Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Rep. Lynn Woolsey to Introduce Bill to End Iraq Occupation

  1. #1

    Rep. Lynn Woolsey to Introduce Bill to End Iraq Occupation

    [url]http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2007-01-16-11-01-14-news.php[/url]

    end the occupation of Iraq;
    accelerate the training and equipping of Iraqi military and security forces;
    pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy;
    take all appropriate measures to account for missing U.S. soldiers or citizens in Iraq;
    fully fund the commitment to our returning veterans;
    turn security activities and military operations in Iraq over to the elected Iraqi government within 6 months of the date of enactment

    “Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act”

  2. #2
    Somebody hasn't read the Constitution . . .

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=doggin94it]Somebody hasn't read the Constitution . . .[/QUOTE]

    yeah the President for starters

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=bitonti]yeah the President for starters[/QUOTE]

    Pino-Cheney makes it up as he goes along and FAUX shows it to the American public as truth......

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]Pino-Cheney makes it up as he goes along and FAUX shows it to the American public as truth......[/QUOTE]


    why do you keep calling him Pino-Cheney? Your other little puns are oh so clever, but that one I don't get. Seriously, I don't :huh:

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=pauliec]why do you keep calling him Pino-Cheney? Your other little puns are oh so clever, but that one I don't get. Seriously, I don't :huh:[/QUOTE]

    Pinochet was a LA dictator. He just died recently. Pino-Cheney wants to be a dictator. Just a fun poke at him. He will never be a dictator. Just a wannabe.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]Pinochet was a LA dictator. He just died recently. Pino-Cheney wants to be a dictator. Just a fun poke at him. He will never be a dictator. Just a wannabe.[/QUOTE]


    ohhh Pinochet, got it.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=doggin94it]Somebody hasn't read the Constitution . . .[/QUOTE]
    lol

  9. #9
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=bitonti]yeah the President for starters[/QUOTE]

    Once again, the President has power to make war
    as he sees fit, even if Congress changes its complexion.

    Bomb Serbia? Clinton did it, and Serbia wasnt
    anywheres near the threat the ME kooks are
    (yes I approved, not that i care that you care if I care)

    nice analysis here:
    [url="http://www.daveross.com/war.html#1431"]http://www.daveross.com/war.html#1431[/url]

    also he already has Congressional permission to act in iraq
    [url="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html"]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html[/url]

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Another useless liberal proposing a useless resolution with no teeth.

    If they had any conviction or guts they would de-fund the war. Even if it was vetoed, it would show the world dems/libs are serious about their convictions.

    C'mon chicken doves, prove you mean what you say.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,759
    [QUOTE=flushingjet]
    nice analysis here:
    [url="http://www.daveross.com/war.html#1431"]http://www.daveross.com/war.html#1431[/url]
    [/QUOTE]


    I especially enjoyed this part.

    [I]\1433\E.g., Velvel v. Johnson, 287 F. Supp. 846 (D.Kan. 1968),
    aff'd sub nom. Velvel v. Nixon, 415 F.2d 236 (10th Cir., 1969), cert.
    den., 396 U.S. 1042 (1970); Luftig v. McNamara, 252 F. Supp. 819 (D.D.C.
    1966), aff'd 373 F.2d 664 (C.A.D.C. 1967), cert. den., 389 U.S. 945
    (1968); Mora v. McNamara, 387 F.2d 862 (D.C.Cir., 1967), cert. den., 389
    U.S. 934 (1968); Orlando v. Laird, 317 F. Supp. 1013 (E.D.N.Y. 1970),
    and Berk v. Laird, 317 F. Supp. 715 (E.D.N.Y. 1970), consolidated and
    aff'd, 443 F.2d 1039 (2d Cir., 1971), cert. den., 404 U.S. 869 (1971);
    Massachusetts v. Laird, 451 F.2d 26 (1st Cir., 1971); Holtzman v.
    Schlesinger, 484 F.2d 1307 (2d Cir., 1973) cert. den., 416 U.S. 936
    (1974); Mitchell v. Laird, 488 F.2d 611 (D.C.Cir., 1973). [/I]



    Now I understand...thanks for clarifying that.
    Plumber out!

  12. #12
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]I especially enjoyed this part.

