DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Bush's Resignation Speech???

Quote:

---

Fact: ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR.

---

Okay Coach. Now all you have to do is show where Congress "declared war on Iraq".

Because what Congress did, was give Bush permission to deploy troops when and if he deemed it necassary. They did not give a declaration of War to Bush.

Could they have? Yes. Did they? No.

Please show otherwise.

Quote:

---

Hmmm, I believe I hear the faint sounds of crickets!

---

And I can show you why.............


Who Can Declare War? Backgrounder and Research Guide

Seeking to oust Iraq's authoritarian leader, Saddam Hussein, United States president George W. Bush petitioned both the U.S. Congress and the Security Council of the United Nations (UN) to authorize a military strike against Iraq. The Bush administration accused Iraq of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and argued that Saddam Hussein's regime posed a grave threat to U.S. security and peace in the region.

After intensive lobbying by the Bush administration, in early October 2002, the U.S. House of Representatives and then the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly to give President Bush broad authority to use force against Iraq. Then on November 8, 2002, the Bush administration won a unanimous vote by the UN Security Council requiring Iraq to demonstrate that it is disarming its weapons of mass destruction or face "serious consequences." The UN then sent a team of weapons inspectors to Iraq to verify Iraqi compliance with this resolution, known as UN Resolution 1441.

By early 2003, the Bush administration, together with the governments of the United Kingdom and Spain, insisted that Iraq was not adequately cooperating with the weapons inspectors, and they lobbied for a second UN resolution that would threaten Iraq with war if it did not disarm by a specific date. However, the three allies eventually realized their proposal did not have sufficient backing at the UN, and on March 17, 2003, said they would not seek a vote on the new resolution. After abandoning his appeal to the UN, President Bush declared, "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security." On March 20, U.S.-led forces began an attack of Iraq.

Why did the president bother to make these overtures to Congress and the UN? Who, finally, has the authority to wage war?

The president
The president of the United States has no clear constitutional authority to declare war without congressional approval. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the president, as commander-in-chief of the military, does have the authority to recognize a "state of war" initiated against the United States and may in these circumstances unilaterally send U.S. troops into battle. President Bush has also stated that his powers as commander-in-chief allow him to act independently in defense of the nation.

W said he didn't need a declaration of war. It appears as though he felt that Iraq had done something that constitutes a "state of war" against the U.S. Although I would have NO IDEA what that may have been.


The president did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress. But he did seek congressional support, he said, to demonstrate to the United Nations and to the world that military action against Iraq was not just his own objective; it was a view supported by the American electorate as a whole. Strategically, support from the legislators bolstered the president's case as he pressed the UN Security Council for a resolution authorizing military force in Iraq.

Congress
The Constitution of the United States gives Congress alone the authority to formally declare war. But in several past conflicts Congress has relinquished this authority to the president. In fact, Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since World War II.

U.S. presidents after World War II have assumed most of the authority to send U.S. troops into battle. The Korean War (1950-1953), for example, was regarded by the U.S. government as a police action rather than as a war, and President Harry S. Truman never sought a declaration of war from Congress. And in 1964 Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which effectively ceded to President Lyndon B. Johnson the ability to wage war against Vietnam. Congress passed a similar resolution on January 12, 1991, authorizing President George H. W. Bush to use force against Iraq in the Persian Gulf War.

The current president Bush also never sought a formal declaration of war from Congress. Instead, he requested, and received, the authority to use armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend American interests against "the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

Just as I've stated all along which has been rebuked time and time again by Coach and others.

The United Nations
The United Nations Security Council is the only organ of the United Nations that can authorize military action to enforce its resolutions or to reestablish peace in a region of conflict. It is composed of 15 member states, of which five are permanent. All five permanent members--the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France, and China--must vote unanimously to approve military force.

The Bush administration forcefully lobbied the Security Council to pass a tough new resolution similar to the one it passed on November 29, 1990, after Iraq invaded Kuwait. That earlier resolution allowed UN member states to "use all necessary means" to force Iraq from Kuwait if Iraq remained in the country after January 15, 1991. When Iraq ignored the resolution, it paved the way for a subsequent U.S. congressional resolution authorizing military force and, ultimately, the Persian Gulf War.

The current Bush administration won a similar demonstration of international support from the Security Council for the possible use of military force against Iraq. UN Resolution 1441, passed by the Security Council on November 8, 2002, required Iraq to reveal all its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs to UN inspectors.

Soon after the UN weapons inspection team entered Iraq later that month, however, member nations of the Security Council began to stridently debate its findings. The United States and Britain contended that Iraq had fallen far short of the disarmament demands required by Resolution 1441. Other nations--France in particular--suggested that the UN should not rush to war, but should instead give the weapons inspectors more time to complete their mission.

The Bush administration argued that the resolution left the United States free to take military action against Iraq without a subsequent resolution specifically authorizing force. In a press conference on February 1, 2003, President Bush said, "Should the United Nations decide to pass a second resolution, it would be welcomed if it is yet another signal that we're intent upon disarming Saddam Hussein. But 1441 gives us the authority to move without any second resolution." Other member nations of the Security Council--notably France, Germany, Russia, and China--argued that Resolution 1441 did not provide such latitude for military action, and that any such action taken against Iraq would be illegitimate without a second UN resolution expressly authorizing force.

Finally losing patience with the pace of weapons inspections, the United States, Britain, and Spain proposed a second resolution threatening military force if Iraq did not disarm by a specific date. However, the three allies failed to win sufficient support among other member nations of the Security Council and withdrew their proposal before it came to a vote. After withdrawing the proposal, President Bush declared, "The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours." He then announced that the United States and its allies were free to strike Iraq without UN approval.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/guides/?article=WhoCanDeclareWar

As I've stated all along, Congress gave Bush approval to use force as "he deemed necassary". They did not give him a declaration of War.

