Media characterize expected standoff on Iraq funding as Congress "defiant" of Bush, not vice versa
In their coverage of the Senate's March 29 passage of a spending bill that calls for troop withdrawal from Iraq to begin with the goal of having the troops home by March 31, 2008, several media outlets -- CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Associated Press -- have characterized the Senate as "defiant" or as having "defied" President Bush by passing a measure he has threatened to veto. This characterization suggests that authority to make that determination lies with the president, and the Senate's action undermines that authority. In fact, the Constitution gives Congress the authority -- and responsibility -- to legislate.
The following have characterized congressional actions as defiance of the president:
- On the March 29 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer claimed, "The Senate defied the president, passing a war spending bill with a timeline for U.S. troops to leave Iraq." The accompanying on-screen text read: "Senate Defies Pres. Bush, War Bill OK'd Despite Veto Threat." Blitzer later added, "Let's get some more now on our top story, the Senate's defiance of the president's promise to veto its war spending bill for Iraq." CNN congressional correspondent Ed Henry also described the Senate as "defying" Bush, saying, "Wolf, this president obviously under siege on two fronts -- the full Senate defying him on Iraq policy, as well as this Senate panel hearing testimony -- explosive testimony in that U.S. attorney flap."
- A March 30 New York Times article on the passage of the Senate measure was headlined, "Defying Bush, Senate Passes Iraq Spending Measure," although the article itself noted that Democrats "dismissed Republican complaints that they were micromanaging military policy, saying that Congress had Constitutional authority equal to that of the executive branch and that Democrats were forced to intercede because of Mr. Bush's refusal to heed public demands for withdrawing forces."
- A March 29 Washington Post report stated, "The Senate today defied a White House veto threat and narrowly approved a $122 billion war spending bill that calls for combat troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq this summer."
- A March 30 Associated Press report stated that the Senate was "defiant." From the article: "A defiant, Democratic-controlled Senate approved legislation Thursday calling for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq within a year, propelling Congress closer to an epic, wartime veto confrontation with President Bush."
As Media Matters for America previously noted (here, here and here), NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory and CNN congressional correspondent Dana Bash both asserted that the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law was defying the White House by authorizing subpoenas for White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, and three others, rather than characterizing Bush's conditions for congressional interviews of his staff as defiance of Congress' oversight responsibility.
From the March 29 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: The Senate defied the president, passing a war spending bill with a timeline for U.S. troops to leave Iraq. And despite President Bush's vowing the bill will never get past his veto pen, the president is -- the Democrats in Congress and some Republicans are moving forward on that front.
[...]
HENRY: Wolf, this president obviously under siege on two fronts -- the full Senate defying him on Iraq policy, as well as this Senate panel hearing testimony -- explosive testimony in that U.S. attorney flap. The president is trying to both push back and focus on the rest of his legislative agenda, but that's easier said than done.
[...]
BLITZER: Then, just two days ago, the Senate defied President Bush with its own move toward a troop pullout. Republicans had hoped to strip a Senate bill of language calling for a pullout deadline, but they failed by a vote of 50-48. And again, President Bush was quick and harsh with a response.
[...]
BLITZER: Let's get some more now on our top story, the Senate's defiance of the president's promise to veto its war spending bill for Iraq. Today, one lawmaker who normally votes with the Democrats did not join them. He voted against the Senate bill.
It's Bush's war, he's responsible for it's planning and execution - if the Congress does not give him what he asks for, they are defying him.
Certainly you're not implying this is Congress' war, and any defiance is coming from Bush?
Uhhh....
You might want to read the last two sentences of the opening paragraph.
Or not.
So, you're putting it on the backs of Congress, the responsibility for this war, is that what you're doing? And any defiance of their war is coming from Bush?
Glad you're on record.
Job opening?
Ya know what? Rove is thinning his herd a bit - maybe there's an opening for a fact twister.
Interested?
