Guess what, we didn’t much in the way of airplanes when FDR put us in WWII… guess what… we went!

You’re so damn dumb otter, there’s no reason to take anything you and your liberal asshole buddies have to say. You’re ignorant, uninformed, unhinged and out of your minds.

There were no investments at all being made. Clinton’s biggest military policy was don’t ask don’t tell.

What a waste.

The Congress has no authority to dictate a time-table for withdrawal. None.

To be clear, I do not think Congress should necessarily give the President what he wants. There is a reason he has to request the money. But it should act within its authority.

If Democrats want the war to end, then they should refuse to pass the supplemental at all… Even further, they should defund the war. That is the only authority they have. Period.

As of yet, they’re too damn chicken to do it. And that is because 1) defunding the war is incredibly unpopular; and 2) they would be accountable for the consequences.

They’re too chicken shit.

You are right in that the President is commander in chief and that more or less the only thing congress can do is to stop funding. Congress can however tell the President that if the operation is not finished by a certain date funding will be cut off, even if it is a bad idea. They can also decide to fund certain weapon systems, uniforms, or fancy haircuts for the soldiers if they want. The president decides how to use them after the fact.

In this case congress is not directly ordering the military to do anything. They are telling the President what he has to do if he wants the funding.

“To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”

Any others you want to consider?

“provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions”

But that also does not give them power to dictate war strategy. Once the military is “called forth”, the President is Commander and Chief.

Democrats in Congress are acting Unconstitutionally. But that shouldn’t surprise anyone… liberals have no regard for the Constitution anyway.

I haven’t ignored anything.

Citing irrelevant sections won’t support your claim, dumbass.

Imagine this conversation happening on capitol hill.

congressman: Mr. President we would like a fixed date for withdrawal of our military from Iraq.

president:No.

congressman: Okay, then we are going to cut off all funding.

What about that conversation is unconstitutional?

I doubt if enough polititions have the spine to do this but they could.

The same article 1, section 8 we discussed earlier gives Congress provision over:

“To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;”

That’s not war making. Neither is the discussion you googled. Man you are an idiot.

Again, Congress has no authority whatsoever to dictate war strategy, time tables or any of the rest of this bullshit you’re talking about. Period.

On this matter, they have none. Zero. The courts have never upheld your position. If you think so, please cite the case.

The congress has no power to dictate or legislate military strategy or time-tables. The have only one authority, to fund or not fund the military action. The authority ends there. Period.

The rest of our post is irrelevant drivel. Tom Delay did not impose restrictions on Clinton’s use of force. They funded the action. Republicans did not pretend to legislate how the action was carried out.

No one ever said the Congress should give the President anything he wants. Just to exercise the one authority they have… to fund or not to fund military engagements.

That you have such an ignorant and uninformed view of this situation and congressional powers explains quite a bit about the general stupidity of liberals everywhere.

That is the authority they have. Nothing more.

My guess is you couldn’t even name a Constitutional law professor, much less predict what they might think… not that it matters what law professors think, since it’s the Supreme Court that decides Constitutional law issues…

But you’re also right. Congress does not have to pass a blank check. They can vote not to pass the supplemental. And the can vote not to fund the war…. an idea which is less popular than the war its self.

And that is the reason why, to date, they’re too coward to do it. So the Democrats instead choose to flap their gums and aid the enemy.

They will pass their Unconstitutional bill. And the president will veto it. And then, Congress will pay the price for their action.

Compare that, otter you ridiculous twit, vis-a-vie Article 2, Section 2, with says:

“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…”

Congress has no authority what so ever to determine military strategy, time lines or anything else. Thank you for helping to prove that fact.

I agree that Congress has oversight with respect to appropriations. If you believe, as a member of Congress, that the war is lost then I ask why not stop funding the war today? Adding artificial timetables, benchmarks and other crap in the bill is beyond Congress’ Constitutional authority.

I agree that Congress has oversight with respect to appropriations. If you believe, as a member of Congress, that the war is lost then I ask why not stop funding the war today? Adding artificial timetables, benchmarks and other crap in the bill is beyond Congress’ Constitutional authority.

