Use of Uniformed Military as Political Props?

Quote:

Fair questions Thomas.

1. The Congress does indeed hold the purse strings, and they could refuse to pass any funds at all for supporting it. They haven't done that because it would be political suicide in the upcoming Presidential election.

There it is right there. The President is playing politics. Why make his speech unless to highlight what the congress is doing?

0 Replies

This Congressional Bill is not going to pass the Senate, because it's partisan political purposes are so evident.

Which is worse, having a few uniformed personnel standing in the background during a Presidential speech, OR manipulating a funding bill for critical military needs as a piece of partisan theater?

If the Congress wants to cut off all funding for the military and is willing to take responsibility for that (assuming they could pass the bill through both houses and overcome the inevitable veto), then get to it.

0 Replies

The President's speech only highlights the determination of Democratic partisans to grandstand at the expense of our military during a time of armed conflict. Surely you're not suggesting that the President should just "roll over " and quietly give up his Constitutional duty?

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

This Congressional Bill is not going to pass the Senate, because it's partisan political purposes are so evident.

That's fine with me. The troops won't get their money, and it will be Bush's fault for vetoing the bill or the Republican's fault for not passing the spending bill the troops desperately need.

Given that a clear majority of Americans support the Timelines proposed by the Dems - and given that the Iraqi gov't has consistently failed to live up to its' end of the bill - how can you say it is 'partisan' to expect results for the money we spend? You are arguing against any sort of accountability whatsoever. The American people do not agree with this position and will not blame the Democrats for doing their will.

Quote:

Which is worse, having a few uniformed personnel standing in the background during a Presidential speech, OR manipulating a funding bill for critical military needs as a piece of partisan theater?

Why, the first, of course. It's against the law, whereas the Congress is breaking no laws at all. You cannot compare the Congress doing their duly-appointed job - which you disagree with - to breaking the law.

Quote:

If the Congress wants to cut off all funding for the military and is willing to take responsibility for that (assuming they could pass the bill through both houses and overcome the inevitable veto), then get to it.

They are working on exactly that. First they have to convince enough Republicans to join them, and this strategy will work perfectly.

It seems to me that your major complaint is that the Republicans and Bush are losing the argument as to whether we should continue this Iraq war or not. And the fault lies entirely with Bush and his admin for losing. They, and supporters such as yourself, have consistently failed to convince those who are not pre-dispositioned to support agressive warfare that this is a necessary course of action. The fault lies with yourselves, not with the Democrats.

Quote:

The President's speech only highlights the determination of Democratic partisans to grandstand at the expense of our military during a time of armed conflict.

Bush and the Republicans nationwide have been doing everything they can to put down, and keep down, Democrats, for years. Years. They have allowed no interference with the policy, no input, no investigation, no oversight. Well, those days are done, Ash. The chickens are coming home to roost and it is going to be a painful year for Bush supporters such as yourself.

We're only three months into oversight, and the White House is already hitting the wall. They will not survive the rest of their term at this rate.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I thought I remembered something like this coming up before.

Military to speak at Republican gatherings per Rove

0 Replies

Oh no! The fault for not providing the funding lies squarely with the Democratic Congress. They an fund the military without telling the Commander-in-Chief how to conduct military operations, or they can deny funding and take the responsibility for not supporting the military during these trying times at the next election. The President, and not the Congress is Commander-in-Chief of the military, and failure to veto this bill (if it ever got through the more sensible Senate) would be a failure of his Constitutional duty.

The conflict may not be as popular as it was earlier, but so what? The military isn't run by privates, Congressmen are not generals, and the People have already voted to have Bush as the Commander-m-Chief for our military. You might not like it. You might even be right, that this administration has made some errors, but that mean that the President's handling of the military can, or even should be second guessed by his political opponents who frivolously pass legislation solely for their partisan pleasures.

It's against the law for uniformed military personnel appear in photographs of Presidential speeches? That's a new one on me. If the Congress was just doing its job, and not seeking to undermine the Constitution, I'd probably agree somewhat with you. If the Congress is so certain that the American People want to deny funding for our troops, then they should cut off all funding and take public responsibility for that. Of course, the Democratic Congress know full well that their Bill has no chance of passage, but it make for nice theater they can use in the upcoming elections.

There isn't a chance that the Congress can refuse to fund the military, all they can do is obstruct and delay while beating their breasts in public.

