Do We Really Need An Emperor Bush?
The Los Angeles Times published an editorial today titled “Do we really need a Gen. Pelosi?” attacking the House plan to redeploy U.S. forces out of Iraq.
Much of the editorial is spent arguing why Congress should voluntarily neuter itself. It says that Congress “must not limit the president’s ability to maneuver at this critical juncture,” and that “lawmakers have a duty to let the president try” his escalation strategy. The Times chides “congressional meddling in military strategy,” and states (without evidence) that Pelosi is “interfering with the discretion of the commander in chief” in order to “fulfill domestic political needs.”
The editorial then echoes the false Lieberman/McConnell line suggesting that Congress’ role in influencing the war is limited mostly to cutting funds. Iraq war critics “should have the courage of their convictions and vote to stop funding U.S. involvement,” the Times says.
But as ThinkProgress has detailed, over the last 35 years, Congress has enacted numerous diverse bills that capped the size of military deployments, prohibited funding for existing or prospective deployment, and placed limits and conditions on the timing and nature of deployments. These actions were enacted by majority Republican and Democratic Congresses and imposed on presidents of both parties. Here are three examples:
December 1974. P.L. 93-559 — Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. The Congress established a personnel ceiling of 4000 Americans in Vietnam within six months of enactment and 3000 Americans within one year.
June 1983. P.L. 98-43 — The Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act of 1983. The Congress required the president to return to seek statutory authorization if he sought to expand the size of the U.S. contingent of the Multinational Force in Lebanon.
November 1993. P.L. 103-139. The Congress limited the use of funding in Somalia for operations of U.S. military personnel only until March 31, 1994, permitting expenditure of funds for the mission thereafter only if the president sought and Congress provided specific authorization.
Passing bills like these today won’t turn Speaker Pelosi into a military general. But if Congress listens to the L.A. Times and abandons its constitutional responsibilities, they will be ordaining Emperor Bush.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
89 Responses to “Do We Really Need An Emperor Bush?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
What? Congress hasn’t done shit about this war. Its been some talk so far, thats it. Who’s finances are being protected here?
March 12th, 2007 at 6:38 pmThis, of course, must be another one of those examples of the “liberal media.” Hey, it’s the LA Times, right. They simply must be liberals!
March 12th, 2007 at 6:39 pmI, for one, like the sound of
March 12th, 2007 at 6:41 pmCommander in Chief Pelosi
Took the words out of my mouth Bluedog, the so-called ‘liberal media’ at it again!
March 12th, 2007 at 6:41 pmThis is the newspaper who fired Robert Sheer for being absolutely right about the war in Iraq and replaced him with Jonah Goldberg, who has been absolutely wrong.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:45 pmImpeach Bush, Cheney first!
Pelosi isn’t perfect but a whole lot better than crazy Neo-Cons and self-anointed boy Imperialists
March 12th, 2007 at 6:46 pmWhy bother with the Commander Pelosi stage? Let’s go right to the President Pelosi stage, by impeaching and removing the two traitors, Cheney and Bush (removed in that order, if you please).
Emperor Bush has been a total disaster since his gang stole our democracy and staged his fascist corporate coup in 2000.
Cheers.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:48 pmThe media is owned and operated by people of Ghewish Decent, and they want Iran gone. How liberal is that?
March 12th, 2007 at 6:49 pm“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
March 12th, 2007 at 6:50 pm- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
What’s the point? The modern media (mostly, the American media) cares very very little about getting the facts straight. Actually, the are apparently not capable of getting the facts straight, whether it be from poor education or institutional incompetence, I’m really not sure. One more reason to line them up before firing squads and begin anew, much like replanting a fire-ravaged forest.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:50 pmPelosi and the Dem controlled Congress is the only check and balance we have this nightmare administration.
The irony is much of middle class America and their children still don’t know they will be footing most of the bill for Bush/Cheney’s looting of the US Treasury.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:51 pmFirst the Democrats are criticized for not having a plan for Iraq. Then when Democrats put out a plan they are attacked for even making the proposal! Brilliant!
March 12th, 2007 at 6:51 pmwow, nico… that was some great writing…
can’t stay long… just had to say that… must repeat:
Passing bills like these today won’t turn Speaker Pelosi into a military general. But if Congress listens to the L.A. Times and abandons its constitutional responsibilities, they will be ordaining Emperor Bush.
pass it on…
March 12th, 2007 at 6:52 pmI had heard that the LA Times was being sold, not selling out!
March 12th, 2007 at 6:53 pm… and besides, why not?
March 12th, 2007 at 6:53 pmIt’s not like the generals they’ve got are having any success.
They had to replace the Secretary of War for failing, and have had to fire three of ‘em in the past week ’cause they can’t even take care of the wounded, here at home!
But if Congress listens to the L.A. Times and abandons its constitutional responsibilities, they will be ordaining Emperor Bush.
The 109th already made him Emperor. The 110th needs to impeach, period.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:56 pm#9 Flaco…
March 12th, 2007 at 6:56 pmAt the time of that statement, it was true.
3 more years of sanctions and weapons inspections after 1998 had a desired result of getting Saddam to discontinue his weapons programs.
The LAT is a shamelessly partisan newspaper. It is owned by the Chgo Tribune - that should say a lot.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:57 pmAs mentioned above, they have fired a liberal columnist and replaced him with a far-right columnist.
Like the Tribune, they slant their headlines toward the outrageous, likely in the knowledge that a lot of people only scan headlines on papers in the newsstand or at the checkout.
Fortunately, the majority of Americans realize that the Congress has done diddly-squat in the past 6 years to curtail the extremes of Bush&Co, and they are fed up with this eternal war which is going to hell quickly.
Pelosi speaks for the majority of Americans - as the House is supposed to do - and the conservative press cannot accept yet that their man in the White House is a loser in every sense of the word, so they flail around and lash out at easy targets with sensational headlines (similar to Bush&Co slogans) in a futile attempt at retaining justification for their partisan positions.
“Congress can cut funding for Iraq, but it shouldn’t micromanage the war.”
If you have a dolt micromanaging the war, why shouldn’t the Congress step in?
March 12th, 2007 at 6:59 pmSounds like the LAT is once more publishing the White House talking points. Really can’t blame ‘em; they long ago replaced all their reporters and columnists with typists. Next step: outsource typing to India.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:00 pmThe republicans protected the Saudis that attacked America on 911 by diverting us into Iraq where we have been stuck ever since while Saudi Arabia continues funding the expansion of Al Qeada into 60 coountries around the world.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:05 pmLAT & ComPost have been sold to Rupert Murdoch.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:11 pmBushiva (and L’il Dick) are calling in their corporate chits…
…the LAT is a piece of sh*t paper…
…like the WSJ, NYPost, or Wash. Times…
…move along people…
…unless you enjoy looking at piles of dogsh*t…
March 12th, 2007 at 7:13 pmFunny the first two examples TP cites as examples of Congressional oversight are the Dems version of “cut and run” in Viet Nam and the “heading for the Hills” manuver after the Marines took such a deadly hit from Hezbollah in Beirut. Dems haven’t produced a great defense-wise leader since JFK.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:15 pmAh hello, this is CONservative LA Times!
What else do you expect from the ever shrinking newspaper?
Supporting the troops DOES NOT mean sending them to Iraq to DIE!
Supporting the troops means bringing them back from Iraq to be back alive and happy with their families
March 12th, 2007 at 7:16 pmThe entire military, including the Joint Chiefs, are basically telling the Bush admin that nothing will change in Iraq, and that the war cannot be won with force. The Iraq Study Group spoke to those generals, and concluded the same thing. Bush’s answer was basically to fire all the senior military leadership. The right-wing loons have some nerve criticizing the Dems for micro-management of this war.
The fact is, the Iraq War is turning into the largest corporate welfare program in history. Bush and the neo-con’s real goal is just to keep the war going as long as possible to maximize corporate profits. The Defense industry is raking in the cash right now. Billions of dollars just went “missing”. Now, in order to avoid subpoenas, Haliburton is moving to the UAE. We will soon have a foreign company, run out of the Middle East, providing security and logistical support to our military.
This is why Bush and the neo-cons have pushed so hard to privatize our military. That makes it very simple to transfer US tax money into for-profit corporations. That (privatization) is what led to the Walter Reed situation as well.
Thank God the Dems prevented these scumbags from privatizing social security, or you would have seen some way for corporations to end up with that money as well.
