Specter: Bush not sole 'decision-maker'...OUCH!!!

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

Alren Specter should be hung for treason!!!

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

A Senate Republican on Tuesday directly challenged President Bush's declaration that "I am the decision-maker" on issues of war.

"I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider," Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., said during a hearing on Congress' war powers amid an increasingly harsh debate over Iraq war policy. "The decider is a shared and joint responsibility," Specter said.

The question of whether to use its power over the government's purse strings to force an end to the war in Iraq, and under what conditions, is among the issues faced by the newly empowered Democratic majority in Congress, and even some of the president's political allies as well.

No one challenges the notion that Congress can stop a war by canceling its funding. In fact, Vice President ####### Cheney challenged Congress to back up its objections to Bush's plan to put 21,500 more troops in Iraq by zeroing out the war budget.

Underlying Cheney's gambit is the consensus understanding that such a drastic move is doubtful because it would be fraught with political peril.

But there are other legislative options to force the war's end, say majority Democrats and some of Bush's traditional Republican allies.

The alternatives range from capping the number of troops permitted in Iraq to cutting off funding for troop deployments beyond a certain date or setting an end date for the war.

"The Constitution makes Congress a coequal branch of government. It's time we start acting like it," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., who presided over a hearing Tuesday on Congress' war powers. He also is pushing legislation to end the war by eventually prohibiting funding for the deployment of troops to Iraq.

His proposal, like many others designed to force an end to U.S. involvement in the bloody conflict, is far from having enough support even to come up for a vote on the Senate floor.

Closer to that threshold is a nonbinding resolution declaring that Bush's proposal to send 21,500 more troops to Baghdad and Anbar province is "not in the national interest." The Senate could take up that measure early next month.

But some senators, complaining that the resolution is symbolic, are forwarding tougher bills.

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record) of California, for example, is a sponsor of a bill that would call for troops to come home in 180 days and allow for a minimum number of forces to be left behind to hunt down terrorists and train Iraqi security forces.

"Read the Constitution," Boxer told her colleagues last week. "The Congress has the power to declare war. And on multiple occasions, we used our power to end conflicts."

Congress used its war powers to cut off or put conditions on funding for the Vietnam war and conflicts in Cambodia, Somalia and Bosnia.

Under the Constitution, lawmakers have the ability to declare war and fund military operations, while the president has control of military forces.

But presidents also can veto legislation and Bush likely has enough support in Congress on Iraq to withstand any veto override attempts.

Seeking input, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., and Specter, asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for the White House's views on Congress' war powers.

Boxer and Feingold are in effect proposing putting conditions on troop funding and deployment in an effort to end the war in some way other than zeroing out the budget. But some lawmakers and scholars insist war management is the president's job.

"In an ongoing operation, you've got to defer to the commander in chief," said Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. But the veteran senator and former Navy secretary said he understands the debate over Congress' ability to check the executive branch.

"Once Congress raises an army, it's his to command," said Robert Turner, a law professor at the University of Virginia who was to testify Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In recent decades, presidents have routinely bypassed Congress when deploying troops to fight. Not since World War II has Congress issued an official declaration of war, despite lengthy wars fought in Vietnam and Korea.

Congress does not have to approve military maneuvers.

John Yoo, who as a Justice Department lawyer helped write the 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion, called that document a political one designed only to bring Democrats on board and spread accountability for the conflict.

The resolution passed by a 296-133 vote in the then-GOP-run House and 77-23 in the Democratic-led Senate, but it was not considered a declaration of war.

[almaty 19]

specter to bush...pwned and also, stfu you persian shoe

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ole' Arlen up for re-election in '08?

Seriously, though, it's about time that Congress asserts itself against the overbearing executive. It's about time the Republican party regrows the spine it once had and stand up to the madman at 1600 Penn Ave.

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

Ole' Arlen up for re-election in '08?

Seriously, though, it's about time that Congress asserts itself against the overbearing executive. It's about time the Republican party regrows the spine it once had and stand up to the madman at 1600 Penn Ave.

Ain't that the truth! Solidarity my #######...whatever happened to consensus?

[GaryC 7]

Specter has it so very wrong. The president is the commander in chief. He makes the decisions. He is the last and only word.

Edited January 31, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[garya505 2]

Specter has it so very wrong. The president is the commander in chief. He makes the decisions. He is the last and only word.

You are correct sir, but Spector is running for reelection, no?

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

Specter has it so very wrong. The president is the commander in chief. He makes the decisions. He is the last and only word.

Is it a dictatorship or a democracy that we have here? What's the difference?

[GaryC 7]

Specter has it so very wrong. The president is the commander in chief. He makes the decisions. He is the last and only word.

Is it a dictatorship or a democracy that we have here? What's the difference?

It's called the constitution Steve. You might try reading it sometime. The president is the only and final word when it comes to the military.

