War in Iraq, part 7,459,637
President Bush has given a LOT of speeches about the "War" in Iraq, but he said something very interesting and very important earlier today during an exchange with reporters.
Something else that is interesting about that exchange is his stuttering at the end. This wasn't a planned release, soemthing that they WANTED to admit to, or else he wouldn't have been unnerved by spilling it there. Oh, those reporters are just too tricky for poor old President Bush. And after he accidently let the lying, document-falsifying cat out-of-the-bag and tried to recover by going back to his stand-by excuse for everything, September 11th. That day is NOT a catch-all excuse for every stupid mistake he makes.
In a seperate interview, Bush also said:
"if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation, as far as I'm concerned."
Umm, more deaths in the past 3 months than any 3 month span in our occupation's history, took the elected Iraqi officials months to even get together and begin working on selecting a leader, that is democracy? I think not. What we have in Iraq right now is an anarchy; no order, people living in constant fear of death, these are not the ingredients of a sucessful democracy.
And finally, Bush has said multiple times that as long as he is president, we will not leave Iraq. As if he has a choice. You see, while calling our occupation of a sovereign nation a "War" may have helped his political policy in the short run, and the fact that he has obviously never read the Constitution, the legislative branch has final authority regarding troop control. I've touched on this in the past, so let me just review; the powers invested in the president as "Commander in Chief" were described by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers as being "No more tha Chief strategist or general." And as we all know, generals do not start or end wars, they only do the planning during. The legislative branch can, at any time due to a vote, withdraw troops from any situation of war.
So the question becomes, is the "War" in Iraq an actual war? Well, we never actually signed a declaration of war, so that would be a strike against it. However, the president, his administration, as well as every member of congress have made it a point to call it both the "War in Iraq" and the broader "War on Terrorism." Also, over the past 40 years congress has passed, instead of declarations of war, Authorizations of Force, which amount to almost the same thing. What it comes down to, as many issues do, is the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. And that is a very cloudy issue to be debated by people even smarter than I. What is NOT debatable, however, is that the invasion of Iraq has been pushed down our throats as a "War" since day one. The president and congress have both treated it as one since it began. Just because the nametag doesn't say "War" doesn't mean we should all be decieved, especially when the president just throws around the word to help his political agenda. And if this IS a war, then congress has the power to withdraw troops at any time, regardless of what the president wants. Remember, Commander-In-Chief means chief strategist, not supreme leader who answers to nobody.
Bush: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were …
About time someone in the administration said what all of us have none for 2 years; Iraq had NOTHING to do with our other "War", that on terrorism. They've always been talking and hinting about Iraq having "connections" with Al Quieda, Zarkawi, etc, but now he has finally admitted that they had nothing to do with each other. I guess it's time to check off number 17 my "List of reasons we invaded Iraq that turned out to be completely false and the President new it."QUESTION: What did Iraqi have to do with that?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?QUESTION: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing. . . . .Except for it’s part of — and nobody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize,
Something else that is interesting about that exchange is his stuttering at the end. This wasn't a planned release, soemthing that they WANTED to admit to, or else he wouldn't have been unnerved by spilling it there. Oh, those reporters are just too tricky for poor old President Bush. And after he accidently let the lying, document-falsifying cat out-of-the-bag and tried to recover by going back to his stand-by excuse for everything, September 11th. That day is NOT a catch-all excuse for every stupid mistake he makes.
In a seperate interview, Bush also said:
"if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation, as far as I'm concerned."
Umm, more deaths in the past 3 months than any 3 month span in our occupation's history, took the elected Iraqi officials months to even get together and begin working on selecting a leader, that is democracy? I think not. What we have in Iraq right now is an anarchy; no order, people living in constant fear of death, these are not the ingredients of a sucessful democracy.
And finally, Bush has said multiple times that as long as he is president, we will not leave Iraq. As if he has a choice. You see, while calling our occupation of a sovereign nation a "War" may have helped his political policy in the short run, and the fact that he has obviously never read the Constitution, the legislative branch has final authority regarding troop control. I've touched on this in the past, so let me just review; the powers invested in the president as "Commander in Chief" were described by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers as being "No more tha Chief strategist or general." And as we all know, generals do not start or end wars, they only do the planning during. The legislative branch can, at any time due to a vote, withdraw troops from any situation of war.
So the question becomes, is the "War" in Iraq an actual war? Well, we never actually signed a declaration of war, so that would be a strike against it. However, the president, his administration, as well as every member of congress have made it a point to call it both the "War in Iraq" and the broader "War on Terrorism." Also, over the past 40 years congress has passed, instead of declarations of war, Authorizations of Force, which amount to almost the same thing. What it comes down to, as many issues do, is the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. And that is a very cloudy issue to be debated by people even smarter than I. What is NOT debatable, however, is that the invasion of Iraq has been pushed down our throats as a "War" since day one. The president and congress have both treated it as one since it began. Just because the nametag doesn't say "War" doesn't mean we should all be decieved, especially when the president just throws around the word to help his political agenda. And if this IS a war, then congress has the power to withdraw troops at any time, regardless of what the president wants. Remember, Commander-In-Chief means chief strategist, not supreme leader who answers to nobody.
posted by Burn1nMyLight at 4:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home