Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Monday, November 19, 2007Figures you would back the candidate who openly snubbed every military member assigned to White House detail during the Clinton Campaign. Apparently you share her contempt for those in uniform.

My contempt is for a Commander-in Chief that sent over 3,800 of our military to their death and injured another 28,000 in a war that was not justified and has not made America Safer. I also have contempt for idiots that attempt to justify the murder and injury of our brave young people and tell then their sacrifice was to make us safe when it is NOTHOING of the sort! They gave their lives in vane and we are JUST AS LIKELY of being attacked tomorrow by the terrorists then before we invaded Iraq!

Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Monday, November 19, 2007Figures you would back the candidate who openly snubbed every military member assigned to White House detail during the Clinton Campaign. Apparently you share her contempt for those in uniform.

My contempt is for a Commander-in Chief that sent over 3,800 of our military to their death and injured another 28,000 in a war that was not justified and has not made America Safer. I also have contempt for idiots that attempt to justify the murder and injury of our brave young people and tell then their sacrifice was to make us safe when it is NOTHOING of the sort! They gave their lives in vane and we are JUST AS LIKELY of being attacked tomorrow by the terrorists then before we invaded Iraq!

I hope you don't mind Col gene but since you claim to be stating facts I thought I could help fill in the parts you missed in your facts. I will rewrite what you stated so it can sound better and more accurate:

" I have stated the facts. The House provided the funding while adding a deadline to the war and the GOP members in the Senate PREVENTED it from being voted on." No need for the "why" question since the answer is within this corrected quote.



Duh!!, who doesn't want to end this war? I agree the majority of Americans want to end this war, what they don't want is to walk away like cowards and be responsible for the deaths that will follow because we were not able to be responsible for the mess we made. I'm sorry Col, but I can guarantee you that the average soldier would rather die than leave with their legs between their legs and live the rest of their lives knowing they will carry the deaths of the Iraqi people and their fellow soldiers who would have died for nothing. And I also bet the average American would agree.

Thank you, Charles.

I wish common sense & logic would have an impact on Gene, but I'm not holding my breath.

Good of you to try, though.

Would you please provide documentation for this 'fact' please? What are your sources for this claim and what was the methodology employed in arriving at such a conclusion? What were the specificity and sensitivity of the methods used? What is the reliability index of that estimate?

you see i stuck my finger up to see which way the wind was blowing and then i sniffed the air to smell what was in it.   

I notice you didn't bother denying Hillary's open contempt for our troops... yet you would vote for her. Your mindless "Hate Bush" mentality knows know bounds.

Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Monday, November 19, 2007I notice you didn't bother denying Hillary's open contempt for our troops... yet you would vote for her. Your mindless "Hate Bush" mentality knows know bounds.

Nothing she has said shows contempt for our military. She parses their efforts. Her criticism like my comments are directed at Bush and the inept choices he made by first sending our militant to invade Iraq and then by not sending the numbers needed to do that job he gave our military. I have not heard one senior general say that we sent the force levels needed and Bush was told BEFORE we invaded Iraq what it would take. Thus it is not a case of, Monday Morning Quarterbacking but a confirmation today of the advice given Bush BRFORE the invasion that he IGNORED! His failure to send the troops needed allowed al-Qaeda to enter Iraq from other countries because we did not have the troops to control the Iraq Borders after Saddam was deposed. The lack of troops also allowed Shea and Sunni factions to arm and organize their forces and that is WHY we have MOST of the Deaths and injuries. That means BUSH is responsible for the dead and injured in Iraq. There is a LEGICY for the 43rd President—Responsible for the death of almost 4,000 American Troops and the injury of another 30,000!!! They should put that on a big plaque in the GWB Presidential Library along with pictures of the carnage he caused!

Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Monday, November 19, 2007we are JUST AS LIKELY of being attacked tomorrow by the terrorists then before we invaded Iraq!Would you please provide documentation for this 'fact' please? What are your sources for this claim and what was the methodology employed in arriving at such a conclusion? What were the specificity and sensitivity of the methods used? What is the reliability index of that estimate?

YES - The NIE which states we are in MORE danger today because of the invasion of Iraq. We are doing a better job of defending the U.S. from another attack. However the number of terrorists thought the world that would be willing to attack us again is greater today then before we invaded Iraq. Our invasion and occupation of Iraq is a GIANT recruiting boom to those that seek to destroy our country.

