I agree they are doing something but in the war for public opinion Congress usually comes up short against the Presidency. Its the nature of the offices that the President as an individual has a bigger bully pulpit than Congress as a group. As for if Congress could do more I suppose you mean the Congressional Democrats coudl do more. Congress as an institution is doing about all it can with the narrow majorities in each chamber and an opposition President. As long as the President still weilds the veto pen and enough legislators don't cross sides then not much is going to happen. While I don't want to see the war continue I'm resigned to the fact that there isn't going to be a possibility of ending until GW Bush is out of office.
You are frustrating as hell. No the world was not perfect. But it was a little better than it is now as, for example, WE WEREN'T IN THIS STUPID ****ING WAR AND 3,200 AMERICANS HADN'T DIED MEANINGLESSLY! I would love it if you would stop acting like all presidents and politicians were the same and like this war was just standard operating procedure. They're not and it's not. A hell of a lot of people have died unnecessarily as a direct result of Bush's presidency. That would not have happened under Gore, McCain, Kerry or virtually anyone else.
First of all, there's an excellent chance that enough legislators will cross sides before Bush is out of office. We don't need that many more on the war issue and most observers expect more to start peeling off around September. Second, the Democrats could make it happen sooner than that if they weren't such sissies about weilding the power of the purse.
Strange, but true. At least giddyup will admit to having opinions. Donkey seems to have one motivation and one motivation only -- to say the president isn't responsible for the decisions he makes.
throw out the number of troops killed..how original. the only way that # may be considered is if iraq completely fails in the long run and fighting a war half assed (mostly due to lack of full commitment) will certainly lead to that failure. personally, no matter what happens, i would never call a military persons "meaningless" well you dont know it wouldnt have happened with anyone else. thats pure speculation.
lol. i didnt say that. you are learning the tacitcs or my fans well... putting words in other peoples mouths. but you, along with the others, only seem to be motivated by placing all responsibility on him.
So what. It's the right thing to do at this point. I've argued fairly forcefully against impeachment over the last year or so, and I would still be against impeaching Bush (though less so every day). But when you have a guy like Cheney who is running the pieces (and only those pieces) of Gov he wants to run... again, military, intelligence, foreign policy... and on top of all the egregious things he's done, he makes a claim that he belongs to no branch of government, that he falls under no Constitutional authority, that he is responsible to none... well then, the right thing for the long-term health of the country is to get rid of the lunatic. Similar arguments could have been made in the 1960's and smart people saw that pushing through Civil Rights would damage the political prospects of Dems. It happened and one could argue that it has contributed to our problems today. Still, it was the right thing to do. Impeaching Cheney is the right thing to do for the health of our nation. I also think you could tie Cheney to Iraq and make the case that with him gone, the war is over quicker.
Bull. My motivation is ending this horrible mistake of a war. A war which, incidentally, cannot only be lost due to "lack of full commitment" but can be lost because it is a freaking civil war that has only ever been contained by a brutal dictator. We don't even know who to shoot at. We don't even know who to shoot at. We cannot "succeed," through "full commitment," by shooting more people than they do when we don't even know who to shoot at. Less than half of this country believes we should have ever gone in. Less than half believes we should be there through the end of the year. Less than half believes we are winning. Less than half considers it part of the "war on terror." It's over. The only ones that don't know it are Bush and the 26% of the country that continue to listen to him. Lack of "full commitment?" You bet. The American people want this war over. And screw you for disdaining mention of the number killed. They ****ing well matter and it is despicable that they continue to die for nothing more than Bush not wanting to admit a mistake.
As a supporter of the war in Iraq have you made a full commitment? Maybe the reason the military is fighting the war in a "half-assed" way (you're position, not mine) is that all of the keyboard warriors won't get off their ass and join a fight they claim to suport?
Please. Of course you can "consider" the number of troops killed... and injured and away from their loved ones and away from their normal jobs and the effects of their long-term health care, including psychological, and you can consider a whole bunch of other stuff as well. We live in a democracy where people can consider whatever they want in deciding the issues of the day. Don't tell anyone what they can't consider.. it's unAmerican and reflects badly on your civic education. And here's a clue. We don't have to wait to see if Iraq completely fails. It was a failure from the minute the plan was proposed. The policy continues to be a failure. And you know damn well that the policy is what Bats is talking about when he said "meaningless." It had nothing to do with the worthiness or sacrifice of the folks on the ground in Iraq. Also, if you're going to use the "full commitment" argument, you should remember how committed the administration was in getting things like armor to our troops.
