Posted on 01/17/2007 12:51:49 AM PST by NapkinUser
America is four years into a bloody debacle in Iraq not merely because Bush and Cheney marched us in, or simply because neocon propagandists lied about Saddam's nuclear program and WMDs, and Iraqi ties to al-Qaida, anthrax attacks and 9-11.
We are there because a Democratic Senate voted to give Bush a blank check for war. Democrats in October 2002 wanted the war vote behind them so they could go home and campaign as pro-war patriots.
And because they did, 3,000 Americans are dead, 25,000 are wounded, perhaps 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives, 1.6 million have fled, $400 billion has been lost and America stands on the precipice of the worst strategic defeat in her history.
Yet, Sens. Clinton, Biden, Kerry and Edwards -- all of whom voted to give Bush his blank check -- are now competing to succeed him. And how do they justify what they did?
"If only we had known then what we know now," they plead, "we would never have voted for the war." They are thus confessing to dereliction in the highest duty the Founding Fathers gave Congress. They voted to cede to a president their power to take us to war.
Now they wash their hands of it all and say, "It's Bush's War!"
And now George Bush has another war in mind.
In his Jan. 11 address, Bush said that to defend the "territorial integrity" of Iraq, the United States must address "Iran and Syria."
"These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
The city sat bolt upright. If Bush was talking about Iranian agents inside Iraq, he has no need of a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf, nor for those Patriot missiles he is sending to our allies.
But does Bush have the authority to take us to war against Iran?
On ABC last Sunday, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, while denying Bush intends to attack Iran, nonetheless did not deny Bush had the authority to escalate the war -- right into Iran.
George Stephanopoulos: "So you don't believe you have the authority to go into Iran?"
Stephen Hadley: "I didn't say that. That is another issue. Any time you have questions about crossing international borders, there are legal questions."
Any doubt how Attorney General Gonzales would come down on those "legal questions"? Any doubt how the Supreme Court would rule?
Biden sputters that should Bush attack Iran, a constitutional crisis would ensue.
I don't believe it. If tomorrow Bush took out Iran's nuclear facilities, would a Senate that lacks the courage to cut funds for an unpopular war really impeach him for denying a nuclear capability to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Bush's lawyers would make the same case Nixon made for the 1970 "incursion" into Cambodia -- and even a Nixon-hating Democratic House did not dare to impeach him for that.
Bush's contempt for Congress is manifest and, frankly, justified.
Asked if Congress could stop him from surging 21,500 troops into Iraq, Bush on "60 Minutes" brushed aside Congress as irrelevant.
"I fully understand (the Congress) could try to stop me from doing it. But I've made my decision. And we're going forward." Asked if he had sole authority "to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do," Bush replied, "In this situation I do, yeah."
Is Congress then impotent, if it does not want war on Iran?
Enter Rep. Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina.
The day after Bush's threat to Iran, Jones introduced a Joint Resolution, "Concerning the Use of Military Force by the United States Against Iran." Under HJR 14, "Absent a national emergency created by attack by Iran, or a demonstrably imminent attack by Iran, upon the United States, its territories, possessions or its armed forces, the president shall consult with Congress, and receive specific authorization pursuant to law from Congress, prior to initiating any use of force on Iran."
Jones' resolution further declares, "No provision of law enacted before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of military force by the United States against Iran."
If we are going to war on Iran, Jones is saying, we must follow the Constitution and Congress must authorize it.
If Biden, Kerry, Clinton and Obama refuse to sign on to the Jones resolution, they will be silently conceding that Bush indeed does have the power to start a war on Iran. And America should pay no further attention to the Democrats' wailing about being misled on the Iraq war.
Can't read Pat anymore. Thanks anyway.
Very true. Pat's article reminds me of the Trent affair during the Civil War. War junkies were urging Lincoln to attack Great Britain for supplying the South with warships and arms, just as the Neocons are urging Bush to attack Syria and Iran. Lincoln refused, saying, "One War at a time." Good advice for the Decider to think about before turning the Middle East into chaos like Iraq.
And so he weakened "the book" a lot.
Try actually reading Caesar's book about his time in Gaul and several books about that era. Caesar's time in Gaul was NOT all his own idea....he was SENT there.
Perhaps you are confusing his crossing the Rubicon, WITH HIS TROOPS, with the Gallic Wars. At that time, it was forbidden for generals to come into Rome with their army, for fear of a coup. Caesar waited and waited and WAITED to come back to Rome for his TRIBUTE, but it didn't come. So he did.
This is a VERY well known/famous event and even Caesar's words have not only come down to us, but have entered our language, as a common phrase: "THE DIE IS CAST." And likewise, to a lesser degree, "CROSSING THE RUBICON", has also been widely used used phrase, meaning to make a decision and forging ahead.
Rome's REPUBLIC was not all that similar to America's; though yes, America's Republic owes much to that of ancient Rome's.
