Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread >Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Bush, Iran and the morons in Congress....

Peach Master





Posts: 503
(503 all sites)
Registered: 4/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/16/2007 at 09:32 AM
President Bush: Meet Walter Jones

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Posted: January 16, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

America is four years into a bloody debacle in Iraq not merely because Bush and Cheney marched us in, or simply because neocon propagandists lied about Saddam's nuclear program and WMDs, and Iraqi ties to al-Qaida, anthrax attacks and 9-11.

We are there because a Democratic Senate voted to give Bush a blank check for war. Democrats in October 2002 wanted the war vote behind them so they could go home and campaign as pro-war patriots.

And because they did, 3,000 Americans are dead, 25,000 are wounded, perhaps 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives, 1.6 million have fled, $400 billion has been lost and America stands on the precipice of the worst strategic defeat in her history.

Yet, Sens. Clinton, Biden, Kerry and Edwards all of whom voted to give Bush his blank check are now competing to succeed him. And how do they justify what they did?

"If only we had known then what we know now," they plead, "we would never have voted for the war." They are thus confessing to dereliction in the highest duty the Founding Fathers gave Congress. They voted to cede to a president their power to take us to war.

Now they wash their hands of it all and say, "It's Bush's War!"

And now George Bush has another war in mind.

In his Jan. 11 address, Bush said that to defend the "territorial integrity" of Iraq, the United States must address "Iran and Syria."

"These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

The city sat bolt upright. If Bush was talking about Iranian agents inside Iraq, he has no need of a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf, nor for those Patriot missiles he is sending to our allies.

But does Bush have the authority to take us to war against Iran?

On ABC last Sunday, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, while denying Bush intends to attack Iran, nonetheless did not deny Bush had the authority to escalate the war right into Iran.

George Stephanopoulos: "So you don't believe you have the authority to go into Iran?"

Stephen Hadley: "I didn't say that. That is another issue. Any time you have questions about crossing international borders, there are legal questions."

Any doubt how Attorney General Gonzales would come down on those "legal questions"? Any doubt how the Supreme Court would rule?

Biden sputters that should Bush attack Iran, a constitutional crisis would ensue.

I don't believe it. If tomorrow Bush took out Iran's nuclear facilities, would a Senate that lacks the courage to cut funds for an unpopular war really impeach him for denying a nuclear capability to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Bush's lawyers would make the same case Nixon made for the 1970 "incursion" into Cambodia and even a Nixon-hating Democratic House did not dare to impeach him for that.

Bush's contempt for Congress is manifest and, frankly, justified.

Asked if Congress could stop him from surging 21,500 troops into Iraq, Bush on "60 Minutes" brushed aside Congress as irrelevant.

"I fully understand (the Congress) could try to stop me from doing it. But I've made my decision. And we're going forward." Asked if he had sole authority "to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do," Bush replied, "In this situation I do, yeah."

Is Congress then impotent, if it does not want war on Iran?

Enter Rep. Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina.

The day after Bush's threat to Iran, Jones introduced a Joint Resolution, "Concerning the Use of Military Force by the United States Against Iran." Under HJR 14, "Absent a national emergency created by attack by Iran, or a demonstrably imminent attack by Iran, upon the United States, its territories, possessions or its armed forces, the president shall consult with Congress, and receive specific authorization pursuant to law from Congress, prior to initiating any use of force on Iran."

Jones' resolution further declares, "No provision of law enacted before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of military force by the United States against Iran."

If we are going to war on Iran, Jones is saying, we must follow the Constitution and Congress must authorize it.

If Biden, Kerry, Clinton and Obama refuse to sign on to the Jones resolution, they will be silently conceding that Bush indeed does have the power to start a war on Iran. And America should pay no further attention to the Democrats' wailing about being misled on the Iraq war.



