| Author |
Message |
    
ina
Citizen
Username: Ina
Post Number: 348
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 12:15 pm: | 
|
Seriously. I never, ever thought I'd side with Buchanan AGAINST the Democrats. Interesting times.
from dailykos:
There is a reason the Founding Fathers separated the power to conduct war from the power to declare it. The reason is just such a ruler as George W. Bush, a man possessed of an ideology and sense of mission that are not necessarily coterminous with what is best for his country. Under our Constitution, it is Congress, not the president, who decides on war. . . .
It is time for Congress to tell President Bush directly that he has no authority to go to war on Iran and to launch such a war would be an impeachable offense. Or, if they so conclude, Congress should share full responsibility by granting him that authority after it has held hearings and told the people why we have no other choice than another Mideast war, with a nation four times as large as Iraq.
If Congress lacks the courage to do its constitutional duty, it should stop whining about imperial presidents. Because, like the Roman Senate of Caesar's time, it will have invited them and it will deserve them.
The saddest part of all this? It came from Pat Buchanan, not a Democrat in Congress (or any Democrat at all).
|
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 845
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 12:26 pm: |
|
I forget who said this - "The Republicans have become the party of bad ideas, while the Democrats have become the party of no ideas."
And no leadership. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2057
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 12:38 pm: |
|
ina,
what in Buchanan's words suggests he's taking the Democrats to task? Did the Democrats regain control of congress while I wasn't looking? |
ina
Citizen
Username: Ina
Post Number: 349
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Dr. O,
the Dems' sheeplike lack of resistance to the Iraq invasion shamed me on their behalf. It doesn't bode well that Pat, and not they, are issuing ultimatums should Bush commit the heretofore unthinkable and attack Iran. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1229
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Yup- another example of spineless DEMS. Throw the BUMS out. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 952
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 2:40 pm: |
|
Ina,
You don't understand that most Dems on this message board lack the ability to see their parties own shortcomings. While they obviously have the ability to point out others faults they can't stand looking in the mirror.
This point you bring up has been one that has been hilarious to me for a few years. The Dems voted for the war and now are acting like they were bamboozled. The famous line by Kerry even cost him the election, yet the Dems are unable to comprehend this easy point. While I disagree completely with guys like Ted Kennedy, at least he knows where he stands and voted on his convictions against the war. The rest of the Dems looked at the polling numbers and voted as predicted at the time. Now, they are flapping the other way. I'd take 50 more Ted's and 50 Newt's because at least these guys know themselves. I couldn't see either Ted or Newt running around admitting they were bamboozled. The Repubs should absolutely be held accountable for their vote as well. I am voting for them because I like the direction they are taking. What I really love is that most of you Dems will be pulling levers for Democrats who voted for the war. Where are your convictions? |
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 201
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 2:58 pm: |
|
Interesting editorial today in the Boston Globe begging Kerry not to run for President again. I wholeheratedly agree. He should have stood up in 2003 in the run up to war and during the 2004 election campaign and said going into Iraq is (was) a mistake. But he was afraid of looking weak on terror and wanted to outmilitary Bush. Now he confidently says Iraq was a mistake. Too little too late in my opinion. He had his chance to say that when it mattered and he didn't. If he had some foresight and exhibited some leadership skills back then (and I am still astonished most of our leaders, including many Dems, didn't foresee the present situation in Iraq), he still would have lost the 2004 election. But he would be the winner in 2008. By not being a leader and standing for something, and instead thinking everything through ad nauseum before making the most politcally safe decision at that time, he has lost the opportunity to realize his dream of being President in my opinion. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2060
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 4:03 pm: |
|
ina,
I'm with you on that. I want the Democrats to stand stronger in opposition to the president, even if they can't stop him while they're in the minority. but your thread title doesn't match Buchanan's words. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 956
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 6:15 pm: |
|
Dr.,
I would actually like that as well. I want a strong two party system where we can debate the issues from two distinct viewpoints. The Dems have turned into Republican light and while it serves my purpose of having them lose election after election, I see where it is unhealthy for my liberal friends. As I've stated before, it took the Repubs many, many years (decades indeed) to understand you don't win by imitating your opponent. While many of you good libs already know this, I'm afraid your party leaders haven't which means you could be in for quite a long haul as the minority party. I'm just real interested to see how far right you guys allow Hillary to run. When she appears on Hannity then we'll know. One thing you can say about us conservatives is we don't stand pat when one of our own strays to the left. McCain is a perfect example. He may have salvaged his Presidential hope by his recent sprints to the right, but he sure did pay for his liberal tendencies. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 177
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 8:49 pm: |
|
The Clinton administration had a foreign policy team that was quite bellicose, e.g. the bloodthirsty harpy "Mad" Albright. On his watch, we bombed and killed people in Iraq on several occasions, to the applause of Bill Kristol and the Weakly Standard. We also launched an unprovoked war of agression against the small country of Yugoslavia, which posed absolutely no threat to any American interest. The Democrats in congress were pretty much on board when the anti-Saddam train left the station. They started to jump off only when things began to go seriously awry. I agree with Southerner in commending Sen. Kennedy (D-Chappaquidick) for voting his convictions, unlike opportunistic carpetbaggers like Hillary Clinton. Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that the tendency to use American military power for flimsy, not to say bogus reasons, did not originate with the current administration.
Cheers |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2066
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 8:54 pm: |
|
that's true. and some of us didn't like it any better when it was Clinton. here's a "lefty" objection to Clinton's Iraq policy that illustrates what some of us were thinking at the time:
 |
SO Ref
Citizen
Username: So_refugee
Post Number: 1745
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 8:57 pm: |
|
Quote:Where are your convictions?
From someone who would welcome a nuclear or terrorist strike on the US if it helped his party win an election.
Nice. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page