Founding Fathers Actually Wanted Congress To Run Wars

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
unbelievababble!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with the potbangers, vote to withdraw funds/troops, vote to impeach BUSH/CHENEY, and nobody agrees??

WTF??

Come on guys! It's all you can dream about...

come out and say it, you want it to happen..or do you????

because you understand what would happen if it actually came to a vote..

wimps...

You go heartless!! Turn the heat up a little more why don't you? We need more RepugliXXXX like you!!

I think that's taking it a little far don't you?

Yes it is. If people get angry, there are better ways to respond.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
unbelievababble!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with the potbangers, vote to withdraw funds/troops, vote to impeach BUSH/CHENEY, and nobody agrees??

WTF??

Come on guys! It's all you can dream about...

come out and say it, you want it to happen..or do you????

because you understand what would happen if it actually came to a vote..

wimps...

Well,
With the first, any legislation calling for troop withdraw would be vetoed. Anything Bush didn't agree with which came across his desk would suffer the same fate. Since the Republicans have sufficient numbers to prevent an override.

Second, the current administration has apparently taken the astonishing view that by claiming executive privilige it can prevent testimony of WH officials to Congress, AND order the Justice Dept to not act on any contempt citation. The principle here isn't contempt charges, but that the President has inherent authority to block any investigation into the Executive Branch that the President doesn't approve. Effectively that means that any impeachment hearings are going to have empty chairs to be questioned, or for that matter anything else Bush doesn't want examined. He can and probably will claim exec. priv. in the case of criminal wrongdoing investigations by preventing testimony, giving immunity, and obstructing justice via prohibiting the Justice Dept from acting on anything anyway. As I'm sure you know, impeachment means nothing anyway since it is really removal from office that needs be done. That would be effectively prevented by the Republican presence in Congress.

Third, if Congress were to not fund the war, that doesn't mean that the troops come home. They don't get their supplies, and they start to die as a result. This affords you and Bush the opportunity to bash Congress, since moving them out of harms way is nothing you would care to do. The Dems aren't as willing to let the troops die for Presidential principle, so defunding won't happen.

What I think Congress should do is hold hearings on whatever they wish and place cardboard cutouts of those who don't attend. Whoever doesn't show should be cited with contempt, and the AG given 30 days to carry out the order. If the AG does not, then HE should be cited. Meanwhile, use the inherent contempt power Congress cannot have stripped from them by Bush and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: thraashman
a(b+c) = ac + bc. Politicize that, bitches!

Ok, I suck at math, but assuming a = 1, b = 2, and c = 3, wouldn't this work out to:
1(2+3) = (1)(3) + (2)(3)
1(5) = 3 + 6
5 = 9

And if that's true, you would need to have some form of faith which you considered superior to the science of mathematics which makes you a right wing young earth nutcase.

But like I said, I suck at math.

That formula is wrong. It should be a(b+c)=ac + ab. In your example 5=5.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I still am dying to know, and no one will answer it directly...

But before I ask (again) I will remind that it wasnt just the people of the US, or the Senate, but also the world that believed invading Iraq was for all the right reasons...

How the hell did he trick sooooo many people....all around the globe....and create such a huuuuuuuge pile of bullshit...

If he's just an idiot? I dont get it. *shrug*

If you followed the news back then, you would have known. Back then, Saddam threw out the UN inspectors. Everyone thought that he had some sort of WMD. Even the top UN inspector thought there were WMD in Saddam's hands. Everyone in the United States wanted to apply pressure on Saddam, so he would let the inspectors back in. Therefore, they voted for a resolution that gave Bush the option to go into Iraq, with force.

However, if you saw the senators speak after they voted, they, the Democratic ones at least, said that they voted for the resolution to apply pressure to Saddam. They urged caution in actually going into Iraq without a UN resolution, and called for full support from the members of the UN if they did ever go to war.

Of course, Bush took advantage of the situation, and went in there anyways to avenge Saddam's assassination attempt on his father.

Here's what happened: Bush was saying that he did not want war with Iraq, and that if the WMD issue were addressed, there would be no need for war. He further said that the resolution was 'absolutely not a vote for war', but only a vote for leverage to get inspections access. He rushed the issue for a vote just before the 2002 elections and campaigned on the basis that anyone who voted against the resolution was in favor of not even having inspections, and the democrats faced losing if they did not vote for inspections.

This was one of those issues that was a victory for Bush's political maneuvering, but just as a sword can cut for good or bad, the policy it enacted was one for war, not inspections.

