US Presidents on Presidential Power

Tod Landis writes "Responding to George Bush's statement that he will preserve executive power for his "predecessors", I've assembled a collection of quotes from those predecessors. Most saw executive power differently..."

Comments

One word

[redog]

Poetateoe

Re:One word

[missing000]

Strategery

Re:One word

[Hard_Code]

As you well know... ever since I joined office, things have been really really, good.

Re:One word

[CXI]

All that proves is SNL still sucks and hasn't been any good for a number of years now. What a boring segment.

Re:One word

[missing000]

D'oh

Re:One word

[Anonymous Coward]

How about just:
I'm George W. Bush and I approved this mess.

So let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

politics.slashdot.org = Bush Bashing?

Smooth. :-/

Re:So let me get this straight...

[zCyl]

politics.slashdot.org = Bush Bashing?

No, because most of the posts on this page are complaining about the article being senseless Bush bashing. That's the beauty of the Slashdot format, you get replies which can counter the blatant biases of the article.

Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What, has slashdot become so anti-Bush that we're taking plain text documents written by the submitter as "news" in the politics section now?

While I admit this is a good resource, the predecessor mistake was *YEARS* ago- this is hardly new or any more relevant than yet another "Bush is an idiot" post. Those of us who care about intelligence in a president already know Bush is an idiot- those who don't care just like the fact that they've got a president with the same intelligence and learning disabilities that they have. This issue isn't going to change anybody's vote one way or the other.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[Planesdragon]

So, where's the nerdish reason to vote for Bush?

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

So, where's the nerdish reason to vote for Bush?

I can't find one. But then again, I can't find a reason to vote *for* Bush at all, and so I won't be. I'm sure there is one- probably in the broadband promises. But I'm not sure. Hmm- that's a hard one. Why would a nerd vote for a man who confesses that he's functionally illiterate?

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[Mr. Competence]

There isn't a reason. Nerds just don't get bush.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[Your_Mom]

No, the 'right' is more quiet and prefer to make our voice heard at the polls.

Ever hear of the silent majority?

Remember, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence."

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[jonm]

Well if you don't agree with me, then do get in touch. My number (in the UK - figure that one out, if you can, moron) is +44 191 296 6012. (see, I helped you there).

I look forward to your message.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[Anonymous Coward]

than yet another "Bush is an idiot" post.

No this isn't saying Bush is an idiot, it is saying that Bush is dangerous and part of a new group of Presidents starting with Nixon that feel the President is able to declare war without Congress, that ladies and gentlemen is a very different thing, than saying Bush is an idiot.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[u-238]

It's hard not to look quiet when in contrast your opposition are literally flooding streets, blocking traffic, making death threats, covering their cars with more bumper stickers than there is paint, using Hollywood stardom to pump inept political messages, and so on and so on.

It's mostly the people who mind their own business and go to work every day who are voting Bush.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Learning Disability != moron, it just appears so. And it's more the editors than the actual people who read slashdot.

Finally, when the new Politics Forum was announced, it was promised that the editors would be Fair and Balanced (tm, Fox News). Five pro-Kerry stories to every pro-Bush story is not balanced, no matter how you look at it.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Except...for both the Afghani Theater and the Iraqi theater Bush DID go to Congress and got approval. Sure, there's some argument as to approval for what and under what conditions on Iraq, but approval from Congress WAS sought and obtained. So all that we're left with is Bush protecting priviledge for his "predicessors"....

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Should have previewed that- apprently I had the same spelling teacher as W and Quayle- predecessors.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[shaka999]

Yep, I've certainly heard of the silent majority. Its usually used to represent the majority of people "in the middle". Not the quacks on the left or right.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[Brandybuck]

"Today on Slashdot, some guy's blog where he calls Bush an idiot..."

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[DAldredge]

Where is the nerdish reason to vote for Kerry?

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[James McTavish]

It's called ignorance. Look it up.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[Your_Mom]

Yes, as the AC pointed out below, the quacks are loud (see freerepublic) but there are a large majority of people who are quiet. They exist on both sides of the aisle.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Since when has "plain text" ceased to be a suitable medium for news? Do we only accept something as newsworthy if the text is full of hyperlinks and wrapped around animated ads?

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[wsherman]

There are some issues that both the left and right agree are important but they have different opinions about the issue. There are other issues where the disagreement is on the importance of the issue. The paradox is that, in order for the importance of the issue to be discussed, Slashdot has to concede that the issue is important enough to appear as a story.

The issue in this story is the role of the rule of law in international relations. The right would aruge that as long a country has a good leader with strong convictions then only nominal compliance with the rule of law is required. The left would argue that regardless of the qualities its leader a country must always comply not only with the letter of the law but also with the spririt of the law.

Specifically, if congress (or the United Nations for international law) is supposed to approve a decision to go to war then is it enough to point to some technical aspects of a conditional authorization in an old resolution or does a new resolution have to be passed immediately prior to invasion directly authorizing the the invasion?

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[10101001 10101001]

Can I cry that you're a moron? I mean this because the "left" candidate, Kerry, believes the exact same thing. He didn't like the war. He didn't like going to war. But he believes the President should be the one with the power to decare war.

Hence, this, if anything, is both anti-Bush and anti-Kerry (ie, anti-left and right; ie, every year the left and right look less different). That leaves Nader and Badnarik as "reasonable" candidates to consider. The Liberation Party (Badnarik's group) is on the ballet in 48 states and the District of Columbia. I say, vote for a change.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[Curunir_wolf]

Actually, to be fair, Roosevelt started the doctrine that troops could be deployed by the president without congress' approval. He did ask congress about sending the fleet around the globe, but was rejected. Well, he decided he could deploy them anyway. When they got half-way around the world and ran out of money, he went back to congress with "Well, how about some money to bring the fleet back?". Of course it was approved.

Truman presided over the first major armed conflict that did not involve a declaration of war, by convening a UN security council meeting and immediately committing troops to the conflict. This after the secretary of state declaring the Korea really did not fall into the US's "sphere of protection" in the east-asian region.

Truman also first got the country involved in Vietnam, after the French got over their heads in the conflict and asked the US for help. By 1954, 80% of the war costs were borne the the US.

Vietnam became a major conflict during Johnson's administration, as he reinstated the draft and dramatically increased the commitment of troops.

WWII was the last US conflict that involved a formal declaration of war by congress. IMHO, it should not be OK for a president to commit troops to ANY conflict outside of our own borders without a declaration of war from congress. Don't expect ANY president to follow this doctrine.

The Eisenhower quote is interesting, as he was the last president that recognized deploying troops without congressional authority was not intended by the constitution. He was the LAST president to recognize this (and probably always will be).

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[pudge]

Yeah, this has to be the dumbest story I've seen in awhile. Especially since Congress did approve the war. Tod Landis wrote, "Before 1950, no President or member of Congress believed that the executive branch could wage war without debate in Congress, when such debate was possible." But we know the Congress did debate it, and most of Congress voted for it (including Kerry), and it was passed. This is just retarded.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[hankaholic]

Five pro-Kerry stories to every pro-Bush story is not balanced, no matter how you look at it.

It is fair if it is true that there are five times as many good things to say about Kerry as there are good things to say about Bush. Or, put in the negative light of most political stories, five bad things said about Bush to every one anti-Kerry statement doesn't necessarily mean that anyone is specifically attacking Bush.

It might mean that most Slashdotters don't think it makes sense to post another story questioning Kerry's conduct in Vietnam once one remembers that of Kerry and Bush, only one chose to go into Vietnam at all, but that they actually do care about their civil liberties, and are interested in how the attitude of their commander-in-chief compares to the views of those who founded this country, especially when it involves aggressive action against a nation without hard evidence that the nation in question actually did anything actionable against the United States. In this case it could be a fair and balanced look at the candidates in the context of what matters to the average Slashdot readership.

A "fair and balanced" look at, say, hydroformed automobile frames as compared to traditional stamped and welded frames doesn't necessarily have to say as many nice things about traditional frames as it does hydroformed frames. What it does have to do is seriously address the strengths and weaknesses of each. If there are more nice things to say about hydroformed frames, well, them's the breaks. "Fair and balanced" doesn't mean "we say nice things about everybody even though some deserve it more than others."

Don't take this as a pro-Kerry post. I don't trust Kerry. I just don't think it's quite time to complain about bias until Slashdot ignores Kerry mobilizing troops without congressional or international approval, breaking precident set by past commanders-in-chief.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[jonm]

The tease here, of course, is that that was Tony Blairs number. But it's no longer working anyhow.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[richie2000]

"Apprently" you did. :-)

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[(trb001)]

It is fair if it is true that there are five times as many good things to say about Kerry as there are good things to say about Bush.

And who makes that call? The election, by all scientific polling standards, is just about even at this point. Statements like this are what kill me about Democrats...they think that since THEY hate Bush so much, nobody has good reasons for voting for him.

