Posted on 02/16/2007 1:41:21 PM PST by bnelson44
WASHINGTON — Republicans on Capitol Hill ramped up their opposition to a Democratic proposal Friday to halt war funding for new missions in Iraq, even as members of House marched toward likely approval of a nonbinding resolution opposing the president's planned troop surge.
"They ultimately plan to cut off funds for the troops," the Senate's top Republican, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, told FOX News on Friday.
He said Democrats were trying to micromanage the war, and "they want to substitute their judgment for that of Gen. [David] Petraeus," who was confirmed in January to become the top U.S. military commander in Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Joe Lieberman made a statement that the Senate actions were headed to a constitutional crisis. It was a really good statement. I wish someone would explain what he meant.
Filibuster, eh? How is that going to get the supplemental appropriation passed? If the Republicans filibuster then the 'rats will simply say that it is the Republicans' fault the money can't go to the troops and that will force us to leave.
The question is what are the powers of Congress relating to appropriating money or declaring war versus the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief. It's been an issue for decades.
Now that the new-majority Democrat party has won passage of the non-binding anti-troop surge resolution, what consequences may we hold you and the other 245 House members who voted for the resolution if unforeseen dire consequences play out?
In other words,
a) If in the future...existing un-reinforced or dwindling numbers of US troops in Iraq should be killed in larger numbers than is currently occurring, may we have your assurance that you will resign your Congressional seat? After all, you and the other 245 House members have said that prior "troop surges haven't been successful in the past, and caused increased numbers of insurgents that contributed to increased US military deaths" ...and therefore by using your logic -- if more US troops die because of not being reinforced, your no-surge vote will have actively contributed to increased numbers of US soldiers' deaths. So if the future proves you wrong, may we have your assurance of your resignation? Or at least a public nationally-addressed apology?
b) If in the future...as the right-side-isle contends (and certain Democrats have admitted that this no-surge resolution is the first in series of strategies to actually purge troops from Iraq)...and as the right further contends that such terrorism-fighting withdrawal from "over there" will reactionarily encourage increased likelihood of terrorist attacks "back here" in the US, that if such a consequence occurs with large numbers of Americans killed here on the homefront, may we have your assurance of your resignation? Or at least a public nationally-addressed apology?
My other idea involves axe handles and shotguns.
But what exactly would a constitutional crisis look like?
Isn't that the truth. We had an election & apparently the idiots far out weigh the logical people still amongst us. If & when a nuclear weapon does go off soon thanks to these idiots, one can only hope that it wipes out all these commie f*g SOB"S. At least we in the South are still supporting our troops even if these @ssholes aren't.
did anyone notice taht Ron Paul voted with the RATS?? Once again a libetarian proves the difference between a Rino, a RAT and a conservative.
See the 2000 Election dispute. When the different branches of government cannot agree on the process for moving forward or who has authority over what, then we have a constitutional crisis because it is not clear what the correct answer is.
The Constitution, great as it is, does not provide all of the answers we need at all times. The Civil War and Reconstruction were also periods of constitutional crisis. Nobody could agree on very basic questions such as whether or not a state can leave the Union.
Another example was the Compromise of 1877. There was a dispute in the 1876 Election that was due to corruption, failure of Southern States to allow blacks to vote, and fraudulent returns by Republican operatives in Southern states then under military control.
In the latter case, the Compromise was that the Republicans won the White House and agreed to withdraw Federal Troops from the South.
The current crisis is particularly disturbing because it is taking place while we are at war in Iraq and we look horribly weak and divided to our enemies. One day that will cost us.
The Constitution gives Congress absolute authority to defund the war. If the American People have elected a Congress that votes to do, then Bush had better darn sure end the war.
Congress won't vote to defund the war however, because while the Democrat leadership wants the United States to lose, most of them just want that because they see it hurting Bush and the Republicans. They don't want a loss that will be laid at their door. The plan is to hamper the war effort enough that we cannot win, but not enough that they cannot -- with the media's willing assistance -- blame the loss on Bush and the Republicans.
And a nut.
Thanks, that was an excellent explanation. I get it now.
My modest prediction: The RATs will continue to undermine our troops and will cut funding for the war. The troops will then be forced to come home with no victory, just like Viet neam. Our withdrawal from Iraq will also cause the slaughter of millions of muzzies as the various factions fight for power. Then Iran will invade Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, cut off oil supplies to the US, and our economy will be toast. We (the RATs in charge) will do nothing to stop the Iranian attacks on their neighboring countries while RAT leaders fruitlessly try to get the UN to do something.
While Iran is at it, and they get nukes, they will attack Israel and maybe us too. If the RATs are in complete charge at that time, including the presidency, they will stop Israel from making a preemptive attack on Iran. Then they will ask the UN to intervene to resolve the conflict, but the UN will be helpless and will not do nothing, as usual. When the whole mess is over, the RATs will blame Bush and celebrate their "victory."
Is this too far-fetched?
Wonder how the ex-military voters in the San Antonio area are feeling today about Ron Paul's treasonous support of Benedict Murtha and Tokyo Rose Pelosi's sellout of our troops? Every last RINO who voted to cut and run needs to be drowned in outraged email and phone calls. Make them pay next year in the primaries.
They can only stop the US from acting. Oh sure, we could send all sorts of strongly worded letters and Diplo-dinks over there but Israel will take care of business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.