Replies

The leading nature of the questions really undercuts the points they may otherwise have made...

The reason this sounds so smooth is that it ignores many contextual issues, imho. For example, if we were dealing with America under President Jefferson in the 19th century, then these constitutional arguments would hold a lot more water. In post Civil War America, the constitution is, for better or worse, a formality at best. The fact is our government does fight wars that are not in the interest of self defense, whether they set up a situation that allows for congressional "approval" (a la Wilson in WWI) or simply bypass the process altogether (Kennedy, LBJ, etc).

Also, I DO think the source matters, especially when Scott Ritter's bizarre situation is in play.

The long and short of it now is that those that are interested in defending the constitution had better pick their battles a lot more wisely than those in the foreign policy forum, because there is a century+ worth of precedent for ignoring the constitution or abusing it in the foreign policy forum. In foreign policy, the real question is whether our unconstitutional, not-for-self-defense acts will be to our benefit in terms of long term goals (Korea), if they will just be a difficult conflict fought poorly (Vietnam), or if, indeed, we are involving ourselves in a conflict where it does not really matter who won (Gulf War...I think Saddam attacked Israel in a pr move to please the masses, and given the precedent we had set for cold, rational dealings with him in the past, he would have been much easier to deal with than the bloody Saudis. But Bush I, for better or worse, saw an opportunity to show the world we were going to clean up the "mess" we helped create, and somehow we were thrust in the position of defending people that despise us against an erstwhile ally).

The de jure test for recognition of a government was an invention of Wilson's, back in the day, and one selectively applied as a pr measure ever since then. I honestly don't care who they are ruled by so long as he sells us oil at a reasonable price and keeps them from crashing airplanes into our buildings. Has Saudi Arabia more definitely failed to be in line with our interests? Yes. But I think we have an opportunity to get rid of a really complex situation in Iraq right now, and then phase III should involve the rest of the Arab world.

Now, Saddam has no reason to work with the US again. Indeed, we have set things up, between Bush I and Clinton, so that we have little choice but to flatten him, and then work on Saudi Arabia.

I apologize for any lack of fluidity in these statements, as I am still a little rattled in the head after an afternoon at the shooting range.

To: Boonie Rat; jwalsh07; CIB-173RDABN
"...The long and short of it now is that those that are interested in defending the Constitution had better pick their battles a lot more wisely than those in the foreign policy forum, because there is a century+ worth of precedent for ignoring the constitution or abusing it in the foreign policy forum..."
# 121 by Lizard_King

*************************

I'm picking out only one of your excellent points for dispute, Lizard_King.

As you say, there is a "century+ worth of precedent for ignoring the Constitution...in...foreign policy..."

Rather than seeing that fact as a reason to AVOID a fight for the restoration of the Constitution, I see that as the reason to push that very point to the limit.

Anybody can read the Constitution, and an honest reading, combined with a century of our government ignoring the written limits on Executive power, provides PROOF that our country has abandoned the Constitution, and thus the principle of the Rule of Law.

For our society to survive, we MUST return to the Rule of Law.

To: Boonie Rat; jwalsh07; CIB-173RDABN
"...Has Saudi Arabia more definitely failed to be in line with our interests? Yes.

But I think we have an opportunity to get rid of a really complex situation in Iraq right now, and then phase III should involve the rest of the Arab world..."
# 121 by Lizard_King

*************************

I'm all for the conquest of the Arad world, but it needs to be done legally.

We're not fooling any Arab state by avoiding an open declaration of war. They know we're coming, just as you do.

Without a legal Declaration of War from Congress, we are doing more damage to our way of life than any terrorist could hope to do.

Without the Rule of Law, a nation is not a Republic.

If we lose our Republic, our free society's time is over.