And its CONGRESSES responsibility to say how money is SPENT period if Bush wants to spend money in ways Congress doesnt approve of its defying THEM. The constitution is absolutly clear on this no spending bill can originate anywhere but the House of Representatives. Its ludicrous to say either Bush gets what he wants for ANY reason or Congress is defying him he is NOT PHAROAH.
Solon, Apparently you missed my point too. By insisting that Bush is defying Congress, as you and this website would rather see in the media.......then you are putting the responsibility of the war on Congress.
I prefer to hold Bush accountable and any defiance of what he wants is coming from the Congress - not vice versa.
Tommy, you have a point but may be playing on words. Regardless it is Bushs war, he is not doing what the will of the people (Congress) want therefore he is being defiant. Do you feel and will you go on record that Bush is a War Criminal?
Doris, I understand what you're saying, and it may be just a semantic parsing of words here - but in my mind, it's Bush's war and those that defy his execution of it, are being defiant. Is being defiant bad? Not necessarily, if you are doing what you believe is the right thing. The Democrats feel that, I believe - so I don't fault them for their defiance at all.
As for Bush being a war criminal, it's off topic and unless and until litigated properly, it is pointless for me to weigh in.
The whole thread is a semantic parsing. The man needs some serious defying, and he's finally getting some. End of story.
Tommy, you may have noticed... this is a different Congress than the one that passed the AUMF. However, the Congress does have the Constitutional responsibility to exercise oversight, and they can - and should - be held accountable for any lack of testicular fortitude in asserting that prerogative.
As far as Bush's war crimes go, I don't think it is likely we will see any topics on that subject soon. And since when was the on-topic rule really enforced around here? IMHO the really interesting discussions happen when we drift...
Off Topic?I did not think we had to discuss every single aspect of the thread, Bush is related to the topic and his warcrimes should be discussed. It is far from off Topic. I am disapointed Tommy, that you evaded the question.
Doris, You asked me if Bush is a war criminal. I did not evade your question. Unless or until he is convicted of such, he is not a war criminal. If and when he is convicted, then he will be.
Conventional definitions of "criminal" include those accused of a crime, not merely those convicted in court.
I thin you can answer or not answer any question you want without censure, but it's kind of weak to say "I did not evade your question" in the middle of an evasion that nearly rises (or sinks) to the level of "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
What definition is that? So merely being accused of a crime is enough to call someone a criminal? If you believe that, I cannot help you.
If someone asks you if O.J. is a murderer, you can give an opinion on that. If someone says he's a convicted murderer, that's a different standard.
You can answer the question based on the facts and common sense, you won't get in trouble for it.
criminal, (n) felon, crook, outlaw, malefactor (someone who has committed a crime or has been legally convicted of a crime)
If you have a beef with the dictionary, I cannot help you.
You answered your own question - "someone who has committed a crime or been convicted of a crime". So to be a war criminal would demand being convicted of such a crime........to argue something so elementary is ridiculous.
Tommy, as homework, look up the word "or."
Val, You can continue this if you'd like. Why not just cut to it - the only way one can say Bush is war criminal is if he has been convicted and found guilty of war crimes. Has he?
Tommy, you are the only one "continuing." You don't want to even give an opinion about whether Bush has committed any war crimes until the final verdict is handed down, which will be about 5 minutes past never since Bush doesn't recognise the authority of the ICC.
If you don't want to answer the question, don't answer it. Just don't use as your excuse that you can't even have an opinion about something until it's been adjudicated by a court.
Thank you for confirming the fact that Bush has never convicted of war crimes and therefore is not a war criminal. If circumstances change, and he is ever convicted, then I will call him a war criminal.
Until that time, for me or anyone to say he is a war criminal is factually inaccurate.
You can call him whatever you'd like.
Millions of undocumented workers, illegal immigrants, have not been convicted of crimes in this country. That is to say they haven't been convicted of breaking U.S. immigration laws. In your mind, because they have not been convicted are they not criminals?
By definition, a criminal is someone who is guilty of a crime. And guilt is a legal term meaning the person's crimes have been rightly adjudicated and that person has been found guilty of a crime, therefore a criminal. If that person is found innocent, then he or she is not a criminal.
