Dems challenge Bush's power to wage war

[Hatuey]

Dems challenge Bush's power to wage war - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON - Democrats are challenging President Bush's power to wage war, contending they've found a way to block a troop increase in Iraq and prevent any pre-emptive invasion of Iran.

But first Congress will vote on a nonbinding measure stating opposition to Bush's decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. The House was expected to pass the measure on Friday, with the Senate planning to hold a test vote Saturday.

I dont really know what to think about this. Yeah the democrats found a way to block the troop increase. If they block the increase. What will they sugest we do instead?

 

[Goobieman]

I dont really know what to think about this. Yeah the democrats found a way to block the troop increase. If they block the increase. What will they sugest we do instead?

Congress can pass all the restrictions on deployments it wants.

First, if they arent signed into law, they're meaningless. Bush isnt likely to sign them, and Congress wont override the veto.

Second, Congress has no constitutional authority to prescribe any operational demands or limitations on the Commander In Chief. They can elect to fund.not fund the military, but cannot in any way limit any orders he may or may not give. If Congress defunds the war, Bush will run roughshod over the Dems, arguing that they are refising to give the troops what they need -- however unpopular the war may be, not supporting them is FAR more so.

The Dems are playing politics here, looking to do nothing but weaken the President, and they're doing it with the lives of our soldiers.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

BBC NEWS | Americas | US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

I guess that means that if Bush goes to Iran without congress support that the states are effectivly a dictatorial state.

Finally some people with a brain in the US government.. Go democrats!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

BBC NEWS | Americas | US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

I guess that means that if Bush goes to Iran without congress support that the states are effectivly a dictatorial state.

You mean like Clinton did in Kosovo? Did that war make the U.S. a dicatorship?

 

[Goobieman]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

You mean like Clinton did in Kosovo? Did that war make the U.S. a dicatorship?

And like Clinton did in Iraq?
No, that was different.
WBJC(D)

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

And like Clinton did in Iraq?
No, that was different.
WBJC(D)

Oh ya I forgot. :doh

 

[Goobieman]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

"There is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran"
-Nancy Pelosi

Fact of the matter is, Nancy, depending on circumstances, he may not need any authority beyond that inherent to his position as CinC.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

"There is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran"
-Nancy Pelosi

Fact of the matter is, Nancy, depending on circumstances, he may not need any authority beyond that inherent to his position as CinC.

As per the war powers resolution of 1973 which Clinton used for Kosovo, even though Clinton violated it by keeping our troops in harms way for longer than I believe 60 days without congressional approval. If GWB limited it to airstrikes for less then 60 days he would be good to go, then if Iran counterattacks against U.S. interests he wouldn't need congressional approval again as per the WPR of 1973 which allows for the use of force for longer than 60 days if attacked.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

As per the war powers resolution of 1973 which Clinton used for Kosovo, even though Clinton violated it by keeping our troops in harms way for longer than I believe 60 days without congressional approval. If GWB limited it to airstrikes for less then 60 days he would be good to go, then if Iran counterattacks against U.S. interests he wouldn't need congressional approval again as per the WPR of 1973 which allows for the use of force for longer than 60 days if attacked.

There are many scenarios where Bush can act against Iran w/o getting "permission" from Congress.

Never mind that there is no constitutional basis for the WPA. Having the power to declare war is an on/off power -- you declare war or you dont. Having the power to declare war does not give you the power to dictate terms to the CinC absent any such declaration.

 

[aps]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

There are many scenarios where Bush can act against Iran w/o getting "permission" from Congress.

Never mind that there is no constitutional basis for the WPA. Having the power to declare war is an on/off power -- you declare war or you dont. Having the power to declare war does not give you the power to dictate terms to the CinC absent any such declaration.

LOL Clearly, you haven't read our Constitution.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

LOL Clearly, you haven't read our Constitution.

Rather than snipe, as per your usual, why dont you tell me how I'm wrong?
Be sure to support your claims. Good luck with that.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

LOL Clearly, you haven't read our Constitution.

Lol then clearly Clinton Bill Clinton violated our Constitution in order to wage an illegal war in Kosovo, would you agree?

 

[Goobieman]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

Lol then clearly Clinton Bill Clinton violated our Constitution in order to wage an illegal war in Kosovo, would you agree?

And Iraq. Dont forget Iraq. :bunny:

 

[aps]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

Rather than snipe, as per your usual, why dont you tell me how I'm wrong?
Be sure to support your claims. Good luck with that.

Oh, and your statement about how there is no Constitutional basis for the War Powers Act is full of analysis, right? Practice what you preach.

 

[aps]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

Lol then clearly Clinton Bill Clinton violated our Constitution in order to wage an illegal war in Kosovo, would you agree?

I don't know the specifics of what happened in Kosovo. I was not into politics at that time, so I wouldn't be able to write intelligently on that. My comment to Goobieman was in response to his statements about how there is no Consitutional basis for the War Powers Act.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

Oh, and your statement about how there is no Constitutional basis for the War Powers Act is full of analysis, right? Practice what you preach.