The war isn't being lost. What has been lost is the degree of public support for continuing an effort that is difficult for many Americans to grasp. Doubtless, if the terrorist's propaganda and the Democratic desire to get out of Southwest Asia at any cost, and without delay, support for continuing will continue to erode. If the Democrats can elect a President and Commander-in-Chief, they can change the policy. Until then, they should not be trying to encroach upon the President's duties.

If the U.S. military is pulled out of Southwest Asia just to satisfy popular opinion, or to further the agenda's of the Left and the Democratic Party, we can expect disaster of the first order.

Since WWII the Republican and Democratic Parties have each held power for approximately the same amount of time. It is the very nature of political parties to do what they can to secure and hold onto power. Both Parties have from time-to-time become too zealous in their efforts. The Democratic Party doesn't need any help from the GOP to shoot itself in the foot. You guys do a wonderful job of that all by your lonesome. In mid-term elections it isn't unusual for the Party out of power to pick up seats, and become optimistic of dominating the Federal government. You may win the next Presidential election, I don't think so, but it is possible. The continual struggle for political power is one of those unintended checks and balances that naturally grew out of the Constitution, and it has worked pretty well over the years.

I think your focus and unreasoning hatred of the President, Republicans and conservatives warps your judgment. Perhaps this will be a painful year for the GOP and conservatives, but maybe not. You could really make conservatives, the GOP, and the Administration very, very happy by trying to get the President out of office before the next election. Still, you might try it.

0 Replies

Thanks for your approval; we intend to do exactly that.

But you can save your prognostications about the effects of such an event for someone who doesn't already know that you've backed the wrong horse for a long time now.

You state that:

Quote:

The war isn't being lost.

But, it is. Because it isn't being won. We aren't going to win this war because our current actions have nothing to do with 'winning' the war.

Every day that we aren't winning is a win for the insurgents and terrorists. Your failure to see that the people of America have the right to oversee the executive branch, and the conditions for whether war can be waged any further or not, shows that you don't believe in America in the standard sense, that is to say, you don't believe that checks and balances exist between the branches of government.

But - and this is the delicious part - events are going to continue right on unfolding with or without your belief. The US taxpayer does have a right to oversee the WH; the congress is going to provide it on their behalf. The Bush administration's power will wane more and more in the coming months as Republicans facing re-election run away from the toxic investigations surrounding him.

Tell me - after the Dems stop this war, and they will, are you going to continue your whining and puling, like a little baby? Or are you going to face the reality of the fact that the Bush administration is responsible for creating the mess we currently find ourselves in as a country.

Do you honestly not believe that six years of keeping their boot on Democratic necks - of belittling and insulting anyone who disagrees with their position - isn't what is causing the backlash from the Dems? Be honest with yourself. Your party created the divisive atmosphere, now you are going to pay the price for it.

Quote:

There isn't a chance that the Congress can refuse to fund the military, all they can do is obstruct and delay while beating their breasts in public.

You're absolutely wrong. You'll find this out soon enough. You see, no more spending bills for the war will be passed without Congress holding the reins from now on - period. So the war is either coming to an end, or coming under more sensible leadership. The only question is how long it will take and how much prestige the US will lose in the meantime.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I suppose you didn't intend to win the last two Presidential elections, or only lost because the Democratic candidates screwed up. I'm sure the Democrats will try to win, and they may. That's why we have elections, to try the question.

That the war is lost, because it isn't being won? If the LA Lakers gave up every time they were behind after the 1st quarter, because they hadn't won, they would never have won even a single championship. It ain't over 'till its over. Pulling out of Southwest Asia isn't winning, its accepting defeat before the battle is half over. The war will be lost, when America concedes the field to the Radical Islamic Movement and the terrorists who fully expect eventual victory over the infidel world. We have yet to hear ANY plan from the Democratic Party for "winning" the war, what we get instead is defeatism.

I think it is you lot who have no faith in America, its People and its values. I, on the other hand, believe in the Constitution, the traditional checks and balances, and I believe that those institutional structures are intact and working fine ... so far. The Constitution makes no provisions for the organs of government to be dictated to by popular demand, in fact the Constitution is intended to invest certain powers to the People's representatives within each branch. You are, of course, correct that events will continue to unfold regardless of my belief, or your beliefs.

Continued obstructive tactics and fault-finding is a two edged sword. You may uncover a few embarrassing facts, but that only makes Democratic leaders vulnerable for their own failures, mistakes, errors, and lack of judgment.