Republicans have one true God - the almighty dollar.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:18 pmComment by valiant venus
Defense is not invading other peoples countries. Republicans have not lead a war of defense since what? Abraham Lincoln? Wars of aggression is not what the American Declaration of Independance was about now is it?
March 12th, 2007 at 7:19 pmRepublicans have one true God - the almighty dollar.
Comment by Brian #26
…make that the…
…Swiss Franc, Chinese renminbi, or Japanese Yen…
March 12th, 2007 at 7:24 pmFunny the first two examples TP cites as examples of Congressional oversight are the Dems version of “cut and run†in Viet Nam and the “heading for the Hills†manuver after the Marines took such a deadly hit from Hezbollah in Beirut. Dems haven’t produced a great defense-wise leader since JFK.
Comment by valiant venus
Yeah, har har. Except it was the Republic President, Our Hero Ronald Reagan, who pulled the troops out of Lebanon, not Congress. Nice try.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:24 pmAh hello, this is CONservative LA Times!
Hey wait a minute, that should be MY line!
March 12th, 2007 at 7:26 pmThe call for Congress not to do anything about this disastrously handled war is by biased right-wing extremists. There’s nothing wrong with Congress “micro-managing” (actually they’re just managing) the war.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:27 pmMA: “Funny the first two examples TP cites as examples of Congressional oversight are the Dems version of “cut and run†in Viet Nam and the “heading for the Hills†manuver after the Marines took such a deadly hit from Hezbollah in Beirut.”
Reagan sent the Marines to Beruit as a show of force. 241 of them were killed by a suicide bomber. Reagan pulled the rest of them out quickly and ginned up the invasion of Granada the next month to cover for his horrendous mistake. And, of course, instead of accepting responsibility for this, you blame democrats. Typical.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:27 pmForTruth,
Might I have a word with you in the TF? We need to talk.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:30 pmI wonder if in 1942, Pelosi would’ve tendered a “troop withdrawl” (aka surrender date) to Germany and Japan? Just thinking out loud.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:31 pmAnd, of course, instead of accepting responsibility for this, you blame democrats. Typical.
Of course is right, that is the SOP of these Republo-fascists, always blame the Dems for their failures, even when they were in the minority.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:32 pmReagan succumbed to Dem pressure - Tipsy O’Neill drunkenly crowed about that for any and all to hear. (Much in the same way Bush I made a deal with Dems on spending and taxes - and was sold down the river. Moral of that story? DRinkingDems are not trustworthy…) Ronald Reagan should have told Tipsy to pound sand.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:33 pmFunny the first two examples TP cites as examples of Congressional oversight are the Dems version of “cut and run†in Viet Nam and the “heading for the Hills†manuver after the Marines took such a deadly hit from Hezbollah in Beirut. Dems haven’t produced a great defense-wise leader since JFK. Comment by valiant venus — March 12, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
Wow, just when I didn’t think you could be any more of a st*pid c*nt, you prove me wrong!
So tell me, why did the CONs fight so hard in 1993 to limit Clinton’s Somalia excursion - if you have such great plans? Especially when you all discounted the Al Qaeda involvement in the affair?
You’re one st*pid c*nt Anorexia girl.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:34 pmReagan pulled the rest of them out quickly and ginned up the invasion of Granada the next month to cover for his horrendous mistake.
Comment by Bluedog49 #32
Hey Bluedog,
Are you calling Republican’s god- Ronald Raygun…
…a “cut-n-runner”?
…AAARRRRGGGGHHH!!!!
(sounds of crashing glass in high rises, and SCREAMS of Republican conned’self-servatives flinging themselves to pavement below)
March 12th, 2007 at 7:37 pm#34 - “wonder if in 1942, Pelosi would’ve tendered a “troop withdrawl†(aka surrender date) to Germany and Japan? Just thinking out loud.”
It wouldn’t surprise me…the first 6 months of WWII, we had our back ends handed to us….just knowing the Speakette’s sensitivities…..
March 12th, 2007 at 7:38 pmReagan succumbed to Dem pressure
You know damn well if the shoe was on the other foot you’d be blaming the President seven ways to Sunday, so don’t give us that crap.
DRinkingDems are not trustworthy
Excuse me while I roll around the floor laughing my @$$ off on this one, I think the last 6 years have proved that the Republic Party cannot be trusted on ANYTHING. Pot, meet kettle.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:38 pmAnd who didn’t enjoy watching the Lefty’s in Congress show their solidarity with Daniel Ortega?
