The lady that wrote this letter is Pam Foster of Pamela Foster and Associates in Atlanta. She's been in business since 1980 doing interior design and home planning. She recently wrote a letter to a family member serving in Iraq Read it!
WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS?
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was"desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.
I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling, slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and --
you guessed it, I could not have said this any better myself!
If you agree with this view point, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior! If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country.
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Hey Tree,
I passed it on.
~Missy
Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
I am not a member of any religious group.
The 'Islamic people' did not bring war to our shores - a few people did, who happened to be muslims. The few people responsible for that particular attack are the people to go to war against, not the entire Muslim population.
That is very ignorant and unfair, I think. In fact, living in a largely white/christian country with a pretty large muslim population - and being seriously white myself, I am very aware of how the MAJORITY of muslims do NOT want to be associated with any such violence/war etc. And, they are suffering as a consequence of what A FEW did in the name of MANY.
Should any particular religious or ethnic group of people be retalliated against/or killed as punishment for what a few people of their ethnic/or (loosely termed/connected) religious group did? The people you speak of do not represent the majority of the group, but with messages like the one above, I would think it will encourage more hatred towards those who are innocent but judged guilty, by such a message, by association.
Where is that Osama Bin Laden anyway, the one that Bush promised to 'smoke out' from his hidey-hole? Surely, our intelligence is 21st century enough to do what promised?
DLL
Posted by meg (Member # 22) on :
That's a keeper Tree--Thanks~! Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
I'm concerned about this culture of hate that has been borne out of the tradgedies of our times.
I believe some of that was/is fostered by the tremendous amount of propaganda in this country.. mainly coming out of the White House. Accumulated facts and what has unraveled dispute much of what they have said by now, so I cannot understand the clinging to hate and racism.
but moreover it is a misinformed, anger based response.
It's frightening, and I have to say this kind of view is no better than Islamic extremist groups that think all Americans are pigs who deserve to die in the name of Allah.
Both ends of this spectrum are dangerous and deadly in my view. To our troops and to ourselves.
DLL has a good point.. there are many haneous acts perpetrated by extremists in the name of a group or culture, but by and large should not be used to condemn an entire race or creed... or to condone the killing and torturing of innocents...
After all, there have been several Christian movements, some of which was the biggest and bloodiest murder of millions.. all through history there are many examples of violence and 'Terrorism' .. pretty much from all religious groups (except Buddhists or I think Hindus )
There are Muslims around the globe, and in the Middle East.. who abhor these acts. The vast, vast majority do.
I also feel that the torture issue is a very serious one.
The fact that it is not only comdoned but ordered by this administration is beyond comprehension.. but all things regarding this War have taken us back centuries.
Doesn't anyone consider the state of mind and the suffering instilled into the poor soldiers involved in these acts?
That's where my mind goes, as well as the War crimes of this administration, and the abuse that is by and large not laid on the Terrorists who attacked us. Osama is probably layung low and driving a cab in the East Village for now.. Terror cells globally are expanding and have acts by our government to point to as the best recruitment of more of the generation witnessing the death of scores of thousands of innocents.
I have never read a more frightening piece of writing.. because it seems many feel this way if it's become a 'chain letter'.
I hope more folks are looking deeper! These attitudes are very dangerous.
Mo
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
It never ceases to amaze me...
tree's post explicitly states that it is radicals and extremists that this person is angry with....
Not the whole muslim religion.... Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
Actually, the first line - and first impression - says:
"Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores Posted by 24bit (Member # 6531) on :
You see, not only does Mo not realize who caused 911, but she has sympathy for them. That's evident in position on the war on terror....even her position on leaving the Iranian's alone "so they'll behave".
This letter has nothing to do with anything but the reality of what's happening, and the fact that the far left can't see it and has sympathy for them is extremely frightening.
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Nope..
nothing to do with sympathy for extremists who attack and kill innocents -- that goes for those orchestrating these kinds of acts from the United Sates or in the Middle East, (or Africa, Palastine or anywhere else for that matter....)
my comments have to do with the dangerous and faulty thinking that comes out of the culture of hate on both sides.
It's concern that blind hatred never yeilds effective resolve. That a more intelligent handling of a very serious problem is required in order to begin to resolve it.
What's gone on in Iraq is well prooven to have nothing to do with 911, and has only fostered greater threat.
Just because we've killed more innocent Iraquis by our administrators command, dishonesty, and miserably failed planning, ect.. just because more of them have died (like 30-40 times more) .. doesn't mean we are safer.
Quite the contrary.
My point is the population needs to educate themselves and look away from solely White House messages, and those who echo them..
long enough to take an objective view -- just as other populations must as well. Isn't that the core ideal of 'democratic republic' ?
The above sentiments just feed the culture of hate and ignorance which breeds violence that not only won't solve conflict, or serious problems like Terrorism.. it will only fan the flames.
To state that that means I have sympathy for Terrorists ignores great deal..and is along the same line of exclusionary thinking. No sympathy for Terrorists -- just a dire need for effective handling and intelligent focus by the American government. Honesty and forthcoming to at least some reasonable degree would help as well.
I also didn't say we should 'leave the Iranians alone so they will behave' .. but I get the sence that you don't actually read my posts.
--- I suppose Americans are wising up despite the limited media releases, since so many things have been so bad of late it's hard to ignore...
Since all the indictments, Katrina, the War results.. and the public uncovering of the administration's manupilation of intelligence going into Iraq..
64% of Americans question Bush's (and his admin's) integrity .. his approval rating is down to mainly his 'ulterior' agenda base.
