digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Rice: Bush will not abide by legislation to limit Iraq war

breakingnews.iol.ie — US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled US Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war and suggested President George Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • sonofdy, on 10/12/2007, -73/+11And so he should. This move by the democrats could create a constitutional crisis not seen since the civil war. Who is the commander in chief?
    • zediker, on 10/12/2007, -9/+49I think the legislation is just a way for the democrats to 'test the waters'. If bush doesnt even bother to abide by it, the next set of legislation will probably start pulling funding for the war until a comprimise is reached.

      Bush: "I aint gunna listen to no sissy pants democrats"

      Congress: "Ok. Then you pay for your war yourself then"
    • zlintux, on 10/12/2007, -6/+87President Bush is the Commander in Chief.
      But who is supposed to have the power to determine with whom we war? Oh, is that congress? I'll be damned...
    • Flummoxer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+44Haven't you heard of a little concept called "checks and balances?"
    • akilleen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34"Bush: "I aint gunna listen to no sissy pants democrats"

      Congress: "Ok. Then you pay for your war yourself then""

      Unfortunately what is going to happen then is....

      Bush: "You are taking funding away from the troops! The Democrats don't care about the troops!"
    • wintermd, on 10/12/2007, -33/+6Haven't you heard of a little concept called "checks and balances?"

      Haven't you heard of a little concept called "support the troups you all voted to send off to war?"
    • venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12lol "troups"
    • mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19They didn't vote to send the troops to war, they voted to allow the president to defend the country against international law breakers... a subtle but HUGE difference. Iraq is not a declared war. Congress is the only one that can declare war on another country.. they can also declare an end to war as they see fit. They allowed the president some freedom to continue battles against us as needed, but they did not declare war... even if they did, they can declare a war over... That is percicesly how the framers meet the law to be. Heck even FDR couldn't get away with starting WW2 without congress' permission. We've come a long way DOWN from there.
    • hambend, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23@sonofdy
      A constitutional crisis? Oh, heaven forbid! I mean, I know two thirds of the population disapprove of Bush, most people think he has made, is making, and will continue to make ***** horrible decisions on everything from the war in Iraq to environmental policy, and that for all the world it looks like the only people benefiting from these decisions are Haliburton and friends. I know that people are dying (quite literally) by the busload every day, I know that habeus corpus no longer applies on US soil and that off US soil the CIA has torture facilities all over the globe. I know that American government is seen around the world as a corrupt, morally bankrupt, bureaucratic behemoth, and I know that the US economy is crashing and burning and about the only thing anyone's done about it is to discontinue the M3 report, which shows how much money the federal reserve is printing.

      I know health care is *****, the education system is failing fast, New Orleans is still a wreck, and corporations spend more money on lawsuits than they do on R&D. I know the US patent office believes that the US patent office is totally incapable of doing the job it's supposed to do. I know that the US incarcerates more of it's population than any other nation in the world and yet still most convicts are back behind bars within a year or two of being released because the prison system just doesn't work.

      But a constitutional crisis? Civil unrest? Oh god, no! We wouldn't want to cause any trouble now, surely?
    • olik, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8This really isn't so complicated, nor as legally contentious as the media makes it out to be

      Congress can, but does not have to, and should never, withdraw funding for the war; it's bad policy, and susceptible to executive shenanigans. Only the most strained reading of the Constitution would hold that Congress could not order troops out of the war, but even if that is the case: The President can only conduct the war pursuant to the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF). This is the document by which he claims power to conduct the war, torture prisoners, and wiretap our phones. The AUMF grants power to hunt down whoever is connected to Al Quidea, and does not limit who, where, or how to do so. It is, quite simply, a blank check, and anyone who argues otherwise is more hopeful than anything else. It will have to be rescinded eventually.

      Congress must rescind the AUMF, and should replace it with an authorization to use military force only insofar as is necessary to [insert Congress' goals here] (ie: withdraw from the war in Iraq). The beauty of this is that it would put an end to the arguments that Bush has the authority to wiretap and torture, and does not require Congress to pull the rug out by stopping funding.
  • brivapor, on 10/12/2007, -10/+51undermining the troops?
    America has spoken in last Novembers vote, Democrats are the voice of the American people at the moment
    • BigPapa1974, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21But they are not brave enough to cut funding for the war. They have the power to do it but don't do it.
    • wintermd, on 10/12/2007, -26/+3America spoke in the last election. The memo said, get together, win the war.