 
Replies:

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/16/2007 at 09:42 AM
Excellent piece.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6009
(6064 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/16/2007 at 10:16 AM
http://www.allmanbrothersband.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&am p;file=viewthread&tid=55142

The only way that Congress can control Bush is to refuse to authorize additional appropriations for the war in Iraq. Granted what appropriations are in the "pipeline" is enough for him to send the additional troops to Baghdad, and keep them there for about six months. And I doubt Congress has enough votes to override a Presidential "veto" if they tried to stop current funding. But Congress should make very clear to the Bush Administration that unless there is SIGNIFICANT progress in Iraq, that they aren't going to authorize additional funding for the war in Iraq. This will be in effect "force" Bush to begin withdrawing American forces from Iraq. Of course, Congress will have to take the "responsibility" of forcing this issue. Anything else they do is just "showboating" . Now whether or not Congress is willing to take the necessary steps to cut future appropriations, remains to be seen.

quote:
If Congress believes the war is lost, or not worth winning, it must take responsibility for the consequences of forcing a U.S. withdrawal. Otherwise, it must leave the president to direct the war and to bear responsibility for the decisions he has made and will make.



[Edited on 1/16/2007 by cleaneduphippy]

 
E-Mail User

Peach Master



Karma:
Posts: 503
(503 all sites)
Registered: 4/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/16/2007 at 10:36 AM
quote:
Excellent piece.


You are aware that's a Pat Buchanan article.....LOL.....I'm only kidding with you. It's a good piece no matter who wrote it and he's correct in that Congress needs to tell Bush you won't go into Iran w/o just reason and approval from Congress. We'll see what happens, if anyone steps up to the plate and stops him before he widens the conflict.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6009
(6064 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/16/2007 at 10:48 AM
tigerman,

Am aware of the Pat Buchanan article that you talk about. Actually Pat Buchanan writes a lot of good articles, and many of them have quite a bit of "common sense" wisdom to them. Unfortunately, when people see the name Pat Buchanan attached to an article, they have a tendency to judge the writer, and not judge what he has written.

 
E-Mail User

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/16/2007 at 11:26 AM
quote:
quote:
Excellent piece.


You are aware that's a Pat Buchanan article.....LOL.....I'm only kidding with you. It's a good piece no matter who wrote it and he's correct in that Congress needs to tell Bush you won't go into Iran w/o just reason and approval from Congress. We'll see what happens, if anyone steps up to the plate and stops him before he widens the conflict.


Oh yes. I have no problem agreeing with "the opposition" when they make sense. One of the suggestions I saw (dont recall where at the moment) was for Congress to set benchmarks for Bush. In otherwords, give him say, half the money he needs right now and give him certain goals to meet with whats going on in Iraq. If he meets those goals, then he gets the rest of the money after whatever time frame has been established. This would (hopefully) help guarantee that goals are met rather than just handing him a blank check.

No matter what happens, Congress is going to have to get tough on Bush. I just hope theres enough Republican support to make that happen.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6009
(6064 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/16/2007 at 11:46 AM
Squatch,

Don't think the "benchmark" approach would work nor is it constitutional. Basically, when Congress give a president an appropriation, they do so "without any strings attached". If the appropriation is not used wisely, then Congress can either cut any future appropriations, or even deny future appropriations. But bottom line, when the appropriation is made, the executive must have the ability to use it as they see fit.

quote:
The analysis, however, is straightforward. When the two political branches exercise their respective constitutional powers in a way that brings them into conflict -- a scenario clearly envisioned by the Framers -- the relevant constitutional principle is that neither branch can vitiate the ability of the other to discharge its core constitutional responsibilities. Just as the president cannot raise his own funds (by obtaining loans unauthorized by Congress, for example), the legislature cannot attach conditions to federal spending that would destroy the president's authority to direct the military's tactical and strategic operations. This balance makes perfect sense; if Congress could closely direct how the executive branch spends appropriated funds, it would vitiate the president's core responsibilities as chief executive and commander in chief, transforming him into a cipher. This outcome would fundamentally warp the Framers' entire constitutional fabric.

