Dubbya continues to amaze

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

GR: Of course liberals aren't going to bring up Lincoln, because that would legitimize Bushs' course, as it would provide a Presidential Precedent! None of this infringes on Americas' Rights....as it is defined by 'enemy combatant'. As I said, I haven't finished my research on 'habeus corpus' and what this bill details.

Timm, "Presidential" Presidents (whatever that means) screw up, too. And Lincoln screwed up when he suspended habeus corpus. Just as FDR screwed up when he authorized internment camps (and I love FDR. But that was a stupid, wrong decision).

Timm, if you were to be picked up off the street and jailed as an enemy combatant, under the new laws, how on earth are you going to convince anyone that they are wrong; that you are a US citizen, seeing as how you won't be given access to any sort of legal counsel, or even told the charges against you? Under the current laws, it's entirely within the bounds of possibility that American citizens could be "accidentally" jailed for years and years without any access to any sort of legal recourse.

You think that won't happen? Look at how we liberals get called terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, traitors, etc., etc. anytime we suggest Bush isn't the direct voice of Jesus. Which I find so interesting, seeing as how the major homegrown terrorists in the US have all been right-wingers and religious zealots. McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, Waco-- the things these men stand for fall squarely in the "right-wing" category.

And the scandals that have truly hurt the nations long-term economic health have been waged by Republican captialists-- the savings and loan scandal, Enron, WorldCom. And don't get me started on Iran contra. And yet liberals, liberals, are the ones hurting our nation?

You think, with the Republicans current election slogan of "Vote for the Democrats and die" that the nuts in charge won't see fit to "accidentally" jail people who disagree with them, keeping them locked up for years without access to counsel or charges brought against them? Wake up!

It's up to you Republicans to reclaim your party, but when you regard your party as a sports team, like Repent does (what's up with that "winner" and "loser" stuff?) Go back to the sports page, Repent. you all seem willing to merrily ignore what your party has become and can convince yourself that a hummer in the Lincoln bedroom is more important than going to war, WAR, on maniupulated intelligence. Wha?

Whew. Okay. Rant over. Not, of course, directed at anyone here, 'cause I likes you all.

[Downthestretch55]

Timm and Skippy,
With all due respect, I do not wish to discuss the reasons why we are in Iraq,
the UN inspections, Lincoln, or what I had for dinner.
What is of concern is that the US military is currently in a situation in Iraq where some prominent generals (Tanor for example), and senators from both political parties have stated that there needs to be change.

In that 85 of our soldiers have been killed during this month, and conditions in Iraq continue to deteriorate, I'd rather hear your opinions concerning the direction that the US should take.
Simply put...let's not address how we became involved in Iraq, why, but rather...what do we do about our involvement there NOW?

DTS

[skippy3481]

Sure thing DTS,
See this is where the problem lies for presiden bush i think. I believe we need to send in more troops i heard 500,000 total from a couple of diffrent generals, to stablize the country, train the army, etc etc. I just don't see how this is going to happen. To much infighting in the parties. Both political parties would rather be right then to actually attack the situation and see to its resolve. I believe if we leave now we leave the country worse off then we started. Its like remodeling an old house. You tear into rip everything up, you can't leave now because the house is unliveable. You have to finish the job you started or the whole property becomes worthless. That being said there is no way that the democrats are going to let bush reinstate the draft, which is probably the only way to get the manpower we need.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

Sure thing DTS,
See this is where the problem lies for presiden bush i think. I believe we need to send in more troops i heard 500,000 total from a couple of diffrent generals, to stablize the country, train the army, etc etc. I just don't see how this is going to happen. To much infighting in the parties. Both political parties would rather be right then to actually attack the situation and see to its resolve. I believe if we leave now we leave the country worse off then we started. Its like remodeling an old house. You tear into rip everything up, you can't leave now because the house is unliveable. You have to finish the job you started or the whole property becomes worthless. That being said there is no way that the democrats are going to let bush reinstate the draft, which is probably the only way to get the manpower we need.

Skippy,
Thanks for your response.
I agree that there will be a huge need for "boots on the ground".
My guess is that the 400K Iraqis we've trained, both as police and military will be given the task. No way will a draft be reinstated. It will be their turn.
Your metaphor about remodeling an old house is correct. I've done several.
You don't know what you'll find behind the wall after you rip out the old plaster and lath. Knob and tube wiring? Lead pipes? Rotted wood?
Seems to me, once the mess has been made, the choices are limited.
Fix it (whatever the cost) or move (and cut your losses).
We'll see how this shakes out.

[skippy3481]

I agree. Once you rip into the house you have very little left to to ponder. Very few choices remain. It becomes a screwed if you do screwed if you dont. I think what we really need to do is let the bipartisan generals in the field make the call. I dont care if your repub dem independent. If you arent there fighting, you have no clue whats going on. If you trust these people enough to appoint them, then you must rely on their decisions in battle.

