51 dead in september. 55 so far this month. 8 of the 55 just today in one attack.....

[LibocalypseNow]

Well hey at least Hopey Changey is getting in more rounds of Golf than our previous President. This guy has been a real disappointment to our kids over there. Their Commander in Chief really has let them down. He has only been Half-Hearted in his approach to Afghanistan. He has been far more aggressive in fighting Wars against his own people at this point. Look for some sort of Half-Measure decision from this President on Afghanistan in the coming weeks. He is clearly not fully committed to winning over there so it is time to bring our kids home. You cannot possibly win a War fighting it only Half-Hearted. Our kids deserve better than this.

 

[saveliberty]

in our constitution, he is commander in chief in WAR, but the WAR MUST BE DECLARED BY CONGRESS with 2/3's vote of YEA or greater.... anything less than 2/3's yes vote of both houses of congress, THERE IS NO WAR for the President to Command.

Ummm, Afghanistan is war. The dead and the families of the dead don't give a shit about semantics. They want their loved ones home or with the help they need.

then i would suggest, that we follow our constitution for a change, and force congress to DECLARE WAR in afghanistan.... if they declare war and get 2/3's of congress/senate voting yes for the war....then it will be supported and funded till the cows come home....

IF congress does not get the 2/3's voting yes for warring in afghanistan, then the troops come home....no funding for war.

very simple, and precisely how our founding fathers prescribed it to be in our constitution.... it is up to ''we the people'' through representation to decide to send our children to die in a war....

then it is up to the president to command this war, through his military commanders, through his cia, through his foreign relations depts, through the intelligence and security areas and state dept, defense dept etc....he is commander of all, regarding the war....

congress is still his overseer, and they can cut or increase the presidents funds to run the war... the president can veto bills he feels are insufficient....the congress can override those vetos with 2/3rds vote.... it is still a shared responsibility basically...

that's my understanding of it all....

care

Everything seems to be in order here. I always thought the Commander in Chief position was to allow for a fast response and single voice on the issue of starting a war. In order for that to continue, Congress is supposed to declare the war and authorize payment of the costs. A Democratic Congress let the weight of that fall on Bush for political advantage. A Democratic Congress now needs to lend support to their President.

 

[bodecea]

in our constitution, he is commander in chief in WAR, but the WAR MUST BE DECLARED BY CONGRESS with 2/3's vote of YEA or greater.... anything less than 2/3's yes vote of both houses of congress, THERE IS NO WAR for the President to Command.

Ummm, Afghanistan is war. The dead and the families of the dead don't give a shit about semantics. They want their loved ones home or with the help they need.

then i would suggest, that we follow our constitution for a change, and force congress to DECLARE WAR in afghanistan.... if they declare war and get 2/3's of congress/senate voting yes for the war....then it will be supported and funded till the cows come home....

IF congress does not get the 2/3's voting yes for warring in afghanistan, then the troops come home....no funding for war.

very simple, and precisely how our founding fathers prescribed it to be in our constitution.... it is up to ''we the people'' through representation to decide to send our children to die in a war....

then it is up to the president to command this war, through his military commanders, through his cia, through his foreign relations depts, through the intelligence and security areas and state dept, defense dept etc....he is commander of all, regarding the war....

congress is still his overseer, and they can cut or increase the presidents funds to run the war... the president can veto bills he feels are insufficient....the congress can override those vetos with 2/3rds vote.... it is still a shared responsibility basically...

that's my understanding of it all....

care

AND...if Congress does declare war, we can go all out...no ROE. The full force of the U.S. military industrial complex will smack them down. And no anti-war protests either.

 

[Wicked Jester]

that's what ya get for electing these shit eatin' dawg democraps. their to busy writing tax bills to worry about this

Maybe you can call for their assassination too.

Nah, we just to need to BEAT the liberal out of 'em!

 

[LibocalypseNow]

No War can be won if you fight it Half-Hearted. This President has only been Half-Hearted in his approach to Afghanistan. The Taliban & Al Qaeda are fully committed to winning over there but are we? I believe this President will come up with another Half-Hearted decision on Afghanistan which will not lead to Victory in any way. So it really is time to bring our kids home. I just don't see any other answer.

 

[Care4all]

Ummm, Afghanistan is war. The dead and the families of the dead don't give a shit about semantics. They want their loved ones home or with the help they need.

then i would suggest, that we follow our constitution for a change, and force congress to DECLARE WAR in afghanistan.... if they declare war and get 2/3's of congress/senate voting yes for the war....then it will be supported and funded till the cows come home....

IF congress does not get the 2/3's voting yes for warring in afghanistan, then the troops come home....no funding for war.

very simple, and precisely how our founding fathers prescribed it to be in our constitution.... it is up to ''we the people'' through representation to decide to send our children to die in a war....

then it is up to the president to command this war, through his military commanders, through his cia, through his foreign relations depts, through the intelligence and security areas and state dept, defense dept etc....he is commander of all, regarding the war....

congress is still his overseer, and they can cut or increase the presidents funds to run the war... the president can veto bills he feels are insufficient....the congress can override those vetos with 2/3rds vote.... it is still a shared responsibility basically...

that's my understanding of it all....

care

AND...if Congress does declare war, we can go all out...no ROE. The full force of the U.S. military industrial complex will smack them down. And no anti-war protests either.