On character alone I would vote for Bush because, while people love to criticize him on malapropisms, he's a regular guy, not some slick talking politician. Kerry's plan so far has been to promise things he can't pay for and doesn't detail how he'll implement. His war stance is, essentially, that he'll "stick it out" and "bring more countries in" to help us. How? I doubt that France and Germany are itching to jump in just because Bush is gone. He promises jobs based on reducing a corporate tax that affects less than 10% of businesses out there. The president has no real power over jobs, only by changing tax rates and incentives can they try to create jobs. It's really more a factor of the economy.

This is off the top of my head, because I get so steamed whenever people dismiss Bush like there's not reason to consider him. Right now, half the country thinks there is.

--trb

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[hankaholic]

It is fair if it is true that there are five times as many good things to say about Kerry as there are good things to say about Bush.

And who makes that call? The election, by all scientific polling standards, is just about even at this point. Statements like this are what kill me about Democrats...they think that since THEY hate Bush so much, nobody has good reasons for voting for him.

Choices made by the general population shouldn't necessarily be mistaken for an indication of quality. A correlation may exist, but factors other than quality may exist. How many people purchase brand-name items (such as over-the-counter medicine) over cheaper generic items which do the job just as well?

On character alone I would vote for Bush because, while people love to criticize him on malapropisms, he's a regular guy, not some slick talking politician.

The "regular guy" thing was part of Bush's push for election in 2000. Him declaring it doesn't make it true, though -- if you seriously watch him during interviews, he often dances around direct questions quite well. Bush often answers questions by saying that he'll address the issue later, or claim that he's already discusses it.

The "liberal media" likes to focus on his malapropisms without looking into the deeper issue of whether he delivers what he promises. An examination of that would be much more damaging to Bush's image than hundreds of comedic monologues ridiculing Bush's lack of ability to speak well without a TelePrompTer.

Kerry's plan so far has been to promise things he can't pay for and doesn't detail how he'll implement. His war stance is, essentially, that he'll "stick it out" and "bring more countries in" to help us. How? I doubt that France and Germany are itching to jump in just because Bush is gone.

This is a fair point. However, Bush's plan so far has also been to promise things he thus far hasn't been able to deliver (such as evidence of WMD or links between Saddam and the attacks on 9/11/01). His war stance is that he'll act now and justify it later. If you review the debates between Bush and Gore prior to Nov. 2000, you'll see that Bush was often short on details as well. With those facts considered, it seems reasonable that Kerry would say that he doesn't plan on just pulling out and leaving the Iraqi people alone to sink or swim on their own, and that he is hopeful that the international community will decide to contribute.

He promises jobs based on reducing a corporate tax that affects less than 10% of businesses out there. The president has no real power over jobs, only by changing tax rates and incentives can they try to create jobs. It's really more a factor of the economy.

If Kerry waxing prophetic about policies intended to stimulate the economy isn't fair material for a run at the presidency, then one could point the same finger at Bush's attempt in 2000 to make an issue of the same thing.

This is off the top of my head, because I get so steamed whenever people dismiss Bush like there's not reason to consider him. Right now, half the country thinks there is.

Or, half of the country is holding out hope that Bush has a clue as he keeps promising. However, Bush has said himself that once he's made up his mind on an issue, he'll stick to his guns regardless of any actual facts presented. That's something the "liberal media" doesn't seem to have picked up on.

If you could come up with some examples of Bush making informed and realistic legislative decisions which benefit the general public, please please please (please!) post them.

If you'd like citations to justify anything I've stated, please ask. I have to go to work at the moment, but if you're interested I'd be glad to try to find some references or examples to back up what I've said.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[(trb001)]

If you could come up with some examples of Bush making informed and realistic legislative decisions which benefit the general public, please please please (please!) post them.

Would you accept NCLB? From the first day of his presidency he was working on this program. Democrats like to paint the picture that it isn't funded well enough, but they forget there's a difference between authorization and appropriation. The fact is, Bush has spent more on education than any other administration.

--trb

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[panda]

Actually, to be completely fair, it was Thomas Jefferson who first deployed U.S. troops without a declaration of war when he sent U.S. Marines and Naval vessels against North African pirates that were threatening U.S. shipping interests in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic.

Interestingly, it was Eisenhower who sent the first U.S. troops into Vietnam as advisers. Our first casualty came in 1959 during a training session for ARVN forces when some old and unstable explosives went off in the hands of a U.S. adviser.

It was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, an act of Congress, that much later authorized Johnson to expand the U.S. action in Vietnam.

On the point of the President not sending troops to foreign nations without Congressional approval, I agree.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I never touch Bush anymore when it comes to deciding who to vote for. Kerry is probably the right ABB vote in my state (Oregon is a swing state on every poll other than Zogby), but I must admit, Peroutka for coming close to my actual beliefs and Badnarik for being so exactly the opposite of my beliefs that he'll accomplish some things that I think need doing anyway; and a Kerry vote would make me feel like a hypocrite on my social conservative issues (even though I'm convinced that universal health care will reduce abortion).

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

No- but in general for-profit news (as opposed to opinion blogs) require advertising to survive, so advertising has become a sign that somebody is being paid to be at least as objective as the corporation that hired him. Plus, this is "NEWS" not "BLOGS".

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

But it's the wrong issue- since both the Left and the Right in this case at least sought congressional approval (as well as UN approval), and got it in the case of Afghanistan. There were some conditions attached to the approval in Iraq, and there's some argument whether those conditions were achieved, but you can't say that the Bush Administration didn't *seek* approval.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Completely agreed with you- though I doubt the person who wrote this blog would agree with you. Kerry wasn't even mentioned in the article at all, only Bush and his "predecessors". I may still be voting Badnarik, if Kerry sews up Oregon by the time the ballots ship.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I'm in Oregon. NCLB came to us so underfunded, that combined with our stupid one-leg funding system, schools closed and local taxes were raised more than we saved in the federal income tax break.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[True Grit]

The controversy over funding is just the tip of the iceburg wrt the NCLB.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[V. Mole]

"Majority". Would that be the majority that voted for Gore in 2000?

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Bush isn't smart enough to be either a geek or a nerd- he's a partying frat boy. What we called a preppie in the 1980s.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[plog]

all systems cycle home to a different place

let the terror reign and we will find peace
in our own destruction

the profitic burning bush
serves a grander surprise

what's mine is yours, what's yours is yours
and it will come home

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[hankaholic]

Would you accept NCLB? From the first day of his presidency he was working on this program.

I have to admit knowing little about it. The link you provided explained some things that weren't true about NCLB, but it didn't give a clear picture of what it actually is. One question that came to mind is whether the rush to make sure that minimum standards were met was tempered with some consideration for students with greater-than-average potential.

Fox News mentions that gifted programs are not a focus of NCLB, and predicts that they are likely to be cut in favor of more funding for underperforming students. A link from the same source also mentioned that NCLB uses a simple pass/fail system to rate schools. Why not provide grades showing how schools perform in various areas, and allow the parents to decide whether a school meets their child's needs?

Does NCLB encourage providing children with curricula chosen to meet their learning needs, or does it just provide minimum profiency guidelines beyond which education is not such a focus?

Democrats like to paint the picture that it isn't funded well enough, but they forget there's a difference between authorization and appropriation.

I do get that impression (that is, that people aren't necessarily objective in claiming that the program is underfunded). I have heard it said that NCLB is underfunded, but while I have seen evidence that NCLB can leave certain individual schools with less funding than per-NCLB budgets, that's not quite the same idea as the program itself beign underfunded.

The fact is, Bush has spent more on education than any other administration.

This again raises the question of whether the money is meant to ensure appropriate education for all students, or merely to set minimum criteria beyond which no accountability exists. Kudos to the program if the former is true -- I'd love to hear that it is so intended. However, if (and only if) the latter is true, I wouldn't applaud Bush for throwing so much money at what is essentially an incomplete solution.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[Awptimus Prime]

It's hard not to look quiet when in contrast your opposition are literally flooding streets, blocking traffic, making death threats, covering their cars with more bumper stickers than there is paint, using Hollywood stardom to pump inept political messages, and so on and so on.

How about Arnold being gov of California? Don't you think that is quite an extreme example of what you just critisized Democrats for? Do you think Arnold would have become a politician of such great power so quickly without his Hollywood background? Do you think he would have guest-starred at the RNC without this, as well?


It's mostly the people who mind their own business and go to work every day who are voting Bush.

It is very narrow in your thinking that those out causing trouble in the streets are Democrats. Those are not traditional voters, those are just wild people who are out to vent. On that note, you are aware that Democrat presidents have had the holy hell protested out of them, too. Right? That is what happens in a free society.

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[(trb001)]

Here's the link to the NCLB website. It contains tons of information, including state by state breakdowns.

NCLB isn't underfunded...they just didn't appropriate the maximum amount of money that they could. That's standard with almost any government program.

This again raises the question of whether the money is meant to ensure appropriate education for all students, or merely to set minimum criteria beyond which no accountability exists.

