Skip to comments.Attorney General Gonzales "There was not a war declaration"
Posted on 11/28/2007 1:18:09 PM PST by ksen
click here to read article
I took less than a minute to respond to two one-line posts of yours. I'm not sure where you are getting the "3 pages of text."
Nice you have feelings about Iraq. Too bad your feelings don't count for anything at all. Your minority viewpoint does not get to trump our votes. Our Govt., of, by and for the people, is doing the will of the people. That you don't care for what it is doing matter not in the least.
Really? It's doing the will of the people? Is that why we had such stunning results in 2006 why the President's approval rating is through the roof?
Try winning some elections then your Neo Isolationist dogmas might matter but until they do, your minority opinions do not trump our majority rights.
LOL, how'd those globalist dogmas treat you in 2006?
In some cases yes, in some cases no.
given the accademic weakness of the source I hardly call it appropriate.
The source is the transcript of the hearings.
Did you bother to go to the source in the OP?
Yes. Just because CONgress doesn't possess the testicles to call their authorization what it is does not change what the authorization truly is.
Why does that sound like spin?
We used our military to remove the government of a sovereign nation and disbanded its army.
Normally I'd think that would take a declaration of war.
suropod: Yes. Just because CONgress doesn't possess the testicles to call their authorization what it is does not change what the authorization truly is.
If the AG was wrong why didn't Senator Brownback call him on it when he had the chance?
War has not been declared according to the executive branch of the government as spoken by its chief lawyer. If that wasn't the President's view then Gonzales would not have said it.
You speak for yourself. You sure as hell don't speak for me!
Part of it being that Congress refused to declare war lest they have to explain themselves to constituents. So they handed the responsibility to the President, knowing it provided them the cover they needed at home, and the opportunity to snipe at him for political purposes, etc.
They were and remain Cowardly.
I used to be able to give the speech that FDR gave to Congress, and do a damned good impression of him in voice, and word for word. It was a very short speech, for a politician. I have listened to that speech 5000 times and I always get the same feeling....the man (FDR) was pissed. He did the right thing. Yes, I think he was a great President, I don't agree with his politics, but when it came to politics or country, he put the country first, and that makes a Statesman vs a politician. Funny thing is that if FDR was on the democrat ticket today he would be running dead last in the primaries.
I didn't say they were.
I've posted plenty of facts in the form of testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee which you have yet to try and refute beyond the equivalent of "Nuh-uh!"
Iraq, as run by Saddam, was generally accepted as a country with a legtimate & acknowledged government. They had a place at the UN (dictator protection league - go figure) and had embassies pretty much worldwide.
Knocking over the acknowledged government of a country is usually considered an act of war.
But there is a disagreement over what constitutes a 'declaration of war:'
The term "Declaration of War" is not, in fact, mentioned by the United States Constitution. Instead the Constitution states, "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War, ..." without defining the form such declarations will take. Therefore, many have argued congressionally passed authorizations to use military force are "Declarations of War." That concept has never been tested in the American judicial system. Some, such as Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), argue that an explicit declaration of war is, in fact, a Constitutional requirement.
Don't get me wrong. I supported the war 100% and still support our troops 100%. I'm frankly disappointed because Russia smuggled Saddma's WMD to Syria using Spetnaz troops. There are rumors our satellites followed this covert exercise. Why Bush did not speak out about it is beyond me. If he had spoken up, all that 'Bush lied, people died' rhetoric would have never occurred.
Oh, well . . . Israel recently took preemptive action against some of Iraq's WMD. Anyway: There was no declaration of war by Israel either.
If war had been declared -- it is my understanding, that our troops would be getting more in federal benefits e.g. educational benefits, etc. But that is just my own understanding and I could be mistaken.
The Democrats, who were still running the US Senate in 2002, insisted that they get in on the act. They pushed thur the authorization of force as a Campaign year PR gesture. It was completely irrelevant to the legal case for liberating Iraq. The Administration never considered it, and does not now consider it, relevant.
It is foolish to insist on re-fighting and re fighting an argument you have lost every time you have brought it up since 2002 What you feel about Iraq is completely irrelevant
Nice you have feeling about what should of been done before going into Iraq Too bad that is all they are, feelings. They are wholly emotion based and irrelevant.
So since there was no war we can’t accuse the rats of TREASON?
No you do not.
There was no declaration of war against anyone, ever.
This soured me on GWB from the get-go, since the State Dept. maintains (under legal statute) a list of Designated Terrorist Organizations, which should have been the focus of a formal Declaration Of War (I include Hamas and Hezbollah and Muslim Brotherhood, JI and all the rest with al Qaeda).
I believe the failure to do this will go down in history as a monumental stupidity signaling the decline of America.
"The U.S. Congress does hereby issue a formal Declaration Of War against the organzation known as "al Qaeda", and all who support, enable, house, finance, or supply it or any one of its individual members."
There is no rule or higher authority to prevent this, the Declaration is what it is.
Yes, but we didn't really conquer Iraq or make it's people surrender.
We deposed it's ruler and then helped them replace him with a new, democratic government of their own.
I'm not sure what the legal implications are of declaring war versus authorizing the sue of force, but it does sound like a lot of political weasel words to me.
If you are using military force against another sovereign nation you are waging war in my opinion, so in my opinion we waged war, and Congress authorized waging that war despite being too cowardly to explicitly state that they were declaring war.
Actually the last time we declared war was on June 5 1942 against Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.