Holly, You're just plain butt assed stupid. Whether or not I served in the military has nothing what so fucking ever to do with the President getting input from his commanders in the field to make decisions. But keep talking. You're just digging yourself deeper and deeper into your moron's abyss.
On Oct 3, 5:11 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > Zeb, > > Jeez, but you're an idiot. Have you ever actually served in the U.S. > military? You have any idea what you're talking about? > > On Oct 3, 3:47 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yeah, yer right bright boy! Why would the commander in chief want to > > speak to the commander who is directly in charge of theater of > > operation that he has to make a crucial decision about? LOL! Second > > hand information is much better, huh? You really don't know when to > > quit. > > > On Oct 3, 4:31 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Zeb, > > > > Yeah sure, go ask anyone that has actually served in the military what > > > "flimsy minutia" the chain of command it. Dumbass. > > > > The POTUS can ALSO NOT speak to anyone under his command if he chooses > > > and instead speak to the person through the chain of command. > > > > On Oct 3, 1:53 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >there is a system (called Chain of Command) > > > > > Why do you libs try to run smokescreens behind this flimsy minutia. It > > > > is so transparent. The "chain of command" is not something that > > > > prevents communication between command levels. It is a protocol. > > > > Nothing more. The President can AND DOES speak to anyone and at any > > > > level in the military he chooses to. > > > > > On Oct 2, 11:15 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > No one is saying it wouldn't be better if he talked to McCrystal more. > > > > > My point is, there is a system (called Chain of Command) in which > > > > > McCrystal does not report directly to Obama. He is not "not doing what > > > > > he is supposed to" by not talking to him directly. And to imply he is, > > > > > would be false. > > > > > > On Oct 2, 3:46 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Is 45 minutes with the President's time the right amount in 6 months > > > > > > for the top general??? Less time than what he spent on trying to > > > > > > get > > > > > > the Olympics... > > > > > > > On Oct 2, 2:44 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Zeb, > > > > > > > > He made his point in the very first sentance of his post. What > > > > > > > was it > > > > > > > you don't understand? > > > > > > > > On Oct 2, 8:48 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > SO? WHats your point? > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 11:08 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > These are isolated incedents. Not permanent expansion to > > > > > > > > > executive > > > > > > > > > power. You are comparing apples and oranges. > > > > > > > > > > "Cheney's office has taken the lead in challenging many of > > > > > > > > > these laws, > > > > > > > > > officials said, because they run counter to an expansive view > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > executive power that Cheney has cultivated for the past 30 > > > > > > > > > years. > > > > > > > > > Under the theory, Congress cannot pass laws that place > > > > > > > > > restrictions or > > > > > > > > > requirements on how the president runs the military and spy > > > > > > > > > agencies. > > > > > > > > > Nor can it pass laws giving government officials the power or > > > > > > > > > responsibility to act independently of the president. > > > > > > > > > > "Mainstream legal scholars across the political spectrum > > > > > > > > > reject > > > > > > > > > Cheney's expansive view of presidential authority, saying the > > > > > > > > > Constitution gives Congress the power to make all rules and > > > > > > > > > regulations for the military and the executive branch and the > > > > > > > > > Supreme > > > > > > > > > Court has consistently upheld laws giving bureaucrats and > > > > > > > > > certain > > > > > > > > > prosecutors the power to act independently of the president." > > > > > > > > > > After an unprecedented number of signing statements, the > > > > > > > > > White House > > > > > > > > > laid low for a while. > > > > > > > > > > But Cheney finally couldn't contain himself any longer, > > > > > > > > > apparently. > > > > > > > > > And here's the first Bush signing statement in three months , > > > > > > > > > quietly > > > > > > > > > filed away two weeks ago in response to the deeply > > > > > > > > > threatening Coastal > > > > > > > > > Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 . > > > > > > > > > > The law, sponsored by five Republicans from both houses, and > > > > > > > > > passed by > > > > > > > > > unanimous consent in the Senate and by voice vote in the > > > > > > > > > House, > > > > > > > > > directs the Secretary of the Interior to report to Congress > > > > > > > > > on the > > > > > > > > > creation of digital maps of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier > > > > > > > > > Resources System units and other protected areas under a > > > > > > > > > digital > > > > > > > > > mapping pilot project. > > > > > > > > > > But here's what Bush's signing statement says: "Section > > > > > > > > > 3(c)(2) and > > > > > > > > > section 4(c)(3)(C) and (D) purport to require executive branch > > > > > > > > > officials to submit legislative recommendations to the > > > > > > > > > Congress. The > > > > > > > > > executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner > > > > > > > > > consistent > > > > > > > > > with the Constitution's commitment to the President of the > > > > > > > > > authority > > > > > > > > > to submit for the consideration of the Congress such measures > > > > > > > > > as the > > > > > > > > > President judges necessary and expedient and to supervise the > > > > > > > > > unitary > > > > > > > > > executive