COMMENTS:
Don't they always do that, attack then go to congress for money and approval to continue?
I dont know how your system works, any decition left in GWB's hands should be taken away.
by ABC on Tue Apr 18, 06 7:23am
[+]
"If the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon they could proliferate." —George W. Bush, Washington D.C., March 21, 2006
Yes. This is not my opinion, but an objective fact about the power of American Presidents.
Based on the fact that the US has been involved in at least 25 conflicts/wars since WW2 for which there was no declaration of war, I would say the answer is "yes". Whether that is the right thing to do is another question.
FiddleFaddleOnLSD is correct. Apparently they weren't wars, but were referred to as 'intervention' or 'regime change'.
I don't know why the US didn't call it declarations of war when that's what they were.
Yes the President has the power to fight a war for 90 days without a declaration from the Congress.It is one of the powers of the Commander and Cheif.
Oh and for the US there is never 'defeat', it is always 'withdrawl'
George F. Will, the conservative columnist seems very upset with Bush's belief he can do anything because he is President and/or a president at war. Will says "Another (problem) is the administration's argument that because the president is commander in chief, he is the 'sole organ for the nation in foreign affairs' … (which) is refuted by the Constitution's plain language, which empowers Congress to ratify treaties, declare war, fund and regulate military forces, and make laws 'necessary and proper' for the execution of all presidential powers."
Soc: Re. withdrawals vs defeats ... too true.
There is this big issue regarding the War Powers act. Congress knows this is a problem. All presidents have known it is a problem. Congress hasn't wanted to challenge the President yet and the various presidents haven't pushed the issue. Corrupt is correct in that a president does have the authority to act without consulting Congress in regards to national security. This obviously is limited as Congress can simply cut off funding. This was a tactic that Congress used regarding the Vietnam war.
When you are supposedly the head of the dominant conservative party in the U.S., and George Will and William F. Buckley are using your ass as a putting green, that can't be good.
Corrupt, even with the powers granted him, he needs to have a reason. The thin thread he's granting himself through Iran's quest for nuclear power is tenuous at best, IMO. But I get the sad, sinking feeling that we'll be finding out ere long.
^The threat of nuclear terrorism was enough to start the war in Iraq,what makes you think it will not be enough to start a war in Iran?Especially when Iran on an almost daily basis threaten's America and braggs about it's nuke program.
|