Most moderates and some further to the right have gone public with dissapointment and/or anger...and at the very least tough questions.
The concerns ain't just 'far left' anymore..
Mo
[ 06. November 2005, 02:06 AM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
All this left right nonsense is just ridiculous. Especially, when looking in on the fishbowl from the wider world.
Posted by heiwalove (Member # 6467) on :
this is the most ignorant infuriating thing i have ever read.
my eyes spring hot tears, my heart aches raw and i can't even begin to formulate a coherent response.
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
yeah liver I read the first line too...
But I read the whole text which qualifies the opening statements and zero's in on the extremeists,radicals and zealots.
Furthermore the guys that rammed those planes were saudi arabians...who have been our supposed allies over there since the Shah back when most here were not out of diapers...being saudi's is'nt the reason they did it...being muslim extremists is more likely...
The children over there are schooled to hate americans or anyone that isn't a believer in the one tru God Allah...just like hitler youth...
How can little children hate us so much unless they are taught to hate us...like the extremist groups here in the states...like skinheads and the klan...
A line must be drawn or we'll all be bowing to the east.......it was'nt when the embassy was blown up or the barraks with the marines nor even when they attacked a Navy vessel...all of which are acts of war...
Wake up and smell the coffee.......this is war and those that don't see it are looking thru rose colored glasses. Having been in war I hate it...however, until mankind stops being stupid in general we'll always have it.
So maybe Irag and it's leader did'nt have WMD's or did'nt have a hand in 911... I'm sure they had a hand in some of the other attacks...especially on the Turks and some of their own people....
Go Grunts!! And Doggies...and swabbies....Hooray America...I Love you right or wrong.....zman
Posted by 24bit (Member # 6531) on :
Nonsense, nonsense Mo. Also, when asked how you would deal with the Iranian crisis with nukes and their threats to Isreal, your response was to back off and leave Iran alone.....as if we're the ones forcing them to be bad. LOL. You said it, not me. Please be consistent.
I have zero respect for the Koran, and anyone that gets violent over steping on this book or whatever, is so insecure it's pathetic. Must not feel very sure about it if they're shaken so much by a material piece of paper. Personally I despise the Koran and everything it stands for....how women are treated, how infidels are to be treated, etc. If a Koran was cheaper than toilet paper, I'd stock up a six month supply.
Posted by robi (Member # 5547) on :
Violence as a way of achieving justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Posted by heiwalove (Member # 6467) on :
and the words of Dr. King have never been more true. thank you, robi. how desperately we need someone like him today.
Posted by 24bit (Member # 6531) on :
quote:Originally posted by robi: Violence as a way of achieving justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
And if we applied that to everything in the past, we would be speaking German and have no freedom right now. Violence is necessary sometimes, and if you don't believe so, be lucky that there are people around you willing to protect you for you.
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Yes, exactly Robi..
24 - what exactly can you put forth to support your retort? 64% of Americans now question GWB's integrity.. therefore question the exact rhetoric you spew.. so, by now -- after all these years...can you justify, with specifics..how we (and the Iraqis) are protected as you state -- and the stance you take? I think it's about time.
Extremist imperialistic and violent actions can be derived from the Bible as well as the Koran..
(as a side note, I doubt you have read the Koran based on your post -- for you understand it as little as you do Dr. King -- and if you have read the Koran, you fail to note it's merits as well as the violence and the subservient references to women written in the Bible.. which if taken literally are, shall we say - also less than liberal..if taken quite literally.. also to be noted, women in Iraq had a great deal more worth and power even under SADDAM (as they themselves state!) than they do under the curent Constitution supported by the U.S. and borne out of the War !!)
As far as violence in the name of the Bible..the Crusades come to mind..and (just one example)some Christian evangalistic views today regarding the people of the Middle East, and what they are worth.. (as eluded to in this thread) yet, at times it strangely turns -- and the War is then also supported under the guise of 'saving them' so then they they are worthless unless 'Democratized' and/or 'Christianized' .. as Doctor Phil would say:
'How's that working for ya??'
The insurgency is stronger and death runs consistant..moreso in recent months.
Which is it folks?? Are we demolishing until they are reformed to your liking -- or saving them? Be honest....
Violence is at very specific times necessary, but ONLY when the calling is clear and with honest motivation, planning and and results. U.S. violence in the Middle East holds none of these criteria.
As far as extremism in either religion..do those views then render the entire book no better than toilet paper? Is hatred and violence any better coming from 'your side' rather than the other?
This had been prooven over and over again throughout history.
Hatred and violence destroy all hope of progression and the sufferers by and large are the innocents who do not partake in either.. as well as the young men and women discarged and sent to death with lies...told they are 'protecting God and honor'.. the leaders on both sides are evil.
The War on Iraq us documented as being conspired well before they even went to Congress with the manipulated 'intelligence'.. and my point was...this admin is gearing up to do the same in Iran and Syria.
THAT kind of action is what needs to stop. It's criminal in a World order sort of manner.
Imperialism. Operating on further imperialistic action with Iran or any other country puts us and the World in danger of a nuclear War.
Period.
Go back to my post on Iran and re-read it. While you're at it, look at the facts surounding Iraq and the unConstoitutional operations.. seems everyone outside of some 35% of Americans, as well as the rest of the World -- have already done that.
Mo
[ 07. November 2005, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by robi (Member # 5547) on :
Ya know ...... I realy can't argue politics, nor do I care to. I do belive that violence is not the way.
I belive the way is to help and seek understanding of one another. That inludes our famailies, neighbors, those of different beliefs, religons, countries.
