President Bush Says "It's Good To Be The King"

[Diamond Cross]

Well, President Bush is pretty much saying "Congress go fuck yourselves".

While I still believe that taking Saddam out is a good thing, and so is staying to help rebuild Iraq, I'm sick and tired of him thumbing his nose at what the American People want.

I wish Bob Dole would've been elected. He would've had a cooler head in this manner and listened to what the American People want more than Bushy-bot has.

Essentially, according to this article:

My Way News - Critics Won't Halt Iraq Surge, Bush Says

He's defying congress yet again.

Yes it's important to do the right thing, but it's also important to lsiten to what the American People want as well.

So Mister President, with all due respect sir, you can go fuck yourself.

BRING OUR TROOPS HOME!

[Dumpy Dooby]

The American people let it happen. We the People have nobody to blame but ourselves for having presidents that act as kings. Nobody is standing up to hold anyone's feet to the fire. You reap what you sew.

[ballz2wallz]

Someone put Bush's face on this:

[RMNIXON]

Mel Brooks said it First!

[6SpeedTA95]

Count the money!

It's de mone

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Someone put Bush's face on this:

[Diesel66]

He has authority to move troops.

Congress doesnt have the authority to say no you cant. They do have the authority to say, we wont fund it though.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Count the money!

It's de mone

The New Piss Boy:

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

He has authority to move troops.

Congress doesnt have the authority to say no you cant. They do have the authority to say, we wont fund it though.

isn't the president only allowed to engage in war for 60 days before congress must approve all action?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

isn't the president only allowed to engage in war for 60 days before congress must approve all action?

Is this war though? After all Iraq and the US are no longer at war.

Congress should cut of funding if he refuses to be reasonable.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Is this war though? After all Iraq and the US are no longer at war.

Congress should cut of funding if he refuses to be reasonable.

Bush has said it's part of the "War on Terror"

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

isn't the president only allowed to engage in war for 60 days before congress must approve all action?

Congress approved the war in Iraq back in October 2002.

Congressional Resolution on Iraq (Passed by House and Senate October 2002)

Congress has no right to approve/disprove battles or troop movements in a war they already backed.


If they feel strongly against the war, cut funding or refuse to do anything until the President ends the war.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Bush has said it's part of the "War on Terror"

One cannot have a "war" against a an non-nation state, even if they call it a war.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Kytro

One cannot have a "war" against a an non-nation state, even if they call it a war.

lol




btw these are the important parts of that act pretaining to the current fight.

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

isn't the president only allowed to engage in war for 60 days before congress must approve all action?

The original authorization of use of force gave the President the War powers. All the "illegal War" shit is just dumb rhetoric. They don't get to tell the President how to "conduct" the war although they do control funding.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

The original authorization of use of force gave the President the War powers. All the "illegal War" shit is just dumb rhetoric. They don't get to tell the President how to "conduct" the war although they do control funding.

I never said this war was illegal.. I'm trying to find a way to keep Bush from "doing what he wants" as he so elequently told 60 minutes.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

I never said this war was illegal.. I'm trying to find a way to keep Bush from "doing what he wants" as he so elequently told 60 minutes.

Sorry if I implied you said that! It is just being said so much I wanted to make the point. The point is that once he is given permission by congress to conduct a war they don't get to micromanage it. They just control funding.

[Pro Street]

I dunno if I'd call it micromanaging, this is a very important step to take in the war, one that almost everyone knows is doomed to failure.

What bothers me is what Bush will do once it's obvious that it's not working. I can't support a massive pull out, but I also can't support another tiny increase. A massive increase in troops wouldn't be a desirable option.

Beforehand a redeployment.. and i'm not referring to the buzz word regarding withdraw, but rather a redeployment within Iraq, where we can use selective airpower and other means to support the Iraqi government without being part of te door-to-door operation would have been the better solution in my opinion.

Placing more troops along the borders and outside of the capital would help secure from outside influence as well.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Sorry if I implied you said that! It is just being said so much I wanted to make the point. The point is that once he is given permission by congress to conduct a war they don't get to micromanage it. They just control funding.

I'm not sure it is micromanagement. If they were trying to veto specific operations I'd call it micromanagement, this is more saying we don't approve of the job you are doing, so we won't fund further expansions.