I hope Joe Lieberman has the courage to go Independent. Because these Democrat dumb bastards don’t deserve to be in control of the dog pound, much less the Senate.

The Constitution says they have no say, other than to fund or not fund the war. Period. That’s it. Nothing else.

Congress has as much authority to set silly time tables as I do deciding which night the moon will be full and new. None.

If Congress thinks the war is unwise, and shouldn’t be funded… then they have that choice. That’s it.

But that bunch of yellow coward bastards doesn’t have the guts to do what they can.

No amount of revisionist history from a bunch of anti-American, anti-Soldier radicals will change the facts otter. Dinks like you killed America in the 1960s. Dinks like you are ruining her now.

The North Vietnamese were nothing but aggressors, supported by the Soviets and the Chinese. There was no “fight for independence”, and it’s stupid to think so. The fight was the South defending its self (with our help) from the invading communists in the North.

Next, Congress is not a co-equal branch of the government. It has certain powers. The Courts have certain powers. The Executive branch has certain powers. There’s nothing co-equal about it.

In this case, Congress has the Constitutional authority to do just one thing: Cut off funding for the war. It has no authority to set timeliness or demand anything else.

And, to date, Congressional Democrats are too chicken shit to do what they have the authority to do. And too loud mouth to shut the hell up about things they have no authority to do.

Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. The world would be a better place if Reid and Pilosi, and their ilk just shut the hell up.

Vietnam was only unwinable when the America hating, troop hating, anti-war left took over the Democrat party and made the Democrats cut off funding for the war. That’s the parallel today – the hard core left owns today’s Democrat party and they still hate America, hate the troops and are begging the new majority to cut off funding for the war.

Both Reid and Schumer said last week that their electoral fortunes turns on losing the war in Iraq.

Also, upon completely abandoning Vietnam, the VC killed over 160,000 Vietnamese in retribution, and starved millions more in labor camps…. and the Khmer Rouge came to power in Cambodia, butchered over 3 million.

Yes, the “Peace Movement” has contributed so much to the world… Go ahead, “give peace a chance…”

Thank you for returning from a war that we lost.

Let’s see how well that goes over.

Approx. troop deployment levels, by year:
1965 – 125,000
1966 – 325,000… increase of 200K
1967 – 460,000… increase of 135K
1968 – 550,000… increase of 90K

Then Nixon was elected, and soldiers started coming home:
1969 – 500,000… decrease of 50K
1970 – 400,000… decrease of 100K
1971 – 225,000… decrease of 175K
1972 – 40,000… decrease of 185K
1973 – Less than 10,000

So, immediately on election to office, President Nixon began an orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam. Apparently “we” had decided the war was unwinnable… by 1968, liberals had dictated that military strategy not include bombing runs in North Vietnam… we later would learn from the VC that had the bombing continued for 2 more weeks, the VC would have surrendered.

Prior to Nixon’s term in office, 35,749 U.S. soldiers were killed in Vietnam. After Nixon took office, 20,862 would die…. More than half of them (11,614) in Nixon’s first year, as he dealt with the mess he inherited from Johnson and JFK.

Another interesting footnote: John Kerry served between June 1968 and March 1968, really at the height of Vietnam troop levels. He came home and joined the defeatists, going so far as to meet in secret with the VC in France in 1971 (some consider this an act of treason).

Conversely, George W. Bush finished pilot training in January 1970, as more than half of all soldiers deployed in Vietnam were coming home. The war, by all practical observations, was over before he even finished training.

By the way… the bombing was working… And the VC nearly surrendered… but then, liberals started micromanaging that war…

Yes, there are parallels between Iraq and Vietnam… but not the one’s liberals think there are.

One thing is certain… this war will continue… Even if America quits this battle, the war ain’t over… You think the body count now is bad… just wait.

You are completely misrepresenting the facts. General Petreaus is the architect of the surge. He is the leading counterinsurgency expert in the U.S. military. He did not say that we shouldn’t win this war by defeating the insurgents and terrorists.

