Things you thought could not happen in America.

Yes, Bush is the decision maker on Iraq&Iran. Bush may be the decision-maker on our 2008 elections. He may decide He still wants to be President.


Bush: `I'm the decision-maker' on Iraq

President Bush, on a collision course with Congress over Iraq, said Friday "I'm the decision-maker" about sending more troops to the war. He challenged skeptical lawmakers not to prematurely condemn his plan.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070126/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_3


If Bush can break one ammendment to eavesdrop or to get into your mail or e-mail, what makes you think he can't break any other amendment in the constitution? HELLO!! Hello! are you awake yet?
Original Post
The President of the USA is the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces according to the Constitution of the USA.

Therefore, he can deploy troops and withdraw troops as he sees fit. Of course, preferably with Congressional approval. Congress can always kill the funding, as they did in 1975 when they refused to send aid to South Vietnam, resulting in North Vietnam overrunning South Vietnam, going against President Ford's wishes.

However, plenty of examples where Congress was not in the mix for troop/naval/air deployments other than Iraq (1990-91, 2003-present) and Vietnam:

Balkans-1990's
Somalia-1992
Panama-1989
Grenada-1983
Mayaguez rescue-1975
Korea-1950

Since WW2, the days, it seems, of declaring war is over, as the USA has not declared war on any country, and only Congress can do that. That is what happens when you have agreements and treaties with organizations such as the U.N., NATO, etc. where use of force is authorized under certain conditions.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Same thing was said of JFK, LBJ and Nixon. After a while, one tires of such prattle. Get an original idea.

"Fascism is always coming to America, but it never arrives."



What do you think fascism is?
quote:
Originally posted by Brentenman:
The President of the USA is the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces according to the Constitution of the USA.

Therefore, he can deploy troops and withdraw troops as he sees fit. Of course, preferably with Congressional approval. Congress can always kill the funding, as they did in 1975 when they refused to send aid to South Vietnam, resulting in North Vietnam overrunning South Vietnam, going against President Ford's wishes.

However, plenty of examples where Congress was not in the mix for troop/naval/air deployments other than Iraq (1990-91, 2003-present) and Vietnam:

Balkans-1990's
Somalia-1992
Panama-1989
Grenada-1983
Mayaguez rescue-1975
Korea-1950

Since WW2, the days, it seems, of declaring war is over, as the USA has not declared war on any country, and only Congress can do that. That is what happens when you have agreements and treaties with organizations such as the U.N., NATO, etc. where use of force is authorized under certain conditions.


We were pulling Troops away in 1973, ...

January 23, 1973:President Nixon announces that an agreement ahs been reached which will "end the war and bring peach with honor"

This was all taken from *** JANUARY 23. 1973 *** WHICH I might add, has more listings there about how many died (approx 3000 a year) How many injured (about 10,000 a year), plus many different timelines that sure brought back memories for me.


Now as far as the US declaring the proverbial "WAR"... you are right, even though we are IN war, it hasn't actually been declared...

They used to call those skirmish's, Cold Wars, and stuff like that.. They NEVER called Vietnam anything other than a COLD War....

Hope this URL is put in here right, it is really a good one for the actual history/facts of Vietnam.
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by Brentenman:
The President of the USA is the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces according to the Constitution of the USA.

Therefore, he can deploy troops and withdraw troops as he sees fit. Of course, preferably with Congressional approval. Congress can always kill the funding, as they did in 1975 when they refused to send aid to South Vietnam, resulting in North Vietnam overrunning South Vietnam, going against President Ford's wishes.

However, plenty of examples where Congress was not in the mix for troop/naval/air deployments other than Iraq (1990-91, 2003-present) and Vietnam:

Balkans-1990's
Somalia-1992
Panama-1989
Grenada-1983
Mayaguez rescue-1975
Korea-1950

Since WW2, the days, it seems, of declaring war is over, as the USA has not declared war on any country, and only Congress can do that. That is what happens when you have agreements and treaties with organizations such as the U.N., NATO, etc. where use of force is authorized under certain conditions.


We were pulling Troops away in 1973, ...

January 23, 1973:President Nixon announces that an agreement ahs been reached which will "end the war and bring peach with honor"

This was all taken from *** JANUARY 23. 1973 *** WHICH I might add, has more listings there about how many died (approx 3000 a year) How many injured (about 10,000 a year), plus many different timelines that sure brought back memories for me.


