Democrats are taking ownership of a defeat in Iraq

FreeDuck wrote:

Speaking for myself only, the time to stop this war was before it started. We're there now, and we need to find a solution -- preferably one that doesn't require our extended presence and the lives of our service people and the lives of countless Iraqi civilians who now live in terror of something worse than Saddam. I don't know what that solution is but I believe that this administration has the responsibility to handle it before they leave office. This is their mess and they should clean it up.

What the dems in congress now are trying to do is restore some semblance of a check on the president and his people, who appear to be both irrational and incompetent and incapable of finding a solution on their own. If the president doesn't like them telling him what to do then he shouldn't have f-ed up so badly. Somebody has got to lead, and The Decider isn't doing it.

Where to begin?

"We need to find a solution in which no one dies!"

Sorry, but such a solution doesn't exist.

Engineer one that puts an end to American deaths (immediate withdrawal) and it will only increase the number of Iraqi deaths.

"I don't know what the solution is but the Administration better come up with it!"

Maybe it has. You don't know what the solution is, but do you know what it is not? Do you know the current strategy is not the solution? Obviously it can't be if the Dems won't allow it to proceed.

Of course if you insist on a fanciful solution that occurs immediately and with no additional bloodshed. none will be forthcoming.

"What the Dems are doing is pull the reins in on the White House!"

No, what the Dems are doing is trying to seize power. Fair enough. This is what political parties do, but let's not kid ourselves by assigning an altruistic motive to their opposition.

The party in power must govern. The minority party must cause a continuous stink so that one day it can govern. Somehow this works no matter how dysfunctional and noxious it seems on its face.

Those in or in support of the minority, understandably, wish to cast their efforts as some noble and holy crusade, but they are nothing more then the method of power politics.

But let's assume that you are 100% right and what the Dems are doing is attempting to reign in the White House. How will that develop a solution to Iraq? Hamstringing the party in power is unlikely to result in action. Of course this is a plus if the assumption is that the action will be negative, but it also puts a stop to any chance of positive action as well, and a solution requires action, not stasis.

"If the President doesn't like what the Dems are saying, he should not have f--ked up!"

This is a childish argument in so many ways.

"Somebody has got to lead!"

Well, somebody is leading. He may not be leading the nation in the direction you favor but he is leading. His leadership may or may not be wrongheaded or incompetent, but it is not passive.

More importantly, announcing "The War is lost!" and pushing for immediate withdrawal is a strange sort of leadership. I suppose when an army is routed and they stamped back to the rear, someone is at the lead, but is he a Leader?

0 Replies

Bull Finn,

Advocating for an immediate withdrawal from a disasterous situation is without question leadership.

A straightforward decisive plan of action and that gets us out of Iraq while minimizing casualties would be appreciated by many Americans. The fact that you, or Bush or anyone else disagrees with it does not make it any less of an example of leadership.

I also question your assertion that more Iraqi's will die with an immediate American pullout. This is a dubious assertion at best, as most people agree that the US is inflaming passions there.

But leadership consists of taking clear decisive action. The Democrats were put into power because Americans are increasingly against the war.

It would be a shirking of their responsibility to lead if they didn't take steps to end the war.

0 Replies

To go back to an earlier point..

The US constitution gives the Congress the power to..

Quote:

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

So if the Congress can regulate the land and naval forces wouldn't that give them the power to regulate where they can be when?

0 Replies

leaders in both business and government love to talk about "win-win" situations - i'm sure many of us have had experience with that in our own lives .
not many like to admit to having made the wrong decision , particularly if they have insisted over and over again that they did make the right decision .

unfortunately there are also "lose-lose" situations - and again many of us have no doubt had some experience with those situations .
if we make a wrong decision and we are the only one who knows about it , it's not too difficult to admit that to ourselves and decide upon a new course of action .
it gets more difficult to initiate change - and admit having made a wrong decision - the more people know about and if we have often enough repeated that "we are right" .

it seems that the iraq war is one of these "lose-lose" situations . no matter what the united states government decides to do , it will likely turn out as "a loss" .
it's like people or corporations deciding that they can't let go of something because "i have already invested a lot in this - i can't flush this money down the toilet" ( an old car that costs too much to repair , a corporation that runs into problems completing a project) .
the ONLY thing that matters are the FUTURE costs - not what has been sunk into it , but individuals and corporations have difficulties accepting that - because it seems that they are admitting defeat if they do not continue their course .
it seems that is what is happening in iraq . one general after another steps aside and declares that a military win is not possible - but another will be assigned to give it another try .

surely all the generals and other senior government officials who have stepped aside and after sober assessment given their opinions cannot all be wrong . the difficulty for the current leadership is to be willing to say :
"yes , " I " have made serious errors . we must take the time to review the situation and together decide how to go forward and we are willing to consider all the options no matter how painful the results may be . "
that is not likely to happen because "pride" comes into play .
looking back at vietnam and - for germany - WW II , shows what will happen if the leaders are unwilling to look at reality .

the clock will likely run out , the americans will withdraw hastily and leave iraq and the middle-east in a situation worse than when the war started .
i sure hope that a better solution can be found - but i'm afraid that time is running out .
hbg

btw i don't think that the war in afghanistan is going to have a happy ending either - and more canadian and other soldiers (and many afghanis ) are going to die and little , if anything , will have been achieved .