To maintain the integrity of this original design, the Supreme Court has long ruled, in such cases as United States v. Klein (1872) and United States v. Lovett (1946), that Congress cannot attach unconstitutional conditions to otherwise proper legislation, including spending bills. As explained by Professor Walter Dellinger -- President Bill Clinton's chief constitutional lawyer at the Justice Department -- "broad as Congress' spending power undoubtedly is, it is clear that Congress may not deploy it to accomplish unconstitutional ends." This includes restricting the president's authority as commander in chief to direct the movement of U.S. armed forces. In that regard, Dellinger quoted Justice Robert Jackson -- who said while serving as President Franklin Roosevelt's attorney general: "The President's responsibility as Commander-in-Chief embraces the authority to command and direct the armed forces in their immediate movements and operations, designed to protect the security and effectuate the defense of the United States."

Although this system may seem unsatisfactory to those who disagree with President Bush's Iraq policy, it has two great virtues. First, it bolsters the Constitution's fundamental design -- the separation of powers between the coequal branches of government. The Framers vested executive authority in a president for a reason. As Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers: "Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks." Second, requiring Congress to exercise its power in dramatic ways ensures political accountability.


 
E-Mail User

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/16/2007 at 12:18 PM
Good points and I agree. I had not bothered to do even the most basic research on that idea. Just passing on what I had heard

As for some of the details, I would hope that Congress wouldnt try to attach unconstitutional strings or try to tie funding to our troops. The benchmarks could be other aspects of the Iraq picture.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6009
(6064 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/17/2007 at 06:21 AM
Ah, what the hell, thought I would post the Pat Buchanan article that tigerman was talking about. btw, Rep Walter Jones (R-NC) represent the 3rd Congressional District in Eastern North Carolina. Included in his district are Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point MCAS.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Mr. Bush: Meet Walter Jones

by Patrick Buchanan
January 16, 2007

America is four years into a bloody debacle in Iraq not merely because Bush and Cheney marched us in, or simply because neocon propagandists lied about Saddam's nuclear program and WMDs, and Iraqi ties to al-Qaida, anthrax attacks and 9-11.

We are there because a Democratic Senate voted to give Bush a blank check for war. Democrats in October 2002 wanted the war vote behind them so they could go home and campaign as pro-war patriots.

And because they did, 3,000 Americans are dead, 25,000 are wounded, perhaps 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives, 1.6 million have fled, $400 billion has been lost and America stands on the precipice of the worst strategic defeat in her history.

Yet, Sens. Clinton, Biden, Kerry and Edwards -- all of whom voted to give Bush his blank check -- are now competing to succeed him. And how do they justify what they did?

"If only we had known then what we know now," they plead, "we would never have voted for the war." They are thus confessing to dereliction in the highest duty the Founding Fathers gave Congress. They voted to cede to a president their power to take us to war.

Now they wash their hands of it all and say, "It's Bush's War!"

And now George Bush has another war in mind.

In his Jan. 11 address, Bush said that to defend the "territorial integrity" of Iraq, the United States must address "Iran and Syria."

"These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

The city sat bolt upright. If Bush was talking about Iranian agents inside Iraq, he has no need of a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf, nor for those Patriot missiles he is sending to our allies.

But does Bush have the authority to take us to war against Iran?

On ABC last Sunday, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, while denying Bush intends to attack Iran, nonetheless did not deny Bush had the authority to escalate the war -- right into Iran.

George Stephanopoulos: "So you don't believe you have the authority to go into Iran?"

Stephen Hadley: "I didn't say that. That is another issue. Any time you have questions about crossing international borders, there are legal questions."

Any doubt how Attorney General Gonzales would come down on those "legal questions"? Any doubt how the Supreme Court would rule?

Biden sputters that should Bush attack Iran, a constitutional crisis would ensue.

I don't believe it. If tomorrow Bush took out Iran's nuclear facilities, would a Senate that lacks the courage to cut funds for an unpopular war really impeach him for denying a nuclear capability to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Bush's lawyers would make the same case Nixon made for the 1970 "incursion" into Cambodia -- and even a Nixon-hating Democratic House did not dare to impeach him for that.

Bush's contempt for Congress is manifest and, frankly, justified.

Asked if Congress could stop him from surging 21,500 troops into Iraq, Bush on "60 Minutes" brushed aside Congress as irrelevant.

