George Orr wrote:

Silly phreddy.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

Try as they might, not even the Post can make this sound like anything but sanity.

Indeed.  It would be just plain insane to have the commander in chief involved decisions on troop deployment matters.  That's the job of the people who vote on budgets and stuff.

I've observed the "token" draw-downs that Bush has trumpeted and this is merely a Democrat play to try and dull that political ace-in-the-hole McCain holds.  Obviously Bush wants McCain to win (no matter how much he hates him), and will do anything he can to help - after all, it definitely would not do if Bush's buddy's were to have to pay the same tax rate that I do.

phreddy wrote:

George Orr wrote:

Silly phreddy.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

Try as they might, not even the Post can make this sound like anything but sanity.

First, it is not the job of Congress to deploy or recall troops.  Separation of powers and all that.
Second, this is an obvious ploy by Obama to try to be the hero and claim the victory in Iraq that belongs to Bush.

The arrogance of assuming he will be the pres is the first thing that struck me about Barry O's move.  The second was has sense of relative integrity.  He wails about how our troops must be out of Iraq immediately and he goes on about the senseless deaths of American soldiers.  However, he has no qualms about leaving them there "to die" for a few more months so long as it makes him look good.  He's a fucking phony and this proves it.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. 

Our choice really sucks this time around.

Umm, dude, I don't think you are supposed to post negative things about Obama here....

Better watch yourself!!!!

I think you can say something neutral about Obama as long as you concede something really negative about McCain or his RILF VP.... I think they call this the MSNBC's Fair and Balanced Policy or something.

ptah13 wrote:

Umm, dude, I don't think you are supposed to post negative things about Obama here....

Better watch yourself!!!!

I think you can say something neutral about Obama as long as you concede something really negative about McCain or his RILF VP.... I think they call this the MSNBC's Fair and Balanced Policy or something.

Sorry.

I think Obama's skin color is quite pretty.

McCain looks like a soda cracker.

Howzat?

Emmeran wrote:

I've observed the "token" draw-downs...

whosasailorthen wrote:

phreddy wrote:

George Orr wrote:

Silly phreddy.

Try as they might, not even the Post can make this sound like anything but sanity.

First, it is not the job of Congress to deploy or recall troops.  Separation of powers and all that.
Second, this is an obvious ploy by Obama to try to be the hero and claim the victory in Iraq that belongs to Bush.

The arrogance of assuming he will be the pres is the first thing that struck me about Barry O's move.  The second was has sense of relative integrity.  He wails about how our troops must be out of Iraq immediately and he goes on about the senseless deaths of American soldiers.  However, he has no qualms about leaving them there "to die" for a few more months so long as it makes him look good.  He's a fucking phony and this proves it.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. 

Our choice really sucks this time around.

I hate to break your poor little heart, my dear sailor, but our choice sucks EVERY time around.  You do not rise to prominience in any party without becoming a tool.  It's all about winning the election, and keeping power.  You will do anything to win, and if you're losing, then your party will make sure you win... but you will owe them dearly for it.

The most brilliant thing I've ever heard to describe the current national political climate came from Scott McClellan...they all have a perpetual campaign mentality.

If this had been McCain, it would be on CNN and MSNBC 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, until the election...

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/09/ … ntPage=all

Fled wrote:

It is tempting to go with Feisty's "plague on both houses" view, but in the end it is a dead end (and going with Nader is a farce in a tu tu).  For me, the core is that there is and has been no real victory, and no real potential for it, despite what Phred says.  We have occupied Iraq, can help to subdue resistence for a time, but in the end we must leave and the Iraqis, the "nations" within Iraq,  and their neighbors will have to sort things out for themselves.  We will leave behind a better armed faction of the minority Sunnis, a more alienated Shia majority, and a Kurd population still dreaming of independence while surrounded by more powerful opponents of that independence.  George's dad was right that occupation is a tar pit, as history has shown.

The comment that "they" are in perpetual campaign mentality is kind of silly.  What other mode would you have Obama or McCain be in at this point less than two months before the election?  For me the key is what kind of campaigns are they running?  McCains's has become transparently Rovian.  Criticism of Obama for suggesting that the Iraqis wait for the new administration before entering into a long-term agreement with the US worth considering, but the reality is that the Iraqis did not need to be told this.  It is their negotiating premise.  They are using it for political and negotiating leverage, which seems like an eminently rational and predictable approach.

Too complicated for public consumption.  The dumbed down American voter would rather hear about Sarah Palin's moose hunts and listen to Barack's soaring platitudes than focus on the details of any issue.  Regardless of whether we go with the "plague on both houses" plan or not, someone is going to run this country, deploy our armed forces, and appoint judges to decide our rights.  It's worth a little time to look past the bullshit.  Or, you can go with the more favored methods of selection, black or white, old or young, glib or deliberate, or just follow the instructions of your union or your church.

Georgi wrote:

I just use the old "peel an apple and throw the peel over your left shoulder and then look to see whose initial the peel on the floor most resembles and that's your guy" method.