March 12th, 2007 at 7:41 pmI wonder if in 1942, Pelosi would’ve tendered a “troop withdrawl†(aka surrender date) to Germany and Japan? Just thinking out loud.
Comment by muckdog
I wonder if in 2003 America would become the bad guy and attack a country that did not threaten it at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and the weakening of the U.S. Constitution, would ignore the “material support” given to Al Qeada by the Saudis, and would drive America into a debt so large it is an actual security risk to our entire country?
Well I guess there is nothing to wonder about. This is exactly what happened.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:42 pm#39 - “Reagan succumbed to Dem pressure
You know damn well if the shoe was on the other foot you’d be blaming the President seven ways to Sunday, so don’t give us that crap. ”
Since whe is the truth “crap”? Just helping you take YOUR “victory” lap….
You’re welcome!
March 12th, 2007 at 7:44 pmWatching Gerald Gibson grow into a de facto member of the fifth column has been such an enlightening process…..Congrats, GG - I ALWAYS knew you had it in you! (Psssst….Saddam appreciated your support - he understood you did not want him removed from office. )
March 12th, 2007 at 7:49 pmSince whe is the truth “crap� Just helping you take YOUR “victory†lap….
You’re welcome!
Since you’re ‘helping’ me, stand still for a moment so the ‘truth’ can hit you upside the head with a 2×4. You completely skirted my whole point like a true Bush apologist…supposing if it IS the truth, if it was a Dem President succumbing to a Republic Congress in that situation you would lay the blame entirely at the feet of the President! Perhaps I should thank you though since you welcomed me…then again, better not hold your breath.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:51 pmForTruth,
I need to ask you a few questions in the TF.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:52 pmPlease find time. It’s important.
Great post’s Gerald…..Blessings
March 12th, 2007 at 7:54 pm#44 - “……supposing if it IS the truth, if it was a Dem President succumbing to a Republic Congress in that situation you would lay the blah, blah…”
SUPPOSING??? Oh, that is toooo precious!
March 12th, 2007 at 8:07 pmHypotheticals IS a fun game isn’t it?
Hey Big Papa: this one makes their head explode — Reagan was responsible for the largest tax INCREASE in the nation’s history. He doubled the Social Security Tax.
MA and Muckdog: if you knew thing one about history, you’d know that it was republicans and conservatives in general who argued long and hard AGAINST entering the war in Europe. After we entered, Bush’s grandfather was still providing banking services to the NAZI’s. He and his banking buddies were indicted under the Trading With the Enemies Act.
March 12th, 2007 at 8:09 pmNaaah, not nearly as fun as Karl Rove’s having ‘the math’ and being dead wrong…gee, kinda like this criminal cabal on everything since they took office!
March 12th, 2007 at 8:14 pmReagan was responsible for the largest tax INCREASE in the nation’s history. He doubled the Social Security Tax.
Comment by Bluedog49 #48
OH-my, PLEEAASE STOP!
…they’re BURNNNINNG (literally in the CA hill country)…
…riots are gonna break out in Orange County…
…TAKE THAT BACK Bluey…
March 12th, 2007 at 8:15 pmAnd isolationist, bootlegger and legendary womanizer, Joe Kennedy was touting the positive traits of Hitler’s regime. So what?
Since the social engineers have turned labels upside down (you know, progressives used to be called Socialists, the occasional Republican Jew is now a neo-con) you might want to remember the Communists, Socialists, Humanists and other sundry Progressives were against WWII also. You seem to have a very selective memor…..Pssst…unfortunately that isn’t a compliment.
March 12th, 2007 at 8:32 pmThe US has been involved in no less than three “wars” since WWII and none of them has been approved by Congress.
Comparisons made by VV and other Bushistas here are always comparing apples to oranges. The people were united in 1941 in the cause for war, clearly defined to them, and supported by Congress.
People were NOT united in the following “wars” and each administration suffered enormously for its involvement in them.
Even worse, Bush&Co not only involved us in an illegal, unwarranted invasion of a sovereign nation, he lied about it, has made everything worse, and his corrupt administration has angered every segment of the population in one way or other, even as far as the populations around the world.
