Kerry-Feingold Plan on Troop Withdrawal Is Unconstitutional

Like many news oulets, the Washington Post offers this story about the Seante Debate on Iraq that is failing miserably for the Democrats. Most stories in both the MSM and online are dealing with the political aspect of the debate. The WaPo is talking about how it characterizes the 2008 presidential race, still others are talking about the impact for the Congressional elections this year. But today’s Post story does raise one iteresting point that I believe is not be dicsussed enough, the Constitutional implications of the efforts.

The Kerry-Feingold plan would order President Bush to withdraw nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq by July 31, 2007. The alternative, sponsored by two Democrats not weighing White House bids -- Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Jack Reed (R.I.) -- is a nonbinding resolution urging Bush to begin a troop "redeployment" by the end of this year. It does not specify a pace or a completion date.

As of this writing, both measures have failed on mostly party-line votes, with Senators Lieberman (D-CT) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) voting with Republicans.

But the key language in the Kerry-Feingold plan is that the legislation would "order President Bush to withdraw." This legislation would have the same legal effect as a non-binding resolution, i.e. NONE. The Kerry-Feingold plan is unconstitional on its face.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constituion names the President "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." Congress's war power is limited to declarations of war and financially providing for an Army and Navy, as written in Article I, Section 8.

In short, the Congress has no authority to order a troop withdrawal, and no right to tell the President how he shall conduct the war in Iraq or indeed any war. Make no doubt about it, we are in a war against terrorism and Islamofacism. Whether you support the idea of the war, or the President's prosecution of the war, Congress authorized the President to conduct these operations (remember, John Kerry voted for it before he voted against it). Once that is done, the conduct and course of the war are matters for the Commander in Chief to decide. If anyone doesn't like it, the next election for the President is in two years and change, you will get a new President then.

The Framers, in their genius, understood something that Sens. Kerry, Feingold and many others fail to grasp; you cannot run a war by committee. There must be one commander; one "decider" if you will. Congress could, of course, pass legislation forbidding the spending of any money for operations in Iraq, but that would be political suicide, since everyone in the country seems to "Support the Troops."

So the sponsors of the Kerry-Feingold plan, two U.S. Senators who want to be President, jockeying for position among the liberal elite, need to take a refresher course in the Constitution and its structure.

Posted by Matt Johnston at June 22, 2006 1:58 PM
Comments
Comment #160491

I am just sick of the battle for headlines. That’s all congress seems to do anymore. The only things they seriously debate about or seriously consider are non-binding resolutions and worthless “reform” maesures that actually complicate things and expand government.

Here’s how I think I’ll vote this time. The first poilitician who says “pay off the national debt” wins my vote. Pure and simple.

If they want us to fight wars to liberate the world, and a majority of Americans agree, fine, but you’d better raise taxes NOW to pay for it.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #160495

Hey!! All you folks on the right have been asking what is the Democrat’s plan for Iraq.

There it is, in plain sight.

I watched a portion of the debate, and constitutional or not, it sounds like a sound plan to me.

Go ahead and say there isn’t one now. Oh, and try listening to the actual debate and reading the bill instead of talking points.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 22, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #160500

It continues to amaze anyone who thinks rationally at the chutzpah of Iraq War true believers! This blog is a case in point.

May one remind the writer that the only thing unconstitutional in this whole Iraqi mess is that we are fighting a war based upon lies and deceit. The President and his minions lied to us to get us into this war. When will you understand basic facts?

The Congress, if it had any ethics and patriotism, would be hounding this bunch with an impeachment resolution so that the full details of the mendacity might be made public. You continue to hide behind fear and hyper-patriotism to the detriment of us all.

When will you address the Downing Street Memo and all that was known before the war began about the lies and misrepresentations? Not yet. Instead we get ad hominems, attack the messenger and sarcasm for thought. When you finally own up to the truth, as ugly as it may be for BOTH political parties, then we can start to deal realistically with September 11, 2001, and all that has happened since. I am not holding my breath.

Peace, cml

Posted by: cml at June 22, 2006 2:44 PM
Comment #160501
But the key language in the Kerry-Feingold plan is that the legislation would “order President Bush to withdraw.” This legislation would have the same legal effect as a non-binding resolution, i.e. NONE.

Don’t get your panties in a bunch. This legislation is not unconstitutional, because it has the same effect that House Resolution 861 had. You remember that one don’t you? That non-binding resolution that Republicans were so giddy about earlier this week, but it does bring up an interesting point. If only Congress can declare war, can Congress undeclared war? It is already recognized that Congress can cut off funding, thereby undermining a president’s ability to conduct war. But there is no constitutional crisis here, just tit for tat, and you took the bait.

Posted by: Cube at June 22, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #160503

It seems my north-eastern friends have forgotten, United We Stand Divided We Fall. President Bush is a wonderful leader! He cries with our fallen’s families and says the same prayers we say at night. Why is the world trying to demand a humanitarian war? These people are not trying to impress the UN with civilized acts toward our people, or even their own! It is war, it has never been easy and it never will be. I see it as a success; an evil man like Hitler is out of power and is going to answer for his sins. We should be rejoicing over the victories and seeking the evil behind 9/11, lest we ever forget. Remember we have bigger fish to fry, and those against our beloved President and troops are truly against all Americans. I call on all who read these words to have pride in our beloved nation and spread such cheer to our fellow man. God bless and keep America and our allies!

Posted by: Christina Martinez at June 22, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #160505

Matt

As a matter of constitutional point, not whether I agree with Kerry-Fiengold”, But I do not agree their resolution is unconstitutional.

1. Since congress can appropiate the funds, then they control the money. And they can put conditions on the money. Then can withhold monies if they feel the war is not conducted well or the money is not spent well. What is unconstitutional about that?

By controlling the purse strings the founders gave congress implicit authority in war making decisions.

2. Congress never declared war on Iraq. There was never a formal declartion like in WWII. This was done to protect the life insurance polices of those who died on 9/11. So by your logic, This war in Iraq is illegal and unconstitutional is it not?

Posted by: stefano at June 22, 2006 2:57 PM
Comment #160511

Christina-

We do not fight that way because it gives our enemies power. We’d never kill all the terrorists by creating them. If we, in response to 6 million dead jews, had killed millions of Germans, do you think we’d be driving BMW’s today?

When a small child gets bitten in his classroom by another small child, do we tell the bitten child to go bite back harder? No. Why? I’ll let you chew on that for a while.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #160516

The troop withdraw plan by Kerry and other anti-war people is unconstitutional. The president (a.k.a the Commander-in-Chief) should always decide. Bush could do it, the 2008 president could do it, or any other future president. Never congress. We need to do something about congress. Make them serve only 2 terms instead of 5, 8, 11, etc.

Posted by: Stubborn Conservative at June 22, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #160519

cml,

Look in the red column for the “lie” about WMD. You can’t hang that “lie” on tis administration any longer.

