Things Bush apparently doesn't need to attack Iraq

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
che: Recissions are difficult to push through outside the normal budgetary process and would require an affirmative vote against military action.

There's a lot of daylight between congressional approval of the action and congressional disapproval of the action.

Very true, and the odds of Congress voting against military action are probably close to zero. However, the next fiscal year is coming up, which means budgets have to be approved, which means Congress can put the kabash on any invasion of Iraq unless Bush attacks in the next month or so. All it takes is a rider saying, no funds shall be used to attack Iraq without explicit Congressional approval.

Again, chances of this happening, I think, are very slim, especially before an election. No one wants to be seen as hampering a popular President, even if he is out of touch with reality.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You know, Chris, it's sad people actually use such dumb canards as this in an argument.

Nothing worse then the use of Buzz words, like "Canard" for example.

Disagreeing with Bush's tactics in dealing with Saddam is not the same thing as supporting or "allying" with Saddam. I've expressed nothing but contempt for Saddam, but that doesn't mean I will support abject stupidity for dealing with him.

And what is your contemptious, totally enligthened and non-stupid way of dealing with him?
Oh, and why have you launched no threads commenting on this "contempt" you so willfully show him?
Could it be that anti-Bush threads are far more to your liking?

I know in the conservative world things are always black-and-white, but let's be more realistic...

Not being a conservative, I wouldn't know.
Like so many nubes, you never really read what I say, you just make assumptions.
I have as little use for conservatives and Right wing hard-liners as I do for soft Left wing anti-Bush whiners.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It doesn't matter how much money the Adminstration has. The moment Congress says, you may not spend any money on this, it grinds to a halt, immediately. Any money that the US gets from other countries is the property of the US, it goes into the treasury. Only Congress has the power to appropriate funds. Absolute control of the purse strings is the most important power Congress has against the Presidency.

The problem with that thinking is that the Pres is the commander in chief. Allowing congress to allocate funds (or not) for decisions that are clearly a function of the executive is one of those grey areas that needs to be clarified by the Supremes (I dont think the constitutionality of the act that enables this has been judged has it?)

[Felch]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Not being a conservative, I wouldn't know.
Like so many nubes, you never really read what I say, you just make assumptions.
I have as little use for conservatives and Right wing hard-liners as I do for soft Left wing anti-Bush whiners.

Chris is the perfect example of how politics lies on a multi-dimensional plane. Che is left wing for example. David Floyd is a libertarian. Chris is filled with rage and hate.

I am stoned.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The problem with that thinking is that the Pres is the commander in chief. Allowing congress to allocate funds (or not) for decisions that are clearly a function of the executive is one of those grey areas that needs to be clarified by the Supremes (I dont think the constitutionality of the act that enables this has been judged has it?)

Absolutely incorrect. Only Congress has the power to declare war. Only Congress has the power to authorize the spending of the treasury of the US. There is no Constitutional gray area. Reread your copy of the Constitution. There is no room for interpretation here, the Constitution is clear.

The War Powers Act is a reaffirmation of Congress' authority in these matters, while allowing the President the flexibility to defend the US incase of attack.

Being the Commander-in-Chief doesn't give the President the right to initiate war with another country anymore than being the head of the Department of Justice give the President the authority to decide which laws he will or will not enforce.

edit: fixing typos.

[Felch]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The problem with that thinking is that the Pres is the commander in chief. Allowing congress to allocate funds (or not) for decisions that are clearly a function of the executive is one of those grey areas that needs to be clarified by the Supremes (I dont think the constitutionality of the act that enables this has been judged has it?)

There's no grey area at all. Congress allocates funds. It makes the rules. The President executes the will of Congress and the people.

If the President oversteps his bounds at all, he should be impeached or killed. That's the only way to ensure freedom.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Felch X
Chris is the perfect example of how politics lies on a multi-dimensional plane. Che is left wing for example. David Floyd is a libertarian. Chris is filled with rage and hate.

I am stoned.

I wish I were stoned.

[Felch]

Holy ****, I'm on Che's side in this argument.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Felch X
Holy ****, I'm on Che's side in this argument.

Because, as we both noted, there is no grey area, no room for interpretation.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Felch X
I am stoned.

You must be if you think I'm filled with rage and hate.

[Felch]

Dude, you want to invade Iraq. I want to lay waste to France, and if it gets uppity, Quebec.

Guess which of us better represents American opinion.

[Q Classic]

i'm pretty much tired of this. bush wants to attack iraq. most americans--and most of the rest of the world-- would not mind seeing saddam out.