0 Replies

parados wrote:

To go back to an earlier point..

The US constitution gives the Congress the power to..

Quote:
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

So if the Congress can regulate the land and naval forces wouldn't that give them the power to regulate where they can be when?

No,what the constitution does is give congress the ability to set military laws and conduct.
The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) is military law.
That was written by congress,with the help of the military.
Congress has the ability to regulate military law,but only the President can decide when and where the military is used.
He is the CinC,not congress.

If congress doesnt like his decision,they can refuse to pay the bills,nothing more.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

parados wrote:
To go back to an earlier point..

The US constitution gives the Congress the power to..

Quote:
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

So if the Congress can regulate the land and naval forces wouldn't that give them the power to regulate where they can be when?

No,what the constitution does is give congress the ability to set military laws and conduct.
The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) is military law.
That was written by congress,with the help of the military.
Congress has the ability to regulate military law,but only the President can decide when and where the military is used.
He is the CinC,not congress.

If congress doesnt like his decision,they can refuse to pay the bills,nothing more.

What the hell does regulation mean to you? Who decided where those bases are? Who has to vote to close bases? The President can't decide which bases to open or close without the Congress.

You asked where the Congress got to say anything about the military. I showed you. Now you are arguing that regulation is restriced to UCMJ. Show me where the Constitution restricts regulation to only the UCMJ. It doesn't. The congress gets to set the rules and regulations for the military. That means they get to set the rules and regulations. Those regulations can be anything they damn well please at any time they please. There is NO restriction what those regulations are.

0 Replies

mysterman wrote:

If congress doesnt like his decision,they can refuse to pay the bills,nothing more.

The proof is in the putting...

You don't seem the type to change your mind... but all I can say is, "just watch what happens".

0 Replies

An interesting read Snood ending with this statement by Buckley

Quote:

There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican party will survive this dilemma.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
parados wrote:
To go back to an earlier point..

The US constitution gives the Congress the power to..

Quote:
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

So if the Congress can regulate the land and naval forces wouldn't that give them the power to regulate where they can be when?

No,what the constitution does is give congress the ability to set military laws and conduct.
The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) is military law.
That was written by congress,with the help of the military.
Congress has the ability to regulate military law,but only the President can decide when and where the military is used.
He is the CinC,not congress.

If congress doesnt like his decision,they can refuse to pay the bills,nothing more.

What the hell does regulation mean to you? Who decided where those bases are? Who has to vote to close bases? The President can't decide which bases to open or close without the Congress.

You asked where the Congress got to say anything about the military. I showed you. Now you are arguing that regulation is restriced to UCMJ. Show me where the Constitution restricts regulation to only the UCMJ. It doesn't. The congress gets to set the rules and regulations for the military. That means they get to set the rules and regulations. Those regulations can be anything they damn well please at any time they please. There is NO restriction what those regulations are.

I suggest you actually do a little research and see for yourself what congress can or cant do concerning the military.

After you do that,come back and admit you are wrong.
It will be good for your soul.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

parados wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
parados wrote:
To go back to an earlier point..

The US constitution gives the Congress the power to..

Quote:
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

So if the Congress can regulate the land and naval forces wouldn't that give them the power to regulate where they can be when?

No,what the constitution does is give congress the ability to set military laws and conduct.
The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) is military law.
That was written by congress,with the help of the military.
Congress has the ability to regulate military law,but only the President can decide when and where the military is used.
He is the CinC,not congress.

If congress doesnt like his decision,they can refuse to pay the bills,nothing more.

What the hell does regulation mean to you? Who decided where those bases are? Who has to vote to close bases? The President can't decide which bases to open or close without the Congress.

You asked where the Congress got to say anything about the military. I showed you. Now you are arguing that regulation is restriced to UCMJ. Show me where the Constitution restricts regulation to only the UCMJ. It doesn't. The congress gets to set the rules and regulations for the military. That means they get to set the rules and regulations. Those regulations can be anything they damn well please at any time they please. There is NO restriction what those regulations are.

I suggest you actually do a little research and see for yourself what congress can or cant do concerning the military.

After you do that,come back and admit you are wrong.
It will be good for your soul.

Weak answer

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I suggest you actually do a little research and see for yourself what congress can or cant do concerning the military.

After you do that,come back and admit you are wrong.
It will be good for your soul.

I suggest you read Title 10 of US law.
It lists such things as...

Quote:

(b) The Department is composed of the following:
(1) The Office of the Secretary of Defense.
(2) The Joint Chiefs of Staff.
(3) The Joint Staff.
(4) The Defense Agencies.
(5) Department of Defense Field Activities.
(6) The Department of the Army.
(7) The Department of the Navy.
(8) The Department of the Air Force.
(9) The unified and specified combatant commands.
(10) Such other offices, agencies, activities, and commands as may be established or designated by law or by the President.
(11) All offices, agencies, activities, and commands under the control or supervision of any element named in paragraphs (1) through (10).

