Cheney!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042401542. html

This, combined with one of the states is getting interesting. I don't know all the rules of congress that impact this, so I'm gonna read for a bit before speculating.

However, I do find Cheney going first to be a very significant statement. Cheney largely stays out of the news as much as is possible. This will either pass quickly, or he's front and center for a while.

Say it happens. Who do you think Bush would name as VP. I think he gets to do this, in the event the VP is no longer able to serve.

Wonder who will stand with him, if anyone.

On my personal view, I'm torn. I think there is plenty the both of them have done that is impeachable. No question on that. Being accountable for one's actions in public service more or less demands this kind of thing happen, but...

do we really need this crap?

There is a lot to get done and it's gonna be very tough to actually do it. This *will* either be nothing and Dennis goes back to his office and does what he does, or it's a huge distraction.

The possibility that we might actually engage Iran looms big too. That just can't happen right now --it will be too much, IMHO. This development is worrysome on a lot of levels.

One prediction that I have heard and I believe that already exists elsewhere here in another thread is Shawn David Morton or Delphi Associates predicting not only a GOP win in 08 but before that for some reason whether he resigns due to health or pressure or impeachment that Cheney would indeed be gone and Bush would name a replacement as VP who is/ will be running for the GOP ticket and eventually win.

But don't think that I should believe everything I hear on Coast to Coast AM. Besides I think if we as a country had to endoure sp? another GOP presidency after 8 years of the residency of the Fourth Reich I think I probally would develop some kind of mental illness.

Actually, this kind of filing is not a problem.

It takes the left's eye off the ball. They'll tie up funds and resources on lame duck office-holders. Mr. Bush and Cheney can easily use all government resources to fend off any spurious lawsuits for another 18 months.

Let the left waste their time. It'll free up the candidates who are actually going to run and make democrats look like bitter sore-losers.

Herb

This does seem like a waste of time in some ways, but for some American's who voted to make changes last fall, they might finally feel like someone on the Hill is finally saying what many American's have been feeling.

But in the long run is it worth it? I'm not sure.

Yep. That's where I'm at. I voted for change --constructive change. Given that happens, the accountability issues would work themselves out. (outta office largely)

I think the timing is good, because according to Cheney himself, the Iraq insurgency is in the throes of being defeated, so America's plate will soon be cleared of the Iraq problem to make room for a new topic of national attention.

I disagree that this "takes the left's eye off the ball" in any way. It shows that the American people were actually loud enough to get this ball rolling. It does not hurt the Democratic Party to keep corrupt Republicans on the front page. Still, this goes far deeper than all the bickering.

"This goes beyond partisan terms. This is being done to defend our constitutional system of government. This is being done so that all those of us who took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States can understand that this impeachment is one valid way in furtherance of the defense of our Constitution."
-- Rep. Dennis Kucinich

HR 333 is gonna be interesting. In a large part, it really is about preventing another Iraq in Iran. We all know that Dick Cheney continuing to spread disinformation and pound the war drum on Iran is not in the best interest of our country. We heard it twice the first time. C-Span, here we come.

quotes from the article:

"Mr. Cheney: 'We know they have biological and chemical weapons.'" Said this in a press conference on March 17th, 2002.

"We know they're pursuing nuclear weapons." He said this in a press briefing on March 19th, 2002.

"He is pursuing, activity pursuing nuclear weapons at this time." He said this on "CNN Late Edition," March 24th.

"We know he's got chemical and biological, and we know he's working on nuclear."

"Meet the Press," May 19th: "But we know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons."

"There is no doubt he's amassing them against our friends, against our allies and against us." August 26th, 2002.

"He has in fact activity and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons." September 8th, 2002, "Meet the Press."

"He has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons." March 16th, "Meet the Press."

. . . And he [cheney] not only deceived the people of the United States, and the Congress of the United States, he deceived the American media."


Now the vice President wouldn't be lying about the insurgents, would he?

Has anyone alerted Fox News about this yet?

You can only impeach for a crime, none of the supossed articles , even if true, which their not.

Constitute a crime.

So you want to impeach someone because you disagree with their politics?

Nwokie, reality has little to do with the left's thinking and actions. This is nothing more than an attempt by little Dennis the Menace Kucinich to get 5 minutes in the national spotlight. Every time things slow down for him, he comes up with something else bizzare to get some notice. And, Missing was right there to help him.

He's so looney that even the looney lefties frequently distance themeselves from him.

Nwokie, DJ:

Here's a pretty good extended definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" which includes these sentences-

"Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform. "

Impeachment is a political action, not a criminal one, so no specific lawbreaking need occur (though the committing of a crime would certainly be a reason for impeachment).

