|
3
Nerd-Its
|
|
blog (coffee shop)
by If you listen to Americans complain, President Bush is the general target of distaste for the presence in Iraq. This past Tuesday, 42.5 million viewers watched the president's televised speech that outlined his new plan for operations in the Middle East. Almost immediately, congressional democrats expressed their opinion that Bush's plan is not what the public voted for in the recent elections. This of course, begs the question, who has the authority (perhaps even a public responsibility) to withdraw American forces from Iraq?
The United States Constitution defines the power of the president, which was confirmed by the Department of Justice, with regard to deploying the military. On the other hand, Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution defines the powers of congress; specifically the power to declare war and to support the army. Digging deeper, clause 11, known as the War Powers Clause, of the Constitution specifically outlines congressional authority with regard to war. In the history of the United States, congress has normally supported the actions of the president despite a framework that clearly establishes a separation of power.
The president's ninety days of arbitrary deployment have long since passed. Referencing the Constitution, should the angst of Americans lie with its congressional representation rather than the executive branch?
Add a Comment (55)
Email This
Message Author
The new minimum wage bill would be effective in all states and territories, except American Samoa.
Why? Two tuna fish companies employ 75% of American Samoa's workforce. One, Starkist (like most businesses) is vigorously opposed to the minimum wage hike. And in whose Congressional district is Starkist headquartered?
Answer: Nancy Pelosi.
Way to take care of the working man, Nancy!
The ball is on the Dems side of the court now. They talk the talk, now they have to walk the walk! Question now, is there enough balls on there side of the court?
Can you say "Culture of corruption"?
Yes. I have also read 'Bushwacked' by Molly Ivins, so don't get me started on the catfish canneries in the Mississippi Delta.
Today, CNN reported on Bush challenging his opponents. "To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," Bush said.
The article fits in line with this logic completely. It's not like the "new congress" has much research to do into the matter. The issues have been on the table for years now. They've been complaining for years now. Yes, Bush makes himself look ridiculously arrogant with the statement - but it is true. His opponents wield the complete power to undo the entire military operation with a single voting session.
Yet they don't. So should pundits stick we have anti-congress bumper stickers all over their cars now?
"To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," Bush said.
It’s sort of like if someone invited themselves over to your house for a party or something and then made a gigantic mess. After the fun was over you ask them to clean it up, except that when they do they seem to be making more of a mess, or at least not getting very far with the cleanup.
So you have the nerve to complain, and they say, “Well, if you don’t like how I’m doing it, why don’t you do it?
Eventually you will have to do the cleaning yourself, but right now there’s too many hard feelings and pointed fingers for anyone to get the job done.
It’s sort of like if someone invited themselves over to your house for a party or something and then made a gigantic mess.
You (Congress) shouldn't have let him come over and throw the party in the first place. But one of the two following scenarios is true:
1. You (Congress) were so afraid of losing your seat in the '02 midterms that you didn't have the guts to stand up for your principles.
2. You (Congress) didn't discover your anti-Iraq War principles until the scales tipped on the national polls, when 50% or more of the public decided (after the fact) that the Iraq War was a bad idea.
Either way, you (Congress) should have exercised some leadership and stood up for what you believed in. Instead, all you (Congress) do is b*tch about the way things turned out, but continue to bring home pork to your district to keep your job, since that's the only principle that really matters to you.
I have no respect for Congress, whether it's led by Republicans or Democrats. When they're not punting to the executive (Iraq), they're punting to the judiciary (abortion, gay marriage, etc.).
I agree completelty. I have lost almost all respect for congress, whether it be Republican or Democrat. If you don't like Bush's policies, do something about it! Ah, but therin lays the rub. To do something congressmen (especially Democrats) would actually hvae to take a stand on something and committ to some decision. I think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi stay up at night shaking because one day they may have to actually make a decision other than to raise taxes, which for them is a given. QED: Congress is now a publically funded version of The View; cackling, whining, unattractive women prattling on about things they won't even try to understand.
CNN reports that President Bush has directly challenged that congress does not have the power to stop his troop increase. "Frankly, that's not their responsibility. It's my responsibility to put forward the plan that I think will succeed. I believe if they start trying to cut off funds, they better explain to the American people and the soldiers why their plan will succeed."