      Any cut and run, will bring complete ruin to that political party.
    • olik, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7They don't have to cut funding, just rescind the AUMF
    • Darkseit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"Cut And Run" "Flip Flop" "WMD's" "Axis of Evil" "New-Cooler Weapons" "Stay The Course (nevermind the brick wall!)
      I love the slogans... so catchy

      They should rename the Rep party to the Sloganeers


      "What, you don't like guns and kickin' foreign ass? I'm gonna tell NASCAR!"
    • stefanite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Sorry, the Democrats do not speak for me. The upside is that they are too disorganized to do much damage, and without 60 votes in the Senate they won't be able to defund our troops.
  • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -12/+46Good point but no big surprise. When has Bush ever thought it important to "abide by legislation?"

    Don't ya know the Decider is above the Law? He has his signing statements to prove it.
  • jstohler, on 10/12/2007, -9/+47100% expected. I'd be surprised if Bush ever read a law, much less followed one.
    • CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -13/+39I know i'll probably get dugg down becuase this is wayyy off topic, but this is exactly why I like Obama. He was a constitutional lawyer for 10 years, i think that qualifies him.
    • jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14@CraigB12
      "constitutional lawyer "

      Big deal, have you seen what constitutional judges have done to it?
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -13/+12Being a constitutional lawyer doesn't mean that he will follow the laws. If anyone is best able to circumvent the Constitution, it would be a constitutional lawyer. Obama is less qualified than GWB. There doesn't look like there would be a clear cut choice as the best person in either party.

      "To announce there must be no criticism of the president or to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonous to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1"I know i'll probably get dugg down becuase this is wayyy off topic, but this is exactly why I like Obama. He was a constitutional lawyer for 10 years, i think that qualifies him."

      Any law passed by congress calling for troop withdrawals is unconstitutional.
    • Darkseit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@satana...

      You are seriously mistaken in your assessment of the qualifications to be president for both GWB and Obama. You don't even have the suggestion of proof, just an opinion (X > Y). I only need to point at GWB's entire life record consistent failures and disregard for the law, the consequences of which he has never ever had to face ( so is it any surprise now that he does not even pretend to care what the law is, let alone follow it). For the record I would say that the floater I just left in the toilet is more qualified to run the country than the current president. I pray for those troops daily, that this congress and populace can come to its senses and not let this monster send any more brave young men and women to die in the desert.

      Obama on the other hand has a number of accomplishments especially programs centered around helping the less fortunate (not Haliburton!). Bush's chief accomplishment before becoming president is having a record number of people executed under his Governorship.
      wake up from your fox news coma!
  • Arahka, on 10/12/2007, -5/+45He's commander and cheif, not King and Dictator. It's called democracy which includes checks and balances! This type of government is not supposed to give him the right to just do whatever the hell he feels like.
    • sambtravis, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7I before E except after C... But I totally agree with you.
    • wintermd, on 10/12/2007, -21/+3what does "checks and balances" have to do with winning a war?

      You win a war by being the most difficult, most dangerous, most conniving guy out there fighting it. Not by being a "cut and run" pansy.
    • keitho, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10England is pulling their troops out and its being considered "cut and run" but a "sign of success" according to Cheney. People need to learn to not take talking points from these divisive people and encourage Iraq to start defending their own country as opposed to us doing the work for them. I'd rather have a safe and secure America than a safe and secure Iraq.
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13We never declared war. The American people don't want a war. The American people didn't elect Bush.
    • sven007, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@wintermd

      You also need to know when to surrender and admit you made a mistake. imagine what would have happened in WW2 is Japan didn't surrender and continued to fight? One side has to give in, and i don't think it's going to be the Iraq side.

      Also, why is the war still on? Saddam is gone. it's time to pull out because there is no threat anymore. just a suggestion. when i work on an essay, i normally put my books away when the job is done. It's the same with the war, time to call it over.
    • kolobcreek, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@zlintux Yeah they did decide who we wage war with. Guess what they're turn is over. Now the president is responsible to see the war to its end.
      @arahka Guess what who voted him into power. This system was setup a long time ago. So assholes like you and your socialist representatives can't meddle in stuff they should. Like the day to day workings of a war. Historically it looks like it doesn't matter what the president does the Democrats are against him. First they say we need more troops. Now they say not to send more troops. Make up your minds.

      Oh yeah there is a set of checks and balances and the president has the trump card. Its called a veto. He also has the right to enforce the laws congress passes or not.
    • MrAuer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Keitho: England is claiming to be pulling out troops, when in reality both USA and Britain have been amassing naval forces in the Gulf area. Theres now the biggest concentration of aircraft carriers, support vessels and amphibious assault vessels since the start of Iraq war. That doesnt sound to me like "decreasing troops" its more like getting ready for another war. Considering how both governments lied before Iraq war, its perfectly plausible that they shoud lie again. Brings to mind Neville Chamberlains naive words in the 1930s: "Peace in our lifetime!"

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20061103&articleId=3696
      "Massive Deployment of Naval Power directed against Iran"
      Also this link (since I know how some here feel about "leftists" ;)
      http://www02.clf.navy.mil/eisenhower/
      http://www.ne.jp/asahi/gonavy/atsugi/gonavy604.html (Carrier group locations)
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/25/ngulf125.xml
      "Britain’s senior naval officer in the Persian Gulf has revealed that Royal Navy deployments in the region have doubled since October in a build-up that matches the rapid escalation of American maritime firepower."

      So in reality, both countries are rapidly gearing up for war, AGAIN, while publicly lying thru their teeth about it. Swell.

  • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35Haven't you guys heard?
    Laws are only binding to little people, Bush gets to pick & choose which laws he wants to obey. He's been doing exactly that throughout his presidency. Google "signing statement".
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24Our coke-head, drunk-driving fiscally-fraudulent president has been living by his own destructive rules for a lot longer than his presidency...
  • bwesterman, on 10/12/2007, -19/+4Why do you guys believe all these "speculative" stories? They're so dumb. Yeah, Bush is so intelligent and powerful that he'll just change the law to suite his every whim. Yeah, like he could do that... (sarcasm).
    • mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8That's the game plan... to call him out!!! Like all good people drunk on power, he won't be able to make the rational choice to back down and he'll push the matter to be the law of Congress or his. The resolutions are the first step... start small.. tell him you think he should change strategy. That will enrage him so he's not paying attention as you pass actual legal rules he MUST follow. Then he responds and the Democrats will Box him into a corner with something small and focused. Black and White. A simple law that even Republicans will back that will have to back on the principle of checks and balances and not about Bush. That's what Congress did to Johnson when they impeached him. He was acting much like Bush, undermining Congresses laws with directly conflicting orders to his generals in charge of reconstruction.. Congress was somewhat split until they could get the prez to flat out refuse to follow a simple, legal order. Then the whole group had to nail him...on principal of their jobs. Funny Johnson was a Republican too!!
  • jetboyterp, on 10/12/2007, -32/+4All these Democrats voted to give the President the authority to go to war with Iraq. Once Congress does that, they need to STAY OUT OF IT, and let the President, and the military, do the job. All this crud about cutting funding only undermines the troops. How strange it is, that liberals wont fund our men and women in uniform, but then say "we support the troops"....

    • kirbs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24we dont support the dumb ***** our administration is doing

      i totally support the troops and their families.. hell give them a pay raise and a parade
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12This would be ok IF the military was doing their job. Last time I checked, Mission was not accomplished, and there is a civil war no matter how many people deny it.
    • bicyclethief, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17@jetboyterp:

      And how strange it is that some people don't understand the idea of only risking our uniformed men and women's lives only when absolutely necessary.


    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4It's simply easier to pretend cutting off monetary support for troops overseas is not the kind of support that actually matters.

      The SYMBOLIC type of support that doesn't effect crucial supply and materials for our fighting forces is what is really important to Democrats.

      Winning isn't a concern as long as the appearance of worthless symbolism is maintained within the imaginations of Democrats everywhere.
    • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8but we do fund them, actually. holy hell you are deluded.
    • jetboyterp, on 10/12/2007, -21/+3@ bicycletheif

      Apparently you missed it...those missing buildings, and thousands dead, in NYC? When would it be "necessary"?
    • zweben, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20"Apparently you missed it...those missing buildings, and thousands dead, in NYC? When would it be necessary?"

      Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so tell me, how is that related at all? It would be great to go after the people who were behind the attacks... that's not what the war in Iraq is doing.
    • wintermd, on 10/12/2007, -22/+2We should win our wars. Not lose them the way the Dem party wants.
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2People are crabbing about a President who won't follow non binding legislation that hasn't even hit the table yet and I'm the one who is deluded.

      Cutting funding is the only way the Dems can do ***** about a troop surge.

      They're investing their careers in a loss in Iraq anyway, why not make it real?
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10This is not a war. We have no enemy. We have a president who illegally sent our soldiers to die for his business interests.
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0I'm pretty sure the US Congress made it legal with their Joint Resolution. This is why the Dems in power are afraid of impeachment....it will expose their own little problems.

      Unless you have real evidence you'd like to share with all of us that will change the Democrats' minds about impeachment.

      Repeating the world "illegal" lots of times doesn't make fantasy become reality.
    • sven007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@jetboyterp (2nd comment about 9/11)

      how about thinking about the tens of thousands of Iraqis dead in Iraq? Not to mention the other american soldiers dead in the war. by sending soldier into a country for a war not involved with 9/11, you're adding onto the total americans killed for no reason. imagine if instead of killing iraquis and making them angry, the bush administration tried maybe talking to them? it's very easy to stop "insurgent" attacks when you know why they do it. and don't just say "they hate our way of life". why do they hate your way of life? what about it? maybe it's because you're invading their country and trying to impose your own views on how stuff should be run? I would be ***** pissed myself if some random country invaded Canada and forced their ideology on me.
  • martynda, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12So... the finally said outright that they don't follow the law? Shouldn't I be hearing about impeachment proceedings sometime soon?
    • AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -4/+3Unfortunately probably not, dispite the 30% hate rating, and his unability to listen to anyone below him.

      Someone should start a petition to impeach his arse.
    • BigPapa1974, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Exactly what law has he not followed? Oh, you mean that non-binding resolution?
    • mikelieman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8What law hasn't he followed? 18 USC 371.

    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -5/+018 USC 371?

      HA!

      Prove it, sparky.

      The Dems in power know they can't or they wouldn't be openly defying their constituents' wishes.
  • nawitus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22You Americans have a funny definition of democracy.
    • jefferygomer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14That's probably because most of we Americans think we live in a democracy.
      It's a Democratic Republic that we Americans live in folks. We don't say what happens. We choose the people that say what happens.
    • sennmen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Is it not funny that America decides to spread democracy in the world, while their president goes around and does whatever the hell he pleases? Sorry for being 'unpatriotic'.
  • AboveBeyond, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29Impeach Clinton for sexual relationship...ok but no impeachment for a President that does whatever the hell he wants--including scandals, lying about the Iraq war, and implementing legislations that undermines civil liberties--WOW!

    • jetboyterp, on 10/12/2007, -27/+5Clinton was impeached for committing PERJERY, a Federal Offense...Why don't you liberals try rooting for our side in this war for a change?
    • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15@ jetboyterp

      stop breathing my air, please.
    • terribly1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Cuz lying to the whole world about a war isn't that big a deal or nothin'.
    • zweben, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14"Clinton was impeached for committing PERJERY, a Federal Offense...Why don't you liberals try rooting for our side in this war for a change?"

      Bush has committed PERJERY 1,000 times. Most presidents lie. Why don't you open yourself to a reasoned discussion instead of attacking the other side without trying to understand their point of view? Try to realize that just because we have a different way of trying to protect our country doesn't mean you have to start calling us traitors.
    • xcoastie, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2What did he lie about? Every one keeps saying he lied.
      What exactly did he say? Don't make ***** up, show me the actual speech.
      What did he say that was different from all the dems that voted for the war?

      Or you could just digg me down and keep living in your little Liberal worlds where fact don't matter, and the media thinks for you.
    • keitho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"where did he lie exactly?"

      Where are those WMDs? Where is the nuclear weapons stash? Wheres the real evidence that Saddam was working with Bin Laden? He Cheney, and Powell all claimed to have that yet once we got into the war and nothing showed up, "oh, I guess we were wrong."
    • tmk40, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1abovebeyond...Clinton was impeached for perjury. He lied under oath in a COURT OF LAW. That is a felony. The lawyers for Paula Jones had every right to ask him about his sexual history in light of what her lawsuit was about.

      And zweben...president Bush has not committed perjury...at least officially. I am not saying that he hasnt lied...all presidents have lied during their tenures. But he does have broad powers to protect our nation according to our constitution. He has the power to search without warrant (something that Clinton also did) and he has the power to wiretap when one of the parties is an international power or person trying to cause harm to the USA. Terrorists do NOT fall under Geneva protection because their very mode of operation violates at least 3 provisions of the accords. The length at which you can hold them and such...is open to debate...but it cannot be claimed that it is in violation of the Geneva treaty.

