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

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

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.)

Has anyone else noticed that this President is the one who did declare war on terror? And interestingly, if you try to tell Bush supporters that the war on terror is a fictitious war, they start foaming at the mouth. If it is a real war, the President certainly doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare it - so it is a fictitious war or if it isn't than the President has violated the Constitution.

[garya505 2]

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.)

Has anyone else noticed that this President is the one who did declare war on terror? And interestingly, if you try to tell Bush supporters that the war on terror is a fictitious war, they start foaming at the mouth. If it is a real war, the President certainly doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare it - so it is a fictitious war or if it isn't than the President has violated the Constitution.

So if it's ficticious, then there are no real enemies, no real battles, and no real victory or defeat?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.)

Has anyone else noticed that this President is the one who did declare war on terror? And interestingly, if you try to tell Bush supporters that the war on terror is a fictitious war, they start foaming at the mouth. If it is a real war, the President certainly doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare it - so it is a fictitious war or if it isn't than the President has violated the Constitution.

So if it's ficticious, then there are no real enemies, no real battles, and no real victory or defeat?

Its fictitious in the sense that it is being used to encourage state of perpetual conflict with no clear goals - except those justified and based on racist assumptions about certain areas of the world.

Rhetoric masquerading as strategy is extremely Orwellian IMO.

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

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.)

Has anyone else noticed that this President is the one who did declare war on terror? And interestingly, if you try to tell Bush supporters that the war on terror is a fictitious war, they start foaming at the mouth. If it is a real war, the President certainly doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare it - so it is a fictitious war or if it isn't than the President has violated the Constitution.

So if it's ficticious, then there are no real enemies, no real battles, and no real victory or defeat?

Its fictitious in the sense that it is being used to encourage state of perpetual conflict with no clear goals - except those justified and based on racist assumptions about certain areas of the world.

Rhetoric masquerading as strategy is extremely Orwellian IMO.

Gary, or anyone here who believes the war on terror is a real war - I'm gonna call you out on it. State in concrete military terms how we go about fighting the war on terror and what is the clear cut military victory?

[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.

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?

Blah, blah my patoot. Read the resolution. It spells it out very clearly that all other avenues have to be exhausted prior to going in. That hasn't happened. Plain and simple.

The accountability for the ** up is with those managing the war that isn't one. That, is the White House.

[garya505 2]

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.)

Has anyone else noticed that this President is the one who did declare war on terror? And interestingly, if you try to tell Bush supporters that the war on terror is a fictitious war, they start foaming at the mouth. If it is a real war, the President certainly doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare it - so it is a fictitious war or if it isn't than the President has violated the Constitution.

So if it's ficticious, then there are no real enemies, no real battles, and no real victory or defeat?

Its fictitious in the sense that it is being used to encourage state of perpetual conflict with no clear goals - except those justified and based on racist assumptions about certain areas of the world.

Rhetoric masquerading as strategy is extremely Orwellian IMO.

Wow, you really believe this #######?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wow, you really believe this #######?

Yes. I guess that calls for a Keanu Reeve's style "Woah".

[garya505 2]

Wow, you really believe this #######?

Yes. I guess that calls for a Keanu Reeve's style "Woah".

Dude!

[DeadPoolX 9]

I don't know if this has already been stated (this thread is long, and I have a migraine...therefore, I have no urge to read all through it), but as far as I know, the POTUS and the U.S. Congress basically SHARE (to some degree) warmaking abilities. In other words, the President has to ask Congress for the money to go to war (and for an official declaration of war, none of which has happened since World War II), but once the United States is in "war-mode," the President takes over command of all military forces as commander-in-chief.

So to call the War in Iraq something like "Bush's War" is really more of a misnomer. Sure, it's easy to pin ALL of the blame on one guy, rather than the President AND both chambers of Congress. As far as I can see, the entire U.S. government is to blame for our current situation, not merely President Bush. Does Bush share in some of the blame? You bet. Is he entirely to blame? I certainly don't think so. Without Congress, he wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

So if I've merely restated stuff that's been posted, then...well, sorry about that. As I said, my head is absolutely killing me, and I can't really read over this entire thread.

[peezey 0]

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

Maybe you can check the Constitution out of the Archives so you can re-write it, then.

[garya505 2]

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.)

Has anyone else noticed that this President is the one who did declare war on terror? And interestingly, if you try to tell Bush supporters that the war on terror is a fictitious war, they start foaming at the mouth. If it is a real war, the President certainly doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare it - so it is a fictitious war or if it isn't than the President has violated the Constitution.

So if it's ficticious, then there are no real enemies, no real battles, and no real victory or defeat?

Its fictitious in the sense that it is being used to encourage state of perpetual conflict with no clear goals - except those justified and based on racist assumptions about certain areas of the world.

