Democrats Gone Wild




 
--
Democrats Gone Wild
 
January 20th, 2007  
phoenix80
 
 

Topic: Democrats Gone Wild


Democrats Gone Wild
Today was a bad day for the Democrats--they were disgraceful on a number of fronts. First there was Nancy Pelosi on Good Morning America, accusing President Bush of playing politics with the lives of our soldiers:
The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way, that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way.
Pelosi's charge was not only patently false, it bordered on incomprehensible. Is she really suggesting that any time the President intends to send troops anywhere, he should wait until the next Congressional budget cycle to find out whether funds have been appropriated for that particular mission? She can't possibly mean that, but I can't think of any other interpretation.

Next was Harry Reid, who offered this legal opinion in a speech to the National Press Club:
The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization.
As a proposition of Constitutional law, that is simply wrong. The President obviously does have such authority as commander in chief; the only sense that can be attached to Reid's comment is that he doesn't think the President should do it. At this point, we have no reason to think that President Bush disagrees. But why would Reid grandstand for headlines in this way, and at this time? He must know that the Iranians will read news stories about his speech and take it to mean that the President has no credible threat of military action. This is a perverse signal to send to an enemy while it is in the process of killing American soldiers in Iraq and while one of our aircraft carriers has been ordered to the Middle East.
What can Reid's motive possibly be, other than to aid our enemies and contribute to our problems in Iraq? I can't think of one. A credible threat of military action is obviously vital to our dealings with Iran.

And, finally, there is poor old Walter Mondale. Speaking at a conference at the University of Georgia on Jimmy Carter, Mondale--who has long been a more vicious partisan than is generally recognized--unloaded on Vice President Cheney:
I think that Cheney has stepped way over the line. I think Cheney's been at the center of cooking up farcical estimates of national risks, weapons of mass destruction and the 9/11 connection to Iraq. If I had done as vice president what this vice president has done, Carter would have thrown me out of there. I don't think he could have tolerated a vice president over there pressuring and pushing other agencies, ordering up different reports than they wanted to send us. I don't think he would have stood for it.
This is a tissue of lies. The threat posed by Saddam's Iraq was hardly considered "farcical" by Mondale's fellow Democrats prior to March 2003. For example:

John Kerry, October 9, 2002:
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
Jay Rockefeller, October 10, 2002:
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002:
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
We could go on and on, but I'll close with one more from John Kerry, January 23, 2003:
Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...
That was then, I guess, and this is now. Democrats seem to have short memories. Still, I can't help wondering what Mondale himself has said about Saddam over the years.
Further, Mondale's claim that Cheney "pressur[ed] and push[ed] other agencies, ordering up different reports than they wanted to send us," is an outright lie. At least one Senate committee has found to the contrary, and not a single intelligence officer (I assume Mondale is still talking about Iraq here) has ever said that Cheney "pressured" or "pushed" him or her to send a "different report." On the contrary, every single employee of an intelligence agency who has testified under oath has said that Cheney did no such thing.

It is hardly rare, of course, for Democrats to conduct themselves disgracefully. In that sense, there is no surprise in today's events. Still, they should be noted and condemned.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016541.php
January 20th, 2007  
Gator
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix80
Next was Harry Reid, who offered this legal opinion in a speech to the National Press Club:
The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization.
As a proposition of Constitutional law, that is simply wrong. The President obviously does have such authority as commander in chief; the only sense that can be attached to Reid's comment is that he doesn't think the President should do it.
Checking United States Law on the matter....

Quote:
The Constitution of the United States - Article I - Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Article II - Section 2.
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Checking the War Powers Act.....

Quote:
The War Powers Act of 1973
Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973
Joint Resolution
Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

CONSULTATION
SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
Checking historical context and use.....

Quote:
"Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to the Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya. Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong. Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam. Last nightJapanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands. Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island. This morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.
As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.
Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteousmight will win through to absolute victory.
I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounded determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December seventh, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire."
--President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, December 8, 1941.
And I wonder where President Bush gets his legal authority to launch a War against Iran all on his own, would you know? I know you merely posted a C&P from a Right Wing Political Blog, but would you have a guess about where President Bush would draw such legal authority to launch such a War all on his own?
January 20th, 2007  
bulldogg
 
 
Same place Thomas Jefferson did to authorise the Louisiana Purchase... its posterior to the corpus cavernosum and anterior to the perimeum on the male of our species.
--
Democrats Gone Wild
January 20th, 2007  
Gator
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
Same place Thomas Jefferson did to authorise the Louisiana Purchase... its posterior to the corpus cavernosum and anterior to the perimeum on the male of our species.

You saying Jefferson should be charged with Treason for something?

I'm all for digging up past Presidents and having them depositied outside the 12 mile limit offshore, if and when they are convicted of any Treason against the United States that they may have committed while alive.

Jefferson's likeness will also have to come off US Money, and all Local, State, and Federal Government buildings bearing his name will have to be changed, oh and Mount Rushmore will have to be changed as well.
January 20th, 2007  
mmarsh
 
 
Bulldogg

Not the same thing. the Constitution specifically states that only Congress can declare war. Bush got a authorize for attack on Iraq (the worst decision in recent memory) but it did not give him authorization to attack Iran. He steps 1 foot across the border and it will spark a major consitutional crisis. Not even the GOP in congress would support on that.