    [i]\1433\E.g., Velvel v. Johnson, 287 F. Supp. 846 (D.Kan. 1968), [/i]
    [i]aff'd sub nom. Velvel v. Nixon, 415 F.2d 236 (10th Cir., 1969), cert. [/i]
    [i]den., 396 U.S. 1042 (1970); Luftig v. McNamara, 252 F. Supp. 819 (D.D.C. [/i]
    [i]1966), aff'd 373 F.2d 664 (C.A.D.C. 1967), cert. den., 389 U.S. 945 [/i]
    [i](1968); Mora v. McNamara, 387 F.2d 862 (D.C.Cir., 1967), cert. den., 389 [/i]
    [i]U.S. 934 (1968); Orlando v. Laird, 317 F. Supp. 1013 (E.D.N.Y. 1970), [/i]
    [i]and Berk v. Laird, 317 F. Supp. 715 (E.D.N.Y. 1970), consolidated and [/i]
    [i]aff'd, 443 F.2d 1039 (2d Cir., 1971), cert. den., 404 U.S. 869 (1971); [/i]
    [i]Massachusetts v. Laird, 451 F.2d 26 (1st Cir., 1971); Holtzman v. [/i]
    [i]Schlesinger, 484 F.2d 1307 (2d Cir., 1973) cert. den., 416 U.S. 936 [/i]
    [i](1974); Mitchell v. Laird, 488 F.2d 611 (D.C.Cir., 1973). [/i]



    Now I understand...thanks for clarifying that.
    Plumber out![/QUOTE]

    Yes, thats part of it.
    The whole page is here-in this instance, I apologize
    for leaving the rest out.

    [url="http://www.daveross.com/war.html"]http://www.daveross.com/war.html[/url]

  13. #13
    flushing i am well aware of the constitutional loophole that allows Bush to wage war without judgment or reason

    the fact that you are using Clinton as a justification for Bush's behavior should paint a picture as to how warped your viewpoint truly is these days.

    good day sir

    i said good day!

  14. #14
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=bitonti]flushing i am well aware of the constitutional loophole that allows Bush to wage war without judgment or reason

    the fact that you are using Clinton as a justification for Bush's behavior should paint a picture as to how warped your viewpoint truly is these days.

    good day sir

    i said good day![/QUOTE]

    Its not a "loophole", its a power granted to the Executive
    Branch, no matter what person or party that person belongs to.

    imagine that - the president can actually do more than sign bills into law or
    grant pardons, or wag his finger

    when the judiciary makes something legal where no
    law exists ---- thats a loophole

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=flushingjet]Its not a "loophole", its a power granted to the Executive
    Branch, no matter what person or party that person belongs to.[/QUOTE]

    [b]Executive Police Action was not intended by the forefathers to be a substitute for congressional Declaration of War. [/b]

    In cases like the US Civil War that's one thing. but by and large it is a power that has been abused over the years. Historically we rarely come out on top of an EPA war.

    The Presidential office cannot push foreign policy through unilateral, pre-emptive warfare.

    That's not how democracies operate.

  16. #16
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=bitonti][b]Executive Police Action was not intended by the forefathers to be a substitute for congressional Declaration of War. [/b]

    In cases like the US Civil War that's one thing. but by and large it is a power that has been abused over the years. Historically we rarely come out on top of an EPA war.

    The Presidential office cannot push foreign policy through unilateral, pre-emptive warfare.

    That's not how democracies operate.[/QUOTE]

    Operate? No, thats how democracies [b]survive[/b].

    Uh, we all voted for the President, whoever it is
    and whatever party hes from,
    and the President has power.

    Power to make war.

    He's not a figurehead.

    Tough noogies if you dont like that power-
    every President has it.

    Carter sent a flop mission to Iran to
    rescue our embassy staff held prisoner when you
    were in didies (no not last week's didies)
    Are you saying Jimmah needed Congress to declare war
    on Iran to act, or for the mission to succeed?

    (You whine about rock bottom-this is rock
    bottom, kiddo:
    [url="http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan1999/0199desertone.asp"]http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan1999/0199desertone.asp[/url])

    Thats why being President, and who it is,
    and their character is important.

    Not cheeleading for a new face like
    a pre-teenager reading TIGER BEAT.

    Conjure up the ghost of Jefferson (you know the
    guy who had a Q'u'r'a'n' and had/boinked slaves)
    and ask him about the
    Barbary Pirates and what his responsibilities
    to this nation were.

    In general, the only US wars that dont achieve ANY
    of their objectives are the Dem/Lib ones.
    Those are the ones where either millions die
    when we leave & murderous despots stay in power,
    or we do something after only, say, a paltry 1/4-1/2 million die.

    All the others have worked out pretty well,
    achieving some favorable result for us

    Thats history for ya-you should read a history
    book instead of watching ice melt in the sunshine

    Any wars that liberate people and have
    tyrants swinging from a gallows arent failures
    by any stretch
    cant help it if you believe "no noose is good news"

    None of your freedoms or rights have been
    or will ever be abused-who do you think you are,
    a person of interest / importance?

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    [QUOTE=bitonti]flushing i am well aware of the constitutional loophole that allows Bush to wage war without judgment or reason [/QUOTE]

    The Constitution is a loophole?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us