The Necessity of Fear

The Atlantic Online ^ | December 28, 2001 | Katie Bacon

[goldilucky]

"You don't know by now that I have zero tolerance for BS? Mud, Bush was obviously an enabler when it came to Clinton's Kosovo policy. Why did he interfere when Congress was trying to put even some modest limits on Clinton's Kosovo actions? Granted the proposed Congressional action, that Bush was blocking, was too little, too late. But it was better than nothing and making no attempt to rein Clinton in at all. Why did Bush rush to Clinton's defense and do his dirty work? No, setting a date is not "the Executive Branch's Duty, not Congress's." Clinton was clearly acting outside of the boundaries of constitutional presidential powers. It WAS Congress's job to put a stop to it."

It is my understanding that Congress does have some powers that exceed the Executive Branch. One of them is declaring war; not the President!

[rdavis84]

"I don't have to "smear the differences between Clinton and Bush." By his actions, Bush has already done this. Facts are facts. This is what Bush did. If you don't like what Bush did, your gripe is with him, not with me. You would never accept this behavior from a Democrat, why do you accept it from Bush?"

That's the crux of many disagreements on FR lately. If you even Nearly set the same standard for the current Repub president as was set (theoretically) for Clinton, you instantly become "the enemy".

It's Bush that is blurring the supposed difference, we're just observers. I think a lot of people are suffering from disillusionment, and unfulfilled expectations, and they're reacting the same as the Dems did.

[goldilucky]

"I think the reason why the founding fathers set up the constitution giving Congress the power to declare war was to guard against a president, who wants to be emperor of the world and drag us into wars all over the globe."

Absolutely. The purpose of the checks and balance system was to prevent undeclared actions by a sitting president from ever taking place.