      You seem to belong to the same crowd which wanted the president to take so seriously the pre-9/11 intelligence reports about planes (something he probably received quite often)...and then when the president of Iran speaks from his own mouth about wanting to kill Americans and wipe Israel off the map...we arent to take him seriously. Right?? What a bunch of crap. It is time to realize that this president has been under the gun ever since 9/11 and protection of our nation is a very complicated and serious thing. You act like all we had to do with WMD's was use a bunch of treasure-hunting scanners...fan out and scan the whole country...and put our minds at ease. It wouldnt have been possible to hide things in that vase wasteland of desert right??? I guess we should have stuck to the status quo of "containment" and looked forward to another 50 years of violence in the Middle East with the USA being blamed for it all.
    • xcoastie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This is a charge that has been repeated ad nauseum by opponents of the war, but the claim that Bush "lied" about stockpiles of WMDs doesn't hold up to the least bit of scrutiny.

      Once you understand one crucial fact, that numerous prominent Democrats with access to intelligence data also openly declared and obviously believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, it becomes nearly impossible for a rational person to believe that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. We're not talking about small fry or just proponents of the war either. The aforementioned Democrats include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Robert Byrd, Henry Waxman, Tom Daschle, and Nancy Pelosi among many, many others. Just to hammer the point home, here's a quote from the 800 pound gorilla of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, that was made on Oct 8, 2002:"

      "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

      http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/xyz.php

    • xcoastie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Bush and Hilliary both "lied".
      I still am waiting for the details about "how Bush lied" And "There were no WMD "doesn't cut it. How about some proof? There were many reasons we went to war.
  • Phr00t, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Axis of Evil #3:

    http://newsfeed.tcm.ie/images/people/condoleezarice05.jpg
    • wbeavis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Photo taken moments before the UFIA to the American people
  • thesoze, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Buck Fush!

    poor idiot - doesn't know when to hold'em doesn't know when to fold'em

    it's unbeleivable the Christian Right(wrong) supports this guy!
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10You know that you can swear on digg, right?
  • airencracken, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13King George cares not for the mewling of the masses! He shall do as god has ordained him to do!
  • charityjustice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"will not abide"? Who talks like that? The Bush administration is starting to sound like comicbook supervillains, I'm expecting a "curses, foiled again!" or "you'll rue the day!" press release any time now.

    Exclusive to Fox News, of course.
    • Tourney3p0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10The Dude abides. It would only be logical that Bush, the anti-Dude, will not abide.
  • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5i hope somebody in the Pentagon has contingency plans to overthrow this derelict. if the democrats impeached i'd pretty sure Bush would 'ignore' this as well.

    Robert Gates, is this too much to ask? :(
    • redfiche, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I'm sorry, you're asking for a military coup???? How f***ing stupid are you? I'm no fan of the current administration, but the last thing we need is to pull down the democratic institutions over one mediocre president.
    • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@redfiche

      well, look at it this way if it came to this situation: if Bush were to 'decide' that launching nukes at Iran was an acceptable scenario, what would look better?

      neither situation is pretty, but i'm pretty sure nobody wants a global nuclear war.
    • MrAuer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dear God (whom I believe does not exist), please, PLEASE let those Pentagon generals all either resign or go for a coup if Bush or Cheney orders nuking of Iran!
      That would be the only sensible action...
      Not that a military coup would make much difference at the moment, the military industries are already pretty much running the show...
  • kufu91, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10so impeach him
    problem solved
    • BigPapa1974, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Dems are too scared to impeach him. They promised they would but that was just a a campaign strategy they didn't intend on doing.
    • Tourney3p0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8When did they promise to impeach him? I remember quite a few articles where they promised that they would NOT impeach him. Pelosi in particular made this quite clear.
    • BigPapa1974, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@ Tourney

      Your are absolutely correct. She did say she removed the option of impeaching the president. You just left out the part that she said it after wining the election. My point precisely.

      So I digged you up so that people can read your comment and make up their own minds.
    • Richthofen80, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Except the legislation is merely a 'vote of confidence'. Its not binding.

      If the democrats really wanted to bring the troops home, they would vote to do so. Either you want to bring all of them home, or you want to give them the manpower they need to finish the job. If you believe no amount of manpower can finish the job, then we bring them all home.

      All the House of Reps (the senate voted a similar provision down) did was vote against new funding/troop surge. But if the generals say we need more manpower and money to win the war, and we don't provide it, we're essentially leaving them vunerable. You can't be against the surge and funding, like the House of Reps voted to, without wanting to pull them all home. If you don't have the guts to vote them home, then you're condemning them to death.

