Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Criticism is one thing - likening her to al qaeda is another.> Vice President Cheney did not liken Speaker Pelosi to Al Qaeda.
Originally Posted By ElKay Whoo-boy Dougie, where have you been these past six years? The formerly GOP occupied Congress pretty much shut off any sort of meaningful democratic give and take on the grounds that they believed that Congress must be a handmaiden to Cheney's theory of the "unitary president" that is all powerful and can interpret the Constitution in any way to fit their ideological therories. This past election, the people has given the Dems. a mandate to check the power of the Bush Admin's. conduct of this war and to shine a light on the other members of Congress like former Reps. Cunningham, Ney and yes, Jefferson (of New Orleans). It's a hoot that you criticize Speaker Pelosi's criticism of Cheney, it's every American's right (even yours) and it's also her duty as representive of the new majority in a co-equal branch of the Fed. government. The problem with Bush and especially Cheney is they are impervious to any criticism, even when they might in fact be right. Isn't that how they brought the country into this mess? Notice how each of the members of Bush "Axis of Evil" is causing more trouble for the US and our allies and how both Iran and North Korea will be soon threating the world with real, not imanginary nuclear weaponry.
Originally Posted By ElKay "Waiting around for the government at any level to help out is foolish in my view. " That really sounds like a true "sunshine patriot" the sort that Pactrick Henry was warning the colonists about back around 1774. Sure, government is the answer for every issue, but to totally write off the advantages of a representative governmental body that serves its citizens is bizzare. Would we even have a country if Britian didn't assist the colonists by funding a garrison of soldiers to keep the French, Spanish and the hostile native tribes beyond the boarders of British North America? That was funded by the excise taxes that we rebelled against. Would the founding fathers have been successful in creating a new country if they didn't come together in a more or less united front? The list is full of examples of how governments both local and nationally assisted the building of the country and society that some of us seem to enjoy and take advantage of. Should we have not raised an army to protect the settlers gowing west. Paid generious land grants and cash bounties to the private railroad stock companies who wouldn't have laid a single mile of track outside of Omaha without those concessions by the Lincoln Admins? DAR, you better stay off of MY interstate road network, MY airports, MY postal service, MY food inspection program, MY ports, MY courts and MY internet, if you take that attitude that government can do no right, because I and nearly 300 million other citizens willing pay my share of taxes to enjoy those protections and services is use on a daily basis.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Whoo-boy Dougie, where have you been these past six years?> Obviously not reading the leftist publications or websites you have. No one on the right has ever characterized VP Cheney's desire to restore some executive power as making the President "all powerful" and able to "interpret the Constitution in any way". <It's a hoot that you criticize Speaker Pelosi's criticism of Cheney> She wasn't criticizing what Mr Cheney said, or attempting to rebut him with facts or logic. Her "criticism" was simple emotionalism - "Dick's mean and George won't take my calls!" <The problem with Bush and especially Cheney is they are impervious to any criticism, even when they might in fact be right.> They are impervious to criticism that has no merit, as they should be. If you're going to criticize, you should be willing to provide a solution, rather than just complain. <Isn't that how they brought the country into this mess?> Not sure what you mean by "this mess". If you're talking about the war on terror, we got into this mess by letting it go unaddressed for too long. If you're talking about our occupation in Iraq, we got into that for much the same reasons, plus a majority vote of the US Congress. You know, the Democrats in Congress back in 2002 didn't have to vote to take action in Iraq. It didn't even need to come to a vote - a lot of people were arguing the President already had plenty of authority to remove Saddam and go after the terrorists in Iraq. But the Democrats insisted on a vote, and the majority of our representatives voted to proceed with military force if Saddam didn't comply with the UN resolutions. Now we should finish together what we started together.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<< as security guards cannot carry guns in Australia >>> I just deleted about 1,000 words to this subject...pfft. Never mind.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<Not to derail but Katrina proved just how stupid people are to rely on the government at any level. >>> Actually, this makes a lot of sense, and I have to say that I agree with it.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>restore some executive power<<< Um, restore? When was any executive power ever taken away? Seems to me the phrase would be "add some executive power". Or a better one, "add a LOT of executive power". Or perhaps "give the president the powers of a king". But your exaltation of Cheney these last few posts is telling...I can really FEEL who the neo-con puppetmaster really is based on your reverent posts about him!!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <When was any executive power ever taken away?> You might want to consult a history book. The FISA act & the War Powers act were both Congressional attempts to reduce the Presidency. More recently, there was a President that tried to invoke Executive privilege to conceal his own malfiesance (and no, I'm not talking about Nixon, although he was guilty of that too).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But your exaltation of Cheney these last few posts is telling...I can really FEEL who the neo-con puppetmaster really is based on your reverent posts about him!!> There is no exaltation - I simply believe that on this issue, VP Cheney is right, and Speaker Pelosi is wrong. If the Democrats think our being in Iraq is a bad idea, then they should defund the war. Otherwise, they should support or offer plans that allow us to win, instead of just sniping from the sidelines.
