Tony Snow avoided Chris Matthews question.

[Jhhnn]

Consulate, not embassy. There's a difference.

For the purposes of this thread, the distinction is moot. Both are technically part of their own country, both consular and ambassadorial staff have diplomatic immunity.

And I need to apologize for failing to note Johnson's involvement in Vietnam as a mistake. I think he figured that out early on, but couldn't find a way out that he thought would satisfy the public. It was only Nixon's escalation, and threats of even more, that brought the N Vietnamese to negotiate, let us leave without taking fire on our backside...

Vietnam destroyed Johnson. He was distraught that he'd unleashed a monster beyond his control, and left office a broken man.

There really wasn't much else that Snow could have said, given his position. It would probably have been more accurate if he'd said that Bush needed to believe he had the support of the people and congress before taking military action, but he really couldn't put it in those terms, given where the Neocon belief structure has led us up to now...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
ProfJohn is unfortunately correct- the War Powers Act gives the President such authority.

Fortunately, no previous president has blundered as badly as in Iraq, with Reagan quickly withdrawing from Lebanon and Clinton from Somalia before they got in too deep. Historically, Congress has been willing to allow the CinC a lot of leeway, so long as he's winning... Taking unauthorized action against Iran would likely invoke a Constitutional crisis of Impeachment... Not like Panama, Haiti, or Grenada, for example... each a sure thing in its own way.

Unfortunately, that's entirely possible given the profound disconnect from reality in the Bush Admin...

I may have to change my signature now

I question your assertion about both Reagan and Clinton in Lebanon and Somalia.

Had both Presidents stuck to their guns and even loosened up the rules of engagement it might have been possible to stabilize both areas.

Instead Somalia is still in a war, one in which the terrorists almost seized control of the country. And Lebanon is practically a puppet state for Iran and Syria.

Getting out of these two countries was the cheap and easy thing to do at the time, but the long term gain for staying could have been substantial. That is one of the things to think about when deal with Iraq. Coming home now will save the lives of 1000 American soldiers a year, but will we end up with a bigger mess to clean up later down the road?

 

[ProfJohn]

This reminds me of a incident during the Foley scandal when Democrat Rohn Emanuel was asked if he knew about the Foley letters.
And the congressman kept saying ?never saw them? over and over and never answered the actual question.

This tactic of Snow?s has been around as long as the media. When asked a direct question you don?t like you give a round about half answer that puts you in a positive light.

BOTH parties do it all the time.

 

[LcarsSystem]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: LcarsSystem
Yes, in fact we raided the Iranian embassy in Iraq today and many believe Bush is trying to bait Iran into taking a hostile action so we have an adequate excuse to go to war.:disgust:

Umm, the Iranian embassy wasn't raided. The place that actually was raided didn't even have diplomatic protections.

Post below.

 

[LcarsSystem]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Consulate, not embassy. There's a difference.

For the purposes of this thread, the distinction is moot. Both are technically part of their own country, both consular and ambassadorial staff have diplomatic immunity.

And I need to apologize for failing to note Johnson's involvement in Vietnam as a mistake. I think he figured that out early on, but couldn't find a way out that he thought would satisfy the public. It was only Nixon's escalation, and threats of even more, that brought the N Vietnamese to negotiate, let us leave without taking fire on our backside...

Vietnam destroyed Johnson. He was distraught that he'd unleashed a monster beyond his control, and left office a broken man.

There really wasn't much else that Snow could have said, given his position. It would probably have been more accurate if he'd said that Bush needed to believe he had the support of the people and congress before taking military action, but he really couldn't put it in those terms, given where the Neocon belief structure has led us up to now...

Yes, that is why I said Embassy at first, I at first heard it on the news, and then hear that there is technically no difference when it comes to them considering it actually a part of their own country. Consulate is what it is though, so I was mistaken there.

 

[Jhhnn]

From ProfJohn, wrt Lebanon and Somalia-

Had both Presidents stuck to their guns and even loosened up the rules of engagement it might have been possible to stabilize both areas.

Yeh, and if pigs had wings, they'd fly. And if we put enough money into genetic research and modification, I'm sure we could develop porcine avians...

We could be the World's policeman, I suppose, if we were willing to completely devote our resources to achieve that end, engage in whatever level of brutality required to achieve it- that's called imperialism.

The whole notion that we're in Iraq to stabilize it is absurd. It was "stable" before we showed up, bringing Michael Ledeen's Neocon version of "creative destruction" as the centerpiece of our achievements there. We created a power vacuum, destroyed civil authority entirely, then sit back and wring our hands as the level of violence has exploded by orders of magnitude. Our presence serves merely to prolong the suffering, prevent any faction from consolidating power.