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

DA said>>>
Nwokie, reality has little to do with the left's thinking and actions.

And the EXTREME RIGHT does???
LMFAO!
Hey let's nuke Iran!!!

John McCain, singing to the tune of the Beach Boys "Barbara Ann":

"Bomb-bomb-bomb bomb-bomb-Iran, Bomb-bomb-bomb bomb-bomb-Iran"

If the impeached Mr. Clinton couldn't be removed from office, just keep trying democrats.

Go ahead and use what little mojo you've got for something that's irrelevant. It's gonna be GREAT in 2008!

Herbert Milhous Nixon VIII

Herb,

Since the votes for conviction of Clinton (67/100) clearly also weren't there in 1998, I take it you concede that the Republican's impeachment charges then were just as foolhardy and misguided.

Thank your for the condemnation of the Clinton impeachment.

I hardly condemn the Clinton impeachment.

But if even Mr. Clinton couldn't be removed, after being impeached, then the left has an ice cube's chance in H-E double hockey sticks.

Herb

You say that as if there is much more support for Bush in his office than there was Clinton in his.

Uh - no. So how do you figure it's a bigger uphill battle for those that want it now?

(reading with interest)

"You say that as if there is much more support for Bush in his office than there was Clinton in his."

I think there is more support. But even if there wasn't, the American people don't want a show trial in the middle of a war, especially since in 2001 we had what amounts to an act of war surpassing Pearl Harbour.

You think the British would have voted Mr. Churchill out of office during WWII? They did not. They waited until after the Big One ended.

But go ahead and spend what little capital you have. The left will look very unpatriotic in the process and will fail miserably in 2008.

Besides, it's probably already too late, anyway. Mr. Reid's commment that we 'already lost the war' will come back and bite liberals big time. By him saying that insanely unwise comment, you gave republicans a HUGE stick to repeatedly and effectively use against you.

Herbert M.

"If the impeached Mr. Clinton couldn't be removed from office, just keep trying democrats.

Go ahead and use what little mojo you've got for something that's irrelevant. It's gonna be GREAT in 2008!"

Let's follow Herb's logic on this one.

1) Clinton wasn't convicted of impeachment, and conviction of a Bush impeachment would certainly be harder, so it's foolish to even attempt it.

2) Why? Because it is foolish and politically stupid to pursue impeachment, when convinction in the Senate is virtually impossible given the party alignment.

3) Republicans pursued impeachment of Clinton during the 105th Congress when the Senate was 55 Republicans to 45 Democrats, a situation where conviction (67 votes) was virtually impossible given the party alignment.

THEREFORE, the impeachment of Clinton in 1998 by the Republican-controlled House was foolish and politically stupid. Again, thanks Herb - I agree.

Hey, you can't make this stuff up.

"But go ahead and spend what little capital you have. The left will look very unpatriotic in the process and will fail miserably in 2008."

With all due respect - and you know that I love you, man - but the advice of a hard-right-leaning Republican on the best course for Democrats isn't worth a warm bucket of spit. Thanks anyway, though.

Toodles!

"The left will look very unpatriotic.."

To whom?

Hmmm . . . a MORMON made a statement that "will come back and bite liberals big time" sez the troll. Isn't this a bit ironic?

The remaining Bush supporters, of course!

That's been pegged at somewhere over 20 percent of us.

If that's what he believes, I want to read him say it. Out loud. Because that leaves the VAST majority of the United States - plus a couple billion beyond.

I'm ok with those odds.

I believe Cheney and Bush are most definitely guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Taking the country to war on false pretenses? Sounds like treason to me. That has absolutely nothing to do with disagreeing with Cheney or Bush's politics. I strongly disagree with their pushing for tax cuts for the rich, for pushing abstinence education (which doesn't work), for their obsessive secrecy. But I don't think they should be impeached for any of those things. Only for the high crimes.

And yet I still don't believe impeachment is wise without 67 solid votes to convict. It's a waste of time. Kudos to Kucinich for introducing something he knows isn't going anywhere, just to get it on the record, but let's not be fooled into thinking it's any more than that. His sense of justice is in the right place, though.

Andrew

Yep.

To all of that - yep.

If that is all the system allows for today, then so be it.

Ever meet Dennis Kucinich, Deane? Do you have some insight we ought to know about? I did meet the man. You know what? He is an intelligent, thougtful and warm fellow. He is also short. That must have been the deal breaker, eh?

Andrew, you are right, and I agree with CJ, there is little that our government does anymore that can stick. These gentlemen planned it that way and we are all thoroughly enjoying the New World Order. Still, I admire a fellow like Dennis who still thinks like an American.

Littlesongs, there's an old saying "You are judged by the company you keep".

