War…who chooses?

Should Bush get the all-you-can eat buffet bar he desires or should he be spoon-fed a 2 oz jar of Gerber? Or, put another way, just what exactly should the role of Congress be in regards to the declaration, execution and conclusion of wars?

I believe that Congress shouldn’t call the play-by-play (bomb this city, spare that one) but should actively declare war (and not delegate such authority by offering a blank “start a war if ya wanna” card to the President). Likewise, if Congress believes we are in a situation where American interests are better served by ending our involvement, I feel it’s their obligation to put that on the President’s desk.

Advertisements
Posted in Iraq. 4 Comments »

4 Responses to “War…who chooses?”

  1. MOM Says:

    Hi, Rip,

    I like all of your articles and all of your responses. Why should an “elected” president have all of the power for war? (Especially, since in two elections, he barely squeaked by, and now we are bogged down in a no-win situation in Iraq with both the Sunnis and Shiites hating us, with tainted “intelligence” to begin the war, with no regard to the advice of U.S. diplomats in the Arab world (this I know for sure), with no one profitting from this absurd war except the Israelis (and Sadaam was a bag-of-wind), etc., etc. I know that the French knew that there were no WMD in Iraq. I suspect that foreign powers tried to force the French with the Limburgh incidence in Yemen to get on board with the Americans in the war against terror. How can one trust the “powers that be”? When former President Bush was interviewed by a French journalist, he was less than enthusiastic about GW running for President. One must assume that he knows his son…

  2. Em Says:

    I don’t know about the shoulda coulda woulda arguments, as I don’t think they are valid arguments at all until time machines become a reality.

    The reality right now as it stands is that if we leave prematurely, there is a vacuum that could be filled with ____ (take your pick, there are several unsavory choices). Anyone check out the ideas coming from Austrailia: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070427024429.z5eu5xpb&show_article=1
    Very logical article.

    Yes, I think Congress should be involved. It is unfortunate that it seems that Congress is acting on what is popular and not necessarily acting according to what is right. If there anyone out there that believes that what is popular is right does not have kids.

  3. MOM Says:

    The War Powers Act of 1973:

    Both Congress and the President should concur on committing troops. That Congress gave up that right to President Bush for Iraq, it shouldn’t automatically ensue that he is not accountable to Congress for the continued deployment of U.S. troops.

    Lots of people predicted in 2003 that the result of the war would be another Sadaam-type person taking control of Iraq. If we want to install another Shah-like person, that won’t work, either. Been there, done it. Partitioning Iraq would be resisted by most Arabs. (I suggested this to some of them and one would have thought that I was blaspheming.) What is there left to do?

  4. Rip Says:

    Mom –
    Thanks for the kind words. I agree that the law is on the side of greater congressional involvement.

    Em –
    Setting aside your opinion regarding the popularity/wisdom of the recent bill, do you believe it is within the realm of congressional responsibility or an over-reach by the Dems?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: