By Douglas V. Gibbs
Sometimes, I get ideas for articles, and jot some quick notes down because I am not in a position to write out the articles, but I don't want to forget the idea. Then, the notes, when I get home, get placed on a stack on the left side of my desk. Sometimes I use those notes, and sometimes some of them remain on that stack, until much later, possibly years later, I find those notes again.
The following was inspired by one of those old notes.
Ron Paul fans, and the War in Iraq
The cry that the War in Iraq is illegal is far from the truth. Not only does the President have the constitutional authority to wage war when he decides it is necessary, regardless of a declaration of war, but also Bush did, despite the rumblings that say otherwise, consult Congress before entering Iraq. He didn't have to, but he did.
Ron Paul and the lefty fanatics say we need to be out of Iraq, and that we should never have gone in in the first place. When Saddam's reign of terror ended, and the statue of him was brought down in Baghdad, Bush proclaimed allegedly "Mission Accomplished." (Yes, I know that was taken out of context by the Left, but stay with me on this) The liberal left proclaimed, "if the mission is accomplished, then why are we still in Iraq?"
Warlords, realizing that their grip of terror on the people was being challenged, fought back, and a battle against insurgents began. The Left called it a civil war, and they blamed America for it. And the Left has battled against our effort in Iraq ever since their denial that they authorized military force in Iraq (even though their support was captured on video). They have fought against the War in Iraq ever since the day they conveniently forgot that they too believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They changed their tune when they realized that being against the war was better for them, politically.
Imagine a surgeon cutting cancer out of a patient. What if after removing the cancer the doctors exited the operating room in triumph, mission accomplished, cancer's removed, and left the body laying there open, under the attack of infection, refusing to finish the job and sew up the body because they were told they were had only gone in to remove the cancer?
If we leave Iraq too soon, or pull out every last piece of our presence, the cancer will return, or a worse infection, like al-Qaeda, will gain influence and be stronger than it was before. If we completely pull-out of Iraq, we will be handing Iraq over to the very enemy we swore we were protecting them from.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
3 comments:
Son, you must've been reading the Communist Manifesto.
What part of US Const. exlicitly enumerates POTUS' nonexistent power to "wage war" without a Congressional Declaration of War??
"Not only does the President have the constitutional authority to wage war when he decides it is necessary, regardless of a declaration of war, but also Bush did, despite the rumblings that say otherwise, consult Congress before entering Iraq. He didn't have to, but he did."
If you answer War Powers Res. You really have no clue WTF you're talking about.
Even then, it specifies when WE are ATTACKED, and/or it's imminent and must get an official declaration with Congress, after initial wave within a specified date (if you read it, you'd know, but from your statement, it's clear you don't).
To "wage" literally means to carry on (with pledge, if to nod its etymology). Which means to continue on, as in a prolonged campaign, which is why that specific term was used in the Const. Thus, even in your stated use of the word, it requires a declaration of war.
Unless, you actually believe Iraq attacked CONUS??
What part of "conservative" 'values' says endless multi-trillion dollar war, based on lies (unless you're hiding WMD inside your ass)??
You cannot be a conservative "limited govt" guy, when you delude the POTUS doesn't need to follow his Constitutional oath.
Frankly, everything you've stated here, makes you sound no different than the socialist and/or commies you're supposedly ridiculing. Think they have a word for that: RINO, no?
LOL
In fact, any redistribution of wealth and State-command control economy is the very definition of socialism. What you want: undeclared objectiveless wars/nation building, UnConstituional wars, and the war industry all cannot exist without the current socialist corporatist paradigm and tax-theft structure.
Anyone who thinks POTUS doesn't need a Cong. Dec. to "wage war," is just a statist looking for tax dollars to milk, like every commie statist fascist (merger of corp+state).
So you're the Commufornia's version of a "Conservative," eh??
No wonder I haven't heard of you.
And you have a radio show...on the Constitution??
LOLOLOLOL
Based on cross-referencing Madison's notes on the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Articles of Confederation, and various correspondence between the founders, the power to wage war and declare war are two different authorities. As for the War Powers Act of 1973, it is unconstitutional since legislation cannot constitionally modify the authorities if the executive. Only an amendment can. I appreciate your confidence in your position but you need to verify its accuracy.
Additionally, the power to wage war is not unchecked. Congress has the authority to defund it, or impeach a president if they believe he is abusing that power.
Post a Comment