Declassified NGIF report.

The Downing Street Memo?

We don’t have to address it.

Tony Blair himself exploded that myth a long time ago. Seems like your “smoking gun” was a quote out of context. That’s why nobody on this blog has mentioned the Downing Street Memo in quite some time.

Posted by: Jim T at June 22, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #160524

Many Democrats on this site have expressed their expectation that they will win big in the fall elections and the win will be directly related to their belief that most Americans don’t want to continue the battle against terrorism in Iraq.
Politicians probably have a better feel for the pulse of the American voting public than any other group. If this is true, why have so many Democrats in both the house and senate voted against the ammendment to pull out of Iraq? If they wish to win in November, they should proudly be casting their votes (in favor of a pull-out) to win support at the polls. But, this isn’t the case. Resolutions dealing with withdrawal have been overwhelmingly defeated. Are these Demo politicians stupid? I think not…they understand that pulling out is not a winning issue. All this talk of the mid-term election being a vote of non-confidence for the Iraq war and President Bush and his terrorism policy in fighting it everywhere is nonsense. I hope the Dems wake up and begin stating their positions on the issues voters care most about…illegal immigration, reckless spending by Congress, and electing judges who follow the Constitution. Jim

Posted by: Jim Martin at June 22, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #160526

Kevin,
How sweet and naive of you. Bless your heart, I bet you have to cover your eyes while watching the news. I want our troops home just as much as anyone else. I hate the thought of war and all the horrors it carries but even this simple county girl knows there is nothing humanitarian about what was done to those 2 Fort Campbell boys, now is it? Do you think you should run to the U.N. and say tug on their shirt and cry, “Teacher, teacher??” I love how so many claim that war never solves anything and yet open your history books and have yourself a look-see. Shame on you for misreading and turning my intent to some finger wagging, and by the way do you think we played patty-cake with the Germans as we pushed them back? Driving BMW’s wouldn’t be the pretty picture you paint if we did not do what had to be done; in fact I daresay that any opposing views to any leaders would be allowed. Count your blessings Kevin and enjoy your blinders, the Co Op has some on sale this week you should get some extras.

Posted by: Christina Martinez at June 22, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #160534

Our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to grant the funding of war to the Congress. If Congress wants troops to pull out, they only need to cut the funding for it. That is in the Constitution.

Though Republicans today were trying to rewrite the Constitution without amendment (itself unconsititutional) by selling their responsibility for the purse strings to the White House via a line item veto. State’s governors have it, argue its proponents. But they neglect to point out that there is a world of difference between our National Constitution and State’s Constitutions. To change our Constitution the law is clear. Amend it. Ah, but Republicans and some Democrats tried that and recognized very quickly that wouldn;t happen. So they tried to legislate it, and the Supreme Court ruled it Unconstitutional without Amendment after Clinton used it for a short period.

But now, the House Republicans are back trying to legislate it again. You have to give them an A for perserverence, but, an E for smarts. E stands for empty, ain’t got none.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 22, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #160543

You have it backward, Matt.
Congress has the constitutional authority to take us to war. The president has none whatsoever.
The president cannot legally involve the U.S. in war without Congressional authorization. The U.N. has no authority to involve the U.S. in war and the president has no authority to take us to war to enforce U.N. resolutions without Congress’ permission. Congress also has full constitutional authority to order an end to U.S. involvement in any war at any time.
The president, as Commander in Chief, has authority to prosecute a congressionally authorized war within the limits set by Congress.
If Congress says stop, he is legally obligated to do so.
The fact that Congress has allowed presidents to usurp this power since WWII doesn’t mean they can’t reassert it at any time.

Posted by: traveller at June 22, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #160550

“Doing what had to be done” has never been disputed as necessary Christina. Show me where I said we needed to stop using strategies that work and I’ll concede. I didn’t.

But what you said was:

“President Bush is a wonderful leader! He cries with our fallen’s families and says the same prayers we say at night.”

“I call on all who read these words to have pride in our beloved nation and spread such cheer to our fellow man.”

Are innocent Iraqi’s not our fellow man? Or did you only mean Christian conservatives?
Because you have first hand knowledge, I’m sure, right?

“Why is the world trying to demand a humanitarian war?”

Because that’s how you become a respected world power.

“We should be rejoicing over the victories and seeking the evil behind 9/11, lest we ever forget.”

If only Bush COULD keep his eyes on the real prize. Now back to Iraq…

“Remember we have bigger fish to fry, and those against our beloved President and troops are truly against all Americans”

Perfectly illustrated Bush talking point…I think I’ll just leave it alone as it speaks for itself.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #160558

Stefano wrote:

1. Since congress can appropiate the funds, then they control the money. And they can put conditions on the money. Then can withhold monies if they feel the war is not conducted well or the money is not spent well. What is unconstitutional about that?

By controlling the purse strings the founders gave congress implicit authority in war making decisions.

I agree with the first point of your argument, Congress does control the purse strings and I said as much at the end of my post. Congress could say, “here is money for the Defense Department, but you can’t spend any of it in Iraq or Afghanistan for any other purpose than the logistics to bring the troops back home.” Aside from the fact that the current GOP majority would never allow such a bill to pass through to the floor, no Congressman has the guts to do that, not Murtha or Kerry or Reid or any one. Such a move would be political suicide because, as I pointed out, it could be easily spun to say, here is a bill that doesn’t support our troops.

But I disagree with your conclusion about what the power of the purse does for Congress in war decision making. Simply because they hold the purse does not give the power to make decisions regarding the conduct of any war or conflict.

The distinction is made further clear in Federalist 69, which compares the military power of the two branches to the King of England:

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.(empahsis added)

To the Framers, the President has sole control over what, where, how, and how long, forces are deployed in the conduct of war. Congress has no authority to direct such activities. The power of the purse is meant to be a check on uncontolled spending in the conduct of a war, not to give Congress the power to control the direction of the war. Furthermore, Congress has never, at least to my knowledge in this or any war, refused to fund the military for such war related activities.

As for disinformation and lies, that is apparently a matter of perspective. It seems as though WMD have existed (see Santorum/Hoekstra press conference yesterday and literally dozens of statements by Democrats during the Clinton Administration). Congress authorized action by the President, whether it was for insurance policy reasons or not, and by continuing to appropriate funds with bipartisan majorities, at least tacitly continues to authorize action.


Posted by: Matt Johnston at June 22, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #160569

Doesn’t matter. Both plans were defeted with the help of most of the rest of the Democrats.

This was all for show anyway. Just like the “debate” the Republicans had last week.

Here’s how I think I’ll vote this time. The first poilitician who says “pay off the national debt” wins my vote. Pure and simple.

Sounds good to me. Good luck finding one, though…

Posted by: TheTraveler at June 22, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #160572


The debate in congress is between democrats. Reoublicans aren’t debating. They lost that ability when Bush became president. Since then, the republicans can no longer debate, they can only rubber stamp Cheney’s decisions.