branch." > > > > > > > > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/06/BL200606... > > > > > > > > > >http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-05-power-play_x.htm > > > > > > > > > Congress, courts push back against Bush's assertions of > > > > > > > > > presidential > > > > > > > > > power > > > > > > > > > > etc etc > > > > > > > > > > And in response to your second statement, yes they have tried > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > before. > > > > > > > > > > Bush: Congress can't stop troop > > > > > > > > > increasehttp://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/14/bush.60.minutes/ > > > > > > > > > WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress cannot reverse last week's > > > > > > > > > decision to > > > > > > > > > send 21,000 more troops to Iraq, President Bush said in an > > > > > > > > > interview > > > > > > > > > intended to rally popular support for his plan. > > > > > > > > > > "Frankly, that's not their responsibility," Bush said in an > > > > > > > > > interview > > > > > > > > > on the CBS News program "60 Minutes," which aired Sunday. > > > > > > > > > > "It's my responsibility to put forward the plan that I think > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > succeed. I believe if they start trying to cut off funds, > > > > > > > > > they better > > > > > > > > > explain to the American people and the soldiers why their > > > > > > > > > plan will > > > > > > > > > succeed," the president said. > > > > > > > > > > Some Democrats, including Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy, > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > called on Congress to block Bush from committing more troops > > > > > > > > > to Iraq, > > > > > > > > > either by limiting the number of troops that can be committed > > > > > > > > > or by > > > > > > > > > cutting off funds for further deployments. (Watch > > > > > > > > > congressional > > > > > > > > > reaction to plan ) > > > > > > > > > > Asked if he believes that he, as commander-in-chief of the > > > > > > > > > armed > > > > > > > > > forces, has the authority to order troops to Iraq in the face > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > congressional opposition, Bush said, "In this situation, I > > > > > > > > > do, yeah." > > > > > > > > > > "I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it," > > > > > > > > > he said. > > > > > > > > > "But I made my decision, and we're going forward." > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 9:51 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >Are you saying that the powers of the Executive Branch did > > > > > > > > > > >not > > > > > > > > > > >increase under President Bush? > > > > > > > > > > > Compared to what? Other Presidents? LBJ escalated a war > > > > > > > > > > that got > > > > > > > > > > 60,000 of our troops killed. FDR put American citizens of > > > > > > > > > > Japanese > > > > > > > > > > descent in internment camps (if I were a liberal I'd call > > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > concentration camps). JFK had people like ML King followed > > > > > > > > > > by the FBI. > > > > > > > > > > He invaded Cuba. Reagan had a missile fired into Khadafy's > > > > > > > > > > house, > > > > > > > > > > killing his daughter. Exactly what "powers" are so much > > > > > > > > > > greater than > > > > > > > > > > those I mentioned? > > > > > > > > > > > >and after all congress (which is also informed by certain > > > > > > > > > > cabinets > > > > > > > > > > > >and committees) must approve these depolyments for them to > > > > > > > > > > >>happen > > > > > > > > > > > Talk about splitting hairs. The only thing congress can do > > > > > > > > > > to stop the > > > > > > > > > > President's troop deployments is defund them. That is > > > > > > > > > > political poison > > > > > > > > > > as it is seen as being against our own troops. The Dems > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't even > > > > > > > > > > do that to Bush, and they fuckin hated him. They'd NEVER > > > > > > > > > > block Obama. > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on available information and the reality of the > > > > > > > > > > > situation I > > > > > > > > > > > think it a misrepresentation to insinuate that the > > > > > > > > > > > President is > > > > > > > > > > > somehow not doing his job by not directly conversing with > > > > > > > > > > > troop > > > > > > > > > > > commanders. > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you'd be wrong in that assessment. > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 9:09 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Zebnick, > > > > > > > > > > > > My knowledge of history is actually quite > > > > > > > > > > > extensive(although I > > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't really qualify 2004 as such, perhaps "modern > > > > > > > > > > > history"). > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that the powers of the Executive Branch > > > > > > > > > > > did not > > > > > > > > > > > increase under President Bush? (yes or no answer, not > > > > > > > > > > > "you are stupid, > > > > > > > > > > > you suck, I had sex with your mom type answers) > > > > > > > > > > > > And yes the President authorizes troop deployments which > > > > > > > > > > > must be > > > > > > > > > > > approved by congress. Now you are splitting hairs. The > > > > > > > > > > > whole premise > > > > > > > > > > > of this post is that Obama makes this decisions soley so > > > > > > > > > > > he should be > > > > > > > > > > > better informed by lower ranking members "on the ground." > > > > > > > > > > > > My argument is that Obama does not make these decisions > > > > > > > > > > > arbitrarily. > > > > > > > > > > > He has several steps in the CoC before Gen.McCrystal, he > > > > > > > > > > > has councils > > > > > > > > > > > of senior officials to advise on > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
