Politics - 23 July 2007

I want to present a hypothetical here. I know this would not happen, but I'll offer a compromise, the compromise to the Democrats in the Senate and in the House. I will agree to pull our troops out of Iraq if you Democrats will agree to my conditions after the defeat, and here are my conditions to agree with you on a pullout.

When Al-Qaeda celebrates after we pull out, after we admit defeat, every TV image of Al-Qaeda celebrating must be a split screen. On one side, Al-Qaeda celebrating; on the other side, I want pictures of Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and Carl Levin smiling and congratulating themselves.



When Al-Qaeda slaughters Iraqis after we pull out and we see the pictures of this on TV, every TV image must show a split screen. On one side of the screen, the bloody slaughter scenes; on the other side of the screen, pictures of smiling Harry Reid, smiling Chuck Schumer, smiling Carl Levin congratulating each other with big laughs.

When Al-Qaeda takes over another village, ransacks another village, another town, another city, after we pull out, on one side of the screen, I want desperate villagers running for their lives. On the other side of the split screen, I want pictures of smiling Harry Reid, smiling Chuck Schumer, smiling Carl Levin, shaking hands and embracing and congratulating themselves.

When the American flag burners in the Middle East start burning their flags and the president and vice president in effigy, I want one side of the split screen to show every image of that happening. I want the flag burners. I want the characters of Bush and Cheney being burned in effigy, and on the other side of the split screen, I want pictures of a smiling Harry Reid, a smiling Chuck Schumer, a smiling Carl Levin embracing, shaking hands, laughing and congratulating themselves.

I think that's a reasonable compromise, and I've offered it here in all sincerity. If the left will agree to this compromise, I will join them in calling for a pullout from Iraq.

2007-07-23 13:42:37 · 15 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

...on oil. The Terror Sponsoring nations that we send our money to, would be sitting on worthless dirty gunk right now instead of Black Gold.

2007-07-23 13:36:55 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

A federal appeals court has ordered Shell Oil to stop its exploratory drilling off the north coast of Alaska until a hearing in August. The order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit blocks the February approval by the federal Minerals Management Service of Shell's offshore exploration plan for the Beaufort Sea. Vessels currently located in the area shall cease all operations performed in furtherance of that program and need not depart the area," said the Ninth Circus. "Opponents contend that the Minerals Management Service approved Shell's plan without fully considering that a large spill would harm marine mammals, including bowhead and beluga whales. They say polar bears could also be harmed, and they question whether cleaning up a sizable spill would even be possible in the icy waters."

So here we are, the same damn people demanding energy independence standing in the way of drilling that an oil company, Shell, had been granted the right to do. The Ninth Circus, they are the most overturned appellate court at the US Supreme Court, but this is not anywhere near the US Supreme Court. What do you think the odds are that Shell will ever get the right to drill back, now that they've been ordered to be suspended? Slim to none and slim has left town, as they say.

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2033359620070721

2007-07-23 13:34:27 · 10 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

2007-07-23 13:32:11 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

the surge is working. I believe the generals and what they've said, that the security measures are really beefing up. There's all kinds of great news out there today. There's a story from the Times Online in the UK: "Al-Qaeda Faces Rebellion From the Ranks -- Sickened by the group's barbarity, Iraqi insurgents are giving information to coalition forces -- Fed up with being part of a group that cuts off a person's face with piano wire to teach others a lesson, dozens of low-level members of al-Qaeda in Iraq are daring to become informants for the US military in a hostile Baghdad neighbourhood. The ground-breaking move in Doura is part of a wider trend that has started in other al-Qaeda hotspots across the country and in which Sunni insurgent groups and tribal sheikhs have stood together with the coalition against the extremist movement. 'They are turning. We are talking to people who we believe have worked for al-Qaeda in Iraq and want to reconcile and have peace,' said Colonel Ricky Gibbs, commander of the 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, which oversees the area." We've also captured the #1 Al-Qaeda in Iraq guy, and he's talking. He's admitting that this whole thing of Al-Qaeda in Iraq is a myth. It is a myth that they have created in order to perpetuate the notion that there is a civil war going on in Iraq, where there isn't. There is no Al-Qaeda in Iraq! It's just Al-Qaeda. Operatives from Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, other places are pouring into the country.