And I'll bet you congress totally rolls over on its back, doing nothing but complaining. Given this gauntlet toss by the president, we will see exactly what the true colors of the democrat congress are within the next five days.
People just don't understand. They think Bush's got the power because he's got the monkeys. They're wrong! He's got the power, because he'll let the monkeys out! People don't understand him, but they all understand monkeys.
We should get out as soon as possible.
Intervening in a civil war (sufficiently to make a difference) always results in an unstable outcome that will have to enforced indefinitely.
More people will be harmed by us staying there because the natural balance will be achieved in the long run. It does not matter if we don't like the outcome of the civil war. That is not our business - unless we are in the oil business.
Are our young men being killed for the oil business?
More people will be harmed by us staying there because the natural balance will be achieved in the long run. It does not matter if we don't like the outcome of the civil war.
I don't think that will even be solved in the long run. I was just in the Met this past weekend looking at the Ancient Near Eastern exhibit. There were historical tidbits describing the massive Babylonian violence dating as far back as "the cradle of civilization."
That is not our business - unless we are in the oil business. Are our young men being killed for the oil business?
So one must really ask - are the resources we need worth the price of involvement? I say yes. Once depleted, then certainly, let them be isolated in their sandbox to continue "working it out" until the end of man.
We may not be in the oil business ... but the world needs oil anyway.
For those that can't remember their history - here's a summary of the Monroe Doctrine. I have to add that literally, the Monroe Doctrine is not really applicable as nobody is trying to colonize the United States anymore. Now if you meant that we're colonizing the Middle East ... that's a different ball of wax altogether.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe that the Monroe doctrine was originally about the USA not interfering in colonial wars in the Americas provided that the European powers also refrained from fighting there for their former colonies - or intervening in any wars in South America to claim resources. It was really the creation of his Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams and for many years it was moot because the USA did not have the military power to enforce the doctrine. Later in the 19 century the doctrine was distorted to allow for US imperial behaviour in Mexico, Cuba and the Pacific. However, primarily it was about America minding its own business.
Perhaps it helps to explain our late entry into the World Wars.
Actually, the Monroe Doctrine told the Europeans to stop interfering and colonizing in the Americas. The US would stay nuetral in European affairs, unless they interfered here or their wars expanded here. That would be considered a threat to the US, and we would respond accordingly. It was a statement against colonialism, but was later "distorted" to express our influence in the Western Hemisphere.
Isn't that what I said? It was hollow rhetoric at the time. In the 1830s the USA was poweless to do anything about European intervention in the Americas. Britain asked for support on the same policy but got only the empty Monroe Doctrine.
I read your comment as the US not interfering in Europe, with less emphasis on their not interfering in the Western Hemisphere. The latter was the main point of the doctrine, and I'm not so sure it was all that hollow. European colonial wars and military build-ups in the Western Hemisphere were a security threat to us. Our oceans weren't such a great buffer against them if, say, France built up a huge Army in Mexico as they did at one point (and the Mexicans fought them off, hence the Cinco de Mayo festivities).
Once depleted, then certainly, let them be isolated in their sandbox to continue "working it out" until the end of man.
That's just the problem...we left the Taliban alone to work it out and left them to their own devices and look what happened. These guys have a nasty tendency to make their problems our problems (and then blame us).
First off, saying the war in Iraq is for the oil business is way off the mark. I've written exhaustively on this in many places. We get around 5% of our oil from Iraq, and actually got more while Saddam was in power. If you don't believe me go to the EIA and check the stats yourself. Moreover, the oil exported from the country is certainly subject to far more scrutiny than it was during Saddam's reign, and therefore, your implication of us taking the oil without paying fair market value kind of goes up in smoke.
As for getting out and leaving them to fight their civil war without us, you really need to read the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report, freely downloadable at the link I provided, or go to my book list and buy it from Amazon. Their civil war, and the implications of a broader regional war or some thug taking over are a very dangerous proposition, especially on one of the worst ethnic and religious fault lines on Earth--Sunni and Shia, Arab and Persian, Kurd and Turk all have a nexus there that has explosive potential.
