|
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : If she answers wrong she'll get spanked by Alberto Gonzales
That's her job. It's what all professional bullshit artists do.
I believe this is not a 'yes' or 'no' question. It is quite complex and the details for such an answer are not straight-forward. It is of course dependent on the exact scenario of which such an even would occur. The question is very broad and not specific, and not answering 'yes' or 'no' to such an ambiguous question is more than understandable. The authority of the President in US foreign policy is not something to be answered without a more specific understanding of the actual scenario being discussed.
The ballot question is making the assumption that it is a simple "Yes" or "No" question, when it reality it is not.
Like MS. Rice, I also believe that answering such a question in writing in some kind of long essay format would be more appropriate.
Soc -- I disagree.
Constitutionally, the answer should be "No."
Anything else is a "Yes," even if it is qualified.
It really is a simple Yes or No question, as presented.
Voted : She has to ask Bush first, the next time they meet "privately" at Camp David
The longer the answer the greater opportunity to show off her teefers.
elvislennon- It is not about showing off. It is about neceessity, as a very complex question is being posed that cannot be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no'.
When it comes to military action by the United States, it is NOT straight-forward or simple to explicate the roles of Congress and the President, in an unspecified scenario of what is actually being talked about.
Voted : Because she is trying to avoid any judicial review of such a declaration
Just another power grab by this "imperial" administration...to answer this question in the context in which it was asked might be a definite NO...in the event of a "defensive" action (an Iranian attack on the U.S.) the answer might be YES...therefore, like so many other assertations by this current group of executive branch holders, they assume the right (whether it's legal or not) and hope there's no backlash (which there usually is)...but there's a new sheriff in town with some deputies a posse that don't play that game like that last bunch of "rubber stampers"...
Soc:
She said she would answer the question, but never has. That's an important point.
And the implication of her non-answer is that she doesn't want to answer, because the Bush Administration has every intention of invading Iran, without Iran being a direct threat, and without asking Congress.
thesoothsayer- Yes, defense is one example in which permission from Congress for military action is not necessary. However, there are plenty more situations in which Congressional approval is theoretically and legally not needed for a President (any US President) to wage military action. There are loop holes all over the place, and the question posed the Ms. Rice has no simple answer. Her response was appropriate. But I think Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) needs to go back to reading basic text books on the issue if he wants to know the technicalities concerning military action and the role of the Congress and the President in all of the many, many varying scenarios, and all of the theoretical legal loop holes that are existent.
Next time he asks such a complex, broad and unspecific question, perhaps he should not act like it is a "simple yes or no question".
cranky- He wants her to point out the legal technicalities of the issue. She probably forgot about the question. Or she probbaly knows that if she points out the exact nature of the system, that he will specically blame her for it and try to make her look bad.
"because the Bush Administration has every intention of invading Iran, without Iran being a direct threat, and without asking Congress."
- There are scenarios where the President does not need to ask the Congress for approval, even if it is not a matter of defense.
Guest User- I disagree.
I believe the US Constitution says: "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War, ..."
- As you might have noticed, it is talking specifically about declarations of war. And as you may already know, there are circumstances in which 'military action' (the specific words used in the question to Ms. Rice) is used without a declaration of war. There are plenty of other types of military action, such as 'surgical air strikes', 'appropriate military response', 'regime change', 'military deployment', and so on. The Constitution legally refers specifically to a formal declaration of war in which Congressional approval is indeed needed. But not all military action is under the cateogry of declaration of war, and therefore, in some circumstances Congressional approval is not needed- especially in smaller commitments in which large amounts of money are not needed.
If you don't like the legal framework as it is now, I suggest you lobby to have the Constitution changed.
And Harry S. Truman dragged the United States into the Korean War without ever getting official authorisation from Congress. But I suppose because he was a Democrat, his disregard for the Congress was good and wholesome?
Soc:
"He wants her to point out the legal technicalities of the issue."
No, he wanted to know if Bush and his neocons felt they could start a war with Iran, with zero accountability. That's not a technical question, at all.
"She probably forgot about the question." And all of the people who work for her, who are supposed to do follow-up for her forgot also? If so, they are all incompetent. Interesting, that the charge of incompetence has been leveled at Ms. Rice by people on both the left AND the right.
"There are scenarios where the President does not need to ask the Congress for approval, even if it is not a matter of defense."
If that's Bush's position, specifically as it applies to Iran, then why couldn't Ms. Rice just come out and say that?
