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

[GaryC 7]

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.

Wrong. The congress can cut off the funding. (political suicide) But they cannot mandate a timetable. Bush has the final sayso on that.

Edited January 31, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

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

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?

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. ~ Gary

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

Sure - but as I look at the last 6 years in which the executive branch has amassed large amounts of power to the weakening of other branches of government, and the removal/sidestepping of checks and balances - the point is merely a semantic one. He needs to be reigned in. and some sense of balance restored. The November election result has done that and the government has now reversed its position on many of the positions that it adopted when it had the majority.

[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.

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

so why are you arguing with yourself?

I'm not. Please see below.

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.

So, he's NOT saying the president is the only and final word here? I must have a bug in my eye. Because it LOOKS like he's saying The president is the only and final word... Am I incorrect in reading that?

[GaryC 7]

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?

I'm not. Please see below.

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.

So, he's NOT saying the president is the only and final word here? I must have a bug in my eye. Because it LOOKS like he's saying The president is the only and final word... Am I incorrect in reading that?

That statement is absolutely true. Other than declaring war the president has sole authority over the military.

[bostonparis 0]

So, he's NOT saying the president is the only and final word here? I must have a bug in my eye. Because it LOOKS like he's saying The president is the only and final word... Am I incorrect in reading that?

That statement is absolutely true. Other than declaring war the president has sole authority over the military.

Other than having terminal cancer, you'll live to be 80.

[Ban Hammer 13,634]

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?

I'm not. Please see below.

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.

So, he's NOT saying the president is the only and final word here? I must have a bug in my eye. Because it LOOKS like he's saying The president is the only and final word... Am I incorrect in reading that?

then quote the appropriate statement next time

[bostonparis 0]

then quote the appropriate statement next time

Of course, it's MY fault!

[yogib37 3]

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.

We dont have a dictatorship yet but Bush is trying to. Bush has changed a lot of things on bills pass by congress.. he cross out this and that so he still gets what he wants.. Bush has people giving him advice so he does not come up and say I am going to do this and if you dont like it, tuff #######.. I think bush is too retarded to even come up with a decesion and at the begining of the war he was not admitting to it that it was his decesion.

[Fandango 1,440]

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.

remember this next time you call it 'Bush's war'

Jeez, first it's 'bush's war' then now it's 'he's not the final say'....do you wear a cup when you straddle this fence?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

remember this next time you call it 'Bush's war'

In technical terms, it is incorrect to refer to the ** up over there as Bush's war since Congress hasn't declared war on Iraq. Hence, we should refer to the quagmire as what it is: Bush's **-up.

Edited January 31, 2007 by ET-US2004

[Fandango 1,440]

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.

remember this next time you call it 'Bush's war'

In technical terms, it is incorrect to refer to the ** up over there as Bush's war since Congress hasn't declared war on Iraq. Hence, we should refer to the quagmire as what it is: Bush's **-up.

All the while ignoring the overwhelming vote to give him the authority to go?

Selective mem, I can do this!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

remember this next time you call it 'Bush's war'

In technical terms, it is incorrect to refer to the ** up over there as Bush's war since Congress hasn't declared war on Iraq. Hence, we should refer to the quagmire as what it is: Bush's **-up.

All the while ignoring the overwhelming vote to give him the authority to go?

Selective mem, I can do this!

I'm not ignoring the joint resolution that gave him authority to go as a last resort. Selective memory, indeed. Besides, Bush claims to be - and arguably is - the ultimate authority on the management of this war that isn't one. I do not remember Congress authorizing the White House to 1) go in instead of pursuing all other options and 2) ** this engagement up beyong repair. Congress did not give a marching order not did Congress make decisions on how to prosecute the war that isn't one. Bush did. Hence, he bears sole responsibility for it. Let's not forget that.

[Fandango 1,440]

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.

remember this next time you call it 'Bush's war'

In technical terms, it is incorrect to refer to the ** up over there as Bush's war since Congress hasn't declared war on Iraq. Hence, we should refer to the quagmire as what it is: Bush's **-up.

All the while ignoring the overwhelming vote to give him the authority to go?

Selective mem, I can do this!

I'm not ignoring the joint resolution that gave him authority to go as a last resort. Selective memory, indeed. Besides, Bush claims to be - and arguably is - the ultimate authority on the management of this war that isn't one. I do not remember Congress authorizing the White House to 1) go in instead of pursuing all other options and 2) ** this engagement up beyong repair. Congress did not give a marching order not did Congress make decisions on how to prosecute the war that isn't one. Bush did. Hence, he bears sole responsibility for it. Let's not forget that.

Blah blah blah....if you look back...let's take Kerry, for example. He voted against George Sr years back cos he said he felt we 'weren't ready' and that the Prezz should not have the authority if other avenues could still be explored. Therefore, his vote in favor of W can then be construed as being 'ready'...let alone the countless democrats who've been demanding we go into Iraq during the Clinton years. In fact, Kerry spearheaded a letter to Clinton...saying 'if no one's with us, we need to go anyways' Check it out if you don't believe me. When I have more time, I'll get it for you myself.

So yanno what? Spare me the #######. You don't give someone permission to do summat then blame them when they do it. I mean really.

The only Dems I respect are the ones who voted against the war....they have every right to scream and yell. Their words are consistant with their actions. The rest are useless azzholes who believe that the American people will forget their actions, and buy into their bullcrap of bandwagon jumping and finger pointing.

Oh hang on a sec, maybe they're onto summat here....

The bottom line is that Congress has a duty to its people...and shirking responsibility by blamestorming others is wrong. Where's the accountability here?

Edited January 31, 2007 by LisaD

[Caladan 19]

This is actually a bit of a gray area. Once the President has the troops and the funding and the authorization, he gets to execute the will of the people without Congress looking over his shoulder. Congress doesn't get to say al-Anbar over Baghdad.

Congress holds the purse, though, and if the President needs more troops and money (or a war with Iran), he's gotta ask. This is where it gets tricky; once force is authorized, does Congress have to give the president whatever he wants and rubber stamp it? I don't see why; that's the point of a check. See this rhetoric for what it is; a power grab, and a way to demonize opposition to an unpopular war. Good for Spector for calling him on it.

(I don't think it's an election year ploy; Spector's been calling the administration on its bullshit pretty consistently. Plus, his seat is pretty secure. He's popular in Pa.)