Thanks. I will buy your book and read it carefully. I did not say that we went into that war to secure cheap gas for Americans. The reason was far more subtle than that. It has more to do with maintaining profits and investments of Texas oil companies that have far too much influence on our Administration through the Vice President.
Sadly, what you say about the likely outcome of the civil war in Iraq is probably true. We must understand that the people there have a long tradition of living under powerful rulers - often vicious dictators like Saddam. Democracy seems to them to be a silly idea bound to cause civil disturbance - especially if the US Constitution is applied. When they get to choose a leader they will elect another dictator.
The real point is that it is none of our business - that is why I invoked the Monroe Doctrine in the subject heading. We understood that once. Americans are not equipped to mediate in an Islamic sectarian conflict. That would be like the 16th century Japanese going to Elizabethan England to help sort out the Protestants and Catholics.
We must understand that the people there have a long tradition of living under powerful rulers - often vicious dictators like Saddam. Democracy seems to them to be a silly idea bound to cause civil disturbance
They voted for democracy twice. I think a lot of people are trying to make this work. I think something like 70% of the population turned out to vote. Mao says an insurgency only needs the cooperation of about 5% of the population. The estimates of the number of active participants in the insurgency in Iraq are certainly smaller than 70%. I think it would be a shame to let these people get put under someone's thumb yet again, and I doubt they will chose a dictator--but one will try to chose them. The missing ingredient we need for success is Iraqi national will. The people need to decide this is what they want and to put their foot down on the insurgents and accept some civic responsibility.
he real point is that it is none of our business
We thought the Taliban was none of our business after the Soviet Afghan war. Even if that wasn't the case, and these were a bunch of riled up Amish people who would never harm us again if we left them alone, we stired things up and owe it to them to help them help themselves in getting things straight again.
Americans are not equipped to mediate in an Islamic sectarian conflict.
No, but that clash was inevitable, and had to be handled by someone at some point. It has been extra-ordinarily violent in the past, most recently in the Iran-Iraq war. Add Iranian nuclear weapons to the mix, the culture that brought us the suicide bomber, and it becomes everyone's business again.
I deeply regret the mess we have made in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I don't care enough about it to have my sons die in a ditch trying to help them - and probably only making things worse.
Our intervention in Iraq has made the terrorist danger to us much worse. Suicide bomber volunteers are flocking to the cause because of our dismal performance there.
Talking to vets has convinced me that most of our casualties are being caused by friendly fire. Our weapons are too devastating for the theatre, and our training and discipline inadequate. Our troops are brave and committed but they deserve to be better led.
Talking to vets has convinced me that most of our casualties are being caused by friendly fire. Our weapons are too devastating for the theatre, and our training and discipline inadequate. Our troops are brave and committed but they deserve to be better led.
Vets of what war, Korea? 'Cause it doesn't sound like the war I was in, or PowerPointSamurai, or Vnutz, or Mark, or Will, or Mike, or romanizzo, or Tom, or...anybody I forgot to mention 'cause it's 6:30 in the AM. Most of our casualties are being caused by Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) planted by the insurgency, not friendly fire. The weapons used day to day by our forces are small arms and vehicle-mounted machine guns ranging in size from the 5.56mm M249, the 7.62mm M240b up to the fifty caliber M2, as well as the 40mm Mark 19 grenade launcher. We don't drop just carpet bomb neighborhoods where our patrols are operating, or indiscriminately blast away with tank fire near our troops. As for being discipline and training being inadequate- maybe if our troops were fighting the Martians from War of the Worlds.
I deeply regret the mess we have made in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I don't care enough about it to have my sons die in a ditch trying to help them - and probably only making things worse.
Our intervention in Iraq has made the terrorist danger to us much worse. Suicide bomber volunteers are flocking to the cause because of our dismal performance there.
I totally disagree with this. This area and the Middle East in general has been so repressed for so long that this was virtually inevitable. This is a major cultural fault line. Leaving these people to be oppressed and repressed while we sit around and watch big screen TVs is morally repugnant. The lid is off. We deal with this now, or they will deal with us. I suggest you go read some of al Qaeda's plans for the next 100 years over at the Combating Terrorism Center. Look under "Harmony/Disharmony". The "100 years" was not a typo or hyperbole. We can't get Americans to think beyond their next Starbucks purchase, while they patiently wait for us to get bored and leave.