The resolution 'worked', by getting the inspectors in, who were a few months from completing the inspections when Bush ordered them out just before invading.

The democrats were faced with two bad choices - vote for the resolution that did help get inspectors back in but had too much power for Bush to go to war, or vote against it and let the republicans gain perhaps may seats in the Congress, with all the harm that would do the nation, in the coming election.

The blame rests *squarely* on Bush and the republicans, for the political maneuvering to get the war authorization, and for the lie that it was 'absolutely not a vote for war'.

One important question is, how our democracy should work to allow the democrats who were in that situation to have challenged the administration's many claims of WMD and have the public agree enough that a vote against the resolution would not have cost them a lot in the election, would have had the public agreeing. But instead, between Rumsfeld's 'we know where the WMD are', Powell's UN presentation, Condi and Bush's 'mushroom cloud', any 'liberal' claiming the WMD claims were wrong was unable to get public agreement.

It all sounded so simple with Bush's promises the inspectors would inspect, seeming that if he broke those promises he'd be in trouble with the public, but unfortunately the republican portion, at least, of the public did not do so, and just cheered him on for his policies of starting a war, unconcerned with the fact that the inspections were prevented, and they simply shifted the justification for the war, repeatedly, when no WMD were found.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I still am dying to know, and no one will answer it directly...

But before I ask (again) I will remind that it wasnt just the people of the US, or the Senate, but also the world that believed invading Iraq was for all the right reasons...

How the hell did he trick sooooo many people....all around the globe....and create such a huuuuuuuge pile of bullshit...

If he's just an idiot? I dont get it. *shrug*

First, Bush personally didn't do any of this. He's just a figurehead, a marionette for people like Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld. Very few consider them idiots.

More to the point, however, your claim about the "world" is nonsense. Since search finally works again, let me simply paste something I wrote then:

The so-called Coalition of the Willing represents less than 20% of the world's population (including the U.S.). Even then, the people of the "willing" countries largely opposed the war. Excluding the U.S. and Britain, the "willing" represent about 20% of the world GDP. Only Britain and Australia offered more than a couple hundred troops. Many of the "willing" countries offered no support whatsoever beyond allowing their names to be listed. At least a couple of "willing" countries denied supporting the invasion at all.

Many of the "willing" are there because we either paid them directly, or threatened to withhold aid. Eight countries are there because they want into NATO; Bush said the U.S. would veto the memberships of any country that did not join the "willing". Outside of politics, that's usually called extortion.

More noteworthy is all of the major countries who are NOT on the list: Russia, France, Germany, China, India, Canada, Mexico, Belgium, Austria, Greece, South Africa along with most of the rest of Africa, Brazil along with most of Central and South America, and Saudi Arabia along with most of the Middle Eastern countries who did support the 1991 action. Turkey is listed as "willing" (after we offered billions of dollars), but their support was inconsistent to say the least. The "willing" does NOT include 11 of the 15 UN Security Council members.

No matter how much Bush tries to spin it, this was a US/UK invasion with an assortment of minor hangers-on offering their names in return for political favor. Pretending otherwise just damages your credibility. It would be better to acknowledge it for what it was and move on to other issues.

Those are the real facts. Your claim about "the world" is pure revisionist history.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Some of us have already been there and would go back again. Defeat and surrender is not an option for many of us. So take your hippie outrage and respectfully shove it.

I'm not sure if this is funny or sad...you still don't realize there's nothing left to win or lose in Iraq.

It's a forgone conclusion that your mission in Iraq was over a long time ago.

...because all your beliefs are 100% fact and there is no possiblity that you could ever be wrong on an issue?

:roll:

And our troops have been "turning the corner" for how many years?

If you want to support your position in Iraq, I suggest you do what the President does and ignore "facts" altogether. Gut feelings are much better.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
But before I ask (again) I will remind that it wasnt just the people of the US, or the Senate, but also the world that believed invading Iraq was for all the right reasons...

If you mean "people existed" in the US, Senate, and world that supported the invasion, you're 100% correct.

If you mean "a majority of people" in the US, Senate, and world supported the invasion, you're 100% wrong.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
unbelievababble!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with the potbangers, vote to withdraw funds/troops, vote to impeach BUSH/CHENEY, and nobody agrees??

WTF??

Come on guys! It's all you can dream about...

come out and say it, you want it to happen..or do you????

because you understand what would happen if it actually came to a vote..

wimps...

