Success in Iraq?

[Steve L]

Originally Posted by Holy the Goalie

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.

Actually, Spector introduced it whenthe Republicans still had their majority. It never got a vote and would have been vetoed by Bush. That is why it never got voted on then

Now, it has been re-introduced, but without a veto proof majority, there is no semse bringing to the president. Spector is a historically fairly moderate Republican, who believes inthe separation of Execuive and Legislative. However, a lot of pressure was put on him to back the President on things, or run the risk of losing backing at relection time.

Yes CLinton used quite a few, as did Reagan. but Bush's numbers are staggering.

In Clinton's eight years, his signing statements challenged 140 provisions (not complete bills, just 140 specific items within various bills). So far, Bush's signing statements have challanged over 1,100 items.

Also, the Supeme Court ruled against Clinton (Clinton vs. New York, 1998) that a signing statement cannot be used as a line item veto to negae part of a law passed by Congress. Which is exactly what Bush is doing. He can thank Alito and Roberts for making sure that won't happen while he is in office.

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?

Anytime you look at the short sighted view of giving your candidiate more power, you have to temper that with the realization that eventually, your opponant will have that power too. The majority party in Congress will usually support the President from their own party, but historically that stops when the power and authority of Congress is challanged. Spector understood that, but the rest of the Republicans went along and gave Bush whatever he wanted. Only problem was he always wanted more.

Regardless of the controlling party, Congress and the President should always be somewhat adversarial, otherwise the checks and balances fail.

[sloth2946]

Here's an interesting site regarding signing statements.

Presidential Signing Statements

[Holy the Goalie]

Originally Posted by Steve L

Yes CLinton used quite a few, as did Reagan. but Bush's numbers are staggering.

In Clinton's eight years, his signing statements challenged 140 provisions (not complete bills, just 140 specific items within various bills). So far, Bush's signing statements have challanged over 1,100 items.

Q: I’ve searched your website for George W. Bush’s signing statements and only find about 140. The Boston Globe said there were 750. Where are the rest of them?

A: In an article published on April 30, 2006, the Globe wrote that “President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.” In a clarification issued May 4, 2006, the Globe note that Bush had not really challenged 750 bills (which would have implied 750 signing statements), but “has claimed the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills.”

Q: Is it true that George W. Bush has issued many more signing statements than any other president?

A: No, Bill Clinton issued many more signing statements. The controversy is about the kind of signing statements Bush has issued.

Okay, thanks Steve. I took the above quote from Sloth's website, just to make sure that the numbers are accurate.

I really do enjoy these threads (sometimes); they give me an oppotunity to learn things I might not have normally looked into.

[Steve L]

Originally Posted by Holy the Goalie

Okay, thanks Steve. I took the above quote from Sloth's website, just to make sure that the numbers are accurate.

I really do enjoy these threads (sometimes); they give me an oppotunity to learn things I might not have normally looked into.

Well, I appreciate that you didn't come back with "the argument sux because the numbers don't match.." or some crap like that. We are trying to keep this thread civil and useful. We used different sources.

I think you see the idea is that though signing statements are part of what a President does, the way Bush uses them is highly questionable.

Remember, all presidents prior to Reagan combined only issued 75 signing statements. It is a phenomenon that began its modern usage with Reagan, at the suggestion of Samual Alito. Regardless, only Congress has the power to enact laws, and only the Supreme Court has the authority to determine is they are constitutional or not.

[sloth2946]

Originally Posted by Holy the Goalie

I really do enjoy these threads (sometimes); they give me an oppotunity to learn things I might not have normally looked into.

That's what it's all about. Learning and being challenged.

That being said, yes, Bush has used signing statements in a manner that is an egregious afront to Congress' Constitutional role and authority and an overstepping of the Executive branch's authority.

He has in essence circumvented the veto process by placing the Executive branch above the laws of the land. Sadly with the Supreme Court that is in place today, they would simply, and blindly uphold this ability that should be eliminated regardless of party or purpose.

[James_esq]

[quote=Swedish goalie;1193107]
Donald Rumsfeld "There is BULLETROOF EVIDENCE of connections between Iraq and Al-qaida" Isnt that a lie?QUOTE]

Not anymore it's not! Thanks to our actions there is now a clear link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Rumsfeld was just speaking in the "future tense!"

[Swedish goalie]

Constitutional Lawyer: Bush 'Ordered War Crimes'

For constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley, the latest memo should be more than enough reason for Congress to begin some serious investigations, but hesitance to really dig into Bush-authorized "war crimes" have precluded them from doing so, he says.

"It is really amazing because Congress -- including the Democrats -- have avoided any type of investigation into torture because they do not want to deal with the fact that the president ordered war crimes," Turley told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann Thursday night. "But evidence keeps on coming out.... What you get from this is this was a premeditated and carefully orchestrated torture program. Not torture, but a torture program."