      FYI, I am for the troop surge. We need to do everything we have to , to win the war, defeat the insurgency (Which is almost pure evil, by the way. Beheading and bombings?). And I am not an idle participant. My brother is going to be sent to Iraq, there's no doubt about it. He is training at his station in near Savannah, GA. The only question is, will they give him enough support to win, or just leave him there as a sacrificial band-aid. I already wrote my democratic congressman, who voted against the surge. By voting against it, he did nothing to prevent my brother from going. All he did was make it more likely that he will be killed.
    • strangerzero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not enough time and then Dick becomes prez.
  • artificial001, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6please god interfere and get this man arrested!
  • mattxb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3remember after the last election when Bush was proud of his "political capitol?" Can't he see thats gone now?
  • wtf00, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I hate when they people shove there he the "commander and chief" so the ***** what? wanna a cookie? is our duty to show mr bush who the boss by putting pressure to our representatives. but I guess people are too busy watching tv and more interested what happening trade spouse or something..
  • Morasta, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Rice is an idiot.
  • scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Doesn't the constitution make it legal for you to shoot him now?
    • Tourney3p0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm not sure. You should have a knock on your door any minute now. I'm sure the gentleman at the door will be glad to answer questions like that in a knowledgable manner.
  • edrift101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I can't wait for the day when I see Cheney and Bush locked behind bars.
  • jake3988, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Remember this: You need 60 yea in the Senate to pass the legislation. You need only 63 yea to impeach Bush.

    So, only about 6 or 7 more republicans need to get pissed off and we're in for an impeachment. Though, by the time that happens it'll be '08 and really won't be worth it.
    • missinglink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The House impeaches, not the Senate.
  • thesoze, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Politcal Capital"???? and he intended to abuse it - it went all downhill from there...

    BUSH IS BAD??? WHATABOUT THAT SURESHOT CHENEY??

    what a rogues galley we have running this country!!!
  • smokecheck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1WOW, look at this site, someone other than the small folks know our leader, (cough),is doing something wrong..
    http://www.impeachbush.tv/
  • robdowns, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@jetboyterp: "All these Democrats voted to give the President the authority to go to war with Iraq."

    Wrong. 1) Not all the Dems that were in congress authorized military action. 2) A lot of the Dems that are currently in congress were not in congress when military action was authorized.

    "they need to STAY OUT OF IT, and let the President, and the military, do the job."

    Wrong. I give you permission to wash my car. You pull out a tire iron and start smashing my car to bits. With great permission comes great responsibility. Not a blank check.

    "How strange it is, that liberals wont fund our men and women in uniform, but then say "we support the troops"...."

    ...and how many Goopers are standing up along side them? Party liners like you are the real problem with America. Look at the problem objectively, listen to "the other side's" argument, and reasonably consider it. Everyone has their opinion, but it should be educated at the very least, unlike your's.
  • therealrico, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If we impeach him, then Cheney becomes President, I don't know whats worse Cheney or Bush?
    • MrAuer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Cheney. Cheney is absolutely worse. Hes been running in the circles of Continuity of Government from the Reagan years, meaning that hes been organizing an alternate government for the USA that would take over in an ... uhmh.. emergency. And I dont need much imagination to come up with several scenarios where he might go for that option.

      Also notable is that almost every time something happens, like 9/11, Katrina etc...Bush is either reading to kids about goats, or playing guitar on his holiday, while Cheney is in some bunker calling the shots...

      "During the Reagan era Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were key players in a clandestine program designed to set aside the legal lines of succession and immediately install a new "President" in the event that a nuclear attack killed the country's leaders. The program helps explain the behavior of the Bush Administration on and after 9/11"
      http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200403/mann
  • shaun1018, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Buck Fush
  • MadMax3000, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Bush and Rice are stupid.
  • jayselle, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Last time I heard the President is the commander and chief and not the Congress or anyone else in the Congress. The Congress can pass all the "non-binding resolutions" they want but they are meaningless. Just purely political pandering.

    Those of you morons talking about checks and balances need to check the constitution.

  • Bamont, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3And people say the Left don't have any pull in the media.

    Simple things for you people to notice while reading this article. Is it ironic that the picture of Rice isn't one of support, but one of anger and volatility? I'd say yes.

    Moreover, Rice never actually says that Bush won't abide by Legislation - but that legally, Congress can't really do much once something has been set in motion. The idea of this IS the checks and balances system - because Congress can't just kill a bill once the parties change numbers every few years.

