Obama executive omissions leave some allies angry

Advocates for gay rights, immigration reform want president to go around Congress on their issues the way he has with others
Associated Press
Jan 30, 2014

For some White House allies, the long list of executive actions President Barack Obama announced in his State of the Union address was marred by a few glaring omissions.

Gay rights advocates are seething over Obama's refusal to grant employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians working for federal contractors, safeguards they have been seeking for years. And some immigration overhaul supporters were disappointed that he did not act on his own to halt deportations, which have soared during his presidency and angered many Hispanics.

On both issues, White House officials say the place for action is in Congress, where successful legislation would be far more sweeping than the steps the president could take by himself. But work on an employment non-discrimination bill and an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws is stalled on Capitol Hill, leaving advocates perplexed as to why their calls for executive action did not fit into Obama's vow to act "whenever and wherever" Congress will not.

"In the absence of congressional action, an executive order that prohibits discrimination by contractors is a tailor-made solution to the president's expressed aims," said Fred Sainz, vice president of Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay advocacy organization. Sainz said his frustration with the White House's inaction on the issue was "growing by the day."

Ben Monterroso, executive director of the immigration organization Mi Familia Vota, said: "The president said he is going to use executive orders to act where Congress fails, and we expect him to do the same with immigration reform."

The criticism is particularly striking given that it is coming from two constituencies that have reliably supported the president. More than 70 percent of Hispanic voters backed Obama in the 2012 presidential election, and the gay community has consistently praised him for his unprecedented support.

For gay advocates, the frustration that followed the State of the Union was compounded by the fact that the president announced a minimum-wage executive order that in many ways mirrored the action they are seeking. The order raises the minimum hourly pay for new federal contractors from $7.25 to $10.10. Obama cast the move as an opportunity to make at least some progress on the issue while he pushes Congress to pass legislation extending the minimum to all workers.

Gay rights proponents have asked Obama to sign an executive order prohibiting discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. At the same time, they want Congress to pass the broader Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which has the backing of the White House. That measure passed the Senate last year but is stalled in the Republican-led House.

Heather Cronk, co-director of the organizations GetEqual, said Obama's declining to sign the executive order means he is "actively choosing to permit discrimination against LGBT workers."

Obama spokesman Jay Carney said the executive actions the president outlined in Tuesday night's address were not an exhaustive list of his plans for this year. But Carney also cautioned that he was not implying there would be any future action on the LGBT order.

While leading gay rights supporters were largely united in their reactions following the State of the Union, the view among immigration advocates was more fractured.

Some of those seeking an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws fear that unilateral action by the president would upend the fragile legislative maneuvering on Capitol Hill. A Senate-approved bill is languishing in the House, but GOP leaders are currently working on another set of immigration principles to secure the national border and extend legal status to many of the estimated 11 million people already in the U.S. illegally.

But other immigration backers say there is more that Obama can — and should — do immediately, regardless of what's happening on Capitol Hill. Their demands center in particular on deportations, which has hit about 400,000 annually during Obama's presidency, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In 2012, Obama suspended deportations of some of the "Dreamers" — immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children. Advocates, as well as some Democratic lawmakers, want the president to expand that order to cover those children's parents and other immigrant groups.

Lorella Praeli, advocacy and policy director for the group United We Dream, welcomed Obama's renewed call in the State of the Union for passing comprehensive legislation, but she still singled out the president's resistance to take executive action to end more deportations.

"While he's willing to take action singlehandedly on other political issues, he so far refuses to stop deporting people who would be granted legal status and a chance for citizenship under legislation he champions," Praeli said in a statement.

The White House argues that not only would such unilateral action destabilize the debate on Capitol Hill but it also could be difficult to legally defend.

Comments

The Big Dog's back

They (right wingnuts) can't cite anything in the Constitution that he has stomped on.

Donegan

He reserves the right to kill citizens without a speedy public trial. Please try again.

Steve P

The unaffordable health care, he keeps changing the requirements that congress passed, ever hear separation of powers, typical fat left loon.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

How about the fact that the Supreme Court ruled against him saying that, for some reason, the president can't decide and declare when Senate is in session. It's almost like they have to do that themselves. But, what does Senate know when walking in the shadow of our Great Leader?

