Success in Iraq?

[punisher]

Originally Posted by RyJ Maduro

Where do the Freemasons and Illuminati come in? Are you seeing something I'm not? Are the tanks already rumbling outside the gates of San Francisco?


Prove it.


Last time I checked, warrentless wiretapping isn't a war crime. If you want to debate it's constitutionality, fine, but it's not Buchenwald.

And signing statements are within the President's constitutional authority. It's called checks and balances.



Jayash al-Mahdi?

no, i believe it is spelled Retard.

pun.

[Sprawl]

Originally Posted by Sprawl

I dont think Gary Bettman will have any success putting an NHL Franchise in IRaq.

i dont think there are any hockey arena's.
They'd have to go to israel

Looks like i was wrong!

Next season's home opener for the Phoenix Coyotes and the Anaheim Ducks


Baghdad



The war is won!

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by RyJ Maduro

Prove it.

Ah yes, a wonderful defense for the leader of the free world.

Prove it.................

Actually Stevie it has been proven, numerous times, on this very board, by myself and others.

You have chosen to ignore it and run away with your fingers in your ears yelling "Na na na na na".

I'm always game for making you look stupid.

You want to do it again.....................??????

[Steve L]

Originally Posted by RyJ Maduro

...

And signing statements are within the President's constitutional authority. It's called checks and balances.
...

First of all, there is no constitutional basis for signing statements.

Until Ronald Readgan became president, only 75 signing statements had been issued in total by all former presidnets (Monroe made the first signing statement). Most signing statements were simple political statements about how great (or how bad) a piece of legislation was.

The use of signing statemnets to change or ignore laws (or parts of them) started with Reagan, when current Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito (who was an attourney at the Justice Deprtment at the time) suggested that the President could use "interpretive signing statements" as a tool to "increase the power of the Executive to shape the law." Alito proposed adding signing statements to a "reasonable number of bills" as a pilot project, but warned that "Congress is likely to resent the fact that the President will get in the last word on questions of interpretation."(yes, I did copy some of that from wikipedia, but I did verify from other sources that the information is correct and in context).

Bush has effectivelt been using the Signing Statement as a line-item-veto, which is clearly unconstitutional. The presdient can either sign or veto laws passed by congress, but can't alter or change them. If he signes them, he is constitutionally obligated to enforce them. If he feels there are provisions in a law that are unconstitutional, he has two choices:

1. veto the law instead of signing it.

2. sign it, then wait for the Supreme Court to rule on its constitutionality.

Bush's use of signing statements is unconstitutional and clearly goes against the checks and balances of the three branches as intended.

No wonder Alito ended up on the Supreme Court

BTW, I never said he should be charged with war crimes before the world court. He and his administration have done plenty of things that should result in impeachment and conviction followed by criminal charges after leaving office.

[Swedish goalie]

Originally Posted by RyJ Maduro

Prove it.

Why do you support this **** adm? You must jerk off every time a big corporation makes records profits.

Donald Rumsfeld "We KNOW where they are they are in the area around Tikrit, baghdad and east west sout and north"
Isnt that a lie since they didnt find any wmds?

Donald Rumsfeld "There is BULLETROOF EVIDENCE of connections between Iraq and Al-qaida" Isnt that a lie?

Condoleea Rice 2002 "We KNOW (Hussein) is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon" Isnt that a lie since the couldnt know this since he didnt buy any wmds?

Dick Cheney 2002 "We FOUND the wmds" You you havent.

George W Bush "The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."
Everyone in the world knows that Saddam Hussein allowed a fully-equipped team of UN inspectors to comb every inch of his country - including previously off-limits Presidential palaces - for four full months."

Either my english really really really suck or they have knowingly lied about the reasons to go to war.




btw bush adm has lied 935 times and counting about the Iraq war( this lies doesnt include "mistakes" like no wmds Saddam al-qaida connection etc).

[Lars]

jam jam jam jam JAM JAM JAAAAAAAAAAAAM

[Swedish goalie]

Originally Posted by Lars

jam jam jam jam JAM JAM JAAAAAAAAAAAAM

[Steve L]

come on boys, we've gotten through almost four pages without getting too side-tracked. Even RyJ had tried hard to write some actual thoughts (even if he did suggest I'm a lunatic). Let's try to have one thread that leaves out the neffing (god, i hate that term).

[Holy the Goalie]

Originally Posted by Steve L

. . . Info about signing statements . . .

Ok, here's a genuine question for you. If these signing statements are so bad, why hasn't Congress done something about them? Can't the Democrats and their majority pass a law limiting their use and scope?

Or (he said, tongue-in-cheek), do they LIKE the idea of signing statements, and want to be able to use them in the event they win the next election?

[sloth2946]

Too many posts to quote.

1. There is no exit strategy because there is never any intent to exit. The actions in Iraq have nothing to do with stability, regime change, human rights, terrorism, etc. If it had anything to do with any of that, then we'd be all over Africa. And strangely we're not. Why is that?

Simple, this war is about profit for american corporations, specifically corporations that contract with the DoD to provide goods and services. Get in a situation where there is no easy out and you provide constant revenue streams to a lot of corporations that have a vested interest and easy inroads to the administration.

Once people realize that this is about $ and nothing else, then we can have an intelligent conversation about strategy, because there was never a strategy to begin with.