He pretty much told the U.N. to kiss em' his hind end, even though the U.N. has sole authority to decide on military actions based on U.N. resolutions.

So he could not use the breaking of U.N. resolutions as a basis for war. Only the U.N. has that authority. So the only avenue left for him was "the WMD/nuclear weapons program line". Which we now know simply weren't there.

He wishes to double talk his way out of it while acusing others of his own tactics. But the "facts" dictate otherwise.

Quote:

---

They did not give him a declaration of War.

---

They still haven't stopped him from waging one.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They did not give him a declaration of War.

---

They still haven't stopped him from waging one.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They did not give him a declaration of War.

---

They still haven't stopped him from waging one.

---

Quote:

---

Damn, this topic gets old.

---

You have the option to not read it or respond to it. Yet you still do and complain about it at the same time.

Quote:

---

They didn't even have TIME to read the intel before their vote.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They didn't even have TIME to read the intel before their vote.

---

Six senators and a handful of House members managed to find the time.

What were the rest doing? Attending parties thrown by Pfizer? Insant messaging interns? Soliciting in an airport bathroom?

---

Quote:

---

But the most honest answer I can figure is that the American people bought into what Bush said and to opose it would have been political suicide.

Typical politicians. They put their own self interest ahead of the better good of our nation as a whole.

---

Quote:

---

I thought the politicians were supposed to do what the majority of their constituents wanted....

---

"Supposed to" being the key phrase in that sentence.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They did not give him a declaration of War.

---

They still haven't stopped him from waging one.

---

I'm rather surprised by this Phil. I know you "actualy read the threads", unlike some others.

I have stated just what you have and have agreed with you on this issue. Which I'm sure you have read at some point.

They could stop the funding and have refused to do so.

They didn't even have TIME to read the intel before their vote.

Both are terrible blunders.

However, it is still true that it was the decision of Bush to deploy troops and Congress did NOT "Declare War" on Iraq. Which is the point I was making.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

But the most honest answer I can figure is that the American people bought into what Bush said and to opose it would have been political suicide.

Typical politicians. They put their own self interest ahead of the better good of our nation as a whole.

---

I thought the politicians were supposed to do what the majority of their constituents wanted....

---

Quote:

---

They didn't even have TIME to read the intel before their vote.

---

Quote:

---

As sad as it may be, we may only have six senators and a handfull in The House who have the comprehension abilities to wade through it in that alloted time.

But the most honest answer I can figure is that the American people bought into what Bush said and to opose it would have been political suicide.

Typical politicians. They put their own self interest ahead of the better good of our nation as a whole.

But that's just my opinion based on what I have seen in my lifetime.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Damn, this topic gets old.

---

You have the option to not read it or respond to it. Yet you still do and complain about it at the same time.

---

Dear Lord it gets old with you. YOU are the one complaining. YOU! Are you sure you're not a politician? You flip flop more than any pol in recent memory - and you change topics to suit your stance any time you want.

Quote:

---

Well, except for the fact that you hate Bush and blame him for everything.

---

Quote:

---

So you really have nothing to add to this topic accept to help try to derail it. That's par for the course.

---

This coming from a guy that derailed a concrete-help thread into an anti-Bush thread.

Quote:

---

I "responded" to someone who brought it up.

But that's okay. Don't let the facts get in your way.

---

Why would he? You've never let that stop you.

Well, accept that one time when you excepted someone else's point of view.

Quote:

---

So basically you had nothing to add, and tried to help derail it. Par for the course for you.

---

Try reading the thread Ex.

I did add to the thread. It was about driveways. And I did give advice concerning the subject as well. But once again, the gang mentality never let facts get in the way.

Quote:

---

Fact: CONGRESS APPROVED THE "WAR" IN IRAQ.

---

Quote:

---

Even Phil realizes Congress' role in the situaiton.

---

And I do too. The vast majority didn't even read the intel. Most were more concerned about public opinion. They have refused to cut off funding. And I've said this many times as well. If you read the threads you would have known this.

You're either not reading the threads, or have a comprehension problem. You tell me.

But the fact remains that Bush deployed them and he can bring them home. And I believe that both are guilty to one extent or the other.

But your above claim was that "Only Congress can declare war". Like they had passed a declaration of war against Iraq.

They did NOT declare war on Iraq. That assertion was "wrong/false".

They did not declare war on North Korea or Vietnam either.

Try doing a fact check before you spout such "psychobabble" in the future, would ya?

Quote:

---

It's guys like you and Coach that give the GOP a bad name. That's why younger people are rebuking you. Anyone who disagrees with you, you try to label or dismiss. You try to question their integrity, the people they are associated with etc....

I really like when you guys resort to these tactics. It makes you your own worst enemy.

Keep up the good work!

---

I give the GOP a bad name?

I'm the reason "younger people are rebuking me"???????

Where do you come up with this stuff? This is comedy at it's finest. Oh, you're the only one rebuking anyone, if that fact matters to you - which I'm sure it doesn't.

Go to the bathroom, look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself "why can arch have a discussion with absolutely everyone on dawgtalkers.net in a civil manner but not me" Why can everyone else discuss things in a civil manner with arch? What's my problem?"

It's you pit. Most people don't care to take you to task on what you say. That's fine. And really, you and I don't need to agree on anything - I don't agree with many that post here.

However, when you put words in people's mouths, when you refuse to answer pointed questions, and when you absolutely blame the current Pres. for every problem yet then make excuses for congress - well, it gets old. Maybe others don't care to confront you with it, and that is their choice. I get a kick out of watching you flip like a fish out of water.

And the killer is, no matter what is being discussed, you insist you're right and anyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong.