So, You Want To Go To War

Sorry, first you'll need a note from the President. And, by the way, the line for the hall passes is over there.

What an insanely contrived document. It is as much an assault on the Executive Branch, as it is on the troops and the commanders which command them.

The Victory Caucus is pleased to be the very first online --- or print --- media outlet to present in full the text of the conditions imposed in the bill. Click through to see for yourself how  the Democratic leadership wants to hamstring the war effort.

I give you:

Article II

Section 2. 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; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Neither the Constitution, nor the War Powers Resolution vests the Congress with the authority they would attempt to accrue to themselves through this bill. It is as indefensible, as it is likely to be not passable. Our Democrat run Congress has opted to play games while America is at war. They should be very proud.

Comments

[Phoenix]

They're playing King of the Hill now. They hate each other more than they hate the republicans.

[scarshapedstar]

"Our Democrat run Congress has opted to play games while America is at war."

It seems to be conventional wisdom among conservatives that the authors of the Constitution intended for the nation to be perpetually at war.

Nothing could be further from the truth. And yet, that's the clear implication of "every president a war president" during the War on Terror, which will never end as it is currently defined.

[benrand]

"It seems to be conventional wisdom among conservatives that the authors of the Constitution intended for the nation to be perpetually at war."

Yeah, you know, the whole standing army and navy thing, we do that for kicks.

We don't *really* need a military all the time, right?

And let's just forget that the Islamic world has declared war on the US, we really don't need to worry about that.

[yyy]

When did the "Islamic World" declare war on America? Maybe that was just carried on Fox news or something.

The "war on terror" doesn't make Bush a war president any more than the war on drugs made Reagan a war president or the war on poverty made LBJ a war president.

The authors of the Constitution intended for the Congress to be the final authority on when this country goes to war. This isn't really debatable or open to interpretation.

[Seferas-H.]

YYY: Actually, the Constitution does not grant any managing powers of wars or military actions to the Congress. The congress was designed, by those very same authors, as a checks and balances systems, but only in the sense of funding.

The congress CAN constitutionally remove funding from the war and in the end....stop it. HOWEVER, they do not have the powers to tell the commander-in-chief to stop the war or demand that he do so. They do not have the power to recall troops home or redeploy either. That power lies with the executive branch and the President alone.

I've said it before and i'll say it again: If the Democrats want the war to end then defund it, and if they are not prepared to do so then they need to sit back and shut up because all this other meaningless (and I should also add moneywasting) resolution and debate won't change anything.

Oh, and as for the "Islamic World" declaring war on America? Well....I guess being called the great satan and Islamic leaders claiming that Israel and it's allies need to be wiped off the map (and seeing that were just about Israel's only ally) and 4 jetliners being hi-jacked by MUSLIMS was a pretty good indication that they wanted to go to war with us.

Oh, and it's kinda funny that you said this isn't open for interpretation considering it's your party(assuming you ARE a liberal democrat) that claims the Constitution is a living document and is open to interpretation. Ya know....just pointing out your hypocrisy

[yyy]

As I remember my civics, the power to DECLARE WAR, rests with Congress, not the President.

There isn't any need to interpret things that are spelled out in black and white.

OMG, they called us names and that is a declaration of war? LOL if it wasn't so sad.

International relations is not a popularity contest. Israel is unpopular in the ME, our support of Israel makes us unpopular in the ME. Being unpopular, disliked, even hated is not the same as having a war declared against you. For that matter, an actual war against Israel is not the same as a war against the United States. Again, consulting my history books, when Egypt and Syria invaded Israel, the U.S. did not consider that an act of war against our country, but theirs.

Al Quada attacked us. If you can't differentiate between a non state, terrorist organization and the "Islamic World" then you are beyond any logical help that exists.

[Phoenix]

Why, Why, Why,

You just embarrassed yourself so badly I didn't even laugh. I'm actually embarrassed for you.

[Legalize]

Yawn. I love it when wingers purport to be concerned about the constitution.

Article I:

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 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.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

In short, yeah, Article I expressly gives the Congress the power, and the responsibility to determine what fights are in the national interest, and to maintain the military. We go to war because the Congress says so, not because the president says so; we go to war HOW the Congress says, not how the president says.

[Zifnab]

"As I remember my civics, the power to DECLARE WAR, rests with Congress, not the President."

