Tell me if this letter to the editor doesn't make you sick....

<snip>


George Bush has brought moral values back to the White House. He did not let the terrorists get by destroying the Twin Towers, he went after them. He is finishing the job his dad started. Saddam Hussein has done horror to his own people. The world is a better place with him in a prison cell. The Democrats must think Saddam should still be in power, terrorizing his people, burying them alive, etc. He could have shipped the WMD out of the country before Bush sent our troops in. He is a wicked man. Many of the Iraqi people who left Iraq, now living in the U.S.A., were thrilled when they knew he was captured and when the military toppled his statue in Baghdad.
</snip>

http://www.marionstar.com/news/stories/20040313/opinion/71893.html

You will, won't you? :hi:

.

**Power in numbers** :thumbsup:

Government and the governed

The writer of the letter “Symbol of war” (Feb. 26) seems to have forgotten the principles that the United States was founded upon. The writer accused the American people of having obviously lost sight “of what our great nation stands for.” He went on to say, “My commander in chief should not have to justify why, where, or when we go to war.” Both of these statements are erroneous.

I have to agree that some Americans have forgotten what our country stands for. But certainly the people demanding that President Bush justify himself have not forgotten what our great nation stands for simply because they demand justification. The principles in the Declaration of Independence are just a few of those which our country was founded on. Yet it’s very clear that the founding fathers felt our government must justify itself to the governed. In the Constitution, they made this even more clear. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, says that it’s the power of the legislative branch – that’s Congress – to declare war. The executive branch is not given the power to declare war without the consent of Congress. The president (executive branch) is never given the power to declare war. This means that the commander in chief does have to justify why, where, and when we go to war.

In 1933, a democratic election put Adolf Hitler into office. Hitler didn’t gain his position through an entirely democratic election. Force and terror were used as persuasion. But Hitler – commander in chief or Reich chancellor – didn’t have to justify himself to his citizens. As a result, Hitler formed the Axis, sought to conquer the world, and slaughtered nearly 6 million Jews. Is this the kind of power that we seek to give President Bush? The power to do as he chooses without justifying his actions?

In the future, writers who attempt to sway public opinion should consider all of the facts, rather than only the ones that justify their own actions. The principles that our country were founded on are many and important. Most of them are spelled out in the Bill of Rights, including the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom to assemble, and the freedom to interact and influence the government. We take many things for granted because our forefathers were knowledgeable enough to establish a form of government that represents the desires of the people. This form of government has worked for more than 200 years. Hopefully it will continue to work for many, many more.

Part of the reason this government has worked is because its leaders have to justify themselves to the people. If the American public becomes lax in its duty to ensure the integrity of its leaders and its government, then that government must necessarily fall, as it will no longer meet the needs of the governed. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Christopher Ekberg
Bamberg, Germany

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=21005

"Yet it’s very clear that the founding fathers felt our government must justify itself to the governed. In the Constitution, they made this even more clear. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, says that it’s the power of the legislative branch – that’s Congress – to declare war. The executive branch is not given the power to declare war without the consent of Congress. The president (executive branch) is never given the power to declare war. This means that the commander in chief does have to justify why, where, and when we go to war."

This is incorrect.

The September 14th Resolution (of 2001) that was passed by Congress (almost unanimously) gave the President the permission to use military force when hunting down terrorism.

In other words, it was green light to go strike down the Taliban.

Legally, Bush could have used the Sept. 14 resolution to go to Iraq. However, it was a bit of a stretch but legally, Bush can use the military in any strike against 'supposed' terrorism anywhere everywhere.

Bush decided to get another resolution on military action in Iraq alone. Congress passed it (Kerry voted for it).

While that writer from Germany was trying to quote the Constitution, he didn't notice that the Constitution gives no formal manner on how war is declared. In other words, the passing of resolutions is equal to the declarations of war.

Whether we like it or not, Congress (who had access to the same intelligence Bush did) DID formally OK the Iraq invasion.

We can say Bush was stupid for going into Iraq, but we will sound stupid if we say Bush went against Congress.

and there WAS no link between Iraq and the Taliban, no amount of wishing by Republicans will make that truthful. No link to the Taliban means no reason to go to war with Iraq (no terrorists in Iraq - sorry nice try). The part about Congress having the same intel as the Executive Branch is just wild speculation on your part. Congress passed the War Powers act back in the 60s, but still it is not the role of the President to decide who we go to war with. You saying it does not make it so.

Oh yeah, welcome to DU.

Thanks for the welcome =)

I'm not talking about terrorism in Iraq. I'm referring to the letter writer who said that Bush went against Congress on Iraq. That just isn't true because a seperate resolution was passed by Congress on Iraq.

Bush was stupid for going to Iraq. But we will look stupid if we said he went against Congress. Why? Because it isn't factually true. There is that Iraq resolution Congress passed (which Kerry voted for).

When Congress gets presented with these resolutions, it gets access to the intelligence on the matter. These people have access to all sorts of information.

The War Powers Act refers to the President INFORMING Congress on military action. The War Powers Act doesn't apply to Iraq because of the seperate Iraq Resolution. Congress was informed BEFORE military action was taken, not AFTER.

It's very clear that Bush got the Congress's OK to use military action in Iraq before the first missile was fired.

My hobby is Constitutional Law. If Congress represents the people, it could be argued that THE PEOPLE gave Bush the OK to go to Iraq.

The Midterm elections were held before the operation began in Iraq. Since the midterm relections were very much focused on the Iraq War, and since the elections oddly favored the Republicans then, they could easily use that as example of the 'will of the people' to go to Iraq.

Shouldn't we blame Congress along with Bush?

It sounds like a Bob Boudelang special. Are you certain it was meant to be taken seriously?

People slander our president by running false propaganda on the TV. Nothing happens to them, because we have a free society. If this happened in Iraq, Saddam would have them tortured and killed.

Is she suggesting we become more like Saddam's Iraq and do just that? I read nothing in her letter suggesting that she thinks free speech is a good thing.

We have some of the most backward hicks ever. This lady is just an idiot, and yes...she's 110% serious. You should see some of the asinine letters that have been written to my local paper, I should post them weekly here, because they're a riot.

Just put the issue into perspective in your reply. If necessary, remind the original writer that even Christ said, "love your enemies."

Remind the readers that Saddam was not good, but that neither is Bush, by his violation of international law which ultimately killed many innocent Iraqis which may have felt the same about Hussein as the original writer. Remind the readers that from all the evidence that Bush and his administration lied about Hussein's weapons, and that they lied for their own political purposes.

Tell the readers of your paper that they were lied to by the Bush administration--given the facts so far, that's an honest assessment.

Cheers.

It would be like living inside Faux news channel. Post your response letter for us too when you write it. I'd love to see what you wrote back to that fool.

The writer apparently cannot think for himself, and he's just regurgitating what's been drummed into his head on Sean Hannity's radio program.

He's an idiot. I feel bad for the poor bastard.

anywhere.

America does seem to have a lot of them, though ....

Especially the fact that the writer is barely literate. Hilarious! I wouldn't respond at all, it stands very well by itself as an example of stupidity.

Make me feel at home will you? I am trying to forget.

The ones that mommy & daddy filled full of RW shit 24/7, and watch Fox News (and believe it).