Posted by: jlw at June 22, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #160575


Oh, I said Cheney instead of Bush, it must have been a Freudian slip.

Posted by: jlw at June 22, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #160576

The debate in congress is between democrats. Reoublicans aren’t debating.

Actually, none of them are debating. They are recording sound bites.
I doubt there’s been an actual debate in congress in my lifetime.

Posted by: TheTraveler at June 22, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #160580

Kevin,
I have them saved; you need not quote me however I do like to be quoted so all you are doing is giving me a big ego. Awww strategies, what an amazing word. Covers a multitude of things, doesn’t it? Again, I stand by what I have written word for word.
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Now this fellow American and I have the same view as to what “fellow man” I was referring too. Now is that clear enough? You liberal minded fellows need to remember, the world starts in our own back yard. We can not offer the freedoms; many take for granted, by cutting our noses to spite our faces! What we have in Iraq, is what has always occurred in the Middle East except we are trying to help those who may some day be in a position to help us. Don’t you think a friend over there could help us? By the way, like many of us here I want the “prize” as much as you. Since you deem it so easy to find the needle in the haystack, why aren’t you finding it?
It makes much more sense to point your finger at our President and belittle our morale. You create doubt about our country by constantly criticizing the leader we voted for so I will ask you nicely, please stop Bush bashing and help find some common ground we can stand upon. Surely there is the Congressional cost of living raise that we can both bash, together as Fellow Americans.

Posted by: Christina Martinez at June 22, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #160592
Sounds good to me. Good luck finding one, though…

Look up any libertarian candidate, they should be on the ballot in all 50 states in almost every race and one of their goals is for a 0 dollar national debt or surplus.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 22, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #160621

Christina,
I appreciate the apparent sincerity and intensity of your beliefs, but what it seems that you do not realize is that many, myself for one, disagree with you just as thoroughly and wholeheartedly. If unity is really all you seek, abandon your beliefs and positions and accept mine, “ours”. People like myself seem so often to be blamed for divisiveness, obstructionism, defeatism, and treason—for standing up and telling it as I see it …which is all you and the “love-it-or-leave-it” crowd are doing. It is a right equally open to both of us, that pesky little free speech thing. Furthermore, I maintain that my ideas and positions are superior—more correct—than yours, which is exactly what you seem to think. Finally, although it is convenient (and often even apt) to generalize about “liberals” or “conservatives”, I do not live in the northeast (that line is really quite tired); who the heck cares where I live!? If I’m not in Utah, Montana, Georgia, Kansas … what, my opinion doesn’t count? You did ask nicely to stop the “Bush-bashing”, but I have to decline, nonetheless. Sorry, I will not abandoon what I believe in, I cannot see before me what for me is not there. I respectfully reject your conceptions of loyalty, morality, duty, patriotism, and what it means to be an American (based on the little I can gather of them from this brief exchange). And I most definately disagree with your esteem of President Bush, his administration, their policies, and what it has meant for the people and institutions of this and all nations. But if you, unlike I, are willing to disavow your religious faith and political convictions, then please feel free to do so and help me unite this confused and divided land.

Posted by: no "isms" at June 22, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #160627

Brainless comments above…

“I watched a portion of the debate, and constitutional or not, it sounds like a sound plan to me.”

“When will you address the Downing Street Memo and all that was known before the war began about the lies (twilight zone music playing in background)”

“If only Congress can declare war, can Congress undeclared[sic] war?”

“This was done to protect the life insurance polices of those who died on 9/11. (regarding cogressional declaration relative to Iraq)”

“Congress also has full constitutional authority to order an end to U.S. involvement in any war at any time.”

“Are innocent Iraqi’s not our fellow man? Or did you only mean Christian conservatives?”


-its pretty hilarious when you string them all together.

-I don’t know what’s funnier, these guys or poor Matt taking the time to recite excerpts from the Federalist papers to these loons in hopes that they’ll understand some basic historical background to U.S. constitutional principles. Let it go Matt. We can’t save ‘em all.

Posted by: william at June 22, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #160636

Christina

There are some people who have elevated themselves above all others. They have become gods to themselves.

Keep up the good job. Let no one steal your joy!!!!!

Posted by: tomh at June 22, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #160656

isms, is it?
Well now let’s have at a bit of your insincerity here. Yes it is a love-it -or-leave-it attitude, and you seem to love that first amendment until it is opposing your views and you can try to scream that freedom is for all, it sure is. I would never say it wasn’t because too many I have loved and lost have fought for you to say what ever you want, and so post your opinions but it is just as fair for me. I wrote the north eastern friends in regard to the Washington Post, not you or any other pompous arrogant where ever you live doesn’t matter type. Do not speak of “my sincerity” or “my intensity of my beliefs” like it is something you admire but let’s call it like it is, a back handed compliment. I do not care where you disagree with me and the “many disagree with you” are welcome to but remember many more agreed with me on voting day. You can take you assumptions and opinions to hell with you for all I care, but never speak of my faith as if you have any idea who I am or what my faith is. I do feel sorry for you but many know what their beliefs are, convictions and what moves them so they are not confused as you would like to think. It is weak bend-with-the-wind people that are divided, but do not be arrogant enough to speak for America. I know exactly where I stand and there are plenty keeping me company. Now why don’t you amuse yourself, type some more and butt into some other people’s opinions. Isn’t it nice to be able to attack someone’s views and beliefs instead of having beliefs and views of their own to post?

Posted by: Christina at June 22, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #160659

Thank you tomh. I am happy to say I am a person with strong convictions and beliefs. Not ashamed to let the world see my “light on the hillside” Reagan. Some people just like to hear themselves talk, :o) or type to be more “superior” Night!

Posted by: Christina at June 22, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #160662

Matt,

Your article would have much more merit if congress had actually used its authority under
Article I Section VIII of the Constitution.
My opinion is a bunch of monday morning quarter backing but….
First off if we had a congress that would not demure to every executive request for war (and this is not just aimed at the current administration as congress has not actually declared war since Dec 41) then the purse is all they would control. However all they granted was “Authority to use force”, a gray area that the founders did not cover.
By their own “cover my arse” actions they set up this debate.
Second, by not doing the responsible thing and declaring war, NONE of our allies were held to treaty obligations (More france bashing anyone?)
The net result:

Our troops are now a political football
Discent is Treason
Iraq is a hash
The easy solutions are gone.
Well at least you all still have your slogans.

