To the detriment of America and the West in general,
the big 0 is too impressed by himself to listen to someone whom he and his supporters have spent the better part of the last decade vilifying.
petergrt, do you really think Cheney should be consulted? He’s behind the failed war in Iraq, our failed energy policy (his good buddy Ken Lay, don’t forget), our failed use of mercenaries…and his plan for Iraq was proposed back in Bush 41’s administration, too, and it was promptly and appropriately quashed by the elder Bush, because he KNEW what would happen. It’s in GHW Bush’s biography.
“failed war in Iraq” - lefties’ wishful thinking. It’s been their wish from the day one, and our defeat was so proclaimed time and again, until the surge succeeded that is.
The fact is that the war, however costly, and however badly run after the occupation, ultimately succeeded in every aspect.
That is not to say that Iraq is stable enough that it cannot be lost. If we were to withdraw too early, as big 0 wanted, the victory would be turned into a catastrophe.
Energy Policy - the Democrats have torpedoed any meaningful initiatives for decades, in favor of wind and solar utopia.
petergrt, your view of history seems a little, shall we say, skewed?
We’ve been in Iraq for nearly seven years, six and a half after “mission accomplished.” We and the Iraqis still don’t have the infrastructure repaired to the level it was under Saddam; they aren’t paying back the vast cost of the occupation (which was part of the original plan); and it’s destabilized the Middle East and empowered Iran (which was previously kept in check partially by Iraq). In what way is it successful? At the very best, it has been a huge drain on our economy with relatively slow and minor success. And you want us to stay even longer, right?
Note: WWI lasted 4 years, 3 months, 14 days. WWII lasted six years and one day. Iraq - still going…
As for Energy Policy, I think I understand what you are saying, but given that the Republicans have actively scuppered any alternatives but oil and coal, you can debate who is torpedoing what! Because the Democrats have certainly not gotten in the way of oil and coal - Al Gore’s family has oil money, you know…
“To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition , turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter day hero—- assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability. ”
That is a perfectly reasoned statement of conditions as they existed in the immediate aftermath of the liberation of Kuwait, by an unprecedented coalition of Arab and western powers. With the US forces less than 100 miles from Baghdad, it was extremely tempting to finish Saddam off, but that would have turned him into a martyr …,and etc.
With Saddam being seriously weakened by the war, it was hoped that the Arabs would take care of him - by themselves.
They didn’t, and after 9/11, we no longer had the luxury of waiting for the natural course of events to take place. Furthermore, there was much less of a chance of Saddam becoming an Arab hero.
What the he LL does this man want? Does he want to be VP again? Trying to get his daughter elected to something? There’s a purpose for all his raspy noise lately, but I’m not sure what it is.
The point you seem to have missed is that it’s an example of law not made by the legislative branch. All three branches make laws, despite the highly simplified version we were told in junior high school (and was all I knew before going to law school later in life).
“You seem to be making the point that just because there is more in the way of volume regarding the interpretation and and citation of previous precedent in law, that lawyers make the law.”
I’m pretty sure I said the laws came from the judiciary, not the lawyers.
“The interpretation of a law and the precedence it sets when others look to that law is not making a law.”
Yeah, actually it is, Church. That’s why it’s referred to as case law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law
The common law system we inherited from England, and is the basis of all our legal system (except Louisiana) is also judiciary-based.
If you think about it a bit, you’ll see that it has to be this way. If appeal-court-and-higher decisions aren’t made into binding laws, then the legislatures would be overwhelmingly swamped every time they discover a law they previously made doesn’t quite cover the myriad of situations that arise on a daily basis. They’d constantly be called upon to refine their laws countless times a day…an impossibility.
“You are a poster boy as to why all lawyers should be shot.”
You did a good job of parroting the Wiki link I gave you, but since you started out by saying “Case law…” I’m going to go what I was taught in law school instead of your attempts to say that law created by the courts (or by the executive branch?) isn’t law.
It sounds like you’re wallowing in semantics in an attempt to say that only black-letter law is really law, but if you go outside, you’ll find that you are required to follow all laws, no matter which of the three branches of government created it.
And you didn’t even attempt to tackle common law.
Yes, you can shoot me. But I’m pretty sure there’s probably law from at least two, and probably three branches of our government that would be against it.
Motivemagus over 14 years ago
I hope not. You see how well it worked last administration…
Magnaut over 14 years ago
we don’t have to worry he was awarded the apPEASe prze
charliekane over 14 years ago
No.
And hell no!
petergrt over 14 years ago
To the detriment of America and the West in general, the big 0 is too impressed by himself to listen to someone whom he and his supporters have spent the better part of the last decade vilifying.
Reality check, please, for our collective sake.
Motivemagus over 14 years ago
petergrt, do you really think Cheney should be consulted? He’s behind the failed war in Iraq, our failed energy policy (his good buddy Ken Lay, don’t forget), our failed use of mercenaries…and his plan for Iraq was proposed back in Bush 41’s administration, too, and it was promptly and appropriately quashed by the elder Bush, because he KNEW what would happen. It’s in GHW Bush’s biography.
petergrt over 14 years ago
“failed war in Iraq” - lefties’ wishful thinking. It’s been their wish from the day one, and our defeat was so proclaimed time and again, until the surge succeeded that is.