Honestly, I don't know how NCLB affects GT programs and the like. The idea behind NCLB is to set a minimum set of standards that the kids have to meet and meet that standard within (I think) 5 years. NCLB's goal isn't to further the education of students who excel, it's to make sure the students on the lower end of the spectrum keep up, but I don't think it hinders GT students either.

--trb

Re:Ok, even I have to cry "Lefty" on this one

[mrmeval]

Whiskey Rebellion where George Washington thumped a bunch of moonshiners into submission with 15,000 troups.
This was in country.

Come on...

[the darn]

I'm no fan of the Dub, but any collection of quotes can easily manipulated to suit your viewpoint via selection bias. It would be better to examine the actions previous presidents took with regard to defending the presidential "turf."

Re:Come on...

[redog]

Exactly like Slashdot! So lets examine the actions of previous posters....no lets not..that would be bad.

Re:Come on...

[Reducer2001]

And if you read The People's History of the US, you'll realize that faking out the American public about reasons to go to war, not actually declaring war, and generally doing all the things GW has been doing has been going on for a looonnnggg time.

Re:Come on...

[Curunir_wolf]

And if you read The People's History of the US...

Ok, let's check it out:

...Or was it the logical policy of a government whose main interest was not stopping Fascism but advancing the imperial interests of the United States? For those interests, in the thirties, an anti-Soviet policy seemed best. Later, when Japan and Germany threatened U.S. world interests, a pro-Soviet, anti-Nazi policy became preferable. ***** It was not Hitler's attacks on the Jews that brought the United States into World War II, any more than the enslavement of 4 million blacks brought Civil War in 1861.

Ok, I've read enough. Obviously a manifesto and advocating the creation of a "People's Republic of the US". No, thanks.

Re:Come on...

[Teogue]

This is probably self evident, but I'll post it anyway. Once you get past the Founding Fathers, who were terrified of the President becoming a King, almost all of these quotes are taken from arguments designed to do damage to a political oponent, several of them were made before the person took the executive office.

For example:"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems in necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure."

This was Lincoln trying to get the spot resolution passed. Wishing to see the exact spot on American soil that American blood had been shed to start the Mexican-American War. A protest against James K Polk (a Democrat.)

James Buchanan was merely trying to lay blame for the almost enevitable civil war elsewhere.

And so forth, and so on.

Of course, I'm an Evil Conservative so don't take my word for it.

uh, one small detail concerning your quotes...

[avi33]

These quotes seem to suggest it's unconstitutional for anyone other than Congress to declare war.

Congress still has (and did have) the right to declare war, and they turned it over to Bush to use at his disposal. (In theory, at least, I don't think he actually declared anything.)

Why not a collection of quotes about how Congresspeople are lemmings?

gears? we don't need no stinking gears.

Re:uh, one small detail concerning your quotes...

[Jahf]

Just because "Congress still has" the right doesn't change the fact that before the (never declared) Korean war the Congress was the -only- body that could do so.

Since Truman involved the US in the Korean war, presidents have simply bypassed the intent of the Constitution by no officially declaring war. Instead they invoke military police actions or similar.

The War Powers act in 1973 tried to change this, but so far the legality and constitutionality of both has not changed.

Fact of the matter is, before 1950 it was assumed that -only- Congress could declare war. Since 1950 it has been assumed that declaring war is red tape and can be bypassed.

Re:uh, one small detail concerning your quotes...

[Pedro Picasso]

You're absolutely right. Almost every member of the US Congress voted to give the President a blank check on this issue. Regardless of declarations, they granted him the power to mobilize soldiers and conduct combat as he saw fit. The President took us into a needless war. Boo on him. Congress allowed him to do it, boo on everybody.

Re:uh, one small detail concerning your quotes...

[lynx_user_abroad]

Since 1950 it has been assumed that declaring war is red tape and can be bypassed.

All laws are just red tape which can be bypassed. We attribute character to those who choose to not just bypass them.

Back in the 80's, some news weekly ran a story about drug dealers in a major city, and how the size of their "businesses" (measured by gross volume) would make some of them qualified to run medium-to-large businesses. That statement stuck with me, because it completely missed the point. Sure it's easier to build a multi-million dollar business if you can sell an addicting product, never pay any taxes, never apply for a permit, and gun-down your competition to maintain your territorries. The real pros are the ones that can stay within the law and still turn a profit.

Substitute "cook the books" and you see a lot of what we saw from Enron, WorldCom, and others more recently.

In my book, you don't get to claim you won the game unless you played by the rules. If you cheated, it doesn't matter how many points you scored.

By this measure, none of Bush's fiscal accomplishments (were there any?) amount to anything, because they were all claimed at the expense of creating a huge budget defecit.

Nothing he cites as a foreign-policy success earns a point, because he had to use war powers to do it.

And he doesn't even get the benefit of the can't-prove-a-negative think of "nothing bad has happened in the U.S., except for that little 9/11 thing" because of the way he's had to stomp on civil liberties to make that happen.

Give me someone who's ready to play by the rules over someone who can only win by cheating, please.

Re:uh, one small detail concerning your quotes...

[cthugha]

Just because you have a power doesn't mean you have the ability to hand that power over to another person. The US Constitution is, AFAIK, silent on the issue of whether Congress can delegate its power to declare war. Public officials or bodies charged to carry out such important and solemn constitutional duties shouldn't be allowed to pass the buck so easily.

Context please?

[Elwood P Dowd]

Can someone please provide context for that quote by Bush?

I can only find quotes of that individual sentence. I can't even tell what executive powers he says he's preserving, so, as a raving liberal, I can't even tell why this quote means I should hate Bush.

What executive powers?

Re:Context please?

[Motherchucker]

Here is the full text of the quote from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20010129-7 .html: Q: Why did you decide not to challenge the Clinton pardon, sir? THE PRESIDENT: Oh, on Marc Rich? First of all, I didn't agree with the decision. I would not have made that decision myself. But the ability for a president to make decisions is -- a decision on pardons, is inviolate, as far as I'm concerned. It's an important part of the office. I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well. And that's why I made the decision.

I can do the same.

[nes11]

I'm sitting here with a book on my desk call "Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents" by Richard E. Neustadt. Perhaps you should read it. It's very easy to pick & choose random quotes & show an agreement that's really not there. Give me a few minutes & I could create a list of quotes that shows that Bush has a very conservative view of President Power.

In case you're seriously interested, a few other good books are
"The Paradox of the American Presidency" by Thomas E. Cronin
and
"The Ferocious Engine of Democracy" (2 volumes) by Michael P. Riccards.

Read your history before posting (OT) topic

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

Truman had major runins concerning the Korean war. He wanted to preserve exactly the same thing as Bush. Does it make it right? Probably not. Is it OT for slashdot? Definitely.

It Ain't that hard.

[DAldredge]

Is the the Politics section of /. or the Kerry cheering section? I thought that the editors said they would have a balanced selection of stories in this section?

WTF has happened to /.? I wish they would hurry up and close the pending sale.

Re:It Ain't that hard.

[ArsonSmith]

They are still looking for a beliveable pro Bush story. May take them a while.

Re:It Ain't that hard.

[christopherfinke]

It looks like it's taking them a while to find a believable anti-Bush story too.

Re:It Ain't that hard.

[DAldredge]

Sorry, but I don't like k5 as I get tired of being mail bombed for my contetion that USian isn't a word.

Re:It Ain't that hard.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Submit a story directly to Pudge's e-mail- near as I can tell it's the only way to get a pro-Bush story actually published.

Are there any pro-Bush stories that aren't on Drudge?

Re:It Ain't that hard.

[DAldredge]

The don't respond when I email them about resubscribing so I know they will not respond about this.

Hell, they don't have to be pro-bush stories, their is just a little more to the political spectrum than bush/kerry.

Re:It Ain't that hard.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Pudge would only publish pro-Bush stories- that's the direction he leans.

Re:It Ain't that hard.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this interesting? The great-grandparent post questions why all the stories seem to be anit-Bush and hints at a political bias here. The grandparent makes a joke at Bush's expense and gets modded +5. The parent turns the joke around and uses essentially the same thing at Kerry's expense and gets modded as flamebait. To me this speaks volumes.

Re:It Ain't that hard.

[csguy314]

How about some anti-Kerry stories? It's not as though the Democrats are angels.
Eisenhower may have started the Vietnam War, but Kennedy got the US much more involved. Kennedy also approved the Bay of Pigs, and several assassination attempts on Castro.
Carter supported terrorism in Central America just as much as his predecessors and successors.
Clinton illegally invaded Serbia (without Security Council consent). And Clinton was bombing Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War right through the 90's.
But I guess you're right. I'll just vote for the one who's not a rich, white guy... oh wait...

Re:It Ain't that hard.