These are not native Iraqis that have joined Al-Qaeda. They're having to import these people, and the surge is working. This is how you beat them, is you turn their own people against them, and that apparently is happening. I don't have any inside information into what's going on over there. I'm connected, as you say, but I don't know anything more than what anybody who has access to media and what the generals are saying, and I think one of the indications, incidentally, that things are going better than anybody thought they would, is the Democrats' desire to kill the surge now rather than wait until September when the final report from General Petraeus comes out. I think they're desperate to get this done and over with because they cannot withstand good news, politically. They just can't withstand it. They've already told us that we have lost. So I think there's an uptick. I think things are happening. When you have the bad guys start turning on each other and when you capture bad guys, they start giving up information, you're obviously on the right track. It's taken some time. I don't know how long it will be sustained. But this can be won, and it could be done with the vision that the president has had -- and that's what scares the Democrats, frankly.





Speaking of Iraq, there are a couple other stories here that indicate great news, and this is along the lines of the Al-Qaeda underlings becoming informants, being so outraged at the barbarity they're seeing. This is in the Washington Times today: "Iraqi Tribes Reach Security Accord." The thrust of the story is that 25 local tribes have joined the US against Al-Qaeda. This is the first agreement book between the Sunnis and the Shi'a. Twenty-five local tribes. Something is happening over there. "Members of the First Cavalry Division based at nearby Camp Taji helped broker the deal Saturday with the tribal leaders who agreed to use members of more than 25 local tribes to protect the area around Taji from both Sunni and Shi'ite extremists." You couple this with the other story, and something's happening. I don't know enough here to understand it all, but something different, something new is happening. People from the Sunni and Shi'a agreeing with us, uniting with us against Al-Qaeda, tells me that the surge is working, and they've reconciled, at least to the extent that they want to defeat Al-Qaeda. They may not have reconciled to get along with each other forever, the Sunnis and Shi'a, but they have reconciled to defeat Al-Qaeda. Also, they're working and meeting on the oil revenue law over there. "Oil Law Stalls in Iraq as Bomb Aims at Sheiks," but they're still meeting about it

2007-07-23 13:29:49 · 11 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

2007-07-23 13:25:51 · 11 answers · asked by the d 6

by polarizing our nation, ignoring the Constitution and making many of us give up hope of living in a nation based on the rule of law

2007-07-23 13:25:00 · 4 answers · asked by Ford Prefect 7

The Democrats' attack on executive privilege shows blatant disregard for the Constitution.

Republicans aren't exactly racing to defend President Bush's assertion of executive privilege against Congress's investigation of his firing of nine U.S. attorneys. This leaves former political director Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers, former White House counsel, facing possible contempt sanctions. If this sword of Damocles drops, an important constitutional showdown between the branches might well reach the Supreme Court.
Rather than run from this fight, supporters of the constitutional system ought to stand firm with the president. Presidents, Congresses, and the courts have long accepted a president's right to keep internal executive discussions confidential. Even when the Supreme Court ordered Richard Nixon to hand over the Watergate tapes, it recognized "the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decisionmaking."
Without secrecy, the government can't function. No one thinks conversations between federal judges and their clerks, or members of Congress and their staff, ought to be aired publicly without good reason. The same goes for presidents--even if their poll ratings are low.
Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, Eisenhower (whose administration invented the phrase "executive privilege") Kennedy and Reagan, among others, have kept executive deliberations secret from congressional inquiries, usually over matters of diplomacy, national security and law enforcement. Courts have recognized that discussions among their senior advisors, not just meetings when presidents are in the room, also receive protection. So why aren't Republicans fighting to defend executive privilege now?
Those who made their bones investigating the Clinton administration's misdeeds might squirm over Mr. Bush's assertion of privilege today. But then, Democrats who supported President Bill Clinton's assertions of executive privilege in the '90s are being hypocritical by jumping all over Mr. Bush now, too.
The issues at stake are light years from those of the Clinton years. Mr. Clinton was fighting claims of sexual harassment brought by Arkansas state employee Paula Jones, an independent counsel corruption investigation into Whitewater, and his extracurricular relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Mr. Clinton asserted executive secrecy to protect his personal affairs. This is legally important because the federal courts of appeals have held that the privilege only applies to communications between the president and his advisers on "official government matters."
Mr. Clinton's personal recklessness undermined executive privilege for all future presidents. At worst, today's flap might ultimately show some lax management, or partisanship, but the hiring or firing of U.S. attorneys for any or no reason is squarely within a president's constitutional prerogative. Mr. Clinton's groundless claims of privilege don't invalidate assertions of executive privilege for all time. Pundits who imply otherwise are just blowing partisan smoke.

