or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Hi, I'm the Commander-in-Chief"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Hi, I'm the Commander-in-Chief"

post #1 of 125
Thread Starter 
Obviously there is not much sympathy for George Bush in these forums, but I have to bring this up anyway.

The latest headline is that the Democratic Leadership is saying Bush doesn't have the authority to go into Iran militarily if he deems it necessary.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070215/D8NAD2T80.html

Senator Harry Reid has made similar comments recently.

Regardless of your view on Bush, there is a rather obvious point to make here. Pelosi and Reid are wrong. The President has clear Constitutional authority to use the US military, provided he abides by the War Power Clause/Resolution. Certainly, he can't wage a unlimited war in terms of timeframe, but he can in fact order an attack. There are several reporting requirements, but all the President actually needs to do is determine that there is a "circumstance" that requires military action.

Text of War Powers Resolution:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm

And of course, Article II:

Quote:
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States....

Clearly, the President does have the authority. It wouldn't be popular, and Congress could always countermand the order or refuse funding.

Your thoughts...and please, keep it on topic. This isn't another opporutnity to explain why you don't like the Iraq war and why you think Bush is a warmonger.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 125
It depends: As I understand it, if Iran lobbed a missile into a US ship, for example, Bush could order an attack back without congressional approval. However, I don't think Bush could constitutionally invade and occupy Iran in the same way we did Iraq, without congressional approval.

I'd go even further and say that congress should have declared war before we invaded Iraq, rather than the weasely resolution that was passed.
post #3 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

It depends: As I understand it, if Iran lobbed a missile into a US ship, for example, Bush could order an attack back without congressional approval. However, I don't think Bush could constitutionally invade and occupy Iran in the same way we did Iraq, without congressional approval.

I'd go even further and say that congress should have declared war before we invaded Iraq, rather than the weasely resolution that was passed.

I think that if there was some evidence of Iran interfering in Iraq, supplying weapons, that would be enough. Of course, it seems like there is that evidence, not that I'm advocating attacking.

As for occupying a country, I think he could do it, but Congress could call it off. I don't know about a Declaration of War....it's almost as if it's an extinct action. Why do you feel that is? I have some thoughts I'll share later.

I would have liked to see a formal Declaration of War against Al-Queda and other terror groups though.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #4 of 125
If I remember correctly from my US governement class back in 1983 (wow do I feel aged), the President has 90 days' use of the military, affter which he has to have congressional approval. Therefore, if Bush wants to go into Iran (which would take a lot longer than 90 days) he better have congressional support.

The evidence supporting Bush's claims about Iran supply weapons etc is not very concrete; indeed Bushie Baby himself said he didn't know but he did know and one of his top generals said he didn't think so.

Sorry, no links because I have to chair a meeting in 10 minutes ...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #5 of 125
What will attacking Iran accomplish? What is the plan? Again, there is none. And that's why Bush needs to be collared by Congress and the people on this.


Article 1, Section 8. U S Constitution

Quote:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Section 3, War Powers
Quote:
CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
post #6 of 125
You had it wrong from the start.

"Obviously there is not much sympathy for George Bush in these forums.... "

As the polls from oh, the last 4 to 6 months show, it should read: "Obviously there is not much sympathy for George Bush in this country...."

And if supplying arms to whomever in Iraq constitutes reason enough to attack someone as you say, other countries could be targets. Hard to believe we could justify an attack on Iran because they could be supplying weapons to another country.

I wonder if we would've let Nicaragua attack Honduras on that premise aswell. Not.
post #7 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilsch View Post

You had it wrong from the start.

"Obviously there is not much sympathy for George Bush in these forums.... "

As the polls from oh, the last 4 to 6 months show, it should read: "Obviously there is not much sympathy for George Bush in this country...."

Thank you for your irrelevant, inflammatory comment.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #8 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Thank you for your irrelevant, inflammatory comment.

Edit: not worth it.
post #9 of 125
Obviously there is not much sympathy for George Bush in the world.

Let's hope Bush allows congress to do its job and doesn't try to bully another war upon us all.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #10 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Of course, it seems like there is that evidence, not that I'm advocating attacking.

Let's say there is that evidence (in a way there is - it has been faked by the US so it definitely exists) and let's further say it justifies an attack.

Can then a country in a similar situation to the US in Iraq attack the US if the US supplies weapons?