And by the way, what is really sad is that there are people – and I don’t think I’d put you and kathy in this category, but I would put Harry Reid here – who WANT us to lose the war. They don’t care about the consequences to our nation. All they care about is political gain from losing. The Democrats have hung their political fortunes on losing in Iraq. That’s a bet, as a Republican, I’m glad to take!

Chestnut has a point. We never lost a single battle in Vietnam and we haven’t lost a single battle in Iraq. What happened in Vietnam and what is happening now is that politicians – mostly Democrats – are wanting to give up when the going gets a little tough.

otter is right that the surge is pushing the terrorists and insurgents away and that there is still violence. That’s what counterinsurgency does. You push the bad people out and hold territory until they have no place to go or get killed.

I’m not a fan of Ann Coulter. But she was right the other day when she said that Democrats are only in favor of going to war if they can guarantee nobody will die. A lot of people have died in war. Over 50,000 in Vietnam. Over 400,000 in WWII. Over 3,000 in Iraq. Everyone who has died in war has done so protecting our freedom and standing up for western civilization.

The VC and NVA were well trained experts in guerilla warfare that still decimated American forces to the tune of 58,000+ dead and many still considered MIA.

The US cannot afford one more American soldier dead in Iraq. What the US Should do is get the Iraqis who want out, out and bomb the hell out of the country. Level it to the ground and start over. Those that remain are toast. But that would not solve anything anyway and the rest of the world would gang up on the US and we’d all be toast. So no one wins.

This is not a statement of BLAME Chestnut??? What do you call it???

US involvement unofficially began in Vietnam in 1954 after the defeat of the French at Diem Ben Phu when it was then called French Indo China. It was Dwight Eisenhower that began sending US MIlitary Advisors in the latter years of his Administration to asist the South Vietnamese Govt. to get their Military trained.

JFK picked up the slack in the early 1960′s by sending in units of the Green Berets. Johnson poured on the heat after the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964. The war dragged on for another 10 years, including a withdrawl starting in 1973, until the Fall of Saigon in April of 1975.

Iraq cannot drag on like Vietnam did. Have any of you been to the Vietnam Veterans memorial in Washington, D.C.? Names of the American dead begin from 1958 through 1975, with more names added as remains are found. It won’t be long until there will be another Memorial with the names of the Americans dead from Iraq and Afghanistan. How many more wars will the US have to be involved in? Lord only knows.

If they wanted to “do something” they would use their Constitutional powers to cut off funding. Period. They have no Constitutional authority to set time-tables or other bullshit no matter how long they debate it.

If they did that, at least I could give them credit for acting with some degree of integrity.

Fact is, no matter how “unpopular” the war may seem… it’s even more “unpopular” to defund the war. So what are we to make of it?

Reid and Pilosi sure as hell don’t know what to do…. so they spend their time running around undermining our troops and encouraging the enemy.

Question and criticize all you want. But it’s immoral to do only that, while dis-regarding the consequences of surrender, and offering no other contribution to the plan.

Democrats: A bunch of lying, lazy cowards.

The longer the US is in Iraq, the longer this war is going to drag out, kill more Americans, Iraqis caught in the crossfire, and wear the patience of the American people. What will be Bush’s legacy? The Economy is all Bush has in his corner at the present.

So you can blame the Democrats in Congress for the last 4+ years all you want, Chestnut. It’s Bush’s policies regarding Iraq that are being constantly questioned and criticized. Setting a workable time line for gradual withdrawl beginning on the 5th Anniversary is plenty enough time to get the Iraqi Government off their asses, their Military and Police trained, and the peole working together to rebuild their country to what it can be post Saddam.

Then the war is won because 1) Saddam is not only dethroned, he’s de-dead; 2) Because of 1, the Iraqi government is no longer paying off members off other countries with the goal of ending sanctions on armorments; 3) The Iraqi people are liberated from their opressor who is, I remind you, dead; and 4) A government chosen by the people is in place.

That aside, I wonder if candidate Ciresi will have the balls to make that comment later this year when thousands of Minnesota soldiers come home. My bet is that he does not line up at the airport and thank them for losing a war.