Rachel Maddow Puts It Together So Simply

[thoughtone]

So why wasn't the Gipper impeached?


<param name="movie" value="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MjQwODAtNTY1NzA?color=C93033" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MjQwODAtNTY1NzA?color=C93033" quality="high" wmode="transparent" width="400" height="336" allowfullscreen="true" name="clembedMjQwODAtNTY1NzA" align="middle" quality="high" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed></object>

 

[cheyisrameyah]

Plausible deniability.

Its a bs answer but it not only worked but the man has damn near been deified by his political party.

 

[Tazirai]

Rachel is too smart for TV, yet she needs tv, to make the GOP look stupid.

 

[thoughtone]

Aaa, gyh?

 

[nittie]

Why did Ford pardon Nixon. Why did Obama basically give Bush II a pass. Why did Clinton let Bush I off the hook. This is about governing not party politics or justice.

 

[thoughtone]

Why did Ford pardon Nixon. Why did Obama basically give Bush II a pass. Why did Clinton let Bush I off the hook. This is about governing not party politics or justice.

So governing doesn't entail justice?

 

[nittie]

So governing doesn't entail justice?

No it doesn't. If you can check out Bill Maher's show on HBO this week. In the last minutes he talks about Castro and how he compares to some other dictators the comparisons are chilling. It's hard to believe people [and they barely qualify as people imo more like vampires] like that actually govern and whats more disturbing is they are all cut from the same cloth.

 

[thoughtone]

No it doesn't. If you can check out Bill Maher's show on HBO this week. In the last minutes he talks about Castro and how he compares to some other dictators the comparisons are chilling. It's hard to believe people [and they barely qualify as people imo more like vampires] like that actually govern and whats more disturbing is they are all cut from the same cloth.

If they are cut from the same cloth, move to Cuba and see how similar they are.

 

[nittie]

If they are cut from the same cloth, move to Cuba and see how similar they are.

I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere but justice has nothing to do with governing.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

You know why he wasn't impeached. Reagan was very popular and trying to impeach him, even with all the facts available, would have cost them electorally like it did the Republicans when they did it to Clinton years later. That's the exact reason Obama doesn't go after Bush and Cheney, who aren't nearly as popular, even with them bragging about torturing prisoners.
Politics trumps justice.

 

[nittie]

I would say governing not politics trumps justice but there's another element the economic engine what is it how does it work and can it be duplicated. If it can be duplicated then the status quo can be changed.

 

[Lamarr]

Politics trumps justice.

I agree, but for a different reason. Presidents from both parties have been engaging in unconstitutional Wars for the last 40 years. They just cover each others backs. Two wings on the same bird, going in the same direction!

 

[nittie]

Originally Posted by Upgrade Dave View Post
Politics trumps justice.

I agree, but for a different reason. Presidents from both parties have been engaging in unconstitutional Wars for the last 40 years. They just cover each others backs. Two wings on the same bird, going in the same direction!

Calling it politics maybe okay for debating on a message board but the answers lie in the details and governing is more specific. For instance governing families have ruled from day 1 Clinton, Obama, the Bushs, Reagan are all related. I pointed that out on this board a couple of years ago this is about governing. When you look at what dictators have done thru the years another more gruesome picture emerges.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I agree, but for a different reason. Presidents from both parties have been engaging in unconstitutional Wars for the last 40 years. They just cover each others backs. Two wings on the same bird, going in the same direction!

I think that's part of it too.

 

[thoughtone]

I think that's part of it too.

Forty years? The last Constitutionally declared war was WWII in 1941.

 

[Wobble Wobble]

Forty years? The last Constitutionally declared war was WWII in 1941.

What exactly, is a "constitutionally declared war"?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

What exactly, is a "constitutionally declared war"?

Congress has the power to declare war. They haven't done so since WWII.

 

[Wobble Wobble]

Congress has the power to declare war. They haven't done so since WWII.

The US Congress granted Presidents War Powers in each of the major actions since WW2 and continued active support of the wars until popular will turned against them. In addition, US law allows military action in support of Congressionally approved treaties without the need for a resolution from Congress.

The image of a President entering a special joint session of Congress to deliver an address where he hopes to convince members to allow him to pursue a foreign war is an aberation. The USA has been involved in hundreds of wars and "limited actions" throughout it's history and they did not require Congress' approval. think things like the wars out west, Haiti, Nicaragua and Dominican Republic, think Lebanon or even the failed mission to recover hostages in Iran.

the image of Roosevelt going cap in hand to Congress on December 8 1941 belies nearly 40 years of action in China and the far east that by Japanese eyes, amounted to war. Little of it approved by Congress. In fact, undeclared wars was never a problem until Truman put additional troops on the ground in Korea to assist the lawful government of South Korea and US units beleagred by the North's invasion. It was rightwing members of Congress who put up the straw horse of "undeclared war" and truth be damned whether or not it was to support a war against Communists.