Dennis Kucinich does seem like a warm and fuzzy guy Littlesongs ... but he is so far to the left that his views won't stick with the vast majority.

My cousin met Bush shortly after being re-throned and said the EXACT SAME THINGS to me that you used to describe Kucinich. (Sans the short part) ... being a nice guy doesn't mean that you don't destroy the country with your idiotic policies.

"Taking the country to war on false pretenses?"

False pretenses? My bologna detector is now beeping at full tilt. You mean like those pesky little votes FOR war in Iraq made by democrats such as Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kerry?

Mr. Bush used the same intel that democrat leaders used in voting FOR the war. And that was also the very SAME intel used by the left's european pals, including the French.

Give us a difficult one sometime, guys.

Herb

Herb writes:
Mr. Bush used the same intel that democrat leaders used in voting FOR the war.

And if you believe that one, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you - cheap! I'll even move it for you to some swamp land I will throw in in Florida...

Andrew

"False pretenses? My bologna detector is now beeping at full tilt. You mean like those pesky little votes FOR war in Iraq made by democrats such as Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kerry?

Mr. Bush used the same intel that democrat leaders used in voting FOR the war. And that was also the very SAME intel used by the left's european pals, including the French.

Give us a difficult one sometime, guys."

First off, the vote was not for the war itself. The vote was to allocate funds for any possible action that was to take place.

Second off, whether the intelligence was the same that he had or not, whether he rolled it downhill or not, it was still BAD intelligence, and proven to be WRONG. If Bush was actually basing the invasion and occupation on this bad intelligence instead of his own agenda, we would not be there right now. The rest of our "allies" in the Iraq conflict have long since recognized that fact, and have pulled out. We truly are alone in this fiasco.

Keep polishing that turd Herb ... keep polishing.

And it's the same fucking turd!

How much of it just exists on the cloth now??

"...it was still BAD intelligence, and proven to be WRONG."

Since democrat leaders voted for bad intelligence, any sole blaming of Mr. Bush is simply partisan politics. How about some accountability from those who actually funded the war?

You guys are capable of much better work and get a C-.

Herb

Deane and Brian, the thing is, I wasn't "there to meet Dennis" or anything. I was just a Portlander riding his bicycle to a friendly softball game. He was waiting to cross a street -- just like me. Show me any candidate for any office who is unafraid of his/her fellow citizens with a baseball bat, and it is a good indication of their character. We chatted briefly, and although he did not earn my vote, he earned my respect.

Herb said " How about some accountability from those who actually funded the war?"

You mean like, trying to correct that mistake? Actually trying to DO something about it? Like say, NOT fund the war any longer?

Is that something you'd get behind?

I've heard a little something in the news that there is an effort under way to do something like that. Great. We agree. Awesome!

Only someone who thinks Nixon was innocent of any wrongdoing in the Watergate coverup would believe that "democrat leaders" were somehow responsible for the Iraq war. I think that pretty much says it all, Herb. Can't really have a discussion about the facts on this one with someone so far removed from reality - sorry.

Andrew

If you have an answer for the carnage unleashed if we leave early, then go for it...I'm all ears. Otherwise, handing the terrorists a victory is not helpful.

Herb

Every American soldier they kill in Iraq is a victory for them.

...and there is plenty of carnage right now.

We won the war, which we never really declared, hosed up the occupation. (In this I disagree with Reids comment the other day.)

I'm serious about wanting our troops home ASAP. But leaving Iraqi civilians at the hands of a few thousand suicide bombers is not good. Then Iran swoops in and takes over. And if you think Iran's president is a handful now, wait until he controls even more oil.

Herb

How about if the US pulls out of Baghdad, Tikrit, etc. and moves to the borders and secures them? Protect Iraq from outside influence, then send Condi to broker a diplomatic (multi-state?) solution?

Would take majority of soldiers out of the worst of harm's way, put the onus on the Iraqis to settle their differences, free up thousands of soldiers for redeployment to Darfur, Afghanistan, etc...not a wholesale pullout but a major decrease in forces in that country, which I think would address the concerns of the majority of Americans.

A doable plan?

"How about if the US pulls out of Baghdad, Tikrit, etc. and moves to the borders and secures them? Protect Iraq from outside influence, then send Condi to broker a diplomatic (multi-state?) solution?"

I like it. I like it a lot. How about combining that idea with the other idea of separating the country into three sectors? After a few decades, maybe then we could blend 'em together. Just not now.

If the Kurds can govern in peace, Shiites and Sunnis should be able to, with some help and time.

Edselehr, I think you're onto something. As long as we don't hand the terrorists a victory via their terror and let Iran take over.