If there is one thing that BOTH parties hate, are presidents that step on congresses toes.
January 20th, 2007  
Gator
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Bulldogg

Not the same thing. the Constitution specifically states that only Congress can declare war. Bush got a authorize for attack on Iraq (the worst decision in recent memory) but it did not give him authorization to attack Iran. He steps 1 foot across the border and it will spark a major consitutional crisis. Not even the GOP in congress would support on that.

If there is one thing that BOTH parties hate, are presidents that step on congresses toes.
As far as stepping on the toes of Congress, I'd say the Republican Held Congress let Bush get away with a lot, and that the Democrats would let a Democratic President get away with more than a Republican President.

As for the introduction of US Troops into a hostile environment, the President still maintains sole control over the United States Marine Corps, and the United States Marine Corps only for such action if he wants to bypass the US Congress.
I doubt the Marines could take Iran all alone, but I'm sure I can find a Marine to disagree with me on that.

Quote:
An Act for the establishing and organizing a Marine Corps.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in addition to the present military establishment, there shall be raised and organized a corps of marines, which shall consist of one major, four captains, sixteen first lieutenants, twelve second lieutenants, forty-eight sergeants, forty-eight corporals, thirty-two drums and fifes, and seven hundred and twenty privates, including the marines who have been enlisted, or are authorized to be raised for the naval armament; and the said corps may be formed into as many companies or detachments, as the President of the United States shall direct, with a proper distribution of the commissioned and non-commissioned officers and musicians to each company or detachment.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the pay and subsisteuce of the said officers, privates and musicians, shall be as follows, to wit: To a major, fifty dollars per month, and four rations per day; to a captain, forty dollars per mouth, aud three rations per day; to a first lieutenant, thirty dollars per mouth, and three rations per day; to a second lieutenant, twenty-five dollars per month, and two rations per day; and to the nom-commissioned officers, privates and musicians, conformably to the act, intituled "An act providing a naval armament," as shall be fixed by the President of the United States: And the President of the United States shall be, and is hereby authorized to continue the enlistment of marines, until the said corps shall be complete; and of himself, to Appoint the commissioned officers, whenever, in the recess of the Senate, an appointment shall be necessary. And the enlistments, which shall be made by virtue hereof, may be for the term of three years, subject to be discharged by the President of the United States, or by the ceasing or repeal of the laws providing for the naval armament. And if the marine corps, or any part of it, shall be ordered by the President to do duty on shore, aud it shall become necessary to appoint an adjutant, paymaster, quartermaster, sergeant-major, quartermaster-sergeant, and drum and fife-major, or any of them, the major or commandant of the corps, is hereby authorized to appoint such staff officer or officers, from the line of subalterns, sergeants and music, respectively, who shall be entitled, during the time they shall dosuch duty, to the same extra pay and emoluments, which are allowed by law, to officers acting in the same capacities in the infantry.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the detachments of the corps of marines hereby authorized, shall be made in lieu of the respective quotas of marines, which have been established or authorized for the frigates, and other armed vessels and gallies, which shall be employed in the service of the United States: And the President of the United States may detach and appoint such of the officers of this marine corps, to act on board the frigates, and any of the armed vessels of the United States, respectively, as he shall, from time to time, judge necessary; any thing in the act "providing a naval armament" to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the officers, non-commissioned officers, privates and musicians aforesaid, shall take the same oath, and shall be governed by the same rules and articles of war, as are prescribed for the military establishment of the United States, and by the rules for the regulation of the navy, heretofore, or which shall be established by law, according to the nature of the service in which they shall be employed, and shall be entitled to the same allowance, in case of wounds or disabilities, according to their respective ranks, as are granted by the act "to ascertain and fix the military establishment of the United States."

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That the non-commissioned officers, musicians, seamen and marines, who are or shall be enlisted into the service of the United States; and the non-commissioned officers and musicians, who are or shall be enlisted into the army of the United States, shall be, and they are hereby exempted, during their term of service, from all personal arrests for any debt or contract.

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That the marine corps, established by this act, shall, at any time, be liable to do duty in the forts and garrisons of the United States, on the sea-coast, or any other duty on shore, as the President, at his discretion, shall direct.

Approved, July 11, 1798.
Which is why the Marines go all over the place to do things the US Congress may not like, and has been said by some as the reason the Marine Corps has Air, Sea, and Land combat capabilities, but also noted from time to time as a reason why the Marine Corps are kept so small in size by the US Congress.
January 22nd, 2007  
mmarsh
 
 
Gator

Its true that Congress let Bush get a way with murder, but I think those days are finally over. They might have turned a blind eye to invasion of Iran had the president been right on Iraq. But Bush has been wrong on everything on Iraq from the planning, to the occupation, to the creation of a new government etc...He has been 100% wrong, and that has cost the GOP dearly.

I think last November was the final straw. The fact the GOP lost the Senate as well as the House as been a wakeup call to even the more hardcore of conservatives that Bush, despite sharing many of their values is a pretty lousy president, and that he simple cannot be trusted to act on his own. I don't think its any coincidence that since the election, even the Republicans are demanding 'oversight'.

I think the fury the GOP expressed about the 'surge' was proof enough that they don't trust him anymore.
 


Similar Topics
Democrats Feel Free To Defy Bush On Iraq
Democrats Split Over Their Approach To Iraq
Consensus On Iraq Eludes Democrats
Democrats Take House
A Letter To The Europeans.