Quote:

Congress created the structure of the military under the rules and regulation clause. The law passed by Congress created the Sec of Defense and gives the Sec of Defense certain powers. They can change that law at any time. Perhaps you should come back and admit that you are the one that was wrong.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

I suggest you actually do a little research and see for yourself what congress can or cant do concerning the military.

After you do that,come back and admit you are wrong.
It will be good for your soul.

I suggest you read Title 10 of US law.
It lists such things as...

Quote:
(b) The Department is composed of the following:
(1) The Office of the Secretary of Defense.
(2) The Joint Chiefs of Staff.
(3) The Joint Staff.
(4) The Defense Agencies.
(5) Department of Defense Field Activities.
(6) The Department of the Army.
(7) The Department of the Navy.
(8) The Department of the Air Force.
(9) The unified and specified combatant commands.
(10) Such other offices, agencies, activities, and commands as may be established or designated by law or by the President.
(11) All offices, agencies, activities, and commands under the control or supervision of any element named in paragraphs (1) through (10).
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

Congress created the structure of the military under the rules and regulation clause. The law passed by Congress created the Sec of Defense and gives the Sec of Defense certain powers. They can change that law at any time. Perhaps you should come back and admit that you are the one that was wrong.

And nowhere does Title 10 give Congress OPERATIONAL control over the military.
NOWHERE does it say that Congress instead of the President is the CinC.

Like I said from the beginning,the President is the CinC and has FULL control over where and when the military is used.
Nothing in Title 10 changes that.

You claimed that congress controlled the military,based on Article 1,section 8 of the constitution.
I said you were wrong about that.
You still have not shown me anything that contradicts the constitution or that gives congress operational control over the military.

All you have done is post the title 10 stuff that gives congress "housekeeping" control over the military.

0 Replies

if congress has "housekeeping" control over the military then they should clean up that big pile of **** sitting in the middle of it stinking it up called the executive branch. It's unsightly AND unhealthy.

0 Replies

Quote:

Like I said from the beginning,the President is the CinC and has FULL control over where and when the military is used.

You're absolutely incorrect. If this was true, the Exec branch wouldn't need to ask for permission to go to war at all, and they obviously do have to.

The CinC has control of the operational situation as defined by the Congress, and that's it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

MM claimed..

Quote:

No,what the constitution does is give congress the ability to set military laws and conduct.
The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) is military law.
That was written by congress,with the help of the military.
Congress has the ability to regulate military law,but only the President can decide when and where the military is used.

Then when I pointed out that there is an entire title dedicated to regulating the military with only one small section concerning "military law" does MM come back and admit he was wrong? NO. He pretends he never said what I proved isn't true.

The Congress can do a hell of a lot more than just regulate military law MM. When you admit you are wrong with that point we can move on to the next one.

As for you claim that the CinC has "full control", what do you think of this section of Title 10?

Quote:

(a) End-Strength Limitation.--No funds appropriated to the
Department of Defense may be used to support a strength level of members
of the armed forces assigned to permanent duty ashore in nations outside
the United States at the end of any fiscal year at a level in excess of
203,000.

It looks a hell of a lot like the Congress is dictating how many troops can be where.

0 Replies

MM wrote:

Congress has the ability to regulate military law, but only the President can decide when and where the military is used. (emphasis added)

This is so patently absurd, that i'm surprised that no one has called him on it. Article One, Section 8 reads, in part:

[Congress shall have the Power:]

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

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;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The war-making powers of Congress are summary and comprehensive. The President can request from Congress the power to make war when and where he or she pleases--but the ultimate power to make the decision always resides with the Congress.

0 Replies

Quote:

This is so patently absurd, that i'm surprised that no one has called him on it. Article One, Section 8 reads, in part:

Actually I did call him on it a few short pages back... by doing exactly what you just did; posting an excerpt from Article one, section 8.

He ignored me, the same way he will ignore you, and so this senseless argument will go on.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

You claimed that congress controlled the military,based on Article 1,section 8 of the constitution.
I said you were wrong about that.
You still have not shown me anything that contradicts the constitution or that gives congress operational control over the military.

I never said the Congress controls the military. I said they regulate it based on the constitution. Regulation is pretty vague. They determine the regulations of who can serve. They determine the regulations of who can reenlist. They determine the command structure. They determine who has to report to Congress.

There are lots of ways Congress can regulate where and how the military is used without giving direct orders to the troops. They could make the regulations so restrictive that no one could serve. They could require every person serving in the military testify to congress before they go overseas.

Title 10 is filled with language granting the president power in case of an emergency. The congress could strip all that language out and require the president come to them for everything.

0 Replies

I see others have beat me to the "declaration of war" requirement in the Constitution.

Another thing you should check out is the Posse Comitatus law MM. Then you may wish to view the War Powers Act. The President can NOT use the military anywhere he wants to, any time he wants to, for as long as he wants to. He is restricted by legislation passed by Congress under their powers.

0 Replies

Democrats are taking ownership of a defeat in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know