the democratic congress is worse than the republican congress

[angelofdeath]

"And if you remember it was not for the war on Iraq that this resolution was passed. It was right after 9/11. It was for the necessary powers to keep american soil safe from the terrorist world..."

 

"The attempts of the current congress are trying to herald in the outrageous and egregious delusions of power that Bush acts upon. "

 

its funny that people still think the dems are gonna 'save us.'

your comments on the initial resolution giving the president a blank check for whatever action needed is total political spin. the president already, constitutionally, has the power to act on any offensive against america without congressional approval, until congress can officially declare war.

 

the dems obviously didnt want to get boo'ed because they didnt vote for action when the original blank check was written. however, you cannot give someone a blank check, and then solely blame the person who cashed the check for the bad use of the check. period.

 

my main qualm about the hypocritical mainstream left is that they think that a president lying about a war is something new. bush definately takes the cake as far as being one of the worst presidents in history, but liberal presidents who took us to most wars since WW2, havent declared war once. wilson lied about ww1, but war was declared...truman set the 'police action' standard and took the army to korea without congressional approval. jfk and lbj sent troops to vietnam without a declaration of war, clinton sent troops to kosovo and bombed the middle east without a declaration of war, and bush went to iraq and 'stan without a declaration of war. this is nothing new. the government hasnt followed its law's since marshall and judicial review in the 18th century.

 

the left wouldnt be railing against executive power if one of thier own was in office. i point to lbj, fdr, and clinton. if it wasnt for massive executive power half of the federal government domestic programs wouldnt exist. so no, the left just wants executive power limited because a republican is in power. the same way the republicans wanted executive power when clinton was in power, yet when bush took office, he made clinton look like robert taft.

 

vietnam was ended when funding was cut. i love the heck out of the troops, and i support them %100, and i'd bring all of them home right now if i could. every troop in every corner of the world, would come home. say bye bye to the military empire. give me back the republic.

you cant fight a war without money. the army wastes more money than you can imagine, and snipers still have to buy some of thier own equiptment.

 

if congress had the balls, they could hold the president accountable. but they dont have the balls, they dont want to hold him accountable, because the left will simply love it when they regain power. they will love bush's executive precedents, they will love his patriot act and wire tapping, if they can use it for thier benefit, like to spy on 'domestic' terrorists or whatever new boogeyman they come up with.

 

and i'll just disreguard the snotty second half of your post.

[fermentor666]

They didn't stop funding on the war because it's politics. Some Democrats, from what I've heard, voted no on the bill BECAUSE it would not end the war immediately. But the general consensus is that we need to get out of Iraq slowly, not immediately. You want us to get out of Iraq right now? Is that why you are mad at the politicians?