Now as far as the US declaring the proverbial "WAR"... you are right, even though we are IN war, it hasn't actually been declared...

They used to call those skirmish's, Cold Wars, and stuff like that.. They NEVER called Vietnam anything other than a COLD War....

Hope this URL is put in here right, it is really a good one for the actual history/facts of Vietnam.


That ended the war as far as U.S. involvement went, ground troops and air/naval forces that is. We still supported South Vietnam with aid and the like. When the commies came south in Spring 1975, Ford requested emergency aid for South Vietnam, Congress refused, and the South fell. The 2nd Indochina War ended as a result, with all of Vietnam reunified under a Communist regime, and Cambodia going into chaos; Pol Pot took over, and then the Killing Fields started in Cambodia, 'reeducation camps' started in southern Vietnam, and etc.....
quote:
Originally posted by Brentenman:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by Brentenman:
The President of the USA is the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces according to the Constitution of the USA.

Therefore, he can deploy troops and withdraw troops as he sees fit. Of course, preferably with Congressional approval. Congress can always kill the funding, as they did in 1975 when they refused to send aid to South Vietnam, resulting in North Vietnam overrunning South Vietnam, going against President Ford's wishes.

However, plenty of examples where Congress was not in the mix for troop/naval/air deployments other than Iraq (1990-91, 2003-present) and Vietnam:

Balkans-1990's
Somalia-1992
Panama-1989
Grenada-1983
Mayaguez rescue-1975
Korea-1950

Since WW2, the days, it seems, of declaring war is over, as the USA has not declared war on any country, and only Congress can do that. That is what happens when you have agreements and treaties with organizations such as the U.N., NATO, etc. where use of force is authorized under certain conditions.


We were pulling Troops away in 1973, ...

January 23, 1973:President Nixon announces that an agreement ahs been reached which will "end the war and bring peach with honor"

This was all taken from *** JANUARY 23. 1973 *** WHICH I might add, has more listings there about how many died (approx 3000 a year) How many injured (about 10,000 a year), plus many different timelines that sure brought back memories for me.


Now as far as the US declaring the proverbial "WAR"... you are right, even though we are IN war, it hasn't actually been declared...

They used to call those skirmish's, Cold Wars, and stuff like that.. They NEVER called Vietnam anything other than a COLD War....

Hope this URL is put in here right, it is really a good one for the actual history/facts of Vietnam.


That ended the war as far as U.S. involvement went, ground troops and air/naval forces that is. We still supported South Vietnam with aid and the like. When the commies came south in Spring 1975, Ford requested emergency aid for South Vietnam, Congress refused, and the South fell. The 2nd Indochina War ended as a result, with all of Vietnam reunified under a Communist regime, and Cambodia going into chaos; Pol Pot took over, and then the Killing Fields started in Cambodia, 'reeducation camps' started in southern Vietnam, and etc.....


Brentenman... I read the history of Vietnam... (also lived through the Era with a brother there and an Ex hubby who was enlisted)... anyways...

On that History site, it clearly states that:

April 23, 1975 - 100,000 NVA soldiers advance on Saigon which is now overflowing with refugees. On this same day, President Ford gives a speech at Tulane University stating the conflict in Vietnam is "a war that is finished as far as America is concerned."

We knew many years before the actual END, that it was a no-win situation... Westmorland KNEW he was sending our boys over there to die or be maimed... the COLD WAR of Vietnam was totally Political... MONEY.... nothing else.

No were on the Internet, nor in my Memory banks do I remember ever hearing Ford requesting emergancy aid... when we were out, we were out... our (THEN) Leaders KNEW what was going to happen, they KNEW the North was going to take over, they just didn't know exactly how long it would take.

The URL I provided also has (ON FORD'S COMMENT IN APRIL 1975) a 'contained' URL on his speech.

And another thing, Iraq sure is looking like a Power, Money, Political kind of war to me, and not only to me, but about 68-70% of the United States.... I think the (NOW) Leaders know exactly what is going to be the oucome, already.
quote:
Originally posted by Brentenman:
The President of the USA is the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces according to the Constitution of the USA.

Therefore, he can deploy troops and withdraw troops as he sees fit. Of course, preferably with Congressional approval. Congress can always kill the funding, as they did in 1975 when they refused to send aid to South Vietnam, resulting in North Vietnam overrunning South Vietnam, going against President Ford's wishes.

