Bush embarking on a 5-week vacation.

[Future Boy]

Originally posted by Corganist

Spineless idiots? Sorry. But I'm not letting Congress off the hook that easily. The vote to give Bush the ability to go to Iraq is not an "oops" sort of situation. They and they alone had the power to make Iraq happen or not happen. They made it happen. George W. Bush didn't have enough power in his office to make any of his alleged agendas reality. Congress did. Just because Bush got what he wanted doesn't make him have more power than the Congress.

The point being discussed is who lead the country to war. Congress approved it, but it was Bushes doing.

Congress approved it based on the false/slanted intel provided by the adminstration. Of course they believed Saddam was a threat, that was all they were shown!

[Corganist]

Originally posted by Future Boy


The point being discussed is who lead the country to war. Congress approved it, but it was Bushes doing.

Congress approved it based on the false/slanted intel provided by the adminstration. Of course they believed Saddam was a threat, that was all they were shown!

The point being discussed is that its being implied that the executive branch is the strongest branch "because they led the country to war." What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter whose idea the war was. Bush's power as President wasn't what made us go to war. If the Congress had said "Hell no, we're not going to go to Iraq." then we wouldn't have gone to Iraq. Bush wasn't going to be able to override that, President or not. Just because Congress approves an idea put forward by someone else, it doesn't mean that person has more power than they do. The executive branch is our weakest branch of government, and the Iraq war doesn't dispute it one iota.

[Future Boy]

Originally posted by Corganist

The point being discussed is that its being implied that the executive branch is the strongest branch

No, its not. Nice spin though.

Originally posted by Debaser
the judicial didn't lead the country into war under false pretenses.

Originally posted by Corganist
Right. It was the legislative branch that did that.

Originally posted by Future Boy
The legislative branch didnt lead us anywhere.

Originally posted by Future Boy
The point being discussed is who lead the country to war. Congress approved it, but it was Bushes doing.

Congress approved it based on the false/slanted intel provided by the adminstration. Of course they believed Saddam was a threat, that was all they were shown!

[Corganist]

Originally posted by Future Boy


No, its not. Nice spin though.

Semantics. So if I write a letter to my Congressman that says that we should invade Canada, and then Congress votes to invade Canada based on that letter, have I led the nation to war? Don't be ridiculous. The most you can say about Bush's role in the whole Iraq thing is that he came up with the idea and advocated for it heavily, but he didn't have the power to "lead" anybody anywhere until and unless Congress acted. Congress's actions are what directly led to soldiers being put on the ground.

[Future Boy]

So let me get this straight, Congress was lied to, acted on the lies, and they're the ones who lead us into Iraq?

[Corganist]

Originally posted by Future Boy
So let me get this straight, Congress was lied to, acted on the lies, and they're the ones who lead us into Iraq?

They're the only ones who had the power to. You know, the whole "with great power comes great responsibility" thing applies here.

[Future Boy]

You're truly twisted, you know that?

[Corganist]

Originally posted by Future Boy
You're truly twisted, you know that?

My version of things: Congress recklessly used its warmaking powers to act on bad suggestions.

Your version of things: Warmaking powers are vested in one guy who can come up with bad suggestions and act on them.

I'm a little more comfortable with my version, I think. I'm not letting Bush off the hook here, but his role in making Iraq happen was not a case of him using the power of his office to drag the country off to war. It might be nice to pretend that the reason things happen that we don't like is because we're living under the thumb of a power-mad dictator...but it just ain't so.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by Debaser


the judicial didn't lead the country into war under false pretenses.

complete non-sequitor

[Future Boy]

Originally posted by Corganist

My version of things: Congress recklessly used its warmaking powers to act on bad suggestions.

Your version of things: Warmaking powers are vested in one guy who can come up with bad suggestions and act on them.

I'm a little more comfortable with my version, I think. I'm not letting Bush off the hook here, but his role in making Iraq happen was not a case of him using the power of his office to drag the country off to war. It might be nice to pretend that the reason things happen that we don't like is because we're living under the thumb of a power-mad dictator...but it just ain't so.

I simply choose to give credit or blame to the instigator. By your resoning, if I invented something, but needed a loan to bring it to market, then the bank deserves the credit. It's illogical.

[Corganist]

Originally posted by Future Boy

I simply choose to give credit or blame to the instigator. By your resoning, if I invented something, but needed a loan to bring it to market, then the bank deserves the credit. It's illogical.

Being the instigator =/ being the power behind something. Your analogy totally understates the role of the Congress. They aren't there just to put the money behind other people's ideas, good or bad. They're supposed to be a body that makes informed decisions based on the will of the people. They aren't supposed to be the bank. They're supposed to be the idea people.

I realize that its nice and neat and convenient to gloss over the massive failure of our elected leaders to ask better questions and get better info before they made their decision on Iraq. Its a lot nicer to think that its all the fault of one guy. But I'm not going to buy into that illusion. If we're going to hold George W. Bush responsible for leading us to war on "false pretenses," we should hold the Congress just as, if not more, responsible...because they had the chance to stop it all, and they didn't take it. But whatever, if you want to make Bush out to be the all-powerful bogeyman, have at it.

[Future Boy]

Originally posted by Corganist

But whatever, if you want to make Bush out to be the all-powerful bogeyman, have at it.

What is this power kick you keep going on about, I have already pointed out that Im talking about the driving force that lead us into Iraq. Yeah, congress authorized it, that's awesome, they should all be voted out, but that's irrelevant. As weak as the presidency is (in your eyes) we wouldnt be in Iraq if it wasnt for him.

It was his idea, it was his drive, it was his CRAP intel they decided on.

Silly them for assuming Bush would tell them the truth.

[Corganist]

Originally posted by Future Boy

It was his idea, it was his drive, it was his CRAP intel they decided on.

But those things didn't matter until Congress acted. I could have said the exact same things to them. If Congress believed me, I really don't think that people would be saying "Corganist led the country to war under false pretenses."

All the ideas and drive in the world aren't going to get boots on the ground without the US Congress on board.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by Future Boy

It was his idea, it was his drive, it was his CRAP intel they decided on.

actually i'm pretty sure it was the CIA's crap

also let's not forget that the official US policy on Iraq was "regime change."

This was instituted by Clinton in 1998

[Future Boy]

Originally posted by Corganist

But those things didn't matter until Congress acted. I could have said the exact same things to them. If Congress believed me, I really don't think that people would be saying "Corganist led the country to war under false pretenses."

All the ideas and drive in the world aren't going to get boots on the ground without the US Congress on board.

Your right, COngress is the man, what was I thinking.

[Future Boy]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
actually i'm pretty sure it was the CIA's crap

also let's not forget that the official US policy on Iraq was "regime change."

This was instituted by Clinton in 1998

Ha, it was the CIA's crap? The Administration picked and choose what was presented, they had things re-written when it didnt fit their agenda, but it was the CIA's crap, right.

And if Clinton had led us into Iraq in the same underhanded and bullshit way, hed be just a big an ass, but guess what, he didnt.

[homechicago]

gee, it's too bad w had to go to idaho and cut into his precious brush cutting time.

i want him refreshed so he can stay the course and be resolved in the war on terra.

[Nimrod's Son]

he's in San Diego today