Posted by: Ted at June 22, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #160709

Um, Christina,
Just for the record, I didn’t say I admire your sincerity, just that I appreciate it, acknowledge it. And I meant it. I do not believe that I was rude or pompous, just frankly making a point that I believe as strongly in my opinions as you do yours, and no one can speak for all Americans, as you, not I, had presumed to do in your earlier posts on this very thread. Where did I attack your beliefs? You introduced your faith and beliefs about how we all, as Americans, should behave and express ourselves, not I. As for your doubting my sincerity, or paying back-handed compliments, to use your own advice, do not presume to know me … It is possible to disagree strongly with someone without attacking him/her, or trying to belittle him/her. I do generally care what people think or say, and when appropriate, like on a political blog, for example, I add my two cents. It’s good for people to know where they stand and to feel good about themselves—we all need that. But (and this is all I was really trying to say) those things are different for different people, and I , for one, cannot be convinced of your beliefs (the ones you put right here in black and white, not my assumptions) any more than you would be convinced of mine. I am not the one saying that in order to be a good American you must do X Y Z. If you or anyone else does think that way, that is their decision, not mine. But when they come to a public forum and express those beliefs, I think it fair for them to be challenged, if someone wishes to do so. I think my post is very clear that I was speaking for myself, and that yours presume to speak for all Americans, not the other way around. Did you even notice that right after you admonished me not to speak of your beliefs, that I do not know you (even though I clearly kept my comments to your opinions already posted) that you told me you feel sorry for me (that was right after you told me to go to Hell). Who is presumptuous here? Who is arrogant? You say you do not care if and how I disagree, or any others, yet your original post talked of building unity. It seems then that you want unity, but only on your terms, and that is what I was objecting to. Whether you will believe it or not, I was trying to respond respectfully and sincerely to you about why such unity is so elusive—and not the exclusive fault of one party or ideology. Your angry, dismissive, insulting reply, I believe, proves that sufficiently. Sorry, one last thing, justice and democracy are not simply a popularity contest … I do not believe that ideas or policies are any better simply by their being popular. Oh, and in 2000, whatever else may or may not have occurred, one thing is undisputed: Al Gore received more votes than George Bush, remember?

Posted by: no "isms" at June 22, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #160735

Matt Johnston-
Kerry voted for the authorization of force with no equivocation. What he did equivocate on, if you loosely use that term, is a funding bill to continue the war. Kerry’s supposed flip-flop is that he voted for a version that cancelled some of Bush’s tax cuts to fund the continued war, as oppose to Bush’s, which paid for it all with deficit spending. The controversy was over how Bush was paying for his war, and I think if you asked the average American whether they wanted debt financing for this war, or for it be paid for once and for all outright, that they would agree with Kerry.

But hey, policy doesn’t matter, politic does, doesn’t it?

It doesn’t matter that this president has taken the war in a direction most Americans think is wrong now. He’s our decider, isn’t he? Well, the constitution will let him order troops around, but most American want this war over, and if he doesn’t want to doom his party’s chances for dominance for the next generation, he’d better heed the will of the people, or at least acknowledge it by creating a new course people can get behind instead of the two current alternatives.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #160736

Hey William-

So calling innocent Iraqi’s “fellow man” is brainless? Far be it for me to question your implied omnipotence, but do they not have red blodd flowing through their veins? Are you really at the point of calling them inhuman?

And do not assume I’m speaking about only the terrorists…the word I used was “Iraqi’s” and they ARE in fact fellow man and deserving of just as much dignity as you. Isn’t this why you say we’re there to begin with?

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #160747

Thank you “isms” for making a few of my points to Christina for me…I got half way through writing a post and then I read that you’d already said what I wrote.

One last thing for Christina:

“You liberal minded fellows need to remember, the world starts in our own back yard.”

First, just like you I don’t like it when people assume they know more than I’ve given them in written form. Don’t assume as you do not like it either.

“You can take you assumptions and opinions to hell with you for all I care, but never speak of my faith as if you have any idea who I am or what my faith is.”

Exactly!

I happen to be the kind of conservative who doesn’t believe in big government, “borrow and spend” taxation policy, and selectively picking intelligence to justify the most expensive war in history…which we may or may not win (and if we lose it will be because of incompetent leadership).

So while my views and right to free speach give me all the tools I need to be as critical as I like about our “decider”, they are also very different from those which you unilaterally assigned to me.

Now whose assuming what about whom? Do you admonish yourself as you did others for doing this very thing? The answer is most likely: of course not.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #160796

Not only do (today’s) democrats have no agenda; they don’t even have a plan to win (in Iraq). Yet, it’s been fun watching them invest in defeat.

Posted by: rahdigly at June 22, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #160859

Rahdigly-
We do have an agenda. You’re just so busy arguing against the evil one you perceive to understand what we’re really after, what we’ve been after all along.

Our agenda is moderation, and being in touch with the wishes of the average American, rather than perpetually trying to achieve some ideological five-year program to create a permanent majority. Your politicians have been so busy trying to keep their jobs, that they haven’t seen fit to do them, to keep the budget balanced, to safeguard the interests of the American people against illegal immigration, to ensure victory in our wars, instead of interminable stalemate, and to act swiftly in case of disasters.

It’s you folks who never had a plan in Iraq. It’s your people who have invested in defeat, by not investing in the success of America’s policies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 23, 2006 8:07 AM
Comment #160877

Christina:
“you seem to love that first amendment until it is opposing your views and you can try to scream that freedom is for all, it sure is.”
how can loving the first amendment be opposing our views? are you saying that we are blindly shouting the ideals of freedom to the skies and attempting to uphold these ideals worldwide, especially where they seem to be lacking? if i’m not mistaken, that seems to have been the policy of the bush administration these past six years. in fact, while they proclaim this, they are, at the same time, slowly removing many of the freedoms that we, as americans, hold dear.
“I do not care where you disagree with me and the ⭡ny disagree with you⠡re welcome to but remember many more agreed with me on voting day. You can take you assumptions and opinions to hell with you for all I care… It is weak bend-with-the-wind people that are divided, but do not be arrogant enough to speak for America.”
you are speaking of a tyranny of the majority, and that is exactly what, along with tryanny of the minority, the founding fathers attempted to protect the country against with the three branches of government and checks and balances. it is also, since you haven’t seemed to have noticed, exactly what this administration has been blatantly, even insolently, one could even go so far as to say with glee, has been dismantling and reassembling more and more power around the president. it is exaclty your ‘hell with your opinions’ stance that goes against the american ideal and has made it increasingly difficult to be anyone who doesn’t agree with current policy. actually, the ‘weak bend-with-the-wind’ people are those who blindly follow whatever the administration spouts and gladly lap up whatever they want you to believe in order to further their own, individualistic and greedy policies. YOU are the one being arrogant enough to assume to speak for all of america. you say more voters agree with you and therefore we should bow to your will; that is not america.

oh, and by the way: butting into others opinions is what america is all about.

Posted by: alefnaught at June 23, 2006 9:42 AM
Comment #160882

one last thing:

“nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

— Abraham Lincoln

Posted by: alefnought at June 23, 2006 9:57 AM
Comment #160919

Kevin:

Implying that a writer on this board views only Christian conservatives as “fellow man” is indeed brainless?