There is no defense for him and lame attempts to do so are just that — lame.
March 12th, 2007 at 8:33 pmMy question to BlooDawg must have fallen into the dilig-nets - Whose legislation was passed in both Houses of Congress before Reagan hidesously hiked the SS tax? Hmmmm
March 12th, 2007 at 8:37 pmMarie - Pacifists and radicals at both end of the spectrum detested our entry into WWII. But for the most part, you are correct - The people were united in 1941….and didn’t seem concerned that FDR had an inkling it was coming. Afterall, promising Churchill was one thing, but lying to American moms and dads was another….”We will not go to Wah..”
March 12th, 2007 at 8:41 pmA conundrum - Progs mention (with the reverence of the Humanist Manifesto) the ’sovereign nation” of Iraq….and seem willing to cede US sovereignty to the UN? Please explain.
March 12th, 2007 at 8:44 pm“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.â€
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
Comment by Flaco — March 12, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
Let me call your attention to comments by Colin Powell, Sec. of State under G.W. Bush. Date is Feb. 2001.
May 2001, again Colin Powell:
But don’t take his word for it.
Condi Rice, July 2001:
March 12th, 2007 at 8:51 pmwilling to cede US sovereignty to the UN? Please explain
Comment by valiant venus #54
virulent venereal (disease),
…engaging the global community…
…and seeking to adhere to international law…
…are NOT ceding sovereignty…
…they represent being a good neighbor/partner…
…you right wing retards really are warped…
…”your way or the highway”…
…will ONLY get you hated, ostracized and eventually brought down…
March 12th, 2007 at 8:56 pmFurther evidence that private equity ownership’s goals directly contradict those of producing quality news and commentary.
The Tribune Company claims that what readers want is not a Southern Californian version of the New York Times, but hyper-local reporting about who can’t find a parking place in Santa Monica. Self-mocking claims like that suggest that the Tribune Company either wants a Faux News like perch from which to supplicate its government sponsors, or to keep genuine news from its readers.
It ought to have kept true to its self-described principals by selling the LA Times to any of several interested bidders.
March 12th, 2007 at 8:59 pmI wonder if in 1942, Pelosi would’ve tendered a “troop withdrawl†(aka surrender date) to Germany and Japan? Just thinking out loud.
Comment by muckdog — March 12, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
Uh-huh.
And if FDR had attacked Japan in 1938 because he felt they were a gathering threat and might attack the U.S. in the future, you would have been leading the calls for his impeachment.
Besides, your comparison of the “war” on terror to WWII is a load of sh*t. Your hero Bush said the “war” on terror could not be won the way a conventional war could be won (after telling us, perhaps in a rare moment of truth, that the “war” on terror couldn’t be won…PERIOD). Last time I checked, WWII was a “conventional” war.
March 12th, 2007 at 9:04 pmFlaco, more from Powell:
Question: What’s our level of concern about the progress of Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons programs?
Powell’s response:
March 12th, 2007 at 9:11 pmMy question to BlooDawg must have fallen into the dilig-nets - Whose legislation was passed in both Houses of Congress before Reagan hidesously hiked the SS tax? Hmmmm Comment by valiant venus — March 12, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
So Ronald RayGun and the CONs were ‘victims’ of the horrible Taxing Liberals again? You professional CONs are such professional whining victim “crybabies”.
March 12th, 2007 at 9:18 pmMarie - Pacifists and radicals at both end of the spectrum detested our entry into WWII. Comment by valiant venus — March 12, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
Yet it was the GOP that tried to prevent our entry, even after the attacks.
But for the most part, you are correct - The people were united in 1941…. Comment by valiant venus — March 12, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
Accept for the GOP anti-war isolationists that wanted to negotiate a peace.
and didn’t seem concerned that FDR had an inkling it was coming. Comment by valiant venus — March 12, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
Using the Hitler/Israeli 1960s defense again? Guilty until proven innocent? They might attack, therefore attack first? It was a great excuse for attacking Poland - you’re so comfortable with those Nazi values aren’t you?
Afterall, promising Churchill was one thing, but lying to American moms and dads was another….â€We will not go to Wah..†Comment by valiant venus — March 12, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
We didn’t go to war until we were attacked - unlike Hitler, and You CONs this time around. That’s the difference between a Dem and a CON. You people think you’re entitled to attack, kill, murder and steal *first*.