Rhetoric masquerading as strategy is extremely Orwellian IMO.

Gary, or anyone here who believes the war on terror is a real war - I'm gonna call you out on it. State in concrete military terms how we go about fighting the war on terror and what is the clear cut military victory?

We go one fighting the war on terror by killing those who have vowed to kill us. Since there is no single country or alliance to surrender, there can be no clear cut victory as you would apparently like to see it. When their forces have been decimated to the point where they can no longer attack effectivley, then we have acheived victory. You want some nice neat clean solution because you see the world in simple terms. It ain't gonna happen. What's your plan?

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

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.)

Has anyone else noticed that this President is the one who did declare war on terror? And interestingly, if you try to tell Bush supporters that the war on terror is a fictitious war, they start foaming at the mouth. If it is a real war, the President certainly doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare it - so it is a fictitious war or if it isn't than the President has violated the Constitution.

So if it's ficticious, then there are no real enemies, no real battles, and no real victory or defeat?

Its fictitious in the sense that it is being used to encourage state of perpetual conflict with no clear goals - except those justified and based on racist assumptions about certain areas of the world.

Rhetoric masquerading as strategy is extremely Orwellian IMO.

Gary, or anyone here who believes the war on terror is a real war - I'm gonna call you out on it. State in concrete military terms how we go about fighting the war on terror and what is the clear cut military victory?

We go one fighting the war on terror by killing those who have vowed to kill us. Since there is no single country or alliance to surrender, there can be no clear cut victory as you would apparently like to see it. When their forces have been decimated to the point where they can no longer attack effectivley, then we have acheived victory. You want some nice neat clean solution because you see the world in simple terms. It ain't gonna happen. What's your plan?

You just confirmed that it can't be a real war because there is no country or alliance to surrender....it's as nonsensical as declaring war on crime in your neighborhood. I suppose you could start to arm yourself - perhaps organize a neighborhood watch, but that isn't war and although you may be better prepared against crime, you'll never win because crime cannot be personafide. Yet, here we are - 2007 and we've got a yahoo in the White House that's declared a fictitious war (which again, he has no authority to declare war) and you nodding your head to this twisted logic, then frantically search for a way to personafy terror ...is it Muslim? Arab? Does it wear a turbin and live in the desert? Hmmm...

[Marc and Olga 0]

This is slightly off topic but there are a few things that bug me in this thread.

1) Since the invasion of Iraq, members of both houses of Congress have changed, are the ones that have changed to be held accountable for their predecessors decisions? Since some want to blame Congress as well...on that same note comes

2) When President Bush was running around screaming Iraq HAS WMDs and all the faulty selective intel did congress get to hear the DIAs statements about the man known as Curveball or were they only fed the intel that President Bush wanted them to hear?

[garya505 2]

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.)

Has anyone else noticed that this President is the one who did declare war on terror? And interestingly, if you try to tell Bush supporters that the war on terror is a fictitious war, they start foaming at the mouth. If it is a real war, the President certainly doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare it - so it is a fictitious war or if it isn't than the President has violated the Constitution.

So if it's ficticious, then there are no real enemies, no real battles, and no real victory or defeat?

Its fictitious in the sense that it is being used to encourage state of perpetual conflict with no clear goals - except those justified and based on racist assumptions about certain areas of the world.

Rhetoric masquerading as strategy is extremely Orwellian IMO.

Gary, or anyone here who believes the war on terror is a real war - I'm gonna call you out on it. State in concrete military terms how we go about fighting the war on terror and what is the clear cut military victory?

We go one fighting the war on terror by killing those who have vowed to kill us. Since there is no single country or alliance to surrender, there can be no clear cut victory as you would apparently like to see it. When their forces have been decimated to the point where they can no longer attack effectivley, then we have acheived victory. You want some nice neat clean solution because you see the world in simple terms. It ain't gonna happen. What's your plan?

You just confirmed that it can't be a real war because there is no country or alliance to surrender....it's as nonsensical as declaring war on crime in your neighborhood. I suppose you could start to arm yourself - perhaps organize a neighborhood watch, but that isn't war and although you may be better prepared against crime, you'll never win because crime cannot be personafide. Yet, here we are - 2007 and we've got a yahoo in the White House that's declared a fictitious war (which again, he has no authority to declare war) and you nodding your head to this twisted logic, then frantically search for a way to personafy terror ...is it Muslim? Arab? Does it wear a turbin and live in the desert? Hmmm...

Real war or ficticious war, call it whatever you like. So what do you think we should do, nothing? Maybe you think we have no "real" enemies so there is nothing to fight, or maybe you would rather just give up?

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

2) When President Bush was running around screaming Iraq HAS WMDs and all the faulty selective intel did congress get to hear the DIAs statements about the man known as Curveball or were they only fed the intel that President Bush wanted them to hear?

all intel used is selective.