That's what I am saying.....and this is what is missing...a solid 2/3's vote as yes to this war...

once that happens it shuts all up and the usa being the usa that I loved, most all being on the same side, as Americans.....

This divisiveness that congress allows by not having to commit one way or the other on something as serious as war, allows them to position us against one another and helps them win their votes needed from these different 'sides' to stay in power forever....

if we had 2/3's of congress behind the war, as required by our founding fathers, then it would unite the country behind the cause and the President and we would win this sucker over there in a heartbeat....

otherwise, we are wasting the lives of innocent men and women in the military by being there....and our country will stay divided....

Divided, we fall.....it is the Devil's tactic!

 

[bodecea]

But in the system of the USA, the President is the Commander in Chief. It's a constitutional thing.

The President is CinC, he conducts the war, Congress declares war. May I suggest a wonderful document on this:

LII: Constitution

You pointless, pathetic moron. Your own source includes Article II - the President is Commander in Chief.

Have you bothered to read Article I....this IS 8th grade American government level stuff we're talking here, you know.

 

[namvet]

that's what ya get for electing these shit eatin' dawg democraps. their to busy writing tax bills to worry about this

Maybe you can call for their assassination too.

Nah, we just to need to BEAT the liberal out of 'em!

Osama is now considering something called 'McChrystal Light' is that a new beer???

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/28/obama-reportedly-eyeing-mcchrystal-light-plan-afghan-war-small-troop-boost/?test=latestnews"]story[/URL]

by his own admission he knows nothing about foreign policy. that's why he pick Biden. who was promptly thrown under the bus. who IS running this???? I cringe to think

 

[bodecea]

that's what ya get for electing these shit eatin' dawg democraps. their to busy writing tax bills to worry about this

Maybe you can call for their assassination too.

Nah, we just to need to BEAT the liberal out of 'em!

So...physically assault them...but not to the point of death. That's saved for the President, right?

 

[bodecea]

then i would suggest, that we follow our constitution for a change, and force congress to DECLARE WAR in afghanistan.... if they declare war and get 2/3's of congress/senate voting yes for the war....then it will be supported and funded till the cows come home....

IF congress does not get the 2/3's voting yes for warring in afghanistan, then the troops come home....no funding for war.

very simple, and precisely how our founding fathers prescribed it to be in our constitution.... it is up to ''we the people'' through representation to decide to send our children to die in a war....

then it is up to the president to command this war, through his military commanders, through his cia, through his foreign relations depts, through the intelligence and security areas and state dept, defense dept etc....he is commander of all, regarding the war....

congress is still his overseer, and they can cut or increase the presidents funds to run the war... the president can veto bills he feels are insufficient....the congress can override those vetos with 2/3rds vote.... it is still a shared responsibility basically...

that's my understanding of it all....

care

AND...if Congress does declare war, we can go all out...no ROE. The full force of the U.S. military industrial complex will smack them down. And no anti-war protests either.

That's what I am saying.....and this is what is missing...a solid 2/3's vote as yes to this war...

once that happens it shuts all up and the usa being the usa that I loved, most all being on the same side, as Americans.....

This divisiveness that congress allows by not having to commit one way or the other on something as serious as war, allows them to position us against one another and helps them win their votes needed from these different 'sides' to stay in power forever....

if we had 2/3's of congress behind the war, as required by our founding fathers, then it would unite the country behind the cause and the President and we would win this sucker over there in a heartbeat....

otherwise, we are wasting the lives of innocent men and women in the military by being there....and our country will stay divided....

Divided, we fall.....it is the Devil's tactic!

You bring up some excellent points.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Maybe you can call for their assassination too.

Nah, we just to need to BEAT the liberal out of 'em!

So...physically assault them...but not to the point of death. That's saved for the President, right?

Nah, we can just beat the liberal out of him too!

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Good points Care4all. No more Foreign Interventions or Police Actions. Either declare War in the fashion our Constitution requires or don't go to War at all. Poor Dr. Paul has been screaming about this for years but it just doesn't seem to register with either party. Both parties only care about our Constitution when they see some sort of political gain from it. Very few of our current crop of politicians really care about following our Constitution. It is very sad but it is what it is. Good points though Care4all.

 

[namvet]

poor Osama. caught between a rock and a hard place. his own party keeps threatning to stop funding. that's why he won't act. fear of the party hacks who just might refuse to re elect him. shades of LBJ ????

 

[bodecea]

poor Osama. caught between a rock and a hard place. his own party keeps threatning to stop funding.

If they do, they would be very courageous and that would be a simple end to the issue. Everyone would come home then. Ipso Facto. But then you would use that against the Democrats, calling them "cut n' runners" wouldn't you?

that's why he won't act. fear of the party hacks who just might refuse to re elect him. shades of LBJ ????