[True Grit]

Clinton illegally invaded Serbia (without Security Council consent)

s/Clinton/NATO/

Illegal? No more illegal than our attack on Iraq. Congress gave Clinton a non-binding resolution supporting action against Yugoslavia too.

And Clinton was bombing Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War right through the 90's.

And he used the same UN resolutions as his excuse that Bush did (a lot of that bombing was in retaliation for attacks on overflights, which was specifically allowed in the resolutions). There is a big difference between punitive bombing and outright conquest, however.

The argument over the President's ability to take this country to war just doesn't fall along Dem/Rep lines, its always been an executive/legislative dispute. You routinely have former Presidents come out and support the current President when the current one takes the country to war without a Congressional DOW. Clinton actually supported Bush's assertion that Hussein needed to be dealt with militarily, he just disagreed with how Bush went about it. So I not only disagree with the beginning of this thread, I also disagree with your attempt portray Clinton as somehow different from any other modern President.

There are 2 different disputes going on here. The first is whether the (second) Iraq war should have happened at all. The second is whether it should have been done the way Bush Jr. did it, as opposed to how his father did it the first time (via a strong UN coalition), or the way Clinton handled Yugoslavia (via NATO action on the European continent). For me its the second issue thats the problem, not the first one.

BTW, its so funny going back and reading the right wing ranting about Clinton's "illegal" war, in light of Bush Jr's attack on Iraq. And before you go ballistic about him having UN authorization, everyone outside the United States knows thats bullshit. The last resolution specifically stated the issue should be brought back to the UN before force was used, but Bush simply ignored that part, and stated he was authorized under "previous" authorizations. Even if that was "technically" true, by having a lawyer splice up those old documents looking for the right phrase, it was clearly a violation of the spirit of the United Nations, because everyone knows the UN would not have authorized Bush's war at that time. Since Bush started moving in military forces before he even mentioned the words "United Nations", no one should be surprised that major powers were unhappy with the fact that Bush clearly intended to attack regardless of what the rest of the world had to say.

So as far as I'm concerned, Bush's war on Iraq is even more illegal than Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia, at least Clinton had NATO and therefore all of Western Europe on his side (UN authorization was impossible because it was obvious that Russia would veto it due to their strong and blind affinity to the Serbs).

Oh, come on now...

[CXI]

Doesn't CmdrTaco have a personal blog somewhere to bash Bush instead of doing so on what was once a good news site?

Not only are the quotes out of context, but they are used in error. Furthermore, congress hasn't declared war since WWII, so it's hard to pretend that Bush doesn't have any precedent if he did go in without approval. Of course, there was approval so this whole "news story" is a farce. Way to go and pull a Dan Rather. At least he finally had to apologize.

Re:Oh, come on now...

[syrinx]

mod parent up, please. I seriously thought the Politics sectioon might be good, but it's become a farce. This one's pretty ridiculous, though not quite as much as the "Republicans are going to outlaw elections" story the other week (submitted by "Marxist Hacker", of course).

I rarely complain about Slashdot articles.. dupes, spelling and grammar errors, whatever, those aren't a big deal. But this is just too much.

Re:Oh, come on now...

[afabbro]

Particularly because you can't remove it from your home page. Unfortunately, my bugzilla to fix this was ignored.

Humph

[elmegil]

Can we mod an entire article as -1 flamebait? Please? And I don't even like the shrub....

Re:Humph

[fnord123]

I agree. The source article is flamebait and not news for nerds. Out of context usage of quotes to mislead people is not news, and most nerds should be intelligent enough to realize that such quotes have an information value of zero.

Where is the metamoderator option to mark CmdrTaco as being tediously left leaning with a terrible taste in stories?

Hmmm...

[christopherfinke]

Notice that there are no quotes that occurred in the last 30 years. I'm pretty sure that when Bush refers to his predecessors, he's thinking more of Clinton/Bush/Reagan/Carter, not Washington/Adams/Jefferson.

Re:Hmmm...

[dameron]

Notice that there are no quotes that occurred in the last 30 years. I'm pretty sure that when Bush refers to his predecessors, he's thinking more of Clinton/Bush/Reagan/Carter, not Washington/Adams/Jefferson.

I think he, Bush, isn't as familiar with the first group as he is with the second. Congress alone has the power to declare war, that's why you see modern American wars called anything but that. Police Actions? Use it in a sentence? Yes, history recalls the tragic mistake of the "Vietnam Police Action".

Orwellian really.

-dameron

---- DailyHaiku.com saying more in 17 syllables than Bill O'Reilly says all day.

Re:Hmmm...

[christopherfinke]

Now that I've gone back and reread the "story" write-up, I realize that the main point is apparently that Bush misspoke when he said predecessors and meant postdecessors (or whatever the word would be).

Re:Hmmm...

[yourmom16]

The thought of war blows my mind

I think you meant

The thought of police action blows my mind

Whoa!

[the_skywise]

This article has nothing to do with "executive power".

The President has the power to write "Executive Orders". These were meant to be used as quick action rules to act on certain situations before congress and the Senate could debate and decide on a proper strategy (because committees are slow).

Congress has been trying to restrict those abilities and THAT'S what Bush is defending.

WAR POWERS (which W is NOT talking about in his quote) are a still hotly debated topic. Executive Orders can be used to facilitate combat (as has been done with Iraq) but the President has combat powers above and beyond the Executive Orders so restricting those doesn't necessarily stop the other.

Bush is not the first to have done this. Clinton did it with Bosnia, Bush Sr. did it with Panama, Reagan did it with Grenada, etc;

The whole power structure of wars, waging wars, military action, etc is still a hotly debated topic in congress and this article does no justice in bringing out the real issues.

Re:Whoa!

[Elwood P Dowd]

No, as pointed out by this post, he was defending the executive power to grant presidential pardons:

Q Why did you decide not to challenge the Clinton pardon, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, on Marc Rich? First of all, I didn't agree with the decision. I would not have made that decision myself. But the ability for a president to make decisions is -- a decision on pardons, is inviolate, as far as I'm concerned. It's an important part of the office. I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well. And that's why I made the decision.

IMH and Liberal O, Tod Landis is either a moron or a despicable liar. GW's statement here is rather unimpeachable.

Re:Whoa!

[autarkeia]

Though I agree that this article is rather lame, Bush is *not* simply trying to defend his ability to write executive orders or his war-declaration powers (which are in fact hotly debated). His administration has a clear policy of silence on matters where it should be open. One o the most obnoxious examples of this is in Cheney's refusal to hand over the conversations on energy policy with the Enron folks. The Bush Administration claims it has executive privilege on those documents, no matter their impropriety or content.

Slashdot is all about "open source" and its cultural and economic ramifications. It's time we start demanding that more things in our lives be open, starting with our political processes. There are very few things anyone in the political sphere should be able to keep secret, and they *all* relate to national security. Even then, numerous reports indicate that information is classified far too often under the guise of national security.

When it comes to finances, political contributions, or ties with corporations that have knowingly screwed over millions and millions of people, there should be no secrets. Once you are a politician I think you should have to divulge, for public scrutiny, all of your and your spouse's finances for the past several years. If you don't want to do that, don't become a politician. The public has a right to know if your financial ties to any organization are going to unfairly influence your decision-making, as they appear to in this administration (single-bid Halliburton contracts, Enron energy policy, etc).

Governments need to be open to protect the masses against their tyranny. There is no small amount of irony in the Bush Administration expecting us to open all of our lives and finances up in the guise of national security (through the PATRIOT Act) and then turning around and claiming it can keep the energy policy information secret.

Perhaps

[Otter]

Not that editors would ever listen to any readers, but -- if you're going to have a politics section, how about using it to focus on issues of technology, science, engineering, space, education,... instead of just dumping a bucket of gasoline on everyone every few hours? Lord knows, I've spent enough of the last few weeks squabbling about vertical spacing on 1970's IBM Selectrics and even I recognize the last two stories as pointless, content-free flamebait.

Oh, well. At least the color scheme here doesn't make you blind.

Put each quote into perspective...

[stienman]

It would be nice to see the context of each quote.

For my part, I simply added the following grain of salt: Consider that when quoted perhaps the president in question was actively trying to avoid making a decision on going war.

It then becomes a way to avoid getting the president involved in a discussion which he does not wish to comment on.

I see little value in this list of quotes. Did the "researcher" also look into the opposite view from those same presidents? While it's nice to have a little taste of each, did the researcher fully consider all the views of the president, or are they letting their users assume that this sound byte represents each president's complete perspective on executive power?

-Adam

See what extremism (liberal or conservative) does?

[Fished]

A confused George Bush once said "I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for my predecessors as well". Here is a sampler of what those predecessors had to say about the war powers.

And I have gone to the trouble of examining each quote only to find it misapplied.

"The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until they shall have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure. " George Washington

You mean that Bush should have ... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean ... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?