Well hell, there's your problem.  What are the odds an apple peel will land in the shape of an B for Bush or an M for McCain vs. a C for Clinton or an O for Obama?  What you thought was a random name generator is actually leading you down the road to perdition.  But then it must be more healthy than popping X and listening for politicians to speak to your secret expectations.

George Orr wrote:

phreddy wrote:

What you thought was a random name generator is actually leading you down the road to perdition.

No, no.  The apple peel will reveal the name of your One True Love.  So I was taught as a wee lass.  So I figure it'll work to show me America's One True Love just as well.

I'll go with that as the standard for American voter logic.  But I also believe this is unintentionally prescient.  Apparently we have the choice between the skin-deep peel or the solid, but less physically attractive, core.

orangeplus wrote:

I've been there.  And yes, it IS that bad.

Fled wrote:

It is tempting to go with Feisty's "plague on both houses" view, but in the end it is a dead end (and going with Nader is a farce in a tu tu)....

The comment that "they" are in perpetual campaign mentality is kind of silly.  What other mode would you have Obama or McCain be in at this point less than two months before the election?  For me the key is what kind of campaigns are they running?  McCains's has become transparently Rovian.  Criticism of Obama for suggesting that the Iraqis wait for the new administration before entering into a long-term agreement with the US worth considering, but the reality is that the Iraqis did not need to be told this.  It is their negotiating premise.  They are using it for political and negotiating leverage, which seems like an eminently rational and predictable approach.

I think you missed what point I was making.  Due to a youtube/24 hour news cycle culture, politicians NO LONGER make decisions without their campaign staff.  Even in non-election years. 

It all comes down to which model of government you subscribe to.  If you believe, as Edmund Burke does, that your representative should follow the "trustee" model, then you believe that the representative should act for the good of the people, irrespective of the short term impact.  You believe that they should act for the greater good, without worrying about the feelings or concerns of your own constituency.

However, if you are a believer in Mills' delegate model of representation, then you believe the representative should be a mouthpiece of the people, and should not act autonomously with the greater good of people in mind.


If you're a believer in Burke's theory, then you should be terrified of the "perpetual election cycle."  If you are a believer in Mills' theory, then you have no problem with it.

I'm in-between.  The American electorate is retarded, and does not take the time to learn about politics or what's at stake.  If everything the public wanted happened, we would be a fucked up country...even more so than we are now.  However, allowing a politician the latitute to act on their own irrespective of public opinion is also scary.  I propose another form of representation, one that I subscibe to:  The platform model of representation.

A representative who follows the platform model should follow the planks of their platform like a map.  They should do exactly what they said they were going to do, without pulling surprises out of their fucking sleeves.  That way, even if they have a retarded fucking platform, then no one has the right to complain because they knew what they were voting for when they put the fucker in charge.  No spineless jellyfish swimming in the perpetual campaign cycle of simply following public opinion...no petulant ruler who believes, as Cheney and Bush do, that they know "what's good for us."

And I fail to follow you in the "plauge in both houses" argument.  I assure you, there is a plague in both houses... and if you look at our independent choices (Nader, Perot) then you'll realize there's a plauge in that house too.

Last edited by feisty (2008-09-17 21:24:57)

phreddy wrote:

George Orr wrote:

Silly phreddy.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

Try as they might, not even the Post can make this sound like anything but sanity.

First, it is not the job of Congress to deploy or recall troops.  Separation of powers and all that.
Second, this is an obvious ploy by Obama to try to be the hero and claim the victory in Iraq that belongs to Bush.

The arrogance of assuming he will be the pres is the first thing that struck me about Barry O's move.  The second was has sense of relative integrity.  He wails about how our troops must be out of Iraq immediately and he goes on about the senseless deaths of American soldiers.  However, he has no qualms about leaving them there "to die" for a few more months so long as it makes him look good.  He's a fucking phony and this proves it.

Once again, Phred, you are completely wrong, and Zookie, this goes for you.  The President has been trying to pressure Maliki into a "status of forces" agreement that is an end-run around the Constitution and completely illegal.  You're right that the President is the commander in chief, but only Congress can create treaties and only Congress can declare war.  The "status of forces agreement" is just a fancy name for "treaty", and is completely unconstitutional, but can't be reversed easily once another President takes office.

Oh, and Zookie, if you don't know the difference between asking Iraq not to sign a status of forces agreement that would ensure permanent bases and a US troop presence indefinitely and trying to block Bush from bringing troops home, then you might want to do a little more reading.

Zookeeper wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

phreddy wrote:

First, it is not the job of Congress to deploy or recall troops.  Separation of powers and all that.
Second, this is an obvious ploy by Obama to try to be the hero and claim the victory in Iraq that belongs to Bush.

The arrogance of assuming he will be the pres is the first thing that struck me about Barry O's move.  The second was has sense of relative integrity.  He wails about how our troops must be out of Iraq immediately and he goes on about the senseless deaths of American soldiers.  However, he has no qualms about leaving them there "to die" for a few more months so long as it makes him look good.  He's a fucking phony and this proves it.