While there may be schools and other good things going on in Iraq, the fleecing of the American public, and the murder of innocent Iraqis by Americans and foreigners who were able to enter Iraq due to the lack of strategy by said American leadership, as well as dead Americans coming home overshadows any perception of good that can be derived from any deed our people on the ground have done. Sorry, but that is the truth.

2. In order to achieve 'success', one must have a goal to achieve so that we may measure success. What is the goal? There is none, at least none that is realistic. As I stated back in 2003 on this very board. The Sunni's and Shia's will never 'get along' or work together as a whole. You may have a few isolated groups here and there doing it, but it will never be widespread and never result in a functioning government and security forces because latent hatred and corruption are more important to them than working for a common good.

3. It is not outside the realm of possibility that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and possibly many more could be called before The Hague. I would love to see what would happen as the US has been a big champion of The Hague with regard to people like Charles Taylor and Slobidan Milosevic.

I don't actually see that happening.....but it honestly would be very nice to see it.

4. The draft is a non-starter. No politician will vote for it. I agree that it would cause a quick 'exit strategy' to be developed should the draft get instituted, but again...non-starter.

[Steve L]

Originally Posted by Holy the Goalie

Ok, here's a genuine question for you. If these signing statements are so bad, why hasn't Congress done something about them? Can't the Democrats and their majority pass a law limiting their use and scope?

Or (he said, tongue-in-cheek), do they LIKE the idea of signing statements, and want to be able to use them in the event they win the next election?

Funny you should ask:

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006 on July 26, 2006.[16] The bill would:

Instruct all state and federal courts to ignore presidential signing statements. ("No State or Federal court shall rely on or defer to a presidential signing statement as a source of authority.")
Instruct the Supreme Court to allow the U.S. Senate or U.S. House of Representatives to file suit in order to determine the constitutionality of signing statements.[17]
The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Specter formerly chaired, on the day it was introduced.[18] As with all unpassed bills, it expired with the end of the 109th United States Congress on 9 December 2006.

Specter reintroduced the legislation with the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007.

Also, without a veto-proof majority, any law limiting signing statements (or any law the president doesn't like) has no chance. Bush would veto it and the Republicans would prevent an override vote. Having a simple majority as the Democrats do now, gives them the commitee chairs, and allows them to set the agenda, but not much else.

I really like Arlen Spector!! If he was younger and healthier, he could have been a good Republican candidate.

[sloth2946]

Originally Posted by Holy the Goalie

Ok, here's a genuine question for you. If these signing statements are so bad, why hasn't Congress done something about them? Can't the Democrats and their majority pass a law limiting their use and scope?

Or (he said, tongue-in-cheek), do they LIKE the idea of signing statements, and want to be able to use them in the event they win the next election?

Clinton used a lot of signing statements. So it is not a 'new' thing.

With that said, Congress can't pass anything limited or eliminating signing statements, because it would need to be signed by the sitting POTUS.

They must have a challenge brought to the Supreme Court to determine the legality of the ability of the POTUS and Executive Branch to explicitly circumvent legislation passed by Congress.

[Alec M]

The only one of your criteria that even remotely fits "war criminal" is the claims of torture. Unfortunately for you, Bush himself is not responsible for those acts. You may as well call FDR and Truman "war criminals" because *some* troops *sometimes* commited war crimes. Ditto Churchill.

Assuming you could even prove the specific techniques that have been used at Gitmo, the only area Bush *may* have had a say on, were specifically authorized by him, people do not even agree that they constitute torture. People don't even agree that these are POWs at all. I don't agree with the tactics used at places like Gitmo, but you could probably bring half the police officers in the world up on "war crimes" charges if you're going to make that argument.

Lying about something does not make someone a "war criminal". You might, barely, be able to make a sound legal argument that Bush is a "criminal" for breaking, depending on your point of view it seems, American laws. That's about it.

Bush is just a bad President. I think he's got the right idea on this whole Islamic terrorism thing, apart from the legal limbo prisoners, and domestic surveillance, and signing statements, and...well, you get the idea. Clearly, however, a majority of Americans were okay with his performance since they re-elected him.

[biguglygoalie]

kool aid, don't give blind allegiance without it!!!

[Holy the Goalie]

Originally Posted by Steve L

Bush would veto it and the Republicans would prevent an override vote. Having a simple majority as the Democrats do now, gives them the commitee chairs, and allows them to set the agenda, but not much else.

But Spectre's a Republican. With an "R" bringing legislation to ignore Presidential signing statements from a sitting "R" President, what makes you think the Republican party would prevent an override vote? To me, it sounds like they're in favor of it.

Originally Posted by sloth2946

Clinton used a lot of signing statements. So it is not a 'new' thing.

With that said, Congress can't pass anything limited or eliminating signing statements, because it would need to be signed by the sitting POTUS.

They must have a challenge brought to the Supreme Court to determine the legality of the ability of the POTUS and Executive Branch to explicitly circumvent legislation passed by Congress.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. However, the cynic in me still wonders if the Democrats wouldn't REALLY want to get rid of/challenge the legality of them. Clinton used them, and I'll bet the Dems didn't have as much of a problem with signing statements at that point.

I mean, why limit the power of the office you might be filling in seven months?