Dems challenge Bush's power to wage war

Hatuey · 02-16-07, 06:37 AM

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

Quote:

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 · 02-16-07, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

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 · 02-16-07, 10:15 AM

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 · 02-16-07, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra

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 · 02-16-07, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

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 · 02-16-07, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goobieman

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

Oh ya I forgot.

Goobieman · 02-16-07, 10:41 AM

"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 · 02-16-07, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goobieman

"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 · 02-16-07, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

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 · 02-16-07, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goobieman

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.