Bolstering that argument with reference to “red blodd[sic] flowing through” Iraqi veins and acusations that I feel Iraqi’s are “inhuman” is firm confirmation thereof.

Continuing with your insightful projections about what heartless people like me are thinking you go on to tell me why I think “we’re there to begin with”. Thanks for the insight. If I too were brainless this might be helpful information.

My critique of your writing is not entirely negative. For example, I admire your use of the term “omnipotence”. I know that’s a big word for you. However, unlike the Iraqi people, your writing ultimately leaves the cognitively unimpaired reader with the feeling that you are unworthy of dignity (on this discussion board). Thus, I feel comfortable in openly concluding here that you have displayed a degree of BRAINLESSNESS.

Take heart. There are any number of support groups you can join. Move-On.org, Americans Coming Together, the Center for American Progress, to name a few.

Posted by: william at June 23, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #160928

Patriotism is easy to understand in America; it means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country.
~ Calvin Coolidge
A man’s country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle; and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.
~ George William Curtis
Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.
~ George Bernard Shaw
A thoughtful mind, when it sees a Nation’s flag, sees not the flag only, but the Nation itself; and whatever may be its symbols, its insignia, he reads chiefly in the flag the Government, the principles, the truths, the history which belongs to the Nation that sets it forth.
~ Henry Ward Beecher
It is the love of country that has lighted and that keeps glowing the holy fire of patriotism.
~ J. Horace McFarland
These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.
—Thomas Paine (1737-1809) American political theorist, writer

Posted by: Christina at June 23, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #160930

Apparently the character of the republican politicians in congress and the white house continues to manifest itself into a campaign of fiscal irresponsability and selective betterment of only the wealthiest Americans. The way this legislature and administration handles our budget should not only be cause for alarm, but should be a wake-up call.

Eliminating the estate tax, which only applies to the richest 1% of Americans, is a longtime Bush favorite. He even recoined it “Death Tax” to groups of cheering farmers in the mid-west several years back - all of whom undoubtedly believed that Clinton democrats were seeking to apply a tax on the act of dying.

I’m sure that in the end, the solution will come in the form of the debt ceiling being raised for the 7th consecutive year in a row. But somehow, that gets presented to Americans as a way to “balence” the budget.

I’m sure even war hawks can agree that our country needs this money more than the trust fund babies, who are quite literally the only ones who stand to derive any benefit here. And who pays for this benefit? I hope everyone knows it by now…our children and grandchildren, who also won’t have any safety nets to fall back on if they fail. So much for living better than your parents…unless your inheriting their fortune that is.

It’s the same game. Say one thing, do another. In that spirit however, if ONE democrat votes in favor (which is unlikely seeing as how these issues have been running straight down party lines) then I hope they are called out as standing against everything that the democratic party used to stand for (back when they stood for something that is). But then again, republicans used to be against big governemt and wasteful spending. Oh how times change. It is amazing how people adapt their core stances to suit the present political landscape.

Accountability? 98% incumbency.

Sorry to get off topic here, but I figured that since all everyone cares about is the war, they might as well talk about paying for it.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 23, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #160931

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.
—Franklin D. Roosevelt
When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him.
—Franklin D. Roosevelt
(no body can say a lot of things better than F.D.R.)
There are no points that I can make to the likes of you that these great Americans have not said, and fought for. To err is human / to forgive is divine, and today I am human to quickly misquote someone but my principals and ideals have integrity and courage that people will misunderstand and misjudge, but I care not because if God be for me, then who shall I fear be against me?

Posted by: Christina at June 23, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #160932

“If I too were brainless…”

“Take heart. There are any number of support groups you can join. Move-On.org, Americans Coming Together, the Center for American Progress, to name a few.”

“My critique of your writing is not entirely negative. For example, I admire your use of the term “omnipotence”. I know that’s a big word for you. However, unlike the Iraqi people, your writing ultimately leaves the cognitively unimpaired reader with the feeling that you are unworthy of dignity (on this discussion board). Thus, I feel comfortable in openly concluding here that you have displayed a degree of BRAINLESSNESS.”

Is this not just straight up attacking the messenger? Watchblog?? Or are the rules viewpoint specific?

No mention of any issues…just an attack. Lovely.

To even repond to nonsense like that is not becoming of my 7 years of higher education.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 23, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #160938

Christina,

Thanks for quoting one of my blood relatives…George Bernard Shaw.

Ever think about what he meant by that? It’s a little deeper than what’s on the surface.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 23, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #160942

To go with my earlier post about the estate tax: if anyone is curious.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/opinion/23fri1.html?th&emc=th

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 23, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #160951

How ashamed to have the blood line weakened so..
Is it not all a way of looking at it? Your 7 years of higher education, to me makes you a pompous arrogant jerk to toss it about on this page but I am sure there are many that will get great satisfaction in seeing what our education system has produced in you.

Posted by: Christina at June 23, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #160952

Awww…personal attacks. What else is new?

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 23, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #160954

I thought you were the one who was upset about people here presuming they know you.

How quickly we can change our values to suit our interests.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 23, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #160959

Matt - You state:

“Simply because they hold the purse does not give the power to make decisions regarding the conduct of any war or conflict”.

I disagree, I believe it does. Bear in mind I am only arguing a constitutional point, not whether the Democrates proposals are good or not, or the politics of this.

I think you are taking the constitution to literal and you are not thinking practically.

I do volunteer work for the United Way and I help decided which local organizations get funding. And if we on the panel do not think the organization is spending the donor’s money wisely or getting a bang for our buck, we make recommendations to improve their program. And if they do not do it we can stop funding.

Controlling the purse strings inherently gives you authority on how it is spent. I do not know how you can argue that point.

Yes the President is commander in chief, but if they do not like the way he is conducting the war. They can stop funding. And if the President dosen’t like it, he will have to resell his war plan to congress to get his funding back. He may have to make changes to his war plan. They can also put conditions on the funding or specifically what they want to fund.

Look - when you have the responsibility of spending other’s people’s money (taxpayers), you have a responsibility to see that it is spent wisely.

With regard to the declaration of war your comment:

“Congress authorized action by the President, whether it was for insurance policy reasons or not, and by continuing to appropriate funds with bipartisan majorities, at least tacitly continues to authorize action”.

You make a credible argument..But you seem to have a double standard. You accept an implied action by congress as a declaration of war, but come down hard on Democratic Legislators for not following the constitution literally.

Posted by: Stefano at June 23, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #160963

Christina,
I agree with you and hope you realize you have many people who support the ideals you are presenting. You showed great patience in taking that long to return angry words to the ones so free with their false accusations.

To those who think we should disregard the Consititution that set up the Electoral College:
Do you want the big cities to make law for everyone? That is like saying we don’t need the Senate, because there every state is equal, unlike in the House of Representatives where votes are by population. Have you noticed how the House of Representatives is voting? Those representatives accurately represent the people who elected them or they are out of office after two years.

