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

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

Source Link: 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.

However, Sen. Carl Levin, Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said lawmakers would step up efforts to force Bush to change course. “The president needs a check and a balance,” said Levin.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Good lord! If she truly said that, then their small neocon clique still holding to power in Washington are really BEGGING to be overthrown! With Congress and Senate controlled by Dems, Bush will be wiped off the map if he defies his OWN State!

I have said it before and I will say it again bush minor will provoke a constitutional crisis over all this before the year is out and nothing I have read, including this has changed my mind about it.

Congress cannot tell the President how to run a war, that is unconstitutional to the nth degree and a violation of the separation of powers, he is the Commander-in-Chief. They can however repeal their authorization for use of military force against Iraq, provided they have a 2/3 majority to override a veto.

Also, Congress isn't always right, and unfortunately when you have a weak president or apathetic Supreme Court illegal and unconstitutional legislation against the Executive gets passed, just ask Andrew Johnson. Thankfully that does not appear to be the case...

I guess many people were under the impression that the Government is By The People and FOR The People. Some who I wont even bother to get into seems to think its run By The President and For The President and that he should not listen to what congress who also work for us has to say and that he is entitled to do as he pleases. Well maybe if this were a dictatorship yes I would agree, but last time I checked this was supposed to be a democracy and the majority rules. If The Prez is thinking about himself and his minority of supporters then he's wrong.




[edit on 26-2-2007 by ThePieMaN]

Umm... lets see here.

The President is elected by the entire country, majority speaks.

Senators are elected by an individual state.

Reps. are elected by certain congressional districts within a state.

Now, which is more democratic and in the spirit of the Republic, which is what we have?

As I said before, if congress represents the majority, no problem, than they can repeal the AUMF with a 2/3 majority. Otherwise we elected the President to be the steward of our country, so let him govern. The right to "faithfully execute" the laws and regulations is clearly reserved for the Executive, especially when it comes to military matters.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by WestPoint23]

no offence guys, but as far as I can tell, all President Bush cares about is war, and during one of his many speeches, he said that he will take note on which countries are not with him on the war in iraq. Take note? lmao is that supposed to scare people lol. How many soldiers have to die before Bush is satisfied. Former President Bush Sr. didnt get Saddam during the gilf war, but his son did, and thats where it should have quit. From the looks of things over there, the U.S. is moving in and everyone else is pulling out. I appologize for my rantin n raving.

Just a pitty Wpoint, that bush WASNT elected by the people, and currently isnt WANTED by the peopel

Bush has no place in his heart for any american.
Your all merely money making people, with brains worth manipulating so worthless wars can be fought

america has followed him this far, after all he has done to your respectable country, im positive in thinking you dont have a choice anymore wether you follow him. You allowed a monster to grow to the point where no one can stop him even if you wanted.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
They can however repeal their authorization for use of military force against Iraq, provided they have a 2/3 majority to override a veto.

AND that is what all this is about westpoint... if congress repeals their authorization and bush minor totally disregards them as Dr. Rice is suggesting, then that is a blatant violation of the constitution, and then congress will have no choice but to respond. THAT is the type of thing I am taking about when I say he is going to provoke a constitutional crisis before his term, and probably this year is out.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm... lets see here.

The President is elected by the entire country, majority speaks.

Senators are elected by an individual state.

Reps. are elected by certain congressional districts within a state.

Now, which is more democratic and in the spirit of the Republic, which is what we have?

As I said before, if congress represents the majority, no problem, than they can repeal the AUMF with a 2/3 majority. Otherwise we elected the President to be the steward of our country, so let him govern. The right to "faithfully execute" the laws and regulations is clearly reserved for the Executive, especially when it comes to military matters.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by WestPoint23]

That is a misunderstanding of the process and the system... it is a collective system. We have a trilateral style of government.... the congress, the court and the president. They are supposed to be co-equal and in theory if any one branch were to collapse, the whole structure would fall.

Bush is not going to make any more waves. His administration consistantly gets their butts kicked in court when it comes to constitutional issues. Alot of people are tired of their constant fearmongering and consistant sub par handling of the "war".

The dems have no stomach to pass any real bills to end the war. They have an election to win next year. Gop's have to look like they also oppose the "war" to hold office in the upcoming elections. Nothing will be resolved until the new administraiton takes power.

WestPoint
Maybe legally you are right, that once congress gives permission
to go to war, the President has the power to execute that decision
in any way he feels necessary!
But, What happens when you have a President like this one,
that skips negotiation, UN Reasonable Resolution offerings,
Lies to everyone, and jumps US in with both feet??

Is it an ethical question now??