March 12th, 2007 at 9:21 pmIt wouldn’t surprise me…the first 6 months of WWII, we had our back ends handed to us….just knowing the Speakette’s sensitivities…..
Comment by valiant venus — March 12, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
Yeah, imagine that. Libs grabbed victory from the jaws of defeat, while you CONs grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory.
How do you know anything about Pelosi, you’re a complete fool that doesn’t even know anything about herself. Otherwise you wouldn’t be Anorexic.
March 12th, 2007 at 9:23 pmA conundrum - Progs mention (with the reverence of the Humanist Manifesto) the ’sovereign nation†of Iraq….and seem willing to cede US sovereignty to the UN? Please explain. Comment by valiant venus — March 12, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
Funny coming from the party that pushes the WTO, ceding ‘economic’ sovereignty. Please explain.
March 12th, 2007 at 9:25 pm#44 - “……supposing if it IS the truth, if it was a Dem President succumbing to a Republic Congress in that situation you would lay the blah, blah…â€
SUPPOSING??? Oh, that is toooo precious!
Hypotheticals IS a fun game isn’t it?
Comment by valiant venus — March 12, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
Yes, one that you love to play when you post them, but refuse to answer when others do. Wonder why? Is it hypothetically because you’re an ignorant sl*t?
March 12th, 2007 at 9:26 pmI wonder if in 1942, Pelosi would’ve tendered a “troop withdrawl†(aka surrender date) to Germany and Japan? Just thinking out loud.
Comment by muckdog — March 12, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
WELL DON”T!
March 12th, 2007 at 10:36 pmI wonder if in 1942, Pelosi would’ve tendered a “troop withdrawl†(aka surrender date) to Germany and Japan? Just thinking out loud.
You just used the two most common Fox tactics. The fake loaded question and the just sayin’ defense. I am hearing jackboots.
March 12th, 2007 at 10:42 pmReagan succumbed to Dem pressure
Comment by valiant venus — March 12, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
No Reagan succumbed to Alzheimer’s and is the most overrated president in history. Who know’s who was making decisions, maybe Nancy.
What kind of dementia are you suffering from? Are you old enough for Alzheimers or maybe its chemically induced.
March 12th, 2007 at 10:45 pm*Who went to Spain before WWII to fight fascism? Answer: those from around the world who were LEFT-of-center. Those right-of-center kinda liked fascism.*
*If after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, FDR had attacked China, then that might be analogous to the fiasco we are in today.*
*Maybe the Lebanese in 1982-83 did not like the way the US funded/supported the Israeli invasion of their country and the way US warships were shelling Lebanese villages, killing innocent civilians. Maybe that is why they attacked the marines in their country. Just a wild thought.*
March 12th, 2007 at 10:52 pmdouble posting because TP kept taking it away and I kept posting.
March 12th, 2007 at 11:14 pmWhy the election in 2000 and 2004 was lost. Quite simply the Democratic ticket didn’t get the full support it
needed because the “fringe groups” Nader, Greens, Kucinich et al, their “outsourced vote” was enough to tip
the balance both times and now we are stuck with this Iraq mess and a mess at home too.
You “fringe” supporters had best buck up and decide if you want a Republican or a BONAFIDE “SUREFIRE”
WINNER IN A DEMOCRAT next time in 2008.
“En Masse Unity” is what will be required in 2008 to bring this whole house of cards down forever.
In other words, stop “stealing” the election FOR THEM!
Vote Democrat
March 13th, 2007 at 2:11 amBush is an emperor, but the dumbest one since Caligula.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:06 amBush is sadistic like Caligula, so perhaps Bush is him reincarnated?
March 13th, 2007 at 4:16 amDon’t get your hopes up folks, the Dems can always be counted on to do nothing but blow hot air. They have again condeded war making to the warmongers — did you really expect anything else?
March 13th, 2007 at 7:04 amDid you mean to write “has” instead of “should”?
No newspaper needs to argue too hard to pressure congress into doing what they already are.
BTW “neutering” is just where your balls disappear. Where you disappear entirely, in the political sense, that would amount to “suicide”. Political suicide. You might have heard it mentioned before.
In fact you might have heard it mentioned quite a lot recently in regard to a partisan decision to cut off funding to troops in theatre.
