drmiler:

Is that the same oath Lt George W. Bush took when he was in the Air National Guard?

Gen Franks could have retired if he wanted to stick to his guns. That does not change the fact the error Bush made about the troop levels have allowed the termoil in Iraq and has resulted in American Deaths that would not have happened if we had controlled the situation in Iraq properly with the forces required. Even if you buy into going into Iraq, no one could accept the situation we allowed to take place after Saddam was removed from power.

Drmiler,
Yes, the Supreme Court IS supposed to be the final "arbiter" of the Constitution.

ARBITER: "Persons who have the power to decide what will be done OR accepted." --Oxford American Dictonary.

Within the context of the supreme court, arbiter, means that THEY are the branch of government who determines what will be done or accepted regarding the Constitution by interpreting what the constitution says and by looking at the Founders intent if the actual language of the constitution is vague or ambiguous. The checks and balances on the Court are that the Justices are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate, who in turn are both elected by the people. That being said, it is not the role of the Executive to be the final arbiter of the Constitution nor is there any place in our democratic system of government for applying Biblical law. For god's sake....if we are going to start doing that...our government will be no different than the Mullas in Saudi Arabia prescribing Islamic law. Again, Zell Miller and others are advocating, via legislation, that we do just that. He's a nut job and so is anyone else who sponsored or co-sponsored this bill. I find it amazing that this extremist nut case was put front and center at the GOP convention. What I find even more baffling is that no one called them on it. Now, I don't like to use the words "extremist" or "nut case" but honest to god, in Zell Miller's case...it's really applicable...NOT because he has certain religious beliefs, but because he thinks he has the right to impose them on everyone else by virtue of his position of power in the U.S. Senate when he advocates having the executive branch overruling the Supreme Court and suggesting that the executive branch use the Bible to overrule it's decisions. I'm sorry, but that's about as nutty as can be because it underscores Miller's (and the others who signed onto this bill) extremist views and his/their lack of understanding of our democratic form of government. Alternatively, if he/they DO(ES) understand our democratic form of government, then he/they are blatantly trying to destroy our democracy and consciously trying to replace it with a theocracy. Either way, he/they are dangerous, extremist, nut jobs.

Reply #47 By: T_Bone4Justice - 10/16/2004 12:37:02 AM Drmiler, Yes, the Supreme Court IS supposed to be the final "arbiter" of the Constitution. ARBITER: "Persons who have the power to decide what will be done OR accepted." --Oxford American Dictonary. Within the context of the supreme court, arbiter, means that THEY are the branch of government who determines what will be done or accepted regarding the Constitution by interpreting what the constitution says and by looking at the Founders intent if the actual language of the constitution is vague or ambiguous. The checks and balances on the Court are that the Justices are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate, who in turn are both elected by the people. That being said, it is not the role of the Executive to be the final arbiter of the Constitution nor is there any place in our democratic system of government for applying Biblical law. For god's sake....if we are going to start doing that...our government will be no different than the Mullas in Saudi Arabia prescribing Islamic law. Again, Zell Miller and others are advocating, via legislation, that we do just that. He's a nut job and so is anyone else who sponsored or co-sponsored this bill. I find it amazing that this extremist nut case was put front and center at the GOP convention. What I find even more baffling is that no one called them on it. Now, I don't like to use the words "extremist" or "nut case" but honest to god, in Zell Miller's case...it's really applicable...NOT because he has certain religious beliefs, but because he thinks he has the right to impose them on everyone else by virtue of his position of power in the U.S. Senate when he advocates having the executive branch overruling the Supreme Court and suggesting that the executive branch use the Bible to overrule it's decisions. I'm sorry, but that's about as nutty as can be because it underscores Miller's (and the others who signed onto this bill) extremist views and his/their lack of understanding of our democratic form of government. Alternatively, if he/they DO(ES) understand our democratic form of government, then he/they are blatantly trying to destroy our democracy and consciously trying to replace it with a theocracy. Either way, he/they are dangerous, extremist, nut jobs.

Actually no they aren't! Check the link:Link I'll post a short section to back up my position.:

The Supreme Court has two fundamental functions. On the one hand, it must interpret and expound all congressional enactments brought before it in proper cases; in this respect its role parallels that of the state courts of final resort in making the decisive interpretation of state law. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has power (superseding that of all other courts) to examine federal and state statutes and executive actions to determine whether they conform to the U.S. Constitution.

Now I may not be the smartest person in the world, but no where in here do I find anything like what your espousing.