Illegal immigrants who have broken the law by illegally entering this country. I would not say that anyone accused of a illegal act is a criminal unless they are legally found guilty of a crime.
But you can call Bush a terrorist, or a war criminal, or a moron for all I care........it's up to you.
So, I can bust into your house and put a beat down on you, maybe put you in the hospital or worse but If I am not found guilty, I'm not a criminal?
p.s. Why then do you constantly refer to immigrants as illegal? By your definition immigrants can only be accused of being illegally here. It's not as if someone here illiegally is gonna broadcast their illegal status. So, unless they are proven to be here illegally, they are not actually breaking any laws.
Is this how conservatives see the world? Nothing is illegal if you are not caught and convicted?
I am convinced that it is. Under Tommy's definition, Hitler and Milosevic were not war criminals because they were not convicted of war crimes.
The only thing that Bush has done that you don't like is to fight an agressive war on terror. It's not a war crime to fight murderous thugs who kill women and children in the dark of night. Terrorism isn't a law enforcement issue. You can't just round up the people who actually attack us and think that we've solved the problem. We have to go after the countries that are harboring terrorists and send them a message. You can make the argument that Iraq was the wrong battlefield, but the war wasn't illegal, and if we weren't fighting them in Iraq we would probably be fighting them somewhere else.
"The only thing that Bush has done that you don't like is to fight an agressive war on terror." rinohunter, formerly truthdetector
He has waged a conventional military campaign, actually an occupation, against an unconventional enemy. An enemy, not even an army, that seeks not to capture land or treasure but to create a debilitating state of mind in their opponent, is a political enemy.
Pursuing terrorists elsewhere would be great, like say where they came from: Saudi Arabia.
"You can't just round up the people who actually attack us and think that we've solved the problem."
Oh? Why do we bother putting away rapists and murderers? It doesn't solve problems. Guess we should bomb cities like NYC or Oklahoma City, those cities harbor criminals?
"Oh? Why do we bother putting away rapists and murderers? It doesn't solve problems. Guess we should bomb cities like NYC or Oklahoma City, those cities harbor criminals"
You just proved my point. You don't see any difference between ordinary criminals and terrorists. You view them as being the same. You view terrorism as a law enforcement issue, and I view it as a war on radical muslims. We just have a difference of opinion. I don't believe that treating terrorists like ordinary criminals will make us safe either in the short run or long run.
"You view terrorism as a law enforcement issue, and I view it as a war on radical muslims."
How do you determine who is a radical muslim without law enforcement techniques, i.e. informants, infiltration, etc? I don't see why those have to be separate things there.
The war is illegal by international law, as admitted by Perle. See the Nuremberg precedent, that is OUR OWN STANDARDS.
Your argument is 100% logic free. When you say that even if its the wrong battlefield its still not in illegal war you leave reality far behind. By that logic if Bush cited terrorism as a concern then invaded CANADA it wouldnt be a warcrime. Its ludicrous on the face of it. The head of the CIA said we didnt believe Iraq was a threat to commit terrorism against us. Invading a country that is not a threat without UN security counsel approval is a war of aggression. That is not ONLY a warcrime but according to our own standards its the SUPREME WAR CRIME.
Rinohunter, are you an organ donor? Because, if you go, I'd like to put your brain in my cat. He's not very obedient or predictable, and I'd like to correct that..
I think that would be considered cruelty to animals.
Bush IS a war criminal. He has committed war crimes. The evidence is overwhelming. He is guilty of all charges under the Nuremburg Charter. One does not need the verdict of a jury to know this.
Uh, Tommy, by your logic if I were to strangle my wife in her sleep tonight (relax I have no intention of doing so), and it were to take our justice system five years to catch and convict me, I wouldn't be a criminal during that time. That's absurd. Criminal activity makes one a criminal. Court procedures make one a convict.
And to be a "war crmininal", one would have to found guilty of a war crime. To my knowledge, Bush has yet to be found guilty of a war crime. If there is breaking news to the contrary that I am not privy too, please get back to me.
Tommy, do you have an opinion on the question of whether George Bush has committed acts for which he could be legitimately accused of war crimes?
Val,
Anyone who has read my posts here know how I feel about Bush and his gross mismanagement of this war and his presidency. Has he committed acts that could lead to being accused of war crimes, I imagine he could be accused of them - could he be convicted is another matter and that would have to adjudicated through the process.
So you think the President of your country may be a war criminal, but you are too much of a pussy to say it outright.
Thanks, that was illuminating.
Nicely put, what class.
What's illuminating is your seething hatred for Bush has you calling him a war criminal without a conviction.
If that makes you feel like a man, go for it.
What's illuminating is your seething hatred for the dictionary has you changing the meaning of the word "criminal" just so you can dodge a simple question.
This is obviously another example of conservative authoritarianism at work. The authoritarian mindset has them believing that something isn't criminal or even wrong until it's declared so by the legal system.
Hitler was a war criminal, yet never faced a trial. Yet he was still a war criminal. It's the ACT, not the verdict, that makes a criminal. A criminal who is never caught, never tried, never convicted, is still a criminal.
This is true. The statutes defining a crime NEVER include, as an element of the crime, being convicted of that crime. To do so would be entirely illogical. You could never be convicted of a crime because to be convicted, you would have to already have been convicted.
Tommy is just being pointlessly obstinate again.
it may be just a semantic parsing of words
Leaving aside the other issues raised, I think Tommy has a point about the word "defied."
Defiance is defined as "a daring or bold resistance to authority or to any opposing force," which certainly seems to apply here. (Sidebar: I don't want to get into how "daring or bold" Congress is being.) Certainly acting in the face of a threat can be called defiance - so if you accept the phrase "threat of a veto," it's not unreasonable to accept that passing a bill despite that threat constitutes "defiance."
Another way to look at, and very well stated.
"Do you feel and will you go on record that Bush is a War Criminal?"
Sorry, but no one other than a far left nut would say that. Hitler was a war criminal. Bush is a good President who has taken the fight to the extremists and protected all of us. Bush's policies and our soldiers' bravery have given you the chance to say the stupid things that you say. Otherwise, you might be dead. The War in Iraq was legal from the very beginning. After Saddam broke the 1st UN Resolution, we had the right to go in and remove him by force. You can debate whether or not the Iraq War has been worth the sacrifice, but to say that it's illegal is absolutely ludicrous.
Far Left Nut, reporting in:
The Third Geneva Conventions were signed by the United States of America on 12 August 1949, and ratified by the United States Congress on 2 August 1955, making them the law of the United States. George Bush, in issuing an Executive Order permitting torture, broke United States and international law and is thus guilty of a war crime. Other government officials - notably one Alberto Gonzales, may be similarly culpable.
Thanks for stopping by!
"George Bush, in issuing an Executive Order permitting torture"
George Bush didn't sign any such Order. The United States does not torture! It amazes me how some of you always blame America first. What we use are only mild forms of coercive interrogation such as sleep deprevation, changing room temperatures, loud music, etc. We don't harm prisoners physically by beating them, cutting off arms and limbs, electricution, etc. The United States government has never engaged in that, doesn't now, and never will. You're living in fantasy land.
Torture 4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
Note body or mind. It's not just cutting off limbs.
9.to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
Like right-wing logic.
You are absolutly delusional. Only by denying reality completly can you even MAKE that claim. You cant expect us to take seriously YOU just defining whatever we DONT do as torture here is a story from a man who himself was a torurer as he admits
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/28/opinion/edmckelvey.php
We DID use electricity on people at Abu Ghraib how did you miss the photo of the guy HOOKED UP to the electrodes. We BEAT at least two people to death at Bagram Air Force base. The coroner ruled these deaths homocides and cause of death blunt force trauma while in custody.
An FBI agent complained that DOD personell were impersonating FBI agents while using what HE described as torture techniques. You dont really care that we DO torture and there is NO question about this remember Maher Arar and extrodinary renditions? you just dont want it TALKED about. You expect it to remain our dirty little secret. Torture doesnt get you mad, TALKING about torture gets you mad. You want us to be SEEN as a nation to pure to torture and whether we REALLY do so or not doesnt matter in the least. We ABSOLUTLY DO. What do you call sodomy with chemical lights as the Taguba report exposed? Rapes? Murders? Acts sadistic and inhuman as they were described by Donald Rumsfeld himself? Stop LYING about us torturing people and demand we STOP torturing people.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/08/iraq/main616338.shtml
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters, "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. we're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:km8LYkFDAm0J:www.senate.gov/~armed_services/statemnt/2004/May/Rumsfeld.pdf+Rumsfeld+acts+sadistic+and+inhuman&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
First, beyond abuse of prisoners, we have seen photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners – acts that may be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhuman.First, beyond abuse of prisoners, we have seen photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners – acts that may be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhuman.First, beyond abuse of prisoners, we have seen photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners – acts that may be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhumanFirst, beyond abuse of prisoners, we have seen photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners – acts that may be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhumanFirst, beyond abuse of prisoners, we have seen photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners – acts that may be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhuman(from Rumsfelds testimony before the Senate and House armed services committesO
First, beyond the abuse of prisoners, we have seen photos that depict incidents of physical violence toward prisoners- Acts that may be described as blatantly sadistic cruel and inhuman.
Personally I dont CARE what YOU define as torture if acts like these dont qualify you need to turn in your card describing YOU as a human being.
Total fantasy. According to OUR OWN STANDARDS at Nuremberg the Supreme war crime is starting a war of aggression. The only rationale to make a war LEGAL by the UN Charter WHICH WE SIGNED is Security Counsel resolution or IMMANENT self defense. Neither applies if the Nuremberg laws were applied Bush would be hung even Richard Perle, the prince of darkness himself admitted this invasion was illegal by international law. And NO the first time Iraq violated a UN resolution that justified a war. Israel has violated more than TWICE as many as Iraq, Turkey has also violated more when are we going to invade them? Your post was completely specious.
I could be mistaking RH for another apologist, but I believe he previously argued that it may be illegal by international law but there's nothing anyone can do about it.
"And NO the first time Iraq violated a UN resolution that justified a war"
I didn't say that it justified the war. I said that it made the war legal. There's a big difference. There's also a big difference between saying that the Iraq War has not been worth the sacrifice and saying that the Iraq War is illegal and Bush is guilty of war crimes. The first is a mainstream position that is shared by the majority of the American people, and the second is an extreme position that is only shared by those on the far left. That's what you don't seem to understand. The vast majority of Americans do oppose the war in Iraq, but they're not willing to bash our own country and say that our government has committed crimes. That's way over the line.
First of all bashing Bush is NOT bashing our country. Bush is NOT our country and only the far right extremists think he is. Second you are flat out WRONG violating a UN resolution does NOT in itself make the war legal. As I said even Perle admitted it wasnt legal by international law
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal,
International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.
<!-- This site/section combo is not set up to show MPU's -->But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.
You are WRONG flatly, astonishingly, and completely WRONG.
It is fun to watch the right say that the UN is usless and then use the UN as the excuse for going to war.The USA did not have to go to war. YOU RIGHTIES wanted it.On another note- you are never leaving. That is why you are building permanant bases there.
Rino
You say:
Sorry, but no one other than a far left nut would say that. Hitler was a war criminal. Bush is a good President who has taken the fight to the extremists and protected all of us. Bush's policies and our soldiers' bravery have given you the chance to say the stupid things that you say. Otherwise, you might be dead. The War in Iraq was legal from the very beginning. After Saddam broke the 1st UN Resolution, we had the right to go in and remove him by force. You can debate whether or not the Iraq War has been worth the sacrifice, but to say that it's illegal is absolutely ludicrous.
You want to call people "far left nuts" who oppose this horrible war that is fine however you say Bush has been a good President? Most Americans will disagree, he has led us into 4 years of savage killing , all because Saddam tried to kill his Daddy in 1993. This war was a mistake from day one. Iraq was not extremist, and they did not attack us on 9/11. That defense is long tiring .
