Clinton Proposes Vote to Reverse Authorizing War

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 5 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Wars are ended by treaties.

The Constitution clearly gives the power to declare war to the Congress and the right to negotiate treaties to the President.




posted on May, 5 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
But Congress didn't declare war. They authorized the president to "use force". You can't lean on the Constitution when it's convenient and disregard it when it isn't.

Treaties aren't the only way to end a war. We could just withdraw and stop "using force". That would end this so-called "war".



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But Congress didn't declare war. They authorized the president to "use force". You can't lean on the Constitution when it's convenient and disregard it when it isn't.


Even though they did used the words "declare war" or such, it was a virtual declaration of war.



Treaties aren't the only way to end a war. We could just withdraw and stop "using force". That would end this so-called "war".


No, they could just stop funding it. Why don't they just do that?



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77


Treaties aren't the only way to end a war. We could just withdraw and stop "using force". That would end this so-called "war".


No, they could just stop funding it. Why don't they just do that?


That is true, and if the Senate is unable to override Bush's veto of the funding bill, that may be what happens. I don't think either house of Congress is in the mood to pass a bill that further funds this war, without some howevers and stipulations regarding how long the troops are deployed.

You guys are great! thanks for all of your comments; let's keep this thread going and hopefully we'll hear from other members who have a different perspective on the issue.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
….and it wasn't until congress revoked that authorization under Nixxon were serious negotions begun to end the fighting, or at leaast Americas involvement in it.


To my knowledge, please correct me if I am wrong…the US congress repealed nothing
as a “blanket authorization” under Nixon, in fact the US Congress only cut
appropriations to the South Vietnamese Army after Nixon resigned in August 1974.
So this complete ‘revocation of authorization’ is what I am looking for…


Originally posted by FlyersFan
This is toooooooooooo late.
Now, it's just an opportunistic political staging event for the cameras.


Agreed. This is nothing more than political positioning by Hillary. Any attempts by the
Democrat contolled houses to push for a repeal of authorization will be met with veto and
will not be veto proof if sent to the WH. There are much better things Hillary could
concern herself with…this action is a complete waste of legislative time…not to mention
a whole host of other negative waves splashed….


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But Congress didn't declare war. They authorized the president to "use force". You can't
lean on the Constitution when it's convenient and disregard it when it isn't.


Authority was handed to both the office of the president and President Bush, all
according to the US Constitution. It is just as convienient to thump the constitution
without looking at the actions of the legeslative bodies over the past 30 years.

There will be no actual pull-out from Iraq until after the presidential election…but Iraq will be used simply as an attempt to gain the office. History will repeat itself…For those that enjoy the Vietnam parallel, Nixon’s
“Peace With Honor” speech after the signing of the ceasefire provides some historical
insight.

“During the same 60-day period, all American forces will be withdrawn from South
Vietnam. The people of South Vietnam have been guaranteed the right to determine their
own future, without outside interference”

—Nixon, “Peace With Honor”, January 27, 1973, Paris.

April 30, 1975, the last Marines guarding the embassy leave at dawn, estimates are in the
millions for civilian deaths in the wake.

Mg



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But Congress didn't declare war. They authorized the president to "use force". You can't
lean on the Constitution when it's convenient and disregard it when it isn't.


Authority was handed to both the office of the president and President Bush, all according to the US Constitution. It is just as convienient to thump the constitution without looking at the actions of the legeslative bodies over the past 30 years.

There will be no actual pull-out from Iraq until after the presidential election…but Iraq will be used simply as an attempt to gain the office. History will repeat itself…For those that enjoy the Vietnam parallel, Nixon’s
“Peace With Honor” speech after the signing of the ceasefire provides some historical
insight.

“During the same 60-day period, all American forces will be withdrawn from South
Vietnam. The people of South Vietnam have been guaranteed the right to determine their
own future, without outside interference”

—Nixon, “Peace With Honor”, January 27, 1973, Paris.

April 30, 1975, the last Marines guarding the embassy leave at dawn, estimates are in the
millions for civilian deaths in the wake.Mg


You make a valid point, MG, and one I am afraid may come to pass. I have always been amazed that Nixon was able to utter those words with a straight face. Iraq will be the same story: troops are finally withdrawn after years of war and the Iraqi people will be declared free, and able to determine their own future, while insurgent forces and neighboring countries wait to pounce once all allied troops are gone.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any valid counter-option. If we stay indefinately we only stand to receive more and more dead and wounded troops, with no chance of real victory. However, the point I made in an earlier post about Congress refusing to continue funding of the war is still a valid one, IMO. I just don't think Bush has the sense to bring our troops home when the money runs out; he is just too stubborn and arrogant, again, IMO. So, we are probably stuck there until January, '08, at the earliest. Sad.