Herb

Edselehr that is a very great plan when are you going to DC to present this?

As for Herb:
"My bologna detector is now beeping at full tilt." -- We Don't Need to Know Let Alone Want to Know WHATS IN YOUR PANTS MAN thats just gross!

As for splitting Iraq into 3 I think that it is inivetible and will naturally happen on its own ie the Iraqi's will eventually institute themselves. We should encourage this of the Iraqi people because it does make sense but we cannot and should not force it on them.

Splitting Iraq into three is noble, but I don't know how logical it is.

The Shiites and Sunnis will continue to bomb each other until the end of time. The Kurds have proven themselves time and again unable to fend for themselves, and unfortunately for them they not only have the Shiites and Sunnis to the south who want to make a power play on what would be Kurdistan, but Turkey to the north also wants to claim it.

All we are doing there right now is making it so the Shiites and Sunnis aren't blowing each other up as much as they are blowing US up. Opposition to US occupation is the ONLY thing they have in common, and both are hellbent on getting us the hell out of there any way possible and inflicting as much loss of life as possible until that day happens. The Kurds would lose the only thing keeping them together in us, yes ...

Edsel, completely doable. Your plan could potentially be supported by global diplomatic cooperation and a true coalition of military forces. It is the sort of approach that could make a transition stick. I agree, you gotta get this idea into some Congressional e-mail boxes.

Brian, not to single you out, but I think what is lost in the banter is that most Iraqis are nothing like the camel riding folks in Larry O'Arabia. We are occupying a country of widely educated people. They enjoyed a fairly modern existence before the war. Toilets flushed, lights came on and cell phone reception was good. Despite the dogma, these are very modern societies on many levels, and, like most educated folks, peace is the one thing they want most. It is the first step toward living civilized again.

Saddam was totalitarian, but Iraq was hardly a nation of simple farmers and herders. What makes them a hornets nest is what would make America a hornets nest under the exact same conditions. If we had all of the routines and conveniences of our modern lives cut off, the government toppled, and a wholesale corporate grab of our resources backed by an occupational force, well, it would be ugly here too. It is easy to imagine that old hates could erupt into a class and race war, much like has happened in Iraq.

"...We Don't Need to Know Let Alone Want to Know WHATS IN YOUR PANTS MAN.."

Ah, that was bologna detector, not bologna.

Herbert Milhous

Problems with My Plan (actually, a dusting off of the ideas of others):

1) Would include abandonment of the Green Zone, which this administration has put a lot of energy into securing. And where would the new "green zone" be?

2) Also implies that the U.S. bases in Iraq would be handed over to the Iraqi Army - NOT something that the neocons want to do. One of the key reasons for invading/occupying/democratizing Iraq is to establish a U.S. presence in this key area of the Middle East. A "borders only" plan is an interim step toward an eventual complete pullout. I think this is one of the reasons why Bush is so resistant to acceding to *any* kind of pullout - it undercuts one of his original reasons for invasion.

3) The pullback to the borders would initially result in a flareup of sectarian violence, and there would be an upsurge of Iraqis killing Iraqis (one of Herb's key concerns). But given time (and the suppression of Iranian influence in the process) I think this would decrease very quickly. Our occupation, though it helps keep a lid on the violence, also fuels it. Take the "occupying force" factor out of the equation and Iraqis will soon find that they can wipe out each other, or work together for some kind of peace. A multi-state arrangement of some sort seems inevitable. Hopefully it doesn't turn into a Israel/Palestine situation, with Baghdad as their Jerusalem.

4) Who gets the oil?



One Good Thing about the plan:

1) Iranian Border Patrol is good training for when the soldiers come home to protect our borders from swarms of illegal Mexicans, Canadians, etc. looking for low-paying jobs, free welfare, and to escape the metric system.

Oh I know they are educated and not heathens living in caves ... I had an Iranian roommate once who was very educated and distinguished ... I wasn't trying to make light of the people themselves in any way.

The Sunni vs. Shiite issue has been there since Biblical times, much like the Muslim vs. Jewish issue. The issue has been squashed for years by the Saddam regime, with the majority Shiites being driven into submission for some 30+ years. Now they have a voice, and are voicing accordingly. You keep a majority populace under your thumb long enough and they will jump out with guns blaring.

One of the things that my Iranian roommate told me was we as Americans underestimate just how driven the Arab world is by its religion. We are mostly a secular nation here, our rules and laws are not governed by a religious mantra or philosophy. We as a society have issues grasping just how different it is there in all facets ... I think this is the biggest problem our troops are having over there and why we aren't winning the battle or the war, in order to really help the Iraqis we have to UNDERSTAND the Iraqis, and that just isn't in the American way of blowing through and Americanizing everything because, dammit, we're the United States of America and our way reigns supreme.