Violence an only eventually lead to mass destruction. It is not that way .....
If you feel you must argue for killing and violence I am sorry .........
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
We're not safer since the war huh?
When since 911 have we been attacked?
Other countries have but we have not! That ought to tell you something.
If you guys that knock the USA were living in almost any other country that isn't democratic...you would'nt have a head to talk out of long...
The Koran...does not preach violence unless violence is visited upon muslims. Maybe you ought to read it again or for the first time.
Perhaps the embargo or trade restrictions placed on IRAQ caused too many people to go hungry get sick and die...perhaps that's what Osama was trying to preach to us. It was the world trade center...hmmmm...could that have had any significance?? Ya think! Perhaps Osama wanted saddam out cuz he was trading oil for something other than food.... Now that we did it...he's leaving us alone...
Possible just possible.....it would be nice to live as Jesus did and love all even enemies... I fear we(mankind) has'nt figured that out yet...and unless and untill it does worldwide I'm glad I'm an American... Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
I really take offence at the insinuation that anyone (who is American) but, who disagrees with the way things are going right now, is anti-American or does not 'love being American'.
Perhaps it is for the very reason that we are NOT anti-American that we oppose the way our American leader(s) are handling the situation.
We - in the WEST - not just America - there is more to the world than just America are not safer now. If anything we are less safe, because of what has/is happening in Iraq, more anti-American terrorists will be made.
So, is the solution to making more terrorists - make more war?
I have a sneaking suspicion that GWB doesn't ask himself 'what would Jesus do'? But, of course, he does claim that God speaks to him, which is interesting, because other people who claim God spoke to them and then proceeded to kill someone, and I don't mean killing terrorists in retaliation or self-defence, I mean killing innocent people who are not terrorists, regardless of their religion, is usually safely locked up somewhere.
I suppose if we just go to war with just about anyone, there won't be anyone left on the planet and at least it will be peaceful and a fresh start.
Alternatively, we will have a world (we already kind of do) that is not very nice to leave our children [in].
I agree that the Bible is not exactly an advertisement for women's lib either. Find me a religion that is.......doubt there is one.
Because I have said what I've said, does NOT mean that I love terrorists, or defend their actions. Of couse, I do NOT. My question is only - are WE doing the right thing in response to terrorist attacks? What is the right thing? I am not sure. But, I don't think we're doing it now.
DLL
Posted by robi (Member # 5547) on :
Just for the record ........... I amglad I amanAmerican and I do not supprt what our contry is doing right now.
If you think the lack of medical care we experience and the war for oil are unrelated you have your head in the sand. These are both fueled (no pun intended) by the greed of the rich and powerful. That includes our dear president.
robi
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
I know, I know.... I'm a brat, hence my name lol
I still don't understand how one person writing what They feel about a situation, always turns into a battle over here. It's the same old same old....
I haven't been in off topic for months, and I've only been back about a week, but I knew for sure who would have an issue with this post. lol!
I happen to agree with some of what this person wrote and I passed it on...not as a "chain letter", but as an interesting take on how this person, views this situation.
I can't sit here and say that the author of this piece was right or wrong...how can I judge someone else's opinions? LOL
Just my 2 cents...
~LymeBrat
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Hey LB.. aren't topics here open for discussion? If not, I would assume they wouldn't be posted. The topic of Iraq in particular is important to all of us, as what is happening now will effect pur future and generations to come. It's not a matter of telling someone their 'opinions are wrong'. These kinds of (dangerous) messages are everyones business, I should think.. since we are all profoundly impacted by what is happening.
Tony Z ..Osama himself had declared the attacks are revenge for suffering inflicted in the Middle East over many years by the U.S. and it's allies.
That's exactly how the extremists are interpreting/explioting the Koran -- I agree.
This rhetoric statement 'It (this War) is working, see...we haven't ben attacked' isn't a strong arguement..
London and Madrid being attacked should be of great concern.. biological warfare .. which is difficult to initially detect, should also be of great concern..
Our government is failing miserably in protecting our shores..and we've seen Homeland Security at work recently and they are less than effective.
AlQaeda is notorious for having great patience and planning in these things. They revel in that...they are in no big rush, and don't go off shooting from the hip like cowboys. They do not mind waiting and taking a long time to plan. They don't operate like military.
AGAIN -- the Bush administration and it's supporters are lacking in perception and understanding of the Terrorist groups that attacked us here, as well as Middle Easterners relations, interests and views.
How can they successfully fight an enemy they do not understand...not to mention one that is no where near Bagdad?
Al Qaeda is a strong global network now, where that was not the case before the War. This makes things considerably less 'safe'. Each day in Iraq remaining on the path we are on now, our administration unwilling to concede there have been major mistakes made and how then to fix them..each day, each week, month, fuels their resolve.
Here's an article from this past summer that goes into specifics regarding whether we are 'safer' because of this War..just because another 911 has not occured here yet.
(also if you follow polls, the polls regarding the War and Bush's integrity have plummeted in the past few months.)
*************************************************
washingtonpost.com
Iraq War Hasn't Made United States Safer
Polls Indicate Americans Agree
By Terry M. Neal washingtonpost.com Staff Writer Monday, July 18, 2005
Americans are willing to spare no expense to ensure their safety. Thus the bill for the war in Iraq, which is soaring well into the $200 billions, would not be an issue at all if most people felt the essential policy -- making America safer -- was being met.