No, it has nothing to do with trying to make a very careful, well thought out decision rather than being a partisan hack (like you) and making some snap, shoot-from-the-lip decision.


Personally, I hope Congress steps up and takes their JOB seriously.

 

[Si modo]

poor Osama. caught between a rock and a hard place. his own party keeps threatning to stop funding.

If they do, they would be very courageous and that would be a simple end to the issue. Everyone would come home then. Ipso Facto. But then you would use that against the Democrats, calling them "cut n' runners" wouldn't you?

that's why he won't act. fear of the party hacks who just might refuse to re elect him. shades of LBJ ????

No, it has nothing to do with trying to make a very careful, well thought out decision rather than being a partisan hack (like you) and making some snap, shoot-from-the-lip decision.


Personally, I hope Congress steps up and takes their JOB seriously.

And exactly how long do you, personally, give a 'commander' to make a decision about either helping boots on the ground in a war zone or pulling them out, especially when the boots on the ground tell the 'commander' that time is critical, before that 'commander' is incompetent?

 

[Wicked Jester]

poor Osama. caught between a rock and a hard place. his own party keeps threatning to stop funding.

If they do, they would be very courageous and that would be a simple end to the issue. Everyone would come home then. Ipso Facto. But then you would use that against the Democrats, calling them "cut n' runners" wouldn't you?

that's why he won't act. fear of the party hacks who just might refuse to re elect him. shades of LBJ ????

No, it has nothing to do with trying to make a very careful, well thought out decision rather than being a partisan hack (like you) and making some snap, shoot-from-the-lip decision.


Personally, I hope Congress steps up and takes their JOB seriously.

And exactly how long do you, personally, give a 'commander' to make a decision about either helping boots on the ground in a war zone or pulling them out, especially when the boots on the ground tell the 'commander' that time is critical, before that 'commander' is incompetent?

Forget it!

Bodykea is a loony lockstep Obamabot clown. She'll NEVER hold Obama accountable for anything.

That's already been proven up here.

 

[Si modo]

If they do, they would be very courageous and that would be a simple end to the issue. Everyone would come home then. Ipso Facto. But then you would use that against the Democrats, calling them "cut n' runners" wouldn't you?



No, it has nothing to do with trying to make a very careful, well thought out decision rather than being a partisan hack (like you) and making some snap, shoot-from-the-lip decision.


Personally, I hope Congress steps up and takes their JOB seriously.

And exactly how long do you, personally, give a 'commander' to make a decision about either helping boots on the ground in a war zone or pulling them out, especially when the boots on the ground tell the 'commander' that time is critical, before that 'commander' is incompetent?

Forget it!

Bodykea is a loony lockstep Obamabot clown. She'll NEVER hold Obama accountable for anything.

That's already been proven up here.

Partisan sell-outs are ugly characters, eh?

 

[Wicked Jester]

And exactly how long do you, personally, give a 'commander' to make a decision about either helping boots on the ground in a war zone or pulling them out, especially when the boots on the ground tell the 'commander' that time is critical, before that 'commander' is incompetent?

Forget it!

Bodykea is a loony lockstep Obamabot clown. She'll NEVER hold Obama accountable for anything.

That's already been proven up here.

Partisan sell-outs are ugly characters, eh?

Yep!

 

[Si modo]

The President is CinC, he conducts the war, Congress declares war. May I suggest a wonderful document on this:

LII: Constitution

You pointless, pathetic moron. Your own source includes Article II - the President is Commander in Chief.

Have you bothered to read Article I....this IS 8th grade American government level stuff we're talking here, you know.

Somehow you want to dispute what I said - that the president being the CiC is a constitutional issue.

As I said, you're a pathetic, pointless moron who grasps at anything to convince herself of something (God only knows what that is).

 

[bodecea]

If they do, they would be very courageous and that would be a simple end to the issue. Everyone would come home then. Ipso Facto. But then you would use that against the Democrats, calling them "cut n' runners" wouldn't you?



No, it has nothing to do with trying to make a very careful, well thought out decision rather than being a partisan hack (like you) and making some snap, shoot-from-the-lip decision.


Personally, I hope Congress steps up and takes their JOB seriously.

And exactly how long do you, personally, give a 'commander' to make a decision about either helping boots on the ground in a war zone or pulling them out, especially when the boots on the ground tell the 'commander' that time is critical, before that 'commander' is incompetent?

Forget it!

Bodykea is a loony lockstep Obamabot clown. She'll NEVER hold Obama accountable for anything.

That's already been proven up here.

I hold and have held Obama accountable for many things such as his war policy (I'm just more understanding of someone not rushing to make a decision that may cost lives just to make a decision), his financial policy, his policy on DADT and DOMA. But, knowing that you only read and hear what you want to read and hear...I can understand you being wrong on this....or just flat out lying too.

But...if it HAS been proven, show us that proof. I'd like to see it too.