Bush is full of crap - Page 5

IrishHand · #41 03-01-2003, 11:23 AM

He's not talking about what's "constitutional" - he's talking about what's right for a democracy to do (or what's right for the leaders of a democracy to do). It's a philosophical/moral position, not a legal one.

Chris Alger · #42 03-01-2003, 03:45 PM

"Today, the White House threatened Saddam with a war crimes trial in the event we go to war. How can one be considered a war criminal in a war that hasn't been fought yet?"

This is truly one of the more insane comments coming from the White House. If the US acts unilaterally without express Security Council authorization, how can Iraq not have a right to defend itself from foreign invasion? Further, if the US acts unilaterally, isn't this a war crime under Article 51 of the UN Charter? I think the legal consensus is that the US and the UK are gulty of war crimes already for the 10-year bombing campaign against Iraq. If these points seems clear after the war arrives, then shouldn't someone form a Committee to Try President Bush for War Crimes and If He's Found Guilty to Hang Him?

I'm only partly kidding. The unprecedented amount of dissent over this not-quite-a-war is both heartening and a little scary if it doesn't prevent anything. I don't know what you remember about 1971 (I was 14), when after 4 years of a full-swing antiwar movement while the war seemed to be getting worse, it seemed like the country was coming apart at the seams. It's where we could be a year from now.

John Ho · #43 03-01-2003, 06:01 PM

Well if you want to get into specifics only Congress has the power to authorize a war. And Bush is not seeking their declaration of war before proceeding. IMO the resolution they passed does not cut it.

Anyways, you are spliting hairs. On the one hand you say totalitarian regimes are less legit than democracies (true) but on the other hand you say Bush doesn't need popular support for a war because we are a Republic. Sorry but your logic on this issue is terrible.

AceHigh · #44 03-01-2003, 06:19 PM

" we should have "finished the job" by going after Saddam "

Bush the first, had the final call on the decision along with a lot of his staff and Schwarzkopf and Powell. So, don't blame that on the UN.

Most of the current members of Bush foreign policy team were against taking out Saddam at the time. Powell, was very much against it. Rumsfield, wrote an internal memo asking how many Americans lives did he think Saddam was worth? His answer was "not very many".

MMMMMM · #45 03-01-2003, 08:51 PM

I think it's more than spitting hairs.

First of all, the American public is rather divided on the issue, with maybe a third willing to switch sides based on whether we get U.N. approval or not. Second, Congress did in fact give Bush certain powers, and many Congressmen support the possible war. So neither is US public opinion nor Congessional opinion completely opposed to the war--there is a significant measure of support, although there is a significant measure of opposition as well. As an indication of just how much "fence-sitting" there might be, I saw a poll yesterday I believe, which showed something like 71% of the U.S. public in favor of war if Iraq refuses to destroy the al Samoud missiles, but only 37% of the US public in favor of war if Iraq does destroy them. So a large slice of public opinion regarding the possible war is far from being set in stone. Perhaps a better general poll than "do you favor or oppose" might be the following categories: strongly oppose, mildly oppose, undecided, strongly favor, mildly favor.

There are many reasons why our Republic is set up the way it is, and while I'm not a Constitutional scholar, I can think of a few. For one thing, it would be very unwieldy and cumbersome to have the public voting on critical, sometimes time-sensitive issues such as war--this might often simply be impractical. Also, some of our Congressmen do receive intelligence briefings and information which should not be released to the general public for security reasons. In electing the best officials that we can, we do repose some trust in them to make certain decisions.

Jimbo · #46 03-01-2003, 10:12 PM

"Well if you want to get into specifics only Congress has the power to authorize a war. And Bush is not seeking their declaration of war before proceeding. IMO the resolution they passed does not cut it." Fortunately your opinion has no relevance to this decision. It seems the US Attorney General as well as the Congress that passed this resolution have a different opinion.

MMMMMM · #47 03-01-2003, 10:26 PM

I'm actually a little leery of any laws which circumvent the Constitution. However as Tom Haley pointed out, in this instance it does show Congressional support, so Bush isn't acting alone or as a dictator--even if the law itself may be debatable--and even if IrishHand can't tell the difference.

adios · #48 03-01-2003, 11:18 PM

Many argue that the War Powers act actually unconstitutionality limits the power of the President as Commander-in-chief under Article II of the Constitution. The War Powers act seems to be a way that Congress gets a voice in military campaigns such as Desert Strom where for various reasons a declaration of War is not deemed necessary. When it was passed, Nixon vetoed the law but his veto was overridden. I'm fairly certain that Congress (at least certain key members) has been privy to a lot of classified information regarding the WMD's that Iraq has. Sharing such classified information with the UN would effectively make it unclassified. You might as well publish it in the New York Times and Washington Post then give all the news networks a briefing.

John Ho · #49 03-02-2003, 01:34 AM

True, but certainly we as citizens can set a limit as to how much we want to trust our elected officials to make decisions on our behalf.

I think going to war is something they should not do without popular support regardless of what intelligence briefings they get. If that is so crucial they should make those reports public. If there's ever a time to release secret info this is it. I will not just trust my government to send people my age to death because they say it's necessary.

Please also note that Germany and France oppose the war for now and they are democracies. Also, the vast majority of the English do not support the war unless there is UN approval. Despite this fact they are rushing to support a war. I would not turn approval of this war into a democracy vs. totalitarian conflict.

John Ho · #50 03-02-2003, 01:42 AM

The US attorney general is hardly impartial in this. If Congress is so behind this action why not go ahead with a declaration of war like we did in WWII?

Basically what happened is the anti war folks in Congress got outmaneuvered. They were convinced the resolution authorizing force was needed as leverage in the UN and against Iraq. Now Bush will go ahead and use that resolution to start a war nobody Congress has not voted on.

By the way your shot about my opinion not having relevance was lame. If you don't care about people's opinions you can stay off these discussion boards and read a newspaper. Or better yet a right wing rag that tells you what you should be thinking so you won't have to bother ever questioning anything you believe.