Even after crossing the Rubicon, Rome was STILL a REPUBLIC. Your time line is all wrong.
Are you implying that America is no longer a Republic and/or that President Bush is a DICTATOR?
Someone looked up this Jones idiot and posted it to this thread. Evidently, he's some ridiculous anti-war nut.
Well, he was "sent" there because he used his influence to secure the powerful positions (couple of governorships) for himself.
The Gallic wars were not necesarily the Senat's idea and benefited Caesar and his friends materially (at that time Caesar was broke). Remember that Caesar's book was a piece of propaganda as well.
Perhaps you are confusing his crossing the Rubicon, WITH HIS TROOPS, with the Gallic Wars.
Not really. I wrote "Rome ceased to be a republic after Julius Caesar waged his war in Gaul." This war was a springboard that enabled Caesar to became the actual monarch (later).
Even after crossing the Rubicon, Rome was STILL a REPUBLIC.
Yes she was a Republic, but less and less as it was a gradual process. Legally Rome stopped to be a republic under Diocletian in the 3rd century when he assumed other titles than Imperator and sat on the throne. The actual title of king was assumed by Heraclius in 7th century.
Are you implying that America is no longer a Republic and/or that President Bush is a DICTATOR?
No, what it appears to me is that America can resemble to some extent Rome at the end of the Republic. The republican institutions in America are still very strong but we deal with the process which goes beyond personalities.
In order for an American president to become like Caesar, the term limits would have to be abolished, the army at his disposal would have to be greater and the nation would have to be in state similar to Great Depression from which FDR managed to get his FOUR presidency. Winning a few spectacular wars with a lot of spoils to benefit average citizens would not hurt either :)
It is uncanny and symptomatic that the term "Commander in Chief" is being used with increasing frequency and reverence. It corresponds to the Roman title of Imperator but originally it was to express the civilian control over the army.
And for those who know even less Roman history that you do, let me just clear up a few points.....
No, the Gallic Wars were NOT a "springboard that enabled Caesar to become the actual monarch." Julius was NEVER a king/monarch. He was CONSUL and then DICTATOR, which wasn't quite the same thing we all think of when the word "dictator" is used today. The Senate wasn't dissolved and unlike in America, today, only wealthy, land owning, the elite of the ELITE could be a Senator; though some lower down in the pecking order later became Senators, as did a horse. LOL
The Gallic Wars gave Caesar the MONEY, not the prestige, which he already had, as well as the favor of the plebs, which he also had before those wars, to face the much corrupt Senate. You're statements are not only far too simplistic; in some cases they are absurdly wrong.
Okay, I'll give you the Diocletian bit; though some might argue for a much earlier date...somewhere at Caligula or even at Nero, since there were continual swings, for centuries.
There were NO term limits on the presidency, until FDR abused his powers and thankfully, he didn't then name one of his sons or nephews as his successor. So even your stab at trying to hang Caesarian events around American necks, you've failed and failed miserably. And leave the CIC thing alone; you really don't understand America nor its history.
The Latin IMPERATOR, from which English gets its word EMPEROR, is hardly the same thing as our CIC.
Really? Click on this search, please!
Okay, another lesson in ancient Roman history.......
Wealthy Roman families formed and paid for their own PERSONAL armies, which were used as Rome's standing army. Yes, there were some unaligned troops, but in the time period that we're talking about, that wasn't as true, nor was it all that big, compared to each nobles' and THAT is why one was not allowed to come into Rome WITH one's own army! That's also comparable to armies in the Middle Ages.
For an even better example of this, read about the "slave rebellion led by Spartacus.
And yes, the Latin word IMPERATOR is, in fact, where the English word EMPEROR comes from.
"Wiki" was among 40,000 other returns.
And yes, the Latin word IMPERATOR is, in fact, where the English word EMPEROR comes from.
So? The word imperator comes from Latin verb imperare which means to command. Imperator means commander. The emperors were Roman commanders in chief.
And you managed to ignore everything else I had posted. I guess that none of the rest of it gave you an opening to attempt to use against me, President Bush, and everything else that you hate about America.
Peculiar or foreign can go along with true. Biased perhaps not, but who of us two is biased is a question.
against me, President Bush, and everything else that you hate about America
Wow! Now you are really out of kilter. I am sorry that I upset you.
You haven't "upset" me; I'm just tired of your constant anti-Americanism, which you post here; not to mention your less than accurate ancient Roman history...which even the ASTERIX comics are better at getting correct.
Asterix comics are EXCELLENT! One example (with Julius Caesar himself):
I was introduced to Asterix, long ago, when I was taking French. Then, when my daughter was little, she also had teachers who used Asterix in school. It's a wonderful series of comic books and is a good way to have young students practice their French translation with.
Many thanks for the link! :-)
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.