Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Monday, November 19, 2007Figures you would back the candidate who openly snubbed every military member assigned to White House detail during the Clinton Campaign. Apparently you share her contempt for those in uniform.

My contempt is for a Commander-in Chief that sent over 3,800 of our military to their death and injured another 28,000 in a war that was not justified and has not made America Safer. I also have contempt for idiots that attempt to justify the murder and injury of our brave young people and tell then their sacrifice was to make us safe when it is NOTHOING of the sort! They gave their lives in vane and we are JUST AS LIKELY of being attacked tomorrow by the terrorists then before we invaded Iraq!

Thank you, Charles.

I wish common sense & logic would have an impact on Gene, but I'm not holding my breath.

Good of you to try, though.

you see i stuck my finger up to see which way the wind was blowing and then i sniffed the air to smell what was in it.   

Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Monday, November 19, 2007I notice you didn't bother denying Hillary's open contempt for our troops... yet you would vote for her. Your mindless "Hate Bush" mentality knows know bounds.

Nothing she has said shows contempt for our military. She parses their efforts. Her criticism like my comments are directed at Bush and the inept choices he made by first sending our militant to invade Iraq and then by not sending the numbers needed to do that job he gave our military. I have not heard one senior general say that we sent the force levels needed and Bush was told BEFORE we invaded Iraq what it would take. Thus it is not a case of, Monday Morning Quarterbacking but a confirmation today of the advice given Bush BRFORE the invasion that he IGNORED! His failure to send the troops needed allowed al-Qaeda to enter Iraq from other countries because we did not have the troops to control the Iraq Borders after Saddam was deposed. The lack of troops also allowed Shea and Sunni factions to arm and organize their forces and that is WHY we have MOST of the Deaths and injuries. That means BUSH is responsible for the dead and injured in Iraq. There is a LEGICY for the 43rd President—Responsible for the death of almost 4,000 American Troops and the injury of another 30,000!!! They should put that on a big plaque in the GWB Presidential Library along with pictures of the carnage he caused!

Oh, sorry for saying anything about anyone else in existence other than Bush. Are you really that myopic and simpleminded, Gene? Is there anything in that cobweb infested head of yours that passes for an actual thought? We get more variety from the color scheme of a polar bear than with your "additions" to any discussion.

never once has the words "separation of powers" or "u.s constitution" ever passed through your feeble brain have they.

It's truly sad that anyone ever saluted you... oh that's right, they saluted the birds on your collar, not you.

Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Tuesday, November 20, 2007For the most part Bush got what he wanted through Congress.Yeah, you're right. That's why we're drilling for new sources of oil in ANWR and why I get to invest 5% of my social security taxes in my 401K. Sure has been a rubber stamp Congress all 7 years.

I said "FOR THE MOST PART" IDIOT!

Basically, a declaration of war by the United States is the statement of purpose asked for by the President of the United States, and granted by Congress to engage military actions against another nation.


guess what the congress cant declare war without the president asking for it.


As you know, the president is commander-in-chief of our nation's most powerful and technologically advanced military.


no where in that statement is congress mentioned.

Keep in mind that Congress has control of the availability of the money needed to fund military operations, which in turn, provides another check on the executive branch as well.

you see the only recourse congress has after declaring war is to cut funding not tell the president how to deploy troops.

this is what the founding fathers were trying to avoid by splitting the ability to conduct war. so that neither side would have to much power.


WWW Link

Keep in mind that Congress has control of the availability of the money needed to fund military operations, which in turn, provides another check on the executive branch as well. you see the only recourse congress has after declaring war is to cut funding not tell the president how to deploy troops.

Problem one-- Congress NEVER declared war with Iraq. Nowhere in the Iraq War resolution does Congress declare a state of war it only ALLOWES Bush to take military action. It does not demand an invasion and Congress DOES NOT say that a state of war exists between Iraq and the United States.

I agree, Congress has the power to end the Iraq operation by the budget. If they either pass a funding bill that cuts off or limits funding for Iraq or if Congress is prevented from passing any funding bill for the war because either the Senate does not allow a vote or because Congress fails to override a Presidential Veto of a funding bill passed by Congress.

you and congress are hiding behind words.


the president was incourged by congress to remove saddam and replace him with a democratic government.


you in your wisdom wanted us to hire TERRIOSTS to do that job.


because you sir are a coward.

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;



Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';


you are right congress didn't declare war. they diidnt do their duty and passed it on to the president.

but the above still looks like a declaration of war to me.

WWW Link

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

The UN did not authorize or ask the U.S. to enforce their resolutions! The UN said we should NOT invade Iraq! There is NO declaration of war between Iraq and the United States!