Some people found this speech remarkable for the president's admission that a thing or two might have gone wrong in Iraq. I found it remarkable, and depressing, because of this quote: "As President, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."
Why remarkable? Because no one else seems to be even a little bit concerned that the president so blithely confounds the express intention of the Founding Fathers, who labored to craft a Constitution that would deny to any single person the power to take this nation into war.
The founders' intentions could not have been more express. Their logic could not have been sounder. Yet to even suggest that we should now follow their wishes is to step into tinfoil hat land. Some argue that Congress authorized the war when it passed a resolution deferring to the president. It authorized no such thing. It simply abdicated its constitutional responsbility.
Under the founders' scheme of government, no president, and no human being, could ever stand before Americans and claim responsibility for starting a war. That the founders' wishes have been so ignored and neglected over the last 50 years has been the greatest challenge to democratic rule this country has ever faced.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
It's the "language thing" on a large scale. And yes, very disturbing.
David,
The Supreme Court has upheld that a formal declaration of war need not contain the words "we declare war", which, apparently is your argument. That is, that the resolution authorizing war did not authorize war. You're wrong, it did. Period. No Argument. You lose. We are at war.
Basicly, President Bush is asserting his ownership of the war. Why should this bother anybody? Moonbats have been spewing for the last couple of years about how it's "Bush's War". Apparently he argrees! You're just upset that things are going well in Iraq and he's taking the credit! Well, sir, he deserves the credit!
No, Rich, that's not what I'm arguing at all. The resolution neither declared nor authorized war. It left it up to Bush to decide whether to have a war or not.
So what's wrong with that? Precisely this: That left room for congressmen to say later (as some have), "Well, I voted for the resolution because I didn't want to tie his hands. But I didn't expect him to go to war."
That's exactly the sort of escape clause the Founding Fathers wanted to bar. Again: They wanted it absolutely certain that no single person could make the decision to start a war. They wanted Congress explicitly and specifically on board, with no escape hatches, regardless of whether the declaration contained the words "we declare war."
No president has any business asserting ownership of a war. Wars are fought by, on behalf of, and at the discretion of, the American people. Successful or otherwise, it's our war, not his.
Finally, it's just insane to suggest that I want things to go badly in Iraq. That would be bad for me, bad for the country and bad for the world. Unfortunately, I'm not as persuaded as you are that things are going all that well.
David,
Sounds to me like you have a beef with Congress, so why are you slamming the President?
Your comment that congressmen are saying: "Well, I voted for the resolution because I didn't want to tie his hands. But I didn't expect him to go to war." shows how the left is lying. The foolishness of a statement like this should be spanked by an active media. Bush lied? No. He told the truth, when 8 years of Clinton must have created an expectation of presidential lies. Those congressmen that have spewed moronic statements like this are lying, and they aren't being held to account.
Also, the founders intentions are well layed out in the constitution, and in it they give the Executive Branch plenty of powers. The President doesn't have to ask permission of Congress to exercise the powers outlined in the constitution.
Rich,
I'm not slamming the president. I blame all presidents (except maybe Eisenhower), both political parties and both houses of Congress over the last 50 years.
Holding Congress accountable is precisely my intention. Respect for the Constitution would have compelled Congress to vote down the resolution and direct the president to seek to resolve the conflict through peaceful means. When the president concluded that no peaceful solution was possible, he could have returned to Congress and asked for authorization to go to war.
That's what the Founding Fathers intended. That's what the Constitution requires. And that would have made everybody accountable.
I'm not slamming the president. I blame all presidents (except maybe Eisenhower), both political parties and both houses of Congress over the last 50 years.
Of course you were slamming the President, he's the one you quoted, he's the one that you suggested who "blithely confounds the express intention of the Founding Fathers", and he's the one you accused of "starting a war".
Holding Congress accountable is precisely my intention. Respect for the Constitution would have compelled Congress to vote down the resolution and direct the president to seek to resolve the conflict through peaceful means. When the president concluded that no peaceful solution was possible, he could have returned to Congress and asked for authorization to go to war.
Respect for the Constitution would have done that? That is a stretch of logic.
That's what the Founding Fathers intended. That's what the Constitution requires. And that would have made everybody accountable.
So Bush stands up and says he's accountable, and you lump him in with those who won't be?
Of course you were slamming the President."
OK, I should have said, "I'm not just slamming the president." But he's the guy who said he started the war, not me.
"That is a stretch of logic."
Is it? James Madison, who knew a thing or two about the Constitution, wrote:
* “In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department.”
* “The power of the legislature to declare war, and judge of the causes for declaring it, is one of the most express and explicit parts of the constitution. To endeavour to abridge or affect it by strained inferences, and by hypothetical or singular occurrences, naturally warns the reader of some lurking fallacy.”
* “Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.”
* “it has grown into an axiom that the executive is the department of power most distinguished by its propensity to war: hence it is the practice of all states, in proportion as they are free, to disarm this propensity of its influence.”
I wrote more about Madison and war at http://www.billingsnews.com/story?storyid=4412&issue=135
"So Bush stands up and says he's accountable, and you lump him in with those who won't be?"
Precisely. All of those who favored the resolution should be lumped together. No matter what they say now, they are equally accountable.
David,
You said "But he's the guy who said he started the war, not me."
However, President Bush said "As President, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."
We were at war before he made the decision to go into Iraq. As commander-in-chief, of course he is responsible for that decision. Also, he didn't say he "started the war", I think he's made it very clear that the U.S. did not start this war, but we need to win it.
Are you all familiar with the title
"Commander-in-Chief"?
The founding fathers had it covered.
We didn't start the war? Then who the hell did?
Well, it would certainly be way too easy to assume that you guys are arguing about the Constitution because of its ambiguity. If the "Founding Fathers" (apparently one harmonic entity) had agreed on any of the things that you guys are arguing about, then it probably would have been much more specific. Hamilton, for instance, wanted the President to be a King, essentially, with absolute veto powers. If I wanted to, I could find a quote from him that justifies the entire war. I could probably find a quote from Jefferson (before he became President) that does the exact opposite. But I won't do that because I think quoting any one of the Founding Fathers to justify any of my points of view is silly. so PLEASE, do me a favor, and stop talking about "what the Founding Fathers intended." It's a mistake that both Liberals and Conservatives make assuming that those guys were divinely inspired and all agreed on what they were putting on that paper.
It's a mistake that both Liberals and Conservatives make assuming that those guys were divinely inspired and all agreed on what they were putting on that paper.
Geesh. It's called the Constitution for a reason. If you want it changed, there is a built in instrument for that. Until then, consider it divinely inspired, don't try to change it's meaning by linguistic dishonesty.
I was hoping to let this hang on the end of this threard for a while, just to make clear david's confusion:
david said:We didn't start the war? Then who the hell did?
Post a Comment