Text 14526, 74 rader
Skriven 2007-05-14 10:02:25 av Charlie Edmondson (938.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (894.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: unions
==================
Josh Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2007 16:28:37 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>     So they let the current funding expire, if they have the guts, 
>>then if he doesn't bring them home, someone sues and we get some of this 
>>worked out legally once and for all. WOuld be messy but sometimes a 
>>democracy is. Personally I would like to see it happen in some respects 
>>because the courts would then sort things out about where the powers of 
>>the pres. as C in C end and the powers of Congress begin. It won't 
>>happen, largely for the same reasons no one on any side has pushed the 
>>War Powers Act into the courts.. neither side wants to really know so 
>>both can continue to argue the points that best fit their current (and 
>>fluid) needs. 
>>     The constitution puts funding decisions, especially clearly, in 
>>the hands of the Congress. If they don't have the fortitude to take the 
>>reins and actually do something, then what good are they? Bush is doing 
>>what he thinks is correct, and will continue to act in that manner. The 
>>Congress needs to do the same and not whine about how they are so put 
>>upon by the Pres. 
>>
>>
>>Why? The constitution puts funding decisions and some of the decisions 
>>about war in the lap of Congress. If they disagree, they don't fund and 
>>take the consequences. If they are right, they would win big. Nobody has 
>>even talked about withdrawing the okay given initially under the War 
>>Powers Act.
> 
> 
> That, I assume, is because they can't: Bush would veto it.
> 
> 
>>      I don't see how you can put Congress' inability/unwillingness to 
>>act on Bush. They did this little thing that knew going in was gonna be 
>>vetoed but they did it anyway, KNOWING that was going to be completely 
>>and utterly ineffectual.  It ain't GWs responsibility under the 
>>constitution that is being abdicated.
> 
> 
> Bush would hold the troops hostage, and no one in Congress wants to
> see that, or see a disorderly withdrawal, or to risk Bush's demagogic
> "the Democrats won't support the troops" or the sort of public
> opprobrium that the public attached to Newt Gringrich and the
> Republicans during the government shutdown. They're treading softly
> because they have to, because they know that Bush will use the bully
> pulpit to demagogue the issue and hold the troops hostage rather than
> responding to the will of the legislature. The best they can hope to
> do is let their position be known, and wait for public opinion to
> finish the job. That's not very far away: Congressional Republicans
> have already told Bush that they're running out of patience.
> 
Josh,
For some reason, you are now fixated on the term 'demogogue' and, since 
it is a nice, emotionally charged word, you use it continuously, much to 
the detriment of your argument.

What you are basically saying is, if the congresscritters cut the 
funding, then Bush can easily go to the people, and decry their actions 
as detrimental to the troops, and, much to your dismay, THEY WILL 
ACTUALLY AGREE WITH HIM! Oh, the Horrors!!!! 8-)

Unfortunately, while an appropriately worded poll can get numbers that 
indicate the 'people' don't support the war, and alternatively worded 
poll can get the exact opposite result.  When the populace are split 
like this, you don't get any clear mandate for action, as there is 
popular support for both sides.  I know the fact that the legal 
government can do things legally that you, and many others, wish they 
wouldn't is a problem, but it isn't going to go away if you wish it hard 
enough.  Even with your own demogougery... ;-)

Charlie
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)