Who else deserves the responsibility for this war? GWB himself said that he is the "decider," and has repeatedly said that he will not withdraw troops while he is president. I guess "the buck stops here" doesn't apply to Bush.
"im the decider" -your president bush "im the commander guy" -your president bush bush and cheney dont need to be impeached - they need to be imprisoned. if america truly is a nation where everyone is held to the same laws than they would be in jail for the rest of their lives. i never thought i would live in a country where our government advocated for a policy of torture and the presidents former legal council claimed he can sexually torture children, conducted warrentless wiretaps on american citizens, ignore the constitution, deny habeas corpus, allow people to be held indefinitely without charges or opportunity to appear before a court, had "free speech zones" at public events, lied us into an unnecessary war that has no hope of ending anytime soon, left our borders wide open and even imprison border patrol officers for doing their jobs, destroy the sovereignty of american with the north american union and spend $2.6 billion of the american peoples tax dollars on fake news and propaganda. these criminals who have hijacked our government are doing this simply b/c they can - until they are stopped they will continue to do it. the irony is that if the "terrorists" really hate our freedom than bush has played right into their hands - he is giving them exactly what he claims they want.
only 50% of the troops who have actually served over there think success in iraq is likely. only 35% of the troops who have actually served over there approve of the way bush is running the war. only 41% percent of the troops who have actually served over there believe we should gone to war in the first place w/ iraq. why are the troops such troop-hating defeatists? clearly the troops support the terrorists and want the troops to lose.
all presidents do crooked stuff and many have committed impeachable offenses, but to compare others to this administration is the equivalent of comparing boss hogg to vito corleone.
is there anything better than this? claiming to be a moderate/without a side. when one is OBVIOUSLY not.
i haven't really been paying that close attention to this, since i think the underlying request is pure political theater, designed not so much to get at any objective truth, but to embarrass Bush, and further hamstring him in the last 18 months of office, but i thought some of you might find interesting what the neocons are saying: http://instapundit.com/archives2/006543.php [rquoter]June 23, 2007 DICK CHENEY AS A LEGISLATIVE OFFICIAL: Ed Morrissey is not impressed with this gem of a legal argument. He's right not to be, and he's right that this is a political and legal embarrassment for the Administration, but it's not because of the constitutional language he quotes. The argument that the Vice President is a legislative official isn't inherently absurd. The Constitution gives the Vice President no executive powers: The VP's only duties are to preside over the Senate, and to become President if the serving President dies or leaves office. The Vice President really isn't an Executive official, and isn't part of the President's administration the way that other officials are -- for one thing, the VP can't be fired by the President: As an independently elected officeholder, he can be removed only by Congress, via impeachment. (In various separation of powers cases, the Supreme Court has placed a lot of weight on this who-can-fire-you test). And traditionally VP's haven't done much. That changed when Jimmy Carter gave Fritz Mondale an unusual amount of responsibility by historical standards, and has continued with subsequent Administrations, particularly under Clinton/Gore and Bush/Cheney. But here's the thing: Whatever executive power a VP exercises is exercised because it's delegated by the President, not because the VP has it already. So to the extent the President delegates actual power (as opposed to just taking recommendations for action) the VP is exercising executive authority delegated by the President, but unlike everyone else who does so he/she isn't subject to removal from office by the President (though the President could always withdraw the delegation, of course). However -- and here's where the claim that Cheney is really a legislative official creates problems for the White House -- it seems pretty clear that the President isn't allowed to delegate executive power to a legislative official, as that would be a separation of powers violation. So to the extent that this is what's going on, the "Cheney is a legislative official" argument is one that opens a big can of worms. None of this is to say that the President can't, in his own capacity, decide to apply different rules to the VP (who, after all, is an elected official, unlike cabinet secretaries, NSC staffers, and the like) if he chooses. But that's a different issue entirely from the "legislative official" angle. Like a lot of the Bush Administration's arguments, this is one that would make an interesting law school paper topic, or law review article, but that is politically idiotic and legally self-defeating. It's reminiscent, as one of Capt. Ed's commenters notes, of the Clinton Administration's effort to stall Paula Jones' lawsuit by claiming that as Commander-in-Chief the President is a serving member of the military. Clever, in a way. But definitely not smart. posted at 05:03 PM by Glenn Reynolds[/rquoter]
Yes, when the person who is next in line to run the world's only super power is trying to avoid any sort of oversight by claiming he isn't part of the executive branch, it is just pure political theater. How on earth could that be important? Also what a disaster that would be if Bush were hamstrung. He's done so much good for us all.
The problem then is that he should be subject to the rules of the legislative branch. Particularly the Senate if the argument is that he is a legislator as President of the Senate then he should be subject to the Senate's rules. Under that he has less independence from Congressional oversight than as a member of the Executive. Anyway the argument that the VP is a legislative official is still unconstitutional as the Constitution lists that the election of the VP as under Article II and Ammendment 12 with the President which would imply he is a member of the Executive branch. Further while in Article I it mentions that the VP is President of the Senate it also states that the Senate can operate without the VP so that office isn't integral to the Senate.
Did YOU read that article (other than the first sentence)? It clearly that putting Dick in the legislative branch creates more problem than it "solves". From the article: Gold. Except the power to avoid any oversight, of course. Oh VP can also casually shot a man.
you are a rockets fan who sympathizes with the jazz. You suck asshat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Who's to blame for the strain in my vocal cords? Who can pen a hateful thread but can't hold a sword? It's the same who complain about the global war But can't overthrow the local joker that they voted for
Ouch. I'm so hurt. How can I ever live with myself if SamFisher has leveled such clever insults at me. Somehow I will struggle to survive.
you should either kill yourself or go to jazzfanz.com. I'd pick the former rather than pollute the universe.
