Presidential treason?

[Larry Gude]

This has been said:

There are public questions, raised by the opposition party, as to the constitutionality AND the justice of the war.

It seems legislation is to be introduced that states that the war had been 'unnecessarily and unconstitutionally' initiated by the President.

One pol said he would happily reverse his position if the President could prove otherwise but he (the President) 'can not or will not...' prove otherwise. This same politician stating '...from beginning to end, it (the initiation of the war) the sheerest deception..."

More from this guy: "The President hoped to escape scrutiny by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory...like a serpent, charming to destroy..."

As regards the Presidents defense of the war; "...it is the half insane mumblings of a fevered dream..."

Now, it's not all bad. In defense of the President, these accusations were called, in the paper; "a treasonable assault..." and labeled the accuser a 'Benedict Arnold...'

The argument back?

"To accept the Presidents position without question is to allow the President to invade a nation whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary..."

Now, I don't know about you but, this stuff is getting old. The twist here is that the outraged politician in question is some freshman congressman from Illinois but he is a Republican!

The thing I find really interesting about this is that his words could have been lifted from the Congressional record...








...of 1848, when he spoke them, and put in todays headlines.

The President was James K. Polk and the war in question was the Mexican/American War adding another modern day flavor to todays headlines for another reason, our immigration struggles.

And the politician trying to make a name for himself with heated rhetoric?

Abraham Lincoln.


So, do not despair my fellow Americans, we've been questioning each others integrity and motivation for an awful long time and seem to have done OK over the years! Next time you hear people or the press trying stir up visions of unprecedented public acrimony as regards our civic life, tell them to read a history book to calm their fever.

Kudos to Doris Kearns Goodwin and her FABULOUS book (given to me by the lovely and gracious Vrail as a Christmas present)

Team of Rivals; The political genius of Abraham Lincoln.

 

[donbarzini]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Larry Gude again.



Well spoken sir!!!

 

[Bustem' Down]

This is the only thing I agree with.

"To accept the Presidents position without question is to allow the President to invade a nation whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary..."

Its our government and we should question pretty much any move the Pres makes. I'm not saying the war was wrong and I'm not saying to hinder him doing his job, but it's our job to stay aware of what's going on politically and not just sit on our fat butts watching Nacy Grace.

 

[vraiblonde]

Its our government and we should question pretty much any move the Pres makes.

That's Congress' job, tedious and partisan as it may be. Your job is to vote appropriately for your Representatives and Senators so that they will, in fact, represent your position in Congress and keep the President checked and balanced.

That's why, for many years, people tended to vote for a President from one party, and state/local representatives from the opposition. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they decided to go crazy avenging Clinton's impeachment, so the public decided that they weren't fit to run the House and Senate.

 

[Wickedwrench]

Does this mean we're going to invade Mexico?:shrug:














j/k

 

[Bustem' Down]

That's why, for many years, people tended to vote for a President from one party, and state/local representatives from the opposition. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they decided to go crazy avenging Clinton's impeachment, so the public decided that they weren't fit to run the House and Senate.

People have been voting straight party tickets for years, it has nothing to do with Clinton. As many of Republicans get on the "Blame Clinton" bandwagon as Democrats get on the "Bush Lied" bandwagon, and that's all they really are, bandwagons.

 

[SamSpade]

Does this mean we're going to invade Mexico?

Works for me - half a million Mexicans a year sounds like, they're invading US.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Works for me - half a million Mexicans a year sounds like, they're invading US.

No, they're not armed, that's called a migration, not an invation.

 

[Bruzilla]

This is the only thing I agree with.



Its our government and we should question pretty much any move the Pres makes. I'm not saying the war was wrong and I'm not saying to hinder him doing his job, but it's our job to stay aware of what's going on politically and not just sit on our fat butts watching Nacy Grace.