What about the current bombs in Iran which the US are behind - and also the weapons supplied to terrorist group MEK by the US to attack Iranian citizens?

Do these justify an attack on the US by Iran?

If not why not?

Is it just because Iran is 'evil and the US 'good' or are there wider and logic based issues?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #11 of 125
By that order, the PLO could attack the US due to Israel's use of the US-made clusterbombs.

Remember those?

Oh, and which group was it that the US supplied Stinger SAMs to back when the Soviets were trying to bully Afghanistan around?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #12 of 125
George Bush is going to do what he wants to do.

He shows no interest in being confined by binding law like the Geneva Conventions (torture in Iraq and Gitmo), Congress (Iraq war resolution), and the Constitution (signing statements, suspension of habeas corpus, etc). Where there's the slightest bit of ambiguity, George Bush is going to interpret that as a full-blooded mandate for his cause-du-jour. That's why Congress needs to be as proactive and careful as it can in dealing with a dangerous administration like his on this Iran issue. We could be in very serious trouble soon.
post #13 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Obviously there is not much sympathy for George Bush in these forums...

So all of the republican and republican-friendly members here (you, trumpt, southside, frank, max, bacillus, etc) no longer support this administration?

...Oh, nevermind. I get it. More manufactured victimhood. Carry on...
post #14 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilsch View Post

You had it wrong from the start.

"Obviously there is not much sympathy for George Bush in these forums.... "

As the polls from oh, the last 4 to 6 months show, it should read: "Obviously there is not much sympathy for George Bush in this country...."

And if supplying arms to whomever in Iraq constitutes reason enough to attack someone as you say, other countries could be targets. Hard to believe we could justify an attack on Iran because they could be supplying weapons to another country.

I wonder if we would've let Nicaragua attack Honduras on that premise aswell. Not.



That's not the topic.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #15 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Let's say there is that evidence (in a way there is - it has been faked by the US so it definitely exists) and let's further say it justifies an attack.

Can then a country in a similar situation to the US in Iraq attack the US if the US supplies weapons?

What about the current bombs in Iran which the US are behind - and also the weapons supplied to terrorist group MEK by the US to attack Iranian citizens?

Do these justify an attack on the US by Iran?

If not why not?

Is it just because Iran is 'evil and the US 'good' or are there wider and logic based issues?

You guys are getting into the moral justifications. I am merely talking about the political and legal aspects. I'm not making a case for war.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #16 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

So all of the republican and republican-friendly members here (you, trumpt, southside, frank, max, bacillus, etc) no longer support this administration?

...Oh, nevermind. I get it. More manufactured victimhood. Carry on...


Just stop. You know full well what the majority opinion is here in terms of political spectrum.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #17 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think that if there was some evidence of Iran interfering in Iraq, supplying weapons, that would be enough. Of course, it seems like there is that evidence, not that I'm advocating attacking.

As for occupying a country, I think he could do it, but Congress could call it off. I don't know about a Declaration of War....it's almost as if it's an extinct action. Why do you feel that is? I have some thoughts I'll share later.

I would have liked to see a formal Declaration of War against Al-Queda and other terror groups though.

I know you're not advocating an attack, but I do think the Democrats are right that the president has to get congressional approval before one. After looking it up, Bergermeister seems to be right that he has a few months' free pass if he doesn't get prior approval.

But I think that War Powers Resolution is another example of how the presidency has become more powerful at the expense of the congress. I think Congress should have been asked to declare war on Iraq for a couple of reasons:

1. There was no reason not to: There was plenty of time, it wasn't some secret mission or quick reaction.
2. It probably would have been much harder to pass. The authorization that was passed was couched in evasive language. Even when Bush signed it, he said he hoped not to attack and that it would be a last resort.
3. It would have made it much harder for people like Edwards and Hillary and Kerry to weasel around as they've been doing. It would have been a much clearer support of war, rather than "permission for the president to use force but only if the inspections don't work and if he gets the international community on board."
post #18 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Just stop. You know full well what the majority opinion is here in terms of political spectrum.

So now we've gone from "not much" to "[not] majority." Way to move the goal posts. In any case, compared to US and global political opinion, you people are already heavily over represented in PO, both in terms of numbers and post count, the latter thanks in large part to the posting voracity of each pro-bush extremist de jour.

And just a suggestion, try not to cram your initial post with pot shots if you want people to "keep it on topic" since the initial post pretty much defines the topic.