As for your comment about "dismal performance", that's a load of hooey. We are being spectacularly successful militarilly, and we are only lagging on the law enforcement and civic action side of things in Iraq. Military action alone won't win the war. In fact, there's a really good quote I picked up from Amory Lovin's Winning the Oil End Game from Air Force Lt. Col Tony Kren--"The war [on terrorism] will be won or lost by the American citizens, not diplomats, politicians or soldiers"--it will be won by by patience, will and moral choice. The only way we lose in Iraq, and in the broader war on terror, is to walk away.
Talking to vets has convinced me that most of our casualties are being caused by friendly fire. Our weapons are too devastating for the theatre, and our training and discipline inadequate.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what "vets" you've been talking to, but I am one myself. I know and interact daily with hundreds of other vets. We share operational and tactical lessons learned. I have heard absolutely no indication whatsoever that this is true, and moreover, these things would be readily known to the public because of the distinctive indications of our weapons vs. those of our enemies. In other words, it doesn't take a genius to figure out who was killed by an errant JDAM or M-16 round vs. an AK-47, IED, or RPG. What's more, this would have a devastating effect on morale, which would evaporate re-enlistment rates--which the opposite is true--we are experiencing record re-enlistment rates, particularly from vets who have been in a combat zone. Don't take my word for it, look anywhere you want and you will see public evidence that the re-enlistment rates are spectacular.
Spectaularly successful? The sectarian violence is getting more out of hand every day. Not being on either side of the religious divide we can't win or loose that war because we are not in it. We aim to help the government to keep a lid on the violence in general. The government has a side so we are being drawn onto that Shia side - which puts us in conflict with neighbouring countries. There is no real military mission there, and no way for our troops to be spectacularly successful. We will know we are making a positive difference only when the violence declines - and there has been no sign of that yet.
Shooting at insurgents won't do it. Our military presence is only inflaming the situation. We have not got the diplomatic or religious credentials to play the role of mediator in a shia/sunny feud. We are like samurai sent to England in 1580 trying to help Liz stop the catholics fighting the protestants. We haven't a clue what they are fighting about and we don't care - but we are better at warfare and we have some great weapons. We know that our political system is superior so if we can only get them to understand that they will calm down and become happy Jappys like us.
I think you hit reply before actually reading my post. I said the military portion has been spectacularly successful. Whenever the insurgents are stupid enough to present themselves for shooting, they die. We raid them and are doing a fantastic job of the actual fighting against them.
The second part you seemed to ignore for some reason is the civic action and police portion. I said we can kill insurgents all day long and the general situation won't improve--we need to empower and train the Iraqi police, build their legitimacy, build the infrastructure, and all the stuff listed in the ISG. The Iraqi government needs to step up and prove its legitimacy to the people. Here are some of the other key portions of the ISG I haven't mentioned yet: national reconcilation (esp with the Sunni), deciding how to fairly distribute the oil revenues, and getting rid of all the militias, which, incidentally, the US is doing as we speak in conjunction with the Iraqi Army--going after the Shia militia we've been leaving alone for so long to deal with al Qaeda, al Zarchari and his merry band of miscreants. As you mentioned, the Shia enjoy a majority in the government and some of those people were reluctant to bring the hammer to some of their powerful political supporters that got them elected. That's changing, because those guys are fanning the flames with the sectarian violence and have to go.
As for your faciful Japanese intervention in Victorian England, who knows, maybe it would've been a good thing. These little regional squabbles have a way of leaking out and affecting everyone else, so from a "real-politik" standpoint, it's in the world's best interest to come to a consensus and put the lid on some of these things and try to get them to work it out. From a "liberal" or idealist standpoint (on the Doyle model, not the liberal like you automatically think from listening to Air America or some other talk radio show), we have a moral obligation to defend liberty and help people and help improve the conditions to prevent further conflict.
Please have a look at these link to see why the war has been about oil.
http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/20030214_renner_the_new_oil_order.php
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0720-14.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/strw-j14.shtml
http://www.mises.org/story/1134
http://www.pww.org/article/view/1996/1/110/
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2003/03/24/story4.html
This is more insidious than the simplistic agrument about cheap gas at the pump for Americans.