I wasn't aware that I've been whining, or puling; that seems much more descriptive of what we've been getting from the Left and the Democratic Party for years. Six years of Republican boots on Democratic necks? C''mon, pull the other one. The only folks who bear any responsibility for the Democratic Party's failures, are the Democrats themselves. Democrats have held strong positions in many States, and the politically correct urban yuppies dominate in New York and California. The poor down trodden Democrats were able to take control of the Congress by winning a few closely contested seats even in the heartland of America; the so-called bastion of conservative Republican Christian fundamentalists.

Conservative "belittling and insulting anyone who disagrees"? I've been reasonably active here for years, and almost without exception the name calling, mud slinging, slanders have all come from the Left and the Democrats. Republicans, it seems, are more fair minded than to rush to judgment every time something is reported in the yellow press. Again and again conservatives here have been patient in explaining why it is we believe what we do. On the other hand, the Lefties take every opportunity to call republicans and conservative stupid fools who support a certifiable idiot to do wicked things to people for the love of oil and dreams of empire. For every instance that you might supply of an A2K conservative flinging about wild charges and insulting remarks, there are probably a hundred instances that could be cited from the defeatist Left and Democrats.

If you are successful in ending the war without damaging the national security, and universal peace descends upon the world, I'll be the first to congratulate you. Far more likely, if you pull Americans back to CONUS, the number and severity of terrorist attacks will increase, both here and abroad. I don't look forward with pleasure to a world where Radical Islamic terrorists are free to do their worst. I would be concerned that those "peaceful" Iranians might actually produce nuclear weapons and use them to dictate terms to the world. If you have your way, it will be at the expense of many lives and hopes in oppressed societies. You may force the removal of U.S. military from Southwest Asia, but oh what a fool you are if you believe that will be the "end" of this conflict. Withdraw, and sometime later we'll have to go back again and probably under much worse conditions. I hope I'm wrong and you're right, but I wouldn't bet on it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Pulling out of Southwest Asia isn't winning

Doesn't it sound to anyone else like, hmm, these arguments were made at some point in the past - but substitute SouthEast Asia?

Quote:

he war will be lost, when America concedes the field to the Radical Islamic Movement and the terrorists who fully expect eventual victory over the infidel world.

I don't believe in the boogeyman, or ghosts and zombies. Why should I believe in your boogeyman, the RADICAL ISLAMIST MOVEMENT (cue scary music)!

People like you give people like them legitimacy. Legitimacy gives them power in the eyes of many and attracts new followers. Way to go, chief.

Quote:

I've been reasonably active here for years, and almost without exception the name calling, mud slinging, slanders have all come from the Left and the Democrats.

You couldn't be more wrong. The only difference is that your side prefers to couch their insults in flowery and expressive language; to keep their derision and insults from degrading into the gauche and shrill act of calling someone a name. I don't have time for that sh*t.

Quote:

Far more likely, if you pull Americans back to CONUS, the number and severity of terrorist attacks will increase, both here and abroad.

Excuse me? Perhaps you've seen that the number and severity of terrorist attacks in the world has increased significantly since Bush began cowboying around. What you are talking about would be the continuance of a trend which has shown no signs of stopping under Bush; why would new leadership, or a removal from Iraq, clean up the mess that your party has made? I do know what it would be, however: something that you could blame on the Democrats just as soon as you possibly could.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

the fact that asherman would refer to the Iraq situation as the first quarter is disturbing but not surprising.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

The President's speech only highlights the determination of Democratic partisans to grandstand at the expense of our military during a time of armed conflict. Surely you're not suggesting that the President should just "roll over " and quietly give up his Constitutional duty?

Which constitutional duty is that Ash? I don't see anywhere in the constitution that it is his duty to give speeches on funding for wars.

The President doesn't have a constitutional duty to interfer with bills in congress the last time I checked the constitution. He has the constitutional duty to sign them or veto them. I see no duty to say how they should be written before they get to him.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Oh no! The fault for not providing the funding lies squarely with the Democratic Congress. They an fund the military without telling the Commander-in-Chief how to conduct military operations, or they can deny funding and take the responsibility for not supporting the military during these trying times at the next election. The President, and not the Congress is Commander-in-Chief of the military, and failure to veto this bill (if it ever got through the more sensible Senate) would be a failure of his Constitutional duty.