This is, perhaps, the biggest joke of all. Congress has the power to declare war, but the President hasn't asked for war to be declared and Congress hasn't seen fit to declare it themselves. Certainly, the various Iraq and general War on Terror legislation gives the President money and authority to use force. But these are still powers granted by Congress, not inherent in the Presidency. And since there's no delcared war, all this brew-ha-ha about "War Time President" is that much bullshit. No War. No War Time President. It's that simple.

Congress has the power to set funding for the war too. But apparently, de-funding the Iraq War (as opposed to the Kosavo War) is off the table, because the President has threatened to ditch the troops in Iraq with no way home because he'll just blow all the withdrawl money on no-bid contracts to political donners. And, therefore, if Congress de-funded the war, they'd be hurting the troops.

The logic boggles the mind. As far as I can tell, Republican logic starts and ends on IOKIARDI

[yyy]

He's a war president because he says he is. Same way that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. because he said so. Same way he can define torture any way he wants to.

I'm always amazede that no one ever calls Bush on his war powers docrine since there is no official war that has been declared.

[Legalize]

"The logic boggles the mind."

I found that it is best to not bother trying to reason with unreasonable zealots who are convinced that they are inherently correct, no matter how you destroy their facile positions. You'll just end up with a headache. The simple trugh is that they simply don't care WHAT the constitution says relative to ANY matter. As far as they are concerned the words before and after "commander in chief" are mere surplusage. To the cultists, neo-fascists, "commander in chief" totally ends the discussion - ABOUT EVERYTHING, because war and power for their own sake are the only virtues that matter.

[templar knight]

Hmm...I find it quite interesting that Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt took some of the same liberties with the Constitution that Bush is accused of taking, i.e., suspension of habeus corpus, unrestricted submarine warfare prior to a Declaration of War, and I'm sure I could go on if I had time, but work is calling me. Weren't these two presidents considered by many to be two of the best ever?

[yyy]

So, if Lincoln did it, then it must be okay?

Since FDR presided over the Japanese internment camps, then that must make it okay too?

Of course, the fact that Lincoln and FDR were dealing with real wars, not imaginary, pretend wars shouldn't enter into the equation.

[Dan Riehl]

In short, ...

(Bullshit) The Congress is a ministerial branch when it comes to the military. There is NOTHING in 1:8 giving them anything but ministrial authority - to be enacted through the application of funds, placing of bases, etc - as that process is necessarily a states issue.

One does not "govern" soldiers in the field, one "commands" them. "Commander In Chief" means precisely what it says. It does not say CIC, subordinant to the Congress.

[yyy]

Congress declares war Dan, the Founders gave Congress NOT the president this power for a very good reason.

Congress declares war and Congress funds the war.
The president is commander in chief of the army.

Clearly, the difference is beyond your intellectual capability to comprehend.

For those of us with a brain, it's clear the Founders wanted the decisions about war and war funding to be made by a deliberative body, not a single individual, the president.

The fact that our country now fights undeclared wars and congress is mostly a lap dog for the president shows just how far our system of government has fallen.

[Legalize]

"Hmm...I find it quite interesting that Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt took some of the same liberties with the Constitution that Bush is accused of taking, i.e., suspension of habeus corpus, unrestricted submarine warfare prior to a Declaration of War, and I'm sure I could go on if I had time, but work is calling me. Weren't these two presidents considered by many to be two of the best ever?"

And they were admonished for it by the Supreme Court and the Congress at the time. Lincoln especially. Please don't tell me you're going to bust out the bogus Lincoln quote next. Lincoln and FDR also faced actual, material, and imminent threats. Hell, D.C. was literally surrounded at the time Lincoln did it. Further, Lincoln later admitted that he regretted his order.

"In short, ...

(Bullshit) The Congress is a ministerial branch when it comes to the military. There is NOTHING in 1:8 giving them anything but ministrial authority - to be enacted through the application of funds, placing of bases, etc - as that process is necessarily a states issue."

A "states" issue? You must be high. You must mean "ministerial" in the sense that I:8 only gives the Congress the right to fund, raise, train, regulate, supress insurrection, repel invasion, call up the militias, appoint officers, and make all laws "necessary and proper" to carry out their enumerated powers re the military and making war, and in "providing for the common defense."

