Grabbed this screencap from Google News in the early hours of 7/9 and just had to shake my head.
I mean, REALLY.
A bipartisan panel wants the government to play a bigger role when a president decides to go to war.
Uhhhhh, YEAH.
You know what, Mr. or Mrs. Bipartisan Panel?
THEY ALREADY HAVE A BIGGER ROLE.
They just turned over that role to Bush in the lead-up to the Iraq Attack--or did you guys not study very hard in school?
I mean, any kid who paid attention in history class (or for me, Social Studies class) knows that it's Congress' job to authorize military force. Before we invaded a sovereign member of the UN (Iraq) back in 2003, the US Congress told Bush that he could swing his ability to declare war around like a huge penis in order to scare Saddam into fessing up about his WMD.
Of course, no amount of penis-swinging would get Saddam to admit something that wasn't true, so Bush got to use his war powers. Of course, if Congress hadn't been lied to by the White House, they'd have known Saddam had nothing to declare as we threatened to cross his border.
They trusted the guy in the White House. It's my impression that the Founding Fathers didn't want the guy in the White House to have the power to invade a country--so why did Congress defy that interest of the FF? Especially to a man like Bush who was such a great leader he let 911 happen, invaded a whole country and then couldn't even capture the guy who was behind 911.
This was a guy who didn't even have the decency to make sure he won the 2000 election.
Hey, did you know that when there's a tie in a presidential race the US Constitution states that it's *Congress* that votes on who the president should be?
Yeah, apparently the Supreme Court hadn't heard that either. By I digress!
The USC(ongress) should never have given Bush the ability to shoot his military load into Iraq to begin with, so essentially, since Bush "took office" the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House all let us down. That's all three branches, isn't it?
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz. I mean, REALLY.
A bipartisan panel wants the government to play a bigger role when a president decides to go to war.
Uhhhhh, YEAH.
You know what, Mr. or Mrs. Bipartisan Panel?
THEY ALREADY HAVE A BIGGER ROLE.
They just turned over that role to Bush in the lead-up to the Iraq Attack--or did you guys not study very hard in school?
I mean, any kid who paid attention in history class (or for me, Social Studies class) knows that it's Congress' job to authorize military force. Before we invaded a sovereign member of the UN (Iraq) back in 2003, the US Congress told Bush that he could swing his ability to declare war around like a huge penis in order to scare Saddam into fessing up about his WMD.
Of course, no amount of penis-swinging would get Saddam to admit something that wasn't true, so Bush got to use his war powers. Of course, if Congress hadn't been lied to by the White House, they'd have known Saddam had nothing to declare as we threatened to cross his border.
They trusted the guy in the White House. It's my impression that the Founding Fathers didn't want the guy in the White House to have the power to invade a country--so why did Congress defy that interest of the FF? Especially to a man like Bush who was such a great leader he let 911 happen, invaded a whole country and then couldn't even capture the guy who was behind 911.
This was a guy who didn't even have the decency to make sure he won the 2000 election.
Hey, did you know that when there's a tie in a presidential race the US Constitution states that it's *Congress* that votes on who the president should be?
Yeah, apparently the Supreme Court hadn't heard that either. By I digress!
The USC(ongress) should never have given Bush the ability to shoot his military load into Iraq to begin with, so essentially, since Bush "took office" the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House all let us down. That's all three branches, isn't it?
Replies.Orignal From: Didn't They Already Have a Say?
No comments:
Post a Comment