But apparently, fewer and fewer Americans believe this is the case. And this is becoming an even greater problem for President Bush, whose reputation has taken a hit. In the latest Gallup poll, taken shortly after terrorists struck London this month, the number of people who say the war in Iraq was not worth it climbed to 53 percent (compared to 44 percent who believe it was). Perhaps more significantly, only 40 percent of Americans think the war has made the United States safer from terrorism, compared to 52 percent who believe it has made America less safe.
These numbers represent an astonishing turn of events from the days leading up to the war through the president's battleship photo-op declaration of victory more than two years ago.
The president was only partly correct that day. America and its allies had won the battle to remove Saddam Hussein. But the war was just getting started.
Meanwhile, Iraq has surged ahead of "economy and growth" as the leading concern among Americans. And approval of the president's handling of Iraq has dropped five points from an already low 44 percent a month ago, compared to 55 percent disapproval, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll.
The war in Iraq was billed as a war of necessity, an effort to make the nation safer. Even after the justification for war evaporated, many of the president's supporters argued that it accomplished its purpose -- the United States had not been attacked again after 9/11.
The terrorist attacks in London shattered some of that argument. While the United States wasn't attacked, its closest ally, Great Britain, was. And it was attacked in a way that struck home to many Americans, a fact evidenced by the jump in poll numbers of people who say they believe America will be attacked by terrorists in the near future.
So the question is, did Iraq make us safer?
In his best-selling book "America the Vulnerable: How Our Government Is Failing to Protect Us From Terrorism," Stephen Flynn, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former U.S. Coast Guard commander, argues essentially that Iraq was a "phony war" based on the president's oft-repeated assertion that America is "fighting the terrorists abroad so we don't have to face them at home."
Every nation, even one as rich as the United States, has finite resources. And America is spending large portions of its resources, both in terms of human and economic capital, fighting a conventional war against a nation-state that does not address America's biggest vulnerability -- its openness to unconventional attacks by terrorists who don't respect borders.
America remains astonishingly vulnerable to attacks from al Qaeda, which has morphed under Bush's watch, from an organization to a worldwide movement, Flynn argues.
"The degree to which the Bush administration is willing to invest in conventional national security spending relative to basic domestic security measures is considerable," Flynn argues in an article he wrote for Foreign Affairs magazine based on his book.
"Although the CIA has concluded that the most likely way weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would enter the United States is by sea, the federal government is spending more every three days to finance the war in Iraq than it has provided over the past three years to prop up the security of all 361 U.S. commercial seaports."
Flynn accuses the administration of a "myopic" focus on conventional military forces at the expense of domestic security. He draws this comparison: "In fiscal year 2005, Congress will give the Pentagon $7.6 billion to improve security at military bases. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security will receive just $2.6 billion to protect all the vital systems throughout the country that sustain a modern society."
I called Flynn this week to ask him if the nation's priorities were so horribly skewed, why hadn't America been attacked again? And perhaps couldn't it be surmised that the terrorists attacked Madrid and London instead of, say Washington or New York, because it was easier to do so?
Flynn argues that this would be an improper conclusion to draw.
Here's the gist of the argument he gave me: Al Qaeda and al Qaeda-inspired terrorists are patient. They seek maximum bang for the buck, so to speak. As they did in Madrid and London, the terrorists build a three-cell unit. The first is the leadership or operations cell. The second is the reconnaissance team, which scouts potential targets for risk and reward. And the third is the action cell, which carries out the attack.
Building this sort of operation can take many years, and the risks are high. And once the action unit attacks, it creates an instant forensics trail that "creates an operational security problem. If you use it for a relatively low-end thing, you put your organization at risk for little gain and you have to start over again."
In London, investigators learned much about the attackers quickly, just as American investigators did after 9/11. It could take the terrorists years to recover in London, as it has in America. But they will be back, Flynn argues, because there will always be enough "angry young men who can possess powerful weapons of destruction" to target a nearly endless supply of soft targets.
Iraq has not changed that equation one bit, Flynn argues. It has only diverted resources from the more pragmatic approach of targeting and hunting down terrorists around the world and, even more important, bolstering domestic security.
Flynn does not argue that every soft target could ever be protected by the government. But he does say that the administration has done shockingly little to prioritize threats and protect such resources as nuclear plants, domestic military bases, the electric grid, the water supply and private-industry chemical plants near major metropolitan areas.
Flynn is not antiwar. Afghanistan was a proper target, he said, because terrorists were running their operations there and the government was protecting them.
The U.S. administration and its hawks are stuck in a "state-centric perspective, cold war idea that deterrence is about overwhelming power and offense. But that has nothing to do with the overwhelming reality of this threat."
In his Foreign Affairs article, Flynn wrote that "the United States is fighting the war it prepared for in the twentieth century, rather than the one that is being waged upon it by al Qaeda ... the Pentagon is executing its long-standing forward defense strategy, which involves leapfrogging ahead of U.S. borders and waging combat on the turf of U.S. enemies or allies. Meanwhile, protecting the rear -- the American nation itself -- remains largely outside the scope of national security even though the September 11 attacks were launched from the United States on targets within the United States."
Bush's critics argue that Iraq was made politically possible by the natural urge to punish someone for the travesty of 9/11. Iraq might have sated an emotional response, but it did little to address the pragmatic problem of how to make America safer.
For a long time, many Americans believed that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11, and that the war was a part of the effort to vanquish the terrorists who attacked us that day. The fact that few people believe that today may have much to do with the president's declining popularity and the declining confidence in his honesty.
� 2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
***note.. 64% question the honesty at this time, and the investigations have not even been made public yet.
there is no evidance we are safer, and a great deal more that terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda are thriving around the globe.
Mo
Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
Everyone is going to have THEIR TAKE on this email/chain letter thingy.