Well,
With the first, any legislation calling for troop withdraw would be vetoed. Anything Bush didn't agree with which came across his desk would suffer the same fate. Since the Republicans have sufficient numbers to prevent an override.

Well, them's the rules & that's how it's worked for a longtime regardless of which party is in power.

But more importantly, many here seem to believe (hope really) that the Dems in Congress have the will & desire to move forward with a troop withdrawl. That's a farce.

Most prominent Dems, including those in the Presidential race, have clearly indicated that they have no desire for a withdrawl. Well, as far as "clearly" I admit to some obfuscation on the part of many in the debates (pandering to their audience), but even so their remarks belie their position: Redeploy yet remain (for many years).

As I have asserted many times previously, the Dems don't want an immediate pullout, they fear the potential negative consequences (chaos and bloodshed) and the resulting political consequences. They can't afford to start one until immediately before the elections when too little time will be available for the consequences to develop.

The gift they want and may need is for the Repubs and GWB to instigate a withdrawl, thus bearing the responsibility for any negative consequences. But I don't see them getting that handed to them.

So this "long slow polical dance" will continue: The Repubs trying to continue to "win" not being able to withdrawl for fear of consequences, the Dems continuing to "wail and gnash their teeth" and being ineffective in any way (other than for their own political purposes) because they don't want political responsibility for potential withdrawl consequences either.

Second, the current administration has apparently taken the astonishing view that by claiming executive privilige it can prevent testimony of WH officials to Congress, AND order the Justice Dept to not act on any contempt citation. There's nothing astonsishing about this in any way. It's merely "SOS" as has been practiced by every President since the founding of the country The principle here isn't contempt charges, but that the President has inherent authority to block any investigation into the Executive Branch that the President doesn't approve. Effectively that means that any impeachment hearings are going to have empty chairs to be questioned On the contrary, SCOTUS has ruled that Executive Priveledge is most definitely limited in any impeachment hearings adainst the President. This occured during the Nixon era , or for that matter anything else Bush doesn't want examined. He can and probably will claim exec. priv. in the case of criminal wrongdoing investigations by preventing testimony, giving immunity, and obstructing justice via prohibiting the Justice Dept from acting on anything anyway. As I'm sure you know, impeachment means nothing anyway since it is really removal from office that needs be done. That would be effectively prevented by the Republican presence in Congress. But all this impeachment talk again begs the question - For What? To date no one's advanced anything besides unsupported allegations or dissatisfaction with GWB's policies. Hardly a basis for impeachment as we know it now. Something yet may be found, but the clock is running out quickly. Impeachment has AFAIK never been a quick thing and the end of GWB's term is drawing near.

Third, if Congress were to not fund the war, that doesn't mean that the troops come home. They don't get their supplies, and they start to die as a result. This affords you and Bush the opportunity to bash Congress, since moving them out of harms way is nothing you would care to do. The Dems aren't as willing to let the troops die for Presidential principle, so defunding won't happen.

Meh, the Dems in Congress are perfectly capable of dealing wth Washington DC spin. They could pass a bill calling for withdrawl and warn GWB if he vetoes it the funding will stop. Should he wish to order the troops remain there without funding the responsibility rests with him.

But again, they don't want a withdrawl. It would be political stupid of them for reasons I identified above.

What I think Congress should do is hold hearings on whatever they wish and place cardboard cutouts of those who don't attend. Whoever doesn't show should be cited with contempt, and the AG given 30 days to carry out the order. If the AG does not, then HE should be cited. Meanwhile, use the inherent contempt power Congress cannot have stripped from them by Bush and let the chips fall where they may.

Hmmm. Seems to me that this is pretty much what they are now doing. And as with all Admins fighting with Congress, Exec Priv will be asserted and the courts will stay out of it unless it's an impeachment proceeding (or an underling so far below the President Exec Priv cannot be properly asserted). AFAIK, that's been the long history of it in the USA.

Fern

EDIT: Fixed my screw up in bolding my last remarks

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Second, the current administration has apparently taken the astonishing view that by claiming executive privilige it can prevent testimony of WH officials to Congress, AND order the Justice Dept to not act on any contempt citation. The principle here isn't contempt charges, but that the President has inherent authority to block any investigation into the Executive Branch that the President doesn't approve. Effectively that means that any impeachment hearings are going to have empty chairs to be questioned, or for that matter anything else Bush doesn't want examined. He can and probably will claim exec. priv. in the case of criminal wrongdoing investigations by preventing testimony, giving immunity, and obstructing justice via prohibiting the Justice Dept from acting on anything anyway. As I'm sure you know, impeachment means nothing anyway since it is really removal from office that needs be done. That would be effectively prevented by the Republican presence in Congress.

