't want there. hmmmmmm, sounds like Saddam to me.

 

[FreeFaller]

I understand how the balance of powers is *supposed* to work. Originally the framers set up the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches to be an adversarial relationship......The Legislative branch was to represent the common man...those many many voices all with their own interests and concerns. The Executive was there to represent the elite...the upper class philosophers...those who have time to think all day. The Judicial was there to settle disputes between the two and determine what was closest to the constitution's intent. The Legislative was also set up to be divided like it is in Great Britain. The Senate is supposed to be mostly liberal and the House mostly conservative (or the other way around). They're supposed to bounce the acts back and forth between each other and arrive at a compromise. We got lost somewhere along the line...the house and senate became the same people, and the Executive came to represent everyone.

Where the HELL did you get this SH!T? The same book you got your Mesopotamian history from? Holy crap man...


You have absolutely NO idea of how the US government works. You just seem to be pulling things out of your behind. Seriously, get an education and come back when you're ready. :soapbox:

 

[FreeFaller]

Germany and Japan (don't forget Italy) as sovereign nations and as an allegiance had declared war on the US.

No they didn't...that was why it was called a "SNEAK ATTACK" (12/07/41)

When we defeated them it was not as some 'liberation' effort...it was just winning a war.

Yes it was...the war was in direct response to German and Japanese aggression on neighboring countries. The war was all about liberation.

 

[raVeneyes]

It is the power and job of the executive branch to set the agenda for Congress.
U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 3

Article 2 - The Executive Branch

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

I never said it was wrong for the President to call for an act in Congress...I was just rebutting the idea that it was Congress that was responsible for the Patriot Act. It was the President who created the idea, it was the executive branch lawyers who wrote the wording, it was Congressmen close to the White House who proposed the Act, and it was the President and White House staff who supported the Act and advertised it daily via the White House press core. Not to mention it's the President's duty to veto Acts and Bills which violate the constitution.

The fact that you are unwilling to read facts presented to you, just because they might rebut inane statements that you have made, shows that you are no better than the blatting trumpet fringe left wackos on this site. If you had the BALLS you would read them and make a sound judgment. What are you afraid of? That your wittle bubble might burst?

I believe I've read every argument and responded to every argument in this thread. If you have specific facts to present that I haven't responded to, please feel free to highlight them.

 

[fossten]

Where the HELL did you get this SH!T? The same book you got your Mesopotamian history from? Holy crap man...


You have absolutely NO idea of how the US government works. You just seem to be pulling things out of your behind. Seriously, get an education and come back when you're ready. :soapbox:

Raveneyes, you are in danger of convincing the rest of us that you are a wacko who is additionally ignorant of the most basic fundamentals of government. Where did you learn this stuff? There is not one shred of a mention of it in the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the Framers.

I'll bet even Johnny and barry won't touch you with a ten-foot pole if you keep spewing such utter absurdity. This is definitely a new low for you Fibs.

So this is what our education system is doing to our children. Scary.

 

[MAllen82]

Not to mention it's the President's duty to veto Acts and Bills which violate the constitution.

Please stop commenting on how the government works because you have already shown you know nothing of the process. The President is not supposed to know what violates the constitution, that's the sole responsibility of the Supreme Court. In fact besides being an appelate court for federal cases, that's all they do!!!! The President vetos a bill only if he disagrees with it.

 

[MAllen82]

Oh, he's from Jersey, that explains a lot........ haha, jk man, my whole fam is from there.

 

[MonsterMark]

The way we went in to Iraq with no clear mandate...no clear motive...and no clear aggression from the other side, leaves a grey area that many Iraqis of the former Bath party and still of the Sunii sect will use to their advantage in recruiting young, impressionable, idealistic men and women who see us as an aggressive arrogant people who need to be taken down a notch.

Remember, Saddam attacked Kuwait. Kuwait did nothing to instigate the attack. We came to the aid of Kuwait. We gave ultimatum after ultimatum for Saddam to leave Kuwait. Saddam had to be forcefully removed. To keep us from marching on Baghdad then and removing him from power, he agreed to an unconditional surrender, (our 1st mistake). He breached 10's of UN resolutions over the following years. He shot missiles, developed missiles, shot at our airplanes in no fly zones, etc. He was a pain in the rear and a dangerous man. He had already stolen $10 billion dollars from the Iraqis that could be used to fund whatever adventures he wanted.

Forward to 2001. We were attacked. Unprovoked. Not by Saddam but by people complicit with him. Call it the fear of the unknown, but it would have been irresponsible for the President of the United States to ignore a 'clear and gathering' danger. Saddam resisted all efforts to be transparent in dealing with inspections. Reports from ALL over the world were coming in that Saddam was up to no good. There is no way we could 'take a chance' with Saddam.