Where does it say that in the constitution? The congress is free to put whatever strings they want to on the funding. The President is free to ignore those strings at his peril if the bill is signed or free to veto the bill if he doesn't want them. The president had to go to congress to get approval to use military force in Iraq. That was not a case of fund or not fund. Congress plays a very real role in the use of the military more than just funding. They can declare war which certainly raises the question of their ability to undeclare it.

Quote:

The conflict may not be as popular as it was earlier, but so what? The military isn't run by privates, Congressmen are not generals, and the People have already voted to have Bush as the Commander-m-Chief for our military. You might not like it. You might even be right, that this administration has made some errors, but that mean that the President's handling of the military can, or even should be second guessed by his political opponents who frivolously pass legislation solely for their partisan pleasures.

Solely for their partisan pleasures? Geez. what kind of crap is that. Because you disagree with a bill doesn't make it partisan. It was passed per the rules of the House. That makes it valid legislation. The people elected the Congress and congress shouldn't be second guessed by its political opponents who friviously oppose legislation solely for their partisan pleasures. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

It's against the law for uniformed military personnel appear in photographs of Presidential speeches? That's a new one on me.

No it isn't against the law for them to do so. But is nothing but political posturing for the President to bring them in for the photo op. Those individuals have nothing to do with the legislation. It is a blatant attempt to appeal to emotions rather than dealing with the facts.

Quote:

If the Congress was just doing its job, and not seeking to undermine the Constitution, I'd probably agree somewhat with you.

How is Congress undermining the constitution by passing legislation?

Quote:

If the Congress is so certain that the American People want to deny funding for our troops, then they should cut off all funding and take public responsibility for that. Of course, the Democratic Congress know full well that their Bill has no chance of passage, but it make for nice theater they can use in the upcoming elections.

Theater perhaps. Valid legislation, for sure.

Quote:

There isn't a chance that the Congress can refuse to fund the military, all they can do is obstruct and delay while beating their breasts in public.

And all Bush can do is beat his breast in public. If he vetos the bill then he gets no funding. Bush can't get the money on his own. Congress by the constitution must appropriate it. If they appropriate it with strings attached then Bush can't blame them for his not getting the money. Who the public blames is up in the air. During the Clinton years when the Congress refused to deal with Clinton it was the congress that was blamed. Here it could well be Bush because Congress HAS compromised in not asking for an immediate pull out. Bush has offered no compromise at all that I can see. Can Bush run the war without funding? I don't see how he legally can.

Quote:

The war isn't being lost. What has been lost is the degree of public support for continuing an effort that is difficult for many Americans to grasp. Doubtless, if the terrorist's propaganda and the Democratic desire to get out of Southwest Asia at any cost, and without delay, support for continuing will continue to erode. If the Democrats can elect a President and Commander-in-Chief, they can change the policy. Until then, they should not be trying to encroach upon the President's duties.

LOL.. you keep saying that. Appropriation is NOT a presidential duty, it is the congressional duty, strings or not.

Quote:

If the U.S. military is pulled out of Southwest Asia just to satisfy popular opinion, or to further the agenda's of the Left and the Democratic Party, we can expect disaster of the first order.

The last time I checked Iraq is a very small part of Southwest Asia.

Quote:

Since WWII the Republican and Democratic Parties have each held power for approximately the same amount of time. It is the very nature of political parties to do what they can to secure and hold onto power. Both Parties have from time-to-time become too zealous in their efforts. The Democratic Party doesn't need any help from the GOP to shoot itself in the foot. You guys do a wonderful job of that all by your lonesome. In mid-term elections it isn't unusual for the Party out of power to pick up seats, and become optimistic of dominating the Federal government. You may win the next Presidential election, I don't think so, but it is possible. The continual struggle for political power is one of those unintended checks and balances that naturally grew out of the Constitution, and it has worked pretty well over the years.

I think your focus and unreasoning hatred of the President, Republicans and conservatives warps your judgment. Perhaps this will be a painful year for the GOP and conservatives, but maybe not. You could really make conservatives, the GOP, and the Administration very, very happy by trying to get the President out of office before the next election. Still, you might try it.

And your focus and unreasoning hatred of the democrats in congress has warped your judgement. You give duties to the President that don't exist in the constitution and take duties away from Congress that do exist in the constitution. Take a step back. Go read the constitution then apply what is there to the present situation. The founders fully expected Congress to control the President in his use of the military.

