Posted on 03/20/2007 11:30:37 PM PDT by freedomdefender
Thomas Jefferson invaded the Barbary States without a declaration of war.
That's two of the first three presidents using presidential power without the approval of congress, sir.
You're welcome, and thank you.
True Nazi, don't you mean?? Pat is becoming more and more like Joe Sobran every day.
pretty close,but buchanan doesn't go so far as sobran,who defines jews as an alien tribe that insinuates itself into other cultures-sobran is a nazi ass licker-buchanan just doesn't like jews in general is the feeling i get,but he isn't quite down to the level of sobran-buchanan does make sense on immigration issues-even a stopped clock is right twice a day
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel, WOT
..................
Only if James Madison was a "Nazi" for writing in the Constitution that, in our free country, one man can't have power to unilaterally declare war.
Correct: Democrat presidents started the practice of launching prolonged wars without following the constitutional mandate of seeking a congressional declaration of war. Truman started the practice. Republicans - conservative Republicans especially - used to be famous for objecting to this departure from our constitutional tradition. I'm still and conservative and a constitutionalist. I still object to launching wars by one man, unilaterally, without following the Constitution. I may not agree with Pat Buchanan on a number of things, but he's right on this issue.
Buchanan is discussing a very serious matter - whether the US can and should go to war against Iran without formal congressional approval. Too bad so many who don't want this issue argued out, are resorting to name-calling in order to divert discussion.
Pat is called Nazi because the puts American interests above all others. Maybe Washington, like Pat, was too because the opposed all foreign entangling alliances. Pat does not think we should fight other people's wars including Korea, Formosa, Kosovo and whoever. He supported war against bin Laden and AQ in Afghanistan which still isn't finished.
"Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received a smattering of boos when she bad-mouthed the war effort during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee"
Wow, a "smattering of boos." Them Jooos are really powerful. Gee Pat, is it possible she saw the writing on the wall that any sane person sees -- Iran is a genocidal maniac about to obtain the means?
Here is a link to Nichols' Nation article that PB mentions. Note Nichols is nowhere as hung up as PB on the Jews. He gives AIPAC a mere mention. Nichols gives the reason for Pelosi's change as:
"Unfortunately, Pelosi is so desperate to advance her flawed spending legislation that she is willing to bargain with any Democrat about any part of the proposal.
Under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groupings that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC), Pelosi agreed on Monday to strip the Iran provision from the spending bill that has become the House leadership's primary vehicle for challenging the administration's policies in the region.
One of the chief advocates for eliminating the Iran provision, Nevada Democrat Shelley Berkley, said she wanted it out of the legislation because she wants to maintain the threat of U.S. military action as a tool in seeking to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. "It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," explained Berkley."
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=174804
PB's got a disease.
"Thomas Jefferson invaded the Barbary States without a declaration of war."
And so did James Madison, who wrote the Constitution. As far as I'm concerned, an authorization of force is constitutionally sufficient. Congress doesn't need to say "declare war" especially in cases where there's still hope that the enemy might "come to their senses" before the first shot is fired (which was the case in both wars against Iraq and the war against Afghanistan). It's funny that Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul think they know the Constitution better than Adams, Jefferson and Madison.
You need to read the article again. That's secondary. The very serious matter Pat is discussing relates to der Juden, jerking the chain of America.
They do that you know, it's about sending Christian kids off to die for Israel. Not the first time Pat has been down this road.
Nancy Pelosi will bear full moral responsibility for that war.For it was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on Iran.
. What went down, and why?
lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel
widespread fear in Israel about Iran
The speaker has erred dangerously and dramatically. Nichols does not exaggerate. Pelosi has, in effect, ceded Bush carte blanche to take out Iran's nuclear facilities
Why did Pelosi capitulate? Answer: She was "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Nancy Pelosi received a smattering of boos when she bad-mouthed the war effort during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the Democratic leadership, responding to concerns from pro-Israel lawmakers, was forced to strip from a military appropriations measure a provision meant to weaken President Bush's ability to respond to threats from Iran."
This episode speaks volumes about who has the whip hand on Capitol Hill when it comes to the Middle East. Pelosi gets booed by the Israeli lobby, then runs back to the Hill and gives Bush a blank check for war on Iran because that is what the lobby demands. A real candidate for Profiles in Courage.
The Jewish community voted 88 percent for Democrats in November, and 77 percent oppose the war in Iraq. the Israeli lobby jerked her chain, the leader of the People's House has decided she and her party will leave the next war up to Bush.
"Not that I really care, but I wonder what gave Pat such a hard-on for the Jews."
Bad inferiority complex re: Chosen People, I think.
Pat needs to come to shul, get clipped, and join the tribe. It's my standing offer to all anti-semites who think Jews are stuck up.
'Comrade Wolf' and the mullahs, Patrick BuchananIn the 27 years since the Iranian Revolution, the United States has launched air strikes on Libya, invaded Grenada, put Marines in Lebanon and run air strikes in the Bekaa Valley and Chouf Mountains in retaliation for the Beirut bombing.
We invaded Panama, launched Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait and put troops into Somalia. Under Clinton, we occupied Haiti, fired cruise missiles into Sudan, intervened in Bosnia, conducted bombing strikes on Iraq and launched a 78-day bombing campaign against Serbia, a nation that never attacked us. Then, we put troops into Kosovo.
After the Soviet Union stood down in Eastern Europe, we moved NATO into Poland and the Baltic states and established U.S. bases in former provinces of Russia's in Central Asia.
Under Bush II, we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, though it appears Saddam neither had weapons of mass destruction nor played a role in 9-11.
Yet, in this same quarter century when the U.S. military has been so busy it is said to be overstretched and exhausted, Iran has invaded not one neighbor and fought but one war: an 8-year war with Iraq where she was the victim of aggression. And in that war of aggression against Iran, we supported the aggressor.
Hence, when Iran says that even as we have grievances against her, she has grievances against us, does Iran not have at least a small point? And when Russian President Putin calls Bush's America "Comrade Wolf," does he not have at least a small patch of ground on which to stand?
Heck, Pat and Putin make me feel sorry for the poor Iranians.
I don't think Pelosi gives a darn about what AIPAC thinks, since the party she leads does not particularly attract a pro-Israel constituency.
What Buchanan is trying to do in his own perverse mind here is to claim that groups he despises for different reasons - AIPAC and the House Democrats - are pretty much in bed with one another. It may make him feel good, but that's simply not the case.
Can someone please explain to me exactly what point Buchanan was trying to make there?
To those who accept Jesus as Savior, the term "Chosen People" means the people who were chosen to bring the Messiah - Jesus Christ -to the world. The Jews were chosen as the vessel by which God would redeem the world through Jesus Christ. If he is an orthodox Catholic, which he claims to be, Buchanan surely understands that and believes it - and should have no "inferiority" complex about it, rather a thankfulness for redemption through Jesus Christ.
Neither Pat nor his supporters seem to have any problem with that as regards 192 or the 193 or so countries in the world. The Commander in Chief can attack any of them as he feels necessary.
Iran, though, is a special case, requiring the 90 day window for action be cut to 24 hours.
Why, I don't know? An affection for Iran perhaps, see post 56, or a desire to cause the administration embarassment. Clearly it has nothing to do with the Constitution. The War Powers Resolution is the law of the land, and in no way represents usurpation by the President of Congressional power. The opposite case can be made.
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.