Does no one else see the lunatic left's double-standard?

Question

Okay, I've heard allot of the people on the left moaning and whining about every single thing that George Bush has supposedly done against the Constitution (though they were later proven to be wrong on those things, but that's beside the point.).

Now along comes John Murtha, the media's favorite vet! And what does he do?! He proposes a move to hinder George Bush's plan to send 21,000+ troops to Iraq, even though this is a power NOT given to the congress.

In fact, the only power given to the congress is that of FUNDING. In other words, to end the war, they should CUT FUNDING.

So my question is this. Why do liberals whine and moan about everything George Bush has supposedly done that is unconstitutional, but when a liberal like John Murtha pulls a stunt like THIS, they PRAISE him?!

Can it be that maybe Liberals don't really care about following the Constitution? And am I the only one who sees through this double-standard?

JB: Congress AUTHORIZED IT. And as little as a month before Bush proposed the troop surge, every single stinkin' demoncrat was saying we needed one! Then the day he announces it, they're INSTANTLY against it!

They don't care about our troops. They care about their power.

Besides that, once congress authorizes the war, the PRESIDENT is the one in charge of troop deployment. Congress has the power of funding, and that is IT.

Vanman: We have two seperate resolutions confused here. I am speaking of newly-proposed legislation by John Murtha, not the useless Non-binding resolution that's been debated for weeks.

Michael: I call 'em as I see them. I'll call the Republicants out when I see they're wrong, and I'll do the same for the demoncrats.

Bdunn: The congress voted to authorize the president's use of force in Iraq! The constitution was followed!

But once that's been done, the PRESIDENT leads the troops. We do not have 500+ Commanders-in-chief. We have ONE.

Now that congress has AUTHORIZED the use of force, their only recourse if they want to end the war is to CUT FUNDS.

Answer 1

The left in America has never gotten past the 2000 election. They still think Gore won and GWB stole it. Never mind the extreme leftist LA Times certifying the election for GWB. There are still folks who can't accept that if Al Gore won his home state, he would have taken the election and Uday And Qusay would still be raping Iraqi women and feeding their brutalized bodies feet first into at plastic shredder.

Not that GWB has endeared himself to anyone. He let Ted (The Swimmer) Kennedy write the No Child Left Behind act, only to have this corpulent senator use it to whip him. He kept holding out his hand to the opposition, making the classic blunder of actually thinking that the left can be reasoned with and trusted, only to have his hand seared by the very liberals he hoped to placate.

GWB has been neither a conservative nor a liberal. He has become exactly what everyone thought Sick Willie was: one who tries to please everyone, yet pleases no one.

Yet, on one single issue, he has been right all along. The Muslim goofballs must be defeated over there before we have to fight them here.

The liberals sob bitterly over each soldier killed in Iraq, yet they would gladly trade your children's lives in exchange for power. I hope these lefties can figure out which direction Mecca is - they're gonna need to know...


Darth Serious

Answer 2

What they proposed was official criticism of Bush. The only thing to hinder him is the will of the people, and yes, lack of funds.

Where was the things bush has done proven to be constitutional? Explain. Him and his cronies just insisting that it is does not make it so. And lawyers will argue anything to be legit, if you pay them. They found what may be loopholes, though that doesnt mean they are. Judges have struck down bushes programs as unconstitutional.

**edit** I guess I havent read about this new proposal. Even so, government has a system of checks and balances, sometimes when the other breaks the rules, maybe a follow in suit is necessary to make a statement. True that there was a call for a rise in troop levels, actually all the way back to the beginning of the war. THe thing is, Bush was so stubborn about "no more troops are needed" that a troop surge now probably wont effect much. By now the Iraqi people see that we cant protect them, and if they stand on our side, their dead as soon as we're gone. The country should have been secure from the beginning. It should have been taken more seriously.

Answer 3

Congress HAS constitutional power to send troops.
They approve wars, they fund wars, the only thing the President does is sign the bill.
They gave him emergency power to send troops, and that offer still stands for some reason.
So it is YOU, not Murtha that should be brushing up on the words of the U.S. Constitution.

Answer 4

Last time I checked, only Congress has the power to declare war. It's not just a case of withholding funding.

Answer 5

You know, honey draws more flies than vinegar. Name calling only entrenches everyone. There are double-standards on both sides....they're two-faced politicians. Instead of fighting each other, why not hold our representatives responsible for their actions in office?

Answer 6

Anybody who has the time to pay attention sees it. Unfortunately too many people are to busy with their day to day lives or prefer to watch "Desperate Housewives".

Answer 7

DOUBLE standard? You must see 2 standards that they have that I don't see. I don't think they have ANY standards.

Answer 8

Only to the radical ridiculous right.