We will rue the day when a commission (ISG) can seize control of the government and render a president powerless?

We will rue the day when a commission (ISG) can seize control of the government and render a president powerless. James Baker has rendered President Bush powerless. The fact that NO military experts were on this panel should at least slow down a rush to implement ALL items in the report.

Remember, there are studies from the Pentagon, State Department, and the National Security Counsel forthcoming this week, too. The truly frightening part of this rush to embrace the views of this commission is what would have happened if llary Care had been implemented after issueing her group's recommendations? Her Health Care Task force was promising price controls, rationing, and waiting lists like Canada.

Pharmaceutical stocks plummeted, while cattle futures llary railed about their profiteering. A commision should not have the final say in government policy. Yet, Congress and the president seemingly are obligated to do every one of the recommendations.Mr.

Baker has said he against "picking and choosing" the panels suggestions. Asked by yogineocon 61 months ago Similar questions: rue day commission ISG seize control government render president powerless Politics & Law > War.

Similar questions: rue day commission ISG seize control government render president powerless.

Baker report The president doesn't HAVE to do any of the things this commission suggested. While hopefully he will pull his head out of the sand and listen to others wiser than him for a change,unfortunately he is still in charge.

The situation in Iraq and on other fronts indicate that Bush and his White House are already powerless. I look at the Baker Commission at filling the power vacuum, since hard decisions are either not able or can be made by the existing White House. And in terms of Clinton's proposals, many of them got implemented anyway through administrative mechanisms, rather than legislative.

Sources: My opinion .

Hahahaha you are insane. Do you even have a question? Since the president is pretty much ignoring their report (I think he REALLY wanted to use their report as a smokescreen so he could start pulling troops out - the only political possibility now - and still claim he was "staying the course"), I think your entire position is moot, right?

What about the three other presidents who took far more advice from the ISG and based far more policy on it? Were they emasculated by it? Clinton vetoed and originated more than a hundred times as much legislation as Bush (and shrunk the federal government by 32%, compared to W's enormous consolidation of executive power and vast increases in spending, even if you don't count military spending), and he took advice from 3 different ISG reports.Do you think it made him powerless?

What about Reagan? He practically based policy in 5 different countries on ISG reports. Yeah, Baker said he is against Bush's picking and choosing, since they are part of a holistic whole, and he believes that ignoring some will cause even more grief and more dead Americans and Iraqis over there.

But the president isn't even slightly obligated to take any of them, as he has said several times. Sources: common sense and reading the damn newspaper .

I'm not sure what your question is. Sounds like you're just here to make a political rant.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.