Therefore, some of those people will read it as I have, which is that it is very racist (basically that it's OK to slaughter anyone of the same race or religion as a group of terrorists) - and going to fuel a fire that can only lead to hell for all of us!
I don't know what possesed me to come over to Off Topic again. It's pointless and probably just causes us more stress which isn't good for Lymies.
DLL
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Mo,
Of course all topics are open for discussion..did I imply otherwise? I didn't mean it to sound like that, sorry if that's how you took it.
All I said/meant was I liked some of what this author wrote, and I don't think I or others need a lecture from those who don't.
It just seems too bad that when someone posts or agrees with something that was posted here.... (that isn't popular with other posters ), they get a lengthy post in return, outlining all the bad and negative in the world.
Or asked to take a deeper look at things...implying that if we did, we'd see things differently..or in other words the way they see them.
It's like posters who do this, think that those of us who agree with anything this author wrote, must be unaware of what is going on....
Well guess what, we aren't. We are very aware, we just disagree. Does that make you right and me wrong? Or me right and you wrong??? NO, it just means we see things differently.
I am very aware of what is going on in the world and I still agree with some things this author wrote..and golly gee wiz...I even have a college education and I'm a teacher too..go figure. LOL!
~Missy
Posted by Corinne E (Member # 4670) on :
Um, Lymbrat, did you write this letter?
Corinne
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
I think you're misunderstanding LB.. and yes, I assume neither you or Tree wrote this proposed chain letter but even if you did..
it's a discussion.. so folks put something out there.. and then {perhaps) back it up with ideas or considerations..
then someone else may agree or counter that..
again, hopefully..with some ideas or considerations, info.. or not.. it's up to them.
I now feel I have to again clarify that because I post information, concerns, ect that does not agree with the topic post header.. and go into reasons why.. I must clarify I am not giving a lecture, or saying you are unaware..those who are aware, please discuss! That's about all I am looking for. OK??
I am posting questions and information..in this case objecting strongly to these views as dangerous to all of us, and I posted why I believe that.
If you think they aren't..you can post why..or not.. totally up to you..
but please do not criticize or twist my reason for posting, or others here who have posted in oitrage at this piece. I (nor they) are commenting on anyone personally.. (dejavou we've been through this before, lol)
It's not a personal dig to counter a view and press for justification, or even some thought..on a view .. especially one as strong and IMO dangerous as this one --
These views and the subject of War is important to all of us, and on topic. We are all free to post whatever we wish.. so long as it's on topic...not on eachother for posting whatever we decide to.
I have no interest in discussing anything but the topics themselves..
[ 07. November 2005, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by 24bit (Member # 6531) on :
Well, for some it's a discussion. For others it's a lecture on their mighty tall soapbox. And the other thing that's funny is that some seem to think that whoevers posts the most words in a post:
1. Has the most facts (even though it's some left wing hack job EDITORIAL, not hard news).
2. Is the smartest.
3. Has more time and attention to convince the lost.
4. Can wear down those that have different views.
5. Thinks that everyone actually has time to read for hours.
6. Thinks that everyone actually does read for hours.
7. Thinks that everyone is excited to read their next novel.
8. Thinks that their next novel will be effective in converting the lost.
9. Knows that most people don't have the time to respond to every single point they make in their novel.
10. Thinks that if they have the last word on any point (nobody responds to it), they're automatically right.
In reality (and what they teach in business school), those that make their points clear and concise, to the point, easy to read and understand, are the ones that are most effective in getting people to read their words, and most effective in changing a point of view......or at least causing someone to re-think their position.
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Ah..and there we go, right on cue.. No address on topic, just personal.. Hey -- isn't this spot on the issue just raised??
Interesting to note is who will not have a problem with this outright accost..
clearly a party line exception and that is a shame, seems there are different expectations for diferent 'party's' -- at least in the past -- I sicerely hope that we have grown and that has changed (??)
Afeterall, LB, you simply posted that you were endorsing at least part of this chain letter by passing it on -- your perogative surely -- and I addressed the e-mail and challanged it's content...not you..
yet my posts are deemed 'nonsence' above..
I have no problem with that, but I just wanted to point that out in light of your concerns that folks not be denegrated -- Seems caling my post nonsence might be in that relm? I dunno ---
.. also, none of the 'meat' of any of the counter posts has even been acknowledged for the past several entries simply the jabbing ensues... that is a shame folks..
these isues are way bigger than any one of us.
in any event..
trying to bring this one back in the vicinity of topic..because anything else is useless banter IMO..
Seems the Dems are getting up off their butts to join in investigative questioning of this admin as the vast majority of public opinion demands --
Let's just talk Iraq --- please? If convictions exist and hold water, I would think there would be plenty to say on topic, why the de-railing of the thread??:
Democrats issue demands for Iraq intelligence probe 08 Nov 2005 00:00:00 GMT
Source: Reuters
WASHINGTON, Nov 7 (Reuters) - Democrats on Monday demanded that the Senate interview key government officials and exercise subpoena power while examining how the Bush administration used prewar Iraq intelligence in the run-up to the 2003 invasion.
As a bipartisan task force prepared for a week-long series of meetings on the intelligence question, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said the administration should be prepared to turn over important documents to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
"Now that the Republicans have agreed to conduct an investigation, the next step is making sure the right questions are answered," said the Nevada Democrat.
But Republicans accuse their Democratic adversaries of using the Iraq war for political gain by suggesting that President George W. Bush and other administration officials may have misused intelligence to make their case for war.