The only Americans who will benefit from this are those few who work for, or have shares in, companies like Haliburton - and few of them will have sons in the fighting.
I don't need to read a bunch of echo-chamber opinion blogs--I've heard all the wacko conspiracy theories before. You might also want to know that the phrase "We're all fighting for Wall Street" was one of the all time most successful and still pervasive Soviet propaganda campaigns ever--and ties into this argument directly. The fact of the matter is that the EIA shows that we get less oil from Iraq than we did before the war. The oil production is under tighter scrutiny than it was during the Saddam era (when it was being pilfered by the same people who criticized this war in the first place), and the "oil shock" caused by the war replenished the coffers of many of the other oil producers, such as Iran and Russia. If this war was about oil, then it certainly had the reverse effect. Moreover, I think a lot of people making this argument blocked huge tracts of time out of their memory when the President stated our reasons for going to Iraq--regime change, WMDs, free the Iraqi people, etc. Before you jump on the WMD thing (which I've also written exhaustively on), I defy you to find any intel or military official who did not believe in their bones that he had WMDs. Moreover, our intel grossly underestimated his WMD capabilities going into Desert Storm. That underestimation coupled with the failure to detect 9/11 certainly could lead to being a little less cautious in your estimates.
One thing I do agree with you on here is that our oil dependance does undermine our efforts and invites cynicism about our motives every time we do something. There is a really good paper on this by CDR Kraemer at the Strategic Studies Institute, entitled Addicted to Oil (free download). He argues his case on this point quite eloquently.
It is sensible (not a wacko conspiracy theory) to assume that the people who run Haliburton and the like are doing the best to use this administration for the interest of their share price. That is their main reason for existence. They have achieved a lot in that direction without actually bringing more oil into America in the last few years.
You only need to look at our history of the 19 Century to see how corrupt our political system can become. Not much has changed.
The best propaganda requires some level of truth so of course the soviets used it. We only said nice things about them.
Actually, I haven't been able to find one senior officer in the Army or Navy, and I know many, who thought that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. I never mentioned the WMD thing because I find it hugely embarrassing that our top people made such fools of themselves. We ordinary folks did too. Remember the freedom fries nonsense? The French were wiser than us!
The Regime change motive also embarrasses me. How arrogant. Again even more arrogant than the French. Why Iraq - plenty of other dispicable dictators around.
Most officers I know did believe the WMD story because they trusted the President then. They thought he had professional, effective and fearless intelligence services who would advise him accurately on such an important matter.
Soon the CIA and NSA were telling him only what they thought he wanted to hear - because they believed their careers were in danger.
We deserve to be in the mess we are in. We earned it.
On a general note, I must admit I don't swallow much of what you've written as it all seems very speculative. For example, the CIA and NSA officers might have pandered to the President, but they also very easily might not have. I'm going to need a lot more than your word (e.g., testimony, letters, recorded conversations, etc.) to convince me it was the former and not the latter.
On a specific note, I work in the oil industry and I find your statement about "people who run Haliburton and the like" to be very unbelievable. I have yet to meet anyone working for any oil-related company that believes the profit of their employer is worth going to war. Again, these companies might be warmongering to increase revenue, but they very easily might not. I'm going to need a lot more than your word (e.g., testimony, letters, recorded conversations, etc.) to convince me it is the former and not the latter.
Actually, I haven't been able to find one senior officer in the Army or Navy, and I know many, who thought that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea.
Yeah, right. I am active duty and deal with multitudes every single day who differ in that opinion.
I never mentioned the WMD thing because I find it hugely embarrassing that our top people made such fools of themselves. We ordinary folks did too. Remember the freedom fries nonsense? The French were wiser than us!
The French intelligence and their national leadership both also claimed Saddam had WMD. Hind sight is 20/20 and I think you and many others are being a little disingenuous with their criticism on this. Note also that the French were most aggregiously dipping into the "oil for food" scam. That's not wisdom, that's "real-politik".
The Regime change motive also embarrasses me. How arrogant. Again even more arrogant than the French. Why Iraq - plenty of other dispicable dictators around.
