Oceans you stated that the presidential war powers act was for
emergencies.

I differ. It was put into place to insure that both congress AND the
president had to be in agreement if military action was deemed
necessary.

But the president can use his authority to deploy US military forces
'into harms way' without congressional approval for a time.

'The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and
the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved
in hostilities. Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the
President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities
as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in
hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities
if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the
use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request
by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an
additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity"
requires additional action for a safe withdrawal).'

Congress was included in the decision to invade Iraq. So bashing bush
ALONE for it is outrageous. If you don't beleive what I am stating see
Public Law 107-243 "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution of 2002." Section 3(a) of the Authorization to Use
Military Force "authorizes the use of all necessary means to (1) defend
the national security of the United States against the continuing threat
posed by Iraq; and, (2) to enforce United Nations Security Council
Resolution 660 (1990)."

He He He (Thanks B&W this cut and paste stuff is kinda cool)

this information is available at the congressiona law library.

Hi, AB,

Yes, you have summed the Act up well. Thanks. The limited time lines
that it calls for are precisely to meet 'emergency' needs -- like a
quick rescue effort of American residents of a foreign country (the
rationale for Grenada). Iraq was different; there was no emergency and
the time line there would easily have allowed Congress to debate the
merits of going to war.

You suggest that Bush alone should not be blamed, and in a fundamental
way you are rgiht: Congress rolled over for Bush. BUT the question is:
WHY did Congress roll over? And this is where the full blame comes back
to Bush AND the neocons who influenced him. In my view, Bush is a weak
person, intellecturally; it is not hard to influence him if one pretends
to be loyal to him. This is what the neocons did, going back to the
opening days of the Bush candidacy. The neocons formed a group called
the Vulcans, to advise the foreign policy neophyte, Bush. The Vulcans,
neocons, did this quite skillfully and with a lot of patience. (More
patience than I would have had!) And so when Bush won, the neocons
stepped into power in one easy step. Their agenda was always to attack
Iraq (and Syria and Iran), and it was Sept 11 that gave them their
chance to sell the idea to the American people -- and to the Congress.
The neocons manufactured disinformation of a half dozen key issues,
prsented it to Congfress as 'fact' -- even though the CIA was raising
all kinds of warning signals about the falseness of the neocon
disinformation.

Of course, we now know all of this; it has been fully confirmed from
multiple reliable sources and analysts -- but at the time Congress was
at the mercy of the DoD, State department and NSC neocon shops. Even
Collin Powell couldn't stop them. And so the neocons won. The neocons,
not America. And now we are paying the price for a president too
gullible, too ignorant.

So, I agree, AB: Bush was not the mover and shaker. But he IS president,
and his own weaknesses played into the hands of the neocons. Can we
blame a man for the consequences of his own intellectual laziness? Can
we blame a man for being gullible and gulled? I say, when he is
President that we not only have a right but an obligation to do so.
Presidents ARE held to a higher standard; after all, presidential
candidates promise that they will be up to the job. Nobody forced him to
run; having run and won, he has an obligation to deliver.

Is Congress to blame? Assuredly so, but in their defence do keep in mind
that they were lied to, just as the media was lied to, just as the
American people were lied to.

Who told the lies? The neocons and Bush, in that order. But we trusted
Bush to defend his office against manipulation, and that he failed to
do.

I take no glee from this, I hope you understand. No one would be more
delighted than I had Bush proven himself to be a better President, and
had we not found ourselves digging a deeper hole for ourselves in Iraq
and Afghanistan.

In sadness,

Oceans

the simple answer to your question of worth..
I put MY life on the line, and will continue to do so until either I am
dead or the mission is complete. i would even do this for a
democrat(against my better judgement)

as to isreal starting several wars against its neighbors,,, i believe
that it was egypt that decided to attack isreal, and got their butts
handed to them yes.

again you surprise me with the advocation of destroying isreal (first
surprise) and second with the disregard of life, I thought one of the
planks in the lib platform was humanitarian aid or something like that,
are you saying that this republican has a greater sense of protecting
life than does a lib.... someone needs to call the new york times.

