Say Anything Blog

Meaningless resolutions.

The Democrats have never been concerned about the safety of our troops. It is all about money and power, not solutions.

The Democratic plan is to paint the worst possible scenario regarding this war to bolster their run at the Presidency because then they would have control of the purse.

I’ve said it before. The true “Culture of Corruption” is the DNC. Clinton and Pelosi are cut from the same cloth.

And the sheeple say Baaa baaa baaa Bush is baaaaad.

Seems like Congress could modify the AUMF though, and that likely could constitutionally include things like restrictions in force levels..

They could...but that seems to go beyond the intent of the founders.  Congress is authorized to declare war, not declare war and determine how many troops should fight in that war.

That’s why the Constitution made the President the commander-in-chief.

They could make a case out of it I guess, and the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on anything remotely like that (to my knowledge), but do we really want to live in a country where Congress can say “We can fight the Chinese, but not using more than 100,000 troops, 2 carriers and 100 fighter jets.”

I don’t want our wars to be micro-managed to that extent by Congress.  You don’t win wars by committee.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Yeah, Mickey, that Senator Webb could give a shit about his son over in Iraq.

"You don’t win wars by committee”, rob writes, hmmmm..... where oh where did we hear that recently. Was that an original statement Rob, or maybe did you swipe it from Cheney?

This legislative initiative has nothing to do with the war in Iraq, or the separation of powers either.

This merely Hillary’s attempt to ratchet up her credibility with the anti-war Left within the Democrat party.  Indeed, any individual, Left or Right, who aspires to the Presidency, would hardly wish to assume the office knowing that their own actions as Commander-in-Chief could be legislatively countermanded by a simple Congressional majority.

As I pointed out last week, Hillary is carefully orchestrating her move leftward now that she is safely ensconced in a second term in the Senate.  This legislative offering is nothing more than a cynical means of saying, “See… I’m okay ‘cause I oppose Bush in Iraq too.”

Just like McCain and the rest of the GOP field are trying to establish some sort of conservative credibility with the GOP base, so Hillary is trying to establish her own acceptability to the Democrat’s virulent Left.  Without doing so, she has no chance of getting the ‘08 nomination.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Yeah, Mickey, that Senator Webb could give a shit about his son over in Iraq.

I see...so Senator Webb is another one of the left’s perfect victims, right?  We’re not allowed to criticize his position on Iraq because he has a kid there?

“You don’t win wars by committee”, rob writes, hmmmm..... where oh where did we hear that recently. Was that an original statement Rob, or maybe did you swipe it from Cheney?

Did Cheney say it recently?  I read it somewhere once a while ago.  If Cheney used the term he’s right.  You don’t win wars by committee.  Putting Congress in charge of micromanaging a given war effort is a sure way to introduce even more politics and bureaucratic nonsense into our wars than is already present.

Taking the partisan blinders off, Puzzle, you surely can’t be in favor of that.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Yeah, Mickey, that Senator Webb could give a shit about his son over in Iraq.

Ah, yes.  The hollow echoes of Barbara Boxer in full throat.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bush could fix it with a signing statement, which in my opinion is not legal either but he does it all of the time.

seriosly?  capping troop levels?  i can see it now… Congress is in recess (like it always is), and all of the military leadership in Iraq says we need a thousand more troops to seal the border between IRaq and Iran to stop the movement of a nuke… but we can’t… because Hillary is in Iowa campaiging and her stupid bill won’t let the President send in more troops. 

C’mon… even if you’re against the war… how can you be for this bill.  Hillary doesn’t no SHIT about winning a war.  She doesn’t know SHIT about military strategy… PLEASE let the military fight the war.

If Barbara Boxer, and Puzzlefeet, were right, and only those who are actually in jeopardy of paying the price for the War in Iraq should have a say in how it is conducted, then wouldn’t the same logic dictate that only those who pay the price for government (taxes) should have a say in how their tax money is spent?

I realize that logical consistency is not exactly the hallmark of leftist thinking, but is it not “fair” to apply the same rules to all the animals in the barnyard?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

seriosly?  capping troop levels?  i can see it now… Congress is in recess (like it always is), and all of the military leadership in Iraq says we need a thousand more troops to seal the border between IRaq and Iran to stop the movement of a nuke… but we can’t… because Hillary is in Iowa campaiging and her stupid bill won’t let the President send in more troops. 

C’mon… even if you’re against the war… how can you be for this bill.  Hillary doesn’t no SHIT about winning a war.  She doesn’t know SHIT about military strategy… PLEASE let the military fight the war.

Good point then why is she talking on Fox news right now?
There must not be anything more new worthy right now. So do the dems just expect us to accept the Hillary doctrine? We all know how her and her husband bill loathed the military and could give two craps about it. Of course most people don’t see her transparency.