My heart just is broken , thinking of all of our young men & women
putting their lives on the line. The truth be told though, they
were sent on an unwinnable mission, ill prepared for what faced them

Pres Bush will not leave Iraq with anything less than
CONTROL of the oil!!!
His patriotic spiels, are not only less than genuine,
they are downright misleading!

The FACT is we have been attacked ONCE!!
911........
Homeland security, sealing our borders is the way
we must protect ourselves.....

Not IN IRAQ!!

[edit on 2/27/2007 by Ex]

This is GREAT!!!


alternet.org...

We need more people speaking out....and more important... more people LISTENING!!!

Bush will not abide by any opinion poll, that's for sure. And the Democrats couldn't even get an opinion poll passed last week; what makes you think they can revoke his war powers?

Levin is a fool. He looks like an owl, with his glasses perched on his nose. Election time is approaching, and that is all this is, an election year pose by the Democrats.

This is GREAT!!!

alternet.org...

Three Card Monty Players!!
Rice gets and F or Expulsion!!

Yea!!! Tell It!!!

I have said it once and I will say it again....Condi Rice is the most ineffectual sec. of state that we have had in my lifetime. And, between her, Rumsfeld and Bolton, not to mention Ashcroft and Gonzales and the rest of the gang that couldn't think straight our nation's interests are being poorly served indeed.


alternet.org...

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
I guess many people were under the impression that the Government is By The People and FOR The People. Some who I wont even bother to get into seems to think its run By The President and For The President and that he should not listen to what congress who also work for us has to say and that he is entitled to do as he pleases. Well maybe if this were a dictatorship yes I would agree, but last time I checked this was supposed to be a democracy and the majority rules. If The Prez is thinking about himself and his minority of supporters then he's wrong.




[edit on 26-2-2007 by ThePieMaN]

Leadership means being able to make decisions that you feel to be right, which may be unpopular.
If one is more concerned with being liked, then they'll be an ineffective leader. Integrity means using one's own conscience, and not the opinion de jour. If Congress cuts off funding, that would be the way they counteract Bush's plans. Of course that requires moral courage on their part because then they have to worry about public opinion turning against them for not supporting the troops. They're trying to go about it the cowardly way, using non binding measures, rather than putting their money where their mouths are.
This country is a Republic. Policy isn't decided on by Gallup polls. You vote for whomever you feel to be the best candidate, and they vote based on their conscience(or should at least). If you're unhappy with them, then during the next election, you vote for another candidate.
If Congress cuts off funding and has the votes to overrule a veto, then they'll succede in interfering with the surge.

Originally posted by Ex
But, What happens when you have a President like this one,
that skips negotiation, UN Reasonable Resolution offerings,
Lies to everyone, and jumps US in with both feet??[edit on 2/27/2007 by Ex]

I love how history is re-written after the fact to make one's arguments seem more reasonable.

Both your claims of skipping negotiation and lack of UN resolutions can be defeated in one fell swoop by examining the dozens of UN resolutions on Iraq which were ignored.

Your little claim of "lies to everyone" is swiftly defeated as well. A lie is purposefully telling a mistruth to manipulate people. Forwarding what is later found to be incorrect information is not a lie. If you can prove that Bush KNEW that the information he was presenting was false, then you can claim the lie. But that has not happened yet.

How about resubmitting your argument and using facts as the foundation instead of things that you "think" are correct.

How about resubmitting your argument and using facts as the foundation instead of things that you "think" are correct.

You Got It!!

TENET EXPOSES BUSH'S MISLEADING ON WMD'S -
Thursday, February 5, 2004
CIA Director George Tenet said this morning that intelligence
"analysts never said there was an imminent threat"
from Iraq before the war. His comments are consistent with
various warnings sent to the White House from the intelligence community that specifically
told the president his claims
that Iraq definitely had chemical/biological and nuclear weapons
were unsubstantiated.
Tenet's comments call into question whether the Bush Administration
was knowingly ignoring intelligence and misleading the country by claiming definitively
that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and
was therefore an "imminent," "immediate," "urgent" and "mortal" threat
to the American people.
Though the White House has claimed it never said
Iraq was an imminent threat, the record proves otherwise.

www.tylwythteg.com...


Read It Yourself and Then Comment On
my lack of hindsight!

Transcript of Powell's U.N. Presentation

Your little claim of "lies to everyone" is swiftly defeated as well. A lie is purposefully telling a mistruth to manipulate people. Forwarding what is later found to be incorrect information is not a lie. If you can prove that Bush KNEW that the information he was presenting was false, then you can claim the lie. But that has not happened yet.

AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Guess the definition of a lie depends on your politial affiliation.

[edit on 27/2/2007 by shooterbrody]