Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Feb 13th, 2003, 08:24 PM        Democrats finally growing a spine....?
While I admire their intent, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they have a case. To my understanding, the President can send out troops for a certain amount of time before needing to run it by Congress. Also, Congress already DID give him a free pass on war months ago, so this may be too little too late.

Also, this....

"At the news conference, Lessin said she worried about her son, Joe, a Marine stationed in the Gulf.

"We worry about Joe," she said. "We don't want him to be wounded or die. We don't want him to be forced to wound or kill innocent Iraqi civilians. That would kill part of him and part of us.""

SO WHY DID HE JOIN THE MARINE CORP. !!!!???

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...3-093506-8792r

Suit questions Bush's war powers

By David D. Haskell
From the National Desk
Published 2/13/2003 3:25 PM

BOSTON, Feb. 13 (UPI) -- A lawsuit filed in federal court in Boston Thursday seeks to prevent President Bush from going to war against Iraq without congressional approval.

A coalition including six House members, several U.S. soldiers and parents of servicemen claims only Congress has that power under the Constitution.

"We have a message for President Bush today. Read the Constitution," John Bonifaz, the plaintiffs' lead attorney, said at a news conference announcing the suit.

"A war against Iraq without a congressional declaration of war will be illegal and unconstitutional," he said. "It is time for the courts to intervene."

The representatives joining the suit, all Democrats, are John Conyers of Michigan, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, James McDermott of Washington, Jose Serrano of New York, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas and Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois.

The U.S. Attorney's office said it had no comment on the suit.

The plaintiffs asked for a preliminary injunction against the president and for a hearing on their request that Bush be barred from launching a military invasion against Iraq without a congressional declaration of war.

The lawsuit cites Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which reads: "Congress shall have power... (to) declare war."

The suit argues the resolution on Iraq that Congress passed in October did not declare war and unlawfully ceded the decision to Bush.

The suit contends the framers of the Constitution sought to ensure that U.S. presidents would not have the power of European monarchs of the past to wage war.

"The Founding Fathers did not establish an imperial presidency with war-making power," Conyers said. "The Constitution clearly reserves that for Congress."

"The president is not a king," said Charles Richardson, a plaintiff whose Marine son is stationed in the Persian Gulf.

"If he wants to launch a military invasion against Iraq, he must first seek a declaration of war from the United States Congress. Our Constitution demands nothing less," Richardson said.

Richardson and two other plaintiffs -- Nancy Lessin and Jeffrey McKenzie -- are co-founders of Military Families Speak Out, an organization of people opposed to war against Iraq and who have family in the military.

"A full and complete congressional discussion of the issues and all options must precede any move towards war," Lessin said, "because of the irreparable harm that would result."

At the news conference, Lessin said she worried about her son, Joe, a Marine stationed in the Gulf.

"We worry about Joe," she said. "We don't want him to be wounded or die. We don't want him to be forced to wound or kill innocent Iraqi civilians. That would kill part of him and part of us."

Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International
-30-
Reply With Quote
  #2  
ItalianStereotype ItalianStereotype is offline
Legislacerator
ItalianStereotype's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HELL, where all hot things are
ItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty ok
Old Feb 13th, 2003, 08:57 PM       
it is true that the president has full control of military forces "to protect american interests and citizens abroad" for up to 60 days without congressional approval. after that, congress chooses whether or not to extend his abilities. this is why we have only declared war 5 times in our history as a nation.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old Feb 13th, 2003, 10:04 PM       
So you've just been fuckin' around all those other hundreds of times, huh?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
ItalianStereotype ItalianStereotype is offline
Legislacerator
ItalianStereotype's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HELL, where all hot things are
ItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty ok
Old Feb 13th, 2003, 10:06 PM       
indeed
Reply With Quote
  #5  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old Feb 13th, 2003, 10:10 PM       
Oh.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
punkgrrrlie10 punkgrrrlie10 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
punkgrrrlie10 is probably a spambot
Old Feb 13th, 2003, 11:24 PM       
HAHAHAHAH! Inujunction to prevent troops from going over there...yeah right. This is filed in federal court in Boston, which means it won't even get to the supreme court for another couple years. I think it would be all over by then. Not only that but the supreme court won't interfere with nat'l defense. It's one of those things they reserve to political branches; One of the reasons they upheld internment of the Japanese is they felt it was best left to Congress to determine if there were nat'l threats.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Feb 14th, 2003, 12:00 AM        Yeah
"We don't want him to be forced to wound or kill innocent Iraqi civilians."