Would this not count as a troop withdrawl?

Containment is a far different proposition than standing in the mess day after day, isn't it?

Might not cost any less in dollars, but maybe lives on all sides.


Somebody needs to slip this to W, he can save some face, and we all can see progress.

Thom Hartman was talking about the unsigned oil contracts and law necessary to put our multi-nationals in control of the oil there. That has not yet been accomplished. It's ugly, but it's something.

This containment idea would still leave that door open, which at this point needs to happen. And being stuck here should really underscore how important other energy sources and technologies really are going forward.

I feel this is a last chance kind of thing, and it's a decent reason, again given where we are, for pushing back. If this were actually on the table for discussion, we could work through that. Would be politically ugly, but isn't it ugly now anyway? Would just getting that out there be that much worse?

Back to impeachment.

I think I'm on board with this now. The trouble is the courts. In order for a subpoena to be honored, when the subject of it does not comply, the courts need to prosecute that crime, then enforce. Well, this administration essentially says those courts are theirs, so nothing is gonna happen, leaving us at an impasse.

Given the serious nature of the questions being asked, and the flat out denial over getting answers, there is only one system of checks and balances left!

I know I didn't vote for gridlock. I expected the max push back, but I didn't expect this travesty of the government to occur. It does frame the theory of the unitary executive nicely however.

Essentially, an administration allowed to fester as this one has, gets that unitary power to a large degree, thus placing the burden directly onto the people for change.

Now the question really is one of worth.

Keep doing what we are doing, or change things up?

Attack the commander in chief? Impeachment of any commander is risky at best. Even in the Caine Mutiny, Captain Queeg comes off smelling like a rose. And he was nuttier than a fruitcake.

Go ahead and spend what little capital you have left. Toss it on the pile with Harry Reid's comment and 2008 is sure to be a banner year for Republicans.

Herbert Milhous Nixon VIII

Hey Milhous,

The only reason Nixon didn't get impeached is because he ducked out early and resigned. And then he was pardoned, which didn't sit well with the electorate AT ALL.

Now, let's not start arguing about the merits of Nixon's impeachment, resignation, pardon... my point here is that when the electorate gets fed up enough with the misdeeds of a president, then they EXPECT Congress to do something about it. The perception that Nixon was allowed to "get away" with Watergate had a lot to do with Carter getting elected in '76 - the blowback was on Ford and Republicans for protecting Nixon, not Congress for going after him.

So, your bloviating about political capital and "partisan politics" is simply right wing hot air. The tide is turning against this president, and it's becoming clearer and clearer that the people who stand to defend his actions will be the ones who will pay the political price.

I don't think your assessment of capital is accurate.

I also am still waiting for you to own up to the nasty labels. It's there for you on the Darfur thread. Just cut 'n paste, and it's all over. I won't even bring it up, or anything.

Rachel Maddow summed it up this evening! Our old plan was essentially banging our head into a brick wall. Now the new plan is banging it really freaking hard!

You do know the escalation is working right? Overall violence is up across the board. We've successfully escalated the conflict.

So, I think this is a self-correcting kind of thing. Eventually the unwillingness to answer for the mess will trump political sensibilities. The numbers for approval are not growing.

Either this administration will come clean about why they really, really, really want to stay in Iraq (unsigned oil contracts), or the people will force the issue.

All I've said is I am there now. I do not oppose checking a commander that's a problem. Either we end up with enough people sharing that view, or something shakes loose.

This administration does have plenty of options. Most of them have ugly implications, but that's what happens when you do ugly things.

BTW: Recent polls put Democrats wanting to change the direction at over 60 percent approval. Clearly we need to break this impasse. A lot of how it all goes down is up to the Bush administration.

Finally, when the President works for us (and he does), it's not an attack to put pressure on him to do the will of the people and honor the oath he took for office.

That oath includes, "faithfully execute the laws" which means testimony when called for, among other things, like not fixing facts to fit policy, etc...

Favoring impeachment is defensible. It's likely not practical, but I no longer oppose it, given our own internal conflict escalates to that point. Given this administrations tendancy toward escalation, I harbour little doubt we will get there sooner rather than later.

Herb said - "The left will look very unpatriotic.."

To whom?

...and a follow up question:

After you name who will view the left as unpatriotic, will it be the truth? Will the left ACTUALLY be unpatriotic? Or will they just LOOK unpatriotic to whomever you say is going to see it that way?

If the left is so correct, then override his veto.
Otherwise, gridlock can be a good thing.
At least it'll keep us from waving a white flag to terrorists.

Herb

Herb, to whom will the left look unpatriotic?