The fact is that the war, however costly, and however badly run after the occupation, ultimately succeeded in every aspect.
That is not to say that Iraq is stable enough that it cannot be lost. If we were to withdraw too early, as big 0 wanted, the victory would be turned into a catastrophe.
Energy Policy - the Democrats have torpedoed any meaningful initiatives for decades, in favor of wind and solar utopia.
babka Premium Member over 14 years ago
what part of:
the catastrophe has already occurred:
do you not understand?
Motivemagus over 14 years ago
petergrt, your view of history seems a little, shall we say, skewed? We’ve been in Iraq for nearly seven years, six and a half after “mission accomplished.” We and the Iraqis still don’t have the infrastructure repaired to the level it was under Saddam; they aren’t paying back the vast cost of the occupation (which was part of the original plan); and it’s destabilized the Middle East and empowered Iran (which was previously kept in check partially by Iraq). In what way is it successful? At the very best, it has been a huge drain on our economy with relatively slow and minor success. And you want us to stay even longer, right? Note: WWI lasted 4 years, 3 months, 14 days. WWII lasted six years and one day. Iraq - still going… As for Energy Policy, I think I understand what you are saying, but given that the Republicans have actively scuppered any alternatives but oil and coal, you can debate who is torpedoing what! Because the Democrats have certainly not gotten in the way of oil and coal - Al Gore’s family has oil money, you know…
twieliczka over 14 years ago
Oh, have you been talking to me Dick?
petergrt over 14 years ago
“WWI lasted 4 years, 3 months, 14 days. WWII lasted six years and one day.”
And you have the hubris to say that my ” … view of history seems a little, shall we say, skewed?”
So, the US military presence in Germany, Japan, S. Korea, and so on are tourist outposts.
As to America’s standing in the World, as if it needed to matter at all, is now one of a toothless joke - though 0bama is loved.
Under Bush, it was exactly the reverse, he was the joke, but the US stood for something.
riley05 over 14 years ago
“To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition , turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter day hero—- assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability. ”
“A World Transformed” George H W Bush 1998
petergrt over 14 years ago
That is a perfectly reasoned statement of conditions as they existed in the immediate aftermath of the liberation of Kuwait, by an unprecedented coalition of Arab and western powers. With the US forces less than 100 miles from Baghdad, it was extremely tempting to finish Saddam off, but that would have turned him into a martyr …,and etc. With Saddam being seriously weakened by the war, it was hoped that the Arabs would take care of him - by themselves.
They didn’t, and after 9/11, we no longer had the luxury of waiting for the natural course of events to take place. Furthermore, there was much less of a chance of Saddam becoming an Arab hero.
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
What the he LL does this man want? Does he want to be VP again? Trying to get his daughter elected to something? There’s a purpose for all his raspy noise lately, but I’m not sure what it is.
jpozenel over 14 years ago
Does anyone listen?
sgmoo over 14 years ago
Now I understand Cheney’s problem-his hair rollers are rapped too tight!
4uk4ata over 14 years ago
“There’s a purpose for all his raspy noise lately, but I’m not sure what it is. ”
Exposure. Book deals. Lectures. Possibly more opportunities for political power as he is lionized by the Right. Criticizing Obama sells.
Hey, it worked for Palin.
riley05 over 14 years ago
Church, don’t forget this thread:
http://www.gocomics.com/donwright/2010/01/03/
riley05 over 14 years ago
“…executive order. So what?”
The point you seem to have missed is that it’s an example of law not made by the legislative branch. All three branches make laws, despite the highly simplified version we were told in junior high school (and was all I knew before going to law school later in life).
“You seem to be making the point that just because there is more in the way of volume regarding the interpretation and and citation of previous precedent in law, that lawyers make the law.”
I’m pretty sure I said the laws came from the judiciary, not the lawyers.
“The interpretation of a law and the precedence it sets when others look to that law is not making a law.”
Yeah, actually it is, Church. That’s why it’s referred to as case law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law
The common law system we inherited from England, and is the basis of all our legal system (except Louisiana) is also judiciary-based.
If you think about it a bit, you’ll see that it has to be this way. If appeal-court-and-higher decisions aren’t made into binding laws, then the legislatures would be overwhelmingly swamped every time they discover a law they previously made doesn’t quite cover the myriad of situations that arise on a daily basis. They’d constantly be called upon to refine their laws countless times a day…an impossibility.
“You are a poster boy as to why all lawyers should be shot.”
Hey, I gave it up. Gimme a break.
riley05 over 14 years ago
You did a good job of parroting the Wiki link I gave you, but since you started out by saying “Case law…” I’m going to go what I was taught in law school instead of your attempts to say that law created by the courts (or by the executive branch?) isn’t law.
It sounds like you’re wallowing in semantics in an attempt to say that only black-letter law is really law, but if you go outside, you’ll find that you are required to follow all laws, no matter which of the three branches of government created it.
And you didn’t even attempt to tackle common law.
Yes, you can shoot me. But I’m pretty sure there’s probably law from at least two, and probably three branches of our government that would be against it.