It looks to me like she cut and ran, because Webb had gotten too close to the truth about Bush's intentions toward Iran.
Voted : Because the true answer is "Yes"
Help her out, Deity. Please.
As Long as there is a vague or no answer, and no judiciary ruling they will continue to operate in the gray areas...note how quickly this administration backed off of the unlawful wiretaps fiasco, even as early as today, they are TRYING to keep the case from going forward...they do know how to keep their options open...
Voted : If she answers wrong she'll get spanked by Alberto Gonzales
She's probably afraid of getting in trouble.
Voted : Because she is trying to avoid lying under oath
CONdi is capable of answering yes or no, she merely refuse to do either...
cranky- I disagree.
His question was whether or not a President has the authority to launch a 'military action' on a country such as Iran without permission from Congress. The answer is not 'yes' or 'no'. If you want a one word answer- that would be: 'depends'. It is dependent on exactly what type of military action is being talked about. If it is a formal declaration of war, then no, President George W. Bush does not have the capability to do so without congressional authorisation. However, if it is a military action which is not a declaration of war, then the President, and that is, any President (not just George W. Bush) does not necessarily need Congressional approval. This is not unusual and has been done by quite a few Presidents in US history, both Democrat and Republican.
"If that's Bush's position, specifically as it applies to Iran, then why couldn't Ms. Rice just come out and say that?"
- This is what I meant when I implied that she was probably hesitant to answer the question because "she probably knows that if she points out the exact nature of the system, that he will specically blame her for it and try to make her look bad."
- Webb and you, are trying to make it appear that this is a specific issue of a stance of George W. Bush and his administration. It is not. It is a question broadly concerning the Constitution, military actions, Presidential authority, and Congressional influence- and it is merely using Bush and Iran as a mere ambiguous example. The answer to this question is not a position of the President, but rather that of the actual system itself and the theoretical technicalities of the Constitution, and a long legacy of which it has been practiced as such. Webb is a Senator, and I assume that he knows all about the Constitution, its theoretical loop holes, and the long legacy before Bush in which it has been practiced. It seems he posed the question of this issue of the technicalities of the system to Ms. Rice, specifically asking about Bush and Iran as an example, in order to make it look like it was Rice's / Bush's fault that the system is the way it is. It is not, the system has had these theoretical loop-holes long before them, and many adminstrations, Democrat and Republican, have made use of them and have made them common practice. The question posed is one that seeks an analysis of the entire American legal system concerning military action, an answer to which is dependent on exactly what type of military action is being talked about, and therefore cannot be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no'.
Is that enough, or should I keep going?
Soc: Not so. You are arguing the legitimacy of the policy, here.
I am not contesting the policy (here), I am contesting the legitimacy of her dodging the question.
The question was direct and specific -- "Is it the position of this administration that it possesses the authority to take unilateral action against Iran, in the absence of a direct threat, without congressional approval?"
If there are any flavor of that scenario where she believes the answer is Yes, then her answer should be Yes. If there are no situations that fit the criteria, then the answer is No.
Citing 'complexity' is a dodge that merely serves to attempt to avoid taking a stance and being accountable for it. It seems obvious that she is trying to leave a door open for future eventualities, without being forced to defend them a priori.
Guest User-
Now, has to why an answer wasn't given to this most blatantly obvious question (it should be blatantly obvious to a Senator, they should know about the Constitution): This is what I meant when I implied that she was probably hesitant to answer the question because "she probably knows that if she points out the exact nature of the system, that he will specically blame her for it and try to make her look bad."
- Webb and you, are trying to make it appear that this is a specific issue of a stance of George W. Bush and his administration. It is not. It is a question broadly concerning the Constitution, military actions, Presidential authority, and Congressional influence- and it is merely using Bush and Iran as a mere ambiguous example. The answer to this question is not a position of the President, but rather that of the actual system itself and the theoretical technicalities of the Constitution, and a long legacy of which it has been practiced as such. Webb is a Senator, and I assume that he knows all about the Constitution, its theoretical loop holes, and the long legacy before Bush in which it has been practiced. It seems he posed the question of this issue of the technicalities of the system to Ms. Rice, specifically asking about Bush and Iran as an example, in order to make it look like it was Rice's / Bush's fault that the system is the way it is. It is not, the system has had these theoretical loop-holes long before them, and many adminstrations, Democrat and Republican, have made use of them and have made them common practice.
When it comes to the loop-holes in the Constitution concerning this issue: I believe every adminstration knows it, its just that none, Republican or Democrat, want to talk about it.
|
|
