DRUDGE-WASH TIMES Friday Obama Secretly tried to sway Iraqi Government

Drudge ^ | 10/09/08

[Big Jake]

ping

[casinva]

This is new in that now there are Iraqi leaders who are collaborating the story — that this did indeed happen and what Obama said and did. This collaboration was not public when the story (without any collaboration from anyone else) first hit the news a while back.

This is a VERY distinguished author. Do a google and search her name. She is NOT behind the times, and I imagine that if she is providing this, there is far more to come. She is a top notch writer with extraordinary credentials. (This is not a general approval of MSM, just a comment on the author’s credentials.)

Believe me, this article has FAR more than previous news articles a while back!

[nw_arizona_granny]

You have been busy with all the pings, thank you.

[nw_arizona_granny]

Thanks for the ping.

[Anti-Bubba182]

I agree. Isn’t it awful?

[GOPJ]

The dem “October Surprise” was the financial meltdown. The timing was a little more than fortuitous for them...

[kellynla]

BTTT

[Reily]

But by not having a declaration of war, Bush allowed domestic politics back into the WOT. A declaration of war would make that much harder for the democrats to play the political card. Democrat shenanigans would definitely look like to the public as aid and comfort to the enemy.

[Liberty Tree Surgeon]

Yep, one I saw on another thread, commented upon its FReeperness, and swore to perpetuate! I signed the oath in blook, of course.

[JrsyJack]

No they did not! They passed a resolution it was not declaration of war. On 09/12/01 Bush could have had a declaration of war if he would have asked for one. He could have gotten a sword instead he got a butter knife. Its one of may many gripes about how he has conducted the WOT. Also have a huge problem his rhetoric on the war. I don't want terrorists brought to justice I want them dead! Bush lost the domestic political battle on the war when he lost his nerve and didn't ask for a declaration of war.

Just what exactly is a declaration of war? Is it a formal document like a treaty, is it defined in the Constitution? No and No!

Congress gave the President the authority to use any and all means at the disposal of the US Government, including the full brute force of the US military, to eradicate the terrorists.

Congress imposed no limits, required no further diplomacy nor sought to impose timelines, schedules for withdrawal of the troops or any of the other BS we have been hearing about for the last 6 years.

Congress did declare war regardless of how many now try to wriggle out of it, after-the-fact.

[null and void]

Congress did declare war regardless of how many now try to wriggle out of it, after-the-fact.

I think we can all agree that the actions congress took are well within the zone that they could be argued in a court of law to be an actual declaration of war.

JrsyJack and I think a court would rule that a war was indeed declared, and Reily believes that they wouldn't.

I'm willing to charge 0bama with treason and let the courts sort it out...

[Reily]

Wrong Wrong Wrong
Congress no more declared war then they did for Korea, Vietnam or Gulf War I
By not requiring a declaration of war, Bush allowed the Congress & Democrat politicians a huge out to avoid any responsibility.
Bush's action are typical GOP pollyanna-ish attitudes to the democrat opposition, ‘They are the loyal opposition. They are really not that bad’. Well they are that bad an they certainly aren't loyal to this country. Lieberman is the last democrat that actually gives a rat's patoot about the country.

[GOPJ]

bttt

[JrsyJack]

"Congress no more declared war then they did for Korea, Vietnam or Gulf War I"

I'll give you Viet Nam, maybe (Gulf of Tonkin resolution). But Korea and Gulf I were technically UN actions, not unilateral US wars and therefore are not germane to you point. You forgot Kosovo which was neither UN, nor Congressionally declared but that's another thread.

What is it that would satisfy you that a state of war exists, someone in Congress stepping up to a microphone saying "we just declared war?"

[JrsyJack]

BTW...I agree 100% with the rest of your post, I just disagree that the Dems behavior would have been different regardless of how the war was authorized.

[Reily]

Look I think a “defacto” state of war exists.
However with a formal declaration of war, in which words that say something like “On DATE a state of war exists between the United States of America and “Non-State Actors (e.g., Al-Qaida, Taliban, etc)” and “State Actors (thats nation states that give aid and comfort!)” and some words to the effect that allow us the right of “hot pursuit where we will add others to the “At War” list if opposed.
If we would have done that, the political landscape would have started out different and would be different now.
A formal declaration of war lays out the relationship between non-warring states & warring states as well as defining with clarity the legal obligations of the citizens of this country.
During the month after 9/11 there was considerable apprehension world wide as to how we would react. A formal declaration of war would have demonstrated utter seriousness of purpose. They apprehension that a ruthlessness of intent had finally been stirred in Americans would have put the world on notice. It wouldn't have been mere words, ‘You are either with us or against us’ . If would have given courage to anemic Europe & western-oriented Muslims (There are a few!). This resolution just demonstrated ho-hum business as usual. It allowed politics to creep in and look "reasonable" not "treasonable". Since the resolution was not a demonstration of strong resolve, our on confidence started eroding, this erosion put us in a frame of mind that Pentagon lawyers were more important in deciding what to then Pentagon warriors. Military, intelligence & diplomatic operations are conducted only after a a full legal scrub. The Bush had administration has constantly said the main difference between us and what the democrats say about the WOT is we understand that it is a war not a criminal/judicial action. Unfortunately due to the lack of a declaration of war, the Bush administration has talked a tougher game then have acted. The have prosecuted the effort sort of a half way between a war & calling in the cops. as an example look at the incredible lack of thinking, planning & resolve over the whole issue of detainees. Well I could go on, but I won't. These conclusions of mine didn't just occur in a vacuum. My career has been in defense issues & the defense industry, that has allowed me to attend seminars given by "so-called" experts in these issues. When I intellectually boil all I have heard down, the above are my conclusions. (Plus I can read the Constitution and know some US history!) Also the "resolution" defenders gave incredibly convoluted explanations as to why it was equivalent to a declaration of war.

[Reily]

“....what to then Pentagon warriors ....”

sorry typo, it should read “...what to do, then Pentagon warriors ...”

[Reily]

I would argue the USG has already set the precedent by its actions that we are not in a “State of War”. (A court would probably cite this!) These precedents were set both by previous undeclared uses of force, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1 and more importantly by actions in the WOT.
Unfortunately because of USG lack of current & past resolve on these issues, I think a charge of treason on anything is a dead letter.

[fishergirl]

God help us!

[Irish Eyes]

Is this the same incident that we were hearing about 1 or 2 months ago?