Democrats Can End Bush War by Revoking War Authorization Resolution
Bush's Clever Attempt to Hijack the Language of the Debate Can Be Turned Around Against Him
There is a simple solution that Democrats must apply. Congress is the ultimate governing body entrusted with not only the power of raising funds, but also with the power of waging war.
The president is not able to declare war, that power is invested in the Congress (Art. I, Sect. 8). The executive branch is charged with carrying out the deliberate laws and policies of the Congress, not with making the laws.
Congress must exercise its responsibility and vote to deny and reverse the 2002 "war authorization" resolution, under colour of which Bush has assumed war powers. The power to create a standing army vests in the Congress, and only in time of war is the president able to exercise the power of Commander-in-Chief. Congress can withdraw or regulate authority for the standing army or for war. No war, no Commander-in-Chief, no matter how Bush postures.
Democrats must show some spine. They must simply eliminate Bush's ability to wage war on Iraq.
Stopping the war authorization would not eliminate Congress' ability to "wage peace" on Iraq.
The lessons of Viet Nam are relevant here. We dropped more explosives on Viet Nam than were expended by all sides in World War II, including the atomic bombs, all targeting another small nation of less than 30 million people. The dollar cost of the Viet Nam war per Vietnamese was huge, out of proportion to any possible war aim.
One simple calculation was that if the money expended on the war had been used to build roads, hospitals, schools and power plants, and purchase and give away consumer goods, cars and appliances to each resident of Indo-China, instead of wasted on soldiers, bombs and napalm, it would have been cheaper and more effective at achieving a free Viet Nam.
Congress should authorize dropping only good things on Iraq.
Instead of bombs, "arm" a new Peace Corps of volunteers to repair at least some of the destruction visited on Iraq. Bush's war, based admittedly on falsehoods if not outright lies, has not been of benefit to either of our peoples, and Congress needs to put an end to it immediately.
Bush wants to control the dialog, directing it to the false issue of "our troops or defeat", whereas the real debate must return to whether to authorize the war at all. We don't have to continue killing Iraqis and Americans.
Democrats have the power to just say no. They must recognize and exercise that power.
Published by doug korthof
Technically trained in mathematics, history and philosophy, formerly in the recycling business, IT teacher, contract programmer and freelance environmental campaigner. View profile
Pres. Bush's First Veto is Set to Deny Stem Cell LegislationPres. Bush is set to use his veto power for the first time by sending back legislation that would provide federal funding for research that could cure several diseases. While th...
Social Security Reform - President Bush: Redistribute If You Want to Pri...If President Bush wants more widespread support for privatization, he would be wise to incorporate distributive justice into his reform proposal.- Bush, War on Terror, Public OpinionFrom the controversy in George Bush's election in Florida to 9-11 to war to a recovering economy - yes, we talk about it all!
Did Democrats Throw the 2004 Presidential Election?Outwitting the Democrats in 2004, pundits spoke highly of Karl Rove. They also criticized Democrats for their poor strategy. It's looks like these pundits were wrong. The Rep...- The 'WOW!' of HDTV-ResolutionHDTV-Resolution and TV Picture Quality. A simplified view of HDTV-Resolution... What TV resolution is, how it is measured and how it relates to TV picture quality. Helps the consumer understand the awesome difference...
- Bush vs. Iraq: How the war on terror became a war on Iraqi human rights
- Republican Led Congress Even Less Popular Than Bush
- Orwellian Analysis of a Political Speech: President Bush's Inaugural Address
- Personal Stories About President Bush
- Did the Bush Family Help the Nazis?
- The New and "Improved" George W. Bush!
- Pres. Bush's "I Did Not Have Sexual Relations with that Woman" Moment
8 Comments
Post a CommentIraq war seems to be repeating Korea and Viet Nam all over again. Democrats are afraid to end it and be charged with the "defeat" even though "victory" has never been defined.
What would be "victory" in Iraq? What is Bush fighting for? Bush has not offered a coherent explanation. We are not going to annex Iraq, nor are we going to understand, much less change, that culture.
Truman got us into Korea, Ike got us out. Johnson escalated Viet Nam in 1963, it took Congress to end it by cutting off funds 12 years later.
The idiot Kerry was campaigning for an escalation of the war, so was Bush. Are we looking at another 12 years of this?
Congress can revoke war authorization and cut off funds.
It's their Constitutional job.
It wont happen, d-rats are defeatists, and appeasers. They are doing their best to turn this into another Viet-Nam. They know full well that they are in the majority and still can't pull the plug. You people misread the 06 elections. The "rats' know full well that Americans don't want to lose or leave in disgrace before the job is done. It's also ironic how leftists bash the very people that preserve their right to spew their pablum without fear of a visit from the political police in the middle of the night. "If Matrix was here, he'd laugh too"
in his nightly prayers to the Almighty regarding his unjust war in Iraq.
Also, one mustn't give in to the weak argument that "We would be abandoning Iraq to the terrorists" by bringing our troops home.
A war waged unjustly -- with unjust authority, unjust intentions, and unjust consequences -- will OF COURSE have an unhappy ending. It is not the fault of those who wish to bring the troops home, that Bush started the ball rolling in this direction. It is Bush's fault and his only. Just look at it this way. He doesn't take his much-touted Faith very seriously, because the historic Christian faith teaches one thing very clearly about war: either do not have it (pacifism), or if you do have it, let it be a just war (the just war theory of Augustine and Aquinas). One thing is certain: Bush's war mongering is not being done in God's will. Thus, bringing home the troops is not some kind of "sin" of liberal democrats; it is actually the RIGHT thing to do; i.e. "justice" and "mercy", which is what God is all about. One wonders what Bush says in his nightly p
This is really a breath of fresh air in this debate on AC. I agree with you that the same money could be spent by simply giving away good things to Iraq. I think you're looking at a situation where you have a Christian president (Bush) who willfully ignored the tenets of the Christian Just War teachings. He did not consider whether his motives were good, whether the end result would be peace and prosperity, and of course he lied to obtain authority to go to war. He thus violated ALL THREE of the criteria for a Just War!
The intent of the founders, IMO, clearly derived from the anguish at the time between "divine sovereigns" vs. "the rabble". There was scepticism that a country could be run by a college or committee, and this angst persisted for decades...it was regarded as a great experiment, allowing the people to vote on their representatives. In fact, the original "voting" only allowed a small proportion of rich white males to decide on the electors, which then voted as they decided. Subsequently, it was decided that the "experiment" was so successful, no other way of deciding things made sense.
But the founders created the Presidency to deal with foreign heads-of-state (at the time, mostly kings or despots) and to serve as the ultimate decision maker IN TIME OF WAR.
That did not give the president the authority to initiate, or to decide on the policy of war, as it did not give the president the authority to make foreign policy...all treaties must be ratified by the Senate.
What Bush ha
Good points, Doug. Unfortunately, the laws that Congress has allowed to be passed make it a quagmire to get back to its original, sole power to declare war. Congress can do it, but I'm not optimistic. My biggest point of frustration is idiots who point out, "Bush is commander in chief!" Yes, he is. Which means he can tell our military what to do. The Constitution, however, reserves the power of war to Congress -- they're the representatives of the people who have to die.
Very good points, and this seems to be the direction that some of those in leadership are heading to. I hope the movement expands, and that we are able to stop bush short of his regional war he so desires...