    To think - all of these intelligent people on Digg, and so much leftist stupidity.

    Digg me down, it's what you do when someone actually blasts you with the truth.
    • IslandDog, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1This is just this hours anti-Bush article.
    • apetrie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I agree the article is obviously slanted. You lose me at "leftist stupidity" though and show what a close-minded, party-line towing ignorant jerk you are. You don't have to agree with any leftist ideas (in fact you obviously don't know what the ***** they are if you believe the Democrats in the U.S. are "liberals"), but to sink to the level as so many do these days of calling those that think differently from you stupid is just pathetic and juvenile. Grow up.

      You aren't getting dugg down for "blasting" anyone with the truth, you are getting dugg down for making ignorant statements about a political ideal you obviously don't even understand.
    • Bamont, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0I'm the ignorant one?

      That's funny - the people who dugg me down are the ignorant ones - not I.

      There is an inherent difference between Liberal and Leftist. If you don't know this about your ideal - then it's quite pathetic that you would claim it.

      A leftist is an extremist - they are like a Neo-Con, accept on the totally opposite side of the spectrum, but still, the same mentality of stupidity.

      I'm glad that you felt it necessary to argue over something you apparently have no idea about.
    • 10lbhammer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ bamont:

      "Digg me down, it's what you do when someone actually blasts you with the truth."

      no, it's what I do when somebody says "digg me down..."
      afterall, I am just a follower, right?
  • alansky, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6IMPEACH BUSH! IMPEACH BUSH! IMPEACH BUSH!
  • mygrat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0GO CONDI!!!! GO CONDI!!! SCREW DINGY HARRY AND BROOM HILDA!
  • robdowns, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@Bamont
    Last I checked, Digg is on a public forum on the Internet. How exactly is "the Left" using their "pull" to influence Digg? OHHH, it must be high-paid operatives working for George Soros.

    So who's stupid?
    • Bamont, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0Let's see.

      Do Anti-Republican or Anti-Conservative Digg'd posts out-number that of Anti-Democrat or Anti-Leftist?

      Yes. That should be enough evidence for you. Sorry you've just now realized that a good majority of the internet is Leftist based. I didn't necessarily say there was anything wrong with it - only that it exists, and if you think they don't use their own agenda's to fuel politics - you're mistaken.
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Don't mind the lizards, they think we don't know about their little cult.
  • dicerandom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Hmm.

    So the executive branch, which is in direct control of the military, has threatened that it will not heed the authority of the legislative branch and will instead continue with an illegal occupation of another country. Great.

    Does the Bush administration qualify for rogue dictator status yet, or do we have to wait for Congress to impeach him and then have him order the military to arrest the whole lot?
    • missinglink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Congress has no authority that needs to be heeded. Like it or not, the Congress is the Legislative Branch. Their power comes from Legislating (which requires Presidential signatures or veto overrides which the Dem in Congress don't have), and appointments (which come from the President). We don't have a parliamentary system here.
    • tmk40, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1dicerandom...
      What law from the Congress does the president need to heed?? The Congress gave him authorization to use military force...that is a fact. And the president is the one who is charged with the details concerning the conduct of war...NOT the Congress. We wouldnt want a slow moving body like the Congress to be in charge of how a war is conducted any way. Think about it.
      If the Congress wants to defund the war, they can certainly do that. But they have to make a trip to the Wizard of Oz for some courage first.

      If any liberal can answer this question: Did we have enough troops before the surge, to take and HOLD all neighborhoods in Bagdad?...then you can legitimately be against the increase in troops and you can call the Iraqi operation a failure. Otherwise, if you dont know the answer...you should shut up and let our troops and our new unanimously approved commander supply security to these civilian neighborhoods and give the plan a chance to work. There has been NO ONE who can answer this question and and it is at the center of the conflict. How can we have the support of the populace, when we dont have the means to make their streets safe?

      If the Congress overrides the President, there is nothing he can do about it. So before you start whining about him being a dictator...why dont you scratch a letter to your weak-knee representative?
  • TheToecutter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Checks and balances no longer exist.
    Our government is broken.
    This is a sad decade for our country.
    • missinglink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Checks and balances do exist. The President could veto any actual legislation that the Congress would pass, which is why they are trying to pass Resolutions - which aren't legislation because they don't get signed by the President. Congress doesn't get 100% autonomy of action either.
  • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1The weekly "Impeach Now!" thread falls on Monday this week.

