Posted on 02/14/2003 7:27:20 PM PST by CubicleGuy
We know this?
First, it nowhere says in the Constitution that a declaration of war must contain the words "declare" and "war." So clearly, synonyms and other constructions, at least if they are unambiguous, amount to the same.
The Congress, if it were more pretentious, could say "we approve of belligerency against Iraq." If it wanted to focus more on the personality of Saddam, it could say "we authorize the President to kill Saddam Hussein" -- an act of war that would obviously give casus belli to Saddam's military and other agents, and would require the use of military force. Or it could authorize any other acts of war explicitly, authorizing the President to do whatever was specified. Finally, if we now spoke French (something that would not have seemed out of the question to the framers of the Constitution regarding a point over 200 years in the future), the Congress could authorize "guerre" instead of "war" and the Constitutional requirement would have been just as well meant.
And second, the only way to stop the President from waging an undeclared war is to remove him as Commander in Chief. Judges and Congressmen cannot order troops around. Military command cannot be divided, and by definition it belongs to the Commander in Chief. The way to get a new Commander in Chief is to impeach and convict the President, in this case of improper waging of war. In some circumstances that would be politically feasible (e.g., Bush bombs Toronto), but in this case it is not, precisely because three-fourths of the Congress has explicitly authorized the use of military force against Iraq.
Saint Michael, Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And you, Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into Hell Satan and the other evil spirits who prowl the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.
No, we're not. In fact, we have said specifically that we have no quarrel with the people of Iraq. Our military has taken far greater pains to avoid civilian casualties than any other military in the history of warfare, sometimes at increased risk to themselves.
Yes, some innocents will die - That is unavoidable. But innocent people die every day in Iraq, victims of their own government. And if we do nothing, they will continue to die. Saddam seeks weapons that no reasonable person can believe he should possess, and if he acquires them, many more innocent people, perhaps millions of innocent people, will be at risk.
We cannot, and will not, allow this to happen.
We learned nothing from the Tonkin betrayal.
Conservatives-last I looked-are for a weak and checked govt -both legislative, judicial AND executive.
Just because we like Bush does not make it ok this time.
Rant is over. I know the Republic is long dead and I am resigned to it.
You know-what the hell-I'm a young guy raised on MTV, I went to public school so my education is the best the taxpayer can be gauged for and I read this. I mean I am not an Ivy League professor or anything or the son of a Senator-patrtician -- BUT EVEN I KNOW THAT THE WAR CONGRESS CAN "STOP" A PRESIDENT IS TO WITHDRAW FUNDS FOR THE WAR!!" YOU DO NOT NEED TO REMOVE HIM FROM HIS OFFICE AT ALL!!!!
Secondly, the Republican controlled Congress during the Kosovo war DID!! deny Clinton military authorization-this AFTER Clinton started the shooting war. What did Clinton do? Continued to fight the war in violation of the constitution. Congress then had the opportunity to end the war and was so freaked-so afraid of the power they had so long gladly given up that they -- after denying the President authorization for the Kosovo war-gave the President the funds to carry out the same war they voted him to stop.
It was the last gasp of the republic. The rubber stamp congress is now in session when it comes to foreign affairs..so long as they can fight for their share of the domestic spoils--our empire's version of the imperial bribe.
PS: Used caps because I was to lazy to bold.
...for they shall inherit the Earth...
...in little six-foot plots.
-Jay
Considering the way that the Democrats in congress screw the pooch when it comes to matters as simple as confirming a Circuit Court justice, I'd have to say I have absolutely no confidence in their appropriately handling something of far greater importance (such as declaring war).
Don't like it? Then tell the Democrats to get off their filibustering dead @$$es.
-Jay
All our intelligence gathering "knows" this. You can disbelieve it if you want. There are a lot of people that don't believe that Americans ever walked on the moon. And there are French that believe that the Pentagon was not hit by a hijacked airplane. And you can believe Colin Powell was lyng his head off at the U.N.
That would fit right in with historic precedent, you betcha.
Elaborate, thanking you in advance.
The joint resolution of Congress authorized the President to use force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to...enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Simply put, the resolution amounts to carte blanche for the President to enforce UN dictates.
To be fair, the President has repeatedly expressed displeasure with the UN for not adopting a new resolution authorizing enforcement of the old UN resolutions. If the President's lament was based on the UN becoming too powerful, then his rhetoric, at least would be noteworthy, if not praiseworthy even. Unfortunately the president is only complaining that the UN is not exercising the power it has and as it should. Consider the President's words:
"We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes...
The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are the Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?...
We want the resolutions of the worlds most important multilateral body to be enforced."
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has stated that global interest should be national interest. While the President may sound like he's lauding our national interests, in reality he's supporting the same objective as that of Kofi Annan - empowerment of the United Nations. If that were not the case, then he'd be hoping that the UN indeed become irrelevant instead of fulfilling the purpose of its founding. If the UN can disarm Iraq, then so can it disarm any other nation, including America and it would be well on its way to becoming the global police force its founders had envisioned.
says as much and is something that the State Department has never disavowed even so they refuse to comment on it.
