Comments on: Will Congress Cave?

by: c u n d gulag

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:54:31 +0000

This “Creature” must be stopped. With whatever means are at our disposal.
This means Congress MUST ACT!
And I think they are. I think they’re doing it the way they want to. Quitely and slowly.
It may seem to slow to us, but if it went too fast, it would seem like another Clinton deal - too much, too fast. Too opportunistic. Too stupid.
In the 90’s, we went through and impeachment over a “hummer.”
Now, we need to start one over under-protected Humvee’s.
Let’s see those on the “Right” argue that one…

by: marijam

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:45:48 +0000

I know one thing, the founders did not want a King with a King’s powers. In my opinion, and I’m no Constitutional scholar, the Congress was meant to have more say, the most important say, that’s why it was mentioned in the first article. Was it George Washington alone who decided we would go to war against the British? Republicans like to bring up Lincoln - I think that was a special case, specifically address by the constitution in the section regarding ‘in times of insurrection’. I don’t think he would have dared do such a thing against another nation…am I wrong?

by: joanr16

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:41:39 +0000

I’m afraid I haven’t much confidence in Reid, either. Although I must add another nod to Josh Yelon’s idea. Haven’t brushed off the Constitution in order to read up on the scope of Congress re “land and naval forces.” But such a law would support the well-being and proper conditioning of our troops, while creating de facto reductions, instead of escalations.

by: Doug Hughes

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:32:43 +0000

Josh may have hit on the method to rein in the madness. I would love for you to pass this along, Barbara. Original ideas are in short supply. If this would pass constitutional muster with the Supreme Court, and it looks to me like it would, someone with initiative needs to draft the legislation.

by: felicity smith

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:34:14 +0000

As much as I detest Bush, impeachment may prove in the long run to let skirt the myriads of others who are equally responsible for what we have gone through for 6 years. Sort of like slicing off the visible part of the iceberg while the submerged part remains and is ultimately more lethal.

Pelosi’s remark that impeachment was off the table threw me for a loop until I gave it some thought. I think, pure supposition, that her goal is to discredit the domestic and foreign policies of the Republican party - which finally is what has to be done.

Impeachment may sink Bush but there’s a huge flotilla afloat that believes and will relentlessly push rule of the rich, by the rich and for the rich - our republic be damned. And, should there be another 9/11 during an impeachment proceeding, the responsibility will fall in the laps of the Dems. Unjustified of course, but any other reaction would be a-typical of human behavior.

by: Madison Guy

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:39:49 +0000

Glad you asked Reid the question about Iran. Wish I could more confidently believe him. The only way to stop Bush is to impeach him and get him and Cheney out of there, but I haven’t seen any signs that the congressional establishment is ready to consider that.

Short of impeachment, all Congress can do is make angry noises. But with Bush in control of th ecourts and the Justice Department, there isn’t much Congress can do to force bush to do anything — as Cheney keeps gleefully reminding us.

by: Donna

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:27:52 +0000

Such a simple right-on idea, Josh Yelon! Thanks. I would be for letting this be a bit bigger than a ’small percentage’…..and I would be for including this idea in wider legislation that re-asserts and clarifies Congressional responsibilities vis a vis war.

by: Josh Yelon

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:03:18 +0000

I feel the congress should pass a “post-traumatic stress relief bill” that limits the amount of time that a soldier can be forced to spend in a war zone. Set the threshold such that a small percentage of the people in Iraq are over the limit, therefore forcing the president to bring that small percentage home. Specify that any soldier who is forced to overstay the limit and who experiences PTSD can sue for damages.

I don’t know if this is within the constitutional rights of the congress (although “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces” is certainly promising.)

I think this would be politically pretty effective.

by: eap

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:52:28 +0000

I heard a snippet of a Bush interview this morning on Air America…Bush saying (in his whiney, defensive voice) “We value the Constitution…” Took me a while to figure out why that comment bothered me so much (other than the whine). It seemed to say to me that they view the Constitution only as a part (albeit an important part) of what they do, rather than being the BASIS for how they govern…as if it were some type of reference tool…