http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=211539486&p=zyy54xy9z

Quote :

"US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled US Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war and suggested President George Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation. However, Sen. Carl Levin, Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said lawmakers would step up efforts to force Bush to change course. “The president needs a check and a balance,” said Levin. Rice said last night that proposals being drafted by Senate Democrats to limit the war amounted to “the worst of micromanagement of military affairs". She said military leaders such as Gen. David Petraeus, the new US commander in Iraq, believe Bush’s plan to send more troops is necessary. “I can’t imagine a circumstance in which it’s a good thing that their flexibility is constrained by people sitting here in Washington, sitting in the Congress,” Rice said. She was asked in a broadcast interview whether Bush would feel bound by legislation seeking to withdraw combat troops within 120 days. “The president is going to, as commander in chief, need to do what the country needs done,” she said. The Senate Democrats’ legislation would try to limit the mission of US troops in Iraq by revoking Congress’ 2002 vote authorising Bush’s use of force against Saddam Hussein. One draft version supported by senate majority leader Harry Reid, also a Democrat, would pull out combat forces by March of next year and restrict US troops to fighting al-Qaida terrorists, training the Iraqi security forces and maintaining Iraq’s borders. Democrats have acknowledged that the proposal does not yet have enough votes to overcome Republican procedural obstacles and a veto by Bush. However, they are hoping the latest effort will draw enough Republican support to embarrass the president and keep the pressure on. Levin said it was appropriate for lawmakers to limit the broad wording of the 2002 war resolution given how the situation in Iraq has deteriorated. “This is not a surge so much as it is a plunge into Baghdad and into the middle of a civil war,” he said. “We’re trying to change the policy, and if someone wants to call that tying the hands instead of changing the policy, yeah the president needs a check and a balance.” Sensitive to wavering Republicans, Rice made clear that Bush had no intention of backing away from plans to send 21,500 more combat troops to Iraq. While the US role has changed since its overthrow of Saddam, the United States is obligated to see the mission through by working to build a stable and democratic Iraq, she said. Rice said it is impossible to distinguish what is going on in Iraq from the larger fight against al Qaida. “Some of these car bombs may indeed be the work of an organisation like al Qaida,” she said of the violence that continues to rock Baghdad. “I would hope that Congress would recognise that it’s very important for them to have the oversight role,” Rice said. “But when it comes to the execution of policy in the field, there has to be a clear relationship between the commander in chief and the commanders in the field.” Senate Republicans recently thwarted two Democratic attempts to pass a nonbinding resolution critical of Bush’s troop plan. In the House, a nonbinding anti-war measure was approved this month. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, has said she expects the next challenge might be to impose money restrictions and a requirement that the Pentagon adhere to strict readiness standards for troops heading to the war zone. But that plan has drawn only lukewarm support from Democrats in the Senate and some in the House, who believe it is a politically risky strategy that could be seen as an unconstitutional micromanaging of a president’s power to wage war. “We’re going to fund the troops as long as they’re there,” Levin said."

2/28/2007 8:02:24 PM

what happened to people respecting the system of CHECKS AND GODDAMNED BALANCES

2/28/2007 8:12:44 PM

wow, she is stupider than he is... just read some of the things she said up there.

but then again, she is bush's black trophy, so it is not surprising.

[Edited on February 28, 2007 at 8:23 PM. Reason : fucking baby-killing slave whore]

2/28/2007 8:14:48 PM

Quote :

"Rice said it is impossible to distinguish what is going on in Iraq from the larger fight against al Qaida. “Some of these car bombs may indeed be the work of an organisation like al Qaida,” she said of the violence that continues to rock Baghdad."

Shit like this infuriates me to know end, for two reasons.

1) If we can't distinguish what is going on, we are fucked.

2) al Qaeda was not a stronghold in Iraq before, if it is now, it's because we caused it
2a) STOP FUCKING EQUATING IRAQ WITH THE WAR ON TERROR

2/28/2007 9:06:17 PM

and you know what's so horrible that bush and rice need to be put out of their misery:

the fact that bush and his cronies are covertly funding these sunni militants who blow up shiite places.

yeah, one day america will learn its lesson.

2/28/2007 9:15:27 PM

Quote :

"STOP FUCKING EQUATING IRAQ WITH THE WAR ON TERROR9/11"

[Edited on February 28, 2007 at 9:32 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2007 9:31:55 PM

What we have here, is the beginning of a constitutional crisis.

2/28/2007 9:56:44 PM

OMG she said the president is the commander in chief and that generals know more than Washington politicians!!11!!

Burn her at the stake!!!11!!!!