Kevin and isms,
Do you believe the United States is the greatest threat to world peace? What country do you think would do a better job than the United States is doing?

Posted by: Steve at June 23, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #160968

Personal comments, personal views hmmm really? Just as much as you have attacked, so in return. I was just correcting something I written, G.B.Shaw was not American, but I do think the Fabian Society does contribute ideas to socity, even though I disagree with many. I also have quoted Malcom X with, You’re not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it.
The quotes can be used either way you would like to use them. Just like the men that have spoken them, they may not approve of the way many use it but none the less it is there to be used, isn’t it?

Posted by: Christina at June 23, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #160972

Thank you, it’s good to see your words Steve.

Posted by: Christina at June 23, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #160977

Allow me to respond to the ISSUES you presented. All the petty and unnescessary insults you dished out are going to be seen by readers for what they are anyhow.

“Do you believe the United States is the greatest threat to world peace?”

Yes, and only because that is precisely what the vast majority of the world’s population believes. In the end, the world’s view of our actions is more important than the absolute truth…which can never be verified until well after the fact.

“What country do you think would do a better job than the United States is doing?”

At what exactly? What if it turns out we’ve incited more violence than we have quelled in the end? Then I guess the answer would be: every nation has done a better job, simply through abstinence.

And please people, try not to be bitter when you are unable to respond substantively. If you have nothing to say but derogatory remarks (I love that having an education is somehow a bad thing to talk about), maybe a little restaint? I think that is what Jesus would do. Or what most people do, research the written words and THEN follow up on them. Only then will we advance the debate.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 23, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #160992

” the world’s view of our actions is more important than the truth “

Man Kevin, why didn’t you give me that one before I composed my original ‘Brainless Comments’ list? That one’s priceless.

Seven years, you say?

Posted by: william at June 23, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #160993

Kevin,

If you believe the United States does a worse job than every other country on the planet then why don’t you choose one of them as your home? Are you a citizen of the United States?

Do you think it would be noble for me to do nothing if my neighbor’s wife was being raped and murdered? Do you wish Saddam was still in charge of Iraq?

Posted by: Steve at June 23, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #161003

Ooh…

And Kevin, I love the part about Jesus.

I can just see you now, proudly adorning your WWJD bracelet in front all your like minded bush-hating think tankers. Watch out for that intelligentsia.

Posted by: william at June 23, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #161011

balh balh balh…still no talk of ISSUES!

You can take me out of context all day long, but how about a researched response?

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 23, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #161016

“…not becoming of my 7 years of higher education.”

“I love that having an education is somehow a bad thing to talk about”

Anybody that feels the need to throw these out there seems to me to be lacking ammunition. Can you say elitist?

Was it 7 years of education or “indoctrination?”

Posted by: Jake at June 23, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #161017

“Brainless comments above…”

“-I don’t know what’s funnier, these guys or poor Matt taking the time to recite excerpts from the Federalist papers to these loons in hopes that they’ll understand some basic historical background to U.S. constitutional principles. Let it go Matt. We can’t save ‘em all.”

“Thus, I feel comfortable in openly concluding here that you have displayed a degree of BRAINLESSNESS.”

“Man Kevin, why didn’t you give me that one before I composed my original ‘Brainless Comments’ list? That one’s priceless.”

“I can just see you now, proudly adorning your WWJD bracelet in front all your like minded bush-hating think tankers. Watch out for that intelligentsia.”

William,
I strongly disagree with many of the posts that prompted these childish comments. Grow up and address the issue instead of attacking the messengers.

Please don’t feed the troll.


Posted by: traveller at June 23, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #161020

I don’t know what “balh balh balh” means but I assume its not pinko code employed for secretly demeaning vile hate-mongers like me and for this I’ve got to commend you.

By this point, most liberal dolts would have lost composure displaying loads of lunacy or resorting to outright obsenities.

But with you it looks like the crazy well is running dry. Let me know if you change your mind. I’m always looking for new material.

Posted by: william at June 23, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #161024

Christina

“I know exactly where I stand and there are plenty keeping me company. Now why don�t you amuse yourself, type some more and butt into some other people�s opinions. Isn’t it nice to be able to attack someone�s views and beliefs instead of having beliefs and views of their own to post?”

No offense but you are the bigest hypocrite I have ever seen. If you didn’t want someone to read, understand and maybe… umm disagree with you then DON’T POST! Why, are you not butting into someone elses opinions by disagreeing with them? I don’t understand how disagreeing with someone and explaining why is butting in… if you disagree with me… I don’t expect you to respond… unless of course you truly are a hyprocrite, and are for some reason out to flaunt it.

BTW… there are many other people who can say things better than F.D.R

Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none.” - Thomas Jefferson, 1801 inaugural address.

“America… well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extraction, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force… She might become dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.” - John Quincy Adams; Address, 4 July 1821

“Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all… The Nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest … Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.” - George Washington, Farewell Address, 17 Sept. 1796.

these are the men that helped found this country… as I can recall F.D.R was not there in during this time… He was a good man, and he was justified in responding to a horrible attack… but he even regretted what he had done, something that this admin has yet to say or do…

“Personal comments, personal views hmmm really? Just as much as you have attacked, so in return.”

Can you do us a favor an clarify how Kevin personally attaked you… looking through the threads no one called you a jerk. I did call you a hypocrite, but… if you are one I believe that you should be labled as one.

hypocrite

n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold

Like not judging someone… and yet “How ashamed to have the blood line weakened so..
Is it not all a way of looking at it? Your 7 years of higher education, to me makes you a pompous arrogant jerk to toss it about on this page but I am sure there are many that will get great satisfaction in seeing what our education system has produced in you.” I do not see how you can ask someone not to do to you… what you have done unto them.

United We Stand Divided We Fall- Yes indeed but how can we unite we we are fighting a war without reason… I cannot morally kill someone with out knowing it is justified, yet it happens every day.

“I want our troops home just as much as anyone else. I hate the thought of war and all the horrors it carries but even this simple county girl knows there is nothing humanitarian about what was done to those 2 Fort Campbell boys, now is it? Do you think you should run to the U.N. and say tug on their shirt and cry, �Teacher, teacher??� I love how so many claim that war never solves anything and yet open your history books and have yourself a look-see.”

Then let us come home! Yes your right war has done so much… it has killed hundreds of people, distroyed wonderful civilizations, and systimatically obliterated vast amounts of knowledge that we are just now getting back… yes war has accomplished so much, but for who? For religion. Actually specific religions… War never does solve anything, just as Kevin23 said
“When a small child gets bitten in his classroom by another small child, do we tell the bitten child to go bite back harder? No. Why? I’ll let you chew on that for a while.” Why do we not tell the child to bite back harder? Because the goal is to eradicate the behavior… even in your religion killing is a sin, I wonder the toll it would take on a soul to kill hundreds for no reason? I’ll let you in on a secret… it distroys you. You try killing someone for a war with no basis, I’ll give my gun to you, you do it.