Mr. Bush actually makes the UN more relevant than to the contrary and more politically attainable than less so. By taking the position he has, he is making it easier for the U.S. to support whatever "compromise" resolutions the UN does adopt without provoking too much backlash from patriotic Americans.
If Mr. Bush truly wants to put "the UN where it belongs - the ash-bin of history - he should use his bully pulpit to try to get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of the U.S.
If you are willing to watch a mugger rob and murder for the sake of making peace with him at the expense of his victim, then begone. If you are willing to condemn those who seek liberty for the sake of those who do not, begone.
Those who are willing to sacrifice their liberty for the sake of safety (theirs or others) deserve neither liberty nor safety, and shall have neither.
And those who pray for peace at all costs always pray a two-faced prayer. For the victims of good-intentioned Utopians by far outnumber the victims of liberators.
As for prayer, it is sufficient to pray only that God's will be done in the battles ahead, be they diplomatic or military, and then do your best as a soldier or leader, trusting Him to deliver.
And that, my friend, is not a two-faced prayer.
I am continually astounded by those who preach peace because of the possibility that some few may fall to American bombs, but care not a whit about millions starved to death, hacked to death, tortured to death, gassed to death, burned to death, worked to death, buried alive, mutilated, deprived of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, enslaved, deprived of property, prosperity and opportunity, deprived of heritage and history, reeducated, intimidated, extorted, threatened, libelled, ... and now they want us to look away so that those who do these things can get their hands on nuclear weapons too, and threaten to do all this to even more people?
No one cares.
Certainly not the people who cry out against war now.
They want all these things to continue indefinitely, worldwide, and don't care if eventually these things are imported to this country because we failed to stop it while we could. We have seen their type before. We see that type every time we see someone look the other way when a crime is going down.
No one cares, least of all those whose wisdom is no more than parrotted lines from tenured marxist professors.
No one cares except some "warmongering" Americans, a few gallant Brits, and some others who know such tyranny first-hand, as do our friends in Eastern Europe.
Pacifist activism is a murder-suicide pact for the benefit of tyrants, perpetuated by people who do not understand what it is to be without liberty or hope.
"Hey, everyone, it's none of our business if this dude is bleeding to death."
Thanks for letting me know, by word number 9, that we probably shouldn't take you too seriously.
... are we prepared to watch them suffer for the leader's sake, that he may build temples unto himself and defy God...
So, you're saying that God has given you the special mission of seeing to it that Hussein stops defying God? Seems a bit presumptive to me.
... to live in a land that has children's prisons that even UN inspectors fear to describe lest the description incite people to war...
If Hussein really is the Son of Satan as you have described him here, then it seems to me that the UN inspectors have a duty to speak up in order that Hussein's people will be incited to war. If it's anyone's responsibility to get rid of the guy, it's that of the people he's apparently so brutally repressing, don't you think?
Be sure and let us all know when you've been issued a gun and when you're shipping out to bring liberty to the good people of Iraq. Or are you one of those who is all in favor of liberty for the oppressed, so long as it's someone else who does the dirtywork?
As for prayer, it is sufficient to pray only that God's will be done in the battles ahead, be they diplomatic or military, and then do your best as a soldier or leader, trusting Him to deliver.
I believe that the commandment "thou shalt not murder" can be overridden by God on occasion, but I'm unaware of His having done so recently. Has He, in your opinion, released us from that standard of behavior? If so, I'd like to be made aware of when the announcement happened.
If you're so willing to trust in God to deliver, why aren't you willing to go all the way, letting God handle it in His own way and in His own good time, instead of insisting on adopting the title of Deliverer yourself? Or is God just not taking action fast enough for you?
And that, my friend, is not a two-faced prayer.
Personally, I believe that "the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed". I'm not so anxious to join that crowd, myself. It is one thing to fight a defensive war, and another thing entirely to go on the offensive. If you're anxious for God to bring down His judgments on this nation, then by all means, let's go on the offensive and see what follows.
I am continually astounded by those who preach peace because of the possibility that some few may fall to American bombs, but care not a whit about millions...
And I am continaully astounded by those who proclaim faith in God, but who can't seem to wait to take God's power of life and death into their own hands.
No one cares except some "warmongering" Americans, a few gallant Brits, and some others who know such tyranny first-hand, as do our friends in Eastern Europe.
Yeah, I'm sure that France and Germany know absolutely nothing of tyranny first-hand. That's why they're such pacifists in this matter. Just chalk it up to ignorance, right?
Pacifist activism is a murder-suicide pact for the benefit of tyrants, perpetuated by people who do not understand what it is to be without liberty or hope.
Luke 14:28-30:
For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
Count the cost. Are you really sure that you have?
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.