President Urged to Request Formal War Declaration

CNSNews.com ^ | 9/12/01

[Jean S]

CNSNews.com) - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said he has reason to hope that President Bush may ask Congress to declare war on those terrorist organizations - still unnamed, if not unknown - that attacked the American people on U.S. soil Tuesday. The president was expected to address the nation at 10:45 a.m. Wednesday. Speaking on Fox News Wednesday morning, Gingrich said he couldn't overstate the importance of a formal war declaration: "When you go to war, you have a whole new set of rules. You can blockade, you can use force, and you communicate to other governments such as Sudan and Afghanistan that the United States is now serious - that killing our men, women and children, killing people in our cities, will never be accepted." The last time the U.S. Congress formally declared war, the United States entered World War II

[TheDon]

This is the only course of action which will satisfy the public as an appropriate response to this attack! Terrorist and those who harbor them must be punished in kind!

[doubtfullyhopefull]

Good, lets be sure this act results in punishment of those responsible, not in punishment of the American people by another reduction in our freedoms.
It was an act of war.
At final count, whenever that may be, it will have killed more people than Pearl Harbor, almost entirely civilians.

[Fury]

I do believe that the almost certain upcoming calls for a moderate response from certain political leaders will be an awful mistake. As there has been no attack of this nature in modern history (1900 - present) on the US, there is simply no baseline from which to measure past response. For example, blaming the President politically would have, in my opinion, disasterous consequences. I'm sure that Sens. Clinton and Daschle, and Rep. Gephardt are aware of this and know better than to make a criticism of the President on this matter. This is still a new administration and an attack on what was not done would be turned right around on X42's failure. Today's NY Times makes reference to needing to defend against these threats as they are the more probable mode of attack as opposed to an attack from a missle that could be defended with a NMD. Of course, such an attack of the latter would introduce destruction that would make yesterday's destruction pale in comparison. Right now, there is strong support and unity of the American public. It is even quite possible that when the United States responds with military force, pictures of dead non-combatants who were killed along with those connected with the attacks on 09/11/01 would not have the same graphic "punch" that those who will be attacked by the US would like. Let us hope the public is fed up with a piecemeal, non-structured response to terrorism. Let's hope for an increase in increase in military and intelligence expenditures. Woe to the politician's career that expresses oppposition to such, as they will encounter public outrage, or let us hope.

[demlosers]

Yeah - Bump this!

[xzins]

I support a formal declaration of war against "international terrorism" and/or specifically against "those who brought about and/or harbored those who brought about the Sep11 attack."

I will oppose all congresspersons and executives who fail to support a full state of war to wipe out terrorism once and for all.

"...to the shores of Tripoli..."

[Cincinatus]

The problem is that typically, war is declared on nation-states, not pan-national, ideologically oriented groups. Who would we declare war on? All Islamic countries? Only Afganistan? The "terrorist support network" of Syria, Libya, Afganistan, Iraq, and Iran?

We don't need a formal declaration of war to do what's necessary -- we only need the political will and resolve to do so. "Declaring war" won't give it to us and if we don't have it already by now, we won't be getting it.

[LarryLied]

We don't need a formal declaration of war to do what's necessary

Newt mentioned that declaring war frees the FBI, CIA and other agencies to take actions which are otherwise prohibited.

[Cincinatus]

Newt mentioned that declaring war frees the FBI, CIA and other agencies to take actions which are otherwise prohibited

Yes, I heard Newt last night on this. I think that they are free to do whatever they think that they need to do right now. What "prohibition" is Newt worried about? The ban on "assassination" of foreign leaders? That's an EO, rescendable with the stroke of a pen by Dubya.

So, who we gonna declare war on?

[SoCal Pubbie]

I was just discussing this very point with my sister. She heard that in the 1800's Congress declared war on the Barbary pirates. It's time to do it again.

[ethical]

I agree. I think we do need a formal declaration of war. To do so correctly names what happened and what we must engage in to stop the threat. Also, I passed by hitlery on t.v. holding a press confrence. My VOMIT! Can someone post a picture of her KISSING PAlistienian A@@?

[NMC EXP]

All the wars fought since WW2 have been undeclared, and therefore, un-Constitutional. Give me a damn break. As a nation, we have brought this on ourselves. As a nation (globalist?) trying to be the cops for the world. I assume there is no surprise. Actions have reactions.

Take a look at Switzerland. A citizen army, never invaded by Hitler (one of Hitlers staff threatened the swiss, he said we will deploy a half million troops against your quarter million troops. The swiss responded, our quarter million troops will shoot twice, and go home).

It is time to withdraw from this global stage and take care of #1. Let the rest of the world go to hell in a bucket. If the geopolitical situation poses a threat to the US, by all means, stomp it out, with extreme prejudice.

This is a self inflicted wound. Let us get the hell out of all the quagnires we are mired in.

Regards

J.R.

[LarryLied]

What "prohibition" is Newt worried about?

I don't know. But I suspect liberals in Congress passed a plethora of laws in their attempts to tie the hands of Nixon, Ford, Bush Sr. and Reagan. David Horowitz alluded to racial profiling being taboo in an article yesterday.

[ex-snook]

We have been in undeclared wars for a good many years. We have bombed a variety of nations without a war declaration. Look at the months we bombed Kosovo and the years we bombed Iran? Or was that the UN or NATO doing the bombing?

This is a another Pearl Harbor surprise attack both in the destruction and in the failure of leadership to anticipate events. When we bomb other people, shouldn't we expect retaliation? Are we surprised because we are the the world's only super power and entitled to our choice of weapons? We need a top-to-bottom review of our defenses. God Bless America.

[TheDon]

So, who we gonna declare war on?

I'm sure our intelligence community can provide the names of terrorists organizations who have declared war on the US, and the countries who harbor them. These are our enemies, we must declare war on them, and not stop until they submit!

[TheDon]

It is time to withdraw from this global stage and take care of #1.

Ah, the isolationist speaks up. We heard your type prior to our entry into WWII. Wasn't a good idea then, ain't a good idea now. 9-11 is all the proof you need of that.

To be safe in our country, we must attack those who attack us, so completely that they will not be able to attack us, nor want to, due to our assured response.

[NMC EXP]

Ah, the isolationist speaks up. We heard your type prior to our entry into WWII. Wasn't a good idea then, ain't a good idea now. 9-11 is all the proof you need of that.The Don? You some sort of mafioso?

You are Damn right that I am isolationist. If then US kept it;s nose out of other's business, several tens of thousands of Americans would be alive today. Take that to your grave, you piece of trash.

Regards

J.R.

[1_American]

I'm not sure but does not War and Acts of God invalidate insurance claims ?? If so I would hate to see people who lost property like cars, businesses, lives not be paid for their loses Tuesday