"Congress must be called upon to take [reprisal on a nation]; the right of reprisal being expressly lodged with them by the Constitution, and not with the Executive". Thomas Jefferson

"You mean that Bush should have ... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean ... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

"Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs, or, opposing force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events ... is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government" James Madison

"You mean that Bush should have ... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean ... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems in necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure." Abraham Lincoln

"You mean that Bush should have ... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean ... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

"By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown. A substantial wrong has thus been done..." Grover Cleveland

"You mean that Bush should have ... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean ... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

"The remedy for this state of things can only be supplied by Congress, since the Constitution has confided to that body alone the power to make war." James Buchanan

"You mean that Bush should have ... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean ... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

"The issue [of war with Spain] is now with the Congress. ... Prepared to execute every obligation imposed upon me by the Constitution and the law, I await your action" William McKinley

"You mean that Bush should have ... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean ... like he did in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

"The assumption by the press that I contemplate intervention in Mexico soil to protect American lives is of course gratuitous, because I seriously doubt whether I have such authority under any circumstances, and if I had I would not exercise it without congressional approval" Howard Taft

"You mean that Bush should have ... gotten congressional authority before he went to war? You mean ... like he did in Iraq and Afg

Both the Senate and House of Reps....

[Nagatzhul]

authorized Bush to go after Iraq. He did not make the choice on his own. The House of Representatives voted 296-133 in favor and the Senate voted 77-23 in favor. How was this a unilateral decision on Bush's part?

More Bush Bashing on /.

Re:Both the Senate and House of Reps....

[Anonymous Coward]

Both the Senate and House of Reps.... authorized Bush to go after Iraq.

They authorized him to make the decision. He made the bad decision by himself.

Re:Both the Senate and House of Reps....

[Keith Russell]

Congress authorized the President to use military force in Iraq if necessary. Bush was savvy enough to set the bar for "if necessary" very, very low, and Congress was gullible enough to fall for it.

Your tax dollars at work.

Re:Both the Senate and House of Reps....

[gothzilla]

They did not tell Bush to go after anyone. They gave them the authority to declare war if he felt it was needed. If he did, then he had to justify going to war to congress.

From http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

They wanted a diplomatic solution before war and they wanted to make sure the invasion wouldn't disrupt the war on terror.

This happened on Oct 11, 2002. A month later The UN passed resolution 1441 with tough new arms inspections on Iraq.

Dec 7, 2002 Iraq submitted its 12,000 page report that says they had no weapons.

Jan. 16, 2003 UN inspectors discover 11 undeclared empty chemical warheads in Iraq.

Feb. 22, 2003 Hans Blix orders Iraq to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles by March 1.

March 1, 2003 Iraq begins to destroy its Al Samoud missiles.
(kinda like telling your kid "I'm going to count to 5" and watching then scurry when you say FIVE!"

Feb. 24-March 14, 2003 The US tried and failed to get UN support to invade Iraq.

March 19, 2003 US invades Iraq.

As you can see, it took 5 months from the time Bush was authorized to invade to the time he actually did invade. If he had invaded within a couple weeks of the authorization then it would be a totally different story. I'm not trying to say it was right or wrong to invade, but the facts say that Bush did have the choice whether to invade or not.

Whether it was right or wrong won't be known until the history books are written that our grandkids and greatgrandkids use in school. :)

Re:Both the Senate and House of Reps....

[sneakers563]

As if it wasn't obvious what decision he was going to make...

You know, I support Kerry, but his argument that he only voted to give the President the right to go to war and not for war itself is, to my way of thinking, ridiculous. It was obvious to everyone that Bush wanted to go to war. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.

Moreover, even if we accept Kerry's argument that it came as a surprise to him that Bush would use any excuse to invade Iraq, it seems rather dishonest to vote to give the President blanket authority to declare war and then complain when that decision is made. A little late to have second thoughts, isn't it? If you don't want the president to have blanket authority, then don't give him blanket authority!

The truth is that Kerry, like virtually every other Democrat, was afraid of being labelled "unpatriotic" and "weak on defense" and so took the politically safe position. Why don't we debate that, instead? Why not talk about how we use patriotism as a political weapon? Why not talk about how that, more than anything Bush has done, needs to change if we're going to have a healthy democracy? The issue is not so much that Bush led us into a quagmire, it's that we and our elected representatives allowed him to lead us there.

Re:Both the Senate and House of Reps....

[hopemafia]

To slightly modify an old saying:

Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fools who authorize him to be a fool?

Re:Both the Senate and House of Reps....

[Lord Kano]

They did not tell Bush to go after anyone. They gave them the authority to declare war if he felt it was needed. If he did, then he had to justify going to war to congress.

So, what you're saying is that congress delivered this message to President Bush "We will vote to authorize you to decide if the US needs to take military action. If so, we will authorize funding. But you need to come back to us and justify it."

Bullshit. Such a resolution would be unnecessary. The President is the Commander In Chief of the military. He can deploy them for action without approval from anyone, he only needs approval from Congress for deployments lasting longer than 60 days.

LK

Re:Both the Senate and House of Reps....

[gothzilla]

Here's your unnecessary resolution. Obviously Bush felt it was necessary to ask permission. Congress gave him the ability to make his own choice. You must not have read the timeline either. Bush recieved authorization 5 months before starting the war.

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?articl e_id=2686

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION
107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002 ...
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b)PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). ......

Re:You distribute Anti-Cyberterrorism kits?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That's just my neaty-keano marketing name for a collection of freeware applications from various authors that I recommend all of my Windows customers install. It's not entirely comprehensive- if it was it would have AVG's antivirus scanner in it- and it needs updating, but when I originally created it it included the latest versions of ZoneAlarm, AdAware, HijackThis, and Spambayes, as well as a variety of other special-purpose scanners and Windows keep-it-safe utilities. I wouldn't recommend it at the moment- like I said it needs updating. It's at least 2 versions behind on AdAware and 6 behind on ZoneAlarm Free.

Re:Was Gulf War II authorized by congress?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

There's some question on Gulf War II- whether it was actual authorization or whether it was only authorization to allow the President to make his case.

The Afghani War was approved way back in the first week of October, 2001, as soon as it became apparent that bin Laden was behind 9-11. The Afghani War was in fact passed unanimously, IIRC.

Re:Shenanigans!

[CXI]

Don't get all worked up. Dan Rather and CBS fell for a made up news story because they were happy to run anything that bashed Bush. CmdrTaco, which is perhaps you Mr Anonymous Coward, seems to be on a similar roll himself today.

"Finally, there wasn't approval of any of Bush II's wars, as congress simply gave him the right to go to war."

Um, what?! What a hoot! So you are saying there wasn't approval for the war, because congress gave him the right to go to war. Stellar logic my friend!

Maybe He Meant Something Else?

[gwynnebaer]

Despite my consummate dislike for Bush (Sr, Jr, whatever), I don't read the same "Bushism" into his statement. You have to consider that Presidents, whether in power or out of power, have quite a lot of executive protection that extends well past their term(s) in office. I suggest that perhaps Bush was simply stating that he intended to protect these extended post-term executive powers. This is actually a fairly common statement, since the current president would want the same treatment once he/she is no longer in office.

Re:Maybe He Meant Something Else?

[BFedRec]

Yep, you're right. He was referring to something else entirely. Somebody posted it as a reply to a request for clarification here:

http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=122 91 7&cid=10334640

But the quote is from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20010129 -7 .html

Q Why did you decide not to challenge the Clinton pardon, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, on Marc Rich? First of all, I didn't agree with the decision. I would not have made that decision myself. But the ability for a president to make decisions is -- a decision on pardons, is inviolate, as far as I'm concerned. It's an important part of the office. I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well. And that's why I made the decision.

So while people would LIKE to make that a Bush-ism, he really ment what he said and was correct in using the term predecessor. There are enough bush-isms out there without making something that isn't wrong into one.

CharlesP

Some other scenarios of non-war wars

[n-baxley]

OK, in the case of Bush Jr, Congress gave him the power to wage war in Iraq. Here are some examples of "war" that wasn't declared by Congress.

Eisenghower - Korea
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon - Vietnam
Reagan - Greneda
Clinton - Bosnia

Re:Some other scenarios of non-war wars

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

Not to pick nits, but here's some corrections:

Truman,Eisenhower - Korea Kennedy - Bay of Pigs

I bet if we go back further, we could find more.

Re:Some other scenarios of non-war wars

[TykeClone]

I'd take a bit of issue with Nixon and Vietnam. It was already going when he was first elected.

Would you blame Kerry for Iraq if he won? Would you blame him for it if he "stayed the course" after being elected because we were already there and couldn't leave without causing more problems?

Re:Some other scenarios of non-war wars

[n-baxley]

You're right of course. I couldn't remember who exactly started that one so I just through everyone one in. ;)

Re:Some other scenarios of non-war wars

[n-baxley]

I bet we could. I think Teddy Roosevelt had several of them.

Re:Some other scenarios of non-war wars

[TykeClone]

No problem. It's kind of funny that Vietnam is remembered as "Nixon's War", but all he was doing was staying the course set Kennedy and expanded by Johnson.