Because Saddam had other bad things, like the WMD going for him, and we already had sizable forces committed to perpetually "containing" him. Remember Operation Desert Fox and the carrier task force and 1st Cav division deployment wind sprints he made us undergo around 1998? Ever heard of "Intrinsic Action"?
Also, some of the other nasty dictators you imply have other mitigating factors involved. For example, all the regional players around North Korea are involved in trying to push Kim in the right direction. Kim also virtually has South Korea held hostage with an arsenal of artillery pointed at Seoul. That war would be no OIF cake-walk, it would be nasty. Iran shows many signs of potential internal reform.
Iraq's reformers, whom we previously pinned our hopes on, and the sanctions, inspectors, and all the others did nothing but get Shia and Kurdish minorities killed and waste our money and resources. That was NEVER going to result in anything but a money pit. Like it or not, the current ISG plan promises a better result.
> Most officers I know did believe the WMD story because they trusted the President then.
Our national intelligence assets told us that. Ever heard of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees? You can't tell me "Bush Lied" when they have a responsibility for intel oversight and never questioned the intel either--until after the fact when it was a great tool for cynical political gain. Moreover, as I mentioned before, Saddam's weapons programs up to Desert Storm were FAR more advanced than intel believed. All the regional intel people echoed the belief that Saddam had WMDs. Saddam himself was using the perception that he had WMDs to maintain control of his own Army (who ALSO thought he had WMDs, and did not find out to the contrary until after OIF began). He also did it as a phantom deterrence against us and Iran.
Soon the CIA and NSA were telling him only what they thought he wanted to hear - because they believed their careers were in danger.
Well then Clinton is also responsible, because they were saying the same things under his watch.
Thanks. You have given me a lot to think about.
I want to believe in the integrity of our leadership too. I remember that it was a nice feeling.
It was when new President Bush was talking up a war in Iraq that I discussed it with my senior officer friends, and it was at that time they thought it was a huge mistake. Admittedly some took this view not for moral reasons but only because they thought that our military would become over-extended. So this time it really is not a case of being wise after the event.
I believe that the intelligence services suffered badly from senior external appointments by the Administration. These people displaced the career experts and felt that they had to support the White House view on the need for war.
I don't understand your point about them getting it so wrong about WMD in Iraq before Desert Storm. If I accept it as true, how does that make the later intelligence reports more reliable?
The fact is that they were wrong, the President was misled, and the result has been appalling loss for thousands of American families. Even if it was all done with the best of intentions there should be a big price to pay for that.
His best defence is that we make him take an oath to protect the Union and so even if he is not certain he has to act to protect us.
If I accept it as true, how does that make the later intelligence reports more reliable?
Intelligence is basically about making educated guesses. You look at indicators and warnings and a lot of circumstantial evidence. People die when you get it wrong. If you guess too conservatively, and miss signs of a threat, the enemy catches you by surprise. If you jump the gun and make a big deal about nothing, other stuff can happen. Add to this the fact that the enemy is intentionally trying to deceive you and lead you down blind alleys and believe what he wants you to believe. Saddam had a robust deception plan to fool us and his own Army (so they wouldn't think he was weak and kill him off).
My point with the WMD program revelations after Desert Storm was that for years the intel community under-rated some serious threats, and then you had a string of nasty business, like the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, and all those other tragedies pulled off by al Qaeda and we were caught unawares. The final straw was 9/11. Suddenly the whole intel community was being grilled by Congress and the entire country for failing to detect and do something about that. Now, let's say you are an intel analyst in the wake of all of this...wouldn't you be a little more inclined to err on the side of safety?
The fact is that they were wrong, the President was misled, and the result has been appalling loss for thousands of American families. Even if it was all done with the best of intentions there should be a big price to pay for that.
The President was not intentionally misled, and yeah, I think intentions matter. You cannot purge highly skilled and nearly irreplacable people like this for every mistake, or you will not have an intel community. For one thing, smart people will work elsewhere, and all you will have is a lot of stupid "yes-men" who keep their head down and do what they are told, like Stalin's Army preceding WWII after he purged his entire officer corps and killed off anyone who showed any sign of talent. The CIA, FBI, NSA, et al are competing for the best and brightest with record low unemployment, especially if you have good technical credentials, like sciences and computer science, etc.