why would i not want isreal to get wiped off the map as you appearently
do, well think i just explained that. are we in a worse of way to help
them defend if need be? hell no, we're closer if anything, you think
we're that stretched out we couldnt send some guys in there? do you
realize how many guys are actually in iraq and how many are on the iraq
border? sitting around for soething just like this to kick off, a couple
of brigades, that fire power.
why arent they in iraq, because we're trying to let the damned iraqis do
it themselves, believe it or not.

i really dont know what else to say to man, im disappointed, ashamed,
and utterly in shock about the cavalier attitude that you show when you
say you would dismiss so many lives from the party of life.

isreal a threat to the US? they are the only ones really watching our
backsides. you want a peaceful resolution to the mid east prob, i
suggest you leave isreal alone, other wise it will be very peaceful,
very quick, and i mean like deadly peaceful, one big glass parking lot,
and maybe thats what your after, i dont know. I'll pray to Dennis for
you tonight.


doc

Thank you Ocean! I remember back before the '04 election I argued with a
friend that I was going to vote for Kerry because in my and many other
know "Bush is an idiot." And my friend who said he would vote for Bush,
didn't defend Bush's intelligence but said "He a puppet for Cheyenne."

Well, Armydoc, you are missing what I am saying and repeating several
red herrings. Please reread carefully what I have posted, and if you
can think of anything new and productive to say I'll be glad to respond.

Oceans

Oceans>

You stated...

'...You suggest that Bush alone should not be blamed, and in a
fundamental way you are right: Congress rolled over for Bush.'

Which is why I am concerned that those same congressional members are
still in office.

When I vote for someone in the highest offices in my government I expect
them to have the balls (or in some case brass boobies) to do what is
right.

If they don't I reckon I will vote for someone else next time around.

And just for those that will say if democrats had been in control things
would have been diferent. Check the rolls for the house and senate in
2002. Republicans controlled the house. Democrats controlled the
senate. Money controlled it all.

red herrings? it would seem that we both have our marching orders dont
we.
in typical fashion of the party to the left, you have condensended and
and asserted that i was being a redundant talkng head that made no
sense.
the question remains on the table... who would assuredy suffer more if
we cough isreal up to the world. I suggest to you that even though
isreal wuld surely lose a war with the middle east, they would go down
with a fight and drop bombs to until the very end, and i dare say it
would be a devasting blow to the world.
as to the lies of iraq... the biggest lie is that we didnt confess to
the warehouses full of bio chem weapons that were found albeit degraded
and not viable. doesnt mean they didnt have them.
It is evident that you are not a bush supporter, and I am, so we each
have our bias', but to say that yours is infallible and mine is nuts, is
close minded and intolerant at best.

i think we should agree to disagree, good discussion though, i look
forward to hopefully doing it again about this or other topics.


doc

i was going to say my two cents worth, but oceans you said it so well
thank you.but i dont think you can ever get them to wake up and see what
is going on.... keep up the good work

Many thanks, Horseracer!

These are all difficult subjects, I know. But I think most people are
here with good-will, agree or disagree. The important thing, I think, is
that we struggle together to understand what is going on, and to find a
way of addressing the challenges that lie ahead.

I hope you'll jump in here and have appreciated your past postings....

Cheers,

Oceans

This forum seems to have gone off topic by staggering into areas that
have nothing to do with the legality of the wars.

Oceans, you called someone out on using red herrings, I must say this
seems kind of odd since that person, as most on here are not experts and
are expressing their opinions on the topic, where as you have proclaimed
to be an expert on the topic. Opinions are not bound by the rules of
logic and therefore flaws in logic are not valid. However what your are
posting is based on your expertise on the topic, and therefore expressed
as fact, are bound by said laws of logic.

Also I find that your cheapen your own words by making statements of how
much you know on the topic and that what ever position, jobs, past
experience, make you an expert on the topic. I think I would respect
your posts more if you left those ego boosting statements out.

That said, back to topic, the legality of the wars we are engaged in.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it limit the President from using the
military to engage the enemy. It does provide for Congress to declare
war, why you may ask, simple, so that if there is an enemy of the State
and the President of the US does not act on behalf of the US, then
Congress has the power to active the military. The Founders specifically
assigned the President as the Commander and Chief of the military,
however they also wanted a "backdoor" to use the military if necessary.
Note, the enemy could be the President, if the President tried to
establish a monarchy or other non-Republic form of government.