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

Specter has it so very wrong. The president is the commander in chief. He makes the decisions. He is the last and only word.

Is it a dictatorship or a democracy that we have here? What's the difference?

It's called the constitution Steve. You might try reading it sometime. The president is the only and final word when it comes to the military.

Can you find me where it states in the Constitution that the President has the power to declare war or even start one?

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

The president of the United States has no clear constitutional authority to declare war without congressional approval. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the president, as commander-in-chief of the military, does have the authority to recognize a "state of war" initiated against the United States and may in these circumstances unilaterally send U.S. troops into battle. President Bush has also stated that his powers as commander-in-chief allow him to act independently in defense of the nation.

The president did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress. But he did seek congressional support, he said, to demonstrate to the United Nations and to the world that military action against Iraq was not just his own objective; it was a view supported by the American electorate as a whole. Strategically, support from the legislators bolstered the president's case as he pressed the UN Security Council for a resolution authorizing military force in Iraq.

The Constitution of the United States gives Congress alone the authority to formally declare war. But in several past conflicts Congress has relinquished this authority to the president. In fact, Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since World War II.

[bostonparis 0]

It's called the constitution Steve. You might try reading it sometime. The president is the only and final word when it comes to the military.

Oh, no no no!! Where are you getting your information!?? The President is certainly not the only and final word when it comes to the military. He is the Commander in Chief. He does not have discretionary power. Have you heard of the War Powers Resolution?

In summary:

The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in hostilities. Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(B)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal).

[GaryC 7]

The president of the United States has no clear constitutional authority to declare war without congressional approval. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the president, as commander-in-chief of the military, does have the authority to recognize a "state of war" initiated against the United States and may in these circumstances unilaterally send U.S. troops into battle. President Bush has also stated that his powers as commander-in-chief allow him to act independently in defense of the nation.

The president did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress. But he did seek congressional support, he said, to demonstrate to the United Nations and to the world that military action against Iraq was not just his own objective; it was a view supported by the American electorate as a whole. Strategically, support from the legislators bolstered the president's case as he pressed the UN Security Council for a resolution authorizing military force in Iraq.

The Constitution of the United States gives Congress alone the authority to formally declare war. But in several past conflicts Congress has relinquished this authority to the president. In fact, Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since World War II.

We are not talking about declaring war. The congress gave Bush the authority to go into Iraq. What Specter is saying is that Bush isn't the final word on what is going on in Iraq now. That isn't true. Bush is the final word. That is what Commander in Chief means. In two years there will be another president. And when it his/her turn then he/she will call the shots. But right now, like it or not, Bush has the authority.

[bostonparis 0]

We are not talking about declaring war. The congress gave Bush the authority to go into Iraq. What Specter is saying is that Bush isn't the final word on what is going on in Iraq now. That isn't true. Bush is the final word. That is what Commander in Chief means. In two years there will be another president. And when it his/her turn then he/she will call the shots. But right now, like it or not, Bush has the authority.

You said: The president is the only and final word when it comes to the military.

That is absolutely incorrect.

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

The president of the United States has no clear constitutional authority to declare war without congressional approval. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the president, as commander-in-chief of the military, does have the authority to recognize a "state of war" initiated against the United States and may in these circumstances unilaterally send U.S. troops into battle. President Bush has also stated that his powers as commander-in-chief allow him to act independently in defense of the nation.

The president did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress. But he did seek congressional support, he said, to demonstrate to the United Nations and to the world that military action against Iraq was not just his own objective; it was a view supported by the American electorate as a whole. Strategically, support from the legislators bolstered the president's case as he pressed the UN Security Council for a resolution authorizing military force in Iraq.

The Constitution of the United States gives Congress alone the authority to formally declare war. But in several past conflicts Congress has relinquished this authority to the president. In fact, Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since World War II.

We are not talking about declaring war. The congress gave Bush the authority to go into Iraq. What Specter is saying is that Bush isn't the final word on what is going on in Iraq now. That isn't true. Bush is the final word. That is what Commander in Chief means. In two years there will be another president. And when it his/her turn then he/she will call the shots. But right now, like it or not, Bush has the authority.

That's incorrect, Gary. Congress can vote to cut spending and they can also vote on timetable for troop withdrawal. If Bush disagrees with that, he must get enough in Congress to back him up. It's called check and balances. We don't have a dictatorship - and that's the difference.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

We are not talking about declaring war. The congress gave Bush the authority to go into Iraq. What Specter is saying is that Bush isn't the final word on what is going on in Iraq now. That isn't true. Bush is the final word. That is what Commander in Chief means. In two years there will be another president. And when it his/her turn then he/she will call the shots. But right now, like it or not, Bush has the authority.

You said: The president is the only and final word when it comes to the military.

That is absolutely incorrect.

you're absolutely right. he didn't say the only.....he said Bush is the final word.

so why are you arguing with yourself?