Re:You distribute Anti-Cyberterrorism kits?

[gothzilla]

For anyone who might be interested, these are the files in the kit.

AAW6.exe 2/24/04
CWShredder.exe 2/28/04
HijackThis.exe 2/28/04
PSFree.exe 5/9/04
spambayes-1.0rc2.exe 7/5/04
StartupList.exe 2/28/04
zlsSetup_51_011.exe 7/31/04

Re:Shenanigans!

[N3WBI3]

So fix cars for a living, I bring you my car and say I give you the authority to fix my car. So you replace the A-Frame, and the linkage, when I come back and complain I did not approve you fixing the A-frame and the linkage am I right?

Re:Shenanigans!

[gothzilla]

If you gave authorization to "fix my car" then yes, replacing the A-Frame and linkage was authorized.
If you had said "Fix the alternator" then no it wouldn't be.
Congress and the house authorized nothing. They passed the power to make the choice to invade or not invade to the president, so the analogy doesn't fit.

Even God clearly has an opinion:

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't bashing if even God is against Bush.

Re:Even God clearly has an opinion:

[daehrednud]

Unfortunately the hurricane doesn't just do damage to the line representing where the center of the eye passes, everything for around a 100 miles surrounding the eye gets hurricane force devastation.

Here I thought conservatives were suppose to be the nutty religious types.

Call for civility

[jgardn]

I am getting quite tired of the baseless claims that people are making. We complain and complain because of the poison that is in politics. Well, let's get our act together and fix it.

Starting right now, let's all be a lot more civil.

Despite our political differences, we are all countrymen, in the national sense and in the sense that we all live in this world. We should respect each other and never ever attack someone's character. Let their actions speak for their character. People will be smart enough to judge for themselves. This includes everyone from John Kerry to George Bush to Saddam Hussein down to everybody in this forum.

We are all able to share our opinions. When we do, let's be clear by prefacing such statements with "I believe" or "I think" or "My opinion is". Let's never ever try to represent opinion as fact.

When we do discuss fact and logic, let's be very careful to get things right the first time. Quote your sources accurately.

The way you attack factual and logical arguments is by attacking the individual claims. For instance, if I claimed that Sadr City is now peaceful, you would attack that claim by showing me reports that it is not. You wouldn't attack that claim by calling me a liar.

If you want to end the poison in politics, you end it with yourself first. Here are my points again.

1. NEVER attack a person or their character.

2. ALWAYS preface your opinions with "It is my opinion that..." or "I feel that...".

3. ALWAYS support claims of fact with evidence, and always quote that evidence accurately. Show your logic in clear steps.

4. ALWAYS attack the claims and the logical steps people make with more or contrary evidence.

Re:Call for civility

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a NAZI!

How's that?

;)

Re:Call for civility

[CmdrSam]

What do you do when someone's political position is an attack?

"Homosexuality is wrong" or "poor people are poor just because they're lazy."

Re:Call for civility

[Wraithlyn]

Not that I think it will really make any difference, but thanks for posting that.

The whole political debate seems to have become nothing but ad hominems, and presenting opinions as facts.

Sometimes I tell people they should phrase their opinions as such, and they often say "Why should I? Everything I write is my opinion, that should be obvious".

Re:Call for civility

[lsmeg]

God I wish this was an effective strategy. I really do. But it just seems (to me) that the one who can most effectively sling mud is the one most likely to win.

If you've got candidate #1 playing it good, never attacking, promoting their platform, etc, and candidate #2 discrediting and attacking #1, people will say, "Well, I don't know about #2, but it sure sounds like I don't want #1 in office..." So #1 has to fire back and make sure #2 looks bad too.

This seems to be the unfortunate reality, and it applies to both sides of the political fence.

Re:Call for civility

[jgardn]

Here in Washington State, we had an intense race for the Republican party nomination in the 8th Congressional district. There were five good candidates, each of them honorable and experienced. Any one of them would have made a fine candidate. However, people tended to favor Sheriff Reichert because he was an all around good guy.

Two or three of the other candidates began to sling mud in the traditional sense. They brought up the fact that Reichert had at one time supported Sims, a very liberal democrat. Of course they tried to make it look like Reichert supported Sims and his policy, when in fact Reichert was merely supporting his boss's actions with relation to the police force.

In response, Reichert showed up to a debate, and read a statement to the effect of, "Since some of the candidates here would rather sling mud than talk about facts and issues, I am withdrawing from this debate."

You'd think that refusing to debate would be a sign of weakness, right? But Reichert still won the nomination, and he won it without ever calling into question the character of his opponents. He kept himself focused on issues and facts, and never once got sidetracked into calling the others names.

I believe that by not slinging mud and by taking the high road to avoid the mud altogether, it makes a candidate stand out.

Re:Call for civility

[sckeener]

1. NEVER attack a person or their character.

2. ALWAYS preface your opinions with "It is my opinion that..." or "I feel that...".

3. ALWAYS support claims of fact with evidence, and always quote that evidence accurately. Show your logic in clear steps.

4. ALWAYS attack the claims and the logical steps people make with more or contrary evidence.

Wow...are you suggesting we combine southern charm with Yankee fact?

hmmm...I guess the race for the white house is about whether you want a southern charmer as Prez or VP.

Re:Call for civility

[crashnbur]

Actually, NEVER preface any thought with "I feel...", because feeling relies on emotion rather than rationale. Use "I think..." or something like it instead.

The word is "Successors"

[GQuon]

The word is "Successors", right? He wanted to preserve them for his successors.

There must be some kind of bi-partisan time-travel scheeme at work here. Or maybe that episode from Futurama with Nixon's head is becomming reality. That would be so cool! Go mechs!

Re:The word is "Successors"

[mooingyak]

Actually 'predecessors', as in those who came before him. It was not a slip of the tongue as near as I can tell, but rather he was voicing the opinion that he did not have the authority to overturn Clinton's pardons.

I'm no Bush fan, but let's keep the attacks to legitimate complaints instead of made up BS.

Re:The word is "Successors"

[BFedRec]

Well, he actually didn't mean successors at all. He was referring to something Clinton had done. Somebody posted the info as a reply to a request for clarification here:

http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=122 91 7&cid=10334640

But the quote is from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20010129 -7 .html

Q Why did you decide not to challenge the Clinton pardon, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, on Marc Rich? First of all, I didn't agree with the decision. I would not have made that decision myself. But the ability for a president to make decisions is -- a decision on pardons, is inviolate, as far as I'm concerned. It's an important part of the office. I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well. And that's why I made the decision.

So while people would LIKE to make that a Bush-ism, he really ment what he said and was correct in using the term predecessor.

Re:The word is "Successors"

[spitzak]

Like a lot of that story, things are taken out of context. I also believed this was some Bush slip-of-the-tongue util I saw the actual post here. He really was referring to Clinton, and unless he expects Clinton to be re-elected after him, Clinton is a predecessor!

Re:Shenanigans!

[N3WBI3]

Bush was given authorization to use force, not just to throw more sancations...

Re:You distribute Anti-Cyberterrorism kits?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Like I said- haven't had time recently and at least two of those are outdated and one more needs to be removed and replaced with a more general anti-virus program, if I can find a good freeware one (everything in that list is either Open Source or Freeware. The out of date programs are AdAware (AAW6) and Zone Alarm Free (version 5.1.011))

my favorite presidential quote, of late:

[pb]

"We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us." -- Abraham Lincoln, 1864

Re:See what extremism (liberal or conservative) do

[div_B]

You might start by reading Declaration of War over at wikipedia. It's far more informed than your little diatribe. Editors: this is not news, this is nonsense!

Granted, far more interesting news on the warmongering front can be found here, and I quote:

"...the Prime Minister faced yet more unwelcome news over the weekend. Confidential Foreign Office documents were leaked to a London-based newspaper confirming once and for all that Mr Blair invaded Iraq, not, as he has repeatedly claimed, because he believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs, but because both he and George Bush wanted regime change. The papers also confirm that Mr Blair knew invasion for regime change was illegal under international law, and that he realised the only way of getting a sceptical British public and Parliament to back Bush's war was by mounting a case that Saddam was a threat to the world."

Wars can be over in 5 minutes

[ArmorFiend]

One Russian boomer off the coast of New York can render the eastern seaboard uninhabitible in five minutes. Waiting around for congress to vote to declare war would get us all killed.

There's a good reason the power has shifted over time.

Re:Wars can be over in 5 minutes

[Bombcar]

Aiieee! The boomers are coming! The boomers are coming!

Sound the alarm! Bring out our boomers! Yeah, even the baby boomers!

Re:Wars can be over in 5 minutes

[RsG]

Actually boomer = nuclear missile submarine. Like the Typhoon (remember "the hunt for Red October?). However the grandparent is still BSing; the cold war is over and the policies that made sense then are no longer sound.

Nothing, and I do mean _nothing_, the president of the united states can do in five minutes will make the slightest difference in the "war on terror". The conflict at the moment is over civilians launching terror attacks against targets on US (and other nations) soil. Really the people who will make the US safe are not the prez and the dept of homeland security, but rather the law enforcement/intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI etc). These are the people who can stop the terrorist, not some HomeSec gestapo. And Bush has damaged the credibility of the States' military intelligence with the whole weapons of mass destruction lie.

You want to stop the terrorists? Then stop electing warmongering cowboys. Really, the United States need not fuel the hatred of extremists by giving them free propaganda. Acting out of fear, and allowing yourselves to be cowed by a snake oil salesmen who claims he will make you "safe" will only make things worse. Kick the bum out of office. And stop picking fights with pissant countries a fraction of your size; it makes you look like a schoolyard bully.

Maybe it's time for a "slashdot of the right"

[mc6809e]

The source code is free, right?

Someone should use it to create a politically right tech news site.

Wait, forget politically right. I'd just be happy with a site that was neutral.

Re:Maybe it's time for a "slashdot of the right"

[elmegil]

Wait, forget politically right. I'd just be happy with a site that was neutral.

Sounds good to me. Just don't make one that's right and claim that it's neutral >coff-Fox-coff<

Re:Maybe it's time for a "slashdot of the right"

[CaptainPinko]

considering how both republicans and democratics are right-wing i don't see how anyone can accuse this of being left-wing

WTF?

[Experiment 626]

Okay, so there's a bunch of quotes from previous United States Presidents about how the president can only send troops to war if Congress has approved such military action.

Exactly as they did in the case of Iraq.

As one Senator in particular put it, in a September 2002 New York times op-ed, "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement... even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."

On October 11, that Senator voted to authorize military action in Iraq. A majority of his colleagues on Capitol Hill did likewise, and Congress passed the measure authorizing Bush to use military force in Iraq. The Constitutional process was followed, just as the elder statesmen in the article would have had it.

As for the Senator quoted above, he later began to wildly flip-flop on the issue, and several others, in an attempt to stake out political ground for a Presidential bid. His name is John Kerry.

Re:WTF?

[presearch]

Polly wanna cracker?

Re:You distribute Anti-Cyberterrorism kits?

[gothzilla]

Sorry if I implied that there was something wrong with the kit, but I figured if people knew what was in it they'd be less likely to slashdot your bandwidth.
AVP by grisoft is a good antivirus for windows. I've used it for a couple years and been safe. Just remember to change the default setting of checking every 14 days for updates to every 1 day.

HUH?

[arkham6]

Did i accidentaly type cbs.slashdot.org instead of politics.slashdot.org?

No

[Rufus88]

ALWAYS preface your opinions with "It is my opinion that..." or "I feel that...".

Not "I feel that...". Rather, "I think that". Opinions are not feelings. Emotions are feelings. People say "I feel that..." when they know their opinions are on shaky ground, because people don't have to justify "feelings". You're entitled to feel however you want to about something and there's no wrong way to "feel". But thoughts and opinions can be disputed and shown to be wrong, so people try to let their thoughts off the hook, and make them not subject to dispute, by calling them "feelings". It's a cop-out. You can say "I feel happy", or "I feel angry", but if you start off saying "I feel that", chances are that you're trying to disguise your belief as an impugnable feeling.

Re:Was Gulf War II authorized by congress?

[sevinkey]

I believe I remember the argument back in March 2003. The issue was that war was declared during the first gulf war, but no peace treaty was met.

So it didn't matter if the use of force was authorized. The Bush administration legally had the right to invade Iraq, because the United States was technically in a state of war with that country.

I'm with you on this issue

[sevinkey]

We need to re-instate congress into the war approval process. The reason the executive branch has been able to use this power since WWII is because no president has been punished for its abuse. I'm not saying that we should punish this president for going into war, as we had plenty of precident to use force without a declaration of war, but perhaps this country needs to look into stiffer punishments for presidents who use force without declarations of war.

Re:Was Gulf War II authorized by congress?

[pudge]

There's some question on Gulf War II- whether it was actual authorization or whether it was only authorization to allow the President to make his case.

No, there is no question of this. The bill, signed in October 2002, authorized the President to use military force, explicitly.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

There was a question for whether this bill SHOULD authorize military force, but require the President to come back to Congress before using force. But that was decided against.

There is simply no question but that Congress authorized the President to use force against Iraq.

Mostly agree.

[khasim]

"As if it wasn't obvious what decision he was going to make..."

Big time. Anyone with any brains whatsoever could see what Bush had planned. And how his administration used politics to get most people to support it.

"Moreover, even if we accept Kerry's argument that it came as a surprise to him that Bush would use any excuse to invade Iraq, it seems rather dishonest to vote to give the President blanket authority to declare war and then complain when that decision is made."

Pretty much. I think Kerry is way off on this one. But he doesn't know any other way to be against the current mess without contradicting his original vote.

"The truth is that Kerry, like virtually every other Democrat, was afraid of being labelled "unpatriotic" and "weak on defense" and so took the politically safe position."

Yup.

"Why don't we debate that, instead?"

Not as much interest. Not as much emotion. Not as much flamage.

"Why not talk about how we use patriotism as a political weapon?"

I think that would be a good topic. The first step would be to define "patriotism" (as opposed to "nationalism"). Too many of those words have been stolen by the politicians and re-assigned meanings.

"Why not talk about how that, more than anything Bush has done, needs to change if we're going to have a healthy democracy?"

Yup. But polarization is SOOOOO much more entertaining. That's why you only see the freaks on the news.

"The issue is not so much that Bush led us into a quagmire, it's that we and our elected representatives allowed him to lead us there."

Allowed.
Supported!
Endorsed.
And failed to consider any other options.

But they won't care. It isn't like our politicians are the ones who will die over there. Dead Iraqis won't be voting in our election.

Personally, I don't believe that anyone who voted for the war even CARES if people die in it or how big of a mess it becomes. They just like to PRETEND they care for the media. It's all about being tougher and getting the most votes.

We really need to overhaul our voting system and get a third party in.

Sometimes, it is an emotion.

[khasim]

People tend to have emotional reactions FIRST and then their brains kick in and try to paint it as "logical" by rationalizing it.

Not to mention that most people pick up their political views the same place (and the same way) they pick up their religion. At home.

So when you disagree with someone's political position, you are attacking his place in the world and everything he's been taught is good and right and holy.

That's why attack ads are so popular. They WORK and they work WELL. They play to the fundamental building blocks of politics: fear, unknown, different.

No way! Our Prez is master of the 5 minute react.

[ArmorFiend]

Nothing, and I do mean _nothing_, the president of the united states can do in five minutes will make the slightest difference in the "war on terror".

Au Contraire Monfrer! Our glorious leader spent the five minutes after he learned we were under attack reading "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren. The teacher has gone on record as saying he made the right decision to continue reading, because if he had jumped into action right then and there, the children might have been scared! All you cheese eating surrender monkeys just wish you had strong, steady leadership like that.

Re:Was Gulf War II authorized by congress?

[commodoresloat]

first week of October, 2001, as soon as it became apparent that bin Laden was behind 9-11.

It became apparent that bin Laden was behind 9-11 at about 9:00 AM on September 11th, and everybody who was the least bit familiar with bin Laden at the time knew it immediately when that second plane went crashing into the towers. Unfortunately, there were far too few such folks on hand in the Bush Administration at the time, and none of them among Bush's pets, the neocons....

The counterattack on bin Laden and al Qaeda's bases should not have even waited until September 12th, much less October 7th, giving them almost a month to hide, regroup, and prepare for the US attack. By that point most of the bases we bombed were empty. And that was an action where Bush could have taken the initiative without Congressional approval and have been totally confident that Congress would back him up when the time came. Hell, the UN would back it up! We had been hit hard and everyone knew it, and nobody would have begrudged us a quick and brutal revenge. We could have destroyed the bases, possibly getting bin Laden, pummelled the Taliban, and split, not winning us any friends but also not pissing off the entire Muslim world.

Instead, Bush waited to launch a huge nation-building adventure in Afghanistan, giving the Taliban a chance to prepare and letting the images of 9-11 and the world sympathy evoked fade. And he held back the big guns for his little adventure in Iraq, which has now become a terrible quagmire with disturbing images daily while the image of 9-11 is just a distant memory for most of the world.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not arguing for greater Presidential power; I just don't think Bush was competent and intelligent enough to use the Presidential power he already had. He doesn't need any more; he just should have stood up and made the right decisions at the right time. He didn't have the knowledge and understanding of al Qaeda at the time, and the only person on his staff who did was someone he wasn't paying a whole lot of attention to. Most of the people he listened to were (and still are) obsessed with their bizarre fantasy of remapping the entire Middle East.

Re:See what extremism (liberal or conservative) do

[slcdb]

Riiiiight. Because taking action to enforce U.N. resolutions was not a good enough reason for Bush and Blair. No, they needed a better reason.