As far as the other issue, are you going to keep creating a new thread every time the now dem controlled congress takes any sort of action that challenges the Bush admin?
post #19 of 125
There are three circumstances in the war powers act that grant the president permission to use forces against an enemy: in a declared war, with statutory authorization, or in response to a national emergency. None of these requirements has been fulfilled wrt iran.
post #20 of 125
And the constitution gives CONGRESS the sole authority to declare war.

The executives powers have been LIMITED BY LAW passed by congress.

THE PRESIDENT'S ABILITY TO SEND TROOPS is severely limited.

If you read the yelling it sums up my post nicely...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #21 of 125
SDW and the rest might find that his own party made the same arguments against Clinton in 1995.

http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/92895Bosnia.pdf

Some choice quotes:

Quote:
Determining the number of troops to be deployed, how long they will stay and conditions for withdrawal;

Quote:
Analyzing the implications of troop deployment upon current policies toward Bosnia, (including: U.S. participation in enforcing No-Fly Zone; impact on the Administration's arms embargo policy);Paying for the military operation; and, Ensuring Congressional participation (e.g., from consultation to authorization).

Quote:
While to a large degree, the number of troops required will be dependent on the terms ?of the peace accord, the fact that the Administration does not hold a unified position on such ?a critical issue is of particular concern.

Quote:
Prior to sending U.S. troops to Bosnia, Congress must have a full estimate of how much such deployment will cost.

Quote:
By following such a course, the Administration will be handing Congress a fait accompli, rendering irrelevant any advice Congress could offer. Worse yet, the Administration then would be in a position to defend its plan as is by charging that any proposed changes to ccommodate Congressional concerns would lead to an unraveling of the peace accord.

Smells like ... like ... [whiff whiff] ... hypocrisy.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #22 of 125
With no hint of irony Tony Snow said the following regarding Iran:

Quote:
You cannot deny that these weapons exist. You cannot deny that there is presently no manufacturing capability within Iraq able to produce those kinds of weapons.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #23 of 125
That's a good catch Northgate, and it's even worse than hypocrisy, because our intervention in Bosnia was highly successful, whereas Iraq...
post #24 of 125
Evidence that Iran is supplying weapons?

Jane's Intelligence Review debunks Bush Iran Weapons Claim (scroll to last 8 paragraphs)

Is the military supporting the president's war leadership?

Military Times Poll: Approval of President's War Leadership Among US Military Personel at 35%

Iran: A Bridge too Far?

SS-N-22 Sunburn: The weapon that could defeat the US in the Gulf

As we get further entrenched in this Middle East morass, we are quickly losing faith from every nation on Earth.

I hope "The Decider and Chief" knows what he's doing (I should say they, because Cheney's had his hands in this from day one). Because no one else believes him.
post #25 of 125
Yeah, but didn't you know...Bush has BALLS...the CAJONES to get 'er done!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #26 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I know you're not advocating an attack, but I do think the Democrats are right that the president has to get congressional approval before one. After looking it up, Bergermeister seems to be right that he has a few months' free pass if he doesn't get prior approval.

But I think that War Powers Resolution is another example of how the presidency has become more powerful at the expense of the congress. I think Congress should have been asked to declare war on Iraq for a couple of reasons:

1. There was no reason not to: There was plenty of time, it wasn't some secret mission or quick reaction.
2. It probably would have been much harder to pass. The authorization that was passed was couched in evasive language. Even when Bush signed it, he said he hoped not to attack and that it would be a last resort.
3. It would have made it much harder for people like Edwards and Hillary and Kerry to weasel around as they've been doing. It would have been a much clearer support of war, rather than "permission for the president to use force but only if the inspections don't work and if he gets the international community on board."

Yeah, I agree with you on most of those points, including the few months (90 days) of military action without Congressional approval. I disagree with the very first statement. I think he can legally order an attack, but not sustain one.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #27 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

So now we've gone from "not much" to "[not] majority." Way to move the goal posts. In any case, compared to US and global political opinion, you people are already heavily over represented in PO, both in terms of numbers and post count, the latter thanks in large part to the posting voracity of each pro-bush extremist de jour.

And just a suggestion, try not to cram your initial post with pot shots if you want people to "keep it on topic" since the initial post pretty much defines the topic.

