Why is it that people blamed Bush for the war in Iraq when the president cannot declare war? The war was declared by congress and could not have been in any way "started" by the president because even if he asks congress to declare war they would not have to do so. P.S. The democrats or anyone in congress controlling it could have stopped it whenever they wanted to. I am sorry but this I have never actually understood. What is your take?
The cabinet are effectivly advisors, and Bush isn't a figurehead, he is COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF in a war, so he has all the power nessessary for the job.
Bush is a half-wit, in the most innocent sense, and was probably persuaded by the cabinet he elected to think for him. He may hold the power, but he is being used, therefore others are using the power. (Then again, Bush does receive bribes as an incentive, but that just means he's being used by another person.)
chang makes a point if you look at all those senaters who voted for the war in Iraq, therefore Hillary Clinton for example is every bit as "stupid" as good ol' W for going to Iraq.
Even our good friend Obama has voted to increase troop numbers. He did vote against the war initially, but now he is prolonging it. Man, I wish Ron Paul was president.
I really think that before ya'll decide to start finger flickin on this thread you should do a little bit of thinking or at least read a newspaper. Strop has the only intelligible post about this topic. Yes, Bush can send troops out without approval from congress, as cited in the constitution.. War Powers
Congress holds the power to declare war. As a result, the president cannot declare war without their approval. However, as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, many presidents have sent troops to battle without an official war declaration (ex. Vietnam, Korea). The 1973 War Powers Act attempted to define when and how the president could send troops to battle by adding strict time frames for reporting to Congress after sending troops to war, in addition to other measures.
No, the war was probably not the best idea if not for the literal meaning than most definitely for causing such a rift in our nation, but right now the cold hard truth is that we are in fact a presence over there and we did create a very unstable environment, and despite the fact that most of you would like to see this whole thing erased, there is no way to do so.
Obama vowed to try to increase the number of troops because he realized just after he ran his mouth about bringing the troops home that if we withdraw from Iraq now, the country will explode into chaos, which is why bush has made no attempt to make a hasty withdraw which ultimately is flattening his approval rating. People are emotional panicky idiots sometimes and jump on the first slick saying they hear that sounds good. (remind you of something? how bout yes we can, or change? Look where that got us.) They have no stable police for them to depend on yet and the government is nothing more that a prematurely birthed metademocracy. Leaving Iraq now would ultimately be the worst thing for our country considering the occupational threats from remaining hostile nations and small terrorist factions.
Besides...why are you guys wasting your time discussing the topic of my dissertation which is completely boring when there are perfectly good awesome games to play here on the site? I guess bein a kid changed since I was young..
Despite commentators eager to usher in Obama's presidency and oust Bush's flagging image, technically Obama's presidency hasn't even started yet, so let's not have voting prejudices jumping the gun, 'mkay?
I have a rule of thumb I use for politics: If you don't want to fall into the same trap of those knee-jerk reactions people are now fond of criticising, you should reserve your own approval rating based on annual summations of the activity of the administration, and your final approval rating on the activity of the administration for the whole duration of the term in office.
You'll sound less like a ranty peon if you do this, trust me.
Because people like someone to blame, but they don't want it to fall to them self. Why did Bush get blamed for high gas prices?Why did he get blamed for our economic crisis?All the same answer.
bush took away our rights with the PATRIOT act, used fear tactics, stole the last two elections, destroyed our reputation with the world, put us trillions more into debt, got us into the worst economic crisis since the depression, turned Iraq into a civil war, wasted hundreds of trillions on two pointless wars that to this day go nowhere, made the education system worse with the NCLB, tortured and abused prisoners at Guantanamo, stole our money to give to those corporate monsters, $700,000,000,000 in fact, constantly lobbied with corrupt politicians, exists to serves the corporations, repealed the Endangered Species Act, used 9/11 to his political gain, pardoned himself from war crimes, and finally, he just plain looks like a monkey
Even our good friend Obama has voted to increase troop numbers. He did vote against the war initially, but now he is prolonging it.
yay! Makes me feel sitting back in my communist chair and repeating the same statement that "Obama and McCain are both bourgeois bourgs with the same imperialistic/corporatist policies"
yay! Makes me feel sitting back in my communist chair and repeating the same statement that "Obama and McCain are both bourgeois bourgs with the same imperialistic/corporatist policies"
Now, this is exactley why if Drace was a capitalist he would have my vote for prez
He actually is willing to accept the fact that most politicians nowadays suck.
*cough cough* go *cough cough* Mitt Romney *couch cough*.