And will the left actually BE unpatritoic for doing what you suggest will make them LOOK unpatriotic?

"Herb, to whom will the left look unpatriotic?"

If terrorists capitalize on our withdrawal, a majority of voters

Herb

I don't get this.

Terrorists are free to do damage to us, right here, right now. Being in Iraq does not change that one bit.

So what gives?

Darfur...

And if they don't?

So IF things go bad, it will be because the left is unpatriotic?

Who is unpatriotic currently? I mean, with all the capitalizing from terrorists right now - who is unpatriotic in that case? Anyone?

There is another option.

Let him veto, because admitting failure is just not possible with this administration. We know that's a done deal. We also know there are a batch of GOP members up for re-election. Either it's worth it for them to keep backing him, or it isn't.

So, hand him the money, 4 months at a time. No conditions, period. He can just come back to the people every 4 months and sell the vision over and over again, through '08.

It's his war, he made that clear, so let him and the GOP backing him, wage it! Step back and remind people each time there are options, but it's up to the Decider to actually decide to act upon them. We are all here to help right?

This will keep the issue front and center for all involved. That's gonna be very powerful incentive to either work really hard to get the right things done, or realize it's futile and change things up.

Any thing he needs, he can get, but he's gotta ask period. Right now, it's ask for the whole year so people forget about it. That should not happen any more.

If he vetos that, then he's not supporting the troops! If he needs more, in a given period, it's not hard. Just let us all know why and go get it done right?

Like I said, self correcting.

It's amazing the way this whole thing is being framed.

The body that is closest to the people - the House of Representatives. The next closest - the Senate. Both are popularly elected by the people of their respective states.

The next closest - but quite a distance away - is the President who is chosen by the Electoral college.

Finally the courts, which are appointed by the President.

Why, then, is the President the metric for divining patriotism? The argument could easily be made that anyone that does not agree with the House of Representatives is unpatriotic, since the House is the closest thing you will find to the "voice of the people" in Washington.

The people are the nation, not the President.

pa·tri·ot·ism – noun
devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.

Origin: 1590–1600; < MF patriote < LL patri&#333;ta < Gk patrités fellow-countryman

"It's his war..."

As Mrs. Clinton would say, 'Not so fast.'

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kerry voted for it.

And now that we're there, you can't cut and run without catastrophic consequences.

Herb

Bush's war was NEVER "voted on." There you go, ducking responsibily again. Only the President can take the country into a military conflict. Kerry and Clinton did not vote to go to war - they voted to authorize use of force, which is not the same thing. They both took Bush at his word that he would get a 2nd UN resolution, which he did not, and let the UN weapons inspectors do their jobs, which they in fact tired to do, before going to war as a last resort. Had Bush said in October 2002 that he would do neither, the resolution would certainly have failed.

The 2002 vote to authorize use of force put the Congress in the situation of making America look impotent by voting NO (giving Saddam more leeway to ignore us as a threat) or YES (making Saddam back down, which is what he did). A NO vote would have been disasterous. Bush forced the issue by asking for the resolution in the first place.

Andrew

Edited because Andrew said it much better than I did.

I'm torn over just sending him the same damn bill over and over, and trying this approach. Maybe dole out the dollars 3 months at a time, so we can get Iraq updates 4 times a year. You know, just as a reminder.

"...they voted to authorize use of force, which is not the same thing."

Did you take parsing lessons from Mr. Clinton?

Just as it is the President to declare war, it is congress that holds the purse strings. And Mr. Kerry and Mrs. Clinton voted to open the purse. Now, to be politically expedient and pander to extremists in their party, they're backing away, with hundreds of thousands of innocent lives-including our brave troops-in the balance.

Either veto or stop hindering our ability to fight and win. Of course the votes to veto aren't there, so since you can't lead, then either follow or get out of the way.

Herb

Herb, I know it's not easy around here with us most of the time. You obviously can handle yourself just fine and don't need or maybe even want anybody defending you - but I gotta say: When you speak what's REALLY in your heart, without any worry about how it will be perceived or how you'll have to defend it in a public forum like this, it's pretty awesome. I know you are human and barbs directed your way CAN sting - sometimes - and that seems to create a situation where you start swinging. I just wanted to say that I prefer the side that is really direct. I'm not implying that you should change anything or...well...anything. But there is a purity about your beliefs that, for me, make things easier to just go " He really believes that. That is good to know."

It's coming out clutzy, but I guess what I'm saying is " If more people that believe what you believe would just SAY IT OUT LOUD LIKE YOU DO - it would make things better for all of us." Clarity goes for with me and even though we think differently, you more than just about anyone else on this board are CLEAR.