Some Senate Democrats say Mr. Bush is just "stonewalling" and insinuate that he must be trying to hide something, as Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) has darkly intoned. But as he well knows, executive privilege traces its lineage to George Washington. In 1796, the House of Representatives demanded all his papers related to the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain. Washington refused, saying that the Constitution barred the House from the making of treaties. Firing U.S. attorneys and any other executive officers, including those requiring Senate approval, rests beyond the constitutional powers of Congress, and totally within those of the presidency. This has been true since the first cabinet departments were established in 1789.
The Supreme Court held in 1959 that, "Since Congress may only investigate into those areas in which it may potentially legislate or appropriate, it cannot inquire into matters which are within the exclusive province of one or the other branches of the Government." In the 1974 Watergate tapes case, the Supreme Court said that the president's right to protect information is strongest when law enforcement, national security or his other constitutional powers are involved. Under that rule, Mr. Leahy has no right to see the president's communications about the firing of federal attorneys, the nomination of John Roberts or Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court or the reduction of Scooter Libby's sentence.
That doesn't mean the president's power is limitless. Congress can conduct oversight needed to pass legislation. On the fig leaf that Congress is superintending the Justice Department's funding or statutory authorities, DOJ has accommodatingly turned over thousands of documents and made its senior staff available for testimony. Congress can always engage in good old-fashioned horse trading to get its way. If Senate Democrats really cared to see any of Mr. Bush's communications, as opposed to lobbing allegations of "scandal" endlessly on the front pages, they could refuse to confirm any new U.S. attorneys, high officials or judges until they got what they wanted. Not bothering suggests that there is no real wrongdoing here, just an intent to keep the scandal machine running.
Presidents can't invoke executive privilege to protect information needed for a criminal investigation, except perhaps if national security is at stake. Kenneth Starr pursued Mr. Clinton not for harassing Paula Jones, or having a relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but because Mr. Clinton apparently committed perjury and obstructed criminal investigations. Senate Democrats have yet to show that the firings have arguably violated a single law. Dumb and bad politics, maybe--criminal, no. If Senate Democrats really thought there was any crime here, then they ought to find somebody maliciously or politically prosecuted by a new U.S. attorney, or an FBI agent forced to drop a good case because of a new U.S. Attorney's partisan agenda. There is nothing criminal about a president's changing law-enforcement priorities, or replacing his political appointees with new blood.

Republicans unhappy with Mr. Bush for one reason or another don't care to use up their own political capital for an unpopular president. Others expect the administration to crumble at the end of the face-off, and who wants to be stuck defending a loser just because it's the principled thing to do?
But the odds are that Mr. Bush will win this fight. Even if a few Republicans defect, he has the Constitution on his side. His poll numbers may be low, but Congress's are even lower. Congressional Democrats have failed to follow through on the reforms promised in the 2006 campaign. They're too preoccupied with investigating rather than legislating. If the House or Senate vote contempt motions against Ms. Taylor or Ms. Miers, a U.S. Attorney must enforce them, and since they're all Bush appointees, nothing should come of it. The president has every right to order his prosecutors not to bring charges against officials who defend his legitimate constitutional claims. And what if the case gets to court? Vice President Dick Cheney prevailed in 2004 before the Supreme Court against efforts to learn the workings of his Energy Task Force.
With his domestic agenda exhausted, Mr. Bush has nothing to lose defending the rights of future presidents under the Constitution.

