A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Eh, yes, you do.

You guys are brilliant in your hindsight. VERY impressive.

BS, there's 1,000 other threads dedicated to it. Besides; I didn't tell you what to or not do. I'm not doing it.

You guys are brilliant in your hindsight. VERY impressive.

I'm not doing Iraq on this thread. We've done too many times already, and this isn't the place.

In his heralded new book, "The One Percent Doctrine," Ron Suskind writes that Vice President Dick Cheney forcefully stated that the war on terror empowered the Bush administration to act without the need for evidence or extensive analysis.

Suskind describes the Cheney doctrine as follows: "Even if there's just a 1 percent chance of the unimaginable coming due, act as if it is a certainty. It's not about 'our analysis,' as Cheney said. It's about 'our response.' … Justified or not, fact-based or not, 'our response' is what matters. As to 'evidence,' the bar was set so low that the word itself almost didn't apply."

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I'm not doing Iraq on this thread. We've done too many times already, and this isn't the place.

But it's all going to be about Iraq. Just look at how Ron Paul is being bashed among conservatives because he came out against the war...

It has huge ramifications. It's more important than, say, illegal immigration, or abortion, or gay marriage...

Congress Becomes Irrelevant in the War Debate

Last week, during a hearing in the House International Relations committee, I attempted to force the committee to follow the Constitution and vote to declare war with Iraq. The language of Article I, section 8, is quite clear: only Congress has the authority to declare war. Yet Congress in general, and the committee in particular, have done everything possible to avoid making such a declaration. Why? Because members lack the political courage to call an invasion of Iraq what it really is- a war- and vote yes or no on the wisdom of such a war. Congress would rather give up its most important authorized power to the President and the UN than risk losing an election later if the war goes badly. There is always congressional "support" for a popular war, but the politicians want room to maneuver if the public later changes its mind. So members take half steps, supporting confusingly worded "authorizations" that they can back away from easily if necessary.

[...]

When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved. When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and the goals are less clear. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war.

Fred Thompson Ends Fund That Paid $178,000 to Son
May 22, 2007 11:11 AM

Avni Patel Reports:

Former Tennessee Senator and potential Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson has shut down a political action committee that paid out more money to his son than it did in political donations.

Federal Election Commission records analyzed by the Blotter on ABCNews.com show Thompson's committee paid $178,000 to his son's political consulting firm, Daniel Thompson Associates, since 2003.

In contrast, the committee made only $66,700 in contributions to other campaigns and political committees in the four years since Thompson retired from the Senate.

The payments to Thompson's son were described as for management and consulting services.

While it is not unusual for members of Congress to hire family members to work on their campaigns, the high payments to Thompson's son's consulting business deserve close scrutiny, according to Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.

"It raises eyebrows and calls into question whether this is self-dealing," says Krumholz .

Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.

Contacted at his Nashville, Tenn., political consulting business, Daniel Thompson told ABC News he couldn't talk because he was "about to leave for a business trip" and referred all questions to a spokesman for his father, who did not return calls from ABC News.

When Thompson left the Senate in 2002, he converted more than $370,000 in leftover campaign funds into a "leadership PAC," which allowed him to contribute to other politicians at a $5,000 limit and pay for a variety of other expenses, including travel and consulting services.

Krumholz says retired lawmakers, like Thompson, often keep leadership PACs as a "slush fund" to help them set the stage for a run for higher office.

"Often it is simply a way to keep their foot in the door and keep them in the spotlight," says Krumholz.