He was warned again and again. But like in 1991, the only thing Saddam understands is force. That is how he handled himself with his people. His way or death by force. He thought we were bluffing and had become the paper-tiger like the French, Germans and Soviets were whispering in his ear and we called him on it. He lost.

Saddam caused the 1st Gulf War and Saddam caused the 2nd Gulf War. Those are the facts.

 

[MonsterMark]

Oh, he's from Jersey, that explains a lot........ haha, jk man, my whole fam is from there.

Be polite guys while he gets his feet wet. OK! Don't pile on.

 

[raVeneyes]

Where the HELL did you get this SH!T? The same book you got your Mesopotamian history from? Holy crap man...


You have absolutely NO idea of how the US government works. You just seem to be pulling things out of your behind. Seriously, get an education and come back when you're ready. :soapbox:

Do I have to pull out letters and documented arguments between Franklin and Adams???

The big argument when OUR constitution was written was between the elitists who were used to the British system, and the reformers who thought that there was something to the whole idea of one man one voice. The three branch government was a compromise between them and their best guess as to how a democratic system could run! Because of the elitists we created the electoral college due to the fact that they thought that such an important person could not be chosen by the common man.

It's not how it works now (nor did I say that)...it's how it was designed to work. Do you guys just read and respond to every second word I say? Slow down and breathe... Think before you respond...

I've had quite a bit of an education...not to mention hours of individual study on the subject of constitutional history.

 

[fossten]

Be polite guys while he gets his feet wet. OK! Don't pile on.

PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE
PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE
PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE
PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE
PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE
PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE
PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE
PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE PILE

:dancefool

 

[raVeneyes]

Please stop commenting on how the government works because you have already shown you know nothing of the process. The President is not supposed to know what violates the constitution, that's the sole responsibility of the Supreme Court. In fact besides being an appelate court for federal cases, that's all they do!!!! The President vetos a bill only if he disagrees with it.

His disagreement is *supposed* to come from his oath to protect the constitution... That's the whole and entirety of his job...the oath he takes on entering office.

 

[MAllen82]

Study all you want, it's still wrong man.

 

[raVeneyes]

Saddam caused the 1st Gulf War and Saddam caused the 2nd Gulf War. Those are the facts.

I agree 100%.

I don't think that we are completely without need to have gone in and taken over Iraq...I think however it should have been done a completely different way.

It's important in politics to look like your right, even when you are. Bush should have made sure that he looked right first...he should have ramped up anti Iraq sentiment and issued policy and statements that showed the reasons he was thinking of going in to Iraq. He should have generated a base of support for a war against Iraq in the US *AND* (very importantly) the US's international allies...all of them.

We could have had an international coalition like in the first Gulf war...and we wouldn't be stuck in a quagmire situation that the best projections say we'll be in for the next 10 years.

Like I said at the beginning...I support the country...just not the leadership.

 

[raVeneyes]

No they didn't...that was why it was called a "SNEAK ATTACK" (12/07/41)

It wasn't too sneaky...let's see...it's one of the two closest sovereign US ports to Japan. Japan had ceased all diplomatic communications with the US. Japan had communicated with the Canadian government that it felt the US was a threat, and intended to at some point deal directly with them, and the Japanese delivered a declaration of war to the United states after the Pearl Harbor attack.

Yes it was a surprise attack in the sense we didn't know exactly when and where it was coming...but we knew it was coming.

Yes it was...the war was in direct response to German and Japanese aggression on neighboring countries. The war was all about liberation.

I'm saying that once we had liberated the occupied countries, when we continued it stopped being a war of liberation at that point.

 

[MonsterMark]

Bush tried to put together a coalition but it was never going to happen. Take a look at the oil-for-food program. The UN is corrupt. France and Germany had oil contracts they wanted to preserve at all costs. Russia wanted to continue, with France, to sell arms to Iraq. The political landscape had changed since the 1st Gulf War. Remember, the goal in the 1st War was to push Saddam out of Kuwait. That was the mission. Much easier for the other nations to sign on because it did not effect them directly. 2nd Gulf War, much different. Scandals everywhere. 9/11. WMD. The Unknown.

Bush DID get the Senate to give him war powers. The UN DID support the resolutions requiring Saddam to give in to inspections.

Only the corrupt nations chose not to participate. And that can't be blamed on Bush.