As far as the other issue, are you going to keep creating a new thread every time the now dem controlled congress takes any sort of action that challenges the Bush admin?

giant, I am merely talking about the political make-up of the boards. There are more liberals than conservatives, post counts aside. There are certainly conservative voices. Whatever...it was just an aside.

As for "shots," well I'm not sure what you mean. I take issue with the leadership's statements claiming Bush doesn't have the authority to do XYZ, when in fact he clearly does.
That's really all I'm saying.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #28 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yeah, I agree with you on most of those points, including the few months (90 days) of military action without Congressional approval. I disagree with the very first statement. I think he can legally order an attack, but not sustain one.

And after what has happened in Iraq, Bush should not be trusted to do so. I would also say that if the plan is a sustained invasion with troop deployment beyond the 90 day requirement, he should legally be DENIED the ability to start it in the first place unilaterally. See, he's not ordering a single attack here. He's ordering the beginning of another occupation with a built-in scope larger than what the law allows him to do without Congressional authorization.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #29 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

And after what has happened in Iraq, Bush should not be trusted to do so. I would also say that if the plan is a sustained invasion with troop deployment beyond the 90 day requirement, he should legally be DENIED the ability to start it in the first place unilaterally. See, he's not ordering a single attack here. He's ordering the beginning of another occupation with a built-in scope larger than what the law allows him to do without Congressional authorization.

Disagree. He clearly has the legal authority. Congress cannot change his constutional powers pre-emptively. They can put a stop to any operation by denying funding.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #30 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

And the constitution gives CONGRESS the sole authority to declare war.

The executives powers have been LIMITED BY LAW passed by congress.

THE PRESIDENT'S ABILITY TO SEND TROOPS is severely limited.

If you read the yelling it sums up my post nicely...


Then you frankly don't know the law. If Bush chooses to attack Iran, he can do so legally, regardless of what Pelosi and Reid say. Now, as I've said, Congress can cut off all funding. Congress could even try to pass a binding resolution ordering the action to stop. That might be a different story.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #31 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

It depends: As I understand it, if Iran lobbed a missile into a US ship, for example, Bush could order an attack back without congressional approval. However, I don't think Bush could constitutionally invade and occupy Iran in the same way we did Iraq, without congressional approval.

I'd go even further and say that congress should have declared war before we invaded Iraq, rather than the weasely resolution that was passed.

Of course, one would have to be totally sure that the "missile lobbed onto a US ship", to be blamed on Iran, was really carried out by Iran. Why would Iran involve itself in a preemptive attack on the US military, knowing that such an incident would render them liable to L E G A L retaliation, by a vastly superior force, and simultaneously gain the disrespect of the rest of the world for breaking all the rules and attacking FIRST? Ahmadinejad may be a nutball, but he ain't THAT stupid.

The past is littered with incidents where a government used its military, or some other party, to attack itself, in order to blame the nation with whom the government wants to wage war with, or use (the incident) to acquire and wield greater power. Its the oldest trick in the book.

Some examples and variations on this theme include: the burning of the Reichstag - executed by the Nazis, blamed on the Communists; Operation Northwoods - plan drawn up by the Joint Chiefs, where the US military launches attacks against US interests and facilities, blames Cuba in order to justify a popular war and depose Castro; the Gulf of Tonkin incident, where a bogus story was concocted that a US ship was attacked by N. Vietnam and disseminated in the media to garner public support for a war that would otherwise never have gotten authorized; and the bombing of the King David Hotel by Israeli agents dressed as Arabs, and numerous others of a similar nature.

***

If, in the near future, there is a violent "incident" where US military units in the Gulf, or within the Iran theater of operations is attacked, we can be sure of the following:

(1) The media will instantly blame Iran without question, and side with the Bush Administration's push for a new war, without question.

(2) Anyone doubting this viewpoint, regardless of the facts, will be blamed as "unpatriotic" or a crazy conspiracy theorist, regardless of the commonality and "business as usual" nature of this type of "false flag" of operation.

and (3) Wolf Blitzer of CNN will be "Weasel Blitzer", yet again.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #32 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Disagree. He clearly has the legal authority. Congress cannot change his constutional powers pre-emptively. They can put a stop to any operation by denying funding.

