You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index You-Read-It-Here-First
A collection of textual novelties
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
If you want to read the articles here, go ahead, just click on a forum and find a thread that interests you...no need to register! If you want to post something... either new or in response to someone here, then click the Register link above. It's free... and it's fun to write your ideas here. You can even create a "blog" by starting a personal thread in the Daily Life Every Thread A Diary section...

I'm The President...and your not!

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index -> Economic Skirmishes on the Borders of the Status Quo
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:45 am    Post subject: I'm The President...and your not! Reply with quote

Recent Democratic blunderings on trying to seize power and rewrite the Constitution by micromanaging their surrender in Iraq have finally ground to a halt.

Reid and Pelosi have been exposed. They do not believe in the electoral process. They believe that Al Gore is President.

It reminds me so much of the sentiment by liberal professors back at Princeton. In one course, I think we spent more time discussing Adlai Stevenson than Eisenhower. My friend and I used to joke about the liberal policy hounds who were part of the Stevenson Administration -- a phantasm that allowed them to think that dovish eggheads would actually be electable!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll leave your point about Adlai Stevenson to others, except to say that
I ate at "Stevenson Hall" (whose logo, incidentally, was a footprint with a
hole in it), so I might be biased.

As for the rest of your posting, if you strip away the loaded words,
what is left is your claim that for the congress to legislate limitations
on the war in Iraq is unconstitutional. Coming from someone who just
recently learned about the meaning of "strict constructivist judges",
your assertion doesn't have much credibility, I'm afraid. It has the
sound of someone parroting some radio talk show host. Note that
I am not saying that you are doing this, only that it sounds that way.

Part of the problem is in the terminology you use: surrender. We are
engaged in an occupation. You do not win or lose occupations. You
maintain them or end them. To paraphrase (and subvert) Bush,
"losing is not an option". Nor is surrender. Nor is victory.

Finally, if you want to talk about rewriting the constitution, I suggest
you look into the "signing statements" that George W. Bush has added
to legislation when he signs it into law. While a few other presidents
have added a few of these (generally describing how a law will be
interpretted), W has taken it to an entirely new level, in some cases
stating that the laws he signs don't apply to his administration. If
memory serves there have been over 700 of these signing statements
in the last 6 years. I'd sure like to see the Supreme Court get a chance
to rule on these, and the practice severely restricted.

-One Dovish Egghead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
your claim that for the congress to legislate limitations
on the war in Iraq is unconstitutional. Coming from someone who just
recently learned about the meaning of "strict constructivist judges",
your assertion doesn't have much credibility, I'm afraid. It has the
sound of someone parroting


If Congress had the guts to live up to the Constitution, it would declare a direct and open end to the war. The War Powers Act gives the Congress the ability to declare war. The job of the President is to be Commander in Chief.

What I am saying is that Congress is trying to be President by ordering troop withdrawls...which is the job of the President.

If Congress wanted to truly exercise its powers, it would patently declare an end to the war, and the President would be forced to comply.

The order of logic is:

Congress declares end to war.
Congress directs the President to cease all fighting.
Troop withdrawls are assumed.

I personally would call that action surrender, but you and others might applaud it. At any rate, why doesn't Congress simply use the simpler method of declaring an end to the war in Iraq?

Quote:
We are engaged in an occupation. You do not win or lose occupations.


What do you call the presence of troops in Germany or the Far East then?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jabailo wrote:
If Congress had the guts to live up to the Constitution, it would declare a direct and open end to the war. The War Powers Act gives the Congress the ability to declare war. The job of the President is to be Commander in Chief.

What I am saying is that Congress is trying to be President by ordering troop withdrawls...which is the job of the President.

If Congress wanted to truly exercise its powers, it would patently declare an end to the war, and the President would be forced to comply.

...

At any rate, why doesn't Congress simply use the simpler method of declaring an end to the war in Iraq?


You speak of Congress as if it were a monolithic entity. I think that
the correct answer to your question is that there does not currently
exist a 60 vote majority in the Senate to pass such a declaration.