“I have them saved; you need not quote me however I do like to be quoted so all you are doing is giving me a big ego.” I will let you in on another secret… quoting is a nice resource, so you don’t have to keep scrolling all over the page in order to determine what you said… it’s all there for you, just so you can’t say “I didn’t say that” it’s not for your ego, it’s something called fact checking, just we both can get all of our facts stright. I quote because it’s easier for you and everyone else reading this blog… so it’s not flattery, and if your flattered if I were you I wouldn’t be… some of those things quoted (I’ll be nice) are not things that most people would ever want to say IMHO.

“We have room for but one flag, the American flag”
I hope you don’t have a state flag then…

“You liberal minded fellows need to remember, the world starts in our own back yard.” And you conservative minded fellows need to remember that it doesn’t end there either.

“What we have in Iraq, is what has always occurred in the Middle East except we are trying to help those who may some day be in a position to help us.” So a war is justified because there was already war… that’s absurd.

“Since you deem it so easy to find the needle in the haystack, why aren�t you finding it?”
You can’t find something the commander and chief doesn’t want to find… we are not looking for “the needle in the haystack” because the military has not been told to find him, I’m personally all for going out and getting OBL but I have an obligation to America to stay in Iraq and kill people.

“It makes much more sense to point your finger at our President and belittle our morale. You create doubt about our country by constantly criticizing the leader we voted for so I will ask you nicely, please stop Bush bashing and help find some common ground we can stand upon.”
No those that bilittle the morale are the ones that do not do what is right. Those that ask questions are SAINTS how can anyone live a life and not ask why is beyond me. I want to thank them, because it made me understand so much more, and those that do not support them are just letting us sink into a quagmire. BTW do not speak for our troops, unless you are one of them. I have been to Iraq 3 times, over the past 4 years, 20 months of my life taken away from my family and for what? BTW you voted for him… not me, if you mean we the American people… let me remind you it was by a slim amount, and slim amount that is easily lost. To find common ground to stand on you have to have common cause, and if the cause is lost then why are you fighting for it? They have another phrase for that… it’s called beating a dead horse.

“I wrote the north eastern friends in regard to the Washington Post, not you or any other pompous arrogant where ever you live doesn�t matter type.”
I’m gonna ask you nicely please stop calling people names, it’s not becoming.

“It is weak bend-with-the-wind people that are divided, but do not be arrogant enough to speak for America.” Ahh practice what you preach. I ask that YOU do not speak for America. You are not America.

“they may not approve of the way many use it but none the less it is there to be used, isn’t it?” So I can manipulate your quotes and make it sound like somethe else instead of what it was meant to say… Oh goody let’s play

—-Quotes from Christina—-
“I see it as” “I am” “a pompous arrogant jerk” “who” “By the way” “Is” “so blind with patriotism that” “It seems” “I hate” “our beloved nation” “because” “I” “discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.”

I like this one too

“I” “attacked” “Malcom X” Christian how could you?
Ummm quote-y.
Quotes are ment to convey a message if the message is lost so is the meaning… do not misquote someone or use selective evidence… or you might just have it happen to you.


-Einghf

Posted by: einghf at June 23, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #161025

Was it 7 years of education or “indoctrination?”

Well, I got the same legal education as a few of your beloved republican politicians did. I won’t say who or where because that would be construed as cocky or “elitist”.

You want to tell me how it is you feel you can look down on it?

Have you responded to any of my substantive questions yet??

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 23, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #161030

Traveller:

ISSUE: Do liberal postings on this board reflect a degree of lunacy?

If I feel that the answer is ‘yes’, the best way to demonstrate this fact might be to QUOTE the liberals and sprinkle in a degree of humor. The particular quotes and what constitutes ‘humor’… , I’d say these are a matter of choice as long as we can, for example, avoid obscenities.

However, if, as a liberal, the effectiveness of this technique troubles you, you may wish to put forth a new set of rules for “addressing the issues”.

How about a new Liberal definition of “addressing the issues” -

putting forth drab minimalist arguments that can be easily dealt with by the pinko mind, lacks all sense of humor or appeal, and refrains at all cost from actually Qouting the liberal about whom it will be presupposed IS ‘addressing the issues’ (regardless of the lunacy on display).

Wow. Here’s an ISSUE: Where in life can I cut me a deal like that?

Let’s start now - I eagerly await your substantive, yet thoroughly humorless, and poorly thought out response. Anything else will constitute avoiding the Issues.

Go.

Posted by: william at June 23, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #161033

einghf
Maybe you and Kevin could relocate? Say what you will, I have lost a loved one there and you are what walks back on our soil?

Posted by: Christina at June 23, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #161043

So have I Christina. Three good friends and an uncle. This doesn’t entitle us to feel superior to those with differing views. And it definately does not give you the right to feel as if you are any more american than they are, or any more patriotic.

I’m sorry you are so revolted by this debate, but it seems to me you thrust yourself in the middle of it with all the confidence in the world. Now you refuse to take part in any material debate and tell people to leave our country if they don’t agree with you?

I’m just really not sure where you are coming from if not from a purely emotional place.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 23, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #161076

William,
You’re not nearly as smart as you think you are.

For starters, I’m not liberal. If you’ve been on WB for even a short time you should know that I’m very conservative.
The issue in this thread is not whether or not liberal postings reflect a degree of lunacy. It is whether or not Congress can order an end to a war.
In my original post in this thread I was defending a Constitutional precept, not Kerry’s proposal.
Based on your posts in this thread I have to conclude that you have no understanding of the historical background or philosophical foundation of Constitutional principles.(here’s a hint-the Magna Carta and Blackstone’s Commentaries are good places to start)
If you want to demonstrate liberal lunacy try using logical counter argument instead of childish, mean spirited name calling.
Except for the occasional troll the people who post here aren’t brainless. This is a forum for lively, often humorous debate. The people here usually present good arguments for their positions. Disagreement doesn’t make them stupid. Answering their arguments by calling them stupid makes you look like an asshole.

Posted by: traveller at June 23, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #161080

“Maybe you and Kevin could relocate? Say what you will, I have lost a loved one there and you are what walks back on our soil?”

I love my country because it is a wonderful place, and diverse minds and opinions are what makes it wonderful. I have lost loved ones, friends, and comrads too. Yes I am what walks back on our soil, one with a clear perspective and understanding of the whole of the situation. Why would I want to relocate… I have yet to move back in the US, I’m not allowed to relocate. My permanant duty station isn’t even on the same side of the earth as the US. Do not assume, you do not know me or Kevin, so do not think you know who, what or where we are. And all because we do not agree with your opinions, does not mean we want to move… there is always room for improvement, and there is no reason why we could not try to improve do you not agree? I’m not saying that the US is the most horrible place on Earth… you are putting those words in libs mouths… they just want/expect improvment, are you one to stand in the way of change?

