Comments on: Bush: Doing what we voted him to do (UPDATE II)

By: Duane

Duane — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:19:30 +0000

DBlack,

I am adding some of my findings from the Net to the posting above.

By: Dblack

Dblack — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:23:54 +0000

There is no excuse or rationalization for encroaching upon our basic and fundamental human rights. If this is in fact illegal, Bush should be Impbeached.

Bush is using a broad statement of the constitution as a blank-check on his executive powers. If that broad statement was even remotely applicable to his powers, then he would not have needed congress to give him ’sole’ authority to launch this clearly illegal war.

Democrats have been quiet at time when they should not have, but one has to be very careful when the opposing party has a wartime presidency. It’s far too easy for any comments or decisions to be demonized and taken out of context to the advantage of the administration in power.

Furthermore, Murtha or the Demo party did not suffer an embarrassment. The immediate quick vote was launched by the republicans as a cheap, unconstructive, unproductive tactic to get those opposing the war to make a public stand as to pull out or not pull out IMMEDIATELY. Murtha was calling for the immeidate consideration to start getting troops out of Iraq in a way that minimizes risk to mission and troops.

The Republicans have shown once again, their utter contempt for American’s laws and her constitution.

By: Duane

Duane — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 06:46:02 +0000

I see the problem when the rights of Americans are abused or if the government abuses the power that it has.

But what if those “Americans” have intentions on doing harm to other Americans? This is where this huge debate does its “deer in the headlights” impression.

Look, Bush should go to congress and ask for an official declaration of war.

Then that begs the question “Would Democrats and even some Republicans have the “pair” to consider such an action?” I only ask that because that would a pretty major action for the US to declare war on an organization and not a country (mind you, an organizaton that cloaks itself in a major religion). Bush would have had to ask for a lot more than $87 bil .

I see your point, but naah. That would have been a far worse move

By: DarkStar

DarkStar — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:53:46 +0000

I see the problem when the rights of Americans are abused or if the government abuses the power that it has.

The fact that some members of congress knew means it was legal.

The fact that the president says it’s legal means that it was legal.

If war had been declared, I’d be fully in the camp behind our president, but it wasn’t. I don’t want to hear/read any “defacto” garbage. There was no explicit declaration of war.

And I’m sorry, but the means don’t justify the ends.

Look, Bush should go to congress and ask for an official declaration of war.