Notice all of a sudden they are trying to get us out of Iraq and send more troops to Afghanastan. All under the guise of the word redeployment.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

puzzlefeet,

I’d like to know exactly what duty that Senator Webbs son is actually doing.

I remember another “chosen son” named Gore who had his own body guard in Nam.

Give me a break with the disingenous compassion, please

Mickey,

You forgot to mention W’s stellar military record (or lack thereof).

Richard:

Bush could fix it with a signing statement, which in my opinion is not legal either but he does it all of the time.

Since when isn’t a signing statement legal?

I think most of the public doesn’t understand what a signing statement is.  The way President Bush has used them it is essentially a description of his understanding of the law and how he intends to execute it.

If Congress feels he’s wrong they go to the courts.  But there’s nothing wrong with what Bush has done.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

So let me see if I have this straight Rob:  Mickey writes:

“The Democrats have never been concerned about the safety of our troops.”

I respond and point out a democrat who has a son in Iraq. Rob responds by saying [quote]"I see...so Senator Webb is another one of the left’s perfect victims, right?  We’re not allowed to criticize his position on Iraq because he has a kid there? ”

Whaaaat?  Mickey made definitive about democrats never caring about the safety of the troops. I pointed out the fallacy of that statement by writing that Webb has a son and Rob then takes to an entirely different level by claiming that “what we can’t criticize” and the “leftie victim” meme.  That wasn’t the point and you know it Rob but instead of a cogent response you trot out the typical rightie meme.

And Mickey finally claims he will judge a democratic senators son’s service to this country and decide if he is worthy or a real part of the troops serving in Iraq. 

What drivvel!  And finally B1 tops it off with this shining statement:

If Barbara Boxer, and Puzzlefeet, were right, and only those who are actually in jeopardy of paying the price for the War in Iraq should have a say in how it is conducted, then wouldn’t the same logic dictate that only those who pay the price for government (taxes) should have a say in how their tax money is spent?

So Mickey can judge a soldiers worthiness as to his job in Iraq and that democrats don’t support the troops and when called on his statement which incidentally had nothing to do whatsoever with anyone’s ability to speak on how the war is conducted and B1 comes to his defense with another old tired rightie meme.

I think you all doth protest too much.  Please try rereading

Mickey’s statement is too much of a blanket statement, but it’s not without merit.  If Democrats cared about troop safety they’d be trying to de-authorize this war so that our troops aren’t on the field and in danger for one minute longer than necessary in this war the Dems have no intention of even trying to win.

So yeah, I misread his comment to you, but you know damn well what I’m talking about with the left’s perfect victims.

And as for re-reading, maybe if your comments weren’t a collection of run-on sentences it would be a bit easier.

The way President Bush has used them it is essentially a description of his understanding of the law and how he intends to execute it.

The courts have the legislative record to see what they were thinking when they wrote the law.  Without a signing statement the President has no way of introducing his interpretation into the record. 

It’s actually a method to make it harder for the courts to make things up.

Plus it’s a great way to let everyone know what’s going to happen next.

TANSTAAFL

Gee Carol, I’ll be waiting for you to be an english professor with your son as well, Ok?  Like “sorta kinda” for starters.

I think he uses signing statements as a form of line item veto, you know “sota kinda” (yes I am chuckling), rather than veto this law I will just add a signing statement that says it does not apply to me therefore it is part of the law. IMO he has done this before so why doesn’t he just do it again if they do attempt to cap troop levels, which I do no think they have the authority to do.

The interesting this is I watched the news before I went to bed last night and the hot button issue issue the left wing MSM media is trumpeting right now is pull the troops out of Iraq, no one has brought up what is going to happen when we leave and put more troops in Afghanastan. It seems hyprocritcila troop surge for Afghan good troop surge for Iraq not good. I don’t get it?

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

If Bush trashes the constitution and separation of powers in his fear-ridden christian coddling then that’s fine, BUT GOD FOBID A DEM DO IT! THATS THE END OF THE FUCKING WORLD! Signing statements? Flat-out lying anyone?

Y’all started the fad. Get used to it.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

The president got congretional approval to fight this war now all these politicians seem to have forgotten that.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

The courts have the legislative record to see what they were thinking when they wrote the law.  Without a signing statement the President has no way of introducing his interpretation into the record.

Here’s where some forms of originalism run into rough shoals.  Rather than focusing on public meaning, they focus on the intent of the drafters solely (if not theoretically, then practically).  An originalism that focused on public meaning would be open to signing statements as a legitimate subject of interpretative authority.  I don’t recall many uses of signing statements in originalist opinions (I could be totally wrong, though, and there could be tons of ‘em)

At any rate, it seems that most of Bush’s signing statements (again, I could be totally wrong) are driven by his administration’s unitary executive theory rather than a desire to stamp his interpretation on a law.  They’re reservations of rights rather than interpretations. (neither form of signing statement bothers me for that)