"In short" YOU are full of shit, Riehl. Article I grants Congress wide powers to regulate the military and the making of war. The president is totally subordinant to Congress in that he carries out war as designated by Congress. If Congress wants war, it grants him the authority to execute it; if it does not want war, it reigns him in. What is more, I know that you can not find any primary support for your conclusions. I dare you.

[yyy]

I wouldn't expect much more than a personal insult and maybe a temporary banning.

The right wing has shown itself to be impervious to facts of any kind, even those contained in the U.S. Constitution which they claim to hold so dear.

They don't know or care about facts or context. Thus, Commander in Chief to them means the President, as long as he's a Republican nutter, can do whatever he wants in terms of war, declared wars, undeclared wars, whatever.

Facts and reality just confuse them and make them mad

[ET]

Legalize/yyy

If you don't think we are in a real war, there is no hope for you and you are of no use to anyone. Those of us who lost loved ones on 9/11 are tired of you pompous assholes deriding this administration's attempts to deal with a complex threat to our very existence. Mistakes have been made in the past, your beloved democratic congress is blowing smoke while they continue to fund the war, and the next presicent will struggle with the issue, regardless of party. This war is real, it is not going to end soon and we need to take the offensive in confronting the enemy.

Anyone who really belives this war on terror was manufactured by the Bush adminstration is an idiot, plain and simple. Just becuase it doesn't fit neatly into your simple, utopian world contruct, doesn't mean there are not millions of muslim fanntics who would take your head off if given the chance. Count your blessings that your Government has the balls to fight a war you don't understand to ensure you can take pot shots from the comfort of your home. Sleep well.

[Zifnab]

"Thus, Commander in Chief to them means the President, as long as he's a Republican nutter, can do whatever he wants in terms of war, declared wars, undeclared wars, whatever."

Of course, all of this logic will fall on its ear the moment President Hillary takes office.

I give it five weeks before a Republican representative calls for investigation, censor, or impeachment of Hillary if she takes the primary and inevitably goes on to win the general. All that crap about Unitary Executive goes out the window and it's back to "States Rights!" without batting an eye.

[Zifnab]

"If you don't think we are in a real war, there is no hope for you and you are of no use to anyone."

If by "you" you mean "the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congress" then I agree. That's probably why they got their asses handed to them in '06.

Once again, I refer you to the simple fact that we invaded the wrong country. Perhaps if Bush could keep his eyes on Afganistan and take his Aderall on a regular basis you might have a point with all this "this war on terror was manufactured by the Bush adminstration" bullshit, but the GWOT was supposed to begin and end with Al Qaida. Bush failed to catch Osama and he turned the Middle East into a giant shitstorm. He manufactored the war on terror on a very literal sense. He physically crafted the jihadist movement by his political blunders and crass military stupidity.

Bush is the posterboy for the Middle East "I hate America" movement. That's his turd your smelling.

[yyy]

doesn't mean there are not millions of muslim fanntics who would take your head off if given the chance.
-------------------------

Well, um, except there isn't any evidence for that.

What about Al Quaeda attacking us do you not understand?

Al Quaeda is a terrorist group, it isn't a country, it certainly doesn't speak for all muslims, in fact other terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas don't like Al Quaeda either.

Again, facts be dammed. We're at war with Islam, the muslims hate our freedom and want to kill us, we've got to fight them over there instead of over here. Yadda Yadda Yadda.

You are like a broken record.

The 9/11 attack was maybe 20 people. How do you leap from 20 terrorists to MILLIIONS?

Oh yeah, just because you don't need any facts or evidence to back up your hateful ranting.

I used to wonder how Germany ended up in the hands of a nut like Hitler and how an educated population wound up deciding that it was 'okay' to kill all the jews.

The posts on this blog have given me the answer. It was easy. All it took was a little propaganda, a little fear and a couple of out of context facts and presto: you've got a scapegoat.

You people are sickening AND scary. That you are brutally stupid is a given.

[Legalize]

"If you don't think we are in a real war, there is no hope for you and you are of no use to anyone."

Hey, a conclusory statement, in capable of being supported, tossed out in lieu of a substantive response to repeatedly being demonstrated to being wrong. Shocking.

"Those of us who lost loved ones on 9/11 are tired of you pompous assholes deriding this administration's attempts to deal with a complex threat to our very existence."

Those of us who were there are tired of you incompetent liars waving 9/11 in our faces every time you are demonstated to be the cowardly buffoons you really are.