...most of the time ;).

Use of force and war are not the same thing?

"Clarity goes for with me and even though we think differently, you more than just about anyone else on this board are CLEAR."

I appreciate your kind words more than you realize, Chickenjuggler, and agree clarity is a virtue.

Since I have pushed back when confronted, it may not seem like it but I sometimes worry about being ham-fisted myself, particularly toward the gentler souls here.

Herb

"Just as it is the President to declare war, it is congress that holds the purse strings. And Mr. Kerry and Mrs. Clinton voted to open the purse. Now, to be politically expedient and pander to extremists in their party, they're backing away, with hundreds of thousands of innocent lives-including our brave troops-in the balance."

First - CONGRESS declares war. The last time that happened was World War II, by the way. Congress, yes, voted to fund any possible action in Iraq, as Andrew said, because a gun was more or less held to their head, and once again empty promises made by the Bush administration regarding obtaining UN resolution to justify the invasion.

Second, why the hell is it that our brave troops need to keep losing their lives in this senseless horseshit? WE ARE NOT WINNING THE WAR. AS IT STANDS, WE CANNOT WIN THE WAR. **WE** are the reason for the uprising, the civil war now in place, and the countless thousands of innocent Iraqi lives lost. I support our troops as much as you, Nwokie, Deane, and any other red-blooded American. The best damn way to support our troops and show them we care is to get them the hell out of a situation they CANNOT win. We are "helping" people that DON'T WANT OUR HELP! In twisting a famous Ronald Reagan line, "The United States military is not the solution to the problem, the United States military IS the problem!"

DEFEND OUR COUNTRY FROM WITHIN OUR BORDERS!!!!

I support our troops and their families. Lets bring them home. I hope that is CLEAR enough for trolls.

Dennis Kucinich is an idiot.

Herb writes:
It takes the left's eye off the ball. They'll tie up funds and resources on lame duck office-holders. Mr. Bush and Cheney can easily use all government resources to fend off any spurious lawsuits for another 18 months.

Someone check to see if hell froze over. I actually agree with where Herb is going here. I wrote my congressman and senators and told them to leave Bush and Cheney alone because I didn't think it accomplish anything and these two LOSERS would be out of office in two years anyway. I still feel that way there are better uses of the government time and resources than to impeach dumb and dumber.

Don't let this go to your head Herb. I still disagree with 99.999% of the Karl Rovian crap you say.

I wouldn't know Karl Rove if he shook my hand.
And I'm not a neo-con, either.

Herb

You'd know if he shook your hand.

Ever seen " The Dead Zone " with Christopher Walken? It'd be like that for you.

"I wouldn't know Karl Rove if he shook my hand."

But I'd be sure to wash afterward.

You'd need to put that hand in an industrial degreaser.

(Sheet metal people know what I'm talking about.)

I think that MEK or Toluene with a bristled brush might do the trick. You could always stick your arms in the bead blaster. Perhaps an autoclave?

Sure is trouble to be around such filthy animals.

"And I'm not a neo-con, either."

Perhaps not.

But you are a neo-con apologist, and what's worse is that you seem to be willing to support them for one reason only: "more right wing supreme court Justices".

You're willing to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Pardon the BAD pun.

...But you are a neo-con apol[o]gist..

Sorry. As the French say, Au Contraire.
Calling me a neo-con apologist is like saying if one agreed with Mr. Clinton on health care, you also supported his affair with Monica.

Besides, it's about fighting terror AND more right wing supreme court justices...AND leave my second amendment rights alone, while you're at it.

Herbert Milhous Nixon VIII

Did I say anything about your second ammendment rights?

So NOW Herb isn't a neo-CONer????

Leave EVERYONE'S 2nd Amendment rights alone...

I wouldn't know a neo-con if he bit me on the pittootie, whatever that is.

Herb

You wouldn't???? Go look in the mirror.

Neoconservatism is a political movement which emerged in the 1960s, coalesced in the 1970s, and has significant presence in the administration of George W. Bush.[1]

Neo- is Greek for "new". Neoconservatism is new in two ways: first, many of the movement's founders, liberals and people from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism; second, it was a fairly recent strain of conservative socio-political thought. Its intellectual roots are from the decades following World War II, including the literary criticism and social science movements.

Etymology of this type of conservatism is based on Irving Kristol,[2] Norman Podhoretz,[3] and others who described themselves as neoconservatives during the Cold War. In general, however, the movement's critics use the term more often than supporters.[4][5]

Neoconservatism is associated with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard, and with foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). Neoconservative journalists, policy analysts, and politicians, often dubbed "neocons" by supporters and critics alike, have influenced U.S. foreign policy, including George W. Bush's policies.[1]

As Mr. Nixon would say in a low grumbly voice with his jowls shaking:

"That's all very well and good."