I was watching a special on D-Day on sunday, and I heard something I hadn't before. Shortly before the landing, the Army did practice landings in England and there were problems with the timing of the live-fire practices that resulted in over 100 American deaths one day, and over another 150 deaths a few days later. On April 28th 1944, a group of LSTs that had been loaded up for the invasion were attacked by a pair of German gun boats who came in unchallenged and over 800 Americans died. Over 1,000 American troops were killed just getting ready for the D-Day invasion, and General Bradley ordered that all news of these deaths be squashed both for morale reasons and so that the Germans wouldn't know how much damage the chance E-boat engagement had caused. D-Day went off on June 6, and despite a loss of over 50,000 more lives, is considered to be one of our greatest military success stories.

Suppose those same events happened today? Suppose we lost 1,000 men over the course of a few days due to live-fire accidents, drownings, and letting the enemy get the drop on us? Given the way that Democrats are acting today, would D-Day have gone off? No. Much of the concerns that the Dems are having today are self-fulfilling prophecies. They should be concerned about growing casualties because their words are a constant source of hope for the bad guys, and give them a reason to fight on.

Our job is to S-T-F-U and quit interferring with the folks who really know what's going on. We charge our military and President with fighting and winning a war, while some pols want to armchair quarterback the fighting based on intel gathered from CNN. We should stay aware? Yeah, we should stay aware that there's a war being fought, but not trying to micro-manage every event or view each casualty as a major defeat for our side.

 

[Larry Gude]

Abso-effing-lutely...

This is the only thing I agree with.



Its our government and we should question pretty much any move the Pres makes. I'm not saying the war was wrong and I'm not saying to hinder him doing his job, but it's our job to stay aware of what's going on politically and not just sit on our fat butts watching Nacy Grace.

...could not agree more.

That does not mean we give undue weight to some freshman Representative out to score political points nor do we give undue weight to the critiques of people who voted FOR a given issue and changed their minds when the moisture on the tip of their finger felt the breeze change.

This story's purpose was simply to illustrate for anyone interested that politics in this nation is an old game and a game that has not changed one single bit.

Lincoln would prosper in politics today. Clinton, 150 years ago.

And the press could change places too, seamlessly.

 

[Larry Gude]

Wouldn't that be a hoot?

Does this mean we're going to invade Mexico?:shrug:



j/k

We run all the illegals through basic, arm 'em and send them home. Come back a winner, you earn citizen ship. Come back dead, buried with honors.

 

[Larry Gude]

Au contraire mon amigo...

(a little language mixing there!)

D-Day went off on June 6, and despite a loss of over 50,000 more lives

D day cost 5k not 50k.

I presume your '0' got stuck for a second there?

 

[Larry Gude]

On the contrary...

Given the way that Democrats are acting today, would D-Day have gone off? No.

Hell yeah.

Democrats: "We must stay the course. There will be loses and we must sanctify those loses with victory!"


FDR, Democrat.

 

[Larry Gude]

And no...

Yeah, we should stay aware that there's a war being fought, but not trying to micro-manage every event or view each casualty as a major defeat for our side.

We should not ####.

Clement Valladingham served the same purpose 150 years ago that John Kerry serves today; loyal opposition.

In our society there must CONSTANTLY be political pressure, voicing of opinions and objections, Cindy Sheehans and Jane Fondas. I don't agree with them but I agree with their right to protest as hard as they wish. Having said that, Fonda (and John Kerry) are both guilty of treason in my opinion. They went to far.

It's part and parcel of freedom.

 

[Bruzilla]

(a little language mixing there!)




D day cost 5k not 50k.

I presume your '0' got stuck for a second there?

You might want to check your references a bit better. We may have lost 5,000 troops on the beaches, but the Normandy Campaign, which is what the D-Day invasion really refers to, cost us 53,700 dead, 18,000 missing, and 155,000 wounded.

Dare I say that numbers like that coming out of Iraq today would likely be grounds for impeachment.

 

[Bruzilla]

We should not ####.