-Einghf

Posted by: Einghf at June 23, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #161084

Everyone, especially, Traveller, William and Christine, this thread now contains numerous violations of our policy. Since I don’t have time to filter through them all, the next occurence will be dealt with by deleting all of that person’s comments (easy for me) and locking that person out of WatchBlog comments.

Posted by: WatchBlog Managing Editor at June 23, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #161098

To all,
I apologize for the use of profanity in my last post. I could have conveyed the same thought with a more intelligent word. The editor was right to call me on it.

Posted by: traveller at June 23, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #161148

To all:

I too, would like to apologize. In Traveller’s defense, let me say that his assesment of me, profane or not, is fairly accurate…

with the exception that I am indeed every bit as smart as I think I am.

See, now that comment right there. I can’t help myself. Can you really blame Traveller? He was provoked.


Traveller:

For future reference, terms like ‘arrogant’ or ‘jerk’ tend to work well in dealing with me. Ask my wife, she has a bunch more that fall just short of crossing the line into obscenity.

Also, while I consider your reply to my prior posting to be nonresponsive and you haven’t a clue as to my Constitutional background, You Were Right in pointing out that I have no real experience on WB and I shouldn’t have called you a ‘liberal’… yet. I apologize.


To editor:

If you have to block someone, make it me (or Kevin whom you failed to mention). I don’t think Christine should be on your list of troublemakers. She seems like a very sweet person.

Posted by: william at June 23, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #161209

william, I don’t care how sweet or obnoxious folks are, what party they affiliate with, or what planet they come from, as long as they comply with our policies.

Posted by: WatchBlog Managing Editor at June 24, 2006 2:11 AM
Comment #161236

One of the basic tenets of ordered liberty is civilian control of the military. This is to keep the president from becoming a military dictator.
In his role as Commander in Chief the president is a military commander. If Congress cannot limit the president’s warmaking ability then civilian control is lost.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president to obtain a declaration of war or a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days of initiating hostilities. This, by extension, requires the president to cease hostilities if Congress refuses to pass the necessary authorization.
This is clear Congressional control of the warmaking power.

Posted by: traveller at June 24, 2006 8:46 AM
Comment #161244

Jim T. Sorry not to have responded sooner, Grand kids.

You do not address the issue of what the Downing Street Memo uncovered. I wonder, have you read it in its entirety? The fact that Mr. Blair dismissed it means no more to me than the fact that Mr. Bush dismissed it. The question remains, upon what grounds were the dismissals based?

A clear thinking person, I believe, would have to agree that neither the President’s nor Prime Minister’s answers were satisfactory or even honest. Recall the claims made about WMD and al Qaeda before the war. These claims were made based upon certainty. Neither elected official had the remotest reason for such certainty, as the evidence at the time clearly indicated (remember Hans Blix?). Hence the lie. When someone tells me he knows something for certain and then I find out he could not have been justified in his certainty I believe he has lied to me.

I read the document that you suggested. It too is full of qualifiers and caveats. When a President leads us into a preventive war based upon lies, yes, then I become upset. Yes, then I feel impeachment is the proper course to get to the bottom of the mendacity.

This kind of discussion is needed and has not been forthcoming. The Downing Street Memo, and other information, I fear only call attention to the tip of the iceberg. We have allowed ourselves to be conned into a war that is and will cost us dearly.

Peace, cml

Posted by: cml at June 24, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #161255

cml, that was wonderful and explained exactly how i feel. i would like to bring up your argument for impeachment, which is justified by not only the lie you speak of but of varioius other ones relating to this war and other legal actions taken by the government since then, and compare it to the impeachment trial of our last president, bill clinton. he lied too, over a personal matter no less, but it was in court. now, his lie only affected himself and those close to him in a significant way. yet, he was put on trial for lying in court, as is the law of our land. but george bush lied repeatedly and those lies led to a war in which 2,500 men and women have died and over 8,000 have been seriously wounded. i don’t care if bush is consercative, liberal, ‘pinko,’ purple, or martian. if you lie and it causes over 10,000 casualties, not to mention all of the people that affects back home, then you should be punished for your actions. especially when the lies in question were made on such false pretenses, in order to justify something that much of the country didn’t want, to be insulting not only to those who were against the war, but even more so to those who believed in what was said and supported the war based on the lies.

i don’t know if we should pull out now. there have been 10,000 casualties in order to, as of this point, take out saddam (which did need to get done, though maybe not in this fashion) and rebuild iraq, and i feel like we need to finish the job. of course, that may not be possible, but it certainly won’t work with the system that is being used now. i don’t know what would work, i am not an expert in that area and haven’t had the time of late to research the ideas and stipulations of the real experts, but i feel like there are ideas out there that are being ignored by those who have the ability to get the job done right; and that could be both democrats and republicans.

Posted by: alefnought at June 24, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #161256

sorry, i once again forgot to add my quotes in my post:

“‘My country, right or wrong,’ is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’” — G.K. Chesterton


“You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.” — Malcom X

“When a whole nation is roaring Patriotism at the top of its voice, I am fain to explore the cleanness of its hands and purity of its heart.”
— Ralph Waldo Emerson

“When I am abroad, I always make it a rule never to criticize or attack the government of my own country. I make up for lost time when I come home.” — Sir Winston Churchill

Patriotism is not merely blindly supporting your government in whatever they do. Patriotism is looking beyond the superficialities of policy and actions and deciding for yourself if they agree with the ideals of your country; then letting those around you and the government itself know if you feel they are failing in that respect. There is nothing more patriotic than disagreeing with policy and discussing your ideas, opinions, and feelings with everyone, including those who disagree with you.

Posted by: alefnought at June 24, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #161366

Patriotism is not making lies against your own country in order to appear even heanded. Patriotism is not turning a blind eye to atrocities the enemy commits while looking for each opportunity to disparage your country’s troops.

Bush did not lie when he said the United Kingdom knew (and still knows) that Saddam sought yellow cake uranium from Africa. The leader of the BBC lost his job over calling Tony Blair a liar, because it was proven that the BBC did not speak honestly and even that the BBC knowingly lied in their false accusation.

Speaking of lies, do you still say Bush stole the 200 election, or even the 2004 election? Please make your case if you do. Please show how Bush violated the Constitution, because that is the law of our country. Now, if you know that Bush followed the law, then to claim that he took the election unlawfully (stole) then you are bearing false witness against him. If your cause is just then why do you need to resort to lies and deception?

Posted by: Steve at June 24, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #161504

If I and these men were the only people who broke any rules, I feel you are mistaken. It is however your page, do as you see fit. I used those terms so I should be the one punished,(thank you William), but it was an emotional discussion for myself and I did lose my temper with Kevin. What ever the party, at least all of us care enough about our country to watch, read, and learn. God Bless America and her alies.

Posted by: Christina at June 24, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #162430

Allies.

Posted by: Mb at June 27, 2006 5:49 PM
Post a comment