Anti-war Stance Is Right, Not Left

The New American (John Birch Society) ^ | February 6, 2006 | Gary Benoit

[akfroggy]

As a radical leftist I have to take exception to the author’s position that those on the left advocate going to war without an express act of congress. The right's insistence on demonizing the left leaves them blind to the fact that the elite of both “parties” have no interest in constitutional government or the common american citizen. Wake up and identify the enemy we all have in common, unrestrained corporate welfare capitalism.

[Blzbba]

"It is also no lie to claim that Iraq was part of the first WTC attack or that there were Iraqis involved in the OKC bombing."


I wish the gov't believed you about the OKC bombing. They sure rushed ol' McVeigh to the execution chamber!!

[trebb]

Unlike the left, we do not believe any one man should ever be entrusted with the awesome power of deciding when to go to war. It makes no difference if the president is a Republican or a Democrat, a conservative or a liberal. The Constitution assigns to Congress, not the president, the power “to declare war.” If America needs to go to war, Congress should declare it.

Democrat presidents were wrong when they claimed that the decision to go to war was theirs to make, and President Bush is wrong when he makes the same claim. Mr. Bush’s acknowledgement of last December that “as President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq,” overlooks the fact that this decision was not his to make.

How can someone use some real facts and still be so wrong? The President's power is limited and the Congress is the entity that can declare war. The President has a finite amount of time that he can keep our troops on any battlefield. After that, the Congress takes control. If the Congress didn't want us in a conflict, it could defund operations. In other words, the President cannot maintain an active conflict without the approval and complicity of the Congress.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

As a radical leftist I have to take exception to the author’s position that those on the left advocate going to war without an express act of congress.

"As a radical leftist?"

What the hell are you doing on FR then?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

If the Congress didn't want us in a conflict, it could defund operations. In other words, the President cannot maintain an active conflict without the approval and complicity of the Congress.

Under what possible scenario would it be politically viable for any member of Congress to vote to defund a military conflict while troops are bleeding overseas? Come now . . .

[GrandEagle]

How can someone use some real facts and still be so wrong?
Not hardly. After you take on a war, there is no backing out. You are so committed after the initial assault, retaliation,etc, that it renders the time limit on the war powers act irrelevant.
If you read the documents about the debates surrounding the writing of the Constitution you will find that the writer has this one right on the money.
There was even a debate on having the clause say that Congress had to "declare" war or "make" war. Declare was used because otherwise the Commander-in-Chief could not respond to an attack.
It was never the intention that a single man could get us so entangled in foreign affairs that we would have no choice but to continue.

Cordially,
GE

[GrandEagle]

"As a radical leftist?"
Nope, he's a FReeper with an assumed name to make a point.
I usually miss those, but I caught that one!

Cordially,
GE

[trebb]

Under what possible scenario would it be politically viable for any member of Congress to vote to defund a military conflict while troops are bleeding overseas? Come now . .

Ahhhh, political viability trumps conscience. I stand on my words, if the Congress felt strongly enough about it, the Congress could defund the operation and get the troops out. Just because they're moral cowards doesn't alter the fact that they do have the power.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Yep. Anyone with doubts about his motivation should read his letter to the press explaining it. It was all about Iraq not the Waco incident as the Treason Media pretended.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Nope, he's a FReeper with an assumed name to make a point. I usually miss those, but I caught that one!

Aha . . . a stealth freeper . . .

[Edgerunner]

In fact, it seems that the political spectrum in not linear, but parabolic,

I believe the conic section you seek is hyperbolic...

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I stand on my words, if the Congress felt strongly enough about it, the Congress could defund the operation and get the troops out. Just because they're moral cowards doesn't alter the fact that they do have the power.

Best to get house-of-cards political forces out of the equation altogether. There's no way around it: the War Powers Act is a travesty.

[GrandEagle]

There's no way around it: the War Powers Act is a travesty.
Have to agree with you on this one. The intent of the act was to allow the Commander-In-Chief the ability to respond to emergency situations but limit the situations that he would get into.
When the rubber meets the road though, it didn't limit anything.

Cordially,
GE

[XJarhead]

I've always assumed a declaration of war means the gloves comes off. Once war is declared, Congress cannot dictate the length of the conflict or demand that peace be made. It's "we declare war on Japan", not "We declare war on Japan but...."

In contrast, resolutions under the War Powers act constitute a more limited authority for hostilities. It's giving the PResident the authority to engage in military actions, but for a more limited purpose and with conditions. I don't see anything in the Constitution that bars Congress from doing that.

[GrandEagle]

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit the Congress from doing that. I agree.
My point was that it didn't really do anything because once you begin hostile action, you really can't back out.
The other poster made the point that Congress could de-fund the action, or even direct that it end. Regardless of how one feels about why or how we got into a conflict that would be irresponsible. There is no substitute for victory. Those who are determined to misuse our military power count on that.

Cordially,
GE

[XJarhead]

My point was that it didn't really do anything because once you begin hostile action, you really can't back out.

I'm not sure about that. Just as an example, go back to the Gulf War. Now if Congress would have issued a formal declaration of war against Iraq, President Bush would have had the full legal/moral/political right to go right to Baghdad and take out Saddam. But I don't see anything inherently wrong with Congress giving a more limited authority. "You can use U.S. forces to liberate Kuwait, but are not to pursue as a goal the conquest of Iraq."

You certainly can debate whether that's good policy. In that context, I think it was because there was no international support at all for conquering Iraq. But whether or not its good policy is a separate question from whether it should be unconstitutional for Congress to give a mandate more limited than total war. I don't think it is.

I just think its an interesting discussion when people start claiming that you have to have a declaration of war. The Constitution doesn't say that, and I don't see any logical basis to infer that is the case.

[spikeytx86]

I have supported the war from the start and have defended it to all the lefties who repeat the latest witty "news" from john stewart on Iraq. However I have lately been asking my self why we are still over there. We have held multiple elections, they have a constitution and government, Saddam and his gang are either dead or on trial, and for the most part the insurgency has lost it's popular appeal with the Iraqis. To me that sounds like victory. I am not claiming to be an expert but we have accomplished what we went in to do, the rest is up to the Iraqis. I know for a long time to come we will have to keep at least a small force in Iraq to protect against Iran and other potential foes like the force we have in South Korea, but we need to start handing over responsibility to the Iraqis, because if we keep fixing there problems what incentive is there for them to step up. We have won, the Iraqis have a democratic government, it's there country now, they need to step up. Personally I think we need reduce our force in Iraq by 50% and focus that force on training and raising there forces, assistance in major operations, and as a deterrent to outside forces. Rebuilding the country and policing the streets should be left to the Iraqis.

[King Prout]

***chilling beer***

I understand you have a pinglist: PreWarDocs
I'd like to join it, at least provisionally.

[eyespysomething]

** passing bottle opener **

Will do, you're added.