I'd agree with that. Our history of not bringing powerful politicians to justice for their misdeeds does a great disservice to our democracy. When an elected president sees Nixon get pardoned, Reagan smuggling arms, Clinton perjuring himself in court, and Bush spying on citizens without warrants, denying civil and even human rights to prisoners, and okaying torture -- not to mention folks like Cheney refusing to obey executive orders, Rove attacking political enemies by endangering their spouses, DeLay rigging elections with unbalanced redistricting, plus all the bribes floating around... well with all these things going almost completely unpunished, there is no deterrence for future leaders from becoming tyrants except their own moral scruples. And, if our future depends on the moral scruples of a politician, we're in trouble. I understand why the Democrats have no will to do these things, since they are interested in securing power, not justice. But we'll be paying for it. Bush knew he could get away with this stuff because all his predecessors did. He maybe exploited it a bit more, but he's been successful. Why wouldn't the next guy follow suit? So, I'm with you. Throw that guy out. I don't really have anything against Cheney. I don't agree with everyone who thinks he's the Great Satan behind the Little Satan. But, this sort of attitude should not be tolerated.
Maybe deadeye needs to go back and take high school civics again. A simple google search for an org chart, according to the Constitution, clearly shows that the office of the Vice President falls with the executive branch of government. http://bensguide.gpo.gov/files/gov_chart.pdf Article Two of the United States Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...ution#Section_1:_President_and_Vice_President
I hope you're right but pardon me for my skepticism. Not really. Bush still wields the veto pen and the only way they could cut off funding would probably be at the expense of not passing anything and shutting down government since if the Dems passed an appropriations bill without funding the war Bush would veto it. My guess is Bush would be willing to risk government shutdown but the Dems wouldn't as that would really mean the troops are stranded in Iraq with no way back along with shutting down a lot of other things the Democrats care about. [edit]There still might be another way of ending the war without going through the purse which is to withdraw the authorization. Since the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war then it reasons that they have the power to undeclare it. I think that's an interesting Constitutional question and since there wasn't an official declaration for Iraq I'm not sure if that qualifies.
Well Clinton was impeached. Anyway as far as keeping our leaders from becoming tyrants there is a way of stopping that. Vote them out of office.
thats better than leading us into a quagmire of a war, breaking the law at every turn, running up the deficit, creating ill will towards the U.S. the world over, etc...... I'll gladly take zero compared to what these clowns think they are producing. Its ok to admit you are wrong Donkey
via TPM, some simple questions the Executive Branch needs to answer. -- Perhaps it's best to take a moment to summarize the questions that need answers: * Why did Bush and Cheney abide by the executive order in question in 2001 and 2002, and then stop in 2003? Is it a coincidence they started ignoring the E.O. on handling classified materials just as they started mishandling classified materials? * Why did Cheney abide by the E.O. in 2001 and 2002 if he's not part of the executive branch? * Why did the President exempt the Vice President from an executive order he was already following? Why did he later exempt himself? * When, precisely, did the White House decide that Bush and Cheney should exempt themselves from their own rules? * Does Bush consider Cheney part of the executive branch? Why has the White House thus far refused to respond to this question? Does the President consider this a trick question? * In its response to questions about the E.O., why did the White House point to a provision of the E.O. that doesn't exist? * The White House insists, "There's no question that [Cheney] is in compliance" with the E.O. If there is no oversight, and Cheney is unaccountable, how does the White House know? * In yesterday's press briefing, the president's spokesperson dismissed the oversight provision of the E.O. as "small" six times. Does the White House believe only "big" provisions need to be followed? How does the administration make the distinction? Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said yesterday, "Vice President Cheney is expanding the administration's policy on torture to include tortured logic. In the end, neither Mr. Cheney nor his staff is above the law or the Constitution." At this point, I think they might quibble with that assertion. -- Steve Benen
Oh this just keeps getting better and better. Now Bush claims he's not part of the Executive Branch. --------------------------- Bush claims oversight exemption too The White House says the president's own order on classified data does not apply to his office or the vice president's. By Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writer June 23, 2007 WASHINGTON — The White House said Friday that, like Vice President Dick Cheney's office, President Bush's office is not allowing an independent federal watchdog to oversee its handling of classified national security information. An executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 — amending an existing order — requires all government agencies that are part of the executive branch to submit to oversight. Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...1&coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true
