Who Lost Iraq?

I still have neither seen evidence that the president is responsible for the defense of America nor the fact that Congress 'ceded' war-making authority to the executive branch.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I still have neither seen evidence that the president is responsible for the defense of America nor the fact that Congress 'ceded' war-making authority to the executive branch.

Cycloptichorn

When was the last time that Congress declared war?They ceded their powers by their own inaction. So, since Congress refuses to perform their duty, who's left other than the president to call the shots? Don't like it, write your Congressman, I have.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I still have neither seen evidence that the president is responsible for the defense of America nor the fact that Congress 'ceded' war-making authority to the executive branch.

Cycloptichorn

When was the last time that Congress declared war?They ceded their powers by their own inaction. So, since Congress refuses to perform their duty, who's left other than the president to call the shots? Don't like it, write your Congressman, I have.

With the obvious and stunning omission of the fact that it isn't neccessary to go to war, but a choice.

Just because Congress hasn't declared war in a while doesn't mean that they have ceded their authority to do so to the president, it means that they haven't decided the US needs to go to war in a while.

You're all wet on this one

Cycloptichron

You laughed your pathetic ass off yesterday, so the reasonable conclusion is that you don't have one to lose today.

This is not an obsession--everyone at this web site who posts regularly knows what's up with trolls. Even if you are not involved, your appearance, spreading your smelly **** all over the site on the very first day has shown you to be a troll, whether or not a recurrent troll.

You've been here three days--and you are averaging nearly 50 posts per day--48.33 posts per day according to your profile. You puke it as fast as the nastiest troll.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I still have neither seen evidence that the president is responsible for the defense of America nor the fact that Congress 'ceded' war-making authority to the executive branch.

Cycloptichorn

When was the last time that Congress declared war?They ceded their powers by their own inaction. So, since Congress refuses to perform their duty, who's left other than the president to call the shots? Don't like it, write your Congressman, I have.

With the obvious and stunning omission of the fact that it isn't neccessary to go to war, but a choice.

Just because Congress hasn't declared war in a while doesn't mean that they have ceded their authority to do so to the president, it means that they haven't decided the US needs to go to war in a while.

You're all wet on this one

Cycloptichron

What does isn't necessary to go to war, but a choice have to do with the fact that Congress has turned their Constitutional duty over to others to do?
It means that they haven't decided the US needs to go to war WHAT?? The Senate voted almost unamiously for Bush to take action, BUSH TO TAKE ACTION I believe that Congress doesn't want the responsibility that by law is theirs, then when & if things go south they can do exactly what they did, blame the president. I am so far apart from Russ Feingold politically but, I did respect him for voting against the war, he performed his duty admirably. The johnny come latelys to the decision that Iraq wasn't a good ides did so purely for their political life, Rs & Ds alike.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I still have neither seen evidence that the president is responsible for the defense of America nor the fact that Congress 'ceded' war-making authority to the executive branch.

Cycloptichorn

When was the last time that Congress declared war?They ceded their powers by their own inaction. So, since Congress refuses to perform their duty, who's left other than the president to call the shots? Don't like it, write your Congressman, I have.

With the obvious and stunning omission of the fact that it isn't neccessary to go to war, but a choice.

Just because Congress hasn't declared war in a while doesn't mean that they have ceded their authority to do so to the president, it means that they haven't decided the US needs to go to war in a while.

You're all wet on this one

Cycloptichron

What does isn't necessary to go to war, but a choice have to do with the fact that Congress has turned their Constitutional duty over to others to do?
It means that they haven't decided the US needs to go to war WHAT?? The Senate voted almost unamiously for Bush to take action, BUSH TO TAKE ACTION I believe that Congress doesn't want the responsibility that by law is theirs, then when & if things go south they can do exactly what they did, blame the president. I am so far apart from Russ Feingold politically but, I did respect him for voting against the war, he performed his duty admirably. The johnny come latelys to the decision that Iraq wasn't a good ides did so purely for their political life, Rs & Ds alike.

You're correct, Congress did authorize Bush to take action. This actually confirms my argument that Bush/the prez is not the one who decides whether or not we go to war; Congress decides and the Prez implements.

In no way have they ceded their authority to make that decision, and you haven't shown how they have ceded that authority.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I still have neither seen evidence that the president is responsible for the defense of America nor the fact that Congress 'ceded' war-making authority to the executive branch.

Cycloptichorn

When was the last time that Congress declared war?They ceded their powers by their own inaction. So, since Congress refuses to perform their duty, who's left other than the president to call the shots? Don't like it, write your Congressman, I have.

With the obvious and stunning omission of the fact that it isn't neccessary to go to war, but a choice.

Just because Congress hasn't declared war in a while doesn't mean that they have ceded their authority to do so to the president, it means that they haven't decided the US needs to go to war in a while.

You're all wet on this one

Cycloptichron

What does isn't necessary to go to war, but a choice have to do with the fact that Congress has turned their Constitutional duty over to others to do?
It means that they haven't decided the US needs to go to war WHAT?? The Senate voted almost unamiously for Bush to take action, BUSH TO TAKE ACTION I believe that Congress doesn't want the responsibility that by law is theirs, then when & if things go south they can do exactly what they did, blame the president. I am so far apart from Russ Feingold politically but, I did respect him for voting against the war, he performed his duty admirably. The johnny come latelys to the decision that Iraq wasn't a good ides did so purely for their political life, Rs & Ds alike.

You're correct, Congress did authorize Bush to take action. This actually confirms my argument that Bush/the prez is not the one who decides whether or not we go to war; Congress decides and the Prez implements.

In no way have they ceded their authority to make that decision, and you haven't shown how they have ceded that authority.

