Posted on 09/01/2013 11:31:51 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
I was watching Fox News last night, and John Bolton (R-GOP-e) was asked to give a reply to a previously recorded clip from Rand Paul, and Bolton seemed to be acting as if the president (Obama) is the one who gets to wage war, while Congress just gets to merely declare and/or authorize it.
As if the president (be it Nixon, GHWB, or Clinton) sits on the throne and Congress' job is to merely place the crown on their heads and the scepter in their hands.
Once again, it seems as if another Republican goes to bat for Obama (like McCain and Grahamnesty do ad infinitum) when it comes to military matters. Like I have said, where have the Dems been? Why is it these two stooges (McCain, Graham) who keep traveling to the Middle East doing Obama's bidding?
And today on Fox-e News Sunday with Chris Wallace there -behold - was the all star lineup of Joe Lieberman, and the rest of the panel (Gen. Jack Keane, Jennifer Rubin and Charles Lane) with Lane being the only one who appeared to not be beating the war drums to the point where holes busted in them.
And on MSDNC-e, there he was, mega war hawk Bill Kristol, with pro-Obama Robert Gibby Gibbs in tow, and the rest doing the basic head nod.
In the end, if Congress says no, it's no. Period.
The Dems in the Senate are probably going to betray the majority of Democrat voters and just rubber stamp Obama's wishes, but it remains to be seen what Republicans do in the House of Reps...
What say you?
The fix is in, Obama is going to get his war.
If he wants to command them against a sovereign state recognized by the US as legitimate, then Congress has to declare a state of war.
Otherwise, the President is in charge of the armed forces as long as Congress decides to keep paying for them.
I disagree that Bolton is GOP-e - as the author says. He may be in agreement with the GOP e in this particular case, but that’ a bit of a gratuitious swipe at a guy not afraid to call it the way he sees it.
oh, and since the author is you...maybe explain the needless “fossil” comment too. Bolton may be wrong on this ,but he’s one of the good guys for the most part.
Only statists and liberty loving americans.
First of all John Bolton is hardly an establishment republican.
Second, what he said is precisely what the Constitution provides. Congress, and only Congress, can declare war. The Congress can put whatever limitations they want on their declaration. The POTUS, as the CIC, is responsible for the conduct of the war.
There is the War Powers act (of dubious Constitutionality), in which the Congress has given its right to declare war to the POTUS in certain cases and with some restrictions and reporting requirements. It does not apply to Syria.
If Congress refuses to declare war, and Obama proceeds with an attack on Syria, then Obama is exceeding the powers granted to him.
Are you under the belief that it is the role of Congress to both declare AND conduct war?
The American people voted to give Obama the keys to the kingdom,so stop the complaining,he obviously is so far above the rest of the world,according to Valerie Jarrett,that he can foresee the future,just have faith FOLKS,stop the obstructions and let the man rule.After all what could possibly go wrong,our country will be stronger,more respected,and most important of all FEARED.They will all understand there is a LUNATIC in the White House
I disagree with Bolton on this issue, but I would never call him derisive names such as “fossil” as I personally admire the man. Bolton is no fossil.
“What say you?”
I say you are wrong. Bolton was right - congress can “declare” war but they don’t direct the troops - the Commander in Chief “wages” the war.
I heard Bolton this morning and he thinks war with Syria is misplaced, Hussein shouldn’t do it and that the problem is Iran, not Syria, but Hussein won’t take on Iran. He is right.
Lotta people on this forum think he's a tuff guy but all I see is a blustering loudmouth, always spoiling for a fight in some irrelevant buttsore of a country, probably where one of his friends owns a ranch.
Only the Congress has the power to declare war. That was put in the Constitution by men who knew that Kings were always looking to use the citizenry as fodder for some fight that would benefit the King and his buddies. Those who don't want to be fodder are supposedly represented in the Congress. Thus the requirement.
The War Powers Act of 1973 codifies what the President can do without Congress. It is power they ceded to him to be practical - things happen that supposedly just can't wait. But this one can.
I agree. Bolton is someone I'd like to see in the government rather than out of it (there's not many people I can say that about).
SecState? Possibly. At least he tells it like it is; you know where he stands, unlike the current wiffle-waffles in the Oval Office and the State Dpt.
Tell me how he is in the mold of Palin, Rand Paul, Lee and Cruz - what this country needs.
War Powers Resolution 1973 gives presidents some lee way
Is Bolton in the mold of what this country needs - someone like Palin, Cruz, Lee and Rand Paul?
Bolton is a war hawk. He will always be in favor of demonstrating America’s status as a super-power. He, Cheney, and others do not believe the War Powers Act is constitutional. They believe the POTUS, whomever it is, as CIC, has the power to direct the use of force by the American military for a short period of time without authorization from Congress. (i.e. a stong Executive)
. for later...
What Bolton doesn’t seem to realize is that the Arabs as a race are still hundred of years behind the Europeans. Simply stated, what works in Europe will not work there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.