    Please hold all of your intellectual thoughts for subsequent threads that are not based on mindless bitching.

    Thank yew.
  • BigPapa1974, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Wrong post. Digg me down.
  • wiremonkeymommy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4“The president is going to, as commander in chief, need to do what the country needs done,” she said.

    I wonder... what country is this that she speaks of??
  • jkdrum, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2It does not matter what Bush does. Democratic Liberals will always be against it.

    If President Bush made a statement saying puppy torture was wrong. Then the Bush haters would start ritual sacrifices of puppies and claim that Bush wants to take away their right of free choice to kill puppies.
    • apetrie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Please justify your statement. You might not agree but it seems there are plenty of valid reasons why "Democratic Liberals" have a problem with the actions of Bush. If you really believe you should judge everyone based on the few idiots that just spout unjustified hate, then you should be fine with Republicans being judged by the actions of the worst, most loud mouthed ignorant types of their kind. Some how I'm guessing that wouldn't sit so well with you.
    • robdiggity, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Ladies and gentlemen, a round of applause please for the 1,000,000th straw man argument to appear on Digg. And quite a doozy too. Puppies even. Not too shabby.
  • grinin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I still love the truckloads of cash we lost in the desert.... I think that was our greatest investment... Pallets of cash entirely lost...... fantastic..... hey can we get more bodies to go with that cash to get lost in the desert?
  • Spoonfedsbuddy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Please undermine legislation Mr. President. I wanna see your ass IMPEACHED.
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This mindless bitching is EASY!

      It doesn't really matter if the legislation is NON BINDING or if it hasn't even been debated yet.

      IMPEACH anyway! WHO CARES if it's legal or not?
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wanna see you try.
  • Itkovian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So, how is this new? I thought he'd been defying anything all the time for the past 6 years.
  • thesoze, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2and if you dont agree with the Administration you are a Liberal - exactly what the GOP wants - to pit ourselves against each other - Bush is a divider of people and a loser!
  • yo60613, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2"illegal occupation of another country"

    D'oh, so much for paying attention in civics class. It can't be an illegal war if Congress voted to authorize force, numbnuts.

    The Pres is just using the powers Congress woted to give him.

    I'm not saying that he's using the powers wisely, but this is not an illegal war. Jumpin' catfish, why is it that people get so flustered in their idiotic hatred that they completely pick the wrong nit to pick?

    Common sense weeps aloud at you and ninnies like you.
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Balanced reason and intarweb frenzy do not go hand in hand.

      Like I said, this is a mindless Impeach Now! thread.

      Comments that attempt to veer away from the approved topic will not be tolerated by the hive mind.

      You have been warned.
    • Koookie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It is clearly, without any doubt whatsoever, a 100% illegal war by international law.
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Exactly WHO has been tried for breaking international law lately? Hmmmmmm.

      If you're going to start enforcing international law, there would be a good many Democrats facing trial for approving the use of force. And feigning ignorance of the facts might work for the dullards in the Democrat voting base, but in an international court of law, it's worth exactly NOTHING, the same as being an American Democrat.

      They'd all go to jail, sparky.
    • keymanjim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"It is clearly, without any doubt whatsoever, a 100% illegal war by international law."

      Which law would that be? Please, show us the statute that makes this law illegal under any legislation we a bound to.
      Even the un has recognized the US and UK as LEGAL occupying forces in Iraq.
      ***** Internet international lawyers.
  • Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The Madness of King George II continues...
  • chopenik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2People in congress are a bunch of pussies. They pass "non-binding" resolutions to further increase the debate among you, the people. When will everybody learn the be it Demobulican or a Repoblicat, it is all the same *****. The true rulers of this country are the bankers, the oil titan, the pharmaceutical giants and other corporations. There are very few exceptions when it comes to people who actually try to represent us in congress. Most of these people are career politicians and will do and say whatever pleases the populace, does not actually mean that they will live up to their promises.... In fact, they never do. Half the bills they pass never get read. Look at them as actors playing a role.
    • missinglink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There's no such thing as a "binding resolution." The next step up is a bill, which creates binding legislation. Legislation requires a Presidential autograph, and there aren't enough votes to override a veto.

      Checks and balances.
  • smokecheck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0 here is a video, in New Mexico, to initiate the impeachment process.http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/
  • Chip53, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3The terrorists want to kill us and they don't care who we vote for! Do you cretins think for one minute that your hatred for The President protects you from these Islamic animals? If they come to slit your throat, will you welcome them with open arms?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.