Clement Valladingham served the same purpose 150 years ago that John Kerry serves today; loyal opposition.

In our society there must CONSTANTLY be political pressure, voicing of opinions and objections, Cindy Sheehans and Jane Fondas. I don't agree with them but I agree with their right to protest as hard as they wish. Having said that, Fonda (and John Kerry) are both guilty of treason in my opinion. They went to far.

It's part and parcel of freedom.

Okay, you go ahead and have your freedom. You go ahead and let your Cindy Sheehans get all the face time on international TV they want. You let the peace protesters and other loyal oppositionists march all over the country spouting their beliefs into the microphones and cameras of 24-hour news broadcasts that our enemies use as a sole source for their damage assessments. All that's just fine and legal under our Bill of Rights. But, when these actions result in our troops getting killed because an enemy that would otherwise have been demoralized months ago, that would have lost much of its funding and support months ago, and that would have given up and gone home months ago, decides that there's still a chance they can win and keep fighting... don't ##### about it because it's your fault.

There's never been any war won by killing every member of the enemy. They were all won by destroying the enemy's will to fight. So I think we all need to ask ourselves are we in this to win, or are we in this to allow a lot of people who know dick about what's going on to aid and abet the enemy? Fonda had to travel her azz thousands of miles to do the damage that Cindy Sheehan can do right from Crawford, TX thanks to satellite hookups, so there's really no difference between the two.

 

[Larry Gude]

Would someone please...

You might want to check your references a bit better. We may have lost 5,000 troops on the beaches, but the Normandy Campaign, which is what the D-Day invasion really refers to, cost us 53,700 dead, 18,000 missing, and 155,000 wounded.

Dare I say that numbers like that coming out of Iraq today would likely be grounds for impeachment.

...tell me how they read this:

D-Day went off on June 6, and despite a loss of over 50,000 more lives, is considered to be one of our greatest military success stories.

Is there an interpretor handy? Is it me?

 

[Larry Gude]

You know what...

Okay, you go ahead and have your freedom. You go ahead and let your Cindy Sheehans get all the face time on international TV they want. You let the peace protesters and other loyal oppositionists march all over the country spouting their beliefs into the microphones and cameras of 24-hour news broadcasts that our enemies use as a sole source for their damage assessments. All that's just fine and legal under our Bill of Rights. But, when these actions result in our troops getting killed because an enemy that would otherwise have been demoralized months ago, that would have lost much of its funding and support months ago, and that would have given up and gone home months ago, decides that there's still a chance they can win and keep fighting... don't ##### about it because it's your fault.

There's never been any war won by killing every member of the enemy. They were all won by destroying the enemy's will to fight. So I think we all need to ask ourselves are we in this to win, or are we in this to allow a lot of people who know dick about what's going on to aid and abet the enemy? Fonda had to travel her azz thousands of miles to do the damage that Cindy Sheehan can do right from Crawford, TX thanks to satellite hookups, so there's really no difference between the two.

...that is a classic case of why it is so necessary for us to speak out.

My fault? I support the right to free speach, to take exception if I choose, or someone else chooses, and a battlefield death is MY fault. How about this? How about you have your totalitarian state. You have your dictator and shut down the press, shut off protest, shoot Cindy Sheehan on site, OK?

Now, when you get done counting Hitlers and Stalins and Mussolinis and Mao, and, of late, Saddams, when you get done counting THEIR dead, you tell me how words and marches and protests killed a man in the field. You tell me how it is oh so much better for everyone to get in lockstep and you show me how they fared so much better than me and my expressed thoughts and words and the dead you wanna lay at my feet.

Wanna borrow an abacus?

 

[2ndAmendment]

No, they're not armed, that's called a migration, not an invation.

Crossing the border illegally make them invaders, armed or not.

 

[donbarzini]

...Wanna borrow an abacus?

I think that might take borrowing "Big Blue" from IBM