Exactly saying that Bush took the fight to extremist terrorists is flat out dumb. IF the point was to fight Islamic extremist terrorists then invading the most secular Islamic country in the Middle East was pure insanity.
They thought Iraq was the low-hanging fruit.
They figured, it's a busted country, supine after a decade of sanctions and the dictator is a hated asshole. I think they really believed they could go in there, push over a few statues, and install a pro-Likud government in the Republican Palace.
Whoops.
I agree that to call Bush a war criminal is counterproductive. However, you don't exactly have to be a far-left nut job to read the definition spelled out in Nuremberg as including Bush. On the other hand, you have to be pretty far out there to call him a "good president" (bottom 30 percentiles and falling). And you have to be a total lunatic to conclude that were it not for his asinine invasion of Iraq some of us would be dead. More than 3,000 Americans would *not* be dead.
"And you have to be a total lunatic to conclude that were it not for his asinine invasion of Iraq some of us would be dead"
I was talking more about domestic national security programs like the NSA Surveillance Act, coerced interrogation, the Patriot Act, etc. which are things that have helped to keep us safe and most of you have opposed.
And your EVIDENCE they have made us more safe is WHAT? Oh it doesnt exist, you just DECIDED it did with no evidence whatsoever? Imagine my suprise. Suprise a lot of peope including those whose job it is to know seem to disagree that Iraq has made us safer. [link to www.nytimes.com] Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat Also the IISS a prowar agency says it has made the world less safe. Bush could have already wiretapped anyone he wanted he just needed to go through FISA there isnt the SLIGHTEST evidence that NOT using FISA has made us less safe. You are completely caught up in a world of complete delusion.
"Bush is a good President who has taken the fight to the extremists and protected all of us."
Yes, and Puddinhead George can crap thunder and shoot lightning bolts out of his arse. Maybe you can explain something that no other troglodyte has been able to...exactly what is it about the Iraq war that keeps the terrorists from attacking us over here? It's a standard wingnut talking point that makes no sense whatsoever...maybe you can enlighten us.
After Saddam broke the 1st UN Resolution, we had the right to go in and remove him by force.
Completely wrong - fortunately for third parties.
The Security Council, not the US, would be the ones to have the "right" to "go on there." We had no right to act (almost) unilaterally. That, in fact, is why the UK pushed for the second resolution in the spring of 2003: Blair's government had been told by its own counsel that an attack was illegal in the absence of specific SC authorization - which never came.
Passage of a Security Council resolution does not empower each member of the Council individually to enforce it by war. Some should be happy, because otherwise, if, say, Russia and China joined to launch an attack on Israel, which stands in violation of numerous SC resolutions, they would have no basis of complaint.
We had NO right to attack Iraq, for any reason. They had NOT attacked us, were NOT a threat to us, were NOT a threat to their neighbours. The UN did NOT authorize an invasion. We cannot kill several hundred thousand people on a WHIM and blame it on someone else. To do so is psychopathic.
Rino, how have Bush's policies given anyone "the chance" to say anything?
BTW, it wasn't easy to pick out the stoopidest line in that Cliff Notes version of the Rush Limbaugh show post of yours.Well done.
I think YOU are missing the point. I think you are missing it because you see this as a false dichotomy. The use of the word defying is spin. Spin which could just as easily be used in either direction. It is a false framing. Both are doing their jobs. I think Bush poorly. I wouldnt rather see it FRAMED as Bush is defying Congress. I dont see where MMFA said they would either. They are pointing OUT it is a false framing but showing it is just as valid to say the opposite. Why not just report what the situation is and leave the partisan spin out from EITHER direction? Let US decide how to see it and just give us the facts.
"And its CONGRESSES responsibility to say how money is SPENT period"
Then why don't they just cut off funds for the war? Why play all these stupid games? The Democrats in Congress could end this war right now if they wanted to. They just don't have the guts to do it.