In addition to declaring war, Congress (in particular, the House of
Representatives) also has the power to allocate money. Witness
the bridge to nowhere, etc.

Quote:
I personally would call that action surrender, but you and others might applaud it.


Franlkly, the proposals I've seen have been to pull out troops, yes,
but leave a large force in various bases in Iraq and the rest of the
region. Sometimes the phrase "over the horizon" is used.

Iraq was not an Islamic state. It was not an immediate threat.
It was not responsible for 9/11. It was not linked to Al Queda.
It did not have weapons of mass destruction, nor significant
active programs to create them. It is very clear that the current
administration "cherry-picked" (to use a gentle term) the intelligence
to try to create a cause for going to war, a war that it wanted from
the start. People of good will may differ on the reasons for this.
Personally, I think that it was a "move" made as part of the
"end game" of oil.

I don't know the best way to move forward, but I find it supremely
difficult to agree when this administration says "trust us on this one"
when they still seek to obscure the simple facts (and the one conjecture)
that I lay out above. If I felt that there was an admission of these
ideas, then I would find it easier to have some basis of trust going
forward. You speak of courage, as in "why doesn't congress have
the courage to do X, Y and Z". I put the question to you: why doesn't
this administration have the courage to say "we wanted their oil for
the foreseeable future, because we think the world will be running out."
There's a boatload of people that might shake their head and blink
for a few moments, but support the policy, because, after all, it seems
to be in their best interest.

I'm still waiting for Tony Snow to tell us that "of course we went into
Iraq to stop the civil war", a claim not much more ridiculous than the
sequence of rationales trotted out up to now.

So, we're in a bad spot. Do we need a Nixon/Kissinger tag team to
declare "peace with honor" (or was it "peace with dignity"?). I have the
feeling that Congress might calm down if W admitted to his own, real
motives for going to war. Until that happens, I can't blame Congress
for trying to disentangle us from this mess that even Rumsfeld
acknowledged is/was creating more terrorists than it killed. Look at
the terrorist incident statistics. Up, up, up. Of course, you don't need
statistics to show this. A child could predict it.

Quote:
What do you call the presence of troops in Germany or the Far East then?


I don't know a nice memetic/jargon phrase for this. For the US, it
is a forward base and a continuing tie to Europe, NATO, et al, in a
non-combat setting. For the allies, it is an economic benefit, and a
buffer against outside aggression a la USSR. These are peaceful
countries, true, working democracies that have asked us to be there,
or have agreed to let us stay. We couldn't have stayed in these
places for very long if there wasn't a consensus that the people
wanted us there. Nothing like Iraq, where a majority of people
polled said that it was okay to kill American soldiers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2007 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
In addition to declaring war, Congress (in particular, the House of
Representatives) also has the power to allocate money.


Ok, then use that power. Instead of bundling an appropriations bill with a timetable, simply cut funding for the war....plain and simple.

Why don't they just do that?

My opinion: The Democrats know we have to fight the War and therefore they are trying to discredit the Republican President while at the same time getting the credit for themselves.

Who suffers because of Dem pignatiousness? We...and the troops....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Franlkly, the proposals I've seen have been to pull out troops, yes, but leave a large force in various bases in Iraq and the rest of the
region. Sometimes the phrase "over the horizon" is used.


This is where the logic breaks down, and where I believe the Democratic Congress is wrong.

If you leave troops there, in inadequate numbers, there are two problems. First of all, if you (Congress) acknowledge that there is some form of action still needed by having troops there, so you are therefore not declaring an "end to war". But at that point, you thereby cede the responsibility of troop deployment, still, to the President.

A second problem that comes from this micromanagement is that you, Congress, by arbitrarily telling the Commander how many troops he can put where, and restricting his budget, may be making the opposite of the blunder you hope to remedy -- you may be putting too few troops in! That may make these men easier targets. It may make them easier for the enemy to fight and the enemy would take it as a sign to increase hostilities.

While we see all the violence still in Iraq -- we have no idea how much more violence could possibly arise if we reduce our troops too soon!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index -> Economic Skirmishes on the Borders of the Status Quo All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group