Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Politics

Journal pudge's Journal: Presidential Power 38

Journal by pudge

There's a story on Slashdot right now that links to a page that tries to show that most Presidents were against the President using force without Congressional approval, implying that Bush did go to war without that approval:

Before 1950, no President or member of Congress believed that the executive branch could wage war without debate in Congress, when such debate was possible.

But this is an entirely ridiculous notion. Congress approved the use of force in Iraq. Period. End of story. Read the bill that was passed in October 2002. Kerry and most of the rest of Congress voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq. This is not debatable. You can debate the wisdom of that decision, but you cannot debate whether Congress approved the use of force, unless you want to be laughed at for not knowing what you're talking about.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Presidential Power More

Presidential Power

Comments Filter:
  • The funnyu thing is Bush went before the UN recently where they tried to say the war in Iraq was illegal, and Bush basically said the same thing. "You guys voted for it", then backed out.
    • The UN did not vote to authorize the actual use of force. They Security Council threatened the use of force -- many times -- but never* actually authorized it, as the Congress did.

      * After the invasion, later in 2003, the UN did give authorization for the use of force in Iraq, but for the purposes of security and stability.
      • It was more like the UN doing an 'under the sweater, over the bra' thing. When it came time to actually round third base, the UN got a headache...

        It's my opinion that the UN is an impotent debating society. They have no conviction to do ANYTHING. And it's that way by design. How many countries would sign the UN charter if it required the signing countries to give up any sovereignty, no country would sign.

        Don't get me wrong, the UN DOES serve a purpose -- it allows countries to attempt diplomatic solut
  • Pudge, this is why I enjoy your journal. I've said it before, but it needs repeating. Thanks again.
  • If the goal was to liberate the Iraqi people, then this is the bill [loc.gov] that Congress should have passed. Comparing the summaries of this bill with the bill that actually did pass is a laugh. One requests that the president certify to congress that there are weapons or facilities and they are an imminent threat, and requests a plan that shows that the war on terror will not be compromised, and a plan to stabilize a post-war Iraq to protect not only the Iraqis but US interests as well. The other vaguely says
    • \1) Would not have prevented us from going to war. We did have evidence that showed Iraq had WMD and was an imminent threat to US interests (e.g., our allies in the region).

      2) That's more show than anything else. Plans come and go and you can get them to say anything you want, and why would even expect anyone to stick to a plan once war began?

      Both of these were more about trying to politically screw people later, than actual substantive efforts to change anything.
      • Right, it most likely would not have prevented us from going to war I didn't mean to suggest otherwise - that was inevitable with Bush in the White House - but it would have taken the mystery out of why we did. You say this one was designed to politically screw people, I say the other was vague and designed to allow the president to give any reason he wanted after the fact. Congress was handing over management of its war powers authority to the executive branch, why shouldn't they put in as many provisio
        • I say the other was vague and designed to allow the president to give any reason he wanted after the fact.

          The bill said Bush could use force to enforce UN resolutions. That's not very vague, and that, in the end, is the legal justification we used for going in.

          Maybe the wide spread looting that took place could have been prevented if someone knew ahead of time that there was no plan in place to do so.

          I just don't buy this "plans" stuff. Plans change on a whim, like they did back in March 2003: here'
      • We did have evidence that showed Iraq had WMD and was an imminent threat to US interests (e.g., our allies in the region).

        You're talking about the intelligence that has since been shown to be VERY faulty, right? The same evidence that had vocal opposition by many foreign service analysts whose specialty was Iraq AND by at least one former UN weapons inspector.

        Subsequent reports, ones made with a critical eye due to the "bad intelligence" flub, say that was bullsh*t. Even the new Iraqi Survey Team's r

        • You're talking about the intelligence that has since been shown to be VERY faulty, right?

          Nope. I am talking about the fact that Iraq had illegal missiles (WMD), and subsequently launched other missiles into Kuwait when the invasion began. Nothing faulty about that.

          I wonder if Israel is more safe now or not?

          I think so, yes. That will change, of course, if Iraq devolves as some think it will. But I am optimistic it will not.

          Saudi interests as an ally still stick in my craw

          Oh sure. But like it o
          • Bush Senior said he wouldn't invade because it was long and painful... no matter what. He argued that containing Sadam had the same end-effect. He wasn't a threat and should he overstep his bounds he could be reigned into his borders. If the people didn't want to deal with him anymore, they could overthrow him (not that that was likely, but that was the thinking). The US also spent considerable time and effort trying to convince Sadam's military to overthrow him, increasing the pressure when war seemed
            • Bush Senior said he wouldn't invade because it was long and painful... no matter what. He argued that containing Sadam had the same end-effect. He wasn't a threat and should he overstep his bounds he could be reigned into his borders.

              Yes, that was before 9/11. Since 9/11, many of us changed our minds about whether it was wise to let a potential threat fester.

              My point is that knowing Iraq would be a long painful mess, the Senior Bush wouldn't touch it and it appears that he advised his son on this.

              App
              • The US National Intelligence Council warned that Civil War is possible before 2005. I agree with this that we'd hate to see a Civil War if the current fighting is just "civil unrest". [roanoke.com]

                I wish that a president would have to justify a war by the number of US casualties that it would take. Say, "Winning Iraq and installing a Democracy is going to take 2000 to 5000 US lives and 15000 to 25000 wounded."

                How long to we keep pushing in Iraq? For as long as it takes for other forces to stop pushing back? How

                • You're right, we should focus on the positive [juancole.com].
                  • I respect Juan Cole -- he is very knowledgable -- but I often disagree with his conclusions. In this case, I don't even understand the point. I saw this URL posted by several people, and I just don't see what is interesting about it. The comparisons are ridiculous. You might as well say, if Florida were the size of the U.S., then the three hurricanes over the last month would have been the size of Russia. Whoopee. It's not interesting.
                    • I think it is an interesting point. If the US were suffering the same conditions that are in Iraq, we'd be hard pressed to call the operation a "success."
                    • Two people, respective net worths of $1 billion and $100. Through a series of events, both wind up with net worths of $100,000. The latter is considered a success, the former a failure.