Which is very much what our insistence on Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon has achieved- now the Israelis are free to attack, prevent the emergence of any govt capable of actually running the place constructively.

 

[Jadow]

OMG a Whitehouse Press Secretary avoided a question! The humanity!

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
He's not saying that Clinton did the wrong thing, he's just saying Presidents have the power to do so if they wish. Learn to comprehend what you read before you start some stupid diatribe.
Harvey.....things look bad for you...jump[ing to way too many conclusions!

Bullsh8! Learn to read his posts (or anyone's, including mine) in the context of what they say over time. This isn't the first thread about a statement from the Bushwhackos where the first reflexive response by him and other admin apologists is to say, "Clinton said/did it, too."

If we start by generously accepting the premise that Clinton said or did something similar to whatever point is being discussed, the next and most important question is whether any moral or intellectual equivalency really exists in the comparative statements/actions they raise. That requires examining and comparing both the contexts and the outcomes of those statements or actions.

NOTHING in any statement or action by Bill Clinton has been as damaging to the U.S. as the Bushwhackos' war in Iraq. It was illegal, immoral and stupid from day one. Today, it is still just as illegal, immoral and stupid, and with over 3000 dead American troops, we must add the word, tragic.

As I said in my last post, the only comparative act of Presidential authority that comes to mind is Vietnam, where, as in Iraq, our President took us to war based on lies told to Congress and the American people.

Allow me to paraphrase: Blah blah blah......But he said "Clinton".......blah blah blah.......I guess I *still* have no real comprehension of the point.......blah blah blah........

PJ made no "comparison" of the actions of anyone to anyone else. The OP asked "Could a President who wanted to start a war go ahead and conduct a military action that will precipitate a war?" and PJ merely provided a historical example to answer his question. I know you don't understand Harvey.....most likely you are too busy looking for nuance while the obvious smacks you in the face. Your behavior in this discussion is a disgrace. You've turned a polite conversation into an unwarranted personal attack. It shouldn't matter that you don't like PJ's politics or points brought up. I may not agree with everything he represents, but I can't ever remember where he has verbally attacked anyone here in violation of the rules as you've demonstrated in this very thread. Maybe he has and I've just missed it.......but it doesn't excuse you.

 

[Lemon law]

Some names are just made in heaven---who can forget the unfortunate Dwayne Bobitt who found his destiny at the hands of his wife.

Somehow snow job Tony is also fitting.

That was the problem with the guy he replaced---because McClellan just looked so guilty and uncomfortable when he told those lies and distortions---so its beam him out Scottie---let it snow let it snow let it snow.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corn
All PJ did was answer the OP's question by way of providing an example. Evidently the phychosis that permeates your being forces you to react in such an unwarranted and uncalled for way: Torrets perhaps?

Seek professional help Harvey, it can only do you good.

In any event, a real man would offer PJ an apology. Show us your "humanity".

I addressed this in a previous post, and I don't accept your premise.

I offer no apology whatsoever. Don't like it? Tough.

It really doesn't matter if I like it or not. I'm not in charge of enforcing the rules here........I *never* expected you to give an apology, evidenced by the "a real man would....." portion of my comment.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corn
It really doesn't matter if I like it or not. I'm not in charge of enforcing the rules here........I *never* expected you to give an apology, evidenced by the "a real man would....." portion of my comment.

As a token of my esteem for your opinion of my post and your speculation about my gender, I fart in your general direction. :laugh:

 

[ProfJohn]

Harvey, I picked Clinton and Kosovo because it was recent and easy to talk about since nearly everyone knows the details of it.

However, for your benefit and for the OP I?ll list a few other places where the President took action without congressional approval.

Carter: The attempt to rescue the American Hostages, we sent our military into Iran, could have caused an escalation of hostilities.

Reagan: Grenada invasion and the bombing of Libya.

Bush 41: Panama invasion

Clinton: Kosovo, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yemen were all bombed by Clinton without congressional approval before hand.
Here is a nice quote from Clinton on the President and the use of the military.
"I thought I ought to say clearly today that I would strenuously oppose such attempts to encroach on the president's foreign policy powers," Clinton said in an interview with radio reporters. "The president must make the ultimate decision" about committing U.S. troops, he said. (This quote was from right before he sent troops into Haiti and before the bombing of Kosovo.)

Obviously Clinton feels the President is the person in charge of making decisions when it comes to the use of our military.

 

[RichardE]

I am pretty sure, though don't remember specifically Congress passing legislation a few weeks after 9/11 giving the president permission to wage war on states harboring terrorists. Maybe someone else remembers more clearly.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: techs
Chris Matthews asked Tony Snow if the President had the authority to military action against Iran without approval from Congress.

Shouldn't the President be taking military action against Congress(& Chris Matthews)?