Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 11/28/2007 1:18:09 PM PST by ksen
This is my take on it too. Congress didn’t declare war because that is easier for Congress.
Freegards
Seemingly somehow on December 8th, while most of our Pacific Fleet was either laying at the bottom of Pearl Harbor or limping to be repaired, even one of the most worthless men ever to occupy the Executive Office was able to go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war. But Junior couldn't be bothered in seeking a pre-emptive strike against a third world hell hole that represented no immediate threat to our borders. And his Attorney General (former of course) confirms it.
Thanks for the clarification.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
>>but it seems the US will never declare war against someone again?
Actually, unless something comes to pass to curtail the Copperhead tendencies of the Democrats (which of course date back to the 1860s), no Republican President should ever go to war without a full formal declaration from Congress.
I note that our two scenarios are not mutually exclusive.
I stand corrected. Thank you for the lesson.
The real value of a Declaration of War is that it commits Congress to a cause.
Without it politicians can backtrack when things either go badly or it become politically expedient to do so.
With it, they can’t (effectively) complain about destruction, devastation, or even costs.
FR had many great discussions on this back in 2002-3 and back then I was against the resolution of force as I predicted then that the dems would turn tail on this as soon as it was convenient for them to do so.
And they did.
>>What say you everyone that has said and argued that what the Congress did was a declaration of war? Does this change your mind?<<
If the former attorney general believes its not a war then the violations of rights he authorized are even worse historically.
True. Of course, it was also true at Pearl Harbour. We responded before FDR ever addressed Congress.
In the Case of the war on terror resolution, who do you declare war against? Again, even Ron Paul supported that resolution, cause there's no nation involved to blame. Is the Saudi government responsible for it's citizens' independent actions? Iran? Iranian citizens in good standing DIED in the 9/11 attacks. al Qaeda is a Suni Muslim group. The Iranians are Shiite, a distinction lost on most people but an important one.
The bottom line here is that i don't believe that anyone would argue the point with you.
Not so with Iraq.
You are correct that there was no DoW needed for Iraq.
But without it, the politicians were allowed to squirm and wiggle their ways out of support and turn events against Bush.
A ‘resolution of force’ can be ambiguous; a declaration of war is not.
“What’s the problem? Why can’t we get a real, legal declaration of war against our enemy? “
The Answer is Zoological - ‘Rats and Rhinos.
Which brings an interesting point - the antiwar left, in a strange and curious way, may have actually helped the effort in that their squawking helped AQ believe that they could win in Iraq and ought send a lot of their leadership there - right into our jaws. Without the left, there is a real possibility that they might have stayed hidden and chosen some other battlefield better suited to their type of warfare ... or avoided open battle altogether staying strictly with covert terrorist operations.
Still, it has always bothered me that we made Iraq the bait - in a way, deliberately putting the Iraqi people in the crossfire. That was, for me, the troubling part of "fight them there or fight them here" - when "fighting them there" necessarily meant significant "collateral damage" to Iraqis who were not otherwise part of our fight with AQ.
It's something of a dilemma since their lives were at least as tortured under Saddam, and without hope of better future as long as he was in power. Does giving the people a path to a better future absolve our placing them in danger of as a path to that future? Perhaps the answer is that we merely replaced the danger while simultaneously providing a path out - likely the only path out and, fortuitously, one that was also to our benefit.
I think Bush's moral 'genius' was to add the path to a free Iraq as the critical element which made it all morally justifiable.
Which is why I doubt, had Gore won in 2000, we would be in the same place we are today. Probably Saddam would have had to be removed given that he would have reconstituted his WMD capabilities even if he didn't have them then. However, we would have done so without the simultaneously goal of truly rebuilding the nation into a free self governing people as Bush insisted upon from the start. And, without that, it would truly have turned into a quagmire and moral morass with all parties in armed opposition to us.
I think the whole point is, in a nutshell, had W asked for and obtained a proper declaration of war he would have had to invoke most, if not all, of the wartime laws which, among other things, would have required CLOSING THE BORDERS. Also, the laws regarding giving aid and comfort to the enemy would have come into play and a lot of Code Pinkos would now be in prison. Travel restrictions would have kept Pelosi from her suck-up trip to Syria and ITS terrorist supporting regime. We would have had to become energy independent as we would not be importing oil from enemy nations or regions and the Saudis would be on notice that they were not supposed to harbor terrorists and their wahabbi-ist enablers and recruiters. The Rats in Congress would not be able to waffle as they are now doing. And, in all likelihood, we would have brought the war to a QUICK successful conclusion. We would not be in the nation-building business, as Bush promised prior to his election he would NOT be doing. I think THAT’S the point... but then what do I know? I’m just a dumbass old mud Marine...
Thanks for your response, but I was hoping for an answer for the guy who authored this thread.
I find that the Paulywogs are fond of screeching that the Iraq war was undeclared, but never seem to say what difference it makes since Raving Ron wouldn't support it any more if it had been declared.
President Washington conducted a number of campaigns against the Indians. What would you call the wars against the Indians?
If you’re waiting for FReepers to get all hot and bothered about sending troops to fight without a Declaration of War, you’ll have to wati until Hillary does it.
The difference being what?
A cool rubber stamp that says ‘declaration of war’?
You didn't say anything in your #25 that required a response from me.
You don't see a point in this thread. Ok, good for you. Why are you responding to it then?
I posted a quote from the former Attorney General and then asked some questions about it. Feel free to try and answer them or not, it's up to you and it's no skin off my nose either way. :shrug:
And if you don't know that there is a difference, legally and practically, between officially declaring war and not officially declaring war then I can't really help you.
As the Attorney General said there are legal, practical, and treaty considerations that are affected by Congress officially declaring war.
They didn’t officially declare war according to the Attorney General and not contested by the Senators before which he was testifying.
That came from the Supreme Court, who ruled that way after the Gov was sued when Clinton attacked in Bosnia. Probably a higher authority than Gonzales.
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.