                      I don't find the comparisons compelling on any level.
                    • You can't just make comparisons like that in a vacuum. You'd have to also consider in your little "what if" the possibility that we had been under the rule of a tyrannical dictator who was bent on wiping out significant portions of his population who didn't agree with him.
                • The US National Intelligence Council warned that Civil War is possible before 2005

                  Yes, but I see no evidence of it. I think that warning was back when Sadr looked like he might take over a lot more power than he ever did.

                  How long to we keep pushing in Iraq? For as long as it takes for other forces to stop pushing back?

                  Yes.

                  If we were going to admit defeat in 11 years

                  It won't be necessary if we do it right.
                • If not stopping the looting was part of the plan... let me tell you, it was a bad plan.

                  Richard Armitage today: "No plan survives first contact with the enemy, and our plan didn't either."
  • That is a stupid article. An authorization of force is really an authorization for money to fund the use of force. The Commander In Chief doesn't need to consult Congress to bring out the military, he's just not going to be able to do it for long if Congress refuses to give him money to support his actions.
    • Nope, actually an authorization for the use of force is really just that. Read the Constitution, and then re
      • [damn touchstream keyboard :-)] and then read the War Powers Act - Congress can take away the troops as fast as they gave the president the right to use them. It's not about money - it's about the use of force.
        • I agree slightly with both, but more with thing12. Yeah, one of the worst things about this whole affair is precisely that Congress can pull back the troops! You had all these people saying Congress did not authorize force, which is false. But then they said the President was acting against the will of the people as embodied in Congress, but if that were really true, Congress had the power to pull the troops back, and chose not to exercise it.

          People need to face the fact that Congress authorized this, a
          • People need to face the fact that Congress authorized this, and chose to allow it to continue. It is, of course, Bush's responsibility, but Congress gave that responsibility to him.

            Not just chose, but continues to choose -- they could take up a bill at any time to do it. And I'd be curious if anyone has introduced a bill to revoke the presidents power... probably not. But honestly, what do you expect when the majority of Congress is Republican, and the Democrats don't want to be smeared out of office l

            • the Democrats don't want to be smeared out of office like Max Cleland

              Smeared out of office? Cleland said he supported the President's Homeland Security efforts in his own, but he voted against the Homeland Security bill, and his opponent called him on it. What smear? I think you fell for an urban legend.
              • Smeared out of office? Cleland said he supported the President's Homeland Security efforts in his own, but he voted against the Homeland Security bill, and his opponent called him on it. What smear? I think you fell for an urban legend.

                When I say smear, I mean present the facts without their larger context to scare people away from a candidate. "Max Cleland voted against Homeland Security 11 times" - sure, but so did a lot of people and they had good reasons to vote against those bills.

                He voted against

                • When I say smear, I mean present the facts without their larger context to scare people away from a candidate

                  Like has happened with just about every candidate in the last two elections, including Bush and Kerry, including Dean, etc.

                  I readily admit the ads against Cleland didn't tell the whole truth, but neither did Cleland's ad saying he supported Bush. I am not inclined to care either way. Cleland opened himself up to get smacked with his ad showing him standing by the President, and smacked he did ge
                  • I am not inclined to care either way.

                    Nor do I care, really -- I was just pointing out an example of why nobody - not even the most vocal opponents - will introduce a bill to end the war in Iraq. I just dislike the process... and it's becoming more and more like that episode of South Park with the gnomes -- "...Prop. 10 is about children. Vote Yes on Prop. 10, or else, you hate children. You don't hate... children... Do you?"

                    • it's becoming more and more

                      It's alays been like this, really. The only difference now is that it is televised.

                      "My courage during the war is questioned, and people attack my religious beliefs (or lack of them). People claim I will subvert U.S. interests for French interests. Which Presidential candidate am I?" Thomas Jefferson, 1796!

                      "I am accused of acting underhandedly with England, of favoring far too much centralized federal power, and of working behind the scenes to establish a family Presidentia
        • The War Powers Resolution is a cut and dried case of unconstitutional inteference in another branch's Constitutional powers. The only reason it's still out there is because no president has taken it to court. Congress can't tell the President that he can't bring out the troops, what they *can* easily do is deny all funding to whatever operation the Prez wants to do, a la denial of all funds for the Total Information Awareness project.
          • Congress can't tell the President that he can't bring out the troops, what they *can* easily do is deny all funding to whatever operation the Prez wants to do, a la denial of all funds for the Total Information Awareness project.

            No, but that's the thing, as I understand it the Congress can require the President recall the troops, even if it can't prevent him from bringing them out.
  • Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
    intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
    Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
    biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
    weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
    nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

    That's got to smart a bit...

    Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 1

  • You can debate the wisdom of that decision

    Nah, I already called them a bunch of cowardly responsibility-avoiding slimewads for not either declaring war, or prohibiting the use of force. Debating their wisdom would be silly, because wisdom isn't an issue when you're talking about responsibility-dodging cowards.

    As soon as they authorized to the president to do whatever he felt would be best, they had their asses covered. There were four possible outcomes:

    1. President failed to act, and nothing bad happen
    • Nah, I already called them a bunch of cowardly responsibility-avoiding slimewads for not either declaring war, or prohibiting the use of force.

      Yes, thereby showing you didn't understand the primary intent of many voters for the resolution, which was to provide leverage to the UN efforts.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Nuclear war would really set back cable." - Ted Turner

Close