Skip to comments.
Bill Would Repeal (Congressional)Resolution Authorizing Military Action
CNSNEWS.com ^
| 2/06/03
| Robert B. Bluey
Posted on 02/06/2003 3:19:08 AM PST by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-166 next last
To: kattracks
I am getting really tired of this - lets just go in and blow the Iraq Government away - or as the Marines used to say - "Kill 'em all - Let God sort 'em out"
21
posted on
02/06/2003 5:07:39 AM PST
by
Core_Conservative
((Hate watching politicians wasting their time and our money))
To: kattracks
Clinton didn't ask anyone for permission. He just bombed when he wanted to for political cover. Period.
Monica testifying? Quick! Bomb someone!
Impeachment? Bomb Saddam, what the hell.
Bush should just do it now, before the commies get the US in big trouble. The more we wait, the more Saddam has a chance to pass on his WMD, their greater the chance the US could be harmed.
BTW, where were all these "peace" people when Clinton was trying to take over the world?
To: conservativecorner
Let the libs hammer nails into their own coffins. There's no way that this bill will pass.
To: kattracks
This bill is dead in the water.
24
posted on
02/06/2003 5:12:34 AM PST
by
wimpycat
(US: Masters of our Domain...France: Morally bankrupt "old Europe")
To: kattracks
Even though Bush already has approval from Congress, We're going to get terrorism if we go after Saddam or not.
All through the '90's Americans were killed, but no one did anything about it. It made the terrorists bolder and stronger.
Now that Bush is president, he's doing something about it. Saddam and his ilk are part of it.
I can't believe the Democrats are willing to risk this countries future for a stupid vote!!! Americans were slaughtered dieing the '90's, and it reached ther 9/11 stage, because the Democrat president stuck his ugly head in the sand.
It shouldn't be allowed to happen again.
Democrats are Socialist. They want a US dictator. How many Americans will they let die to reach their goal?
To: kattracks
Yea and I want to hold the 1996 Presidential Election again.....................
26
posted on
02/06/2003 5:42:26 AM PST
by
Lockbox
To: Eagle Eye; mckenzie
I want to thank you two for your insightful comments this morning. You've echoed my sentiments without my having to draft a long post in doing so. The fact remains that President Bush should ask for a Declaration of War, the Congress should pass it (as it is their responsibility to do so under our form of government), and we should start the bombing. But it should be done Constitutionally for crying out loud!
I am fully aware that Bill Clinton loathed the military, and the Constitution for that matter. But are we no better than him? I personally believe that the U.S. Congress would vote, in the majority, for a Declaration of War. Do the posters on this thread not agree? I know that this scenario presents a slight paradox for us, between doing what we want to do (ie, make Iraq a parking lot tomorrow) and what we are Constitutionally binded to do (ie, pass a Declaration of War through the Congress and then make Iraq a parking lot in two days or so).
27
posted on
02/06/2003 5:44:20 AM PST
by
RonPaulLives
(Virgil Moore/Don Bell For Kentucky 2003)
To: kattracks
U.S. Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) introduced a resolution that would repeal the vote Congress took last October giving Bush the power to wage war. Paul and DeFazio, two peas in a pod. They probably say "All right!" to the war protestors who hold up signs such as,
"Smoke weed, not Iraqi's".
28
posted on
02/06/2003 5:48:14 AM PST
by
Dane
To: kattracks
Actually, as annoyingly anti-American as this seems, perhaps it would be a good idea to get these slime bags on the record as voting against a real declaration of war. Bush could go a long way towards reinvigorating the Constitution by going to congress and saying "you authorized force last Fall, but I want a real declaration of war.
I cannot imagine that there are even 41 democratic senators who would vote against it. The political consequences of being on the wrong side of this once it's done, and all of the evidence comes out ala the fall of the Soviet Union and the fall of Nazi Germany, would be so great that they dare not risk it.
As someone said, go back and reread William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. It's chilling.
Those who make the case for appeasement, through international institutions that are toothless and run by tyrants and oligarchs, are the moral equivalent of the 'America First' types before Pearl Harbor. Some may be sincere, but they are wrong. They are enemies of America.
29
posted on
02/06/2003 5:50:41 AM PST
by
CatoRenasci
(Ceterum Censeo Mesopotamiam Esse Delendam)
To: RonPaulLives
Bush already has approval from Congress. It's even in this article.