However, plenty of examples where Congress was not in the mix for troop/naval/air deployments other than Iraq (1990-91, 2003-present) and Vietnam:

Balkans-1990's
Somalia-1992
Panama-1989
Grenada-1983
Mayaguez rescue-1975
Korea-1950

Since WW2, the days, it seems, of declaring war is over, as the USA has not declared war on any country, and only Congress can do that. That is what happens when you have agreements and treaties with organizations such as the U.N., NATO, etc. where use of force is authorized under certain conditions.


I come across this today and thought you might read it as The term "Commander in Chief," Fascism and the "militarism of our society," greater secrecy, detentions, renditions, torture and the Glorification of the Presidency.

The article explains alot!


The term "Commander in Chief," Fascism and the "militarism of our society," greater secrecy, detentions, renditions, torture and the Glorification of the Presidency.
Also the Daniel Moynihan quote.


At Ease, Mr. President - New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/opinion/27wills.html?...h&emc=th&oref=slogin


Op-Ed Contributor


At Ease, Mr. President



By GARRY WILLS
Published: January 27, 2007
Evanston, Ill.

WE hear constantly now about “our commander in chief.” The word has become a synonym for “president.” It is said that we “elect a commander in chief.” It is asked whether this or that candidate is “worthy to be our commander in chief.”

But the president is not our commander in chief. He certainly is not mine. I am not in the Army.

I first cringed at the misuse in 1973, during the “Saturday Night Massacre” (as it was called). President Richard Nixon, angered at the Watergate inquiry being conducted by the special prosecutor Archibald Cox, dispatched his chief of staff, Al Haig, to arrange for Mr. Cox’s firing. Mr. Haig told the attorney general, Elliot Richardson, to dismiss Mr. Cox. Mr. Richardson refused, and resigned. Then Mr. Haig told the second in line at the Justice Department, William Ruckelshaus, to fire Cox. Mr. Ruckelshaus refused, and accepted his dismissal. The third in line, Robert Bork, finally did the deed.

What struck me was what Mr. Haig told Mr. Ruckelshaus, “You know what it means when an order comes down from the commander in chief and a member of his team cannot execute it.” This was as great a constitutional faux pas as Mr. Haig’s later claim, when President Reagan was wounded, that “Constitutionally ... I’m in control.”

President Nixon was not Mr. Ruckelshaus’s commander in chief. The president is not the commander in chief of civilians. He is not even commander in chief of National Guard troops unless and until they are federalized. The Constitution is clear on this: “The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.”

When Abraham Lincoln took actions based on military considerations, he gave himself the proper title, “commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” That title is rarely — more like never — heard today. It is just “commander in chief,” or even “commander in chief of the United States.” This reflects the increasing militarization of our politics. The citizenry at large is now thought of as under military discipline. In wartime, it is true, people submit to the national leadership more than in peacetime. The executive branch takes actions in secret, unaccountable to the electorate, to hide its moves from the enemy and protect national secrets. Constitutional shortcuts are taken “for the duration.” But those impositions are removed when normal life returns.

But we have not seen normal life in 66 years. The wartime discipline imposed in 1941 has never been lifted, and “the duration” has become the norm. World War II melded into the cold war, with greater secrecy than ever — more classified information, tougher security clearances. And now the cold war has modulated into the war on terrorism.

There has never been an executive branch more fetishistic about secrecy than the Bush-Cheney one. The secrecy has been used to throw a veil over detentions, “renditions,” suspension of the Geneva Conventions and of habeas corpus, torture and warrantless wiretaps. We hear again the refrain so common in the other wars — If you knew what we know, you would see how justified all our actions are.

But we can never know what they know. We do not have sufficient clearance.

When Adm. William Crowe, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, criticized the gulf war under the first President Bush, Secretary of State James Baker said that the admiral was not qualified to speak on the matter since he no longer had the clearance to read classified reports. If he is not qualified, then no ordinary citizen is. We must simply trust our lords and obey the commander in chief.

The glorification of the president as a war leader is registered in numerous and substantial executive aggrandizements; but it is symbolized in other ways that, while small in themselves, dispose the citizenry to accept those aggrandizements. We are reminded, for instance, of the expanded commander in chief status every time a modern president gets off the White House helicopter and returns the salute of marines.

That is an innovation that was begun by Ronald Reagan. Dwight Eisenhower, a real general, knew that the salute is for the uniform, and as president he was not wearing one. An exchange of salutes was out of order. (George Bush came as close as he could to wearing a uniform while president when he landed on the telegenic aircraft carrier in an Air Force flight jacket).

We used to take pride in civilian leadership of the military under the Constitution, a principle that George Washington embraced when he avoided military symbols at Mount Vernon. We are not led — or were not in the past — by caudillos.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s prescient last book, “Secrecy,” traced the ever-faster-growing secrecy of our government and said that it strikes at the very essence of democracy — accountability of representatives to the people. How can the people hold their representatives to account if they are denied knowledge of what they are doing? Wartime and war analogies are embraced because these justify the secrecy. The representative is accountable to citizens. Soldiers are accountable to their officer. The dynamics are different, and to blend them is to undermine the basic principles of our Constitution.

Garry Wills, a professor emeritus of history at Northwestern, is the author, most recently, of “What Paul Meant.”
quote:
Originally posted by Quarrles:
PBA you are starting to read like the Communist Manifesto. Good for you it takes guts to take such a stance while your country is at war defending youe choice.


explain to me what you think the Iraq war is all about! then I will take you on the debate!!
so ,come on, lets get with it!!! and all you other right wing friends can join in!!
quote:
Originally posted by themax:
quote:
Originally posted by Quarrles:
PBA, Come on Commerade we're waitng.


He must be finding something that could be half an answer to copy and paste. LOL


AT LEAST I CAN DEBATE WITHOUT CALLING SOMEBODY A NAME! YOU'RE THE JOKE!LOL!
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Same thing was said of JFK, LBJ and Nixon. After a while, one tires of such prattle. Get an original idea.

"Fascism is always coming to America, but it never arrives."




The power of the presidency has been growing and Bush has taken it further then any president. Corporate control of society is more powerful then ever and the average person feels powerless, and we all know it. Those who deny it are not facing reality or in touch with the common people, who say it everyday. We see our votes and congress is meaningless.

The media is a corporate spin machine.
quote:
Originally posted by Quarrles:
PBA you are starting to read like the Communist Manifesto. Good for you it takes guts to take such a stance while your country is at war defending youe choice.



The Constitution say's only Congress can declare war, we know that. The Presidents have been abusing their power and the Congress has allowed it. They passed the War Powers Act in 1974 (I think it was) which gives the President 90 days, ( I think) before he has to come to congress for an extension and explain.

It's a complicated issue as is it really necessary to allow the President the right to use troops without the consent of Congress, or the people?

The President's power has been increasing and the reason the Founding Fathers split power was so it wasn't concentrated in the Presidency, who becomes like a King.

In reality these troops are committed to protect US businesses, usually against a popular up rising against the oligarchy of the country and our puppet that allowed US businesses to exploit the resources and labor. The oligarchy shares in the profits at the workers and peoples expense. US business interests are usually called US interests in the corporate media and the government.

Do the American people really want to tear up their constitution and give up their power, through congress, to the Presidency?

Bush isn't the first to abuse this power. I know we put troops in Lebanon and the Dominican Republic.

They also sent troop a number of times into Latin America in the early 1900's. I am not sure if they had congresses approval or not.
The educator veneer is off now. You espouse all these commie themes then drop the charade when scratched. The truth is there is nothing there of any substance, everything is someone elses thoughts and opinions. No problem, pretending is fun isn't it?
Rightwing friends? You're paranoid. You have absolutely no connection with these pastngs you use, all smoke and mirrors. You are done as far as Iam concerned. You are too easy,too transparent. Have a great day.
quote:
Originally posted by Quarrles:
The educator veneer is off now. You espouse all these commie themes then drop the charade when scratched. The truth is there is nothing there of any substance, everything is someone elses thoughts and opinions. No problem, pretending is fun isn't it?
Rightwing friends? You're paranoid. You have absolutely no connection with these pastngs you use, all smoke and mirrors. You are done as far as Iam concerned. You are too easy,too transparent. Have a great day.


Not to mention that all the other comments just got pushed so far back that they won't be seen anymore... GRRRRRRRRR
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20....html?referrer=email
Kindred, I thought I would join in with Quarrles, by posting this totally irrelevant comment on the result of the decisions already made.

Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, a 50-year-old reservist from Virginia who ran the interrogation center at the Iraqi prison, was accused of failing to exert his authority as the place descended into chaos, with prisoners stripped naked, photographed in humiliating poses and intimidated by snarling dogs. He was also charged with lying to investigators.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Same thing was said of JFK, LBJ and Nixon. After a while, one tires of such prattle. Get an original idea.

"Fascism is always coming to America, but it never arrives."




Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×