As usual, the left shows how loony they really are

[Cinema Face]

The left seems to be on the wrong side of most issues.

I really don’t know what happened to the left. I wonder what happened to the FDR, Truman and Pearson’s of the left. They had some great leaders in the past. They have nothing now but corrupt, incompetent, whiney sniveling weasels running the left like Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Trudeau and of course, Cretin.

There are exceptions of course. There is Tony Blair who I believe is a reasonably good leader. There are also some slimey right wing leaders as well.

I sum up the problems of the left as follows:

They’re hypocrites. They will tolerate extreme corruption from their own candidates. If you confront them about their corrupt candidate, they will grudgingly say, “oh well, all politicians are crooks” or something like that. But let a right wing politician deviate from the straight and narrow and they will whine to no end about it.

They have selective memories. They forget that Clinton bombed Iraq, Bosnia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia but when Bush does it, he’s a war monger.

They do the wrong things for the wrong reasons. They do things that make them feel good regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

They’re anti-war but they have no problem sending troops to some far away place to fight some injustice. Witness Somalia. They send troops to fight a battle because it makes them feel good. They feel they’re doing the right thing, but let some of those troops come back in body bags, then they run away from the fight like the sniveling cowards that they really are.

They’re defeatists. We can’t win in Afghanistan. Oops. I guess we did. We can’t win in Iraq. Oops. I guess they did but they will never have an election. Oops. I guess they did that too.

They’re into government intervention at all levels of our lives. The government is responsible for our quality of life and not ourselves.

They support democracy only when it suits them. When they loose, they will cry foul, protest, disrupt the democratic process, threaten to leave the country when they don’t win.

They call everyone Hitler or a Nazi when they don’t agree with them.

They are tolerant to every culture except this one and every religion except Christianity. If someone has any sort of Christian beliefs, then they’re some kind of religious fanatic.

They excuse personal irresponsibility. It’s not a criminal’s fault he’s a criminal. It’s somehow society’s fault. Therefore we must coddle this criminal to compensate for our failings with him.

 

[onthebottom]

the left is a bigger movement then just the American left.... but on the topic of the american left i think you at being misleading in your list:



the bush regime has fascist tendancies



invading and occupying iraq was illegal



the u.s. is losing the war - we'll see if it's objectivs are met in the next few years.....



iraq could become another vietnam.... admittedly this is less likely to happen now the u.s. has put iraqis in the line of fire instead of thsemselves



the iraq election did not meet international standards for a democractic election - for exmaple they were held while the country was under occupation by a foreign power

Peepingtom, HC proved your point!

LOL

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Does it get any dumber than this? Are we on the left so desperate that we pray for this crap to be true?

The Americans can correct me if I'm wrong - if they were to impeach GWB the job falls to Cheney yuck but considering how things are run with this administration, Cheney would also get the boot and then it becomes the speaker's job shudder.

Anyways all of this is not relevant since the CONGRESS has to convict GWB - hell even Vegas wouldn't take this bet because there wouldn't be enough money on the planet to pay that bet off.

I think after reading this thread it's time to start a new political movement - I'm thinking something that involves booze, women and cigars.


bbk


I wonder if William Jefferson would be interested

Pray tell what law has Bush broken that would make him susceptible to impeachment. bbking, I feel for you, the loony part of the US left gives all those sympathetic to the Democrats look stupid.

OTB

 

[Don]

Isn't this the pot demanding the kettle be mirror bright?

not really.... actually no.

 

[Asterix]

The right of declaring war is one of the powers of the executive, which is the POTUS. Congress provides the budgetary appropriation - which it did, furthermore, the removal of the sultan has been Americal law since 1998. One could hardly imagine a more just and legal war - the President obeyed the law and declared war.

Trying to rewrite the Constitution again Tom? The power to declare war lies with the congress. That so many presidents have tried to sidestep it since WWII was the reasoning behind the War Powers Act. We are not yet at the point where a president would risk major commitment of troops without at least going to congress for a resolution, though the trend is certainly in that direction. The founding fathers gave congress that power for good reason. They recognized the imperialist tendencies of the British crown, and did not want to make the same mistake here.

 

[Peeping Tom]

The procedure has Congress impeach the POTUS. The case is then sent to the Senate, which conducts the trial.

Anyways all of this is not relevant since the CONGRESS has to convict GWB - hell even Vegas wouldn't take this bet because there wouldn't be enough money on the planet to pay that bet off.

Sounds like an interesting political movement - I'll sign up, my preferences are: single malt, blonde and Sumatra wrapper.

I think after reading this thread it's time to start a new political movement - I'm thinking something that involves booze, women and cigars.

 

[Peeping Tom]

I knew some brave soul would step up to the plate. Only four more years!

LOL++

Peepingtom, HC proved your point!

LOL

OTB

 

[Truncador]

The intentions of the Founding Fathers can't change the nature of things. It is necessarily the case that, in any sovereign State, the Executive has the inherent right to unilaterally make war, since by definition the executive power is the power of enforcement, and who holds this power is the final source of authority (since power ultimately rests on force). It cannot be shared, and any attempt to force it to be shared is doomed to long-term failure and the restoration of the natural balance of power. This correction process has been clearly evident since the infancy of the Republic.

 

[oldjones]

PeepingTom the Constitution in Article 8 assigns Congress the power to declare war. I found a list of American foreign 'wars', "…234 instances in which the United States has used its armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes.…
The instances differ greatly in number of forces, purpose, extent of hostilities, and legal authorization. Five of the instances are declared wars: the War of 1812, the Mexican War of 1846, the Spanish American War of 1898, World War I declared in 1917, and World War II declared in 1941."

WWI and II as the only world wars ever are sorta special cases, but I'm fascinated that the remaining three times Congress declared war it was to authorize invasion and territorial expansion. Especially fascinated as a citizen of one of those invaded lands.

Now I know there are other views: you invaded my country to liberate us from the paternal British yoke, and the casus belli in '98 was the dastardly sinking of the USS Maine, (the WMD of the day, some assert). And I know you gave Cuba, and the Phillipines back, finally. Well all except for a few naval bases anyway. And you didn't get to keep any of Canada, so we're making you buy it bit by bit. But looks like you're keeping the Mexico you stole fair and square. Isn't it curious though that apart from twice making the world safe for democracy, Congress has only used that power in those instances?

So Tom you're probably right enough in fact, though wrong on paper. Whoever it was sending all those boys to die killing all those other boys, it wasn't Congress resolutely declaring war, and since the President can't declare war, golly, what a collection of euphemisms have been used to flex those mighty military muscles.

 

[Asterix]

It is necessarily the case that, in any sovereign State, the Executive has the inherent right to unilaterally make war, since by definition the executive power is the power of enforcement...

Bullshit. Not even GW would make so outrageous a claim. In a democracy, in which I assume we still live here in the US, it is incumbent on a president to make his case, confer with, and reach assent with congress to engage in war. This does not preclude him from acting to commit forces in an emergency, but a US president has no "right to unilaterally make war". That would, I hope, only be reserved for totalitarian governments.

 

[onthebottom]

Bullshit. Not even GW would make so outrageous a claim. In a democracy, in which I assume we still live here in the US, it is incumbent on a president to make his case, confer with, and reach assent with congress to engage in war. This does not preclude him from acting to commit forces in an emergency, but a US president has no "right to unilaterally make war". That would, I hope, only be reserved for totalitarian governments.

Didn't Kerry and his buddies give W that option in Iraq?

OTB

 

[Asterix]

Didn't Kerry and his buddies give W that option in Iraq?

OTB

Most of congress did. History will show the wisdom of that decision. My point is that no US preisdent has, or should have in a democracy, a unilateral right to wage war.