His best defence is that we make him take an oath to protect the Union and so even if he is not certain he has to act to protect us.
Exactly. If you are the President or an intel analyst or anyone else charged with protecting this country, here is your dilemma...fail to act, and they might pull off something horrible, act on bad information, and that too could have unintended consequenses.
Well, this sounds like an issue that can be justly debated in a number of different ways, and I strongly support the discussion. Even better, I would like to see the current political players in the White House and the Congress fight this one until the end. I guess it's a good thing that the President can still be elected to one more four-year term.
Well, this sounds like an issue that can be justly debated in a number of different ways, and I strongly support the discussion. Even better, I would like to see the current political players in the White House and the Congress fight this one until the end.
And that's just it - I don't think Congress is going to fight it.
- It's easier to build public support when you don't make a decision but simply attack "the other guy" as being wrong.
- Most people don't know about the War Powers Clause and therefore don't realize congress even has that authority.
- They realize that going counter to the president on this matter has never been done before and don't want to treat that ground.
I'm not sure what aggravates me more, the fact that there never seems to be large public interest in the details, initial intent, or current interpretation of the laws that have (or can have) a lasting impact on the political debate, or the ongoing lack of interest and attention the leading reporting agencies put on it. If more researched and presented by the 24-hour news channels and the nightly broadcasts by the major stations it would spark a genuine social debate on 'we' as a body of citizens want our elected leadership to do.
I couldn't agree with you more.
To caveat my earlier response to you, I was reading this week's Time magazine and caught the 10 Questions Interview with John Murtha. He is the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
Time Asks: Will you use congressional authority to cut off funds
As I remember it by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 12 January 2007
As I remember it, congress voted to support the president's decision to go into Iraq. If they want to change their minds and force him out of it, they have the power, they just have to muster the votes. Ultimately congress can do whatever it wants, even make an official ren & stimpy day if they wanted to. They just need the votes. So, it seems the Democrats are saying, "We want you to listen to us because America voted us into power....but America didn't vote us into power enough to override all of your decisions, but you should do that anyway because that's what America was really trying to say without actually saying it."
Anyway, if you want my humble opinion, the Democrats love to bitch, but I'm not sure if they know how to do anything else. And really they can't even come up with sensible bitches. It seems to me that Democrats act like little tiny kids when it comes to Bush. All they do is whine and make plans to raise taxes. Besides raising taxes and pushing abortion, they can't come up with a single idea.
I hope America is really happy. Just to get back at the Republicans for their bonehead run in congress, we've got to put up with who knows how many years of Pelosi and Reid running the show. Why don't we just hand the country to Osama? At least that'd save time.
RE: As I remember it by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 12 January 2007
Hey now, let's not pick on the Dems. I mean, just look at the major issue-of-our-times biggest single problem facing our nation that they have tackled in their first 100 hours- raising the minimum wage. Yup. Their mandate by the American people- as opposed to their individual constituents, who actually voted for them (please ignore Lieberman, as his reelection as an independent over rabid-anti-war candidate Lamont tends to skew the theory)- is to raise the minimum wage. Heh.
Economic Impact of Minimum Wage by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 13 January 2007
Just for those that are curious ... I remember from my high school economics class there was actually quite an argument against minimum wage. It was one of those actions that looks good in the short-run and provides an immediate assist while carrying serious long-run implications. Just trying to remember all the issues, I came across this.
http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm
RE: Economic Impact of Minimum Wage by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 13 January 2007
It's actually a very simple thing, when you think about it. Mr. Smith runs a small business that employs x number of people at minimum wage, and pays out y amount of yearly wages. Congress raises minimum wage, now Mr. Smith sees an increase in the amount of wages paid with no parallel increase in income. Does he a: raise prices, thus making him less competitive, b: suck up the wage hike, reducing his profit or c: fire some of his workers? Why is this so hard for politicians to figure out, and why do they harp on this during the election cycle? I saw ad after ad saying that horrors! Rick Santorum voted against the minimum wage! Are politicians so out of touch that they figure most Americans make minimum age?