Oh, sorry for saying anything about anyone else in existence other than Bush. Are you really that myopic and simpleminded, Gene? Is there anything in that cobweb infested head of yours that passes for an actual thought? We get more variety from the color scheme of a polar bear than with your "additions" to any discussion.

Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Tuesday, November 20, 2007Oh, sorry for saying anything about anyone else in existence other than Bush. Are you really that myopic and simpleminded, Gene? Is there anything in that cobweb infested head of yours that passes for an actual thought? We get more variety from the color scheme of a polar bear than with your "additions" to any discussion.

At this time Bush is the most responsible person for the policy of this country and the results of his policies. For the most part Bush got what he wanted through Congress. Who should receive credit for the outcomes of the Bush policies?

never once has the words "separation of powers" or "u.s constitution" ever passed through your feeble brain have they.

It's truly sad that anyone ever saluted you... oh that's right, they saluted the birds on your collar, not you.

Yeah, you're right. That's why we're drilling for new sources of oil in ANWR and why I get to invest 5% of my social security taxes in my 401K. Sure has been a rubber stamp Congress all 7 years.

Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Tuesday, November 20, 2007For the most part Bush got what he wanted through Congress.Yeah, you're right. That's why we're drilling for new sources of oil in ANWR and why I get to invest 5% of my social security taxes in my 401K. Sure has been a rubber stamp Congress all 7 years.

I said "FOR THE MOST PART" IDIOT!

Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Tuesday, November 20, 2007never once has the words "separation of powers" or "u.s constitution" ever passed through your feeble brain have they.It's truly sad that anyone ever saluted you... oh that's right, they saluted the birds on your collar, not you.

OK you IDIOT READ THIS BLOG:

OUR Constitution is Under Attack!

By COL Gene
Posted Sunday, October 07, 2007 on Bush Truth
Discussion: Politics




The U.S. Constitution is the foundation for our rights and essential for the success of our nation. The federal government was brought into existence by the people through our Constitution. Second, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land that controls the actions of our public officials in all three branches of the federal government. Every elected official swears to UPHOLD the U.S. Constitution. The very foundations of Our Constitution are being violated by the highest elected officials in America and we are allowing this travesty to take place.

The most basic principal upon which the rights of our system are based is the Separation of Powers. This was intended to split and therefore limit the power of each of the three branches of our government. That principal, which was set out by our founding fathers, can not be violated if our government is to protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Two powers granted to Congress and ONLY to Congress by our Constitution are the power to Declare War and the Power of the Budget. Both of these Congressional responsibilities have been usurped by President Bush. In the case of the budget, Bush has been allowed to establish his spending priorities and the Congress has in effect abdicated their responsibility to set the spending. The most recent example is the S-CHIP funding which Congress passed in a bipartisan vote. Bush has vetoed that decision by Congress which is an abuse of his veto power. If Congress does not override this veto Bush and NOT Congress, as the Constitution Requires, will set the spending policy of our country. Once the majority of Congress chooses a spending level, they have a responsibility to insure that it is established and must override any Presidential veto to insure their constitutional responsibility is met.

What does our Constitution say about war? Our Founders divided war into two separate powers: Congress was given the power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war. What that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress. When Congress passed the Iraq War Resolution they delegated that Constitutional power to declare war to the President. There is NO provision in our Constitution to delegate that power to the President. When Congress passed this clearly unconstitutional law, a case should have been initiated to challenge that Iraq War Resolution. No such action was undertaken and the third branch of our government, our courts, was unable to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to insure Congress and the President do not act outside the Constitution.

In both these examples George W. Bush violated his oath of office. Every time Congress does not insure their decision on the budget is enacted they fail their responsibility. The Iraq war resolution is a failure of first Congress then Bush and finally by the fact that a case was not brought to the Federal Courts to challenge the Iraq war Resolution. Technically the Courts did not violate their constitutional responsibility because they can only exercise that power WHEN a case has been initiated. Thus the fact that no case was brought to challenge the action of Congress to delegate a power only Congress can exercise was because no American choose to challenge the resolution in court. I for one believe that such a suit should be brought today to make it clear for the future that ONLY Congress has the power to declare war. Congress DID NOT declare war against Iraq. On December 8, 1941 Congress did not say to President Roosevelt he had the power to declare war against Japan, Germany or Italy. Congress DECLARED WAR and that enabled President Roosevelt to act under his power as Commander-in-Chief. That is NOT what took place in Iraq. Bush acted as both the Congress and as Commander-in-Chief.