[timmgirvan]

DTS: Funny how your sense of humor gets a little thin sometimes. I asked about dinner because you usually take a break around this time. If you could explain to GR what a precedent is I'd appreciate it. Why couldn't you just have said the last 3 lines you wrote to skippy in the first place? Would have saved alot of time. Truthfully, I know what I'd like to see happen, but I would never presume to know the course this nation should take, because I don't know the real facts. It would help considerably if IRAQ wasn't a splintered group of misfits and 'warlords'. The whole region is so screwed up, but it is the Arabs vs the Israelis', make no mistake about that. I would like to speed up the Iraqi's ability to govern and protect itself from insurgents, but having a deadline for this is like telling your 17 yr old that he's on his own when he's turning 18..with no real prospects for success. It's an F'n mess, and the more I think about it the more it pisses me off. All of America is concerned(although one can never know) and alarmed, but calling the President a madman and war criminal is absurd. The problems with America were here long before we showed up, and that's a scary thought! Have our own chickens come home to roost? Maybe. But we need to be part of the solution, and help our disaffected younger genration do the same...or else there might not be many more generations.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

DTS: Funny how your sense of humor gets a little thin sometimes. I asked about dinner because you usually take a break around this time. If you could explain to GR what a precedent is I'd appreciate it. Why couldn't you just have said the last 3 lines you wrote to skippy in the first place? Would have saved alot of time. Truthfully, I know what I'd like to see happen, but I would never presume to know the course this nation should take, because I don't know the real facts. It would help considerably if IRAQ wasn't a splintered group of misfits and 'warlords'. The whole region is so screwed up, but it is the Arabs vs the Israelis', make no mistake about that. I would like to speed up the Iraqi's ability to govern and protect itself from insurgents, but having a deadline for this is like telling your 17 yr old that he's on his own when he's turning 18..with no real prospects for success. It's an F'n mess, and the more I think about it the more it pisses me off. All of America is concerned(although one can never know) and alarmed, but calling the President a madman and war criminal is absurd. The problems with America were here long before we showed up, and that's a scary thought! Have our own chickens come home to roost? Maybe. But we need to be part of the solution, and help our disaffected younger genration do the same...or else there might not be many more generations.

Timm,
Thanks for a well thought response.
DTS

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

If you could explain to GR what a precedent is I'd appreciate it. (

Timm, I'm aware of what precedents are, thank you. Under that logic, we should just lock up all the Arab Americans in internment camps because we did it to the Japanese. There's precedent, right?

I think what I am either explaining poorly or you are willfully misunderstanding is that Lincoln was WRONG to have suspended habeus corpus. The section of the Constitution that addresses it is the section outlining Congress's powers, not the President's. The President does not have the right as the Constitution is written; only Congress. And it seems to me the fact that Bush saw necessary to ramrod a law through Congress indicated Bush knew full well he didn't have the authority to do it on his own and needed his patsy Congress to pass a disgraceful law to give him authority to ignore the Constitution. And it's a sad day for this nation that people will say, "Well, Lincoln did it!" and think that should make it right. Lincoln didn't free the slaves in the United States; he freed the slaves in the Confederacy only, which, technically, did not consider itself the United States anymore. So that makes him a man who endorsed slavery in his own nation. Does that make him a bad President? No; he was a great one. Was it a bad decisions to endorse slavery in the loyal states? From a moral standpoint, of course it was.

And again, this happened 140 years ago...

So... what'd you have for breakfast? I had cereal and milk.

[Downthestretch55]

I'm a bit confused by this...does it mean that "stay the course" means no longer staying the course, or is it just "cutting and running" from doublespeak?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102301053.html

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Timm, I'm aware of what precedents are, thank you. Under that logic, we should just lock up all the Arab Americans in internment camps because we did it to the Japanese. There's precedent, right?

I think what I am either explaining poorly or you are willfully misunderstanding is that Lincoln was WRONG to have suspended habeus corpus. The section of the Constitution that addresses it is the section outlining Congress's powers, not the President's. The President does not have the right as the Constitution is written; only Congress. And it seems to me the fact that Bush saw necessary to ramrod a law through Congress indicated Bush knew full well he didn't have the authority to do it on his own and needed his patsy Congress to pass a disgraceful law to give him authority to ignore the Constitution. And it's a sad day for this nation that people will say, "Well, Lincoln did it!" and think that should make it right. Lincoln didn't free the slaves in the United States; he freed the slaves in the Confederacy only, which, technically, did not consider itself the United States anymore. So that makes him a man who endorsed slavery in his own nation. Does that make him a bad President? No; he was a great one. Was it a bad decisions to endorse slavery in the loyal states? From a moral standpoint, of course it was.

And again, this happened 140 years ago...

So... what'd you have for breakfast? I had cereal and milk.

GR: Had to take my son to LAX for travel to England...Had JITB Breakfast sandwiches on the way back(YUM). I was hoping that you knew what a precedent was(I knew you did,but you were just being a lib). I don't know the circumstances of Lincolns' play, and I do know that it is Congress' baliwick. My understanding is that the law has restrictions and checks/balances included, so that your favourite cowboy can't run roughshod over AMERICANS. Not so with the foreign enemy combatants. Maybe when I'm more familiar with the law I can comment on it. I think the internment camps are our country's biggest shame(pretty much bar none). My only statement in Lincolns' defense is that the country had never been in civil war and he did what he thought he had to do. As with Bush,both were faced with situations never encountered before in the halls of Government. I'm tired now, so I'll talk to you later! Have a good one! Timm