George Will confirms: Nixon was a TRAITOR!

why are you incapable of answering a simple question?

 

I like to show a series of posts to keep things in context.

It's clear that my point was that the president does not have the authority to bypass congress on foreign policy.

You are trying to move the goal posts by making it an argument on executive order, which in fact I did address (see bold print)

Stating that I am incapable of answering your question is pure dishonesty on your part and I exposed it.

 

I asked you a simple yes or no question. You did not answer it. You bloviated around it.

the president DOES have the authority to bypass congress on foreign policy issues that are not treaties requiring senatorial advice and consent. Presidents have been doing exactly that in more than 70% of all agreements between the US and other nations for the last century. And... if the congress doesn't like a certain executive agreement, and they STILL don't like said agreement when the president who signed it leaves office, of course they can legislate to remove it. The president is doing nothing unconstitutional by reaching an executive agreement with a group of nations. Don't like it? Elect a republican in 2016 who also doesn't like it. Until then, sit down and be quiet and quit trying to claim some violation of the constitution when no such violation has occurred.

 

Of course the president is circumnavigating the constitution, the problem is, the senate will have to take the administration to court to get an injunction. So they will opt to get relief by defending the UN, which I already explained.

And you're a liar, I answered your question about his executive order and will prove it.

 

so the answer was yes?

why didn't you just say so?

 

Once again how is that treason under the Constitution? Treason is giving aid and comfort to our enemies. Nixon was giving aid and comfort to our allies to fight our enemies.

Was Obama committing treason when he told al Qaeda to just hold on until he was elected and he would surrender?

 

The sanctions against Iran are by Congressional legislation, only Congress can vote to lift them.

 

Yeah, and Obama sent some former Clinton ambassador to Iran telling them not to deal with Bush.

 

Too late to do a thing about it, anyway. Typical, eh.

 

1. Obama never said such a thing.

2. Nixon DID tell the government of South Vietnam to NOT negotiate with LBJ and potentially end the Vietnam war because, if he were elected, he would not demand such concessions. By him doing so, he unnecessarily prolonged the war, and the loss of American lives. Clearly treason.

- - - Updated - - -

why is a simple yes or on question so difficult for you to answer?

 

Are you denying he ran on the campaign promise to have our troops withdrawn in a year? Surely you are that ignorant of the man and what he ran on.

Now again where was the treason? Once again how is that treason under the Constitution? Treason is giving aid and comfort to our enemies. Nixon was giving aid and comfort to our allies to fight our enemies.

Our ally not our enemy, he told them what his policies would be if elected and that was to destroy our mutual enemy so again where was the treason?

I gave you an answer why can't you admit it? The sanctions against Iran were make law by the Congress, only they can change that law.

 

I am most certainly denying that Obama ran on a promise to surrender to Al Qaeda if elected. absolutely.

Our government was seeking to end a war in which our soldiers were fighting and dying. Nixon, as a private citizen was surreptitiously trying to extend that war, and keep our soldiers dying longer, for his own personal gain.

The sitting president had another plan and Nixon, as a private citizen, sought to interrupt it.

Are you suggesting that the president cannot make executive agreements with other nations without the advice and consent of the Senate?

 

Of course he can they just haven't any power beyond the tenure of that administration, and really no more power than what that administration is willing to give them. again that is what Tom cotton et al told them, something any 1st year civics student could have told the Iranians.

 

How quickly we forget..............

 

So you are denying he ran on a promise to immediately begin our withdrawl and to have the troops out within a year ceasing our military actions against al Qaeda in Iraq. Either you have a REALLY bad memory or in utter denial.

He was a candidate running for office but be that as it may where was the treason, what you are describing is not treason else explain how that meets the constitutional requirement for treason. He was giving aid and comfort to our ALLY to destroy our ENEMY.

Yes like when private citizen Obama said he would pull our troops out or Iraq surrendering to the enemy if he were elected.

It depends doesn't it. He can make an executive agreement to hold a meeting but not enter a trade agreement, don't you agree?

 

and you don't think the Iranians knew any of that and needed Cotton to tell them? lol

 

for those of us who served, the word "surrender" has a very specific meaning which you have failed to adhere to. When you start using words with a greater level of specificity we can talk. Not until.

by suggesting that the South Vietnamese government NOT negotiate with the North, it gave the North four more years to kill our soldiers and to consolidate their position.

He can make any executive agreement he likes, he and the people who sign it with him are aware it might not exist after his departure.

 

That you served gives you no higher standing in the matter, the fact remains he pledged to stop fighting and withdraw or troops, surrender, and did so as a private citizen so if you are going to call Nixon a traitor then throw Obama in there too.

South Vietnam was our ally not the enemy, learn the difference.

Sure but that doesn't mean it is legal and constitutional. IT DEPENDS on the nature of them. In this case the Iranian sanctions were a legislative act and the Constitution and his oath of office says he must maintain and protect them unless Congress agrees to change them.

 

it doesn't change the fact that you misuse the word surrender, and until that is corrected, we can go no further.

I know the difference. I know that Nixon's meddling which did, in fact, give aid to the enemy by allowing them four more years to consolidate their position and to kill my friends and classmates, was treason.

you can claim that Obama has violated the constitution until you run out of breath. Your opinion on that matter means absolutely nothing. If five SCOTUS members think he did, then that's a different story altogether. Until they say is is Unconstitutional, it is constitutional.

 

It is a perfectly appropriate use of the term, the leave the battlefield and surrender it to the enemy, that you want to surrender now is understandable.

No you obviously don't know the difference between who was our ally and who was the enemy.

And quite obviously don't know what is treason.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. "

He was trying to wage war against OUR ENEMIES and was giving aid and comfort and adhering with our ALLY.

Learn the difference.

I haven't claimed he has, again get your facts straight. But do cite to me where the constitution states the President is free to violate laws passed by the Congress or declare them null and void.

 

When you use the word surrender with accuracy, I'll discuss your ridiculous assertion, not until.

And I really don't what revisionist historians will try to claim was Nixon's rationale for doing what he did.... the IMPACT of what he did was to cause South Vietnam to retreat from negotiations that would intended to end the war. Nixon urged the government of South Vietnam to ignore our government and to continue fighting a war where, oddly enough, America spilled most of the blood... Because of Nixon's traitorous actions, the war WAS prolonged. Many many Americans - my friends and classmates among them - died on the battlefield because Nixon, as a private citizen, urged the government of South Vietnam to keep sending our boys into battle to fight their war even though our President was doing all he could to end it. Why you desire to sully your nose with the feces of a long dead crook is beyond me, but many of your positions seem like they come from another planet or dimension, so this is nothing new.

 

Did we retreat from the battlefield while hostilities remained giving up the ground we held, yep. Accurate, your surrender noted.

I know exactly what he did and it wasn't treason. I posted what is treason and you can't explain how his actions were treason. I fully understand you don't like what he did, I could care less. The claim it was treason is totally fallacious.

 

that is not the definition of surrender. If it is, then Bush senior surrendered when he retreated from all of the territory of Iraq that had been taken during Desert Storm.

Working directly against the efforts of the United States government as it attempted to end a war in which our troops were dying. Treason.

 

When the CSA left Gettysburg, they certainly did not "surrender". They fought on against their enemy on other more advantageous battlefields... just like we have done against AQ.

 

Probably not the ins and outs of a constitutional system like ours which is pretty much different than any other governing system on the planet can be pretty opaque to those who rule as autocrats.