It amuses me that OEPII1 has the audacity to call people out on chit chat for things people have said after sex but demeans Rice as a " fucking baby-killing slave whore." Hypocrite much?

2/28/2007 10:10:46 PM

Why would Bush care what anyone thinks now anyway? The honeymoon is long over, not possible for re-election, no real chance of impeachment, might as well just do as he pleases.

Is it stupid, fuck yeah, but that's not really anything new.

2/28/2007 10:20:53 PM

Quote :

"Why would Bush care what anyone thinks now anyway? The honeymoon is long over, not possible for re-election, no real chance of impeachment, might as well just do as he pleases."

Well, he'd alienate a lot of Republicans if he damages the party to the extent that a Democrat is elected president and they control both houses for the foreseeable future.

2/28/2007 10:23:34 PM

If this story turns out to be true, I would be very alarmed. An executive who does not recognize the authority of other branches of government is contrary to our whole system of government.

2/28/2007 10:27:36 PM

Naw ... I think the majority know that bush is bush, and no one else...

Hes acting on his own conscience now, not for political gain, but because he really thinks its our only chance to win in iraq, and for him to keep dignity to his name, as this war really does have his name all over it.

But in all honesty, I would rather have him running it in this state of affairs, than him running it, or anyone running it for that matter, with an election coming up. Its hard to stick to your guns when your campaign depends on it.

2/28/2007 10:28:20 PM

It's clear that there aren't enough votes to counter Bush's plan, so whose authority is he ignoring?

Should his veto power be taken away now as well? If anything, Congress is overstepping its boundaries here by attempting to undercut the commander in chief from conducting his job during a time of war.

2/28/2007 10:33:56 PM

I can see if Iraq attacked us then that is true, but we started this war. We have become the aggressor and congress is the only thing keeping Bush from picking more fights and expanding the scope of conflict into a regional war. We should not support a president for merely supporting a president in time of war, especially if that emboldens said president to run the country to a path of ruin.

2/28/2007 10:47:24 PM

Quote :

"Should his veto power be taken away now as well? If anything, Congress is overstepping its boundaries here by attempting to undercut the commander in chief from conducting his job during a time of war."

What right wing Kool Aid have you been drinking? Taking his veto power away is one thing, but you're just as moronic as Bush to think the Commander in Chief title makes him the end all be all to war strategy.

THE MOTHERFUCKER AXED GENERALS THAT DIDN'T TELL HIM WHAT HE WANTED TO HEAR AND PUT "YES SIRS" IN THEIR PLACE TO TELL HIM WHAT HE WANTED TO HEAR

HE ESSENTIALLY SAID FUCK OFF TO THE ISG SINCE IT WASN'T WHAT HE CARED TO HEAR THERE EITHER


I think one think that would do this country some good is a little bit more than a delusional religious nut (lets be honest here folks, this is what Bush is when boiled down) calling all the shots.

[Edited on February 28, 2007 at 10:49 PM. Reason : a]

2/28/2007 10:48:57 PM

He isn't called the commander in chief for nothing, dipshit. So now you want to revoke a president's authority of the military as well?

So now this thread has boiled down to:

revoking the veto
revoking the powers of a commander in chief via executive appointments

Anything else?

2/28/2007 11:13:23 PM

since when have conservatives been about establishing a strong executive?

2/28/2007 11:15:41 PM

1) learn the constitution and the powers distributed therein
2)...
3) profit

2/28/2007 11:16:36 PM

i know the powers. I just asked a question

when have conservatives been about establishing a strong executive

2/28/2007 11:18:06 PM

I think you assume a lot more than you know.

It has nothing to do with a strong vs. weak executive. The Constitution grants Bush the power to veto and make appointments, as well as making him the commander in chief.

These are basic privileges that have been granted to the President since 1787. Saying that it now equals some kind of executive power grab is a joke at best and complete stupidity at worst.

[Edited on February 28, 2007 at 11:22 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2007 11:22:08 PM

Quote :

"since when have conservatives been about establishing a strong executive?"

traditional small govt Republicans and President Bush have very, very little in common...

although even they are fine with a strong executive if he's blocking an overbearing Congress (not suggesting that's what's going on here, just making a statement).

2/28/2007 11:30:03 PM

Wlfpk4Life, I'll let your photo gallery speak to your ignorance and blind partisanship. Care to retract this one?






[Edited on February 28, 2007 at 11:57 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2007 11:34:52 PM

And this is relevent how again?

Well you know what, a lot of your ignorant and partisan bretheren in the democrat ranks tucked their tails and supported the war based on the same evidence that the President was given by the CIA.

Pitiful...now people are stooping to peaking into photo galleries and posting otherwise irrevelent pictures in order to hijack a discussion? Ad hominem indeed...