Your assertation that Congress rolled over to the President, if flawed
in that nothing in the Constitution prevents them from doing this. If
you have evidence contrary to this, please provide, I would love to read
it.

As for Internation law, in the case of Afghanistan, we had UN approval,
so the legality of the war in Afghanistan is substantiated.

As for Iraq, again I point out that the UN authorization was already
there from the "First Gulf War", and we were under a condition of a
Cease-fire.

The question with Iraq should be, did Saddam violate the term of the
cease fire in a level of severity to allow the UN forces to continue the
original mission. In my opinion I would say that his continued ambiguity
to prove the had meet the terms of the cease-fire and his continued
program of decieving the world into thinking he may still have WMDs, is
enough to show he had violated the terms of the cease-fire.

Please, I ask you or any other users, to show where this is
constitutionaly illegal?

I reiterate that the Constitution is not open to interpretation. The
laws passed are open to interpretation and are subject to not violate
the Constitution.

Hi, Xootbx! Thanks for your thoughts....

Remember, the UN itself does not have the right to violate the
sovereignty of a nation; it cannot create a 'right' to invade another
country even if it wanted to. And in point of fact , the UN Security
Council repeatedly refused to do so, despite massive diplomatic pressure
from the US. Do you recall Collin Powell's speech to the UN? The one in
which he unfortunately asserted (later to admit that it was false) that
the US had 'proof' of Saddam Hussein's desire to build a nuclear weapons
program? Even then, the UNSC refused to accede to the US pressure.

When after a period of conflict an armistice is concluded, neither
country has a right to re-attack the other.

I agree with you about the supremacy of the Consitution, and have
already pointed out that Congress rolled over on discharging its
responsibilities. You are right in pointing out that they could do so
legally.

Regarding 'opinions.' Yes, everyone has a right to their opinion, and I
love hearing the opinions of others well expressed. But we don't all
have a right to our own facts.

Nor are all opinions created equal. Some are based on ignorance, and
some on knowledge. Some are nothing but disguised labelling and short of
substance. Others address the issues with a range of information. Some
are designed to 'win', and others are designed to teach and elicit
thinking.

You suggest that a person's credentials are not relevant to the validity
of what they say, if I understand you correctly. But I would suggest
that how much a person knows, and what the breadth of their experience
is, and the areas of expertise they have ARE directly helpful in
assessing the extent to which a person's statements have weight and are
worthy of consideration.

To me, 'agreeing' or 'disagreeing' is of relateively trivial importance:
learning is what counts. Learn and Live! If someone WANTS to
disagree.... I say have at it. But I'll not spend my time interacting
with someone who can do nothing more. Sorry, we all have better things
to do, no?

Anyway, I do appreciate your comments...we all do our best, and I am no
different. I'll be busy the next couple of days, so may not be able to
respond for a bit if you post further on this, which I hope you will do.

Cheers, amigo.

Oceans

Heres a brief of the original constitution, In Article 1 sect 8, in 1973
after the problems of the Vietnam war it was revised, but here is what
the original said......

Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the
United States Constitution is the world’s longest surviving written
charter of government. Its first three words – “We The People” – affirm
that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens.
The supremacy of the people through their elected representatives is
recognized in Article I, which creates a Congress consisting of a Senate
and a House of Representatives. The positioning of Congress at the
beginning of the Constitution reaffirms its status as the “First Branch”
of the federal government.

The Constitution assigned to Congress responsibility for organizing the
executive and judicial branches, raising revenue, declaring war, and
making all laws necessary for executing these powers. The president is
permitted to veto specific legislative acts, but Congress has the
authority to override presidential vetoes by two-thirds majorities of
both houses. The Constitution also provides that the Senate advise and
consent on key executive and judicial appointments and on the
ratification of treaties.

copied and pasted for the education of the uninformed.

In 1973 after the involvement of US troops with out declaring war, ( a
loop-hole ) they made it positive that except in the case of a national
emergency that the president could not engage US troops in even a
conflict without recieving approval from the Congress, Also added was a
point on the reporting of all information neccessary for Congress to
make their decision. I found this, and I believe is proof that Bush
broke the law when he duped Congress prior to the invasion of a soverign
nation (Iraq)...


REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which
United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while
equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to
supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces
equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president
shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report,
in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States
Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such
introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress
may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities
with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United
States Armed Forces abroad

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities
or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the
President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in
such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on
the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and
duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he
report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

.

Fanta>

Congress was not 'duped'. They layed out specific reasons why they were
BACKING the war in Iraq. No place in those reasons does it mention WMD
or all the other rumored reasons why we invaded. and by the way the
congress that voted the below reference Public Law was made up of both
parties Republicans controled the house Democrats control the senate
check it you'll find I am right.

In a diferent post you stated that cut and paste is a way of informing
the misinformed so here is one for you.

'The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and
the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved
in hostilities. Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the
President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities
as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in
hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities
if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the
use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request
by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an
additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity"
requires additional action for a safe withdrawal).'

Congress was included in the decision to invade Iraq. So bashing bush
ALONE for it is outrageous. If you don't beleive what I am stating see
Public Law 107-243 "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution of 2002." Section 3(a) of the Authorization to Use Military
Force "authorizes the use of all necessary means to (1) defend the
national security of the United States against the continuing threat
posed by Iraq; and, (2) to enforce United Nations Security Council
Resolution 660 (1990)."

Bush did exactally as is required by the War Powers Act of 1973 and
notified, requested ect... as he should have.

Congress voted on and passed Public Law 107-43 6 MONTHS before the
actual invasion took place.

No where in this language is any mention of WMD or any of the other
rumored (media backed) reasons for our involvement there.

I find it difficult to believe our congressmen and senators could be
'duped' as has been stated.

bump

Oceans,
The UN cannot create a right to invade the sovereignty of any country,
however every country has the right to defend itself from an invading
force, when said country cannot defend itself, the UN has the power to
assist if asked. Kuwait was invaded by Iraq and asked for help from the
UN. Under this request, the US as signatuary member of the UN charter,
obliged.

In order to reach an Armastice, the terms of the cease-fire must be met
by both parties. Iraq did not meet the terms of the cease fire, as a
matter of fact, it defied the cease-fire terms.

In addition to this, the UN had already establish and maintained a
military presence with Iraq boarders, under the auspice of No-Fly zones,
thus creating a precedence that Iraq was still considered hostile and
that military action was still required to minimize the threat posed to
its neighbors.

As for credentionals, I think the Wikipedia scandal shows how valuable
self proclaimed expertise is worth. Besides that, as I said in my last
post, by claiming expertise you become subject to evaluation of your
"opinions" by the rules of logic. My main point with that is you called
"red herring" logic flaws on a non-expert who was expressing opinion.
Regardless of how uninformed that persons opinion was, it is not bound
by the rules of logic as it was an opinion which can be based simply of
"emotional reasoning".

I again would respect your opinion more, had you left it as such by not
trying add credibility to your statements of said expertise and
knowledge of the area.

The Net is a place where anonimity and false identy pervade and when one
does claim to be certain things, regardless of truth, it really makes
them sound foolish in my opinion.

Let your words speak for credentials.

The problem with words being credentials...

Words alone have no substance.

A person with the gift of words can confuse to a great extent. They can
convince some that black is white, pink is yellow and the moon is a
flashlight put in the night sky to light the dark nights.

To be valid those words have to be backed with something besides marks
upon electronic paper.

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States
Armed Forces;


Congress did approve, but the infornmation was falsefied, already proven
and the finger points to Cheney(Vice President)
why??? Because they knew if they told the truth they would not get the
approval, and because at the time they also hoped to recieve the
alligance of other foreign powers. The problem there and why it didnt
work was that the other countries had their own intelligence reports
that were telling them the truth.
This goes too deep to be funny or circumstantial(unless you are blind)


(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such
introduction took place; and
Once again Congress was lied to....(nothing more needs to be said
here)

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

Ill give him this one, he has never set a timeline....

b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress
may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities
with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United
States Armed Forces abroad

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities
or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the
President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in
such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on
the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and
duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he
report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

These to relate and I say this
Have you not heard Congress complaining about NOT being kept abreast to
the progression of the war....


Seems pretty solid to me.............