Yeah because that happens all the time. I've seen "Platoon" man, I know what war is all about.

"You will shoot those Iraqi babies Pvt. Shitbag!"
Reply With Quote
  #8  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Feb 14th, 2003, 12:06 AM       
I'll bet Joe's marine buddies are beating the crap out of him as we speak....momma's boy.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Feb 14th, 2003, 12:25 AM        Sorry to derail this thread.....


DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED????
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Feb 14th, 2003, 09:20 PM       
What about Special Forces? Are they included in the six months?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
ItalianStereotype ItalianStereotype is offline
Legislacerator
ItalianStereotype's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HELL, where all hot things are
ItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty ok
Old Feb 14th, 2003, 09:28 PM       
any and all armed forces under the DoD are included.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Feb 15th, 2003, 02:24 AM       
hmm well in that case... looks like six months times two are up!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
ItalianStereotype ItalianStereotype is offline
Legislacerator
ItalianStereotype's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HELL, where all hot things are
ItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty ok
Old Feb 15th, 2003, 03:04 AM       
its per engagement, not including any extensions granted by congress.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Feb 18th, 2003, 12:20 PM       
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Feb17.html

Democratic Hopefuls Spar Over Iraq War
Iowa Forum Highlights Divide in Party

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 18, 2003; Page A02


Four Democratic presidential candidates clashed over war with Iraq before a labor audience in Iowa yesterday, highlighting sharp divisions within the party over whether President Bush should launch military action without the support of a broad international coalition.

The four candidates, however, found themselves in strong agreement on domestic and economic policies as they pummeled the president as out of touch with average Americans, hostile to the interests of workers and unions and protective of big corporations and special interests.

The four candidates -- Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), former Vermont governor Howard Dean and Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio), the newest entry in the growing field of candidates -- appeared before the Iowa Federation of Labor just outside Des Moines.

Before they had a chance to speak, federation President Mark Smith set the tone with an antiwar message that asked why the Bush administration is ready to spend "billions to retire Saddam Hussein," Iraq's president, but not to protect the retirement security of American workers. "We wonder: What's the hurry to go to war?" Smith said.

By the luck of the draw, the first two candidates to speak agreed with Smith. Dean, who has sought to use his antiwar position to fire up liberal activists in Iowa, not only reminded the audience of his opposition, but also sought to criticize unnamed rivals he said were trying to straddle the issue for political gain.

Praising Lieberman as someone who "stuck to his guns" in support of war, Dean said, "What we can't have is somebody who says to you in Iowa the Iraq war is bad, goes back and votes in favor of the resolution and then comes back and tells you at your county dinners why it's not a good thing."

That appeared to be a slap at Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who is recovering from prostate surgery and was not able to attend the forum. Kerry has been criticized for backing the resolution after speaking out strongly against the administration's willingness to go it alone against Iraq.

But his advisers say Dean, too, has tried to have it both ways by voicing opposition to the war while saying he would favor unilateral action if it were proven that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that represented an imminent threat to the United States.

Kucinich, who said he will establish his presidential campaign committee today, noted that he not only voted against the congressional resolution authorizing Bush to go to war without U.N. approval, but also helped lead the opposition to that measure.

"The facts are these," he said. "Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 or al Qaeda's role in 9/11 or the anthrax attacks on our country. . . . Inspections should continue. They worked before, they can work again. . . . This war is wrong."

Edwards called Hussein "a serious threat" who "must be disarmed" with military force if necessary. "It is a belief that is a principled belief for me," he said.

From there, however, he shifted gears and denounced Bush's general approach to foreign policy. "The problem is he has no vision," Edwards said. "He has no notion of what to do about the underlying problems, the underlying disease. If he's allowed to continue on this course, we will live in a world where generation after generation of people hate us."

Lieberman offered a strong defense of his position in favor of acting to disarm Hussein, noting that he has followed a consistent policy since the Persian Gulf War in 1991. "I'm not going to oppose a policy I've supported for 12 years just because the person who happens to be the commander in chief today is a Republican," he said.

On the economy, all four candidates harshly attacked Bush's tax cuts and other domestic policies, with Lieberman charging that the administration "has bowed to special interests and extreme ideologues" at the expense of working Americans.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Ronnie Raygun is probably a spambot
Old Feb 18th, 2003, 12:58 PM       
moot.

We'll be at war in 2 weeks.
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #16  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Feb 18th, 2003, 01:12 PM       
Tony Blair would disagree. W might be disagreeing in 2004.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Vibecrewangel Vibecrewangel is offline
Member
Vibecrewangel's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Vibecrewangel is probably a spambot
Old Feb 18th, 2003, 05:44 PM        HATE US
Quote:
"...we will live in a world where generation after generation of people hate us."
Don't we already? :/
__________________
Normally, we do not so much look at things as overlook them.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
roonTing roonTing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Texas
roonTing is probably a spambot
Old Feb 19th, 2003, 12:24 AM       
Bowing out shows weakness.
__________________
Out in the open.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
sadie sadie is offline
ineffable
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: ineffability
sadie is probably a spambot
Old Feb 19th, 2003, 12:27 AM       
show me one politician who hasn't bowed down.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
roonTing roonTing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Texas
roonTing is probably a spambot
Old Feb 19th, 2003, 12:34 AM       
Nobody likes a quitter, or a giver-upper... nobody likes a plolitician either.. see the resemblance.
__________________
Out in the open.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
sadie sadie is offline
ineffable
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: ineffability
sadie is probably a spambot
Old Feb 19th, 2003, 12:41 AM       
are you saying there is no room for compromise in politics?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 02:21 AM       
Quote:
"I consider myself a New Democrat," the senator said. "I am very proud of the political identity developed by Democrats during the Clinton administration."
This is really what the Democrats need.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Mar4.html

Clinton Develops Into a Force in the Senate

Growing Role in Policy, Fundraising Fuels Talk of '08 Campaign
advertisement

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 5, 2003; Page A01


Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, after lying low for most of her first two years, is emerging as one of the Senate's most prominent and influential Democrats, moving aggressively on fundraising and policy matters and fueling speculation that she plans to run for president in 2008.

The only first lady to have served in the Senate, Clinton is playing a key role in a behind-the-scenes effort to create at least one new political group, funded with so-called soft money, to promote the Democratic agenda in the 2004 elections and beyond, Democratic officials said. With her help, leading Democrats are putting the finishing touches on a new "activist think tank" designed to crank out policy ideas and disseminate them to voters without running afoul of the new campaign finance laws, the officials said.

"She's strongly encouraging people, including myself, to get our act together, get out there, generate more ideas [and] market our ideas better," said John D. Podesta, chief of staff under President Bill Clinton, who is heading the think tank effort.

In an interview yesterday, Sen. Clinton said, "It would be a tremendous indictment of us" if Democrats do not create new groups to "make sure the point of view we think is needed can be heard."

New York's junior senator also is commanding greater influence over the party's base of trial lawyers, environmentalists, union workers and abortion rights activists through her new leadership assignment: chairman of the Democratic Steering Committee, a Senate organization that helps promote the party's agenda. Leading senators tapped Clinton for the job of revving up party activists and enlisting their help in attacking President Bush and congressional Republicans. She brought civil rights leaders to Washington last week to discuss a broader campaign against Bush judicial nominee Miguel Estrada.

"I am trying to broaden the base of people we have reached out to in the past," Clinton said.

To the chagrin of some Senate Democrats, she is assuming a bigger role in crafting the party's agenda and message for the next election. Most recently, she has been vocal and visible in escalating the fight with Bush over funding for firefighters and other first-responders to emergencies and crime. At the same time, she has tried to cultivate a centrist image for herself, much as her husband did by working the Democratic Leadership Council in the 1990s.

"I consider myself a New Democrat," the senator said. "I am very proud of the political identity developed by Democrats during the Clinton administration."

She has reached out to conservative Republicans, including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) on foster care legislation, and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles (R-Okla.) on unemployment insurance.

Clinton backs Bush's goal of deposing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, an unpopular view among her party's antiwar base, though she's critical of the president's "rhetoric and tactics" in dealing with the international community. She was recently awarded a seat on the Armed Services Committee, which provides her an opportunity to build a foreign policy résumé in the years ahead.

Clinton's new roles are providing her the ideal forum to put her imprint on Democratic policies, cement her relationship with key party activists and lay the groundwork for what many believe will be a presidential run in 2008, several senators and party strategists said.

"She spent the first two years in a learning process, [learning] not only the rules of the Senate but the traditions of how things should be handled here," said Sen. John Breaux (D-La.). "She was very careful and more restricted. Now she's moving into a second stage, being more out front, more visible and more available to articulate issues."

Some Democrats privately worry that Clinton is moving too quickly. "There are some people inside the caucus grumbling, suggesting she wants to bring more of a war-room mentality to the Senate than some senators are comfortable with," said a top Senate Democratic aide. "Others think this also has to be viewed with her future presidential runs and national ambitions in mind."

It is unusual for a freshman to accumulate so much power so precipitously in an institution ruled by tradition and seniority. Most senators wait many years to win a leadership post, and still more years to build a national following. But Clinton is anything but a typical senator. Considered among the most influential first ladies of all time, she won a Senate seat by moving to New York and spending $40 million convincing New Yorkers she was one of them. She prevailed by 12 percentage points, and recent polls show that 55 percent or more of New Yorkers are satisfied with the job she's doing.

By spending most of her first two years in office quietly tending to parochial concerns, working assiduously on policy and showing deference and charm to fellow senators, Clinton appears to have won over most of her colleagues. She got rave reviews for digging deep into the details of legislation and learning the Senate's esoteric rules. She was one of six Democrats awarded a Golden Gavel for presiding over the Senate for more than 100 hours in 2002.

Yet colleagues said it was only a matter of time before she seized more power. "It took a while for some people to really understand her brilliance," said Minority Whip Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "We had to find a place for her-she is that good."

Many Democrats interviewed for this article predicted Clinton will run for president in 2008, if Bush wins reelection. "I think she's very well positioned to be a candidate next time around," said Breaux.

Some Democrats want Clinton to run now, though many strategists believe she should give voters another four years to forget, or at least forgive, the scandals that dogged her husband's eight-year presidency. She has pledged to complete her six-year Senate term, which ends in 2006.

Recent polls suggest Clinton would enter the 2004 Democratic primary as the clear frontrunner. A national poll conducted by Connecticut's Quinnipiac University in February found 42 percent of Democrats favored her in the primary. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) was a distant second at 15 percent.

Still, that same poll showed Bush beating her easily, underscoring how divisive the Clinton name remains. "She's intensely liked and she's intensely disliked," said Breaux. "Both sides think they are helped by Hillary. There are not many people you can say that about."

Clinton said she will not run in 2004 and "has no plans to" in 2008. But several Democrats said Clinton's White House ambitions are growing increasingly apparent.

Harold Ickes, one of her closest advisers, is assembling a group to raise money to spend on behalf of the Democratic presidential nominee after the 2004 summer convention, according to party officials. Bill and Hillary Clinton are expected to be among the biggest fundraisers.

Sen. Clinton has taken a bigger interest in a Democratic think tank-envisioned as a liberal version of the conservative Heritage Foundation-being assembled by Podesta and other party strategists. Podesta met recently with Daschle and others to update them on the think tank, which will likely be unveiled this spring, and to discuss related political projects, according to people at the meeting. Clinton has advised Podesta on the project and contacted donors about helping finance it, two strategists close to her said.

"She's extremely supportive of the [groups] that Podesta and others are working on," said Patty Solis Doyle, who runs Clinton's congressional fundraising operation. The new think tank might serve as the central nervous system of other groups Democrats are creating, party officials said, which would put Clinton at the heart of the party's new political operation.

During her first two years in office, Clinton gave Democratic candidates more than $1.4 million, tops among party leaders. She will host a fundraiser at her home in New York for Senate Democrats later this month.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Reply With Quote
  #23  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
FS is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 06:10 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun
We'll be at war in 2 weeks.
Posted: Tue Feb 18

A-HAH!
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:51 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.