Thats what I thought.
Another one of your vapid drive-by postings, completely devoid of substance.
Thanks for wasting our time.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

I don't know the specifics of what happened in Kosovo. I was not into politics at that time, so I wouldn't be able to write intelligently on that. My comment to Goobieman was in response to his statements about how there is no Consitutional basis for the War Powers Act.

Well short and sweet Clinton didn't have Congressional Authorization and he violated the WPR (not the WPA two different laws BTW) by keeping our troops in harms way for longer than 60 days without Congressional approval. Infact it was the only illegal war in U.S. history.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

I don't know the specifics of what happened in Kosovo. I was not into politics at that time, so I wouldn't be able to write intelligently on that.

Its not hard to look up what happened in Kosovo, 1999 and Iraq 1998 re: Clinton's actions and a lack of Congressiona authority to take them -- you just dont WANT to, because of your partisanship.

If you can show the Constitutional basis for the WPA, we'll be happy to take you seriously.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

Kosovo and Bosnia were not unilateral actions or even a coaltion of the willing. Those actions in Europe were undertaken not by the US individually but by NATO, the regional military entity, of which the United States is a member. An argument could be made that as a treaty member of NATO, the president has been authorized to participate in NATO activities.

That is not the complete answer, however, because as I have read it the law would allow a member state like the US to not participate if its Congress did not sanction it. So I agree with TOT and Goobieman there is a point to be made whether Clinton's actions in Kosovo/Bosnia were a legitimate exercise of presidential powers. I think the better course, the one that certainly appears to be the intent of constitutional authority granted to Congress, is that Congress should approve military actions in advance, unless it is an emergency situation.

There were a number of bills introduced about the Bosnia/Kosovo actions, and the Republican congress did threaten to pull the plug on funding. However, no bills were actually passed that either pulled funding or otherwise condemned or disapproved the US participation in that NATO action.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

Kosovo and Bosnia were not unilateral actions or even a coaltion of the willing. Those actions in Europe were undertaken not by the US individually but by NATO, the regional military entity, of which the United States is a member. An argument could be made that as a treaty member of NATO, the president has been authorized to participate in NATO activities.

That is not the complete answer, however, because as I have read it the law would allow a member state like the US to not participate if its Congress did not sanction it. So I agree with TOT and Goobieman there is a point to be made whether Clinton's actions in Kosovo/Bosnia were a legitimate exercise of presidential powers. I think the better course, the one that certainly appears to be the intent of constitutional authority granted to Congress, is that Congress should approve military actions in advance, unless it is an emergency situation.

There were a number of bills introduced about the Bosnia/Kosovo actions, and the Republican congress did threaten to pull the plug on funding. However, no bills were actually passed that either pulled funding or otherwise condemned or disapproved the US participation in that NATO action.

NATO is a defensive not an offensive pact there is no treaty justification for the blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution and illegal war engaged in by the Clinton regime.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

Well short and sweet Clinton didn't have Congressional Authorization and he violated the WPR (not the WPA two different laws BTW) by keeping our troops in harms way for longer than 60 days without Congressional approval. Infact it was the only illegal war in U.S. history.

Please note that it was my position then, and is my position now, that the CinC has a broad, Constittionally-assigned power to use the military when cicrumstances demand. I may not have agreed that we should have gone into Kosovo, but there's no question the President had the power to do so absent 'approval' from Congress.

Congress has the power to declare war, and that's it - Congress has no power to exert operational control over the military after any such declaration; it is impossible to argue that Congress has power to exert said operational control absent same.

Of course, aps (or anyone else) is free to try to make that argument -- but I doubt we'll see that any time soon.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

Please note that it was my position then, and is my position now, that the CinC has a broad, Constittionally-assigned power to use the military when cicrumstances demand. I may not have agreed that we should have gone into Kosovo, but there's no question the President had the power to do so absent 'approval' from Congress.

Congress has the power to declare war, and that's it - Congress has no power to exert operational control over the military after any such declaration; it is impossible to argue that Congress has power to exert said operational control absent same.

Of course, aps (or anyone else) is free to try to make that argument -- but I doubt we'll see that any time soon.

Yes but Congress never declared war or even so much as granted the President an AUMF for Kosovo. Atleast the President has been granted an AUMF against Iraq and terrorists which could be used as justification to wage war on Iran seeing as Iran supports terrorism and is aiding the terrorists in Iraq.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

Yes but Congress never declared war or even so much as granted the President an AUMF for Kosovo. Atleast the President has been granted an AUMF against Iraq and terrorists which could be used as justification to wage war on Iran seeing as Iran supports terrorism and is aiding the terrorists in Iraq.

Like I said:
There are many scenarios where Bush has the Constitutional authority, inherent to the CinC, to act against Iran, regardless of any Congressional 'permission' or lack of same.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

Lol then clearly Clinton Bill Clinton violated our Constitution in order to wage an illegal war in Kosovo, would you agree?

Clinton and NATO had a UN mandate.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: US Democrats warn Bush on Iran

Clinton had a UN mandate.

I do not belelive there was an UNSC resoluon that Ok'd the use of force by anyone. Cite?

And in any event, that's completely irrelevant when discussing the Constitutional powers of the CinC v the Constitutional powers of Congress.