Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil
We are not a democracy. The beauty of our representative republic is that it tempers the democratic aspects within it with checks and balances on the ebb and flow of the mob.
Your reasoning is flawed on multiple levels. First it assumes that election of 33 senators is somehow a national plebiscite on a single issue. It is not and was never meant to be.
Second, it assumes that the 2006 elections resulted in a clear mandate for withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, there were only a couple of seats where the candidate was elected on a platform of either pulling out troops immediately or setting a timetable for withdrawal. In Connecticut, Joe Lieberman was re-elected as an independent against the Democrat who defeated him in the primary as the anti-war candidate. Many of the Democrats who won were on the record as opposing a timeline for withdrawal, such as Bob Casey in PA and Jeff Bingaman in NM.
Third, it presumes to the Congress powers given by the Constitution to the President alone. The President is Commander in Chief regardless of his approval ratings or the party balance in the Senate. The Congress has no constitutional role in the fighting of a war less funding it. They have no authority to determine troop flows or war fighting strategies. Those are exclusively executive powers.
As for your rhetorical skills, they are amateurish at best. You arguments are littered with logical fallacies and are more often than not based on emotion rather than facts. Such as your statement that we are turning into a dictatorship. You cannot substantiate that argument because nothing of the sort is occurring. Your oft-stated comment that the President should answer to a court of law is equally flawed. You have repeatedly failed to cite the law he would be charged with violating.
|
Here is one -- the WMD. He said we know they have them and we have to stop SH.
Later, when it was EASILY proven to be a lie -- he blamed the wrong intel and washed his hands. No, it cannot be done like that. He should be fully responsible for his orders and what he stood behind. Simple as that. If Clinton was brought to the court for saying that he had no sexual relationship with...in public, and later it was proven the other way, I really don't see much of a difference here. They both (KNOWLINGLY) lied int he public. The only difference is that a few people got hurt in Clinton's case and hundreds of thousands were killed in this case.
Next -- the campaign -- he PUBLICALLY promised many things of which most have not even been touched -- he lied.
What else do you really need???
Simply -- if Clinton went through all that mess with ML, this is a simple and straight case...
Next, there are a few dems opposing the withdrawal timeline -- but many more Republicans (lately) that start to support it. It is obvious to any intelligent person that Bush wants to drag it as long as possible so that Dems can be blamed and again...this admin can wash their hands...
And finally, admit it to yourself or not, we do live in the democratic society. Obviously, you have not experienced other societies (except a few glorious trips to Pakistan, Kashmir and whatever you said) to claim such an uneducated thing...
I'm still waiting for the list of positive things in last 6 years...