We need to STOP the destruction of our Constitution by the President or Congress. The first step in that quest is to tell Congress they and not Bush need to set the spending of the United States. The second action is to bring a case that challenges the Iraq War Resolution which continues today to be the authority by which Bush continues the Iraq War. There is no greater danger then to allow the President or Congress to violate our Constitution!

Basically, a declaration of war by the United States is the statement of purpose asked for by the President of the United States, and granted by Congress to engage military actions against another nation.


guess what the congress cant declare war without the president asking for it.


As you know, the president is commander-in-chief of our nation's most powerful and technologically advanced military.


no where in that statement is congress mentioned.

Keep in mind that Congress has control of the availability of the money needed to fund military operations, which in turn, provides another check on the executive branch as well.

you see the only recourse congress has after declaring war is to cut funding not tell the president how to deploy troops.

this is what the founding fathers were trying to avoid by splitting the ability to conduct war. so that neither side would have to much power.


WWW Link

After two months of delay, Congress may soon send President George W. Bush an emergency spending bill that would supply needed funds to U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the bills already passed by the House and Senate—which have yet to be reconciled into final form—are unacceptable. The bills would tie the President's hands in conducting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a blatantly unconstitutional usurpation of the President's constitutional authority as commander in chief. At the same time, Congress's legislation is weighted down with billions of dollars in pork-barrel spending. Congress owes the American people and U.S. troops a clean emergency spending bill that does not violate the Constitution or make funding for body armor contingent on money for citrus growers. If Congress's legislation falls short, the President must veto it.


a i have been saying.




WWW Link

Keep in mind that Congress has control of the availability of the money needed to fund military operations, which in turn, provides another check on the executive branch as well. you see the only recourse congress has after declaring war is to cut funding not tell the president how to deploy troops.

Problem one-- Congress NEVER declared war with Iraq. Nowhere in the Iraq War resolution does Congress declare a state of war it only ALLOWES Bush to take military action. It does not demand an invasion and Congress DOES NOT say that a state of war exists between Iraq and the United States.

I agree, Congress has the power to end the Iraq operation by the budget. If they either pass a funding bill that cuts off or limits funding for Iraq or if Congress is prevented from passing any funding bill for the war because either the Senate does not allow a vote or because Congress fails to override a Presidential Veto of a funding bill passed by Congress.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Tuesday, November 20, 2007After two months of delay, Congress may soon send President George W. Bush an emergency spending bill that would supply needed funds to U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the bills already passed by the House and Senate—which have yet to be reconciled into final form—are unacceptable.

Unacceptable to WHOM? It is Congress not the President that sets the amount and terms of spending!

you and congress are hiding behind words.


the president was incourged by congress to remove saddam and replace him with a democratic government.


you in your wisdom wanted us to hire TERRIOSTS to do that job.


because you sir are a coward.

congress CANNOT tell the president how to deploy the troops. if they want to control troop deployment their only recourse is to cut funding. not tell the president that the troops have to be out by this date. that is not their right to do.


and by the way non of your demo presidential candidates are going to pull the troops out in less than five years.

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;



Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';


you are right congress didn't declare war. they diidnt do their duty and passed it on to the president.

but the above still looks like a declaration of war to me.

WWW Link

Reply By: danielostPosted: Tuesday, November 20, 2007Nowhere in the Iraq War resolution does Congress declare a state of war it only ALLOWES Bush to take military action.you and congress are hiding behind words.the president was incourged by congress to remove saddam and replace him with a democratic government. you in your wisdom wanted us to hire TERRIOSTS to do that job. because you sir are a coward.

You are the coward by refusing to admit that Bush sent our troops to their death for NO GOOD REASON and we are NOT safer today from another attack because they died in Iraq!I am not hiding behind anything. SHOW US where Congress Declared War on Iraq!

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

The UN did not authorize or ask the U.S. to enforce their resolutions! The UN said we should NOT invade Iraq! There is NO declaration of war between Iraq and the United States!

read what i posted and follow the links this time idiot.