RE: Economic Impact of Minimum Wage by romanizzo :: NR6 :: on 15 January 2007
C'mon, its typical politician crap. What are they trying to accomplish? They are trying to buy votes. Now, let me go out on the politically incorrect limb and say that most of your folks making about minimum wage didn't really pay attention in high school economics. All they know is they're gonna get an extra $2 an hour for their hard work at the drive through. And I don't blame them. I do blame the corrupt politicians that take advantage of the ignorance of the lower classes in order to keep themselves in that particular seat. Embarassing, really.
Slightly more scary would be if these idiots actually believed the garbage the spew - but I don't think they could be that dumb, I'll push the evil, corrupt politician theory first.
RE: Economic Impact of Minimum Wage by Bortnyk :: NR6 :: on 16 January 2007
I think I say this everytime we talk about this topic, but here goes again: Lets hear it for stricter enforcement of the Electoral College!
RE: Economic Impact of Minimum Wage by guyvia :: NR5 :: on 25 January 2007
Of course they were buying votes. Were they not buying votes, the wage would have increased in American Samoa as well.
RE: Economic Impact of Minimum Wage by mikeforbes :: NR6 :: on 16 January 2007
Are politicians so out of touch that they figure most Americans make minimum (w)age?
My initial thought is no, but "most Americans" don't have to be making minimum wage for a politician to benefit from advocating a MW increase or demonizing those who oppose it. My theory is that the main benefit comes not from the MW-workers themselves (in fact, I'd venture to say that the majority of them can't/don't/won't vote anyway), but rather from the middle- and upper-class voters who favor a MW increase because it makes them feel philanthropic or something--eases a little of their guilt for being a "have" (as opposed to a "have-not"), if you will.
It's much easier to categorize business owners who oppose a MW hike as Scrooge-like meanies who only want to fatten up their own bottom lines than to actually think about the second- and third-order effects of such an action.
RE: As I remember it by WindyCityWriter :: NR0 :: on 25 January 2007
With regard to Minimum Wage:
Seems to me that the Dems in the House passed it. The Dems in the Senate did NOT. Senate wins. No escalation. I also underdtand that this showboating was thinly vieled in an attempt to make lower wage states raise the MW when in fact the high wage states already had in place ceilings higher than those being proposed.
Democratic Hypocrisy In Under a Week by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 13 January 2007
As I remember it, congress voted to support the president's decision to go into Iraq.
True - but that was the prior congressional body.
If they want to change their minds and force him out of it, they have the power, they just have to muster the votes. Ultimately congress can do whatever it wants,
They sort of have an agenda for such "just do it" reforms - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, "What we want to do in the first 100 hours is do exactly what we promised the American people that we would do and that we debated over the last six months ... taking America in a new direction."
So that's what makes me wonder. Like you said, they were bitching an moaning about Bush's speech for increasing our Iraqi presence. It is completely within congress' power to include as part of their 100-hours-of-sweeping-reforms to can the entire operation. So the sheer fact that they don't, means the blame really ought to lie with them.
Now I know it's been discussed before that Iraq was actually not even in the top three reasons voters gave for replacing the congressmen. But the democrats in power sure seemed to make it sound like it was. So as I see it, everyday they do not undo Bush's operations, is a day they are equivalent to the republicans acquiescence.
RE: Democratic Hypocrisy In Under a Week by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 13 January 2007
Kinda funny too, hearing the Dems bitch about the troop increase, when, in their own words:
Pelosi: "What I would do and what I think our country must do in Iraq is take an assessment of where we are. And there has to be a leveling with the American people and with the Congress of the United States as to what is really actually happening there. It's very hard to say what you would do. We need more troops on the ground."
Reid: "If it's for a surge, that is, for two or three months and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then, sure, I'll go along with it."
Biden: "Not enough troops. Not enough people. And the inability to seal the border with Syria. And having squandered 18 months in a real definite training program for the Iraqi police and the Iraqi military. They're the reasons I think we're behind the curve, in addition to not distributing the money to reconstruct."
Reyes: "We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan"
RE: As I remember it by Occams :: NR6 :: on 11 May 2007
The Democrats want a huge military but don't want to send it anywhere.
The Republicans want a tiny military, but want to send it everywhere.