One must always remain careful to hold people only accountable to the things that they can really be held accountable for.
*soapbox time*
I'm going to start by saying I'm not a figurehead of any country so I do not need to be sensitive to the public's sentiments. Therefore I'm going to try something a little more fire-and-brimstone.
Having observed "a fresh start" in the form of Rudd '07 and observed his (socially conservative) first year in government, I may appear cynical here when I say that people "believing in change" is about as meaningful as an atheist challenging God to reveal itself to them. This is not cynical, it is realistic: cynical would be to assume that all people pretend to believe in change because it's the in thing and nobody really believes in change.
Truth is, some people do believe in change. However even if you don't like to pay attention to speeches because they're all gilt up and prettied (you would be mostly correct), it is my opinion that like Obama or not, his words portray a stark truth. He specifically said that the landslide vote was an indication that people did believe in change but that the real challenge was in bringing about that change.
Consider what a Democracy is and in particular what the democracy of the United States of America is founded upon. Where in the ideology of your nation, in the American Dream that underpins the grand principles of capitalism and entrepreneurial pursuit, does it say that one ought to feel magically entitled to whatever they want?
Therein lies your problem. You may automatically respond to me that it doesn't say that. However many groups of people, including entire generations have been brought up into a condition where they are so entrenched in this feeling of self-entitlement that they are no longer aware of it. For this I hold the rampantly irresponsible misinterpretation of capitalistic principle to account. The credit crunch is also the direct result of such, and a certain denial fuelled by a desire to prolong the bubble long past any feasible sustainable level, generating credit that simply should never have existed.
It would be foolish of me to tilt at the windmill of capitalistic principles, but I've believed for some years that we are witnessing the great failure of what applied capitalism has become today, and there is simply no way around it. Which brings us back to the notion of change. Change, as Obama said, begins with you. That's great, but what does it mean? This is a valid question seeing as we've gotten so used to our ways that we probably cannot envisage any other way. Furthermore nations are huge conglomerates in which any single one man can perfectly naturally feel powerless to do anything for the nation. But it goes without saying that a nation is built upon these powerless people who somehow affect the course of the country by living, eating, sleeping, playing and working.
Furthermore people have been, as people will be, blind to upcoming consequences in building castles in the air, and so we are currently reeling from precisely that. If you were to ask me what to do, I would simply refer back to what the upcoming administration (or at least Obama) has signalled in many ways already: reality checks.
This is not a good time for playing blame games, or even playing politics. It is not even a good time for standing up for causes that have been soundly defeated or thrown into disarray, or parroting your parents or the majority of people from your postcode, or even railing on about end-times or the good times. This is the time for reflecting not on what policy changes are going to do for you, but what you are going to do for them. A time to realise either again or even for the first time what the bare bones of your country is, what makes it run, and what it cannot live without, and admit that things will change one way or another and if you can't deal with it then you will fade away and die with the passing times.
So the next time you sit down to type or open your mouth to criticise or express your disappointment with leaders, just be mindful of what you yourself are doing, or what you could be doing, and consider then whether what you're saying is actually justified.
Congress was mostly rebublican anyway so they were all following Bush he brought up the war anyway and even if this war isnt his fault he hasnt done a very good job commanding the troops its taking way longer than he thought it would. Fighting in the middle east has been going on since the crusades and he thought he could go over there in a few years and fix it? i think not
bush took away our rights with the PATRIOT act, used fear tactics, stole the last two elections, destroyed our reputation with the world, put us trillions more into debt, got us into the worst economic crisis since the depression, turned Iraq into a civil war, wasted hundreds of trillions on two pointless wars that to this day go nowhere, made the education system worse with the NCLB, tortured and abused prisoners at Guantanamo, stole our money to give to those corporate monsters, $700,000,000,000 in fact, constantly lobbied with corrupt politicians, exists to serves the corporations, repealed the Endangered Species Act, used 9/11 to his political gain, pardoned himself from war crimes, and finally, he just plain looks like a monkey
How did that steal our rights? What fear tactics? How? Not to be shallow but the quite a bit of the world doesn't know what they're talking about. No, that started with lowering the mortage rates. False, in fact the majority of Iraqi's are happier today then before the war. Also I would say these wars aren't pointles. True, one thing so far... What the heck, how is taht his fault. Also i support water boarding if you got in there i don't think you deserve much better. Does congress not have to pass it, or did I miss something. Not sure what your talking about. Corporations, are one of the most important thing to this country. Not familiar with this sorry, sounds like I would disagree with him doing this but I would have to know the pretences. Sure he did. Which were. True...lol