However, I don't see him on your list. Or Alan Keyes, who I supported over Mr. Bush in the primary.

Herbert M.

As Mr. Nixon would say in a low grumbly voice with his jowls shaking:

Damn Jews! Or anything else a Bigot would say...

You're going to have a problem explaining how Mr. Kissinger, among others, made it into such high places in his administration.

Mr. Nixon also saved Israel's bacon during the Yom Kippur war. I wonder how the Jew-baiting Mr. Carter would have handled that war?

http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/19957/Media_Monitor.html

Nice spin, though.

Herbert Milhous

It's well documented that Nixon was a very big BIGOT.
Thinking otherwise is just ignorant....

Trix - when you cut-n-paste as you did in your above post, please say where you got it or link to it at the end of your post. That's kinda the way we try to do things around here...keeps us all honest. Thanks.

There is no proof President Nixon was a bigot, He appointed Jews and Blacks to important positions. Yes he used crud language at times, but so does Sen Byrd, and I don't see the libs calling him a bigot.

I'll call Byrd a bigot if you want. He was a KKK member after all. At the least, he has been a bigot. Don't know if he is still a bigot. Wouldn't be suprised if he had bigot-y tendencies, though.

Does the language you use make you a bigot, or the hatefulness in your heart? If that's the case, then can anyone ever know if anyone is a bigot?

Nixon sure talked like a bigot, though:

"The second point is that coming out--coming back and saying that black Americans aren't as good as black Africans--most of them , basically, are just out of the trees. Now, let's face it, they are."
Richard Nixon to Rumsfeld 7-11-1971
White House Tapes

"You know what happened to the Greeks. Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was
a homo, we all know that, so was Socrates."
May 26, 1971
White House Tapes Released 3-2002

On Italians: "They're not like us. They smell different, they look different, they act different. The trouble is, you can't find one that's honest."
Richard Nixion to John Ehrlichman
Source:White House Tapes

"You know, it's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob? What is the matter with them? I suppose it is because most of them are psychiatrists."
May 26, 1971
White House Tapes Released 3-2002

"What people resent is this business of some colleges pushing the blacks too far for their own good, making them doctors and everything else....The racism has receded, I think, but it's there and it will always be there....A lot of people are just as racist now, but it's not fashionable anymore--and I think that's damned important. You can't talk about blacks like you once did."
President Richard Nixon
"Alone In the White House", pg 110

"Do you know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. . . . You know what happened to the popes? It's all right that popes were laying the nuns."
May 26, 1971
White House tapes Released 3-2002

"You have to face the fact that whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to divise a system that reconizes this while not appearing to..."
President Richard Nixon
"Alone In the White House", pg 110

http://home.att.net/~howingtons/gop/nixpg.html

Ahh, Nixon...so terribly misunderstood...

If you want to go back in a time machine, 1971 was less than a decade after the civil rights act.

Mr. Nixon was a WWII vet and from another era. It's no excuse, it's simply a fact that our leaders, including many democrats like LBJ, said many wrong things. Mr. Nixon was flawed-show me someone who isn't. But Mr. Nixon served his country honorably, opened the door to China, started the EPA, stood toe-to-toe with the Russians and ridded us of the commie Alger Hiss.

Herb

Edselehr...
I KNOW HOW WE DO THINGS AROUND HERE!!!!!! I forgot to quote Wiki on that one. OOPS!
Just how long have you been here????
Thanks for being a NEWBIE and all....
Until you know ALL of us here I wouldn't ASS"U"me anything about anyone.
GOODBYE NOW!

Ouch...

Sorry, Trixter. First time I've ever seen you paste in anything. I probably got too preachy there.

Still working on my chat board manners...I've learned that flaming people and full-caps typing is often considered rude. Is there anything else I should know as I humbly work on my admittedly crude communication skills?

Thanks for your input.

Edselehr Post #445 (newbie)

Sorry....

My daughter and Wife are sick and I've got alot on my mind....

***Trixter extends hand for a friendly handshake***

Edselehr, Please accept my apology for being an asshole to you....

I think edselehr is a great contributor! You're fitting in here just fine! Trix just has a sticky capslock on his keyboard!

Trixter,

My best to your daughter and wife - and to you as well. Hope everyone's feeling better ASAP and able to get out and enjoy the weather. Hey, I think spring is here at last!

"...If you want to go back in a time machine..."

Mr. Nixon...was...from another era. It's no excuse..."

HerrB, what's YOUR excuse? If anyone lives in the past and needs a time machine to visit the present, it's you.

lets buy the relic delorean.