Also, his actions can't be brought before the court until he actually commits the acts. To be fair, it also means the feckless Republicans have to do anything more than simper and whine in their corners. But considering how pitiful a party it is at all let alone as "the opposition party" we may as well have a monarchy.

SamAdams

Never mind what any of us think of discrimination (it's wrong, for WHATEVER reason) or illegal immigration (every last criminalien among them should be deported). The bottom line here isn't the issue but rather the constitutionality.

Our illustrious Dear Leader proclaimed in front of Congress, the country, and the world that he'd bypass Congress if he didn't get his way. That, boys and girls, is effectively treason against the Constitution of the United States itself. By all means, lobby Congress for or against discrimination law expansions. Get on the phone and call your Representatives to tell them amnesty would devastate our economy and that criminals shouldn't profit from their crimes. Let Congress debate, dither, duck, or decide the matter. That's what it's SUPPOSED to do!

For the Executive Branch to usurp the powers of the Legislative Branch is illegal, unconstitutional, and a very, very, VERY bad thing. Disagree because you're TOTALLY with Obama on this one? Fine. Imagine, then, if you can ANOTHER President — one with whom you have serious issues (George W. Bush comes immediately to mind as far as some here are concerned) — who would use and ABUSE the same powers. Suddenly the authority of an absolute autocracy doesn't sound quite so attractive, DOES it...

coasterfan

Apparently, it's not seen as treason, since his predecessors used the same Executive Action to bypass Congress. Actually, Obama has resorted to that option even less than most recent presidents.

I think Obama's point is obvious: Congress ISN'T doing what it's supposed to do. It's not news that they are the most intransigent Congress of all time, passing LESS THAN HALF of the legislation as the "Do Nothing Congress" under Truman.

You are right about Bush. He definitely did a very, very bad thing by lying to the American people about WMDs in order to get Congress and the American people behind him with regards to an unnecessary war in which thousands of Americans died. Obama, on the other hand, is considering policies which actually help Americans.

There's the difference: in one example, our president lied to us and Americans died. In the other, our president is simply attempting to help Americans, and it's pretty obvious that no one is going to die if he gets his way. In the case of the ACA, many Americans lives will be SAVED. So your comparison is weak and inappropriate.

At the end of the day, Obama has tried to play the game through normal channels for FOUR YEARS, but Republicans have ground the process to a halt - even when Obama offered sensible compromises. Please let us know what his other options would be. He is definitely not the problem here...

Darwin's choice

FOOL !

Blowing obama again and again just proves you're gay.

JudgeMeNot

LOL.

mimi's word

Darwin-Could you possibly leave a post that is something other than name calling and attacking others...

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

That would be nice as that behavior does nothing to advance a conversation. As much as I harp on Big Dog for doing the same, it's appropriate to throw my hat into this arena, too. Jabs and clever wit/sarcasm here and there is fine, but ceaseless name-calling is a waste of time and convinces nobody of a position.

The Big Dog's back

Time to polish your halo sappy, oh yee who does no wrong.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Oh I am not a saint by any stretch of the imagination my friend, but I also felt like I was being disingenuous if I only lambasted YOU for posting name-calling and obscene references. I get tired of seeing constant, offensive jabs no matter which "side" posts them. But, thank you for haranguing me in my stepping up to YOUR side and admonishment of a "CONserviTEAtardPUBElickan". Did I spell that correctly? Since I don't really use names like that here I don't think I spelled it correctly.

Sheesh...

Darwin's choice

Don't like them? Tough! Don't read them!

I don't like the daily barrage of trumpeting the failure in the white house by the same three or four here, regardless of the topic!

I'd say the same to you.....

mimi's word

I have ONE TIME called someone out for being a jerk. I also state comments on the site without calling them derogatory names like gay and blowie. Most of the time you do not state ANY point just call names. You also do not leave any point!!! I could care less if you like Mr. Obama, his choices, his administration, his speech, his ideas, HIS ANYTHING!!!! Just state what it has to do with whatever you want to say! But by calling someone a blowie and gay you not only demean yourself but also your whole idea.

Darwin's choice

Screemy mimi...go jump in the lake.

Your shortsided search for posts of mine on this site shows how incredibly shallow you are. I've been posting at large here for years, and feel the need to post an encyclopedia of an answer or comment (hero dude) is ignorant. I can convey what I think in a few short jabs. Since I'm obviously getting to you, their working. And, again, please feel free to ignore my comments, because I surely laugh at yours.