While we all agree the Gulf of Tonkin incident was BS, Congress did approve the response and continued to fund that Vietnam war for several years until it began to challenge Johnson & Nixon. the result was the War Powers Act of 72 or 73 which granted a president - with restrictions - to pursue a foreign policy up to and including military action without Congress' vote. Bush #1 and Bush #2 got Congressional support for both Gulf Wars.

In short, challenges to presidential power to pursue actions overseas has only come about since 1950 and is more a political whip than constitutional issue. Each side uses it to beat the other side when they do not hold the White House.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

The US Congress granted Presidents War Powers in each of the major actions since WW2 and continued active support of the wars until popular will turned against them. In addition, US law allows military action in support of Congressionally approved treaties without the need for a resolution from Congress.

The image of a President entering a special joint session of Congress to deliver an address where he hopes to convince members to allow him to pursue a foreign war is an aberation. The USA has been involved in hundreds of wars and "limited actions" throughout it's history and they did not require Congress' approval. think things like the wars out west, Haiti, Nicaragua and Dominican Republic, think Lebanon or even the failed mission to recover hostages in Iran.

the image of Roosevelt going cap in hand to Congress on December 8 1941 belies nearly 40 years of action in China and the far east that by Japanese eyes, amounted to war. Little of it approved by Congress. In fact, undeclared wars was never a problem until Truman put additional troops on the ground in Korea to assist the lawful government of South Korea and US units beleagred by the North's invasion. It was rightwing members of Congress who put up the straw horse of "undeclared war" and truth be damned whether or not it was to support a war against Communists.

While we all agree the Gulf of Tonkin incident was BS, Congress did approve the response and continued to fund that Vietnam war for several years until it began to challenge Johnson & Nixon. the result was the War Powers Act of 72 or 73 which granted a president - with restrictions - to pursue a foreign policy up to and including military action without Congress' vote. Bush #1 and Bush #2 got Congressional support for both Gulf Wars.

In short, challenges to presidential power to pursue actions overseas has only come about since 1950 and is more a political whip than constitutional issue. Each side uses it to beat the other side when they do not hold the White House.

Okay. I understand all that and I think the other guys do too.
Thought1, and Lamarr before him, was making a very specific point.
There is a mechanism in place for war making that hasn't been used in generations but somehow we're in a perpetual cycle of foreign war.

 

[QueEx]

. . . Presidents from both parties have been engaging in unconstitutional Wars for the last 40 years. They just cover each others backs. Two wings on the same bird, going in the same direction!

The part you said in bold aside, (the statement sounds good as political fodder but I think it is overbroad and fails to take into consideration the particular facts, circumstances and the nuances of each action), I have a question:

when congress funds the various incursions, actions, wars (however one wants to characterize them), is that not approval ???​

 

[nittie]

Why do we still have war. It's 2012 why does war exist or poverty it's not necessary but as we speak people are talking about starving North Korea into submission. In the old days generals went to war for glory, sport, legacy, to kill and plunder is that whats going on now.

 

[QueEx]

Why do we still have war.

It's 2012 why does war exist or poverty it's not necessary but as we speak people are talking about starving North Korea into submission. In the old days generals went to war for glory, sport, legacy, to kill and plunder is that whats going on now.

When did we ever not have war ? ? ?

 

[thoughtone]

What exactly, is a "constitutionally declared war"?

Declaration of war by the United States

Article 1 Section 8 US Constitution

The Congress shall have th power to

declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;


What we have been operating under under since 1973 is the War Powers Resolution, which many think is unconstitutional. No administration of either party dare not challenge this in the Supreme Court. There is a very good chance it would be overturned.

 

[QueEx]

Declaration of war by the United States

Article 1 Section 8 US Constitution

The Congress shall have th power to

declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;


What we have been operating under under since 1973 is the War Powers Resolution, which many think is unconstitutional. No administration of either party dare not challenge this in the Supreme Court. There is a very good chance it would be overturned.

Depending upon the composition of the then SCOTUS.

 

[nittie]

When did we ever not have war ? ? ?

Thats the million dollar question the Bible says there will always be war and the poor among us but it does not say why. After all the death and destruction why does it not only still exist but the 20th century was the bloodiest on record.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Thats the million dollar question the Bible says there will always be war and the poor among us but it does not say why. After all the death and destruction why does it not only still exist but the 20th century was the bloodiest on record.

More soldiers to serve and better weapons to kill them and civilians with in the 20th century than any other.

 

[nittie]

More soldiers to serve and better weapons to kill them and civilians with in the 20th century than any other.

Thats a big part of it but it's possible Bush II invaded Iraq because Saddam tried to kill his dad. Clinton wanted to be a war president Bush I was worried about his legacy Perot called him a punk because he went into Iraq for his rep. No matter how you slice it the last century was about presidents killing because they wanted to all those wars could have been avoided.

In 'Drift,' Rachel Maddow dings Congress as ineffective and says war is 'frictionless' to most Americans
By REED JOHNSON
Los Angeles Times

Rising from their seats en masse, the liberal faithful at Beverly Hills' Saban Theatre greeted Rachel Maddow like parishioners welcoming a mega-church pastor.

Cellphone cameras flashed like fireworks. Lusty, and perhaps a few lustful, cheers cascaded from the Art Deco mezzanine.

Bill Maher, the interviewer at Tuesday night's Writers Bloc public chat, turned to Maddow as they took the sold-out theater's stage. How much of that do you think was for you, and how much was for me? Maher joked.

No offense, Bill, but on this night, in one of the bluest ZIP Codes of an indigo-hued state, it didn't appear to be even close.

By many measures, Maddow, the 39-year-old star of a popular self-titled MSNBC news show, who self-identifies as "not a TV anchor babe" but "a big lesbian who looks like a man," is the most revered figure in progressive media today, especially now that Keith Olbermann, who first brought Maddow to MSNBC as a substitute host, is on an involuntary hiatus from the airwaves.

Her national profile is likely to rise further this spring with the publication of her first book, "Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power." The book, essentially a 261-page reported essay arguing that, over the last half-century, a feckless U.S. Congress has surrendered its constitutionally granted war-making powers to the president while the American public has been systematically blinded to combat's gruesome realities, entered the New York Times bestsellers list this week at No.1.

 

[thoughtone]

Thats the million dollar question the Bible says there will always be war and the poor among us but it does not say why. After all the death and destruction why does it not only still exist but the 20th century was the bloodiest on record.

Wow, I reference the Bible on how the Jews embrace their struggle and you say don't to back, now you are quoting Mathew 26:11 which actually means there will always be poor so don't neglect them.

But what does this have to do with the executive branch usurping constitutional powers?

 

[nittie]

Wow, I reference the Bible on how the Jews embrace their struggle and you say don't to back, now you are quoting Mathew 26:11 which actually means there will always be poor so don't neglect them.

But what does this have to do with the executive branch usurping constitutional powers?

I am talking about something larger than constitutional powers as I was talking about looking forward is larger than looking back at slavery. But can you explain why the Bible says there will always be poor among us and why there will always be war.

 

[thoughtone]

I am talking about something larger than constitutional powers as I was talking about looking forward is larger than looking back at slavery. But can you explain why the Bible says there will always be poor among us and why there will always be war.

Because human nature hasn't changed in 10.000 years. What has changed is that we don't have kings and queens to rule unquestionably.

 

[nittie]

Because human nature hasn't changed in 10.000 years. What has changed is that we don't have kings and queens to rule unquestionably.

It's interesting the Bible was so clear on those two things because during that time two philosophies where emerging. The Jews where talking about spiritual power while the Egyptians where practicing materialism along with using religion to justify the Pharaohs wealth. Those two ideologies are still at war today. That could be why we will always have war and poverty.

 

[Damn Right]

Rachel is too smart for TV, yet she needs tv, to make the GOP look stupid.

she's a RHODES scholar with a fukin doctorate. gop senators and congressman are terrified to go on her show. they know she won't fall for the okie doke. plus she researches sheit u lay claim to then brings it up when she sees yo azz. they be shook as fuk

 

[Wobble Wobble]

Declaration of war by the United States

Article 1 Section 8 US Constitution

The Congress shall have th power to

declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;


What we have been operating under under since 1973 is the War Powers Resolution, which many think is unconstitutional. No administration of either party dare not challenge this in the Supreme Court. There is a very good chance it would be overturned.

Yes, brother, we do have a War Powers Resolution - but the military actions that I've mentioned, and dozens upon dozens more in US history (in its totality) from the time of Washington were not conducted under the War Powers Resolution and Act.

Depending upon the composition of the then SCOTUS.

Thats a big part of it but it's possible Bush II invaded Iraq because Saddam tried to kill his dad. Clinton wanted to be a war president Bush I was worried about his legacy Perot called him a punk because he went into Iraq for his rep. No matter how you slice it the last century was about presidents killing because they wanted to all those wars could have been avoided.

