[Winstonm]

Lieberman:

“The American people ... have been attacked on 9/11 by the same enemy that we’re fighting in Iraq today, supported by a rising Islamist radical super-powered government in Iran,” said Lieberman. “Allowing Iraq to collapse would be a disaster for the Iraqis, for the Middle East, for us, that would embolden the Iranians and al-Qaida, who are our enemies. And they would follow us back here.”

Hagel:

“[T]he fact is, the Iraqi people will determine the fate of Iraq,” Hagel responded. “The people of the Middle East will determine their fate. We continue to interject ourselves in a situation that we never have understood, we’ve never comprehended [and] we now have to devise a way to find some political consensus with our allies [and] the regional powers, including Iran and Syria.

“To say that we are going to feed more young men and women into that grinder, put them in the middle of a tribal, sectarian civil war, is not going to fix the problem,” he added.

[helene_t]

Is the U.S. presidental election only about the Middle East? What about domestic politics? Doesn't the U.S. people care about their own country?

[mike777]

helene_t, on Jan 23 2007, 01:43 AM, said:

Is the U.S. presidental election only about the Middle East? What about domestic politics? Doesn't the U.S. people care about their own country?

the election is not for 2 years....bush just got reelected...4 year terms.

[Al_U_Card]

Gee, Lieberman is against Islamic fundamentalism.....there's a stretch.

The US helped Saddam stay in power as a secular bulwark against the Ayatollahs in Iran. The Bush family vendetta against Saddam caused all of this and certain elements of the religious right (can we start calling them the religious wrong?) and the capitalist elite just jumped on for the ride....

[mike777]

"Gee, Lieberman is against Islamic fundamentalism.....there's a stretch."

I think this is 100% wrong. If you have any proof of this please let us know.
In fact I think he has respect for Islamic fundamentalism to a great degree.

[Gpm_bg]

How many times someone could be elected for president, according to US constitution?
I know that not more then two in row, but is that the end ? If he/she miss one mandate. Does he can try for another one after that ?

[pbleighton]

""Gee, Lieberman is against Islamic fundamentalism.....there's a stretch."

I think this is 100% wrong. If you have any proof of this please let us know.
In fact I think he has respect for Islamic fundamentalism to a great degree."

You're right, Mike. Lieberman is a religious bigot, but his target is not Islamic fundamentalism. He is viciously anti-atheist and anti-agnostic (he said at one point that civilization is impossible without religion).

BTW, his nickname in CT is Holy Joe (as in holier than thou).

Peter

[Winstonm]

Actually, IMO the more interesting point is Senator Hagel's pointed rebukes of the Bush administration's policies seeing that he is Republican - I haven't seen a Democrat make such strong statements.

[Al_U_Card]

The quote speaks volumes.

“The American people ... have been attacked on 9/11 by the same enemy that we’re fighting in Iraq today,"

They are killing this enemy, so who is dying? Why, american soldiers and Iraqi civilians by the score. We have seen the enemy, and he is us.

[bid_em_up]

Gpm_bg, on Jan 23 2007, 09:13 AM, said:

How many times someone could be elected for president, according to US constitution?
I know that not more then two in row, but is that the end ? If he/she miss one mandate. Does he can try for another one after that ?

No.

The maximum any US president can serve is two elected terms (whether or not they are consecutive terms).

The only possible way to serve more than this would be to be promoted (ie, impeachment or death of current president) from VP (or Speaker of the House, or lower succession order) to President, and then they can then be elected to two terms of their own. Theoretically, they could then serve a maximum total of 12 (see post below) 10 years.

They could, also be promoted as above and serve that term out, win the election once, lose the next election, and still be eligible to be elected to one more term in office, so that they end up serving more than 8 total years in office. Or they could be promoted, serve the term out, and not win the next election. Then they would still be eligible for two elected terms in office.

The key point is they may only serve two ELECTED terms in office.

(At least that is my understanding, I could be mistaken).

EDIT: I was, see next post.

[bid_em_up]

er, correction.


22nd Amendment, US Constitution
"Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

So they can only have two additional elected terms, if they served two years or less of a prior presidents term, making the maximum in office ten years. If they served more than 2 years of a prior presidents term, then they are only eligible for one more elected term (at any time).