JudgeMeNot

QUIT trying to spin the facts toaster.

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

rbenn

Toaster needs to read HR4655 Iraqi Liberation Act (Clinton era)

The Big Dog's back

So because Dems were misled too, what does that mean judge?

grumpy

Re: "At the end of the day, Obama has tried to play the game through normal channels for FOUR YEARS, but Republicans have ground the process to a halt - even when Obama offered sensible compromises. Please let us know what his other options would be. He is definitely not the problem here..."

You are ,as many biased folks do, forget that dims had a supermajority in the senate, a good majority in the house, for his first 2 years. He brought the repube leaders to the WH and told them we won you lost. After 2 years of such treatment the dims lost the supermajority in the senate, and lost the majority in the house. He has hardly tried to play the game through normal channels as is shown by how obamaScare TAX was puched through. No repubes allowed in writing the final bill, they weren't even allowed in the room, a day to read and understand the 2300+ page bill before a limited 8 hour debate where no amendments are allowed, and rammed through with no repube votes.

Is that how the gov't was designed to "work"? Do you really wonder why they don't wish to pass more bills they don't agree with? There is no reason to pass bills when they are pi$$ poor bills. It is good to NOT pass pi$$ poor bills. Last I checked both houses of congress have held up bills from the opposite house of congress. To say he is not the problem is a joke. He does not even try to pass bills. He makes a suggestion and sits in his office. Clinton and reagan both worked to get bills passed, they talked almost every day to leaders in the opposite party. obama doesn't talk to congressional leaders in opposite party for weeks and months.

The Big Dog's back

pooh, why did the Dems lose the super majority?
"McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

palin's claim that "death panels" were included in the proposed health care legislation was preceded by comments of other conservatives who criticized the same section of the bill.

On July 16, 2009, former lieutenant governor of New York, Betsy McCaughey, a longtime opponent of federal healthcare legislation[3][4] said Section 1233 of HR 3200 was "a vicious assault on elderly people"[5] because it would "absolutely require" Medicare patients to have counseling sessions every five years that would "tell them how to end their life sooner".[6] Conservative talk radio hosts including [7] Rush Limbaugh,[6] Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham repeated McCaughey's claim

grumpy

Re: "pooh, why did the Dems lose the super majority?"

They had a supermajority in the Senate and a majority in the House and could have passed all the wonderful things obama promised when he was running. They needed nothing from the repubes. The repubes had no way they could stop them. What did they do with their unstopable majorities? they told the repubes "we won, you lost" and wasted their time on obamaScare. It took them 2 years to write and pass that and did it on the last day they could have. They could have been passing all the wonderful things obama promised when he was running but they did what? That is why they lost in 2010. They screwed themselves. They could pass whatever legislation they wanted with no repube involved. They didn't, they wasted their opportunity.Much the same as the last time there was a supermajority in the senate, a majority in the house and a president all in the same party. That was under another winner from the dim party... Jimmy Carter. Jimmy has sent several thank you notes to obama the last few years. Obama is taking the sting out of Carters failed presidency.

You want to blame it on radio talk shows whose listeners are mostly in the other party? They couldn't stop the congress from passing whatever they wanted to pass, they needed NO repube to vote with them. They could have passed anything they wanted... all those broken promises that obama made could have been passed and signed into law with no repube involvement, but after they said "we won, you lost" they did what? Took 2 years to write and pass obamaScare and what else? Lost their supermajority in the senate, and their majority in the house. Good job dims. And you blame radio talkers whose listeners are from the minority party? Really? that is sad even from a piddle puppy. Wonderful research you did there. Blame it on pallin and radio talk shows.

The Big Dog's back

Any Senator can block legislation.

anthras

coasterfan says : You are right about Bush. He definitely did a very, very bad thing by lying to the American people about WMDs. Are you saying that Bush lied but no Democrats did ?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Quoted on CNN

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." — President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Quoted on CNN

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." — Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall meeting in Columbus, Ohio — from USIA

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." — Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998

Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall Meeting in Columbus, Ohio — From USIA

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." — Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D — MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

See letter to Clinton by Levin, Daschle, Kerry and others

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." — Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Statement by Rep. Nancy Pelosi — House of Representatives website

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Answer to a question at the Chicago Council of Foreign Affairs

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." — Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

Letter to President George W. Bush signed by 9 Congressmen, including Democrats Harold Ford, Jr., Joseph Lieberman, and Benjamin Gilman.