A liberal organisation supporting such a voluntary measure being adopted by a Democratic majority congress so that they can be the last majority for the next 20 years might be called a “political lobotomy”. But there you go.
March 13th, 2007 at 8:12 amof course we don’t need an Emporer Bush… we need to take away his war powers immediately… this Congress seems reticent to do that… it also needs to limit his pardoning powers, for reasons that are all-too obvious…
March 13th, 2007 at 11:11 amGeneral Pelosi, General Anybody except Bush. Bush would have been fired from any other position , by now, due to incompetence. What the American People are saying is “You no longer have our confidence and lack any credibility on this issue”! “You are to step aside and let this issue be resolved by more rational minds.”!
March 13th, 2007 at 12:05 pm#57 “Further evidence that private equity ownership’s goals directly contradict those of producing quality news and commentary.”
You’d be interested in the current Mother Jones article, “Breaking the News,” which deals extensively with your comment, the newspaper crisis and general and the LA Times specifically.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:30 pmWhy did TP keep taking away my following post (about 5 times)? It followed posts talking about our marines dying in Lebanon; who was willing to fight fascism; and the proper response to Pear Harbor. My post was perfectly relevent to these:
Who went to Spain before WWII to fight fascism? Answer: those from around the world who were LEFT-of-center. Those right-of-center kinda liked fascism.
If after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, FDR had attacked China, then that might be analogous to the fiasco we are in today.
Maybe the Lebanese in 1982-83 did not like the way the US funded/supported the Israeli invasion of their country and the way US warships were shelling Lebanese villages, killing innocent civilians. Maybe that is why they attacked the marines in their country. Just a wild thought.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:52 pmI thought Democrats had a strong sense of PURPOSE after the November landslide! What a disappointment!
From the Associated Press:
March 13th, 2007 at 4:25 pm“House Democratic leaders are backing away from a plan to scale back U.S. involvement in the Iraq war by using Congress’ most powerful tool — withholding money in the budget.”
“Instead, party officials said Tuesday, leaders are weighing a proposal that would attempt to embarrass Bush into abandoning his war strategy. Under a plan discussed behind closed doors, Democrats probably would fund President Bush’s entire $93.4 billion request for war spending this year but require that any troops sent into battle that don’t meet certain standards receive a presidential waiver and that Congress be notified of the shortcoming.”
The Late Great Paul Robeson DESERVED TO BE “THE EMPEROR JONES”(tm) BUT CHIMPya, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER IN A TRILLION YEARS The Emperor Bush, ALTHOUGH CHIMPya HAS DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR, BELIEVING HIMSELF TO HAVE EMPEROR-LIKE POWERS OF A UNITARY EXECUTIVE, THOUGH IN ACTUALITY CHIMPya IS A “USED SANITARY NAPKIN”!!!!! I WOULD RATHER HAVE A GENERAL Pelosi THAN AN EMPEROR Bush, ANYDAY, AND THE L.A. TImes is BEING A FAITHFUL ROLL-OVER and PLAY-DEAD LAPDOG to CHIMPya and Bushland Uber Allies!!! WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THE L.A. Times, ANYWAY–ARE THEY CRAZY AS WELL? I GUESS SO!!!!! E-WARRIORS OF THE BLOGOSPHERE UNITE AND SMITE Bushland Uber Allies IF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA LIKE the L.A. Times CAN’T!!!!!
March 13th, 2007 at 9:37 pmWe should pull out of Iraq and let the humanitarian regimes of Iran and Syria fill the void. I bet the trains will run on time.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:02 am[…] spent arguing why Congress should voluntarily neuter itself. The Times said that Congress “must not limit the president’s ability to maneuver at this critical juncture,” and that “lawmakers have a duty to let the president try” his escalation […]
March 28th, 2007 at 12:25 pm[…] spent arguing why Congress should voluntarily neuter itself. The Times said that Congress “must not limit the president’s ability to maneuver at this critical juncture,” and that “lawmakers have a duty to let the president try” his escalation […]
March 28th, 2007 at 12:25 pmCash Loans Advance
Fast cash advance could possibly be commendable and accessible choice to banking responsibility in the eletronic highway.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:18 amDaria Werbowy
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:24 amDaria Model
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:24 amJosh Hartnett
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:24 am