 

[onthebottom]

Most of congress did. History will show the wisdom of that decision. My point is that no US preisdent has, or should have in a democracy, a unilateral right to wage war.

Most presidents have a different view but I share yours. Unfortunately history would tell us that Congress is too meek and lacks vision to make good decisions in this realm (WW II is a perfect example).

OTB

 

[Truncador]

This does not preclude him from acting to commit forces in an emergency, but a US president has no "right to unilaterally make war".

Note that the first proposition directly contradicts the second.

That would, I hope, only be reserved for totalitarian governments.

Why would it be "totalitarian" to allow the executive instance of the system to possess the full complement of powers it enjoys by its very nature ? It strikes me that forcing the President to share this power is about on a par with allowing the judiciary to raise taxes or granting the several states the right to enter into foreign treaties. In all of these cases, devolving powers downward, in spite of appearances, does violence to the system of checks and balances in that the rights and privileges inherent to the superior instances would be infringed upon; it would itself be totalitarian.

 

[Asterix]

Note that the first proposition directly contradicts the second.

Note that it doesn't. In the first instance I refer to a president's power to respond to a direct attack on the US without needing to seek assent, in the second I refer to a president's obligation to seek assent for initiating and waging war.

Why would it be "totalitarian" to allow the executive instance of the system to possess the full complement of powers it enjoys by its very nature ? It strikes me that forcing the President to share this power is about on a par with allowing the judiciary to raise taxes or granting the several states the right to enter into foreign treaties. In all of these cases, devolving powers downward, in spite of appearances, does violence to the system of checks and balances in that the rights and privileges inherent to the superior instances would be infringed upon; it would itself be totalitarian.

Forcing a president to share his power? The whole system is based on the sharing of power, as you say, checks and balances. How is this anything on a par with the ridiculous example you give of "allowing the judiciary to raise taxes"? You are pointless to have a discussion with since you seem only interested in seeing how many ways you can stand logic on it's head. Ever consider a career in advertising?

 

[Truncador]

Forcing a president to share his power? The whole system is based on the sharing of power, as you say, checks and balances. How is this anything on a par with the ridiculous example you give of "allowing the judiciary to raise taxes"? You are pointless to have a discussion with since you seem only interested in seeing how many ways you can stand logic on it's head.

All I'm saying is that part of the very idea of a system of checks and balances is that each branch has to remain within its proper sphere of competence, or, failing of that, at least respect the right of the other branches to exercise the powers that inhere to their proper sphere of competence. Whether or not this is standing logic on its head, historical practice, as the USDOJ has noted, "demonstrates that the power to initiate military hostilities...rests exclusively with the President". The authors also note that:

The normative role of historical practice in constitutional law, and especially with regard to separation of powers, is well settled...Both the Supreme Court and the political branches have often recognized that governmental practice plays a highly significant role in establishing the contours of the constitutional separation of powers: "a systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of the Congress and never before questioned . . . may be treated as a gloss on 'executive Power' vested in the President...Indeed, as the Court has observed, the role of practice in fixing the meaning of the separation of powers is implicit in the Constitution itself: "the Constitution . . . contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government."

In short, as I argued a few posts earlier, Constitutional law has to adjust itself to the nature of things as it plays itself out in reality, not the other way around (which, in addition to being unworkable, would comprise a form of hubris deserving of the name, "totalitarian").

 

[onthebottom]

at every turn the Bushites attempt to undermine and erode the constitution. you havent been watching very carefully.

I think that’s liberal judges that keep making up new laws you're thinking of.

i know that bush feels he is above them, but there are international laws. iraq is a sovereign state too but it didnt stop Bush from invading.

He had UNSC approval......

depends what you consider VICTORY to be..... i don't think the deaths of over 100,000 civlians and nearly 2000 "coalition' troops is anything to celebrate. not to mention the destructi8on of infrastructure, looting, lawlessness, etc etc

if thats victory then the "war" probably wasnt worth fighting.....

i like the way thris thread drew out the loony right....

So, someone needs to tell Europe we didn't really win WWII because there were casualties...... silly liberal.

OTB

 

[oldjones]

He [George II] had UNSC approval......[for the Iraq war]
OTB

More properly, you should have said "claims UNSC approval". If the UNSC had said "go get 'em Georgie", even Anan would hardly call the US invasion "…not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal". Like wild west vigilantes, impatient with the Sherrif, who burn out the sod busters, the Coalition claimed a right no one ever conferred on them.

As a charter member of the raving right, your oversimplification is predictably absurd. A simple summary makes it clear that even in the unlikely event we agreed the UNSC should have approved a war, they most definitely did not.

 

[oldjones]

You know what really gets me about you guys is that somehow you and Anan for that matter believe that the UN charter overrides soveriegn rights - it doesn't and there would have been no way in hell any of the founding powers would cede soviergnty to anyone.

Chapter 7 of the UN Charter is so loose in it's wording that many other nations including the Arab nations, Russia and China have taken advantage of it over the objections of others including the US.

With regards to the US/Iraq war, the UN charter chapter 7 doesn't specify a realistic or unrealistic fear of being attack as a reason for invoking self-defense - hell it not even clear who you're defending against. In the case of the US, realistic or not, after 9/11 the US decided that so that it would not be attacked again it invoke the doctrine of pe-emptive strike, that generally is considered an act of self defense. Now you can all go on and on about the morality of the US decission but their is no way in hell you could say that the US violated the UN Charter when the wording of Chapter 7 is so vague.

BTW if you read Anan's statements he uses the key word's "May have" - he is doing this for political purposes only, designed to isolate the US from other countries in the world.


bbk

Hey, hey, simmer down. You don't know what I believe about the Charter and sovereignty, because I've never posted on the topic. But OTB asserts George II "… had UNSC approval", an assertion Anan's statement flatly contradicts—whether or not one wants to quarrel over the precise meaning of illegal.

Of course the Charter (now you'll know)doesn't override sovereignty. But George tries to have it both ways: saying the invasion—conventionally an invasion is considered a breach of sovereignty— is OK because it gives effect to UNSC 1441, but ignoring the UN when it disapproves. In fact he asserted US sovereignty, its 'right' to do what it damn well pleases.

Perhaps you could cite some authority or rationale for the statement that "preemptive strike "generally is considered an act of self defense". That's always the self-serving claim, but the reality is the bully getting in the first—and last—blow. Why that doctrine would have justified Saddam attacking the US pre-emptively, wouldn't it?

 

[oldjones]

OK, Fair enough, just remember that I don't necessarily agree with every word of everyone I quote. That quote was the official, elected UN spokesman's judgement of the action which OTB claims that the UNSC approved. "Not" woulda been good enough for me, but he said "illegal".

I'm with you on the repugnace of pre-emption. I remember cold war US Presidents proudly boasting that upstanding Americans would never stoop to such a tactic, though those unprincipled Commies might. Now if we can, they will.

But again I'd distinguish between the claim of self-defence and the actuality, as does the law (where there are courts to decide such things). Belief alone is not sufficient—the deluded get off because of diminished capacity, not self-defence—the threat must be imminent, without possibility of other recourse, and the response must be reasonable and proportional to the danger.

I believe the US invasion fails those very sensible tests for "self-defence". I suppose I might consider diminished responsibility if there was a demonstrable intention to do better instead of just turning up the volume on the voices in the national head. American propaganda portrays it as a sort of self-anointed world-policeman, but to me and many others it's behaviour's hardly distinguishable from that of a fast-talking schoolyard bully making excuses.

Couldn't agee more with your last point. The US's firm resolve to ignore the evidence and make its own rules has set back the cause of peace and harmony between nations immeasurably.