First of all a strong leader makes unpopular decisions, I don't think it can be debated that President Bush has made unpopular decisions. Secondly, the whole cooperation, "we should have waited longer" position is just a Democrat anti-war talking point. Give it a rest. What are the facts?

The War in Iraq started on January 17, 1991 (not debatable)

Iraq accepted a cease-fire agreement on March 3 , 1991 (not debatable)

Congress overwhelmingly passed a new Iraq War Resolution on October 10, 2002 (after 11 years and a multitude of resolutions) stating that restoring peace and security in the Persian Gulf region was a National Security issue, Congress agrees to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations, Iraq is in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq, Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. (not debatable) Kerry VOTED FOR this, which is not debatable.

The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq under Saddam. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. (not debatable)

The Duelfer Report detailed disclosure and documentation of how far France, Russia, and China had benefited from the United Nation’s corrupt Oil-for-Food program. The three countries most supportive of Iraq on the U.N. Security Council. U.N. sanctions were not doing the job of denying him weapons. Through the 1990s, Saddam amassed an estimated $11 billion in revenue outside U.N.- approved methods. Saddam bought support, particularly among French, Russian, and Chinese officials to whom he would donate oil “vouchers” that could be resold for large profits. One recipient was Benon Sevan, former U.N. official in charge of humanitarian relief and the Oil-for-Food program itself. (read the report info)

The Coalition troops (both in Iraq and Kuwait): US-140,000, UK-11,400, Italy-2,700, Poland-2,400, Ukraine-1700, Nehterlands-1,400, Australia-850, Romania-700, South Korea-600 (planned expansion to 3,600), Japan-550, Denmark-496, Bulgaria-485 also El Salvador, Hungary, Mongolia, Portugal, Lithuania....11 more countries with troops around 100 or less.

There are certainly many valid reasons to be anti-war, if you are, just state it as such. We should have waited longer is another weak position against the war. Waited another 10 years? How many more resolutions? Waited for the corrupt government of France? Waited for thousands more Iraqis to die because of the corrupt "oil for food" debacle through the UN? Waiting or more diplomacy as a reason against the deployment doesn't pass the laugh test. Comparisons to the Vietnam war are also absurd, thousands a month returned in body bags, 58,000 US troops were killed, 306,000 wounded - this is no Vietnam. In 19 months, the total approximate coalition fatality count is around 1300 (each one tragic-no doubt). Bottom line is there is a pretty compelling argument for the War if you are willing to look at facts, which is why Kerry voted for it. President Bush made what WAS a relatively popular decision at the time (Gallup 73% in favor 3-2003) and has stuck by it even when it became less popular (Gallup 53% in favor now). In April 2003 76% (Gallup) thought is was worth going to Iraq, now 44% (Gallup). A leader stands by decisions, popular or not, and does not change convictions when the polls turn against it.

Gen Franks could have retired if he wanted to stick to his guns.

Why do you presume to talk for this man; I am certain you do him no justice. He changed his mind because he agreed with Bush's plan. The fact that your whole arguement is based on this man leads me to believe that you think noone supported George Bush's plan. Seeing as you are a reasonable person, I think you can understand that Bush didnt just sit down one afternoon and come up with a plan all by himself, he had the help of his generals and advisors. Just because one man didn't agree with Bush's decision doesnt mean there weren't others who did.

Plan? What plan? There was no plan. That's the point.

]

Reply #51 By: dewey (Anonymous) - 10/28/2004 7:58:44 AM Plan? What plan? There was no plan. That's the point.

To you there wasn't any. But do you honestly think that the rest of the people (Joint chiefs of Staff, The Secretaries of the Navy, Army, Air Force, etc.)
would go in without somekind of plan? What am I talking about Of couse you believe that or you would not have posted it. Sheeple.

I think you can understand that Bush didnt just sit down one afternoon and come up with a plan all by himself, he had the help of his generals and advisors. Just because one man didn't agree with Bush's decision doesnt mean there weren't others who did.

Sorry drmiler...there was no plan for securing the country. That's plainly obvious today. What there was plenty of was misunderstanding, miscalculation and misrepresentation of the problematic realities an invasion of Iraq would create. Sure he had help in making the decision to invade, but he listened to the wrong people. And the people he didn't listen to had it right all along. If this man were the head of my marketing department he'd be out on his ass. Guaranteed.

he shoulda had a plan...according to mickey herskowitz (who signed on with the 2000 bush campaign in 1999 to ghostwrite bush's autobiography: 'A Charge to Keep'  in advance of his anticipated run for the presidency, thus providing herskowitz with unimpeded access to bush)...“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999. It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

in other words, bush had 2 years to plan prior september 2001 and another year after that.