2007-07-23 13:24:55 · 7 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

Do you believe it will bring peace or riots and disorder?

2007-07-23 13:18:52 · 12 answers · asked by Clere. 2

2007-07-23 13:16:42 · 16 answers · asked by Page 4

I was just wondering, so that when Hillary gets into office and has a bad month, (breaks a nail, or something, during that time of month), and starts WWIII, how much it would take to turn us into a wasteland!!!

2007-07-23 13:13:35 · 6 answers · asked by billiards_bar 2

Maybe he drank to much and Putin should not have got him drunk either.
Lobster Gate didn't help again Putin kept giving Bush more vodka.

2007-07-23 13:12:56 · 5 answers · asked by ? 2

2007-07-23 13:11:23 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous

is something wrong with her? hope so.

2007-07-23 13:00:20 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

The cartoons nowadays suck, poor kids. I mean they are not even cartoons, they are political advertisements and suck.

2007-07-23 12:50:33 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-23 12:50:31 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

CA, AZ, NM, and TX used to be Mexico's land.

2007-07-23 12:47:38 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

I can't stand to look at him. all of our kids dying over a lie and still alquada is strong. why not go after bin laden now that little bush got saddam out of his way . why not Go after who bush said was the cause of 9/11 . whats the real deal.

2007-07-23 12:43:17 · 16 answers · asked by So>>IntoTheBlue>>> 2

she can afford it after all, I hate wide loads.

2007-07-23 12:39:45 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-19-2007/0004628856&EDATE=

Our wonderful pres. is going to veto a bill because he's against removing mercury from children's vaccines., thus breaking a campaign promise from his most recent presidential campaign. Mercury is believed to be a cause of autism in children. How do you feel about that? Make sure you read the article before you post something you might be embarrassed about.

2007-07-23 12:33:12 · 16 answers · asked by Just! Some? *Dude* 5

With all the executive powers Bush/Cheney have fought for in 8 years, do you think Hillary will be the MOST Powerful modern-day President of the U.S. With Bill at her side working with her, won't this be an incredible accumulation of power and talent in one Presidency? The options are unlimited.

2007-07-23 12:15:41 · 31 answers · asked by Remember the GOP? 2

it's kind of funny really-they can dish it out but cannot take it

2007-07-23 12:07:07 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-23 11:57:49 · 11 answers · asked by whyareyouaREMF 1

x-tian lunatics living in the 1st century mind of ignoarnce (Bush policy makers) think its holy to force women to bear 9 children that all die.

2007-07-23 11:53:45 · 22 answers · asked by bushcrimeboss 2

or any media coverage for that matter? Is America THAT sick of the GOP?

2007-07-23 11:52:28 · 15 answers · asked by Remember the GOP? 2

I am Christian but conservatives say that I am a liberal, not a Christian. So if you live south of the USA border and are starving but all you have to do to get work and buy food is walk a mile to the north what would Jesus say? Isn't “love your enemy” a rather liberal concept? Is Jesus a Christian?

2007-07-23 11:49:44 · 21 answers · asked by waynesworldstage 2

What examples from history, politics or government demonstrate how to interpret what has happened? Everything appears to be legal, so no coup has taken place, but no election has taken place to replace him. The order of succession has landed the position in his lap. Has this ever occurred in the History of government and nations and what happened?

Thanks!

2007-07-23 11:47:43 · 2 answers · asked by gomotopia 1

When will micheal Moore make his First Documentary?

2007-07-23 11:45:32 · 19 answers · asked by phillipk_1959 6

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070720/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_colonoscopy

How much did we pay for his colonoscopy?

2007-07-23 11:38:55 · 10 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6

For every action...there's an equal and opposite reaction. The neocons have tried to push America so far to the right in such a short period of time. There will be an equal and opposite move to the left as a result of this.

2007-07-23 11:38:09 · 14 answers · asked by Gemini 5