HOWEVER.

bush has failed to make a convincing case for himself, or rather, a convincing enough case to persuade a) close foreign allies, b) close domestic allies, c) the general public, and d) neutral parties.

the bush camp has it wrong. i don't think the american public is against an invasion of iraq so much as wondering why. why now? why spend money on a two-bit dictator? why spill american blood in a foreign land we already "vanquished"?

the american people--and the people from the rest of the world don't want to attack iraq because of some strong reasons: a) israel-palestine. b) domestic squabbles and issues. c) the unfavorable response from the arab world. d) lack of any hard, solid, irrefutable evidence of terrorist wrongdoing by saddam.

if bush wants to attack iraq without coming off as a total arse, he really needs to build a solid, convincing argument, that answers the case for why we should do it now, why it's more important than israel-palestine, why it's critically important for the rest of the world, while simultaneously alleviating the fears of the arab world, which doesn't want sunni and kurdish states, and domestic fears, which doesn't want to end up in an extremely bloody situation with no end in sight.

bush, so far, has failed miserably at doing that.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Felch X
I want to lay waste to France, and if it gets uppity, Quebec.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Only Congress has the power to declare war. Only Congress has the power to authorize the spending of the treasury of the US. There is no Constitutional gray area. Reread your copy of the Constitution. There is no room for interpretation here, the Constitution is clear.

The War Powers Act is a reaffirmation of Congress' authority in these matters, while allowing the President the flexibility to defend the US incase of attack.

Being the Commander-in-Chief doesn't give the President the right to initiate war with another country anymore than being the head of the Department of Justice give the President the authority to decide which laws he will or will not enforce.

edit: fixing typos.

Just hate to disagree old boy but I think it is a grey area. While congress does have power to declare war and to appropriate funds, the decision to use, and how to use, the armed forces is an extention of foreign policy- an executive power.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH


What a wonderfull diatribe. Written with real gusto. Heres a small piece of advice, keep your bad interpretations of my comments to yourself. You dont know me. You dont know anything about me except that I quoted the cost of Desert Storm and I dont agree that every action in the world should be by consensus.

Well, I seem to have hit a raw nerve! And yes, it was a wonderful diatribe! I am proud of it. And yes, this is another hate Bush thread. There are not enough. This admin is a disaster that keeps getting worst. As for Haiti: whens the last time any of you heard the god news about Haiti? Years, right? We stopped a singluar disater in 94 (of course, not the biggest one, the Genocide in central Africe) and helped put in power a less corrupt regime. The question is how long will this last, and also, at what expense? Haiti and Panama were easy and cheap cause they are close to the US and the US has lots of dierct and indirect infleunce. Thats not true for Iraq, never will.

To repeat: Bush and company have not made the case to invade Iraq. I loved to see Lawrence Eagleburger in one of the Sunday shows two sundays ago. They had him with Bill Kristol. At the end of the show, Ealeburger stated that his biggest problem with this admin and Iraq is that they are making all these comments when they are not ready whatsoever and have no clear plan. In short, they are being very sloppy. Why the hell does the admin daily say that we need to go to war when they can't until early next year at the earliest? All they have done is build singular wolrd opposition to their actions, to the degree that now they have to state that they are ready to do it alone. They dug themselves into a war hole, and they can't get out 'cuase folk like chris62 wont let them not go to war.

After what Cheney said on Sunday, not attacking isn't an option. Bush has talked himself into [b[having[/b] to invade. not to invade, to allow Saddam to stay, even with invasive weapons inspectors (something Cheney said was not important) would mean a defeat for Bush- I mean, how can an evil man like Saddam be allowed to saty, even without WMD? Isn't he the second coming of Hitler? We will invade Iraq next year, the only question is what will come of it.

Which brings up the central political issue of the Middle East: legitimacy. The one question that haunts every (inluding Israel) Middle Eastern state is the question whether its governemnt , and sometimes even its borders, are a legitimate expresion of the national sovereignty of the people. We can go down the line, state by state:

Iran: The Shah's regime was brought to power by a coup and the west. It fell. The Revolutionaries claimed to bring both democracy and Islamic values. They only brought one, which is why the state faces internal opposition.
Egypt: the Khedive's regime was set up by the west. Nasser brought about a revolution, but his sucessors have not delivered, which is why Egypt was the home of the Islamist movement.
Jordan: artificial state given to the Hashemites by Britain. After the creation of Israel and the movement in of many Palestinians, what right do the Hashemites to rule?
Iraq: The Hashemite king overtrhown, since he was installed by Britain. All the rulers after have failed. The very borders of the state are questionable: it was cobled together from three distinct provinces of the Ottoman empire: for a while turkey claimed the North, Mosul province (where the kurds are).
Saudi Arabia: The house of Saud unified the country in early 20's, after uniting tribes and quicking out Hashemites. Sought to create legitimacy by allying with Wahabbis and becoming the defenders of faith and Mecca. Their livestyles and connections to the west make them illigitimate to many conservatives and liberals.
Israel: What should the borders of the Jewish state be? And what of the Arab whgo lived in Palestine. The question have yet to be answered.
Lebanon: How much should all the groups share power, should the Maronite community have extra say? What of Syrian influence.
Syria: the most legitimate of all, but still a autocratic regime that has failed to get Golan back.

A US invasion of Iraq and the instalation of a new regime, if done haphazrdly and incompletely will only raise more legitmacy questions and cripple the new Iraqi gov. from the start. The BUsshies have failed utterly to come up with aplan to make the new state legitimate.. They speak of democracy, but why should a democratic Iraq be pro-US, not anti-Israel, and give up WMD when its neighbors have them?