Once again, Phred, you are completely wrong, and Zookie, this goes for you.  The President has been trying to pressure Maliki into a "status of forces" agreement that is an end-run around the Constitution and completely illegal.  You're right that the President is the commander in chief, but only Congress can create treaties and only Congress can declare war.  The "status of forces agreement" is just a fancy name for "treaty", and is completely unconstitutional, but can't be reversed easily once another President takes office.

Not saying you are right or wrong but can you demonstrate how an agreement to station forces in another nation legally qualifies as a treaty requiring congressional approval? 

Oh, and Zookie, if you don't know the difference between asking Iraq not to sign a status of forces agreement that would ensure permanent bases and a US troop presence indefinitely and trying to block Bush from bringing troops home, then you might want to do a little more reading.

Perhaps so.  The article doesn't seem to mention a SOFA or a treaty or the establishment of bases.

It's a new name for the same thing.  The framework or whatever is just the newest name for the SOFA, I used the old name because it was easier to Google.  Obama is in no position to require that anyone do anything, but he can definitely try to convince them of anything he wants, and I don't  blame him for not wanting to be stuck with it.

As for whether it qualifies as a treaty, go look up the definition of the word treaty.  The President is not granted the powers by Congress to make any kind of deals with other countries without Congress' approval.  His authority over the military is related to how to operate within those frameworks and how to respond to threats to National Security, but this is another power that Bush has tried to claim under the theory of the Unitary Executive, where their philosophy is whenever it has anything tangentially to do with national security the President has unchecked power.

All b.s....

Obama wants to be the one to say, "I brought the troops home". You know he went into a tizzy when Bush announced he's bringing home 8,000 troops. That means Obama can't claim, "those troops would have been there for 100 years if it wasn't for ME, ME ME ME ME!!!"

Phred is is somewhat correct. Although I don't know about a firing squad, he'd surely be admonished by even his own people. Good thing he has the backing of the folks at CNN and MSNBC to gloss it all over, though!!!

phreddy wrote:

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Bush's claim to authority for running the war or negotiating with Iraq's government, it is treasonous for a political opponent to secretly attempt to undermine his orders.  If this happened a hundred years ago, when this country still had balls, Obama would be standing before a firing squad.

Solly, but you vely clazy.

Zookeeper wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

As for whether it qualifies as a treaty, go look up the definition of the word treaty.  The President is not granted the powers by Congress to make any kind of deals with other countries without Congress' approval.

I seem to recall that Congress did vote in favor of going into Iraq.  So the disposition and deployment of troops in Iraq falls within the CIC's purview.

Yes, but the strategic framework whatever they're calling it these days is a new binds ing agreement with a foreign power to provide a long-term, open-ended troop presence.  That's not covered under the current agreement, hence the desire for a new agreement.  It's not like once Congress gives the go-ahead to attack a country the President has the right to keep troops there until the end of time.

Also, those of you who are accusing Obama of delaying troop withdrawals obviously haven't been paying attention.  President Bush has never made any statement that indicates that he will withdraw troops.  He had that big press conference to say that he will bring 8000 troops home two months after he leaves office, but that won't even bring the troops to pre-surge levels.

tojo2000 wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Bush's claim to authority for running the war or negotiating with Iraq's government, it is treasonous for a political opponent to secretly attempt to undermine his orders.  If this happened a hundred years ago, when this country still had balls, Obama would be standing before a firing squad.

It would be treasonous to undermine his orders, but once again you prove that you have no idea what you're talking about.  Asking the Iraqis not to enter into a new status of forces agreement that sticks the next president with another decade of the war in Iraq has nothing to do with interfering with the President's orders.

Personally I'd like to see people who throw around the word treason frivolously suffer the pain that they would inflict on others, but hey, we can't always get what we want.

So by the same logic, since this will not only effect the next pres but the next two after that, we should wait 10 years to make an agreement?

Since when are agreements negotiated based on the impact they will have on the next president? Sounds like excuses. Excuses to cover Obama's ego problems.

tojo2000 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

As for whether it qualifies as a treaty, go look up the definition of the word treaty.  The President is not granted the powers by Congress to make any kind of deals with other countries without Congress' approval.

I seem to recall that Congress did vote in favor of going into Iraq.  So the disposition and deployment of troops in Iraq falls within the CIC's purview.

Yes, but the strategic framework whatever they're calling it these days is a new binds ing agreement with a foreign power to provide a long-term, open-ended troop presence.  That's not covered under the current agreement, hence the desire for a new agreement.  It's not like once Congress gives the go-ahead to attack a country the President has the right to keep troops there until the end of time.

You are making up rules that don't exist.  Show me where there is a limit set on how long the President can leave troops abroad.  Even the War Powers Resolution didn't attempt to set such a limit.  Once Congress votes to allow the President to send troops abroad the only way they have of limiting the stay shorter than the President desires is by refusing to continue funding the operation.

tojo wrote:

Ego would be making demands or expecting that what he said must be followed.  Asking a foreign power not to engage in a binding status of forces agreement that you'll be stuck with is just prudent.

No, ego would be secretly fucking up our foreign policy because you assume it will be YOU who will be stuck with it.