Setanta wrote:Monte Cargo wrote:I think your point was something like "Impeach Bush for his illegal war."
You are confusing thought with a strong desire to demonize someone you have cast as your opponent. Even a passing familiarity with my posts in political threads would have taught you that not only have i never supported the notion of impeachment, but have consistently said that it would not happen, and that it would be a bad idea for the Democrats to pursue it now that they've won the mid-term elections. Therefore, basically, you have created a strawman with which to pursue the idiocy which follows.
The generously profane post from you that I replied to illustrates either:
A). You are on the same side as LoneStarMadam, understand the implications of a post 9/11 world and a wingnut like Saddam Hussein using aggressive force while allowing terrorists a safe haven and a possible source for acquiring WMD to use against the U.S.
B). You are virulently anti-war and are using the Constitutional argument, which has been a non-issue since the anti-war activists tried to make it an issue.
I go with "B".
Quote:Quote:I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you probably voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.
You
are out on a limb. I never voted for Clinton.
I apologize for being presumptuous about your voting for Clinton. I now realize from your replies that you probably were too young to vote in either 1992 or 1996.
Quote:Quote:Remember that little thing called Bosnia? Well then? Perhaps another string of profanity laced explicatives will accompany your explanation of the Constitution and that little conflict.
I don't know what you think the constitution has to do with a war in which the United States did not participate, other than as a member state of NATO. You are probably confused (a condition which your posts suggest is common for you) because the North Atlantic Treaty Organization responded to attacks on the United Nations Protection Force by launching Operation Deliberate Force, in which units of the United States Air Force participated. However, that Congress acquiesced in American participation in the Bosnian mission of NATO can be seen
can be seen in this trascript of the April, 1995, Congressional Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which is found at Global Security-dot-org's library of Congressional documents.
Your conclusion is thus if the United States participates, and even leads an invasion within a multinational coalition, then U.S. soldiers lose their individual identity within the larger concept of NATO. This illuminates the fact plainly that I am dealing with a "one-worlder". Here is another dead giveaway to the fact that as much as you may attempt to disguise your true position, the clues always betray such attempts. Oh, by the way, I know of American ground troops in Bosnia. You might want to actually take the time to learn about the conflict as opposed to hastily cutting and pasting from some site. I don't think that either U.S. soldiers who were crippled by land mines in Bosnia, or the relatives of soldiers killed in action would take too kindly to your denying the U.S. presence in Bosnia or the manner in which you separate the United States from NATO within that same conflict.
The point, of which you completely missed is that the process by which Clinton ordered U.S. troops into Haiti and Bosnia is exactly the same, and even with less Congressional oversight, than George W. Bush leading troops into Iraq.
Quote:Quote:Harry S. Truman, another democrat, led U.S. forces into the Korean conflict in the 1950s. Ooh. No Congressional declaration of war...You can't impeach him, because he was a democrat, and worse, you can't impeach him for Truman's illegal war because Truman is dead.
This is hilariously ironic, given that flannel-mouthed commie hunters like Tailgunner Joe McCarthy condemned Truman for being soft on communism.
Your bright-white loathing of a good republican steward, who was posthumously proven correct with the publication of the Vedona Chronicles, is also a dead giveaway as to your position. McCarthy outed subversive Soviet agents who were seeking an aggressive coup within this country. McCarthy hunted them a generation or two ago and it makes some people angry, just as the idea that there is a hunt for our enemies going on now makes the same type of people angry. What is truly ironic, now, is people who demonstrate the least care for protecting our western civilization and way of life are the very same people waving the Constitution in people's faces.
Quote:Quote:Anyone with a modicum of understanding of U.S. history can find many examples of presidents leading troops into action without first obtaining the blessing of Congress (or the United Nations).
That in no way authorizes a contention that Congress ceded its war-making powers to the Presidency after the Second World War, a claim which the Lone Star Whorehouse's Madam has made, and which neither she nor you have been able to substantiate.
Perhaps because it is an argument that is at best a moot point before it even starts. You have placed the cart before the horse. Once again, typical leftist philosophy is that the executive branch either is or ought to be the weakest of the three branches, with all power being generated from the judicial branch first, followed by the legislative branch. The president does not need to rely on "Congress ceding" power in order to call troops into action, although Congress voted twice to specifically allow this president that power, once in 2001, and again in late 2002. Congress has then voted to approve appropriations to fund the military in the Iraq conflict. And where else is your argument going than either to cut and run in Iraq, using some convoluted misinterpretation of the Articles 1 & 2, or cutting and running by means of attempting to impeach the president for waging an illegal war?
Quote:Quote:The leftist point of view is that the executive branch should be the weakest of the three branches with the judiciary the strongest, especially when a republican is in office.
This looks very much like another strawman, since you write of leftists with contempt, and it seems very likely that it is most convenient for you to characterize leftists in a manner which will make it easy for you to destroy the point of view which you attribute to them--the classic example of a strawman.
However, since i am not a "leftist," i really couldn't say for sure, and don't in fact care. My point is that the Lone Star Whorehouse's Madam claimed that Congress has ceded its war making powers to the Presidency since the Second World War, but has provided no evidence that this is the case. Neither have you.
I do hold leftists in contempt and make no effort whatsoever to hide that fact. I do not, however consider all democrats to be leftists, only the most virulent, self-loathing individuals who place the interests of this country behind everything else. I believe that they only represent a very small minority, say about 7% of the U.S. population. The ACLU, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, John Kerry, Al Gore and Hilary Clinton fall into this category. Blue-dog conservative democrats are people I believe every bit as patriotic as conservatives.
Quote:Quote:I submit, with some confidence, that LoneStar isn't the poster in the most danger of being taken for, now how did you put it?...a loud mouth bullshit artist.
That's a good point, now that you've posted and shown your pre-eminent qualifications for the honor.
If you want to see honor, tell everyone how your pro-One World utopia and, hatred of McCarthy, defense of Clinton at the expense of Bush jibes with your protests of not being a leftist.
It usually takes more than one post to create an impression. Congratulations on making short work of this chore.
