It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled US Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war and suggested President George Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.
However, Sen. Carl Levin, Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said lawmakers would step up efforts to force Bush to change course. “The president needs a check and a balance,” said Levin.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
They can however repeal their authorization for use of military force against Iraq, provided they have a 2/3 majority to override a veto.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm... lets see here.
The President is elected by the entire country, majority speaks.
Senators are elected by an individual state.
Reps. are elected by certain congressional districts within a state.
Now, which is more democratic and in the spirit of the Republic, which is what we have?
As I said before, if congress represents the majority, no problem, than they can repeal the AUMF with a 2/3 majority. Otherwise we elected the President to be the steward of our country, so let him govern. The right to "faithfully execute" the laws and regulations is clearly reserved for the Executive, especially when it comes to military matters.
[edit on 27-2-2007 by WestPoint23]
Originally posted by ThePieMaN
I guess many people were under the impression that the Government is By The People and FOR The People. Some who I wont even bother to get into seems to think its run By The President and For The President and that he should not listen to what congress who also work for us has to say and that he is entitled to do as he pleases. Well maybe if this were a dictatorship yes I would agree, but last time I checked this was supposed to be a democracy and the majority rules. If The Prez is thinking about himself and his minority of supporters then he's wrong.
[edit on 26-2-2007 by ThePieMaN]
Originally posted by Ex
But, What happens when you have a President like this one,
that skips negotiation, UN Reasonable Resolution offerings,
Lies to everyone, and jumps US in with both feet??[edit on 2/27/2007 by Ex]
How about resubmitting your argument and using facts as the foundation instead of things that you "think" are correct.
TENET EXPOSES BUSH'S MISLEADING ON WMD'S -
Thursday, February 5, 2004
CIA Director George Tenet said this morning that intelligence
"analysts never said there was an imminent threat"
from Iraq before the war. His comments are consistent with
various warnings sent to the White House from the intelligence community that specifically
told the president his claims
that Iraq definitely had chemical/biological and nuclear weapons
Tenet's comments call into question whether the Bush Administration
was knowingly ignoring intelligence and misleading the country by claiming definitively
that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and
was therefore an "imminent," "immediate," "urgent" and "mortal" threat
to the American people.
Though the White House has claimed it never said
Iraq was an imminent threat, the record proves otherwise.
Your little claim of "lies to everyone" is swiftly defeated as well. A lie is purposefully telling a mistruth to manipulate people. Forwarding what is later found to be incorrect information is not a lie. If you can prove that Bush KNEW that the information he was presenting was false, then you can claim the lie. But that has not happened yet.