thinkprogress.org— In remarks to reporters this morning, President Bush said he would ignore Congress’ opposition to his escalation plan, saying, “I’m the decision-maker.”
Jan 26, 2007View in Crawl 4
"The US Contitution, Article II, Section 2: 'The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States'"Yes, "when called into the actual service of the United States." And who do you think does that calling? May I direct you to Article I, Section 8, which grants *Congress* the power to declare war. There's a reason Congressional power was placed in Article I, above Article II defining the presidency (and Article III the judiciary). The executive branch is so named because it is supposed to execute the laws as defined by Congress, not the other way around. More crucial than the debate over whether we live in a republic or democracy is whether we are going to entrust the entire warmaking and foreign policy capability of this country to one man in the form of an increasingly imperial executive power.
Actually congress could stop funding the war, but you know, that wouldn't be a good idea. They never should have authorised sucj unabated power in this war.
You are not nuts.The war was never declared. It does not even meet the conditions of the resolution is was started with.The president does NOT have the power to invade sovereign nations on his own say-so. To give you two examples of why this contributes to the mess we are in:1. Iraq never surrendered to us. Why? We never declared war. The two go together. A formal surrender would have reduced the disorder at the end of the war.2. Notice the government never called what we are doing in Iraq an occupation. Same reason as above. So if it isn't war, and it isn't occupation, what is it? It amount to driving around waiting to get blown up by improvised mines. Stupid stupid stupid.
Davenp35 has provided us an excellent example of how framing the debate, or rather the rhetoric, wins the argument. He says, "if any of you don't want victory...." Who doesn't want their team to win? The question, however, is does being against President Bush's troop increase mean "you don't want victory"?I would suggest there is no, necessary, logical connection between the two. In fact I would argue adding an additional 20,000+ troops is insignificant in the equation for determining conditions for victory. By the way, that's not me talking. High ranking American generals have long argued it would take hundreds of thousands, not tens of thousands more troops.If you read Colonel North's comments (I clicked on d's link), we get the arguments concerning supporting the troops and patriotism. In a way additional troops going to Iraq do support the troops. Most likely American commanders are requesting more troops to protect themselves---which is an entirely different matter than winning the war. On the other hand, sending more troops into harm's way in a wasted effort is not only not supporting the troops but rather doing them injury for base, political reasons. As for patriotism, I've never fallen for the "my country right or wrong" scam. What did Thomas Jefferson say about a government that is out of line?!
What gives Bush the right to disregard Madison's Separation of Powers principle and be a dictator? Laura told him to. "Oh, yeh, Madison's history, man!"
omaryakJan 26, 2007
"The US Contitution, Article II, Section 2: 'The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States'"Yes, "when called into the actual service of the United States." And who do you think does that calling? May I direct you to Article I, Section 8, which grants *Congress* the power to declare war. There's a reason Congressional power was placed in Article I, above Article II defining the presidency (and Article III the judiciary). The executive branch is so named because it is supposed to execute the laws as defined by Congress, not the other way around. More crucial than the debate over whether we live in a republic or democracy is whether we are going to entrust the entire warmaking and foreign policy capability of this country to one man in the form of an increasingly imperial executive power.
sesante2000Jan 27, 2007
Wow, some peoples' kids.....
slimnickyyJan 27, 2007
Actually congress could stop funding the war, but you know, that wouldn't be a good idea. They never should have authorised sucj unabated power in this war.
williamdyerJan 27, 2007
You are not nuts.The war was never declared. It does not even meet the conditions of the resolution is was started with.The president does NOT have the power to invade sovereign nations on his own say-so. To give you two examples of why this contributes to the mess we are in:1. Iraq never surrendered to us. Why? We never declared war. The two go together. A formal surrender would have reduced the disorder at the end of the war.2. Notice the government never called what we are doing in Iraq an occupation. Same reason as above. So if it isn't war, and it isn't occupation, what is it? It amount to driving around waiting to get blown up by improvised mines. Stupid stupid stupid.
williamdyerJan 27, 2007
< cough > Diebold < /cough >Seriously. We have become a f**king banana republic, with rigged elections.
firepigJan 27, 2007
Davenp35 has provided us an excellent example of how framing the debate, or rather the rhetoric, wins the argument. He says, "if any of you don't want victory...." Who doesn't want their team to win? The question, however, is does being against President Bush's troop increase mean "you don't want victory"?I would suggest there is no, necessary, logical connection between the two. In fact I would argue adding an additional 20,000+ troops is insignificant in the equation for determining conditions for victory. By the way, that's not me talking. High ranking American generals have long argued it would take hundreds of thousands, not tens of thousands more troops.If you read Colonel North's comments (I clicked on d's link), we get the arguments concerning supporting the troops and patriotism. In a way additional troops going to Iraq do support the troops. Most likely American commanders are requesting more troops to protect themselves---which is an entirely different matter than winning the war. On the other hand, sending more troops into harm's way in a wasted effort is not only not supporting the troops but rather doing them injury for base, political reasons. As for patriotism, I've never fallen for the "my country right or wrong" scam. What did Thomas Jefferson say about a government that is out of line?!
rstevensJan 28, 2007
"I'm the decision maker." Aren't we the American people are the decision makers?
chatty82Feb 21, 2007
What gives Bush the right to disregard Madison's Separation of Powers principle and be a dictator? Laura told him to. "Oh, yeh, Madison's history, man!"