Does Bush Need a NEW War Authorization from Congress?

C

Cypress

Well-known member
The October 2002 war authorization was to disarm Iraq, and remove the Saddam regime.

Its 2007 now, and we're NOT fighting the same war, that congress authorized in 2002 - we're fighting in the middle of a civil war now. Even John Warner (R-Virginia) suggested that congress might need to issue a new authorization, approving our involvement in a civil war.

On the other hand, traditionally Congress has never tried to hamstring a president by making him get two authorizations for a conflict within the same country.


Thoughts?
 
You do make a valid point and technically correct too.
Bush has already had 3 strikes in Iraq, he should be benched.
 
won't happen; then the dems would be responsible for the aftermath. they want to keep givinb shrub enough rope to hang the repub party by 08. they won't take authorization away, and they won't cut off funding for the new troops.
 
You have in point in saying the war is over now that Saddam has been removed. That means we are not at war now. We are assisting the duly elected goverment of Iraq and that only needs congressional approval of any monies we loan or grant them. Nothing needed for our military assistance.
 
uscitizen said:
Any war not worth declaring is not worth having.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Then there would be no talk of "reauthorization" or of taking funding, etc. It protects the nation itself as the Senate isn't going to declare without the utmost evidence as it is a clear vote for war and there is no way to obfuscate and pretend that you were voting to give the Executive a big stick for negotiation....
 
Damocles said:
Just another reason for a Declaration... Either secure a declaration or don't go.
Click to expand...


I don't see how that changes anything.

If Bush had received a formal Declartion of War in 2002 to disarm and remove saddam, he'd still be claiming it gave him authority to fight in the Iraq Civil War in 2007.
 
He would never have gotten a formal declaration of war and he knew it, plus there are more loopholes in the undeclared war. And where there is loopholes there is opportunity for profit.
 
uscitizen said:
He would never have gotten a formal declaration of war and he knew it, plus there are more loopholes in the undeclared war. And where there is loopholes there is opportunity for profit.
Click to expand...
Which is my point. I am wholeheartedly and always against undeclared war. I was against this, and Afghanistan even, because in neither case did we declare war. To me, this is a run-around on Constitutional protection and intention. There is a reason it takes a 2/3 majority for a Declaration.
 
Cypress said:
I don't see how that changes anything.

If Bush had received a formal Declartion of War in 2002 to disarm and remove saddam, he'd still be claiming it gave him authority to fight in the Iraq Civil War in 2007.
Click to expand...

That's true. I think this will be an interesting turn of events over the next month or so if the dems are going to have a back bone with this.
 
Cypress said:
I don't see how that changes anything.

If Bush had received a formal Declartion of War in 2002 to disarm and remove saddam, he'd still be claiming it gave him authority to fight in the Iraq Civil War in 2007.
Click to expand...

Right cypress, but you know how it is when god tells you to do something and satan (aka liberals) are trying to keep you from doing it ;)
 
Cypress said:
I don't see how that changes anything.

If Bush had received a formal Declartion of War in 2002 to disarm and remove saddam, he'd still be claiming it gave him authority to fight in the Iraq Civil War in 2007.
Click to expand...
It changes everything. Without the declaration we simply wouldn't have gone. There is a very high likelihood that a declaration over Afghanistan would have been obtained but it would have been extremely unlikely in Iraq.
 
Damocles said:
It changes everything. Without the declaration we simply wouldn't have gone. There is a very high likelihood that a declaration over Afghanistan would have been obtained but it would have been extremely unlikely in Iraq.
Click to expand...
Agreed, on both counts.

The framers were, I think, correct in vesting Congress (alone) with the power to declare war. Yes, it's slow. It's supposed to be slow. On those EXCEEDINGLY rare occasions when we need to respond quickly, Congress has shown that they are capable of doing so.

If we had not allowed -- and Congress had not allowed -- this power to slide over to the Executive Branch over the past 40-odd years, we'd never have invaded Iraq. Or Grenada. Or Somalia, likely enough.
 
Damocles said:
It changes everything. Without the declaration we simply wouldn't have gone. There is a very high likelihood that a declaration over Afghanistan would have been obtained but it would have been extremely unlikely in Iraq.
Click to expand...


You're probably right. Although a formal declaration of war is no rock-solid guarantee against morally or legally dubious wars: Spanish-American and Mexican war being prime examples.
 
Nothing is gauranteed. It does however, especially with the worldview of today, present far more protection than this silly War Powers Act semi-approval without responsibility.
 
correct, Damo, Ornot and Cypress. Cypress, I would like to think we have grown a bit socially since the spanish american war and such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top