again, basso this goes to show why people might doubt the op-ed piece written by these folks. If you choose to believe it that is fine, but it is wrong, and baseless to impugn the motives of others who don't buy what these folks are selling. Whether you agree or disagree, plenty of support has been shown as to why many don't buy into these guys story.
I'm referring to the office in that there is only one and not to what that office's role is. For instance David Satcher was the US Surgeon General, that doesn't mean he was everyone's surgeon.
None of that removes our right to criticize GW Bush and hold him accountably politically for his decisions on sending the troops into harm's way. The troops have a duty to follow orders but we the people have the right to question those orders.
No one is debating that right. You can hold whomever you want accountable. But Bush has every right to send soldiers into harms way once congress gives him permission to do so - which is what he got and what he did. Those orders were not questioned as he was re-elected. That was the opportunity for correction. And questioning a decision made in the previous terms is tantamount to crying over spilt milk. Our armed forces are a war machine to be used for America's interest, and Bush has the power to determine what those interests are. Questioning his decision to send troops in won't do anything. Instead, you may want to question how he has defined America's interest. Understand the difference.
I understand... and I'm saying language is important here. Of and is are two completely different words that change the meaning of the phrase. And you're telling me Condi is not my secretary?
He is still a politician and we still have the freedom of speech. Yes we should've voted him out but that doesn't mean he can't be criticized or we can't work politically to block his agenda using things like protests and lobbying Congress. He also is accountable towards history and the public's opinion of him does become part of history.
wow! nothing gets the liberals back up like an intimation that the war might be won. most.soulless.party.ever
basso, thank you for that last line, it was unintentionally awesome. You really are the Simpsons "Comic Book Guy" of the remnants of the rabid pro-bush pro-war movement, I can just imagine you in a pesto-stained t-shirt type-type-typing away at your weapon, you know your keyboard, exporting your message of morality and soulfulness to various sports-themed BBSs, tirelessly planning and strategizing about the war effort by blog-reading. YOu're like a mini Stonewall Jackson, of the internet. FIGHT ON INTERNET PATRIOT
Soulless? Well, Democrats can dance... And based on your statement, if I suggest that the next Brittany marriage will end in divorce, am I against marriage? Or for divorce? Or am I merely using the best information available to make a reasoned decision about the reality of a Brittany marriage? Fact is, just about every person in this country wants to win the war and every person would love for it to come out all bread and roses like the administration promised, but hope is not a policy or a strategy or a tactic. We have to deal with reality and the reality is the war was lost from the very beginning and many people who said so were not only intentionally ignored, but also mocked and called traitors among other things. Now those mistakes are coming home to roost and no amount of well-wishing from Bush cheerleaders will prevent it.
Yes I did read it and I disagree with calling questioning his original decision to send troops into harm's way crying over spilled milk. You say you aren't debating the right to criticize the decision to send troops into harm's way but that is exactly what you are doing. We are free to criticize Bush's decision to send troops into harms way and what he considers America's interests. We could fully agree that he is acting in America's interests, not necessarily in the case of IRaq, and still criticize his decision to send more troops as that may be bad strategy. For instance you could support the overall invasion of Iraq but consider sending more troops in the surge a mistake and risking more US lives needlessly.
Sam, Jackson had talent. A brilliant general, whose death really was a blow to Lee, and the South. basso, so far as I know, is a caricature of an Administration construct. I seriously doubt if he even holds his arm unconsciously up in the air, Stonewall did. The only thing they have in common is Jackson's nickname and the fact that basso has the intellectual dexterity of, you guessed it, a stone wall. That, or he is enormously good at pretending to be of the same density. With all respect due basso, of course. D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.
But the issues isn't about putting troops in harms way - that's a politcally motivated argument. If you question whether a president should put troops in harms way, then you are questioning presidential authority. Because once the president has approval vis a the ware powers act, he has the absolute power to put troops in harms way. Now, if you are questioning the strategy, you are actually questioning the strategy, not the fact that he is putting troops in danger. Look, if you support the idea that America must win in Iraq, then naturally you will support Bush sending more troops. If you support that the war is lost and it's time to call it quits, naturally you will be against sending more troops. You see - it has nothing to do with the troops, but rather how you feel about the importance of the war and what's at stake? Get it?
If you would like, I can put you in touch with soldiers who will tell you that it is more than an abstract political issue for them. In this case it would be an issue of recklessly or injudiciously putting the troops in harm's way. The president has the authority over the armed forces, but that doesn't mean that he is intended or should be allowed to use that authority in a vacuum, disconnected from public opinion. Ultimately the President works for the people of the country. Politicians forget this to their own peril, and few Presidents who remember this have gone wrong. Also the bit about Congress 'granting letters of marque and reprisal' right after the bit about them having the power to declare war very clearly indicates to me that Congress is constitutionally empowered to limit the scope of authorized military action.
But Congress HASN'T limited the scope of power. Thus the President has been endowed with the power to use the military in Iraq as he see fits. The oversight is congress. Americans were not against putting troops into harm's way back when this war began. Now they are? What's changed. The goal is the same. The outcome may not be determined as there is at least some signs of progress. The surge hasn't been fully evaluated. We have a stake in Iraq's future. We have a stake in leaving that country as stable and not as a terrorist haven. And the only time public opinion should matter is when it comes to elections, and this public put him back in office by a wider margin then before - so apparently he had public opinion on his side back then. Frankly, I find it hilarious that people won't even give them 7 weeks to show some progress. The Congress is on summer break for a chunk of that time anyway. I have to say, I do smell party politics at play here.