"The Democrat leaders' latest accusation that the administration has manipulated intelligence and exaggerated the threat is nothing more than an effort to use the war in Iraq for political gain, and that is shameful," Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said in a floor speech.
The Senate intelligence committee completed the first phase of its review of Iraq intelligence in July 2004 when it issued a scathing report about the quality of information that claimed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons have ever been found.
At the time, lawmakers promised a second phase to examine other issues including whether Bush administration officials misused intelligence to make its case for war. But that segment of the review has not been completed. ((after all this time))
Last week, Democrats accused Republicans of stalling tactics and imposed a rare closed session to force the majority to complete the review.
The Senate set up a bipartisan task force of six senators to look into the second phase of the investigation in meetings that begin on Tuesday. The panel must report on the progress of the investigation by Nov. 14.
Republicans say the second phase of the investigation was already proceeding before last week's political confrontation. But Democrats accuse their Republican colleagues of trying to prevent a full investigation of the issues, saying that as recently as two weeks ago, an intelligence committee agenda for the remainder of 2005 showed no meetings on the probe.
Task force members including Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, the intelligence panel's Republican chairman, will to try to find common ground between the parties on how the remaining probe should be conducted.
[ 08. November 2005, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
Yo read into it whatever you want....you will and have anyway... All I said was I am glad to be an American...me I am glad I am an American...it was a statement not an accusation....
So having not been attacked isn't a strong argument??? Then what is? Forget I asked...I feel relatively safe...
Yeah I know we'll probably be attacked in the future...it's the same tactics we used in the revolutionary war...but gosh...we(the present military minds) don't understand their enemy... Come on now...
Whenever we are attacked again it will probably be when a democrat is in the office...it happened before but Clinton was too busy with his head paige...LOL to do anything about it...
It does'nt matter folks...like I said, if you remember...we got rid of the Dems and elected a bunch of republicans...what ground have we gained??? Not much!
We have to send a message to Capitol Hill...enough is enough...we need a third party not tied to anything or anyone....the little guy...the poor and working poor(middle class)...need a voice... Mo you keep asking for material to validate what we think and say...we don't need it...we read and am aware of both sides...we simply don't post it cuz we know it won't help to change your mind...we're too sick to bother...we have our own opinions and voice them in a concise manner...
Most lymies can't read and comprehend and digest all that print anyway...I know it nauseates me whenever I try to read a lot on here...not because you're nauseating...it's just a fact of lyme neuro brain life.....
perhaps ignoring it all would be better... See brat not much has changed...you're right SSDD.
[ 08. November 2005, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: lymie tony z ]
Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
Yo read into it whatever you want....you will and have anyway... All I said was I am glad to be an American...me I am glad I am an American...it was a statement not an accusation....
Good. But, it seemed to infer that those that disagree with your stance are not.
So having not been attacked isn't a strong argument??? Then what is? Forget I asked...I feel relatively safe...
It's a good reason to defend yourself (attack back), yes, but in our case we did not go to Iraq to attack those that attacked us. There was and is no proven connection there.
Yeah I know we'll probably be attacked in the future...it's the same tactics we used in the revolutionary war...but gosh...we(the present military minds) don't understand their enemy... Come on now...
Whenever we are attacked again it will probably be when a democrat is in the office...it happened before but Clinton was too busy with his head paige...LOL to do anything about it...
Again, this is not just about the USA or Democrat/Republican.
It does'nt matter folks...like I said, if you remember...we got rid of the Dems and elected a bunch of republicans...what ground have we gained??? Not much!
Again, this is not just about the USA or Democrat/Republican.
We have to send a message to Capitol Hill...enough is enough...we need a third party not tied to anything or anyone....the little guy...the poor and working poor(middle class)...need a voice...
Wow, I agree!!
Mo you keep asking for material to validate what we think and say...we don't need it...we read and am aware of both sides...we simply don't post it cuz we know it won't help to change your mind...we're too sick to bother...we have our own opinions and voice them in a concise manner...
Most lymies can't read and comprehend and digest all that print anyway...I know it nauseates me whenever I try to read a lot on here...not because you're nauseating...it's just a fact of lyme neuro brain life.....
perhaps ignoring it all would be better... See brat not much has changed...you're right SSDD
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
In my opinion as well, this has long since blown past a Dem/Repub issue.
It's way bigger than that!
Tony Z.. I agree with this as well:
We have to send a message to Capitol Hill...enough is enough...we need a third party not tied to anything or anyone....the little guy...the poor and working poor(middle class)...need a voice...
Except that the War is the most pressing issue for all Americans, backed by mounds of other problems, IMO that's the most critical, of course.
No, I don't believe it is a strong arguement in support of the Iraq War that we haven't been attacked here since 911 (that we know of).. based on the reasons I stated above.
There's just allot more to consider.
Oh, and to those copmplaining about posted articles.. if you aren't interested in reading articles or considering their content, you do have that handy dandy scroll button at your disposal
I have to say there are allot more users/readers on the forum that might like to read some stuff.. some people also have trouble opening links due to dial up issues, whatever.. But again, feel free to just skip my stuff if you aren't interested in discussion.
Mo
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
Well now that we agree on something...
Please tell me just what the big picture is that I am missing?
if it's not a rep,Dem, or USA thing...please tell me what it is...
What is is?
Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
I received the same above email forward message last night from a friend (who has since followed that email up with an apology to all the recipients after having re-read an thought about it). One of the other recipients of the email replied to the sender as follows, I have changed the names for their privacy.
