An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
US & War: Whose Call?
Who in the USA decides whether the country should go to war or not? “In the United States, the decision to go to war rests with the elected representatives of those who will do the fighting and dying. It’s one of the defining – and critical – elements of the republic,” says the Christian Science Monitor.
“That constitutional assignment of power to Congress has not always been followed in practice. And it’s in jeopardy now.
“Our nation’s founders purposely rejected the European custom of kings starting wars essentially by decree. Instead, the drafters delegated war powers to the legislative branch of the new government.”
10 Responses to “US & War: Whose Call?”
[...] Jonathan Cullen wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAnd it’s in jeopardy now. “Our nation’s founders purposely rejected the European custom of kings starting wars essentially by decree. Instead, the drafters delegated war powers to the legislative branch of the new government.” More here… [...]
I am not sure I understand the point of this article.
While GWB might have said something during the run up to Iraq the facts are that he did not go to war in Iraq alone and without consent.
In fact he was authorized to attack Afghanistan and Iraq both by the congress of the United States.
The resolution itself is a single sentence, adopted unanimously by the Senate and with only one dissenting vote in the House of Representatives. It provides the president with sweeping but vaguely defined authority “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”
This is the single problem with the war on terror. It was such a vauge and ill defined authorization that the president in his zeal to kill terrorists and to protect America left behind sane reasoning to an extent. He did not have to lie about Iraq to go into Iraq. He simply had to show they supported terrorism or more precisely that they had supported Al Quaida.
It was a WELL known fact that Saddam Hussein was sending a yearly paycheck to suicide bombers that blew up Israelis. This alone gave him the permission by congress to invade Iraq.
This is precisely why for such a long time the antiwar screamed that there was no Al Quida in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein had no connections at all with Al Quida. I think both sides became so zealous in their positions that they forgot what they were fighting for.
The lie continues to be that their is something impeachable about Bush and his actions. There is not and this is why the entire democratic leadership will not even touch the impeachment proceedings.
That still does not mean I favor or approved of being in Iraq or Afghanistan but I do not have to twist the dayumn truth to fit my political beliefs. If we want to impeach someone………….how about we start with the 537 congressmen and senators who authorized the presidents actions with totalitarian authority????
I think it's just another emotional over-reaction to prosecution of the war in Iraq.
If there is a problem, correct it. But first establish if there really is a problem, and don't substitute liberal and Democratic-partisan politics for honest evaulation, the way it happens all too often.
No matter what, Congress has the power of the budget. Even if the President, as commander-in-chief commits forces, Congress can end it but cutting off the money. That even the Pelosi-led, Democratic controlled Congress has not cut off the funds or Iraq. The lack of action of the part of the Democratic leadership demonsrates that they really do not believe what they are saying about Iraq.
“The lack of action of the part of the Democratic leadership demonsrates that they really do not believe what they are saying about Iraq.”
I would say instead that they simply know they can't be fringist extreme like the Move On, Code Pink, ANSWER types, the most hard-core anti-war types. To this day those people remain the most discredited, and would remain so even if the Bush people were discovered to have engaged in additional misconduct we don't know about already.
“The lack of action of the part of the Democratic leadership demonsrates that they really do not believe what they are saying about Iraq.”
And I'd say they are following the will of their constituents, which is much maligned as having no principles or following “polls” or “focus groups”. Even though over 2/3 of Americans want out of Iraq, only 11% wanted funding cut. Clearly, Americans want the president, not the Congress, to lead us out of war.
Greendreams,
That is just a cheap excuse. Pelosi talked about getting out of Iraq but them approved funding. What Democrats want is for the Republicans to take the blame for the mess that will occur in Iraq after the U.S. leaves. Thus, the Democrats let Americans continue to die so that they would not have to take the blame.
Once again, they did not mean what they said. If they wanted the U.S. out of Iraq they needed to cut the funding. They did not even have to worry about a veto. Yet, the wimped out because they did not want the Democratic voting civil servants to go a day without pay.
What you are basically saying is that the Democrats have failed to lead when given the chance of lead. I guess when you are the party of trial lawyers, blaming others is more important that results.
and SD, you I think, wish they had cut funding to create a story line about the “defeatocrats” or “surrender monkeys” and their antipatriotic move that “lost the war in Iraq.”
And no, I'm not saying they failed to lead, though I'm pretty frustrated with them. I'm saying that the same thing that dragged them along with Bush's war (fear of voter revolt) kept them from ending it by cutting the funding for “the troops.” It is disingenuous to assert that this would not have been spun as an act of treason and of not “supporting the troops.”
It's far too late for the Dems to challenge the GOP global dominance in “blaming others.” In fact, let's blame “trial lawyers.”
GreenDreams,
Lawyers always want to nitpick others and blame others. The multitude of lawyers in DC is one of the reasons that the government cannot make deicisons.
Also, no matter how you spin it, the Democratic Party was not willing to put their words into action. Thus, they were just empty words meant to repeated by the MSM but never meant to be acted upon.
Makes you wonder how many things that Senator Obama is saying are not meant to be take seriously. I would say that anyone who takes Senator Obama seriously about his Afghantistan policy is a fool. An Obama administraiton will get out of Afghanistan as soon as the polling data shows that he can get away with it. (See Clinton and Somalia).