It must aggravate you to no end that Dems are actually funding the troops here. If they cut off funding, you could say the Dems hate the troops or aren't supporting them, etc. This way, you have no such argument.
And that is the answer to your question, really.
Read the language of the bill that is being passed to the President.
Unscrewing the pooch that Bush so effectivley screwed won't be easy. Congress is setting an end to the war reasonably into the future. If the president is a good president then he will plan accordingly to that date using the funds provided.
Yes, read the language....the withdrawal is totally dependent on the puppet Iraqi government meeting benchmarks defined by the White House, not Congress. The language actually gives Bush sole authority for withdrawal. Only he can say they have met those benchmarks, otherwise the troops stay.
The Democrats have bamboozled the anti-war crowd with more meaningless rhetoric and another years worth of funding for a war crime. Betrayed again.
The language actually gives Bush sole authority for withdrawal.
You are saying that Congess is stating that we need to get out by by this date, but if you have different a date, ok cool, do that instead.
If this is so, why would the President veto, he still maintains complete authority by your understanding.
Because it's a Democrat bill, that's why. The Repubs can't let the Dems have a "victory", even if it goes along with their plans. Either way Bush wins. But he has to veto to make it look like the Dems lose. They do this all the time. Most of the Patriot Act was written by the Clinton admin, but the Repubs veto'd it down just to keep a Dem bill from succeeding. When they came into majority, then it became "their" idea and they could claim the victory. It's really petty and stupid, but that's the way it works in DC. They attack the other side's legislation for pure party spite, not because it's a good idea or not. They've been doing this since the 1790's.
It's Bush's war. Last November, the American people decided they don't like war anymore and they want something done about it. By showing his unwillingness to do something about it, such as sending the Iraqi's a message that we're only going to babysit their civil war for so long, Bush is, in effect, in defiance of the American people.
You're thinking grand scale when the topic is specific legislation. The protagonist takes action;in films the protagonist drives the plot (note this is not necessarily the same as "hero";see "Falling Down" for an example). The antagonist tries to block the action in some way (this is what makes the element of "conflict").
Regarding the legislation, that's Congress's action. They are the protagonists here. Bush threatens to veto it. He is the antagonist. They have the authority to do what they're doing, that's their job, and Bush wants to veto them. On a larger scale, yes, it's Bush's war. As far as that effort goes, he is the protagonist. Like I said, "protagonist" does not equal "hero", case in point.
The language is also a problem;"defy" is dramatic and suggests opposing authority (to challenge the power of; resist boldly or openly: to defy parental authority. ...synonyms;dare, brave, flout, scorn.<!-- google_ad_region_end=def -->-dictionary.com). It clearly suggests a lesser power challenging a greater power, questioning his authority. But these are co-equal branches of government. As long as both sides recognize and accept the legitimate power of the other, the term "defiance" has no merit.
Well reasoned explanation of 40,000 previous words missing the essential!
Tommy - you are correct. It is the responsibility of the executive office to conduct war. Also, Bush warned repeatedly that he would veto the proposed legislation. Therefore - for good or ill - congress is defying Bush
Congress is doing something completely within their power, and not taking any legitimate power away from Bush. The executive and legislative branches are co-equal. One does not have authority over the other.
If you do something your co-worker (who is on your level) doesn't approve of, and they turned around and accused you of "defying" them, you'd think they were crazy.
It also seems like if Dems don't do anything about the war, then they "own" the war. But if they do something, then they're "defying" Bush, like it's a rebellion. Where the hell is the middle ground here?
Interesting point. Congress authorized Bush to use force against Iraq as necessary for protection of national security. Bush decided to use that authority to start an unwarranted, and now calamitous war.
The key point is that Congress authorized, and continue to hold the authority over anything Bush does concerning war. So yes, you are right that this war is 100% Bushes responsibility, but he screwed the pooch with the authority granted.
Put in another context, we do not give up our authority over policeman when we authorize policeman to wear guns and use them in the lawful execution of their duties. But if they screw up on how they use their authority, they have to answer for it.
Bush has to answer to Congress, he is defying Congress.