" We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002

Online with Jim Lehrer — Public Broadcasting Service

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Transcript of Gore's speech, printed in USA Today

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Transcript of Gore's speech, printed in USA Today

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

U.S. Senate — Ted Kennedy

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

Congressional Record — Robert Byrd

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." —Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

Congressional Record — Sen. John F. Kerry

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. Jay Rockefeller

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

Congressional Record — Rep. Henry Waxman

"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. Hillary Clinton

"The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.

"Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. Ted Kennedy

"There is one thing we agree upon, and that is that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. He is a tyrant. He has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. He has disregarded United Nations resolutions calling for inspections of his capabilities and research and development programs. His forces regularly fire on American and British jet pilots enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and south of his country. And he has the potential to develop and deploy nuclear weapons... — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. Bob Graham

But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people, including his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid to be interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know that even the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for themselves or their families.

"To overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, UNMOVIC and the IAEA must interview relevant persons securely and with their families protected, even if they protest publicly against this treatment. Hans Blix may dislike running ''a defection agency,' but that could be the only way to obtain truthful information about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction — Sen. Joseph Biden

Congressional Record — Sen. Joseph Biden

"With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. John F. Kerry

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

"Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. — Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. John Edwards

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Your presumption that Congress has some kind of threshold or requirement to pass anything or some kind of minimum of laws is upsetting. I'd rather they sit on their thumbs and keep the crap plugged up that could otherwise spew out and roll downhill onto us masses. Your presumption, too, that President Bush acted alone as an executive or as a member of a party in going into war is laughable. Which subject did you teach in your former profession?

My last issue is that you presume that Senator Reid hasn't stymied any kind of legislation in the senate OR that the President hasn't threatened a veto on laws passed up to it. It's convenient that every presumption and ignored mote of history seems to favor only one party, and that kind of entity-bias will forever taint the points that you make.

Until all of us stand up together and demand a better government, we will be forever relegated to wallow in the cess-wake of an ineffectual, incestuous two-party system of losers, abusers, and retreads.

beepx22

All the executive orders will comeback to haunt the dems when another republican or if we're lucky libertarian ends up in office

coasterfan

Not really. As mentioned above, presidents of both parties have used Executive Orders on many occasions. It's disingenuous for Republicans to feign righteous indignation, when they have done the same thing many times.

Even if that weren't true, does anyone actually expect a Republican (much less a Libertarian) to be in the White House anytime soon? I sure don't, as long as the Electoral College is around... And with their continued fight against Obamacare, they're apparently going to campaign on removing health care coverage for millions of Americans. That's an interesting philosophy: trying to gain votes by taking life-saving coverage away from the very voters your party needs to attract. Good luck with that. :)

Darwin's choice

Godd job blowmaster! Answer all your own posts, it's the best way to keep your believers....moron.

coasterfan

Meanwhile, the American economy grew 3.2% during the 4th quarter of 2013, slightly above projections by economists. I'm sure we'll still hear continue to hear dire predictions from conservatives, which look increasingly silly in face of continued evidence on all fronts that the economy not only continues to improve, but is improving at a more rapid rate.

Home sales up, new home construction up, auto fuel prices down, home heating fuel prices down, unemployment down (except in Ohio, for some odd reason). It's mostly good news, and sure beats the heck out of where we were in 2008, doesn't it?

JudgeMeNot

Gulp, gulp, gulp. Drink up the 0-juice little 0-bamabot..

Steve P

More people on food stamps than any other time in our history, 51% of all Americans receiving some sort of aide from the Federal government another all time high, both facts from the Congressional Budget Office. Home sales & construction up, yes compared to the weakest home market on our history over the last 6 years. Auto prices down, what are you buying? Gas prices down, again from record highs the last 6 years with the highest sustained prices in our history, it was $1.89 when obbie took office. Home heating fuel prices down, better check again the recent prices are up 20-40% from last winter. Unemployment down, only if you don't count the record number of people no longer looking for work, less Americans working full time median wage jobs today than anytime in the last 20 years. All of this is your good news, sorry when the facts bite you.

Pages