Originally Posted By ElKay "Not sure what you mean by "this mess". If you're talking about the war on terror, we got into this mess by letting it go unaddressed for too long. If you're talking about our occupation in Iraq, we got into that for much the same reasons, plus a majority vote of the US Congress." What a maroon --as Bugs Bunny would say. Do you mean "letting it go unadressed for too long" as in Bush not doing ANYTHING during the first eight months of his admin. Revisionist neocons beat Clinton about the head and neck for not retailating against bin Laden for the USS Cole attack, but convienently forget that neither did Bush dispite two commissions that warned that Islamic terrorists were a real threat to the US. Congress even with the GOP occupying it had little or no effect on the screwy battle plans foisted on the country. Even after then Chief of Staff Shinseki said that "several hundred thousand troops" would be need to occupy Iraq after we defeated Saddam, the Bushies didn't budge. We all know Bush doesn't listen to reason, so it's not Congress at fault. "They are impervious to criticism that has no merit, as they should be. If you're going to criticize, you should be willing to provide a solution, rather than just complain." No you don't. Bwahahahahahah. Sounds just like you, doesn't it?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What a maroon --as Bugs Bunny would say.> Typical leftist. As soon as someone doesn't agree with you, call them names. The rest of your post is historical revisionism or just plain misinformed.
Originally Posted By jonvn I'd say that was Ed. The thing is that as time goes on, the position of certain posters here is show to be, time and again, flat out wrong. Then they twist the story around and try to make it something it is not, and they make their position look even more ridiculous. But, it's an intereting phenomena, watching Vietnam play out here as an adult instead of a youngster. The only difference now is no draft. IF there were a draft, there would be riots in the streets again.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Two years ago, I would've bet money that we'd have a draft reinstated by now. Our military is more resilient than I thought, but they can't this up forever.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The thing is that as time goes on, the position of certain posters here is show to be, time and again, flat out wrong.> And yet they keep coming back and disagreeing with me.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I would've bet money that we'd have a draft reinstated by now." well, two years ago, you probably were laboring under the impression that we had responsible people in charge. Instead, we've got the ones we have, and they are ripping the military to shreds.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Yes, that's why are re-enlistment rate is so low - our soldiers are fed up with being ripped to shreds. What, are re-enlistment rates are good? Oh, nevermind.
Originally Posted By ElKay "Two years ago, I would've bet money that we'd have a draft reinstated by now. Our military is more resilient than I thought, but they can't this up forever." But isn't that a bad thing that if we are in fact in a protracted GWOT (Global War on Terrorism) and we are relying on "retreads" , older Nat'l. Guardsmen, 42 year old recruits and lowered IQ and petty criminals to round out our frontline troops? Bush was steadfast in not asking even a Republican Congress to meaningful expansion of our ground forces that when it's almost at the end stages of our involvement in Iraq we are just now expanding our troops. Just like the lag time to train the Iraqi army, our own regiments are going to need several years to rearm and retrain. Seeming dispite his flawed inclinations, Bush surely isn't dumb enough to go and pick a fight with Iran or anyone else because we just don't have manpower to do so.
