New War Powers Legislation Needed

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By AP/ ANNE FLAHERTY

(WASHINGTON) —Former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher say the next time the president goes to war, Congress should be required to say whether it agrees. The co-chairmen of a bipartisan study group have proposed legislation that would require the president to consult lawmakers before initiating combat lasting longer than a week, except in cases of emergencies. In turn, Congress would have to act within 30 days, either approving or disapproving of the action.

The plan, outlined by Baker and Christopher in an essay published Tuesday in The New York Times, would not necessarily prevent future debate on the so-called "war powers" issue. Instead, it would create a new consultative process between the White House and Congress to help prevent a potential constitutional showdown.

Congress' involvement in approving combat operations became a central issue in the Iraq debate last year, when Democrats tried to force President Bush to end the war.

After taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats tried to cap force levels and set a timetable for withdrawals. They lacked a veto-proof majority to put the restrictions into law, and the White House argued that such legislation would have violated the Constitution by infringing upon the president's role as commander in chief to protect the nation. Democrats disagreed, contending there was ample precedent.

Baker, who served as secretary of state in the first Bush administration, and Christopher, who served under President Clinton, were to discuss their findings at a news conference Tuesday morning.

The panel has been studying the issue for more than a year and consulted more than three dozen experts. Other members of the panel include former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who in 2006 led the Iraq Study Group with Baker; former Attorney General Edwin Meese III; and Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1820879,00.html

[alienlovechild 75]

The War Powers Act has been ignored by every president since it was enacted and there's no reason to believe another law will impede any future president. It's a waste of time. Members of Congress know they can always vote against funding a war but are too spineless to go on the record.

Despite attempts to rewrite recent history, Congress voted overwhelming in favor on the use of force against Iraq under Bush and voted for the overthrow of Saddam's government under Clinton.

Obama would probably ignore Congress under a new War Powers Act because the guy is arrogant and would resent being the first president to knuckle under to Congress.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The War Powers Act has been ignored by every president since it was enacted and there's no reason to believe another law will impede any future president. It's a waste of time. Members of Congress know they can always vote against funding a war but are too spineless to go on the record.

The plan, outlined by Baker and Christopher in an essay published Tuesday in The New York Times, would not necessarily prevent future debate on the so-called "war powers" issue. Instead, it would create a new consultative process between the White House and Congress to help prevent a potential constitutional showdown.

[alienlovechild 75]

The plan, outlined by Baker and Christopher in an essay published Tuesday in The New York Times, would not necessarily prevent future debate on the so-called "war powers" issue. Instead, it would create a new consultative process between the White House and Congress to help prevent a potential constitutional showdown.

New War Powers Legislation Needed

Change your title to "New War Non-Powers Non-Legislation Suggestion to White House". Sounds dumb either way.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The plan, outlined by Baker and Christopher in an essay published Tuesday in The New York Times, would not necessarily prevent future debate on the so-called "war powers" issue. Instead, it would create a new consultative process between the White House and Congress to help prevent a potential constitutional showdown.

New War Powers Legislation Needed

Change your title to "New War Non-Powers Non-Legislation Suggestion to White House". Sounds dumb either way.

Yeah, those two idiots, Baker and Christopher...what are they thinking? F###ing idiots.

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

Why doesn't anyone complain about Afganistan? It is more of a waste of our effors than Iraq. At least Iraq has oil and is beneficial to the US in our future. Afganistan will NEVER be a stable country. Money changes how people think and if people in Iraq are benefitting from oil money they will like the lifestyle and eventually settle into a somewhat stable lifestyle. There will always be a few that cause problems but money changes most people. Look at the UAE, kiwait, etc. They have a few crazy people but these countries aren't attacking us constantly. Iran is the exception, they have oil but they know that if we attacked them they would loose everything. They are bold but wait until we are pushed too far and see what happens?

[alienlovechild 75]

Why doesn't anyone complain about Afganistan? It is more of a waste of our effors than Iraq. At least Iraq has oil and is beneficial to the US in our future. Afganistan will NEVER be a stable country. Money changes how people think and if people in Iraq are benefitting from oil money they will like the lifestyle and eventually settle into a somewhat stable lifestyle.

That's a pretty smart observation on your part. The number of U.S. deaths in Afghanistan are starting to exceed those in Iraq so there may be a change in attitudes. Afghanistan took a backseat to news coverage in Iraq for years but as the situation in Iraq improves, the media goes where the bullets are flying. Afghanistan, under Taliban rule, gave shelter to Bin Laden so Uncle Sam kicked butt. Now, with the Taliban in the hinterlands, Bin Laden supposedly hanging in Pakistan and a country that is one of the most backwards in the world, what's the purpose of having U.S. and allied troops there?

The other reasons for muted criticism of the Afghan War is that it's an allied effort with NATO troops so misery loves company and Bush critics can call it a success unlike the Iraq War where the U.S. doesn't have many allies.

Obama has been silent on Afghanistan and don't anyone bother posting some obscure Obama quote because he hasn't made the issue a priority. Obama needs the war in Afghanistan so he talk tough on terrorism but I doubt you'll many of his supporters (especially on college campuses) heading to recruiters to sign up to fight in what will become Obama's war. Obama will be looking for Bin Laden as hard as OJ Simpson is looking for the "real killers" of his wife.

Edited July 8, 2008 by alienlovechild

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why doesn't anyone complain about Afganistan? It is more of a waste of our effors than Iraq. At least Iraq has oil and is beneficial to the US in our future. Afganistan will NEVER be a stable country. Money changes how people think and if people in Iraq are benefitting from oil money they will like the lifestyle and eventually settle into a somewhat stable lifestyle. There will always be a few that cause problems but money changes most people. Look at the UAE, kiwait, etc. They have a few crazy people but these countries aren't attacking us constantly. Iran is the exception, they have oil but they know that if we attacked them they would loose everything. They are bold but wait until we are pushed too far and see what happens?

People in Iraq aren't benefitting from oil money - yet. The refinery and production apparatus has been operating under-capacity at least since the invasion in 2003. There was a story last month that the Oil Companies are negotiating contracts with the government with a view to moving back in and resuming operations - but they won't be up to speed for at least a year or two...

As to Afghanistan - we kind of owe it to that country to establish a stable govt that can manage its own affairs. If the US and allies pull out of there and the country falls to the Taliban again (which will happen unless the Afghan government is capable of standing on its own) I think the public outcry will be as great as Iraq. In other words - it will be seen as a waste of time, money and lives. Noone wants to be responsible for that...

Edited July 8, 2008 by Number 6

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Afghanistan was arguably the one correct place we did go in to. The get the Taliban and Al Quida and Bin Laden. The fact remains, we merely pushed both groups in to the highlands, Pakistan etc. So while success came early on, it is now apparently turning. Osama is still out there and the country is hardly capable of standing on its own two feet.

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

Afghanistan was arguably the one correct place we did go in to. The get the Taliban and Al Quida and Bin Laden. The fact remains, we merely pushed both groups in to the highlands, Pakistan etc. So while success came early on, it is now apparently turning. Osama is still out there and the country is hardly capable of standing on its own two feet.

Afganistan will never ever be stable.

We are just wasting lives there trying. If we want a bombing base there that is fine but we don't need to continue giving US lives for something that will never happen there. People are complaining about Iraq because there were no WMD but who cares, it was about the oil anyway.