"Mistakes have been made in the past,"

Is that the new wingnut code word? It's been bandied about a lot lately by other liars.

"your beloved democratic congress is blowing smoke while they continue to fund the war, and the next presicent will struggle with the issue, regardless of party."

That's true.

"This war is real, it is not going to end soon and we need to take the offensive in confronting the enemy."

Hey, yet another conclusory statement without any objective support.

"Anyone who really belives this war on terror was manufactured by the Bush adminstration is an idiot, plain and simple."

Um, no, the war in Iraq was manufactured by the Bush administration. The sentient among us realize this and also realize that W has done more to undermine the "GWOT" than assist it.

"Just becuase it doesn't fit neatly into your simple, utopian world contruct, doesn't mean there are not millions of muslim fanntics who would take your head off if given the chance."

What, you couldn't fit the word "caliphate" into that hysterical rant?

"Count your blessings that your Government has the balls to fight a war you don't understand to ensure you can take pot shots from the comfort of your home."

That's conclusory statement number 3. You must be really hurting for ideas.

"Sleep well."

Like a baby, knowing that you and your ilk are not in charge and will not be in charge for the foreseeable future.

[ET]

Legal-
I see no objective support for any of the conclusory statements you make in your posts. Hold yourself to the same standards, hypocrite.

Let me try to simplify my comment -- just because the struggle we face against islamofascism is too complex for you to grasp doesn't mean it is not real. I know I can't make you understand that and that you will parse my words to attack me for saying it.

You are a simpleton and a Bush hater. Your objective is to sabotage a sitting administration in a time of war. You add nothing to the dialogue or to the effort to maintain our way of life. Nobody gets any smarter reading your posts, and nobody gets any safer, either. And if you think your beloved democrats will perform any better in the face of the threat you and they deny, then you are really worthless.

[Hard Right]

ET, let me give you a heads up on who you are debating.

legalize has repeatedly shown himself to be exactly what you said. He thinks he's much smarter than he actually is. He even tried to tell me what I meant by a particular word I said.

YYY, is another moonbat who thinks the 6 Imams were the victims of racial bigotry. On several occasions he has refuted something I didn't say or even imply.

Zifnab has stated that we are "raping Iraq economically" on a daily basis.

So as you can see, you aren't dealing with sane, rational, individuals.

[ET]

Thanks, HR. They also seem to think those of us who support the Admin in this difficult time enjoy the suffering of others and somehow profit on the misery of war. I find that highly insulting as a family man of high integrity. I hate war. I fear for my children's future. But I also teach them that if you are attacked you must defend yourself. I firmly believe that is what we are trying to do - to move from the passive posture of the 1990's to a more assertive strategy in response to 9/11. It is the more difficult, more messy choice, but inaction will lead to our ruin. We an disagree on tactics, but I'll repeat myself -- anyone who claims that this 'war on terror' is not real, or made up for some ulterior motive is just too simpleminded to see the big picture.

[Legalize]

"I see no objective support for any of the conclusory statements you make in your posts. Hold yourself to the same standards, hypocrite."

That's pretty funny, given that I cited Art I:8 of the constitution eariler, and discussed it at length.

"Let me try to simplify my comment -- just because the struggle we face against islamofascism is too complex for you to grasp doesn't mean it is not real. I know I can't make you understand that and that you will parse my words to attack me for saying it."

You said that before in your earlier rant. The fact that you even use the term "Islamofascism" is pretty illustrative of the fact that you haven't a clue. Anyone with a cursory sense of history understands that Islam and fascism are inherently incompatible concepts. Islamism is at its base, totally repulsed by the idea of the state and corporat-ism, you know, the basis for fascism. You have so little faith and belief in the U.S. that you are convinced that a rag-tag group of doucebags, incapable of establishing their own version of utopian society and maintaining it, are somehow capable of undoing the the greatest military, economic, and cultural force the world has ever known. They can barely run their own states for fuck's sake.

In short, your deluded and paranoid sense of impending doom has little to no basis in reality, and your argument should be rejected out of hand. The alleged "single most devastating event" in U.S. hisory (according to the cultists) was 9/11. Well, we're only 5 1/2 years removed from that event, and NYC is better than ever and the U.S. is FINE, but for the incompetence of the Bush administration.

"You are a simpleton and a Bush hater."

