• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bush Should Get Credit If U.S. has to shoot down NK missile...

Dayton3

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
12,051
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Smackover, AR.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
^Really?

Why can't anyone see the bottom line?

If George W. Bush had never become president, the U.S. would not have an ABM system. Al Gore was opposed to withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.

I can bet that no matter what the North Koreans would still have their missile and nuclear programs though.

Thus, President Bush deserves maximum credit.
 

sazerac

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
3,082
Reaction score
744
Location
New Orleans
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I don't understand why Bush should get credit for doing his job....

Well he also gets attacked and accused of lying for doing his job. Why not a little credit once in a while?
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
109,913
Reaction score
55,026
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
^Really?

Why can't anyone see the bottom line?

If George W. Bush had never become president........

So we are playing an assumption game? If the Japanese had not bombed pearl Harbor kinda thing. If Bush had not become president, who knows what would have happened. The world would be a different place.
 

Dayton3

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
12,051
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Smackover, AR.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
So we are playing an assumption game? If the Japanese had not bombed pearl Harbor kinda thing. If Bush had not become president, who knows what would have happened. The world would be a different place.

It is not an assumption.

Al Gore and John Kerry were AGAINST withdrawing from the ABM Treaty.

No ABM Treaty withdrawal. No missile defense today.

President Bush is far and away the man most responsible for the U.S. having an operational ABM system today.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
109,913
Reaction score
55,026
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It is not an assumption.

Al Gore and John Kerry were AGAINST withdrawing from the ABM Treaty.

No ABM Treaty withdrawal. No missile defense today.

President Bush is far and away the man most responsible for the U.S. having an operational ABM system today.

President Bush the elder was against raising taxes. He went so far as to say "read my lips, no new taxes". Guess what happened?
 

Dayton3

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
12,051
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Smackover, AR.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
President Bush the elder was against raising taxes. He went so far as to say "read my lips, no new taxes". Guess what happened?[/QUOT

Utterly ridiculous reasoning.

A President Gore or a President Kerry MIGHT'VE ordered a missile defense.

So, President Bush does not deserve the credit for actually doing so.

By that line of thought it would be impossible to hold anyone accountable for anything.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
109,913
Reaction score
55,026
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
President Bush the elder was against raising taxes. He went so far as to say "read my lips, no new taxes". Guess what happened?

Utterly ridiculous reasoning.

A President Gore or a President Kerry MIGHT'VE ordered a missile defense.

So, President Bush does not deserve the credit for actually doing so.

By that line of thought it would be impossible to hold anyone accountable for anything.

I never said Bush should not get credit for what he did. You need to follow the argument better.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
^ah but only a president can withdraw the U.S. from a treaty.

According to what? COTUS doesn't say that. In fact COTUS doesn't say anything about presidential power to break treaties. If COTUS doesn't say it or grant it as a power, the Executive Branch does not have that power. But COTUS is just toliet paper these days.
 

johnjoel

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
144
Reaction score
41
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
^Really?

Why can't anyone see the bottom line?

If George W. Bush had never become president, the U.S. would not have an ABM system. Al Gore was opposed to withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.

I can bet that no matter what the North Koreans would still have their missile and nuclear programs though.

Thus, President Bush deserves maximum credit.

Well based on the theme of this thread, I could ask; Who is to say that Obama wouldn't use this system? I mean I'm sure Obama has surprised us all before, hmm?

Why don't the developers get credit? After all without them there would be no system. How about Ratheon for consistently and quite brilliantly evolving and innovating the radar systems that led us to our current technology to make such a thing even possible?

I think Bush should get credit for what he DID do, and that is implement the system. I'm not going to pass the buck to him every time we use it though.

Maybe they can name one of those balloon ships after him or something.
 

Dayton3

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
12,051
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Smackover, AR.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
According to what? COTUS doesn't say that. In fact COTUS doesn't say anything about presidential power to break treaties. If COTUS doesn't say it or grant it as a power, the Executive Branch does not have that power. But COTUS is just toliet paper these days.

In the 1970s, President Jimmy Carter withdrew the U.S. from two previous treaties involving the Panama Canal so that a third treaty turning over the Canal to the Panamanians could be signed.

I don't remember the name of the case, but Senator Barry Goldwater among others filed suit with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the power of the president to withdraw the U.S. from existing treaties without Senate approval.

The Supreme Court held that a presidents power to withdraw the U.S. from international treaties was part of his executive powers and was effectively, absolute.

Like I said, I don't remember the case.

Correction

Goldwater v. Carter

The Supreme Court actually voted to not hear the case saying that it involved a political decision and the Supreme Court wasn't the venue to debate the issue of a presidents authority to withdraw the U.S. from international treaties.

Nevertheless, the precedent for unilateral presidential action was set and Congress made no effort to impede President Bush from withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.
 
Last edited:

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
In the 1970s, President Jimmy Carter withdrew the U.S. from two previous treaties involving the Panama Canal so that a third treaty turning over the Canal to the Panamanians could be signed.

I don't remember the name of the case, but Senator Barry Goldwater among others filed suit with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the power of the president to withdraw the U.S. from existing treaties without Senate approval.

The Supreme Court held that a presidents power to withdraw the U.S. from international treaties was part of his executive powers and was effectively, absolute

Come again?

Did you read the case?

Goldwater v. Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Supreme Court actually voted to not hear the case saying that it involved a political decision and the Supreme Court wasn't the venue to debate the issue of a presidents authority to withdraw the U.S. from international treaties.

Thus they did not decide whether or not he actually has the power as stated by COTUS. They just refused to hear the case. That does not argue that the COTUS does give the president such a right. All it says is that SCOTUS didn't want to deal with it.

Nevertheless, the precedent for unilateral presidential action was set and Congress made no effort to impede President Bush from withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.

But that does not grant Constitutional powers as dictated by COTUS.

Again, remember, unless COTUS explicitly gives a power to a branch, that branch does not have that power.

Just because a president did it does not mean he has the right or the given power to do it.
 

TheNextEra

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
16,575
Reaction score
6,767
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Lots of people are giving credit to Bush for this, but what if the missile isn't shot down? Should we then give credit for Bush for not being able to shoot down the missile?
 

Dayton3

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
12,051
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Smackover, AR.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Come again?

Did you read the case?

Goldwater v. Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Thus they did not decide whether or not he actually has the power as stated by COTUS. They just refused to hear the case. That does not argue that the COTUS does give the president such a right. All it says is that SCOTUS didn't want to deal with it.



But that does not grant Constitutional powers as dictated by COTUS.

Again, remember, unless COTUS explicitly gives a power to a branch, that branch does not have that power.

Just because a president did it does not mean he has the right or the given power to do it.

It effectively does now.

Though I'll admit I'm not one of these people who harps about "exactly" what the Constitution says and doesn't say.

The constitution was written pretty vague because the founders realized that they could not account for every possible situation and contingency.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I assume you are talking about Ground-based Midcourse Defense. If so, then you might be interested to know that the program started under Clinton.
Everyone knows that.
The point, however, is that GWB championed it mnad made sure it did not die (as a great many on the liberal left wanted it to) after responsibility for its continuance was handed to him BY Clinton -- and so, should the situation postulated in the OP ever occour, GWB should very certainly get a big thank you.
 
Top Bottom