But he's not ordering a single attack. He's ordering a sustained invasion beyond the scope of 90 days. If the objectives cannot be achieved in 90 days I don't believe that he should have the power to start it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #33 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Then you frankly don't know the law. If Bush chooses to attack Iran, he can do so legally, regardless of what Pelosi and Reid say. Now, as I've said, Congress can cut off all funding. Congress could even try to pass a binding resolution ordering the action to stop. That might be a different story.

I think you need to read up on this a bit. How do you deal with the fact that the Congress, not the president, has the constitutional responsibility of declaring war? That was always the standard throughout our history. Then in modern times (i.e., since after WWII), presidents decided to start wars on their own, without congressional war declarations, so congress passed the war powers act to make sure presidents got approval for military actions.

In my view, this is another aspect of the "Imperial Presidency" that characterizes the modern shift in our government from the primacy of congress to the primacy of the president. The founding fathers, who seriously mistrusted the power of kings, wouldn't approve of this trend, I'm certain of that.
post #34 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Of course, one would have to be totally sure that the "missile lobbed onto a US ship", to be blamed on Iran, was really carried out by Iran.

I've heard of preemptive war, but preemptive conspiracy theorizing?
post #35 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

George Bush is going to do what he wants to do.

He shows no interest in being confined by binding law like the Geneva Conventions (torture in Iraq and Gitmo), Congress (Iraq war resolution), and the Constitution (signing statements, suspension of habeas corpus, etc). Where there's the slightest bit of ambiguity, George Bush is going to interpret that as a full-blooded mandate for his cause-du-jour. That's why Congress needs to be as proactive and careful as it can in dealing with a dangerous administration like his on this Iran issue. We could be in very serious trouble soon.

But Shawn it is to "save lives"....

So I think you are "way off base".....

I think the weight of your arguments do not stand when compared to the lives which could be saved.

Governors from Texas should always get to "do what they want to do"

I mean think about it what would the BIG 3 do without nutjobs from texas.

Industrial military complex, Big Energy, and Big Pharma.

Again in closing Shawn you are way off base and your argument does not stand when the Dictator has spoken in order to "save lives"

BAHHHH Who needs Democracy, Laws and Individual Liberties anyway...

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #36 of 125
Talk here is like Iraq is apart of the US. And anyone who don't like US in Iraq is terrorist.


This what you get when you occupy countries.
You don't defeat people who don't want you there. You can't kill all of them.
Simply by declaring war against a few of the countries supplying arms to the Iraqis will not help.


Iraq is over it's been wiped. Now no threat to US interests for 20 years. Accept the responsibility and piss-off. Think b4 you do the same thing again.

Oh sorry I was wrong: It's in your bless-ed constitution

The president can wipe out any country he wants! Fire away!
post #37 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Disagree. He clearly has the legal authority.

I'm curious to see which piece of the constitution gives the president power to put troops in harm's way, and any laws that support that. From what I've read in the constitution, congress declares war, and the war powers act seems to restrict this president from currently engaging Iran [no active war against iran, no statutory authorization, and no nat'l emergency].
post #38 of 125
Why don't you support the troops? Why do you hate America?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #39 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

But he's not ordering a single attack. He's ordering a sustained invasion beyond the scope of 90 days. If the objectives cannot be achieved in 90 days I don't believe that he should have the power to start it.


You can believe whatever. That's not the way it is.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #40 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I think you need to read up on this a bit. How do you deal with the fact that the Congress, not the president, has the constitutional responsibility of declaring war? That was always the standard throughout our history. Then in modern times (i.e., since after WWII), presidents decided to start wars on their own, without congressional war declarations, so congress passed the war powers act to make sure presidents got approval for military actions.

In my view, this is another aspect of the "Imperial Presidency" that characterizes the modern shift in our government from the primacy of congress to the primacy of the president. The founding fathers, who seriously mistrusted the power of kings, wouldn't approve of this trend, I'm certain of that.

I actually disagree with that entire notion. The War Powers Resolution was an effort to reign in Presidential power. If anything, the President has less authority to wage war now than he did prior to that resolution.

Now, that doesn't mean I disagree with you about declaring war, as I've stated. I just don't think that means the Office of the Presidency has acquired more power. If anything, Congress seems to be exercising more power than it was intended to by the founding fathers (in general). It's exercised it's powers of taxation, oversight and regulation vigorously. It's expanded federal power and the size of the federal government enormously.

Perhaps that's an argument that has no conclusion though.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Hi, I'm the Commander-in-Chief"