To: mckenzie
First and foremost it is constitutionally the right of congress to declare war - not the president First and formost, the congress did authorize hostilities, How is it in the interest of this country to have a vote every several months? Might this affect the moral of the military, (of which the president is commander in chief)?
How would you like your employer to reauthorize your employment every three months? (Or pick some similar analogy).
To: concerned about politics
Bush has my approval to kill Saddam, but according to the rules he has sworn to defend, He needs a declaration of war!
This is not a matter of defending oneself during a mugging. We have laid out a very detailed plan for the INVASION of another country. War. GO TO CONGRESS AND GET THE DECLARATION. They will issue it.
32
posted on
02/06/2003 6:01:39 AM PST
by
duk
To: concerned about politics
The problem is what constitutes a declaration of war? The detractors and literal constructionists would hold that the Congress must pass an act entitled "Declaration of War Against Iraq." The Supreme Court has held that when the Congress passes resolution authorizing use of force and passes budget authorizing expenditures of funds well knowing that such funds will be used to support military action in a place they have for all legal purposes already exercised their war declaration powers and have already given the President the authority to do what he is doing.
To: kattracks
how do you like your Ron Paul now?
To: AndyJackson
what is the meaning of "is."
35
posted on
02/06/2003 6:04:59 AM PST
by
duk
To: kattracks
U.S. Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) introduced a resolution that would repeal the vote Congress took last October giving Bush the power to wage war.I just lost a lot of respect for Ron Paul.
To: kattracks
E Tu Ron Paul? His Liberaltarian roots are showing. Let's see one year out from re-election. Ok time enough for political make over before next polling takes place.
37
posted on
02/06/2003 6:13:45 AM PST
by
ImpBill
To: RonPaulLives
I agree with Ron Paul to a point.
He is right in saying a declaration of war by the Congress is the proper and Constitutional way to go. Congress has shirked it's responsibility in that area for some time now (back to Korea?).
I don't agree with him as far as the question of the war itself. I believe Saddam must be dealt with now before it's too late.
What has bothered me about a lot of conservatives/republicans is their cafeteria approach to the Constitution. In that regard too many are just like liberals. They just pick and choose different parts of the Constitution they like.
At least Ron Paul is one of the few in Congress who seems to support the Constitution in total, not just when convenient.
38
posted on
02/06/2003 6:18:46 AM PST
by
NEPA
To: NEPA
Actually, a declaration of war against Iraq specifically or against Saddam Hussein's government specifically would be a good idea.
I am very certain it would pass and it would cross the 't' and dot the 'i' regarding the war declaration provision. It would also make the Democrats squirm horribly. Do they vote for a popular war and against their base or not?
I think the fact Congress already authorized monies for the Iraq war is a defacto declaration of war and meets the requirements of the Constitution.
But an official declaration of war against a sovereign nation, accompanied by our reasons makes it more official and serious. It's especially necessary since our war on terrorism is NOT against a nation, except when they support terrorism--like Iraq.
39
posted on
02/06/2003 6:26:33 AM PST
by
Forgiven_Sinner
(Praying for the Kingdom of God)
To: duk
The number of un-thinking 'bots on this thread is kind of telling. We harp on our Constitutional Republic. We harp on the Rule of Law. We denegrate those who have abused Presidential powers and responsibilities in the past.
But now, because it's Bush's turn at bat... all the rules and regs no longer apply.
Scary how quickly "we" are becoming "them".
When we went after Al Queda, we were not fighting against a nation-state. Constitutionally, we should have had Letters of M&R as we did with the Barbary Pirates. Same deal, just not on the high-seas. Instead, Congress authorized a "use of force" to go get them. Kind of extra legal, but a decent compromise.
Iraq. North Korea. Anywhere else where we will be directly attacking a Nation, we need that Declaration of War from our Congress before Bush can excersize all of his options as Commander in Chief. The Constitution is pretty darn clear on this.
Let's stop sh1tting on the Constitution shall we? The democrats have done it enough damage, no need to do more. Public opinion is running high enough that any Congress critter voting against a Declaration will be risking their career. Well, except maybe in Ithica. Even Ron Paul has stated in his speeches that he would vote for a Declaration of War, but that any other meassure does not pass a Constitutional smell test.
So. Do we errode another check and balance in our Government, or do we play by our own rules?
40
posted on
02/06/2003 6:27:07 AM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-166 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson