Things Bush apparently doesn't need to attack Iraq

[Felch]

Enough joking though Chris. The real danger here is that the President thinks he can invade without Congressional approval. He's wrong, and any real American who loves his Constitution knows that.

You're just too cowardly to face the fact that an outlaw is in office.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Felch X


There's no grey area at all. Congress allocates funds. It makes the rules. The President executes the will of Congress and the people.

If the President oversteps his bounds at all, he should be impeached or killed. That's the only way to ensure freedom.

Rubbish

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Felch X
Enough joking though Chris. The real danger here is that the President thinks he can invade without Congressional approval. He's wrong, and any real American who loves his Constitution knows that.

Actually, your wrong, but what's a few facts between friends?

You're just too cowardly to face the fact that an outlaw is in office.

Minor league troll, welcome to the big leagues rookie, you need to do a lot better then that!

[Felch]

Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War

What are a few facts between friends?

[SpencerH]

GePap

why reduce the effectiveness of intelligent comment with

yes, this is another hate Bush thread. There are not enough.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Felch X
Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War

What are a few facts between friends?

Go back to Boris' very first link, and due try to follow along, dear boy.

[Felch]

I read the article when I first saw it on Yahoo. Just because a lawyer says something, doesn't make it so.

Congress also reserves the power "to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations" and "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." The President does not have this authority, even if his father was given it over a decade ago.

The problem with the White House argument is that it considers this to be Gulf War Round 2. The rest of the world clearly sees that this is a different situtation, a different war, being waged a decade later, for different reasons.

The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It defines America. It sickens me that you would hold it in such low esteem.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Can anyone find me the specific case that White House lawyers have laid out saying that Bush doesn't need Congressional approval? Thanks in advance.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Felch X
It sickens me that you would hold it in such low esteem.

Amatuer.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
GePap

why reduce the effectiveness of intelligent comment with

Becuase my hatred of the Bush admin is bottomless. If it were not for the Buchanan presdency, I would already nominate this admin. for post of worst ever.

I personally am not opposed in principle to an invasion of Iraq. But again, Bush has failed utterly to make his case.
The democracy argument doesn't fly- neo-conservatives could give a rats-ass about democracy. How can you praise the Saudis and talk about the need for Arab democracy? Besides, real democracy does not mean 0 WMD (first state to build nukes was a democracy, India and Israel both democracies, makers of WMD). State make WMD based on thier threat assestment. If I were Iraq leader, I would push for WMD. They live in a nasty neighborhood, we don't.
The terrorism one doesn't either: Bush has been unable to come up with convincing ties between Iraq an Al-Qaeda. The notion that a man as paranoid as Sadam would give up control of his greatest assets(WMD) to men who envision a world without him (remember that Osama got pissed at the Saudis cause they would not back his Holy Warrior scheme to drive Saddam out of Kuwait and liberate the area) boggles my mind. He would have 0 to gain from a WMD terrosirt attack vs the US. Even if the attack kills 1 million americans and does 1 trillion in damage, we still have 283 million americans and 9 trillion a year left. Plenty to destroy Saddam in revenge.
Bush has put forward no plan for Iraqs future, has not dealt with the legitimacy issue. And of course, what of all other Arab regimes. How long can we sit in bed with Arab autocracts if we demand democracy from Iraqis and Palestinians? This admin demands democracy for our enemies, says nothing about democracy for our friends. How does that sell American style democracy to the Arab world?

This admin has done a haphazard job in Afghanistan (OPsama and Mullah Omar are free. The Taliban and Al-qaeda are out, but centra government dos not extend outside Kabul, the president needs american bodyguards cause he doesn't trust fellow Afgahns, no reconstruction ahs begun, and the Iranians are the state that promised the most money, Iran! and not us. At best a half-won affair) and Iraq is a much more centrally located and important place. Our margin for error in Iraq is much smaller.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Amatuer.

Oh gosh, maybe I should just run away now!

Chris 62 called me an amatuer. That sure showed me. I'm going to support the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq for sure now. I can't believe how stupid I was to ever doubt their wisdom.

Thanks, Chris, for showing me the light. I really am just an amatuer, and it was foolish of me to ever read the Constitution and point out that declaring war and such are powers reserved for Congress.

I really am sorry to have wasted your time like that. Thanks for giving me that one word answer that changed my life.

[Chris 62]

Your welcome, don't let it happen again!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Nothing worse then the use of Buzz words, like "Canard" for example.

Translation: "I don't know what 'canard' means, so I'll try to mock his use of it"

And what is your contemptious, totally enligthened and non-stupid way of dealing with him?

Considering we're dealing with the botched job of his daddy anyway, it's tough. But I agree with Albright that the continued use of diplomatic, political and military isolation is the best formula.

Oh, and why have you launched no threads commenting on this "contempt" you so willfully show him?
Could it be that anti-Bush threads are far more to your liking?

Um, er... could it be that Saddam hasn't DONE anything lately? Which is exactly the point as why Bush's actions are reckless and unwarranted?

Not being a conservative, I wouldn't know.
Like so many nubes, you never really read what I say, you just make assumptions.
I have as little use for conservatives and Right wing hard-liners as I do for soft Left wing anti-Bush whiners.

Oh please. Your claims of being moderate sound like MrFun's. Nobody buys it.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Bush obviously doesn't need a brain to attack Iraq.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Translation: "I don't know what 'canard' means, so I'll try to mock his use of it"

Wrong again, but at least your consistant Boris.
Why not quit while your behind?
It means an unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story.

Considering we're dealing with the botched job of his daddy anyway, it's tough. But I agree with Albright that the continued use of diplomatic, political and military isolation is the best formula.

So you think that international agreements are "botched jobs of his daddy".
How simplistic.

Um, er... could it be that Saddam hasn't DONE anything lately? Which is exactly the point as why Bush's actions are reckless and unwarranted?

Yes, ever since Bush turned the heat up on him, he seemed to quiet down, what a coincedence.

Oh please. Your claims of being moderate sound like MrFun's. Nobody buys it.

Try actually reading what I say instead of what you THINK I'm saying.
(man, your killing me with all these rolleye quotes).