Repeal war power (Ithaca barf alert)

Ithaca Journal ^ | 08/12/02 | J. Dix Wayman

[Behind Liberal Lines]

The U.S. Constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress, deliberately removing it from the President/ King/Emperor.

After September, the Congress, somewhat understandably, but stupidly, gave the the Bush Administration a "blank check" to carry or initiate war any place it "found terrorists" -- read, anywhere it wanted. Every person who desires peace and/or has known war should demand that Congress repeal that "blank check" and return the war power to the people through their elected representatives.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

The U.S. Constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress, deliberately removing it from the President/ King/Emperor.

When they start letters with "president/king/emperor" you have a pretty good idea where they are going.

Funny how they never use phrases like that to describe the Clinton White House.

After September, the Congress, somewhat understandably, but stupidly, gave the the Bush Administration a "blank check" to carry or initiate ....

"Blank check"? You mean congress agreed to authorize "whatever funds necessary" to the military?

Strange I don't remember that.

Can you say "mix metaphors? I knew you could.

Every person who desires peace and/or has known war should demand that Congress repeal that "blank check"

But what if you have known war and don't desire peace? What do you do then?

Our government has been seized by the military/ industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned against in his farewell speech. If you doubt this, your head is in the sand.

Translation: I have no proof to back up my point of view, but you disagree with me it is you who are ignorant.

Being an 800 lb., militaristic, world-meddling gorilla along with our blind, misguided support for Israeli oppression of the Palestinians ...

Yeah, nothing says "blind support for Israel" like calling for peace talks and/or the creation of a Palestinian state.

The U.S./ British sponsored U.N. sanctions against the Iraqi people are already a crime against humanity.

I've said it before and I will say it again: why are sanctions against Iraq a crime against humanity, while sanctions against SOUTH AFRICA were just hunky dorey? Especially since only one of them is trying to wage war on us (and it aint South Africa)

We are even now bombing in the northern and southern no-fly zones, which has only served to make the people hate us more than they hate Saddam.

I have a feeling the German people hated us quite a bit during WWII. I don't recall us stopping the bombing because it "only served to make the people hate us more than they hate Hitler".

Treating other countries with respect, even if we despise their leaders ...

Great. Now war is a form of "dissing" another country?

Geez.

I could be wrong but it seems to me that in a nation such as Iraq, they only respect strength.

begin by telling members of Congress that we won't stand for more war with Iraq

Again, exactly when did Saddam Hussein become a "good guy"?

...and that the blank check must be repealed.

Again, with the mixed metaphors.

Ithaca is the City of Evil.

(To order "Ithaca is the City of Evil" merchandise, courtesy of FREEPER "the," Click Here).

(And to order "Ithaca is the City of Evil" bumper stickers [and support Free Republic],Click Here and enter "Evil" as a your keyword.)

[Behind Liberal Lines]

City of Evil bump

[cynicom]

Lines...

Right on... The King/Emperor remark was the red flag to a bull. The writer was not even smart enough to intelligently disguise his intent. What a doofus.

[tcostell]

Our government has been seized by the military/ industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned against in his farewell speech. If you doubt this, your head is in the sand. The Bush Administration is the servant of this complex.

A typical liberal argument. A rhetorical assertion followed by an insult. Not a single fact offered in support. Mind you, if it were a "good president" like anyone named Clinton, the problem to a liberal would be the reverse.

Well I guess the good news is that liberals are at least reading parts of the constitution.

Of course, it just reminds me of that quote from "A Fish called Wanda" Otto claims he's intelligent by saying "Chimpanzee's do not read philosophy!" And Wanda responds, "Yes they do Otto, they just don't understand it!"

I guess liberals are the same way with the constitution.

[Soaring Feather]

The U.S./ British sponsored U.N. sanctions against the Iraqi people are already a crime against humanity. We are even now bombing in the northern and southern no-fly zones, which has only served to make the people hate us more than they hate Saddam.

