Here's what Congress had to say about the Haiti situation:Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I could, however I was reading about Haiti and Clinton's use of force there and in Kosovo and found this quote and thought it was very fitting since the thread in question was about whether Bush could attack Iran without asking for congress.Originally posted by: LumbergTech
can you argue without mentioning Clinton?Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If you step away from your partisan hatred of Bush for a second you might realize that EVERY President feels he can do what he wants with the military.
Clinton said the same thing I?ll post the quote in this thread as well:
"I thought I ought to say clearly today that I would strenuously oppose such attempts to encroach on the president's foreign policy powers," Clinton said in an interview with radio reporters. "The president must make the ultimate decision" about committing U.S. troops, he said.
I am sure that if I looked I could find similar quotes from every President who has used military force without congressional approval. However, the Clinton one was the one that was right in front of me.
"the President should have sought and welcomed [c]ongressional approval before deploying United States Armed Forces to Haiti."
That is pretty much what congress says every time ANY President uses the military without asking.Originally posted by: her209
Here's what Congress had to say about the Haiti situation:"the President should have sought and welcomed [c]ongressional approval before deploying United States Armed Forces to Haiti."
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That is pretty much what congress says every time ANY President uses the military without asking.Originally posted by: her209
Here's what Congress had to say about the Haiti situation:"the President should have sought and welcomed [c]ongressional approval before deploying United States Armed Forces to Haiti."
They stomp their feet and complain, but then roll over, because in the end they know they have no power to stop the President from doing what he wants.
Now if Bush took the troops surging into Iraq and made them take a right turn and invaded Iran then I think congress would have a leg to stand on. But if all Bush did was to bomb the Iranian WMD sites and maybe a few terrorist training camps congress would be powerless to stop him.
Originally posted by: Lemon law
To non-Prof John---who wrote---But if all Bush did was to bomb the Iranian WMD sites and maybe a few terrorist training camps congress would be powerless to stop him.
I sometimes have some difficulty figuring out who is more morally bankrupt and shortsighted---you or GWB&co.?
But since---as far as I know---no one is crazy enough to vote you into a position of power---that makes GWB&co. as the real threat.
And you are just some homegrown nut who is clearly totally batshit nutso.
Lets go back to your statement---on the surface we have already agreed GWB has the Presidential authority to order a bombing of Iran on other threads. And how can congress stop the President after he has done it? And for that matter---I can take my car
out on the highway---and suddenly steer it off the road---and maybe hit people, mailboxes, houses or trees---the fact that I can do
it does not leave me drunk with power.
So the only remaining question is-------IS IT A WISE OR INTELLIGENT THING TO DO?-----------and if you can't see that a bombing of Iran
would be a stupid act with long term consequences disasterous for the USA and the rest of the world ---there is just no hope for you.
Maybe a chess analogy might help---its a game I enjoy---and to be good at it you have to think many moves ahead---or that attractive looking move will lead to your certain defeat a number of moves later in many situations.---and both you and GWB&co. seem unable to think 1/2 of a move ahead.
So let me explain to you why such an Iranian bombing would be foolish.
1. To do anything in such a bombing---GWB&co. must take out the nuclear sites----but seems Iran has learned a thing or two about past tactics---so Iran has put its nuclear sites deep underground---deeper than the most powerful conventional explosive bunker busting bomb could penetrate. Which means GWB is going to have to use a low yield nuclear bunker buster. Now how is that going to sit with the rest of the world??????------if you don't think the rest of the world would not take notice and take steps to isolate a USA gone totally bonkers---guess again.
2. Iran learned a thing or two since Saddam invaded Iran---they now have a decent military and many many very good anti-tank missles.
Boots on the ground trying to invade anywhere inside of Iran would meet stiff resistance. We could wound Iran---but not seriously damage a very pissed off nation.---look how mad we got over 911!
3. Iran would blockade the Persian Gulf stopping the oil flow that keeps the economies of the world moving. Faster than overnight speculators would make existing oil supplies unaffordable.
I could go on and on regarding reasons not to-----but you and wacko neo-cons can only see flowers and candy being the reward of unprovoked agression.------in the real world it don't work that way as we are finding out in Iraq.
I would just love to get you over a chess board and beat you at a game of chess---it would be so easy given how far ahead you think---and it would't physically hurt anyone in the process.