/

This is where the anti-war people get it all wrong. The origins of Bush IIs war can be found in the hours and days and months after Bush I followed his honor and law given power to only oust Saddam's forces from Kuwait - not topple him. The orignial UN resolution and the original US Congressional resolutions backing the president in his potential use of power over the specific issue of Iraq invading Kuwait only provided for Saddam's removal from Kuwait. Doing so required dismantling his offensive power, meaning attaking southern Iraq and breaking his army enough that they withdraw.

The problem came with a bunch of people who would later be called Neo-Conservatives, who within a month of victory on March 2 and 3 of 1991, began to write that Saddam could not be "contained" and that the was a threat to US security. The terror attack on a Bush I convoy in Iraq in 1994 was a minor factor. From the day Bush II took office, there were people constantly whispering in his ear about the threat of Iraq. It was not until the al Qaeda attack of Sept 11, 2001 that Bush II was swayed. They caught him at a weak moment and he never challenged their assumptions.

We now know that for the first time in US history the Vice President acted as Chief of Staff and Senior Political Advisor and undermined anyone who did not present things as he saw it. It's worhty to note now that Cheney and Rumsfeld were signers of the Neo-Con holy grail, the protest advertisment against Bush I for stopping the war after 119 hours. People like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith all through the 90s pushed that agenda and once Sept 11 came, saw it as vindication.


For 12 years after that decision, they grumbled. They wrote papers, they acgted as talking heads to prove their orginal point correct - truth be damed. Gulf War veterans have an abnormal "Gulf War Sickness" because they were exposed to low-level fallout of the burning weapons of mass destruction that did not register on sensors. In the days and weeks and months after the war the US military and the UN nuclrea non-proliferation organisations documented the Iraqi WMD and by 2000, a former US Marine, Scott Ritter swore in testimony before congress that Iraq did not have WMD capabilities.
Ritter was ignored in 2001 and 2002.

 

[nittie]

Yes, brother, we do have a War Powers Resolution - but the military actions that I've mentioned, and dozens upon dozens more in US history (in its totality) from the time of Washington were not conducted under the War Powers Resolution and Act.




/

This is where the anti-war people get it all wrong. The origins of Bush IIs war can be found in the hours and days and months after Bush I followed his honor and law given power to only oust Saddam's forces from Kuwait - not topple him. The orignial UN resolution and the original US Congressional resolutions backing the president in his potential use of power over the specific issue of Iraq invading Kuwait only provided for Saddam's removal from Kuwait. Doing so required dismantling his offensive power, meaning attaking southern Iraq and breaking his army enough that they withdraw.

The problem came with a bunch of people who would later be called Neo-Conservatives, who within a month of victory on March 2 and 3 of 1991, began to write that Saddam could not be "contained" and that the was a threat to US security. The terror attack on a Bush I convoy in Iraq in 1994 was a minor factor. From the day Bush II took office, there were people constantly whispering in his ear about the threat of Iraq. It was not until the al Qaeda attack of Sept 11, 2001 that Bush II was swayed. They caught him at a weak moment and he never challenged their assumptions.

We now know that for the first time in US history the Vice President acted as Chief of Staff and Senior Political Advisor and undermined anyone who did not present things as he saw it. It's worhty to note now that Cheney and Rumsfeld were signers of the Neo-Con holy grail, the protest advertisment against Bush I for stopping the war after 119 hours. People like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith all through the 90s pushed that agenda and once Sept 11 came, saw it as vindication.


For 12 years after that decision, they grumbled. They wrote papers, they acgted as talking heads to prove their orginal point correct - truth be damed. Gulf War veterans have an abnormal "Gulf War Sickness" because they were exposed to low-level fallout of the burning weapons of mass destruction that did not register on sensors. In the days and weeks and months after the war the US military and the UN nuclrea non-proliferation organisations documented the Iraqi WMD and by 2000, a former US Marine, Scott Ritter swore in testimony before congress that Iraq did not have WMD capabilities.
Ritter was ignored in 2001 and 2002.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions but opinion in this debate is only as strong as the evidence of law and justice and throughout this thread it's been deducted that politics or governing out weigh justice. So it's reasonable to conclude that the evidence presented here is what people in power want to make public.

 

[QueEx]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions but opinion in this debate is only as strong as the evidence of law and justice and throughout this thread it's been deducted that politics or governing out weigh justice. So it's reasonable to conclude that the evidence presented here is what people in power want to make public.

Well, I'm not saying Wobble is correct in all of his assertions, but what part do you disagree and what do you put forth as evidence of his error ???