To the believers of this tripe, I say pack your bags and go stand beside the Iraqi people and fight for them from there, go live there, raise your families there, and then tell me how horrible America is!
I'm listening!

[Eagle Eye]

There are more than a few non-liberal people who believe that if the US is going to wage war that Congress should declare war. If the US has enough evidence to justify an attack on any sovereign nation, then it owes it to the country and military or declare war before or with the attack.

The War Powers act goes against the ideal that the Constitution intended for war to be a decision by the legislative, not the executive branch. It removes the accountability from congress.

A congressional declaration removes any ambiguity and commits full support to the military, something we didn't see in Korea, Viet Nam, or even now.

Supporting the War Powers Act, IMO, supports legislation that shortcuts that Constitution. It is just on more little piece torn from the document.

Caveat: this does not mean that the US must declare war to send in Marines to secure an embassy or to otherwise respond to immediate direct threats to national security or national interests such as Grenada or Panama. Bombing asprin factories would be out, however.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

There are more than a few non-liberal people who believe that if the US is going to wage war that Congress should declare war. If the US has enough evidence to justify an attack on any sovereign nation, then it owes it to the country and military or declare war before or with the attack.

Perhaps, but the liberal Ithacite clearly believes that there should be NO war and is hiding behind the "war powers" argument and is arguing FOR a constitution that he most likely doesn't abide by when it suits him otherwise.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Hmmmmm....now this is "interesting"...

Today's Ithaca Journal has another letter from another Ithacite, also making the "blank check" analogy, hinting at "military industrial complex" motivations and blaming Israel for unreast in the mideast:

I'm beginning to notice a lot of similarities between the war on terrorism and the war on Communism. It's now starting to look like a blank check is being given to the Pentagon as military budgets approach and exceed Cold War era levels. But the main comparison I see is that everything is justified by the "war" instead of standing up to public scrutiny, which is essential for a participatory democracy that many of us hold as ideal. Thus in the name of the war on terrorism, policies are enacted that the government and other powerful interests had hoped to enact for other reasons.****For example, military aid to Columbia to counter antigovernment armed forces there has skyrocketed because we are fighting "terrorists." When in reality it is more likely that we are trying to protect Occidental Petroleum's oil fields and pipeline. ****On a related issue, I read a recent opinion column in the New York Times by a military historian on the inevitable negative consequences of civilian killings during ...the current Israeli-Palestinian War ...these tit for tat killings will continue until the underlying causes are remedied; the most obvious one being a just peace between Israel and Palestine.

According to Google, the author, Tom Joyce, is a a professional paperhanger, and local union wonk.

I'm starting to wonder if we aren't seeing the start of a wave of Democratic "talking points" (as distributed through big labor) letters.

If so, once again, Ithaca leads the way on liberal thought.

Ithaca is the City of Evil.

[NativeNewYorker]

I'm starting to wonder if we aren't seeing the start of a wave of Democratic "talking points"

No doubt the talking point faxes, with made-to-order letters to the editor and "seminar callers" to talk radio, will escalate as we approach election day.

[Miss Marple]

How very astute of you! I am going to flag PhiKapMom and alert her to the latest in DNC talking points. Thanks for flagging me to this thread!

[Miss Marple]

Read the editorial, and then read Behind Liberal Lines's comment and the Letter to the Editor in #8.

Because Ithaca is Hillary country, I think we see Ms. Clinton's hand in this...early warning on talking points! Please forward to appropriate sources!!

[Soaring Feather]

I'm beginning to notice a lot of similarities between the war on terrorism and the war on Communism.

Hold on to your hats people they are just gearing up! We have seen nothing yet.

Ithaca is the City of Evil.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

I'm beginning to notice a lot of similarities between the war on terrorism and the war on Communism

Of course they ignore that we eventually WON the war on Communism (thank you President Reagan!) and that both communism and terrorism were/are EVIL.