"I fully understand (the Congress) could try to stop me from doing it. But I've made my decision. And we're going forward." Asked if he had sole authority "to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do," Bush replied, "In this situation I do, yeah."

Is Congress then impotent, if it does not want war on Iran?

Enter Rep. Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina.

The day after Bush's threat to Iran, Jones introduced a Joint Resolution, "Concerning the Use of Military Force by the United States Against Iran." Under HJR 14, "Absent a national emergency created by attack by Iran, or a demonstrably imminent attack by Iran, upon the United States, its territories, possessions or its armed forces, the president shall consult with Congress, and receive specific authorization pursuant to law from Congress, prior to initiating any use of force on Iran."

Jones' resolution further declares, "No provision of law enacted before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of military force by the United States against Iran."

If we are going to war on Iran, Jones is saying, we must follow the Constitution and Congress must authorize it.

If Biden, Kerry, Clinton and Obama refuse to sign on to the Jones resolution, they will be silently conceding that Bush indeed does have the power to start a war on Iran. And America should pay no further attention to the Democrats' wailing about being misled on the Iraq war

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

btw, I certain hope all Congressmen and Senators be they Republican or Democrats back Rep. Jones resoulution. Last thing America needs right now is start another war. Hell, we can't win the two we got.

Of course, on the other hand I can certainly understand the Democrats reluctance to go along with Rep. Jones. For over thirty years the Democrats have been saddled by the Republicans on being "soft of defense". And it's no great secret, that many Republicans KNOWING that the Iraqi war is not going well, and will probably by lost, would like to put the Democrats in the position of taking at least some of the blame for it's lost. Of course, many Democrats are of the mind, that this is "BUSH'S WAR" and if it's lost, "HE'S GOING TO LOSE IT", and the Republicans are going to pay for that lost in 2008. Truth is, many Democrats aren't going to do anything that would give the Republicans ANY reasons to say "The Democrats lost the war in Iraq". It's the "big lesson" they learned from Vietnam. Somewhat cynical assessment, but hey, that's American politics.


[Edited on 1/17/2007 by cleaneduphippy]

 
E-Mail User

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3070
(3075 all sites)
Registered: 5/30/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/17/2007 at 06:52 AM
It seems that everyone is a genius after the fact. Predictive analysis is an art form and not a science as much as it pretends to be the latter. The after effect of this war may not be realized for another ten years, and even then I do not think that our business in the Middle East will be over. It is my contention that there will be a greater attack then the one seen on 9/11 and then we will be back in the sand box for a third time and the breath and scope of that war will be enormous compared to this one.
 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6009
(6064 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/17/2007 at 07:10 AM
Well Scotty,

What do we do in the "here and now"? The Army and Marine Corp definitely have been stretched pretty damn thin. If it's likely that there will be a bigger event in the Middle East down the road, wouldn't it make sense to bring our military back now and start getting prepared (reset) for it. Or would it be better for our military to continuously be "chewed up" little by little, bit by bit, by wearing out troops and equipment, so when the "big event" does happen, the United States military (especially the Army and the Marine Corp) won't be in a good position to fight it. You know, sometimes it's better to lose a battle, than lose a war. If Iraq means destroying America's ground forces, to achieve the goal, then I don't think it's worth it, especially since it seems that the Iraqi people don't give a damn one way or the other.

 
E-Mail User

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/17/2007 at 11:41 AM
quote:
It is my contention that there will be a greater attack then the one seen on 9/11 and then we will be back in the sand box for a third time and the breath and scope of that war will be enormous compared to this one.


It wouldnt surprise me mostly because we cannot wage war on an insurgency or a tactic (terrorism) with conventional weapons and forces designed to fight a war similar to what was seen in WW2.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20741
(20826 all sites)
Registered: 11/26/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/17/2007 at 10:28 PM
quote:
It seems that everyone is a genius after the fact.

What about those of us who knew this was stupid before the fact?
quote:
It is my contention that there will be a greater attack then the one seen on 9/11 and then we will be back in the sand box for a third time

And if that happens, just think: this idiotic war will probably be one of the causes.

 

____________________

 
 


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com