WhAAAAT is Bob Kerrey all about!!!

[9215]

Bob Kerrey at the 9/11 Commission hearings

These fucking morons keep talking about declaring war as a presidential action. He fucking smiles and cooofuckingordially greets Rumsfeld and then goes on talking about the President should have or could have "declared" war on the terrorists???????


This country has been off of the Constitution so fucking long they forget what it says. Declarations of War are a function of the Congress. Over and over again I hear them talking about declarations of war by the president.

These fucking bozos are not going to solve anything. This is what is wrong with this country. They do not follow the Constitution and THAT is why this country is in such a world of shit. If these shitheads had been forced by Constitutional dictates to formally declare war none of this shit would happen. If they did declare war they would have verified the threat and, most importantly, they would all be accountable for its failure. Maybe thats the reason why they ignore the Constitutional reguirements for Congressional war powers: they releive themselves of the responsibility.


:grr: :grr: :puke:

[robertpaulsen]

1. Bob Kerrey only knows the responsibilities of his job

that Bush reminds him about. If it involves whoring cash from seniors to pharmaceutical corporations, Kerrey can vote on it. If it involves declaring war on a country, well that's Bush's responsibility, right?!

Makes me sick too.

[mmonk]

2. I wish Sen. Byrd was on this commission.

[Cronus Protagonist]

3. My take on that was he meant like the "war" on drugs

In other words, if the president had made this a top priority of his administration. The only problem I had with it is that he was implying that both the Clinton AND the Bush administration should have elevated the fight against terrorists to the highest levels, yet no mention of the fact that Clinton's administration actually tried to take out Bin Laden a few times but failed. The Bush administration didn't try to take him out, but instead gave the bin Laden family a free pass to get out of the country while thousands of people were stranded all over the world.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[snippy]

4. I am hoping that Kerrey is laying the groundwork of appearing non-partisan

so that when he rips Bush a gigantic new asshole a little later people can point to his prior statements as evidence of his objectivity.

[mmonk]

5. make no mistake

if making innuendo and charges against the Clinton admin. is laying the groundwork, it's been done.

[shoopnyc123]

6. Kerrey seems like he has other fish to fry...

and I don't know if it's good fish or bad fish...

[snippy]

11. I'm just hoping, not predicting.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. I think Kerrey

has been absorbed by the Borg. It happens to the best of them sometimes.

[sandnsea]

8. Kerrey's a hawk

That really is just who he is. But he hit both sides equally on the failures to create a comprehensive plan to go after al qaeda. From that angle alone, he did good. Cohen & Albright were concise. Rummy talked in circles and made no sense at all. And I think out and out lied. I don't think they can produce anything that says they were truly seeking a new "plan" to fight al qaeda.

[kentuck]

9. My take...

Bob Kerrey left a leg in Viet Nam and won the Medal of Honor. He ran for governor of Nebraska, a very Republican state, as a Democrat and won! He served two terms in the US Senate and ran for the Presidency once because he is a very ambitious person. He also dated Debra Winger when she was making Terms of Endearment in Nebraska...He left the Senate to become President of a University. He has always been an independent Democrat and I would not be as quick to make judgements as to his motives as some are inclined to do...

[keithyboy]

10. Kerrey is about hating Clinton...always has been

check out the record.

[9215]

12. This is a level of analysis issue

I understand Kerrey's motive: to set the groundwork for being non-partisan, etc. But the deeper rot here, a rot that must be dealt with in order to deal with this problem, is the casual way Congress and the Executive Branch toss around the phrase "declaring war". We are in the mess we are in because we are not following the Constitution; it is really that simple.

IMO it is everybody in Congress that is at fault as well for not insisting that the Constitution be enforced. Also, IMO, we are going to continue to have these kinds of disasters and they will get worse if we do not rectify this problem and it doesn't matter whether it is a Democract or a Repug in power, the malignancy may go into remission periodically, but it will come back stronger and stronger.

There is a system--a Constitution-- in place for a reason. In this case it is in place to prevent PRECISELY the kind of disaster we now face in Iraq. Bush (a President that was selected by the Supreme Court in an incredibly perverse diversion from due process) was allowed to go into what is now a full fledged "war" on lies gone unchecked by the restraints of a Constitutional system that would have required the Congress to declare war had it been adhered to. Congress would have had to sign on the dotted line and, in so doing, would have been equally responsible as the Executive Branch. The Congress, by shirking its war powers duties, is allowed to act irresponsibly.

What is so depressing is these supposedly "enlightened" politicos have not a goddamn clue, they are as dumb as dumb can be. They repeat their warped "conventional wisdom" until it pollutes their ability to think.