Puhleeeze. Your tinfoil hat needs some tweaking.

Re:You distribute Anti-Cyberterrorism kits?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Ah, ok, thanks. Not that I would have noticed- I'm hardly using my bandwidth at all during the day, and because it's a aDSL line, it throttles at 128kbaud up (768kbaud down), so the most that happens is people can't get to my website for a while- I don't get charged for extra bandwidth because it simply doesn't scale. At all. If I get 4 56k users coming on at the same time, the site is effectively slashdotted for everybody else.

Thanks for the suggestion- I'll remember it when I find the time to update that package.

What is your point?

[OreoCookie]

George Bush got Congressional approval for both Afganistan and Iraq.

Re:No way! Our Prez is master of the 5 minute reac

[SuiteSisterMary]

"Excuse me, kids, I have to go to the bathroom really bad, all of the sudden. Bill, one of my Secret Service guys, will finish reading the book to you, and I'll be back in a few minutes."

Re:authorization based on lies != authorization

[Marxist Hacker 42]

If I hire Dick Cheney to tell you and 74 of your friends that some person is going to bomb Washington with anthrax drones that don't acutally exist, aluminum centrifuge tubes that don't actually exist, and yellowcake from Nigeria that doesn't actually exist, and you all vote to bomb that person first, does that mean you authorized it?

YES, it does- and it means you're as bad at checking your facts as Dan Rather.

Re:Was Gulf War II authorized by congress?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Kerry is telling us the story, though, that he thought the bill had certain pre-requisites for that authorization- specifically proving the WMD story through the use of US inspectors and seeking a new resolution from the UN approving use of force. Neither of these happened- therefore the section of the bill approving use of force should have been null and void.

But beyond that- I'm still agreed with your side- Bush sought approval, and asside from those pesky pre-requisites, actually GOT approval. And there's *some* proof that he even tried to fullfill the pre-requisites. So the original article is a real non-starter.

Revenge on the Nerds

[Doc Ruby]

Bush is the classic fratboy. Every movie since the 1960s with nerds in college has featured the fratboys in power as the enemy: stupid, scheming, privileged, and losers in the end. But on the small screen, Bush is their hero. Hollywood, why hast thou forsaken us?

Re:Was Gulf War II authorized by congress?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That's what I always liked about Reagan (and that's saying a lot for me). All of his wars without Congressional Approval (and I can think of three off the top of my head, there were probably more that I'm forgetting) were over in 48 hours or less. Well within Presidential Initiative. There is NO reason why Bush couldn't have done this September 12th, none at all.

Re:authorization based on lies != authorization

[js7a]

On the contrary by definition on entymology: authorization requires proper authority; subborning authorization is explicitly unauthorized. It is a clerical error to call an attempted authorization made on false pretenses an authorization. In cases of extreme lack of precision, that can be excused, but it is not accurate, and Pudge wants to make an issue of it.

Re:authorization based on lies != authorization

[Marxist Hacker 42]

But the role of authority is to check the facts *themselves* before giving authorization, thus preventing the lie. That simply did not happen in this case- or in the case of the Patriot Act- or in a lot of what our so-called *Representative* Democracy considers. That's what makes this an equal-opportunity blog- Bush didn't check his facts out of a bias, but neither did the Democrats. Heck, Clinton even believed that Iraq had WMDs- and signed an executive order supporting *any* mission that would topple Saddam short of full invasion (covert ops, like supporting the Kurdish insurgency).

Man wtf?

[Martigan80]

Well I could post a whole line of comlaints and gripes, but they all have been said and debated, but what still is left is why in the heck should the congress give themselves a pay raise even when they get "contributions" from lobbiests to vote a certain way. With all the money given out congress shouldn't even use our tax money to pay themselves.

Re:Man wtf?

[BCW2]

The pay of The House and the Senate should be the average or median wage of the nation, whichever is lower. Then we'd get some job and tax legislation that actually does something. They should also have their pension system dissolved and pay Social Security like the rest of us. They do not pay a dime, does that give anyone a hint about how much they really care. Which party they belong to is irrelevant, who pads there pockets is what matters.

Re:authorization based on lies != authorization

[js7a]

So, the senators arranged to meet with Cheney, Tenet, Jacoby, and the USAF guy who Cheney wouldn't let give his side of the story about the anthrax drones, Cheney lies, Tenet omits to the point of explicit falsehood, Jacoby violates his oath by refusing to correct them, and you blame the senators?

How exactly, again, does that line of reasoning go?

Re:authorization based on lies != authorization

[Marxist Hacker 42]

How exactly, again, does that line of reasoning go?

That as politicians themselves, they should have known that you can never trust a politician on *anything*, that there is always a hidden agenda. They thus should have, after talking with Cheney, Tenet, Jacoby, and the USAF guy, they should have proceeded to call the sources in the CIA reports at random to check out the story (and also, sent a diplomatic envoy to England to talk with M5, since they were one of the primary sources, as well as one to France to talk with Interpol, as they should have been one of the primary sources but were missing).

This should be SOP...but isn't.

Bush was going to do it with or without Congress

[revscat]

I don't know if you remember or not, but during the time when the war was still being debated the Bush administration made it quite clear that they were willing to go to war with Iraq without Congressional approval. They received such approval largely for political reasons, not because of any communicated belief in the constitutional process. I am particularly struck by this when comparing it against Eisenhower's quote:

"There is going to be no involvement of America in war unless it is a result of the constitutional process that is placed upon Congress to declare it. Now, let's have that clear."

Eisenhower wanted a formal declaration, something that this Congress did not, in fact, give, nor did Bush ask for it.

For what it's worth, I think Eisenhower was the last good Republican president.

Re:Bush was going to do it with or without Congres

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Uh- Eisenhower didn't get it either- that's why he sent in "trainers" and "observers" to Vietnam.

Re:authorization based on lies != authorization

[js7a]

I don't know. When you tell someone that his kids are about to be sprayed with anthrax, and you're supposedly in a position to know, and it's a serious felony to lie about it, and they don't ask to see the minutae, I don't know. Even politicians have to trust people, especially when they're being told that time is of the essense and millions of lives are at stake.

Re:Was Gulf War II authorized by congress?

[ttsalo]

The counterattack on bin Laden and al Qaeda's bases should not have even waited until September 12th, much less October 7th, giving them almost a month to hide, regroup, and prepare for the US attack. By that point most of the bases we bombed were empty.

This assumes they were known and weren't empty on September 12th, and that US had all the necessary hardware and information in place to move on 12th. I don't think that any of these basic assumptions is true.

Instead, Bush waited to launch a huge nation-building adventure in Afghanistan

What? "Huge nation-building adventure" is exactly what did NOT happen in Afghanistan. US has given very little money and attention to Afghanistan - instead the UN/NATO troops have tried to rebuild the country while US has been trying to find the Al Qaeda in the countryside. Given the amount of hate and rage the US policies have been generating in the middle east for decades, I don't think that US staying out of occupation and rebuilding is a bad thing at all...

--

Re:authorization based on lies != authorization

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The one thing the Bush Administration and the Kerry Campaign have taught me: trust nobody. Ever. Especially when they have monetary ties to starting a war.

Re:authorization based on lies != authorization

[js7a]

This is actually a pretty good question. You've got me thinking about, given Cheney's record, what exactly the senators should have asked to see. I agree they should have at least had their staff interview the analysts.

Re:authorization based on lies != authorization

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yes- that's the part that should have been the big clue, shouldn't have it- Cheney's ties to Halliburton, and their military contracts. I doubt that's the whole story- the neoconservative movement does NOT, despite appearances, revolve around a single politician. But it is a clue.

Re:Get it straight.

[Doc Ruby]

Since they starred the Teflon President in their '80s movie, we haven't been able to pin anything on that elephant. Kerry should learn from WC Fields' aversion to playing opposite children and dogs.

Re:authorization based on lies != authorization

[pixelphsr]

In the case of fact-checking Dubya's case for war... how would you propose that the Congress do that. They have to rely on what they are told by the CIA and other intel agencies. And who do you suppose is running those agencies? In the 80's and early 90's Iraq *did* have WMDs, or at least chemical weapons. Just ask the Kurds. The difference here is that in the intervening 10 years the UN sanctions had the desired effect of dismantling Iraq's weapons program and removing that threat. There was nothing left by the time Dubya had the chance to finish his daddy's war.

Re:authorization based on lies != authorization

[Marxist Hacker 42]

There's another way we know that in the 80s and early 90s Iraq *did* have WMDs- Rumsfeld gave US-made WMDs to Iraq for the Iran-Iraq war!

But on your question:

In the case of fact-checking Dubya's case for war... how would you propose that the Congress do that. They have to rely on what they are told by the CIA and other intel agencies.

US intel agencies are not the only ones around, nor are government intel agencies the only ones around. There are plenty of other news sources available.