[Edited on March 1, 2007 at 12:03 AM. Reason : you people...]

2/28/2007 11:57:07 PM

I don't think that they could have ever expected such an absolute lack of accountability on the part of the executive branch and such an extensive manipulation of the intelligence community. Clinton gets a BJ, lets impeach him... but it seems that no standard of conduct is too low to impeach Bush when Republicans are in power. I would say that each single day of this erroneous war continuing to be prosecuted is an offense of greater magnitude than the Clinton scandal.

3/1/2007 12:06:52 AM

Maybe Bush and Rice should've lied about it so you could've just talked shit about them for lying

3/1/2007 12:10:56 AM

Speaking of ignorance and blind partisanship..so you're saying that Bush's exercise of his executive privileges is a violation of a standard of conduct?

Or that there was some uber conspiracy on Bush's part to get the US into the war by willfully manipulating the CIA to make up lies so Bush could get Iraq's oil? Do you have any other kook theories for us to mull over?

I bet you also think that Bush was the mastermind behind 9/11 as well or that Bush was also the famed gunman on the grassy knoll. I bet you're also the kind of guy who throws a party when the death toll in Iraq hits a nice round number.

And look who brought up Clinton. You people are so predictable...

3/1/2007 12:15:16 AM

Quote :

"Speaking of ignorance and blind partisanship..so you're saying that Bush's exercise of his executive privileges is a violation of a standard of conduct?"

Yes, objectively I can say that if a politician says they will ignore the checks and balances of another branch that is a violation of the oath of office to preserve and protect the constitution.

Quote :

"Or that there was some uber conspiracy on Bush's part to get the US into the war by willfully manipulating the CIA to make up lies so Bush could get Iraq's oil? Do you have any other kook theories for us to mull over?"

Well, Iran is the worlds leading state sponsor of terrorism and has continually escalated regional tensions with their nuclear programs. Makes you wonder why we didn't go after them first, eh? Hows that for a kook theory.

Quote :

"I bet you're also the kind of guy who throws a party when the death toll in Iraq hits a nice round number. "

As a former combat arms soldier, I find that highly unlikely. I bet you are a chickenhawk that has never spent a day in your life in the military, but yet you believe that you can paint yourself as some type of patriotic gatekeeper to the discussion of the troops. Unless you have walked the walk, sit down and shut up.

Quote :

"And look who brought up Clinton. You people are so predictable."

If predictability is our downfall, then its much better than the constantly shifting sands of ignorance. Such as in the comic I posted from your gallery....if you aren't correct, just try and redefine the terms of the argument to fit your answer to make you seem like you were right all along!

3/1/2007 12:31:07 AM

The founders really considered the legislature as the most dangerous branch in overpowering the other two. They really didn't see the executive becoming as powerful as it did over the 20th century.

Also, the president is the commander in chief...just as congress has the power of the purse...

3/1/2007 2:45:25 AM

How in the hell does Bush telling Congress not to micromanage the war have anything to do with checks and balances? Congress doesn't have that right in the first place so I fail to see how Rice reminding them of their rights is some kind of violation...but Bush is involved and he is an idiot from Texas so he must be at fault

3/1/2007 9:49:37 AM

Congress doesnt have the right to demand an end to a war that was never declared? thats a new one.

^^I dont think that is correct at all. You are talking about people who were dealing with kings and governors who disbanded legislatures all the time. Being afraid of a mob is not the same as being afraid of a legislature. quite the opposite.

3/1/2007 10:35:49 AM

Quote :

"Congress doesnt have the right to demand an end to a war that was never declared? thats a new one. "

Even though war wasn't officially declared on Iraq by Congress (Congress hasn't declared war since WW2), Congress DID authorize the President to use force in Iraq. And sure anybody has the right to demand something...but it doesn't mean they are going to get it...Congress has the power to declare a war or end a war...nothing else (in regards to their own powers on the topic of war)...and not enough of them would vote to end the war

3/1/2007 10:44:51 AM

Quote :

"but Bush is involved and he is an idiot from Texas so he must be at fault"

I think the fact that he and his cabinet have repeatedly lied, mismanaged, and just generally screwed up this endeavor have pretty much shot the publics and congress' faith in his decision-making abilities.

3/1/2007 10:49:12 AM

Thats fine but it doesn't give Congress any additional powers

3/1/2007 10:58:16 AM

^^^^I didn't just make this up. You can read the framers' writings yourself.

^Congress isn't assuming any power they don't have. The congressional resolution simply expresses the opinion of Congress. The only real tool Congress has to stop an undeclared war waged by an uncooperative president is cutting off funding.

3/1/2007 11:05:58 AM

congress is merely reflecting the opinion of the masses....not saying they should have more power, just that providing resistance to something that both they and the people in general disagree with is a good thing.

3/1/2007 11:06:39 AM

Quote :

"Yes, objectively I can say that if a politician says they will ignore the checks and balances of another branch that is a violation of the oath of office to preserve and protect the constitution."

Which checks and balances is Bush ignoring here? Congress has to pony up the votes 1st, which doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon.

Quote :

"Well, Iran is the worlds leading state sponsor of terrorism and has continually escalated regional tensions with their nuclear programs. Makes you wonder why we didn't go after them first, eh? Hows that for a kook theory. "

Saddam was deemed a bigger threat at the time, and now Iran is surrounded on the east and west by our military.

Quote :

"As a former combat arms soldier, I find that highly unlikely. I bet you are a chickenhawk that has never spent a day in your life in the military, but yet you believe that you can paint yourself as some type of patriotic gatekeeper to the discussion of the troops. Unless you have walked the walk, sit down and shut up."

You're right, I have never been in the military and thanks for your service. However, that doesn't limit my feelings on the issues of national defense, the security of the United States, or the war on terror. I don't have to walk a mile in your shoes to be able to distinguish whether somebody is a threat to this country or not.

Quote :

"If predictability is our downfall, then its much better than the constantly shifting sands of ignorance. Such as in the comic I posted from your gallery....if you aren't correct, just try and redefine the terms of the argument to fit your answer to make you seem like you were right all along!"

Saddam was a threat, period. There's no question that he wanted to escalate his nuclear capabilities.

3/3/2007 11:49:36 AM

Everyone involved should be fulfilling their constitutional obligations. The President shouldn't be acting like he can ignore Congress, and Congress shouldn't be trying to run a war. I don't care how they want to run it, either -- it's just not a job suitable for a large body.

3/3/2007 12:00:40 PM

^ Exactly. There's a reason why the founders made the President the commander in chief and not the Congress.

3/3/2007 12:03:31 PM

Quote :

"what happened to people respecting the system of CHECKS AND GODDAMNED BALANCES "

Well, defying a non-binding resolution isn't exactly defying a check/balance.

Also, presidents have done so in the past during wartime (not that I agree with it or support it)

3/3/2007 2:44:52 PM

Quote :

"Saddam was a threat, period. There's no question that he wanted to escalate his nuclear capabilities."

based on what?

faulty, manipulated, and made up "intelligence"?

niger yellowcake ftw.

3/3/2007 4:17:41 PM

Well, 0EPII1, I dunno...to say he wanted to escalate his nuclear capabilities could mean several different things. You seem to be taking it, "He was seeking to escalate them," which is probably inaccurate, but I think it's fair to say that at the very least he had the desire to escalate them, knew that he couldn't at the time, and so didn't.

Ultimately I consider anyone who has even that thought in his head to be a threat, if perhaps not in and of itself one worthy of the current situation.

I heard Lieberman make a good (God forbid!) point this morning about the issue, which is that Congress's check over the President in this matter is that they directly control funding -- not strategy. If they really want to do something, they can threaten to cut off the money flow. It'll take some balls and some well-reasoned fast-talk to convince everyone they're not failing to support the troops, but I think now they could get away with it.

And that, rather than this nonsense, is what they should be doing.

3/4/2007 12:14:33 PM

wait, i though libbies were pissed off that our boys didn't have the right gear for the iraq war and that the boys were paying the price with their lives. NOW the libbies want to cut the funding that they say was already inadequate?

3/4/2007 11:57:14 PM

Guess what? The so-called surge may be working:

Quote :

"The arrival of a new American commander in Baghdad, General David Petraeus, is said to have 're-energised' the Americans' headquarters almost overnight. The appointment of a little-known but energetic Iraqi general, Aboud Qanbar, to oversee the operation in Baghdad, a compromise candidate between the first choices of the Iraqi government and the Americans, has been a pleasant surprise, according to those who have met him. More important, Iraq's government has kept its promise to send in ten extra police and army brigades. American forces have moved out of their well-defended bases into local outposts run jointly with the Iraqi army and police. The second-ranking American general in Iraq, Ray Odierno, says that in the past three weeks the number of corpses discovered has dropped dramatically. Based on police reports, the Associated Press counted 164 bodies found in the capital in the 13 days after the campaign's official start on February 14th, compared with 390 in the same period the month before. Anbar province, the Sunni insurgents' heartland, may also be changing a tad for the better, as some Iraqi factions and tribal groups are said to be turning against al-Qaeda-linked insurgent cells and seeking to accommodate the Iraqi government."

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8786328

3/5/2007 12:23:59 AM