[Rhodes22-list] Reply to Slim (Politics - Government 101)

[Brad Haslett]

Slim,

First off, John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are entertainers, same as Bill
Maher.  That doesn't mean they don't have some funny insight and
occasionally stumble across some truth.  If you rely on them and the Strib
for accurate assessment of world events you will be sadly misinformed.
Cheney's attempt to use the argument that he's entitled to secrets because
of his duties in the Senate is a weak one and will fail.  That doesn't mean
he will ultimately fail, just that argument.  We can't have 535
Commander-in-Chiefs, and any Prez or Vice Prez doesn't have to show all
their cards in real time.  It wouldn't have worked for FDR and it won't work
now. Now as to Iraq, there are lots and lots of good things happening out
that are not being reported.  The MSM ignoring them is the real denial.  Now
which retired military commanders are we talking about?  Are these the same
guys who were predicting a quagmire during the dust storm of the opening
days?  Retired military used to maintain their dignity.  I guess there is
too much money being waved in front of them to remain quiet.  But really,
the military guy we need to listen to is Petraeus.  He wrote the manual on
fighting insurgents (I published the link on this list).  If he comes to the
conclusion that we've lost, then we've lost.  He hasn't said that, and in
fact, we've made tremendous progress since "the Surge" actually began on
June 19th.  You didn't know that?  Of course not, the Strib, Stewart,
Colbert, Maher, et al, have a vested interest in seeing their predictions
come true.  Slim, we are fighting Al-Queada head on in Iraq now.  The stakes
are too high to quit.  Obama, Hillary, or anyone else knows that or will
figure it out between the time they are elected and the time they take
office.  The next President won't get us out of Iraq and quicker than Nixon
got us out of Vietnam.  This time the consequences are more deadly.  The
enemy waited eight years between the first attack on the Twin Towers and the
second successful one.  They are crafty and patient.  I don't have the
luxury in my profession of pretending they are no longer a threat. The US
aviation system is constantly being tested and probed.  You don't read about
it which is a good thing.   It will take the next attack for many people to
realize these people aren't going away soon.  It will come. Tis better that
we fight them over there than here.

Brad


On 6/26/07, Steven Alm <stevenalm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ed,
>
> I expected a snotty reply from you, of course.  Have you seen/read the
> news
> this week or not?  Cheney claims he can keep all the secrets he wants
> because he's not part of the executive branch but rather the congressional
> because he decides ties in the Senate.  At the same time he evokes
> executive
> privilege.  Brad would have us believe this is some sort of liberal media
> spin.  It's not.  Just ask John Stewart or Stephen Colbert--these are the
> real facts.
>




As for Iraq, why is it so hard for conservative to see that this is an
> unwinable conflict?  Is it because they like to say there are lots and
> lots
> of good things happening out there that are not being reported by the
> liberal slant?  Talk about denial!  How many times recently have you seen
> retired military commanders come on TV and condemn what's happening over
> there?  Is that spin too?  I don't remember another time with so much open
> defiance among top leaders.
>
> And as for Government 101, Ed, Last I heard our government is supposed to
> be
> a Republic and not a Dictatorship.  That means we get to decide.  Do you
> think it's just spin when the media reports how low public support is for
> this president and his handleing all this?  Apparently a lot of otherwise
> reasonable people think that counts for nothing.  This administration is
> completely ignoring the bulk of the country, the congress and top military
> advisers, and most other free countries and doing whatever it damn well
> pleases.
>
> Slim
>
> On 6/26/07, TN Rhodey <tnrhodey at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ed, I guess maybe we should define "boss". In my way of thinking the
> > "boss"
> > is the person(s) who can fire you. The only way to "fire" the VP is
> > impeachment. It requires votes from both the House and Senate. First
> only
> > a
> > member of the House can initiate impeachment; this can be done without
> > existing indictment. From there it goes to Judiciary Committee and then
> to
> > House (requires majority) vote.The VP presides over no-executive
> > impeachment
> > proceedings in the Senate. The Chief Justice would preside over Pres and
> > VP
> > impeachments.The Senate needs a 2/3 vote. The Senate can not initiate
> > impeachment proceedings. The VP is not his own "boss" in that the
> > President
> > can't certainly decide to force the VP out for "party" interests. All
> > elected officials work for us the humble tax payers. It is interesting
> to
> > note that originally the VP was the runner up in the Presidential
> > election.
> > It is pretty obvious why this didn't last long.
> >
> > AC race 3 just started!
> >
> > Wally
> >
> > On 6/26/07, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Slim:
> > >
> > > I appreciate that you were a music major in college(?).  However, a
> > course
> > > in government is in order.  You might just pick up a copy of the U. S.
> > > Constitution and study it going to your next gig.
> > >
> > > The Office of Vice President of the U. S. is a Constitutional
> > Office.  It
> > > is
> > > not beholding or at the beckoning of Congress, but rather the Vice
> > > President
> > > sits as head of the Senate.
> > >
> > > This is a question of who is boss?   And if you read the U. S.
> > > Constitution
> > > it does not say that Congress is the Vice President's boss.  And if
> you
> > > read
> > > further, regarding the Executive Branch, it does not say the President
> > is
> > > his boss either.  Hum, does this mean that in routine or ordinary
> > matters,
> > > as long as they are not criminal he is his own boss?  Yup.
> > >
> > > In conclusion, unless he has committed a criminal act for which he is
> > > indictable, and I would point out that Fitzgerald did not find that,
> > then
> > > Congress can say all they want, but really are wrong.  They
> collectively
> > > need to read the U. S. Constitution.
> > >
> > > After you read the U. S. Constitution, will you cite specifics to
> > > substantiate your view.
> > >
> > > Ed K
> > > Greenville, SC, USA
> > > Addendum:  Political Cartoon:
> > > http://www.nabble.com/file/p11304089/times%2B%25237.bmp times+%237.bmp
> > > --
> > > View this message in context:
> > >
> >
> http://www.nabble.com/Reply-to-Slim-%28Politics---Government-101%29-tf3981896.html#a11304089
> > > Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>