^This is my last post in this thread since it appears that you will tirelessly cling on to your flawed opinion in your sea of conspiracy even when offered a lifesaver in the form of the Truth.^

I think you’re giving up because you’re tired of pulling half-baked information out of your ASS. There’s nothing TRUTHFUL about what you’re saying here. My argument is based 100% on the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, while yours is based on ignorance and what George Bush says…

^ That means the military does, whatever the President tells it to do. There is no gray area there. The President is in the military’s chain of command while Congress is not. ^

LISTEN/READ: I ALWAYS THE SAID THE PRESIDENT COMMANDS THE MILITARY – AND NEVER DID I SAY NO TO THAT. HOWEVER, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION GIVES CONGRESS CERTAIN RIGHTS OVER THE MILITARY. YOU READ IT YOUR DAMN SELF, AND STOP RECYCLING YOUR GARBAGE TO FILL UP YOUR NON-EXISTENT ARGUMENT. DAMN!

IN ADDITION, THE GEORGE BUSH CANNOT DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. SO, EVEN IF GEORGE BUSH COMMANDS THE MILITARY, HE CANNOT COMMAND THEM TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS BECAUSE HE, AS THE PRESIDENT, CANNOT DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. What is it that’s so hard for you to understand

It’s really easy….George Bush commands the military, yet George Bush cannot LEGALLY declare war(FORMAL OR NOT). Therefore, there’s a limit on what Bush can do as president and commander of the military, because he doesn’t have certain power unless congress grant them to him.

Seriously, are you slow, Kdogg? I mean…Go to ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8, and you’ll see the powers of congress.

Here, I’ll help you out:

- To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water

- To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years

- To provide and maintain a navy

- To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

- To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions

- To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

I think your problem is you lack basic comprehension skills, which prohibits you from understanding the difference between REGULATE and DIRECT/COMMAND.

I think you’re giving up because you’re tired of pulling half-baked information out of your ASS. There’s nothing TRUTHFUL about what you’re saying here. My argument is based 100% on the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, while yours is based on ignorance and what George Bush says…

>>>This is my last post in this thread since it appears that you will tirelessly cling on to your flawed opinion in your sea of conspiracy even when offered a lifesaver in the form of the Truth.<<>> That means the military does, whatever the President tells it to do. There is no gray area there. The President is in the military’s chain of command while Congress is not. <<<

con’t…

>>>This is my last post in this thread since it appears that you will tirelessly cling on to your flawed opinion in your sea of conspiracy even when offered a lifesaver in the form of the Truth.<<>> That means the military does, whatever the President tells it to do. There is no gray area there. The President is in the military’s chain of command while Congress is not. <<<

I think your problem is you lack basic comprehension skills, which prohibits you from understanding the difference between REGULATE and DIRECT/COMMAND. Just take your time and read it over a few times to get an understand of what they really mean…

Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution gives the the President “SOLE” command of the military. hence the name “Commander in Chief.”

Article II Section II.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States

That means the military does, whatever the President tells it to do. There is no gray area there. The President is in the military’s chain of command while Congress is not.

You are right. Only Congress can declare war. However, again I must point out that We are not in a declared war This administration has successfully argued that this “war” is a conlict that is the result of the nation defending itself. By using this “defense of the nation” definition and refusing to declare it a war, the administration is keeping the decision out of the hands of Congress.

You are so naive in thinking that Congress actually oversees or even has the ability to oversee the proper appropriation of DOD funds. They may designate a certain amount to the military but the DOD actually divvies it up. As I said before, remember the $1000 hammers? Yeah they can cut out the supplemental “Global War on Terror” funds but the annual appropriations (the money the military would be getting even if there was no war) would be untouched. Congress would not dare touch the regular/annual appropriation since that money is actually needed to maintain the country’s defense.

Without the extra war funding, the military would just get creative in getting money. They would also cutback on things that are in place for the troops morale and welfare.

The war will go on unless Congress declares the war to be illegal or there is an administration change. Even then, the pullout will have to be calculated, steady, and unannounced.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

DON’T CUT THE FUNDING THAT ALSO HELPS PAY FOR THEIR PROTECTIVE ARMOR, AND MORALE BOOSTERS LIKE PHONE CALLS AND FLIGHTS HOME, HOT MEALS, HEALTHCARE, LAUNDRY SERVICES, INTERNET ACCESS, SATELLITE TV,DAILY MAIL SERVICE, TRANSLATORS, AND INFORMANTS!

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

DON’T CUT THE FUNDING THAT ALSO HELPS PAY FOR THEIR PROTECTIVE ARMOR, AND MORALE BOOSTERS LIKE PHONE CALLS AND FLIGHTS HOME, HOT MEALS, HEALTHCARE, LAUNDRY SERVICES, INTERNET ACCESS, SATELLITE TV,DAILY MAIL SERVICE, TRANSLATORS, AND INFORMANTS!

