Dubbya continues to amaze

[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

[Downthestretch55]

Interesting press conference. The generals speak.
Find the words "political solution" rather than "military".

http://www.andnetwork.com/index?serv...tory&sp=l54407

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by 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

Well,
I guess the folks in Maine are equally confused.
To quote, "Nuts". Real people that live in a very difficult place.

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/vi...025stein.shtml

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Well,
I guess the folks in Maine are equally confused.
To quote, "Nuts". Real people that live in a very difficult place.

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/vi...025stein.shtml

Finally got "clarification".
Now I know what "stay the course" means.
I also think I know what "cut and run" is about.
I'm still trying to make distinctions between "benchmarks" and "time lines"...
heck, there must be others that understand "doublespeak" better than I do.
If you can...translate into "plain English". Thanks.
Here's the "clarification" on "stay the course".


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2122103.shtml

[Downthestretch55]

And another article about "stay the course". Surprisingly, if you read the last paragraph concerning the Dems, in which I agree with the author, you might fine a tidbit of truth.
Sorry...it's from common dreams but still worth reading.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1027-24.htm

[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

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

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

Hey, Timm; hope your son had an easy flight and a good time in England (I loved my two visits there). The problem with the "Well, the gov't can't pick up American citizens" argument against this new law I believe I addressed earlier, but I'll rehash it-- if the government would say, pick you up and jail you for being an "enemy combatant" how the hell are you going to get anyone to listen to your claims that you are an American citizen and this is a mistake? You're not permitted access to legal counsel; you won't be told the charges against you and in fact, they can hold you as long as they like without bringing the charges. So how are you going to get anyone to listen to you? You're not. You really think this government is going to be absolutely infallible with this new authority? How many innocent people have we put into Guantanamo and Abu Gihraib (which I can never seem to spell)? Even one is too many if it's your own self. Are you willing to be locked up "accidentally" for three years because the government made a mistake in the name of fighting terrorism? Are you willing to be waterboarded for a mistake? Are you willing to see your family locked up and waterboarded for a mistake? Because if you're not willing to kiss three years of your own life goodbye, or that of your son's, or your wife's, then you don't have any business thinking this law is just or right or fair.

I can't even address the "well, it's just for foreigners" on the moral grounds because it's so very upsetting to me that anyone would stand by and think being held without access to legal counsel is acceptable for non-citizens. Please let me know how you feel about the thought of your son being picked up in a foreign nation (he's in one now, right?) and held for years without access to counsel because he's not a citizen. America-- "If it doesn't affect myself directly, then f*ck it."

Terrorism isn't an opponent; it's a tactic. It was used by Timothy McVeigh, by every man who has shot doctors, by the Atlanta bomber and by the right-winger who sent envelopes with white powder to Democratic government officials (remember that?). It's a tactic. Not an opponent. But until recently, our terrorists were all home-grown so we ignored them. And Bush and his cronies have seized on the first attack by foreigners on our soil as justification to take away the balance of power in this nation. And we've all stood back and let them.

Look, anyone who is pleased with these developments, may I suggest China? You get your authoritarian government AND they aren't as deeply in debt as we are. In fact, China has lent us a ton of money. Grab it, guys! Your chance to be in on the next superpower, since democracy doesn't seem to be the Republicans' cup of tea anymore. And you won't have to listen to nasty, whiny dissenters, since really, they're all traitors anyway! What are you waiting for? Same government, better economy!

In the meantime, how was lunch? (leftover fried rice and oatmeal cookies, here)

[GenuineRisk]

Sorry to those who saw I double-posted; I finally figured out how to delete. Same message, but once is plenty.

[Downthestretch55]

Genuine Risk,
Here is the link to the Military Commissions Act of 2006. S3930.
On page four you'll might note section C, "Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status", and who makes the determination.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.+3930:

btw, I've read the Constitution of The United States many times. The powers of each of the three branches of government are clearly stated.
The Legislative branch makes laws. The Executive branch executes (enforces) them.

I hope that those that doubt what you've said take the time to read the Military Commissions Act of 2006.