Wrong and wrong.

"Your objective is to sabotage a sitting administration in a time of war."

If you really believe that is the case, in light of the fact that it clearly isn't true, given everything I've ever posted here, you are obviously an idiot; on the other hand, if you choose to just spout out the same old, tired talking points that have long since been rejected by anyone with a clue, as a means of making a political point, then you are a liar. Either way, there is very little point in taking you seriously. Thus, you get derision, snark, and the point-and-laugh treatment that you deserve.

"You add nothing to the dialogue or to the effort to maintain our way of life."

And you haven't a fucking clue as to WHAT I do; you only know you can't compete in an honest argument.

"Nobody gets any smarter reading your posts,"

That is clear, given that you and your like-minded brood remain as you are.

"...and nobody gets any safer, either."

As opposed to the courage you display. Give me a break, hero.

"And if you think your beloved democrats will perform any better in the face of the threat you and they deny, then you are really worthless."

They aren't my Democrats, as I am not a Democrat. However, I do enjoy that they are draining the swamp created by the traitorous incompetence and graft of the GOP. Finally, I have to admit that judgments of worth, coming from someone incapable of anything other than blubbering Dick Cheney's talking points, doesn't really move me to tears. For now, again, I am just pleased that you will never attain any poistion of influence over the policy of this country.

[ET]

--You have so little faith and belief in the U.S. that you are convinced that a rag-tag group of doucebags, incapable of establishing their own version of utopian society and maintaining it, are somehow capable of undoing the the greatest military, economic, and cultural force the world has ever known.--

Some ragtag group of douchebags brought down two 100 storey buildings, the financial center of the western world, shutting down the stock market for three days. They slammed a plane into the pentagon, the military nerve center of "the greatest military, economic, and cultural force the world has ever known." But, of course, they can't hurt us. And our assertive efforts to prevent similar attacks are just Bush's folly. Stop smoking crack before breakfast, pal.

-- Well, we're only 5 1/2 years removed from that event, and NYC is better than ever and the U.S. is FINE, but for the incompetence of the Bush administration.--

I suppose that happened by accident, right genius?

"You are a simpleton and a Bush hater."

--Wrong and wrong.--
Granted, I don't know how you feel about the President (sorry I haven't been following your posts religiously), but your retreat to the safe haven of details tells me that you are a pinhead who must reduce concepts into little bites so you can chew them up with your thesaurus. I am not impressed with your ability to grasp the complexities of geopolitics or have the capacity to consider current events in the context of history. Simple things for simple minds.

--And you haven't a fucking clue as to WHAT I do; you only know you can't compete in an honest argument.--
I don't give a shit WHAT you do. I only know you might want to get a real job, since you seem to spend much of your day on a conservative blog working yourself into a lather with bullshit arguments. Really, go make a contribution somewhere. We won't miss you.

--For now, again, I am just pleased that you will never attain any poistion of influence over the policy of this country.--
Whoa. Is that a conclusory statement without objective support? I thought you were above that? What or who do you influence in your little world? Certainly not me. The policy of this country? No way. You have a very inflated sense of your self-worth, which comes across in your condescending posts.

One final thought...I have not seen an alternative strategy for confronting the war against Islamic extremists (I don't want to be educated about the technical definition of facism) appear in any of your posts. I assume you reject the threat and would pull back and do nothing. That is a formula for disaster, in my opinion. If I am wrong, and you acknowledge that we face a real threat, what would you do? I predict no response. It is all fun and games to criticise every decision...it is much harder to have to make hard choices in the real world. Since you give no credit to those faced with the real work, sit back in your armchair and compose another shrill post and delude yourself that you are making a difference. And again, sleep well knowing that your Government is protecting your right to be an asshole.

[charles]

ET +1, nice post- i agree

"Well, we're only 5 1/2 years removed from that event, and NYC is better than ever"

oh really, i've lived here since i was born and you don't have the slightest clue

[Raging_Dave]

Hello, liberals - Congress authorized military action against Iraq in 2003. Remember that 14 month "rush to war"? Yeah. That one. Why do you think it took 14 months to send the bombers over? Because Bush didn't have a declaration of war until Congress gave him one.

Once he got that declaration, then the President is in control. Congress can do two things - revoke the authorization, or cut funding. Both of which they won't do.

I would appriciate it if you Leftists would keep your lies straight.