Isn't that how the cold warriors described the Soviet Communist Party?

[Arne]: I think it incumbent on "shooter242" to explain why, when Congress has the power to declare wars, Congress should be assumed, absent any evidence or argument as to why this should be so, to have no powers to do the inverse.

Well let's see. In a war one wins, loses, or draws. Winning is a function of the Commander in Chief....

Oh, so an errant asteroid or the Soviet Politburo have justa a smuch power to "undeclare" a war as does Congress?

... A draw requires a treaty,...

So does a win or loss. WTF does that have to do with the price of tea in Sri Lanka?

... again the function of the executive to negotiate.

But Congress to approve. The preznit is just the point-man; the negotiator.

... Losing, well actually surrendering, isn't something the framers made provision for, as far as I know. I doubt Congress has that power ennumerated somewhere. Does that answer your question?

Not at all. Am I surprised?

Why is the question magically out of the hands of Congress once they first give the "A-OK"? Why, if Congress is competent and enabled to be the sole arbiters of whether a war should be declared, no longer compenent and empowered to call the war off?

Arne, you never fail to demonstrate on a regular basis that you have been, are now, and always will be, a dick.

Gotta love that argument, "shooter". I can live with being called a "dick". Can you deal with life as a Dubya-butt-sucking RWA eedjit?

Cheers,

P.S. to Sysprog.... Sure, Congress can vote verbiage to surrender all it likes, but getting it past a veto and public humiliation is another story altogether. Good luck with that, heh.

Thank you. Now crawl back under your rock.

Cheers,

DCLaw 1's theory is correct: BushCo is the culmination of forty years of conservatives remaking the political process in this country. The only question is, will we be able to revive the political process in time to make a difference in '08?

I have cautious optimism that we will.

Yes, the real premise for war by the 'small but powerful group' - having bases on key oil reserves - is just barely aluded to in in the MSM, perhaps in a scarce reference to the question of "permanent bases" now & then.

I assert the following:

This 'small group' derived the public support component of its influence by simply acquiring power, and as people in authority, asserting their cover story to the public. This is why journalists, protestors and activists cannot provide the rhetorical counter-weight that the Democrats who are in power could --- and inexplicably still refuse to do.

World stability, in no small measure, teeters on the absent willingness of Democrats to make some sort of hay with coherently articulted, repeated, consistent, cogent, relevant foreign policy dynamics. Americans are famished for an authoritative declaration of alternatives to "the dark side".

Any fan of this publication, or Charlie Rose -- or, hell even Bill Maher -- can conjure up the following:

1. A pre-announced exit 8-12 months hence would give Iraqi government actors the best chance of 'stiffening their backs'.

2. Bringing in regional players (and hopefully others) into the security and reconstruction effort would boost chances for regional peace looking forward, and diffuse at least some of the regional focus and hatred on the US

3. For all we might do while we're there, the 'bloody aftermath' of our leaving Iraq may be a necessary step in its stablization, as Sunni and Shia may accept nothing short of exhaustion as a premise for negotiating.

Just how beholden are Democrats to this "small but powerful group"? Their strategic silence is deafening.

"Sherman did what he had to do at that time. And it worked. But for a hundred years the South has hated him for it. It was horrific. I doubt the American public, or the world, would allow it to happen today, or that it could be forgiven in another hundred years."

Does sound like rather a bad strategy for ending the risk of Middle East terrorism against the US, doesn't it? I suppose Mr. Bush has some trouble keeping his focus for a long time on what exactly it was he is trying to achieve.

As a civil rights leader in the 1960's said in a prayer:

'Hows long,dear Lord, how long?' How long can these appalling people go on distorting the truth and getting away with it? Iraq is lost but the American military is reputedly building 10 military bases in Iraq. What will it take to get America out of there? Your present government sees American public opinion as something they can spin doctor into impotence. So far they've been correct in their analysis. The only solution is for the Democrats to cut funding for the war. Have they got the guts to do it knowing how the Republicans will use it against them? They should have faith in the good sense of the American public and do what they know is right regardless of the political fallout. It's a lousy job but someone has to do it. The Iraq war started with an avalanche of lies. It would be nice for it to end with one bracing moment of truth that can't be turned into anything other than what it is: the end of a war that should never have started. The Irag war was probably seen as a 'sideshow'- a bit of cleaning up that wouldn't take long-but now it's a sideshow that's destroying America's army, its economy and its image in the world. Whatever happened to the Clinton surplus? Just a distant memory now.

In the name of Allah: What's the Plan?

(2.13.07 post by cognitorex)

Tribes, religious fanatics, elites, sectarian differences, oil based economies, authoritarian rule, conflict resolution by guns and suicide are hallmarks of the Middle East.

I assume that most Middle East' citizens' primary desire is to arise each morning, safely see their children off to school and safely pursue a job that provides the daily bread. However, the short term political and economic outlook seems one of despair.

I am curious what a fifty or hundred year plan for the region might look like.

Individuals, businesses and nations need mission statements to direct future actions to a desired goal.

Just over a half century ago Europe last used guns to resolve conflicts and they now have their 'Union.'

Surely the world of Islam has a desire to be safe, prosperous and unified.

So, what would this vision entail?

How can we help?