The Raw Story | Constitutional lawyer: Bush 'ordered war crimes'

[Quart of Beer]

America's good at dropping bombs on people. All these attempts at winning 'hearts and minds' and 'spreading the benefits of democracy', is a silly waste of time, just like searching for signs of success in Iraq.

[Holy the Goalie]

Originally Posted by Swedish goalie

Constitutional Lawyer: Bush 'Ordered War Crimes'


The Raw Story | Constitutional lawyer: Bush 'ordered war crimes'

I really hate to say this, because I really the civility that we have all been able to show each other, but Keith Olberman is an ASS. I can not stand that guy. He's got that air of righteous indignation and moral superiority about him, as if he barely deems us worthy of listening to his rambling. I don't even care about his politics; he just strikes me as the kind of guy that wears too much cologne, won't give you the time of day, and enjoys bragging about the gas mileage his Prius gets while eating a Vegan porridge.

[Steve L]

Originally Posted by Holy the Goalie

I really hate to say this, because I really the civility that we have all been able to show each other, but Keith Olberman is an ASS. I can not stand that guy. He's got that air of righteous indignation and moral superiority about him, as if he barely deems us worthy of listening to his rambling. I don't even care about his politics; he just strikes me as the kind of guy that wears too much cologne, won't give you the time of day, and enjoys bragging about the gas mileage his Prius gets while eating a Vegan porridge.

Years ago, before he got back into political TV, he did the sports reports on the CBS affiliate in Los Angeles. He was the most entertaining sports guy in the market. He never acted like the promontional mouthpiece for the local teams, and would actually be pretty funny (if you like his dry, acerbic wit).

I don't always agree with his politics, but I do enjoy his show. However, I cancertainly see where he is not everyon'es cup of tea.

[azdave]

At least Oberman has the balls to call it as it is. He pisses off a lot of people because they can't handle the truth.

[Lars]

Originally Posted by 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).

OK then phrase your question in a less antagonistic manner. Iraq is a failure in every sense, even Republicans admit as much though they may use management speak vocabulary. If the sole strategic objective of Iraq was to kill Saddam then it is a resounding success, but no one pretends it is.

RyJ is not willing to listen to anything that challenges his insecurities, we all know this, so I do not see the point on that front.
As for the debate some interesting points were made, thank you for that, but overall I felt this thread was just a Potemkin village. I still feel that way.

[Swedish goalie]

Originally Posted by Lars

Iraq is a failure in every sense

The Iraq war is a super succes, they went their to make money and they are making money big time on the war. If USA really cared about democray they would have send all their troops to imbabwe where mugabe threatens with a war.

The bush adm has pulicly stated that they dont care about the people in united states so they dont give a damm if your brave soldiers dies The longer USA stays in Iraq the better it is for the bush adm and its financers.
America is based on the best idea ever accomlished by the human race, freedom. but right now your government is controlled by companies that makes profits on war and that is the biggest threat to America in its history. I think its time for you the people to take back America and be that role model that you have been. The American people stands for freedom but your leaders doesnt.
To support this adm is the most anti-american you can do.

[azdave]

Actually it was Cheney who stated he didn't care what Americans think about the war. Bush thinks everything is rosy in Iraq and there were over 180 soccer games going on when one of his people flew over Iraq. You know that was a lie because no one in the Bush Adm. could count that high

Anyways the major problem with Iraq and the lack of success is the fact that we cannot define "win" the war. Nor do we have a plan, either short term or long term to exit. These two issues are going to define this invasion as a failure not a success. The troops have been incredible with so many spending years there under horrible conditions. The death toll and injury count is huge considering the fight is against an insurgency and not an actual army. Part of the reason the insurgency is so strong was the poor planning in the beginning of the war where as weapons depots were not guarded and the Iraqis stole tons of weapons. Bush had a very poor plan going in and unfortunately for all concerned no plans for getting out.

If there is a success in Iraq I personally don't see it. At best we are keeping the country up an somewhat running.

[biguglygoalie]

Originally Posted by azdave

Actually it was Cheney who stated he didn't care what Americans think about the war. Bush thinks everything is rosy in Iraq and there were over 180 soccer games going on when one of his people flew over Iraq. You know that was a lie because no one in the Bush Adm. could count that high

Anyways the major problem with Iraq and the lack of success is the fact that we cannot define "win" the war. Nor do we have a plan, either short term or long term to exit. These two issues are going to define this invasion as a failure not a success. The troops have been incredible with so many spending years there under horrible conditions. The death toll and injury count is huge considering the fight is against an insurgency and not an actual army. Part of the reason the insurgency is so strong was the poor planning in the beginning of the war where as weapons depots were not guarded and the Iraqis stole tons of weapons. Bush had a very poor plan going in and unfortunately for all concerned no plans for getting out.

If there is a success in Iraq I personally don't see it. At best we are keeping the country up an somewhat running.

we helped iraq become friends if not allies with their neighbor iran, if thats not a success story i dont know what is...