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
you can introduce legislation that requires the genie to reauthorize his freedom from the bottle


Not really. Once the genie is out and free .. good luck putting him back in. It's not like he's going to come when called. And don't forget, genies are very tricky critters and they can't be trusted.

The glass has shattered. Saying 'we changed our mind' won't put the pieces back together. It can't ever go back to the way it was .. not even with glue.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
We could just withdraw and stop "using force". That would end this so-called "war".


It's a real war. Nothing 'so called' about it.

Cut and run wouldn't do anything. It would make things worse and we'd lose the ground we have. We would just have to go back later when Iran fills the void that we would leave. We can't leave until Iraq is ready for us to leave. As much as we'd all like to be out by now, we simply can't be.

Our energy is better spent asking why the Iraqis aren't ready after all this time. I understand we are all war weary and that we are all frustrated that this war has been SEVERELY mismanaged .. but we are stuck with what we have and using 'cut and run' won't make it better. It would definately make it worse over there for us .. and for us in future conflicts.

We need a better Commander in Chief.



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
We could just withdraw and stop "using force". That would end this so-called "war".


It's a real war. Nothing 'so called' about it.


I have to disagree with you, there, FlyersFan; It is not a "real war", in the traditional sense of the term. No declaration of war was ever issued on either side of the conflict. There is also a "war on drugs" and a "war on poverty"; it doesn't mean we are truly at war with anyone, it is just a convenient, and unfortunate term for the situation we find ourselves in, and a rationalization on the Presidents part. Of course that's just my opinion on the subject.


Cut and run wouldn't do anything. It would make things worse and we'd lose the ground we have. We would just have to go back later when Iran fills the void that we would leave. We can't leave until Iraq is ready for us to leave. As much as we'd all like to be out by now, we simply can't be.

Our energy is better spent asking why the Iraqis aren't ready after all this time. I understand we are all war weary and that we are all frustrated that this war has been SEVERELY mismanaged .. but we are stuck with what we have and using 'cut and run' won't make it better. It would definately make it worse over there for us .. and for us in future conflicts.


Of all of the terms that Republican and Neocon politicians have used, "cut and run" is, in my mind, the most disingenuous and detestable; iit infers that pulling our troops out of a no-win situation is an act of cowardice; I even heard Dick Cheney say recently that those who seek to bring our troops home are straying close to "treason", his words not mine. Imagine, calling the majority of americans and their representatives in Congress traitors!.

This administration does not care one little bit about the soldiers who are losing their lives in Iraq, or their families; the only thing that Bush is concerned about is his monstrous ego and his equally monstrous pride andrrogance, all Cheney is concerned about is his bank account and the money he will receive from his Haliburton interests in Iraq. But then again, please bear in mind, this is only my opinion.



We need a better Commander in Chief.


Now, you have the right idea, but how many more sons and daughters do we have to lose before we get one?



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Grand standing by a Grand Idiot

The "Commander and Chief" should always have the power to wage war. This isn't not a parlimentary government. Bush, right or wrong is the Elected Commander of our destiny for the next 4 years after he took the pledge. Its not any different than any other time in our history. What's different is all of these "Fools" who would try and destroy our country. If he did a bad job vote for another party next time. Pull your head out of your
people.

For this alone Clinton should be seen as an idiot.

The Commander and Chief needs the power to do what is right, right now, right then, and in the future. You can't elect someone then say well we don't agree with you, and try and change all the rules later. You knew what you were getting. If the Commander and Chief is doing something else that what you wanted, well maybe you should have "Voted" differently.

It especially irritates me that when the Democrates don't get their way, they whine and cry to their lap dogs the media. They weren't talking about changing the constitution when Bill was in the office and ignored Osama. They weren't talking about changing the constituion until they weren't getting their way like most children do, they whine and throw a tantrum.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by Royal76]



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Royal76
The "Commander and Chief" should always have the power to wage war.


The Commander in Chief does not have the power to wage war, whether you think he should or not.
Only Congress has that power.



You can't elect someone then say well we don't agree with you, and try and change all the rules later.


Nobody's trying to change any rules. Bush is the Commander in Chief of the armed services. He's not a Supreme Ruler of the Country.



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The Commander in Chief does not have the power to wage war, whether you think he should or not.
Only Congress has that power.


Congress has the authority to issue a formal declaration of war according to the US Constitution…this is true.

Albeit, the last formal congressional declaration of war was WWII…this should give you some insight to presidential “War Powers” (hint).

mg



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Yeah sure, today the politicians say that we want to hear - an end to more war funding, troops being sent into conflicts and peace and goodwill to all mankind ____________





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join