I thought Bush was the Defyer
So screw the constitution?
Well yes, apparently some do prefer to do that, especially when the Constitution defies their opinions.
I don't like the framing of the story, that it's the President's role to Decide and the Congress's role to supinely go along. However, as that has been the way Washington has worked for six years, the Man Bites Dog in the news is Congress finally growing a pair.
Aw hell, I'll say it, just for grins:
Why is this here?
"the Man Bites Dog in the news is Congress finally growing a pair."
Exactly.
Right. The point is the timing. It was Bushes and the GOP CONGRESS'S war. Now it is in effect Bushes' and the Democratic Congess's war.
Apparently the media cited in this post still live in the days when Bush was anointed King and the press blessed his notion of papal infallacy.
Only Congress has the power to declare war. Congress has not declared war against Iraq.
The War Powers Act demands an exit strategy. Bush has no exit strategy.
The invasion of Iraq does not have the approval of the United Nations.
Given the above facts this invasion of Iraq cannot legally be called a war as none of the proper steps have been taken. Steps such as
Congress declaring war against Iraq.
The proper application of the War Powers Act guidelines.
United Nations approval to use force against Iraq.
The media is incorrect in their framing the powers of Congress as an act of defience against a President that doesn't even have all his papers in order. Papers such as:
War declared by Congress
The showing of compliance to the War Powers Act
United Nations giving the green light granting the use force against a soverign nation.
Bush's action is that of a rogue made possible only a rogue Republican controlled legislative branch that rubber stamped Bush's desires.
The media's attempt to paint the Executive Branch as a dictatorial power is a disservice to the People. The media must always remind the People that the People are the boss and the Executive is the servant of the People.
The People can speak through the Legislative Branch and that Branch has the power to legislate and any exercise of that power cannot be considered an act of deficance against the Executive Branch.
Darn activist legislators passing laws for political reasons...
The Senate and House have given this moron everything he wants and more:(hurricane relief, Funding for wounded vets-support our troops-and other much neglected legislation). If the troops don't get funded in time it'll be his fault, if I and most of the American people get our way. This assh#*# isn't the zip-damn king! He works for us! WE SAY GET OUT!
"... one lawmaker who normally votes with the Democrats did not join them."
ummm. did any lawmakers who normally vote with the Republicans not join them?
wolf's "reporting" sometimes defies logic.
Tommy,
Your claim that Bush is not guilty of war crimes because he has never been convicted is dishonest at best. The reason Bush has not been brought to trial is because there isn't a country powerful enough to invade us and bring Bush to trial.
To help you understand the fallacy we need to ponder a scenario such as Hulk or Superman becoming the bad guys stealing a car for amusement or killing people out of boredom and we are unable to bring them to justice. By your thinking Hulk and Superman could never be criminals no matter what they do.
Because Hulk and Superman can get away with it doesn't make their action right. We will look upon what they are doing as wrong and this is the point with Bush and this war.
Bush and this war is wrong.
I actually have a real world example, and I'm curious about Tommy's take, just to see how far his authoritarianism goes. Late one night, a friend of mine was run down in the street by a drunk police officer right in front of my eyes. We were loading some things into the back of a van, when a police car suddenly veered right and struck my friend, who was instantly rendered unconscious from his injuries. The cop drove another half a block, reconsidered, and then backed up to the scene. He got out of the car, stumbling drunk, said, "Oh sh*t," about a dozen times and then got back into the car and drove away. My friend's girlfriend had managed to take down the officer's car number, but not his badge number.
To make a long story short, nothing happened to the cop--not even a suspension--and my friend has permanent brain damage. So, is the cop a criminal? What if he wasn't a policeman, but still got away with it? Would that make him a criminal?
I think if he offers a take on it, it will just be that you're a "liar".
Sorry to hear about your friend. That's horrible.
Of course he's not a criminal. He was never convicted. Thus, no crime was committed. Duh.
Wouldn't defying Bush be a good thing for Congress to do? I haven't seen them do much of it, and I would sure like to see a lot more.