"Wrapping one's self in a cloak of patriotism while lowering the standards of ethical humanitarian behavior (and breaching the Geneva Convention) to match or outdo the fanatics who oppose our occupation of their country after waging an illegal invasion of their sovereign nation
(screwed up as it was, Iraq had no proven connection to the 9-11 attack) just proves the effectiveness of the Neocon (operative syllable "CON") propaganda machine (whose actions have been called illegal by the GAO (Government Accountability Office).
Frankly this message gave me quite a stomach ache after having viewed the Rainews documentary aired in Italy yesterday (seems like the reality is that these people in Fallujah who were "melted" by the US offensive there last year were the result of our new improved "napalm", MK77, not white phosphorous as is rumored).
What was the reason our esteemed administration used to lie our way into their coveted war before the UN? Weapons of mass destruction?
Well it seems the pot is as black as the kettle. Our anger and frustration should be directed at these lying, war profiteering bunch-of-scumbags orchestrating this travesty on the world stage.
I am currently ashamed of America's behavior and this administration does not represent me. Now that's something to ponder!
Wow John, I hope that you don't actually support the sentiment layed out in that piece of crap you sent me.
I'm sorry if I sound hostile right now, but you REALLY touched a nerve that is absolutely raw right now.
I am currently strongly considering my continued residence in this country anymore, because what America represents today, I can't support.
I am scared to travel internationally with a US passport. I am nauseated by how bad of a world citizen America is today.
My values, integrity and conscience won't let me feel differently. It saddens me." Kate
[ 11. November 2005, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Lou B ]
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
[ 11. November 2005, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: lymie tony z ]
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
Yo liver...you mistakenly commented on my statement in this thread as an inference that questioned your patriotism. You were wrong and no apology to me from you was forthcomming...that's ok...
However by not stating one loves this country and continually bashing it can also be inferred that one is not all that happy to be an American.
You stated you don't like any particular religion. You don't like America(inferred by your own remarks), and you obviously don't like liver...so might I inquire...what do you like?
Mo you said you don't like covert attacks...yet by your continuous postings of information and remarks that those that don't agree with you must come from the "uninformed" can by some be inferred as an insult....
I submit to those that continue this assault on our nation and leaders should try another country in which to live.
Having been in the Navy I have seen other nations and was really glad to get back to the good old USA.
Oh yeah, we have our faults...but at least we can voice our thoughts and live...not so in other countries or nations.
So I say on this Veterans day...love it or leave it....
From one who has gone to war(I enlisted in 68 not drafted...because I believed in my country)and was honorably discharged from serving my country....
Unles you folks have a better proactive plan to suggest...all the negative, depressing bashing of MY country does no one any good...especially on lymenet where folks come to be encouraged and fortified and supported....
using profanity and or calling our fighting ladies whores should not be allowed on this net...
Calling the initial post bigoted,ignorant etc...is not allowed under present rules...
God Bless America and all my fellow Veterans on this day of celebration...not of war....but of service to OUR country....and the sacrifices that have been made. Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
Z,
Please refrain from putting words 'in my mouth' and putting your own twist on my posts, trying to distort their meaning.
I do not need to apologize for how I perceive a post. And, in fact, you are still appear to be saying the same thing, which is: anyone who disagrees with the current administrations tactics, and your personal view of the world, is unpatriotic. Why is that?
If you would have read, and understood my previous postings, you will have learned that in fact, I am saying the opposite of what you claim. That is, disagreeing with an administrations stance, is not unpatriotic and is just as patriotic, if not more patriotic, because if one did not care for one's country or fellow countrymen - then WHY WOULD ONE BOTHER WITH THAT??? Why would anyone stick their neck out and risk having it chopped off, if one did not care?
For arguments sake, did you like Clinton and agree with everything he did, and the way he did it???
If the answer is no, then should I have called you unpatriotic and anti-American during the Clinton years? (and no, before you jump to conclusions, that does not mean I was cheering him on through all his time in office either).
I never said I do not like religion. I stated that I am non-religious, as in I do not belong to any particular organized religion - there is a difference. (or non-organized for that matter). If I don't have a dog or cat, does that mean I do not like dogs or cats? No, it just means I do not have a dog or cat.
You are right in that my name infers that I do not like liver. Does the 'Z' mean you're asleep?
[ 11. November 2005, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: dontlikeliver ]
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
These posts are never directed toward 'America'.
This is a tired old tactic!
Posting concerns and active opposition to the initial posting is most certainly allowed here, taunting and harassing individuals is NOT Z-man.
Information questioning our LEADERS actions and inactions is about as patriotic as it gets. ESPECIALLY NOW.
And if there were tangible facts, answers, TRUTHS that justify the actions/inactions in question and our leaders actions surrounding this War..
Then those questions would be ANSWERED easily, instead or those asking them dubbed 'unpatriotic'. You also would not have the need to constantly twist our posts into something we are not saying.
In my opinion, support for this War is about as un-American as we can get.
Secrecy in government is something all AMERICANS should not tolerate, under any circumstances.
Manipulating intelligence to make a case for War, and acting upon it unilaterally should NOT be tolerated by AMERICANS.
Stockpiling of plutonium, uranium, hundreds of tons of the stuff (talk about yer WMD's!!) and an administration interested in producing nuclear weapons, taking us back to danger levels globally that existed before the Cold War ended, and doing so for no better reason than POWER hunger.. should NOT be tolerated by Americans.
The continued rapid decrease of support and care for the poor, elderly, and the sick in this country while the richest enjoy not only insane profits, but continued increases in tax breaks ahould NOT be tolerated by Americans.
Setting up a Supreme Court that is poised to cow-tow to the wants exclusively belonging to the religious right ahould NOT be tolerated by Americans.