As a side note, of the current living presidents and former presidents, only Jimmy Carter, and .....you guessed it, George H. W. Bush (the elder Bush), are currently eligible to be elected to another term in office. All others have been elected to two terms in office.

It is also unclear if a former president who has served two terms could be elected to the Vice-Presidency, and then assume the office of President if the elected president should resign, die, etc. The 22nd amendment does not address this issue and I think the US Supreme Court would have to decide whether this was possible or not. So far, it has not been tested.....but it could be if Hillary were to attempt to name Bill as her veep.........

[jtfanclub]

bid_em_up, on Jan 23 2007, 11:45 AM, said:

22nd Amendment, US Constitution
"Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

So they can only have two additional elected terms, if they served two years or less of a prior presidents term, making the maximum in office ten years.

Actually, there's another way to do it. Bill could run for Hillary's Senate seat and win, be chosen as the president pro tem of the Senate, the President, Vice President, and Speaker of the House all be killed during the President's initial inaugural address, and Bill would become President by default for four years. If Gerald Ford had been president before Nixon, when Agnew was jailed and Nixon resigned he would have become president even though he'd been President before.

So you could serve two terms as President, then be elected to the House, named Speaker, having something happen to the President and Vice President, become President by the order of succession, serve out the term, get elected to the House again, become Speaker again, lather, rinse, repeat....

[luke warm]

let's disect winston's quote of lieberman to see where/if he is wrong

Quote

“The American people ... have been attacked on 9/11 by the same enemy that we’re fighting in Iraq today, supported by a rising Islamist radical super-powered government in Iran...”

is that true? are we fighting al qaida in iraq, and is iran becoming a rising islamic radical superpower that is supporting these terrorists?

Quote

“Allowing Iraq to collapse would be a disaster for the Iraqis, for the Middle East, for us, that would embolden the Iranians and al-Qaida, who are our enemies. And they would follow us back here.”

how about this? if we do withdraw and if as a result of that withdrawal the duly elected gov't of iraq was to fall, would that be a disaster (ie against our nat'l interests) for us? for the middle east? for the iraqis themselves? would this embolden iran and al qaida and are they our enemy? and finally, would the fight move from there to here?

it seems to me that while those questions might not can be answered 100% yea or nay, there can be a way to determine if one or all are *mostly* correct

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Jan 23 2007, 06:30 PM, said:

let's disect winston's quote of lieberman to see where/if he is wrong

Quote

“The American people ... have been attacked on 9/11 by the same enemy that we’re fighting in Iraq today, supported by a rising Islamist radical super-powered government in Iran...”

is that true? are we fighting al qaida in iraq, and is iran becoming a rising islamic radical superpower that is supporting these terrorists?

Quote

“Allowing Iraq to collapse would be a disaster for the Iraqis, for the Middle East, for us, that would embolden the Iranians and al-Qaida, who are our enemies. And they would follow us back here.”

how about this? if we do withdraw and if as a result of that withdrawal the duly elected gov't of iraq was to fall, would that be a disaster (ie against our nat'l interests) for us? for the middle east? for the iraqis themselves? would this embolden iran and al qaida and are they our enemy? and finally, would the fight move from there to here?

it seems to me that while those questions might not can be answered 100% yea or nay, there can be a way to determine if one or all are *mostly* correct

Good way to do this, Jimmy.

First, we attacked a Sunni Regime in Iraq and drove that regime from power. It has been proven that no ties existed between al-Qaeda and this regime.

So who are we fighting now? According to the president, we are really not fighting anyone but are there to help the new Shiite government stop what is basically a civil war.

To claim Iran a rising ilsamic radical superpower is somewhat like claiming Venezuela is a rising Superpower of some sort. Negraponte has stated that it will take Iran 10 years to have a nuclear weapons program - Is North Korea also a rising Superpower?

So, point one I think is inaccurate.

If there were a single country where we knew al-Qaeda was located, wouldn't that make them easier with which to deal? This argument sounds a whole lot like defeding the South Vietnamese from the communist insurgents from the north.

I highly doubt point two.

However, I think this is dead on: "The people of the Middle East will determine their fate. We continue to interject ourselves in a situation that we never have understood, "