Why are you bringing up the executive privilige fight in a thread about the war?

Your first and your third points belong here, but this is totally off subject and I don't see how it applies to the topic at hand.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Second, the current administration has apparently taken the astonishing view that by claiming executive privilige it can prevent testimony of WH officials to Congress, AND order the Justice Dept to not act on any contempt citation. The principle here isn't contempt charges, but that the President has inherent authority to block any investigation into the Executive Branch that the President doesn't approve. Effectively that means that any impeachment hearings are going to have empty chairs to be questioned, or for that matter anything else Bush doesn't want examined. He can and probably will claim exec. priv. in the case of criminal wrongdoing investigations by preventing testimony, giving immunity, and obstructing justice via prohibiting the Justice Dept from acting on anything anyway. As I'm sure you know, impeachment means nothing anyway since it is really removal from office that needs be done. That would be effectively prevented by the Republican presence in Congress.

Why are you bringing up the executive privilige fight in a thread about the war?

Your first and your third points belong here, but this is totally off subject and I don't see how it applies to the topic at hand.

Read the text I quoted. Fern has said that exec priv. doesn't extended to impeachment proceedings. True enough as Nixon found out, however impeachment is a process that will require cause. Any such attempt at investigation to start the process would require testimony. Grant the freedom to ignore Congress, and you have no case. Block access to testimony and you block impeachment. No impeachment, no limit on executive priv. Heartsurgeon brought it up, and I addressed his post.

BTW Fern, I understand your perspective, however I don't recall the Executive Branch ordering the Justice Dept to not act on Congressional contempt citation. Can you give examples where the President of past administrations have done that? I don't recall Clinton or Bush Sr doing that. If it's commonplace, I missed it.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Give me an F?ing break.
The President has been running wars for 200 years.
But since we don?t like Bush we must change this fact?

BTW when is the NY Times going to discover the 2nd amendment? Or maybe they could read some of the founding fathers writings about social charity and write about that.
And people wonder why the Newspapers are losing readers left and right.

Because things run one way for hundreds of years does not mean that it is wrong and should not be looked at. Or would you be interested in owning slaves still?

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Some of us have already been there and would go back again. Defeat and surrender is not an option for many of us. So take your hippie outrage and respectfully shove it.

I'm not sure if this is funny or sad...you still don't realize there's nothing left to win or lose in Iraq.

It's a forgone conclusion that your mission in Iraq was over a long time ago.

...because all your beliefs are 100% fact and there is no possiblity that you could ever be wrong on an issue?

:roll:

And our troops have been "turning the corner" for how many years?

If you want to support your position in Iraq, I suggest you do what the President does and ignore "facts" altogether. Gut feelings are much better.

Your reading comprehension seriously sucks man. Bad. Where did I say I support the war in Iraq?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
BTW Fern, I understand your perspective, however I don't recall the Executive Branch ordering the Justice Dept to not act on Congressional contempt citation. Can you give examples where the President of past administrations have done that? I don't recall Clinton or Bush Sr doing that. If it's commonplace, I missed it.

That might take me a while to research and answer. To date most of what I've researched and read has delt with invoking Exec Priv and the courts' response, etc. Whatever role the Justice Dept has had in these cases either wasn't discussed or I've just flat-out forgotten it.

Otherwise I must confess a bit of ignorance here. I wasn't aware (haven't read or seen) GWB give any such order to the Justice Dept. I assume it must have happened recently while I was on vacation and not following the news? I'm off to google around a bit and see what I've missed

Fern

EDIT: This article sheds some light on the matter.

Apparently the GWB admin has "sugested" that the AG's office (District AG in Washington DC) doesn't need to act on the Congressional citation and is basing that claim on a position taken by the Reagan admin.

"Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts"

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

Seems to me the arguement is (1) It's the Justice Dept in the first place that provides an opinion to the President as to whether he can legally claim Exec Priv, so (2) How can the Justice Dept then turn around prosecute when Exec priv is claimed (as they advised could be done)?

In any case, the past has shown that the courts are notoriously reluctant to intervene in fights between the WH & Congress when Exec Priv has been invoked (exceptions are during impeachment and for those underlings who are too far under the Pres).

So, Congress knows what's gonna happen. Hence, this is a "political show" IMO. If they were serious they would go after the low-level underlings (who aren't protected by E.P.) and work their way up.