 

[raVeneyes]

Bush tried to put together a coalition but it was never going to happen. Take a look at the oil-for-food program. The UN is corrupt. France and Germany had oil contracts they wanted to preserve at all costs. Russia wanted to continue, with France, to sell arms to Iraq. The political landscape had changed since the 1st Gulf War. Remember, the goal in the 1st War was to push Saddam out of Kuwait. That was the mission. Much easier for the other nations to sign on because it did not effect them directly. 2nd Gulf War, much different. Scandals everywhere. 9/11. WMD. The Unknown.

Bush DID get the Senate to give him war powers. The UN DID support the resolutions requiring Saddam to give in to inspections.

Only the corrupt nations chose not to participate. And that can't be blamed on Bush.

I don't think there's blame for Bush about the Iraq war...I just think that there's no cause for lying to congress and blame in saying he had direct links between 9/11 and Iraq. He didn't...he had acquaintances between Saddam and Al Quieda.

I also think there's blame for not using the full force of US influence to persuade the UN to follow through on it's resolutions about forcing Iraq to cooperate.

Had we simply played it a different way we could have made it so that a coalition formed. That would have been good leadership.

Your avatar says it all... Reagan wasn't the most brilliant guy to ever sit in the White House, but he was one of the most popular. Some of his policies and decisions were probably out right wrong (not saying that any President doesn't make wrong decisions), however he had the leadership skills to get the majority of people behind him...and not just the simple majority...not just the majority of the United states...not just his party line...the whole of his supporters, and even some of his detractors.

 

[fossten]

I agree 100%.

I don't think that we are completely without need to have gone in and taken over Iraq...I think however it should have been done a completely different way.

It's important in politics to look like your right, even when you are. Bush should have made sure that he looked right first...he should have ramped up anti Iraq sentiment and issued policy and statements that showed the reasons he was thinking of going in to Iraq. He should have generated a base of support for a war against Iraq in the US *AND* (very importantly) the US's international allies...all of them.

We could have had an international coalition like in the first Gulf war...and we wouldn't be stuck in a quagmire situation that the best projections say we'll be in for the next 10 years.

Like I said at the beginning...I support the country...just not the leadership.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

1. Bush WAS right to go into Iraq. Read the UN resolutions.
2. He DID ramp up sentiment and generated a base of support.
3. We DID have an international coalition. Again, it's already been discussed and an entire list of the countries that assisted us posted on this forum.
4. There's that stupid word "quagmire" again. More talking points that make no sense.
5. The BEST estimates don't even come close to 10 years. The worst-case scenario is 4 years. Where in HE** are you getting your information? Ted (hic) Kennedy?
6. If you don't support the leadership then you disagree with all your own Dem Senators and Reps that AGREE with the war???

 

[raVeneyes]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

1. Bush WAS right to go into Iraq. Read the UN resolutions.
2. He DID ramp up sentiment and generated a base of support.
3. We DID have an international coalition. Again, it's already been discussed and an entire list of the countries that assisted us posted on this forum.
4. There's that stupid word "quagmire" again. More talking points that make no sense.
5. The BEST estimates don't even come close to 10 years. The worst-case scenario is 4 years. Where in HE** are you getting your information? Ted (hic) Kennedy?
6. If you don't support the leadership then you disagree with all your own Dem Senators and Reps that AGREE with the war???

1. I just agreed with that
2. He did a half butted job of it...if he'd done it properly this war would be as well supported as the first one.
3. We didn't have the support of our biggest allies...you know...the ones with money...and large troop counts...and equipment.
4. quag·mire: difficult or precarious situation; a predicament. <- makes sense to the dictionary people...
5. Top military has been quoted a conservative timeline of 10 years before a full withdraw of US Troops...we almost always leave troops in an area for generations.
6. Yes

 

[MonsterMark]

I like this guys letter to Cindy over at the Huffington Post. Guys, tons of fibs over there.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cindy,


WHEN WILL YOU GET OUT OF CRAWFORD! We demand our headlines be returned to us! We want an EXACT time schedule for when you will leave Texas alone! We are NOT going to settle for your overly ambiguous "When Bush goes back to work, I'll leave Crawford" garbage! We want an exact timeframe for you pulling out of Crawford NOW!

We don't care if your "job" isn't finished, Cindy. In fact, we don't even know for sure you HAD any real reason to go to Crawford in the first place. You claim it is because Bush is insensitive and dishonest, but after you originally met with him, you said nothing of the sort. You are in Crawford because of a LIE, Cindy! When will you pull out???



**** See how silly that sounds? I hope you are entirely embarassed by your own comments about getting out of Iraq. Just because people speak a different language, pray to a different god, or wear different clothing doesn't mean they can't appreciate freedom and democracy. It was for this cause that your son died. You are making a mockery of him and his values. How do you even sleep at night knowing the dishonor you are heaping upon his grave?

Posted by: Anthony on August 25, 2005 at 08:58AM