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

DON’T CUT THE FUNDING THAT ALSO HELPS PAY FOR THEIR PROTECTIVE ARMOR, AND MORALE BOOSTERS LIKE PHONE CALLS AND FLIGHTS HOME, HOT MEALS, HEALTHCARE, LAUNDRY SERVICES, INTERNET ACCESS, SATELLITE TV,DAILY MAIL SERVICE, TRANSLATORS, AND INFORMANTS!

“Why do these civil rights era negroes want three decades of the Bush and Clinton families? Dr. King wouldn’t be supporting that sh*t.”

Firstly, I doubt that you are qualified to speak on Dr. King’s behalf and Secondly, and most importantly, Dr. King would never advocate his people to choose a candidate based on the color of his skin and not the content of his character…do you remember the “I Have a Dream” speech? It’s an insult to Dr. King’s legacy that you promote the choosing of Barack Obama on the basis of his race and not on who he has proven himself to be. Check yo’self, People!

I tell you, this herd menatality is what’s going to lead America to a very dangerous path.

The ONLY way to support our troops is to bring them home to safety. Letting them stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, in harm’s way, is NOT supporting them. And many of the troops are counting on Americans to help them come home to their family and friends.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

BRING THEM HOME!

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

BRING THEM HOME!

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

BRING THEM HOME!

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

BRING THEM HOME!

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

BRING THEM HOME!

By your logic, there’s no way out of of Iraq and Afghanistan, and that’s an ignorantly false way of thinking.

1. American troops being in the middle east automatically put them in harm’s way – and anyone who honestly care for them, will advocate for their withdrawal instead of hiding behind a “we’re going to hurt them if you stop approving billions of dollars” mask.

2. Those who claim to care so much for the troops, and advocate them to stay in the Middle East turn a blind eye to their suffering when many of them make it to the states, depressed, unemployed, and unsheltered.

3. Anybody with a half of a working brain will see that everything, including contracts to Halliburton, is about ‘funding the troops’.

4. The “Funding the troops” bunch will continue their propaganda 10 years on if that’s what’s needed to keep the imperialism going in Iraq.

5. Democrats won the mid term elections on the platform that they’d bring the troops home. So why are they still there?

6. “No No No, we’re hurting the troops” has been deeply implemented in the collective conscious of the average American, by both the Republicans and the Democrats, and that’s sad…

Which basically means that when he gives them a lawful order, they must obey it and Congress has no power to give any orders to the military. Even if Congress were to actually “declare war,” they still would not have any Constitutional authority over the military. They could not deploy or direct them. That is left to the Executive Branch, which the President heads.<<<

Please direct me when it says the president shall hae sole command of the military…

______________________________________

Article 2 Section 2:

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

______________________________________

>>>Even if Congress were to actually “declare war,” they still would not have any Constitutional authority over the military. They could not deploy or direct them. That is left to the Executive Branch, which the President heads.<<>>The President does not need Congress’ approval to protect the nation. That has been this Administrations justification since the war started. I don’t agree with it. I know that its an excuse to keep the power in the hands of the Executive Branch but that doesn’t change the fact that our troops will be hurt first and the most by cuts in war funding.<<<

1. The Despite the pre-war rhetoric of the Bush Administration and many Republicans and Democrats, the “protect the nation” mantra was proven to be a farce a few months after they went into Iraq, and that was in 2003! We are now in 2008!!!!!!!

2. Despite the dictatorial opinions of the “president” and many others, the president cannot wage war on his own – as it’s not permitted by the constitution. So going back to my original statement: CONGRESS HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO STOP THE WAR.

3. In a country where laws speak, the opinions of a president wouldn’t mean anything if we had congress people who were willing to challenge him. But since the majority of those in congress are pro-war (eventhough some mascarade as the oppositite: Obama), they are not interested in utilizing their WAR POWERS to end it.

4. Again, and again, and again, the troops will NOT be hurt by cutting funds, and that is because congress has the power to provide CONDITIONAL FUNDING, which will not cut funds related directly to the troops. Which part of that do no you not understand?

>>>Even if Congress stopped the extra funding, they would still have to provide for salaries, food, lodging, and national defense. Which again the administration considers the Iraq war part of our nations defense. Even with reduced funding, the military could still carry out the mission albeit less effectively. Since they would have to ration supplies like ammo, armor, communications, etc.. Who do you think they will blame?<<<

Again, this is a MYTH.

1. I will say it again…Even when congress approves funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, all poritions of funds will go to a specific aspect of the war. In result, troops can and WILL recieive EVERYTHING they need to survive until they make it home.

2. A president cannot use ice cream money to buy cake.

Even if the entire Congress stood in front of a soldier and told him to “go left” and the President told him to “go right”, the soldier is legally obligated to follow the President’s “lawful” orders. Congress is not in the Chain of command. That’s why we would still be over there without the extra funding. Congress should not be trying to cut the funding, they should be trying to declare the war illegal. That would make the Presidents orders illegal/unlawful and then the military could legally choose not to obey them.