No (on the political profiling quiz, I tended toward libertrianism rather than authoritarianism. I think people should be allowed to do their job. There are things I question. I don't find it does me or anybody anygood to clamor publicly about something beyond my control. If you want to impeach him, write your reps. If not, wait until an election and vote your conscience. Bush executes the plan. He runs his administration; they don't run him... and certainly he doesn't take his order from the Legislative Branch. Indeed, mistakes have been made. Winning the war was easy; maintaining the peace has proven a challenge BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE WINNING THE WAR UNWORTHY in my honest opinion.
i always thought in our constitution the executive enforced the laws which the legislature made. hmmm.
Then you don't like the systems of checks and balances. Because under that system they should get all of the evidence and do their job overseeing Bush. When you want to present it to congress as a whole, or the American people they can state what they feel to be the strongest arguments. When providing evidence to the legislative branch, they are supposed to provide them with all of it. Are you saying the Bush administration was trying to make the case for war, regardless of what the facts were? Because when you ask questions like why should they present evidence that went against the case they were trying to make, it sure sounds like it.
Well, of course. If Bush has done something illegal the system will take care of him. He was elected because he had an agenda that he wanted to accomplish. It is his right to do that to the best of his ability. BTW, I think the enforcement probably falls more under the Judicial Branch than the Executive...
dude. regardless of the reality of our political system...since 3rd grade you are fed the notion that the legislative branch makes the law. the executive enforces. and the judicial interprets. c'mon now. basic civics.
I think we are quibbling here; I say execute, you say enforce... But I have to ask: when was the last time a sitting US president put someone in jail?
should is different than would.. he should have presented conflicting evidence.. its his responsibilty.. he's the f*ing president.. everyone would agree with that.. are you saying its right not to present conflicting evidence because its not inhis personal interest to do so? if bush didn't present conflicting evidence, then, is it for his personal/cabal's gain or for the nation's security?
... in the case of capital crimes? Yes! Summary execution within 2 years of conviction and sentencing after mandatory DNA testing.
Sorry to derail the thread for a moment but I had to ask about this. What about murders where there is no DNA evidence?
Yes, of course they are. The president is the head of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and all of the other intelligence gathering agencies. When making a case for war, it is his DUTY to provide Congress with ALL of the relevant information, not just the cherry picked lies of Chalabi and Curveball. He could have used and cited only the evidence he wanted to use and cite to make his case as long as he also provided Congress with ALL relevant information so that they could have made an informed decision. If I were the president and I were making the case for war, I would. Yes, I regularly present the arguments of another side of a debate in order to preemptively debunk those arguments.
That's up to the jury that heard the evidence.... I don't see any point in these things dragging out 17 years.