Cycloptichorn

Again,by their inaction. If they are as opposed to this war as they say, IF they take their responsibility seriously, then why hasn't the funding been cut? They still have not declared a war since WWII but we have been & are in a war. However, I suppose it's all in the way we look at it. I believe that Congress hides under their desks & takes pot shots at whoever is in the WH, you believe that they have upheld their duty. I am ashamed of them.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I still have neither seen evidence that the president is responsible for the defense of America nor the fact that Congress 'ceded' war-making authority to the executive branch.

Cycloptichorn

When was the last time that Congress declared war?They ceded their powers by their own inaction. So, since Congress refuses to perform their duty, who's left other than the president to call the shots? Don't like it, write your Congressman, I have.

With the obvious and stunning omission of the fact that it isn't neccessary to go to war, but a choice.

Just because Congress hasn't declared war in a while doesn't mean that they have ceded their authority to do so to the president, it means that they haven't decided the US needs to go to war in a while.

You're all wet on this one

Cycloptichron

What does isn't necessary to go to war, but a choice have to do with the fact that Congress has turned their Constitutional duty over to others to do?
It means that they haven't decided the US needs to go to war WHAT?? The Senate voted almost unamiously for Bush to take action, BUSH TO TAKE ACTION I believe that Congress doesn't want the responsibility that by law is theirs, then when & if things go south they can do exactly what they did, blame the president. I am so far apart from Russ Feingold politically but, I did respect him for voting against the war, he performed his duty admirably. The johnny come latelys to the decision that Iraq wasn't a good ides did so purely for their political life, Rs & Ds alike.

You're correct, Congress did authorize Bush to take action. This actually confirms my argument that Bush/the prez is not the one who decides whether or not we go to war; Congress decides and the Prez implements.

In no way have they ceded their authority to make that decision, and you haven't shown how they have ceded that authority.

Cycloptichorn

Again,by their inaction. If they are as opposed to this war as they say, IF they take their responsibility seriously, then why hasn't the funding been cut? They still have not declared a war since WWII but we have been & are in a war. However, I suppose it's all in the way we look at it. I believe that Congress hides under their desks & takes pot shots at whoever is in the WH, you believe that they have upheld their duty. I am ashamed of them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm ashamed of them as well - the Republicans for being lying, corrupt, toadying lapdogs to the lying, corrupt administration, and the Democrats for being too spineless after 9/11 to stand up and say 'this is a stupid idea' to the war in Iraq, which was a stupid idea and hasn't made the US or anyone else safer in the slightest.

I am merely responding to the fact that you have your Constitutional interpretation mixed up. It isn't the prez' responsibility to protect America. It is his responsibility and duty to protect the Constitution above all else. This is in direct contradiction to what you said earlier.

Congress hasn't declared war since WW2 because they haven't seen a threat worth declaring war over. Terrorism sure isn't, because conventional war isn't a proper way to deal with terrorism (just look how well it is working in Iraq!) and such a declaration merely adds legitimacy to the movement and ideas of the terrorists.

Cycloptichorn

As i said, ignorance coupled with certitude. In fact, the last time Congress authorized a war was when the Shrub trotted out his tissue of lies to justify the invasion of Iraq. Congress has not ceded that power, and the War Powers Act of 1973 was a response to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, and in the War Powers Act, Congress reaffirmed its power to make war, and assured that given the nature of modern military situations, the President will report to, consult with and defer to Congress.

The Madam of the Lone Star Whorehouse has proven nothing other than that her certitude is backed up by invicible ignorance.

Again, we differ on our intrepretations of the constitution.

So, lets not put all the blame on this admin. There's plenty of blame to go around.

Quote:

Again, we differ on our intrepretations of the constitution.

Only in that my interpretation is the widely accepted and factually-based one, backed up with actual lines from the Constitution itself, and yours is not.

Feel free to prove me wrong by quoting relevant passages.

Quote:

So, lets not put all the blame on this admin. There's plenty of blame to go around.

Did you know, America had a humongous problem with terrorism around the turn of the century? It's true. There were bombs going off left and right.

Of course, I'm talking about the turn of the last century - the 1900's.

Terrorism is merely a tactic used by extremists who can figure no other way to get their point across other than to attempt to scare people into a reaction. The judgement of how someone deals with terrorism is in their reaction to it. Bush's reaction to the terrorism that we have faced is to reduce American freedoms and intensify fear amongst the populace, continually. This adds legitimacy to the terrorist's cause; if there purpose is to make the US afraid and therefore make us give up our freedoms, and Bush et al tell people that they should be afraid and that we must give up our freedoms... then he is acting exactly as the terrorists wished him to.

Cycloptichorn

Setanta wrote:

You laughed your pathetic ass off yesterday, so the reasonable conclusion is that you don't have one to lose today.

This is not an obsession--everyone at this web site who posts regularly knows what's up with trolls. Even if you are not involved, your appearance, spreading your smelly **** all over the site on the very first day has shown you to be a troll, whether or not a recurrent troll.

How is she a "troll," Set?

Before you answer, you must know you spread your **** here on a frequent basis for the rest of us to smell, so that can't be the only criteria you're looking at.

Setanta wrote:

You've been here three days--and you are averaging nearly 50 posts per day--48.33 posts per day according to your profile. You puke it as fast as the nastiest troll.

lol. You've been here roughly 1,490 days, and you average 24 posts a day. That's some industrial strength sustained puking going on there, Set.

No, this is just par for the course. You spotted a poster you dislike, and you're going to do everything you can to make them feel unwelcome, in the hope they will go away.

. The Constitution and WW11 are dark ages stuff.

That's an odd thing to say, isn't it, Spendy? We asked our government to decide whether we should wage war, and you say they should not be given the information to inform that decision?

Something wrong there surely.