Posted on 04/18/2013 8:22:16 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
George W Bush: I'm comfortable with my legacy
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Your disaster hero GWBush set off a civil war in the GOP with his quest for amnesty in 2006 and 2007, only Dems gained from it.
I still remember clearly GWB :
“The Democrat takeover of the congress provides us with a great opportunity to get immigration reform passed”
That was treason by the parties own leader.
Banning light bulbs was another great Bush-Pelosi success.
NEVER AGAIN!
There are still Bush apologists lurking around here?
Yeah, Obama makes him look like gold. Obama would make a giant cockroach look like gold.
His RINO suckage is reason #1 we’ve got Obama in there right now.
Yep, I dont know what has got them to come out of the shadows this time but they are aggressive.
Heres what I learned on this thread to describe Bush presidency:
1) ‘It was Roves fault’
2) ‘It was GOP in congress fault’
3) ‘It was Democrats fault’
4) ‘It is ALL YOUR fault’(my favorite as it makes me look so important)
5) ‘Whose side are you on anyway??’
(similar to Bush's ‘You are EITHER with us (Bush) or you are with the terrorists’)
How about ‘The Dems forced Bush to call for TARP’ as #6??
Al Gore is trotting around the world making a total fool of himself. John Kerry is trotting around the world making a total fool of the United States. Thanks to G W Bush neither became President.
The Constitution requires a declaration of war before the country enters into a war. Period. Bush did not ask for a declaration of war. He asked for an authorization to use force.
Do you not see how that was an end-around the Constitution? It in essence gave Bush the "right" to start a war whenever he felt like it. And it allowed Congress to escape its responsibility of actually declaring war.
Now, I'm not saying Bush was wrong to invade Afghanistan or Iraq. That's for another thread. But if you're going to take a country to war, declare war. Then mobilize the whole might of the country to win that war.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, ain't it!
Find me anywhere in the Constitution where it says that Congress' power to declare war must take on a certain and specific form of language. ANYWHERE.
Congress gave the President approval to use military force -- that is more than sufficient. There is no "magic phrase" that makes that any more or less legitimate than a so-called formal declaration of war.
Then why not simply ask for a declaration of war?
I'll tell you why. Because since 1945, both Presidents and Congress have wanted to take the easy way out. Presidents want the complete freedom to act, and Congress doesn't want to take the responsibility to declare war.
If I'm wrong, please correct me. But please include in your response an answer to the above question: If you're going to go to war, why not simply ask for a declaration of war?
Now consider the times the country has gone to war without a formal declaration: Korea, Vietnam, and the two Gulf wars.
Do you see a difference in results between the first set and the second set?
...if an AWB extension gets to my desk, Ill sign it...
just like mcquuuueeeeeeg/feingold...
he had an opportunity to advance a conservative agenda and roll back some of the 100 yrs of progcomm creep, but sat on his hands and allowed them to command the dialogue, all in the name of *compassion*...cough/choke/puke...
Yes, you’re wrong. First of all, in the case of Afghanistan, there was no nation-state to declare war on, but rather an organization (Taliban). One could argue that they were one and the same, but the Taliban wasn’t in complete control of Afghanistan, IIRC.
Secondly, you’re arguing syntax when the semantics are the same. If Congress authorized the commander in chief to deploy the military for an objective, it doesn’t matter if they use specific magic words or not. The granting of authority is the end result.
AWB extension?? Whats AWB?
Add the Barbary Pirates, who like the Taliban were not a nation-state (at best, a rogue state). There was no formal declaration of war there, so was it unconstitutional?
Getting to Iraq, GWB did not even need authorization of the use of force by Congress. Iraq violated an active cease-fire agreement and the military action originally approved in 1991 could easily recommence without additional authorization. Congress voted on the authorization as a political act, not a constitutional one, to show that they still supported the effort. (And, being a political act, to also put anti-war opponents on the record.)
assault weapon ban of 94'...
on the campaign trail before the 2000 election, jr said he would sign it if CONgress got it to his desk, and if it hadnt been for algore, jr wouldve lost my vote on that statement alone...
That's helpful. I couldnt see it.
This is rather unbelievable esp since Democrats regularly cite that AWB ban vote as the main reason they lost the congress that year.
Certainly it was a significant factor.
Unresponsive.
Reagan signed amnesty and is viewed as a hero.
Reagan ran from Lebanon when islamic radicals bombed our troops. He is still viewed as a hero.
Reagan appointed O Connor to the Court and he is still viewed as a hero.
Reagan presided over massive debt and deficit expansions and he is still viewed as a hero.
The war against Bush is pathological and counterproductive.
Five years into Obama and the faux conservatives won’t give in. The golden unicorn conservative with rainbows will someday rule our fair land.
Banning lightbulbs!— wow— I am impressed you can carry on with that setback /s
in fairness to jr, IIRC the *question* about it expiring during the 2000-04 PotUS was being used as a *gotcha* by the msm to discourage 2A guys like myself [which it did except for the opponent being algore], and he avoided it for awhile...
but just like the next 8 yrs, he capitulated and gave em the answer, and allowed em to paint him into a corner w/o fighting back...
he couldve/shouldve done alot for *US*, but didnt, considering he was going to be villified by the progcomms regardless...
I used to be a very happy American.
And to you that makes it a great idea to repeat amnesty in 2007 (GWB) or even now? That is your logic?
Reagan didnt hand over both Houses to Dems then claim it was a GOOD thing because now the new Dem congress can give amnesty to illegals
Reagan didnt tear his party apart and then turn over a GOP White House (all three in GWB case) to Dems when he did it.
Reagan didnt leave office with a costly messy land war in progress that he started years earlier.
Reagan didnt leave office with the economy in shambles.
Its a disgrace for you to equate GWB with the Gipper. You post like you absolutely dispise Reagan
Michelle Malkin was nice enough to put together a GWB list since you LOVE (Reagan) lists:
1) joined with open-borders progressives McCain and Kennedy to try to force shamnesty down our throats;
2) massively expanded the federal role in education;
3) championed the Medicare prescription drug entitlement using phony math;
4) kowtowed to the jihadi-enabling Saudis;
5) stocked DHS with incompetents and cronies;
6) pushed Hillarycare for housing;
7) enabled turncoat Arlen Specter;
8. nominated crony Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court;
9) pre-socialized the economy for Obama by embracing TARP, the auto bailouts, the AIG bailout, and in his own words:
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.