We have laws, rules and a Constitution for a reason, and that is to hold those in public office ACCOUNTABLE and we cannot hold them accountable if they do not SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE. What we have when we don't follow the Constitution is nothing more than a bunch of children yammering in a sandbox, or a bunch of thugs telling people what to do.

No one drafted, or even presently in the military is obligated to serve under these circumstances. They can simply invoke their Constitutional rights and their obligations to "uphold and defend the Constitution" as part of their responsibilities as citizens to oppose this illegal military enterprise. The war in Iraq is a direct and obvious violation of that Constitution.


This must be stated and restated whenever these fools we call our National Representatives start talking about "wars". This is not a war it is an illegal seizure of power and the abuse of that power resulted in sending young people to their deaths in an unprovoked attack on a foreign country. It opens this country up to immeasurable legal liabilities as well. All the other BS about pre-meditation, false information given to Congress, motive for attacking, etc. is interesting, but not neccessary for prosecuting these thugs.

A resolution should be as simple as having any National Representative petition for impeachment of the entire Executive Branch and remind those members in the Congress who do not sign that they are required by law to uphold the Constitution for impeachable offenses as well.

If this National Representative and his colleagues in favor need to they can enlist the citizenry in whatever capacity neccessary to further this petition process. What must happen is that ALL National Representatives must sign ONE WAY OR THE OTHER with the reasons stated.

[PCIntern]

13. He's on that Paula Zahn 'show' now

with Slade Gordon. another Prince of Men.

The problem with theese senators, the whole frigging bunch, is that when they get to the Senate they learn how to talk and talk and talk for hours about nothing at all whatsoever. They speechify and lecture and pontificate and when you've listened to what they have to say, they've said absolutely nothing. It always reminds me of that great passage in Asmiov's Foundation Trilogy when the shrewd operator tapes the emissary and says something to the effect that when you remove all the conjuctions, politesse, ifs, and, and buts, and the modifiers, that the fellow stated absolutely nothing of substance in hours and hours of speechmaking and conversation. Funny that he (Asimov)was writing of the McCarthy era and, like many Fantasy and SF writers of the day was making political statemnets in a milieu where they would not have otherwise been able to publish. Sound familiar?

Thee difference between the Bush2 folk and Nixon's people is that when faced with obvious guilt, even the Nixon people were sacrificed. Nowadays, these guys have absolute job retention which only improves when under the gun.

[David Zephyr]

14. Bob Kerrey is About Bob Kerrey.

Nothing has changed here.

He made "lesbian jokes" about Jerry Brown.

He called Bill Clinton "a particularly good liar".

He did his job today. He signaled to the world that this commission, like all the ones before it, will do nothing.

"Whenever a government commission is set up to study a problem, we can fairly well predict that nothing will result." --- Howard Zinn.

[MikeG]

15. He's a fuckhead. What more needs to be said.

[suegeo]

16. He bugs me

I didn't hear him asking questions (grandstanding), but I heard the commentators on Pacifica say that Kerrey was arguing for the President to be able to go to war and take military action basically whenever the President wants.

This attitude bugs me because the founders specifically wanted to separate the power of purse (congress) from the power of the sword (the president).

The "goodness" of the separation of powers idea was reaffirmed by Congress after the Iran Contra hearings. After concluding the Iran Contra hearings, the congress stated that one of Ronald Reagan's biggest fvck ups was trying to conduct a covert war with money obtained outside of Congress.

Congress said "Don't mess with Nicaragua. You get no money"

So that ole doof Reagan -- determined to have his war regardless of the law -- got his money to fight his war from someplace else other than congress(Ollie North got the cash from the Saudis, Brunei, arms sales, drugs, etc.)

This meant that there was no congressional oversight in wars where the sons and now daughters of us peasants must kill or be killed.

And congress, in analyzing the Reagan crime spree, concluded that this was wrong.

And so, for this Kerrey guy to be advocating the opposite of separating the power of the purse from the power of the sword is unwise and unAmerican.

I am confused about why Mr. Kerrey is advocating the idea of having a president be able to do whatever the hell he wants, without congressional oversight...

For instance, John Lennon said "war is dead". Meaning, war isn't an option for the elites to cull the herd anymore, because a nuclear war would wipe all of us out, including the elites.

So they cannot have all out war anymore. And so, they are tyring to erase the idea set into place by the founding fathers...

After the idea is erased, it will be replaced by WHAT?

That's where I get confused as to what they are really up to, and what new system of culling the herd they are trying to put in place.

Like I said, I don't know what they are up to with this erasure, but I am pretty sure they are up to no good.

Anyway, I am confused and hence, I am rambling...

[otohara]

17. Making It All About Bob Kerry

Whoa - what an ass he can be. I forgot!