![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 15 of 15. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by sdb on January 14, 2007, at 22:22:09
Washingtonpost:
Bush Says More Troops The Only Option for Iraq
President says he has made his decision and "we're going forward" with deployment, regardless of objections by the Democratic-controlled Congress.
If you read that it is arguable if the US has a dictator or the US really isn't a democracy (the word "democracy" and its meaning is a relative concept anyway everywhere).
On verra what they will decide and what the outcome will be.
sdb
Posted by Declan on January 15, 2007, at 1:30:33
In reply to Washingtonpost: regardless of Congress, posted by sdb on January 14, 2007, at 22:22:09
They can't withdraw (admission of error).
They can't keep doing the same (doesn't work).
At least increasing troop numbers maintains the appearance of a sense of purpose and buys time in which (with care) the blame may be shifted.
Posted by sdb on January 15, 2007, at 7:44:46
In reply to Re: Washingtonpost: regardless of Congress, posted by Declan on January 15, 2007, at 1:30:33
> They can't withdraw (admission of error).
>
> They can't keep doing the same (doesn't work).Yes, this is a problem.
To be precise again, I don't want to question if a dictatorship is good or bad. It is negative for me if people must suffer physically or mentally. Zoologically war could be a mechanism of regulating the people's density on that limited space named earth.
>
> At least increasing troop numbers maintains the appearance of a sense of purpose and buys time in which (with care) the blame may be shifted.What about talking with Iraq's neighbors including the nations from the labeled "axis of the evil" face to face?
sdb
Posted by Dinah on January 15, 2007, at 9:25:49
In reply to Washingtonpost: regardless of Congress, posted by sdb on January 14, 2007, at 22:22:09
Congress controls the pursestrings. The president can't do whatever he wants and ignore congress completely. Congress has to cooperate, overtly or complicitly.
I hear Kennedy is floating a bill to fund only current troop levels. Congress is hardly united in its desires, but if it feels united enough, it has its methods for controlling the executive branch.
Posted by fayeroe on January 15, 2007, at 16:11:33
In reply to Re: Washingtonpost: regardless of Congress, posted by Dinah on January 15, 2007, at 9:25:49
additional troops are already on the ground there. they landed last Monday. how could Congress refuse to fund those who are there? and the administration knows that.....
Posted by madeline on January 16, 2007, at 5:45:09
In reply to Washingtonpost: regardless of Congress, posted by sdb on January 14, 2007, at 22:22:09
As commander in chief of the military, the president has the constiutional right to send troops basically at his will.
Under the war powers act, congress has some ability to curb the president's mobilization of troops ( but I think it would take a political scholar to decide if it applies in this case).
And, as Dinah pointed out, they do control the purse strings and could stranglehold the president's plan.
If the congress were united enough they could stop this war in its tracks, they could have even potentially stopped it from even occurring.But I think the question is WILL they exercise the powers they do have to control the executive branch?
don't know
Posted by fayeroe on January 16, 2007, at 9:24:59
In reply to Re: Washingtonpost: regardless of Congress » sdb, posted by madeline on January 16, 2007, at 5:45:09
i don't know either. i understand how it all works, but do they?
Posted by Declan on January 16, 2007, at 13:42:11
In reply to Re: Washingtonpost: regardless of Congress » sdb, posted by madeline on January 16, 2007, at 5:45:09
Would they want to be the ones who stabbed the troops in the back?
Isn't that the issue.
That much of Vietnam is remembered
Posted by fayeroe on January 16, 2007, at 14:09:05
In reply to Re: Washingtonpost: regardless of Congress » madeline, posted by Declan on January 16, 2007, at 13:42:11
> Would they want to be the ones who stabbed the troops in the back?
>
> Isn't that the issue.that's what i mean.........it's called being put between an rock and a hard place......
i heard today from a Marine that the administration plans on sending 40,000 troops...this came from his commander.
>
> That much of Vietnam is remembered
Posted by madeline on January 16, 2007, at 17:04:33
In reply to Re: Washingtonpost: regardless of Congress » Declan, posted by fayeroe on January 16, 2007, at 14:09:05
Personally, I will be very surprised if congress does anything to even curb the president in this escalation of troops.
Politically, they are in pretty good shape, if the president's plan fails, the dems can say "HA! I told you so." and walk into the presidency in 2008. If it succeeds they can say "Ha! we were NOT going to be the ones to cut our troops off at the knees AND we funded this outstanding success!"
The people in the US expressed their protest using the vote this year and it will be up to us to push congress into some sort of action (if that's what we want).
Maddie
Posted by fayeroe on January 16, 2007, at 17:09:59
In reply to Re: Washingtonpost: regardless of Congress » fayeroe, posted by madeline on January 16, 2007, at 17:04:33
> Personally, I will be very surprised if congress does anything to even curb the president in this escalation of troops.
>
> Politically, they are in pretty good shape, if the president's plan fails, the dems can say "HA! I told you so." and walk into the presidency in 2008. If it succeeds they can say "Ha! we were NOT going to be the ones to cut our troops off at the knees AND we funded this outstanding success!"
>
> The people in the US expressed their protest using the vote this year and it will be up to us to push congress into some sort of action (if that's what we want).
>
> Maddiei called all of my senators today about it.......:-) and i e.mail and fax a lot. i will not go quietly. pat
Posted by Declan on January 16, 2007, at 18:53:57
In reply to Re: Washingtonpost: regardless of Congress » madeline, posted by fayeroe on January 16, 2007, at 17:09:59
I've just started reading "The Assassins Gate. America in Iraq" by George Packer which seems pretty good so far.
I keep wanting to make sense of this whole thing and fail to do so.
Posted by sdb on January 16, 2007, at 23:30:24
In reply to Re: Washingtonpost: regardless of Congress, posted by Dinah on January 15, 2007, at 9:25:49
>Congress controls the pursestrings. The president >can't do whatever he wants and ignore congress >completely.
Thanks for your education. I hope these rules are consistent with execution.
kind regards
sdb
Posted by sdb on January 16, 2007, at 23:59:51
In reply to Washingtonpost: regardless of Congress, posted by sdb on January 14, 2007, at 22:22:09
> Washingtonpost:
>
> Bush Says More Troops The Only Option for Iraq
>
> President says he has made his decision and "we're going forward" with deployment, regardless of objections by the Democratic-controlled Congress.
>
> If you read that it is arguable if the US has a dictator or the US really isn't a democracy (the word "democracy" and its meaning is a relative concept anyway everywhere).
>
> On verra what they will decide and what the outcome will be.
>
> sdbpolitics seems too difficult to understand for me. Actually I am not interested.
sdb
Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2007, at 3:05:09
In reply to Re: Washingtonpost: regardless of Congress » fayeroe, posted by madeline on January 16, 2007, at 17:04:33
I see where what you're saying is probably correct, but it disturbs me.
I think Congress should be held equally accountable for their actions, or lack of actions, even if they aren't as visible as the Administration's.
The systems of checks and balances was put in by a very wise set of founding fathers, but they won't work if the branches of government don't take them seriously.
Just as I strongly object when the judiciary legislates, or the balance of power tips to one branch or another, I also strongly object when a branch of government abdicates on its own role.
Not to say any branch has done any of those things in any particular circumstance. My objections are purely theoretical.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.