0 Replies

After 9/11, when the Radical Islamic Movement brought war to the streets of America, the public was warned that the war would not be easy, nor would it be concluded quickly. That struggle continues as projected. One element in the larger conflict was and continues to be resolving the problems presented by Saddam's Iraq. The "war" in Iraq was promised to be short, and it was. Building a democratic government in the face of Radical Islamic terrorism takes longer, but in the end it will have been worth it.

Bringing the troops home might conclude, for a time, our frustrations with the problems of establishing a new Democracy in the heart of territory regarded by Radical Islam as their own. In the long run, however those who began this "war" will regard our withdrawal as a victory and they will be encouraged to further their ambitions outside of Southwestern Asia. How long will it take to defeat a group of terrorists who regard mass murder as a religious necessity? Its difficult to answer such a question, but it is certain that they will not alter their beliefs after finding "success" using terror tactics.

Moderate Muslims who are content to co-exist with other religions are by far, I believe, the majority. What those moderates choose is the most likely element determining how long the threat of Islamic terrorism continues. When the radicals take over mosques and preach hatred for other religions, and a jihad that demands suicide and murder, moderate Muslims need to put their foot down and stop such nonsense.

0 Replies

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or radical Islamic terrorism.

0 Replies

A propos of the remarks Parados has made about the Congress, the President, and the funding of wars, and Asherman's decidedly odd notion of what it means to be Commander in Chief, it is worth while quoting the constitution once again.

Article One, Section 8, reads, in part (these paragraphs being in consecutive order in the document):

(Congress shall have the power:) 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;

The President certainly is the Commander in Chief. It is perfectly clear, however, that the Congress has the authority to raise military forces and to fund their operations, and to govern and regulate the military forces. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Constitution, gives the President any authority to appropriate funds for the military, or to make the regulations which govern the military.

It is symptomatic of the arrogance of the new Republicans, and self-deluded old-line conservatives, that they think to ascribe powers to the executive branch which are not accorded to the President by the Constitution, and to deny the proper powers which Congress is granted by the Constitution.

0 Replies

Actually Prados, the Constitution does make the President the Commander-in-Chief of the US military, and as CNC, he and not the Congress determines how that military is used. The Congress has the power of the purse, but can not use that power to dictate military policy. They can refuse to fund the military budget proposed by the President and his military advisers, but they can't usurp the Executive's responsibility.

In this case, the Congress has passed legislation that in its conditional nature imposes its will on the President un-Constitutionally. There is no question, whatsoever, that this bit of grandstanding will not make it through the Senate where more responsible representatives will kill it. In the unlikely event that such a bill arrived on the President's desk it will be vetoed. The Bill would then go back to Congress, and would not be over-ridden because the Democrats don't have enough votes for that. In the meantime, while the Democratic Party is busy obstructing the budget process, the military will find it ever more difficult to operate. That in turn probably would mean greater casualties lists, and an increase in pressure from those who want to kill Iraqi democratic government.

The President's speech urging the Democrats to be non-obstructive and send a clean bill forward was a timely effort to head off negative consequences by folks who hope to discredit the administration. The House passed this bill knowing full well that it would be vetoed, and that the military would be short funded while in the midst of combat operations. They hope for a lot of press coverage where they can continue to put a bad slant on this administration. If they were serious, they would have passed no funding at all and accepted the responsibility for their actions. Now that would have left a sympathetic portrait of a Commander-in-Chief asking for need funding to support our military while fighting is going on, only to be turned down by the Congress. That approach would hurt the Democrats chance at the ballet box, so instead they've tried to push the blame for military funding short-falls off on the President.

"How is Congress undermining the constitution by passing legislation?" They are undermining the Constitution by trying to usurp the Commander-in-Chief's military policies, a Presidential responsibility that his and his alone. Congress isn't allowed to make treaties or dictate how the military is used. Congress can "ask" all they wish, but only the President can set military goals and objectives. This legislation is un-Constitutional.

Yes, Iraq is only a part of Southwest Asia, but an incredibly important part of the effort to fight Radical Islamic terrorism. Bin Ladin and others want us out of any part of Asia they've decided should be entirely dominated by Radical Islam. They've been demanding the elimination of Israel since 1948, and have repeatedly done their best to exterminate the Jews in that part of the world. Where will American forces be staged if it becomes necessary to again put boots on the ground in that part of the world? Quiting, especially before the bell is defeat, not victory. Americans love a winner, and will not tolerate a loser, yet here the Democrats propose fleeing in the face of a few difficulties in a war that will take a long time to win.

I have read the Constitution often, and my law professors seemed to think I had a pretty good grasp of it. I'd like to direct your attention to Article II, Section 2 where the President is named CNC. Only in Section 8 of Article I, is there any mention of Congressional powers relative to the military. They are:

* to declare War. This unfortunately is something that was lost after the U.S. bought into the UN and signed a number of treaties (with the advice and consent of the Senate) after WWII. At this time a Congressional Declaration of War is for all extents and purposes a dead letter. Too bad.

* To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of money to that use shall exceed two years. Congress can institute a draft, and is responsible for appropriating money for the support of Armies.

* To provide and maintain a Navy.

* To make rules for the Government and regulation of the land and naval forces. This is the authority for the UCMJ.

* To provide for the calling forth of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. This turns on the word "provide" which gives the Congress responsibility for giving the Commander-in-Chief the needed assets for conducting military operations.

* To ... provide for a militia, or national guard centered in the various states. I've paraphrased this to keep the post within limits.

* Again I paraphrase ... Congress has authority over the government of the District of Columbia.

Nowhere, is there the slightest hint that Congress has authority to dictate military policy to the Commander-in-Chief.

Further, the Constitutional division of Congress responsible for funding the military, and the Executive's responsibility for forming and carrying out military operations was discussed in detail in the Federalist Papers.

0 Replies

President Bush hasn't made any attempt to appropriate funds for support of the military. What did was send a request to Congress for the funding needed to support the military. The Democratic Congress went beyond the scope of their position to set conditions requiring the CNC to conform to the dictates of Congress.

I'm not saying that Congress doesn't have the power of the purse, it does. However, the Commander-in-Chief is the head of the military not Congress. Regulation of the land and naval forces does not mean that Congress can supersede the authority of the CNC. Congress can certainly cut off all funding to the military, but even that raises Constitutional questions since they are responsible for providing and maintaining such forces, not for using funding to coerce their wishes upon the Executive.

0 Replies

Just as the President - and his supporters such as yourself - loudly make claims about the ever-increasing scope of Executive power,

There exists a counter-balancing force which calls for Congressional power to match it. If the president - and his supporters - wish to have a showdown with congress, I suggest that they step up to the plate. The vast majority of those polled have indicated that they believe the Congress should and does have the power to do exactly what they are doing. I have no doubt the Congress - and the people of America - will prevail against an Executive branch which claims it has no limit, and has supporters such as yourself who claim that impeachment itself is not even a check on the president.

It's the Republican senators and congressmen who you'll have to watch out for, Ash. They are the ones who will stab you in the back in the coming months.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Its the Democratic Congress that seems set on expanding their powers beyond what the Constitution grants, not the President. This Congressional Bill won't get through the Senate, and so Congress will have delayed the funding and obstructed the war effort. Congress can dither and play to popular sentiment. They can deny the troops their needs, and in doing so may cause the death of our soldiers. I don't see how that will help the Democrats to win any election. This will probably never get to the Supreme Court for adjudication, because the Bill is highly unlikely to ever get to the President's desk. If it should, he will veto it and the Democrats can try to override the veto. They can't do that, so more time and lives will be wasted for Democratic grandstanding.

BTW, the President of the United States has always been the CNC, that's not a new power, but one that the Founders were pretty specific about. Earliler Congresses also tried to enforce their Will on the President when it came to forming military policy and directing military operations. The fact is that the military is a part of the Executive Branch, not the Legislative Branch ... no matter how wrong you and others might think it to be.

Political loyalties are never forever, but the feeding frenzy you describe is much more typical of the Democrats than the Republicans. Lame duck administrations always lose some of their support as politicians jocky for position in the government to come. Some Republican Congressmen and Senators will indeed put space between themselves and this administration, but in the end I'm pretty sure the next President will also be a Republican and as conscientious as this President has proven to be.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Solely for their partisan pleasures? Geez. what kind of crap is that. Because you disagree with a bill doesn't make it partisan. It was passed per the rules of the House. That makes it valid legislation. The people elected the Congress and congress shouldn't be second guessed by its political opponents who friviously oppose legislation solely for their partisan pleasures.

Huh, bet you a dollar you didn't hold this opinion 5 months ago.

0 Replies

Use of Uniformed Military as Political Props?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know