An administration that will not hold press conferances in which the public can simply ask questions..and operated behind doors all of the time, (as now we see this admin has not only outed a CIA agent because her husband exposed info they did not want the American public to know about, but also was conspiring to go to War befire they even presented the idea to Congress) should not be tolerated in AMERICA.
An administration that uses massive resources military, and the dear and IMO sacred lives of those willing to fight for our FREEDOMS, who lies to, manipulates, and abuses these men and women both by manipulation of intelligence, untent, and also HORRIBLE planning..***continuing is un-American in the most extreme way I can imagine.
Noone has any right to proclaim standing up for our country, standing up and holding our ELECTED leaders accountable is un-American..
In fact, take a look at your own views, and what what you support is doing to human beings and our World.
I'm proud to be an American, and willing to fight to expose corupt leadership of this wonderful country, before it collapses by their hand.
Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Libby, Rove, Rumsfeld, DeLay.. are just a few of the most UN-American administrators we have ever had. They will go down in history as such, no doubt.. but everyone should be concerned about where they are taking us right now.. or we will wake up to a nuclear age that will be the end of life as we ever knew it for our kids.
A good deal of MODERATE Republican political figures are both distancing themselves from the White House, and partaking in closer looks at many things. Many figures even speaking publicly, then we have WAR VETERANS in large number protesting this administrations actions in Iraq, we have multiple political figures as well as former government officials, miltary experts, as well as numerous poeple who made their lifes work studying Middle east relations (!) the list of protestors is very long.. speaking out.
Are they all unAmerican, and only those waving flags and believing in this admin no matter WHAT, without accountability or question.. are American? That sounds more like Facism than Democracy.
Educate yourself. These things are written about by multiple non-Partison groups, including nuclear proliferation by OUR government..
Mo
[ 11. November 2005, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by heiwalove (Member # 6467) on :
as DLL said, dissent is a vital and necessary way to voice one's patriotism. it is ESSENTIAL to the democratic process as we know it, and is even outlined as such in the US constitution. stifle dissent, and we have fascism; which is precisely what GWB wants. have you read 1984 by George Orwell? frighteningly pertinent to today's world. he was just a couple decades off in his "fictional" predictions, really.
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
I know that you didn't mean it to come across this way, but it did. This is why I haven't been in off topic for so long...
Just because I and others don't agree, doesn't mean we need a lecture or a lesson, if you will..
Believe it or not, a person can be educated, even have a college degree and still disagree with you..lol!
Sorry I don't have the energy to debate, as this would be one I would love to give my all to.
But I am simply drained, as my daughter has Juvenile Diabetes and is very ill....
Things like this, become trivial, when faced with a child who has a life threatening illness, one where a too high or too low blood sugar, becomes and immediate threat to her health...
Debating/arguing about who agrees with the article this woman wrote, and who doesn't, just doesn't matter in the big scheme of things.
Especially when nothing ever changes over here... the same few will agree and the same few will not agree. Nothing I or anyone says, will change that.... at least it hasn't in the past 3 years
I hope you all have a Happy Holiday Season!!! I am starting a new support group for parents whose children have chronic illnesses and will be spending most of my free time there and over on LymeNet medical/general.
Best wishes everyone, see ya around:)
~Missy
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Things like this, become trivial, when faced with a child who has a life threatening illness, one where a too high or too low blood sugar, becomes and immediate threat to her health...
Hi LB --
That is so true. Our first priority is children and our family...health.
I know, I spent two years in that, which is right where you should be at times like this.
Luckily, we're out of danger zone, but still is our priority. I hope things get a little better every day for Mikayla.
On the rest of it, I only care for discussion, I expect folks to take it or leave it as to whether they want to do that on a thread. I reserve the right to have an oppositional view on certain topics, and always include reasons and info as to WHY.
I feel it is of great detriment to our country that an attitude of 'Left against Right' and there are certain very significant concerns some refuse to acknowledge or consider -- this division is a sort of Cancer in my view.
We've all been pitted against eachother and that causes allot of refusal to look at the problems themselves, and refusal to look at our present government objectively. Refusal to look at this War. More than sixty percent of Americans question these things regarding Iraq now, tho.. and as many doubt this admin's honesty -- so I figure they can be opened up over here by now.
I don't have the sentiments you suggest.. in fact, if I didn't care so much about what people thought or realize how we all impact eachother's welfare in our thinking on this subject, I wouldn't post on any of these topics. I'm concerned for all our kids (all of them, young and old, civilians and in the military) when it comes to present and the future and the impact of this time in history on their welfare.
I also do not feel these things are trivial (tho do fall behind personal health issues, of course).. Now that I am out of serious health danger mode (at least for now)..this subject is next on the list in concern for my children.
With sincerity and best wishes,
Mo
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
Heck,
I did'nt know how to SPIN things around till I got here...
I only do it cuz you three do it...what's the matter...have I learned your game better than you taught it?
Whatever...... Posted by 24bit (Member # 6531) on :
Hey Mo, I think a lot of the trouble you're having is that your posts wander and are too long, and people only read a small portion. If you want good debate, you have to learn to be more concise and to the point. Otherwise you're just talking to yourself most of the time.
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
lymie tony z,
I've just recently joined the LymeNet board and have been reading mostly Medical posts, my 27 year old daughter has recently been diagnosed with LD, but I happened onto this thread.
I see that you were in Vietnam in 1968. I was in Northern I Corp on two separate tours, 66-67 & 67-68. I was with two different Seabee Units, NMCB9, Danang area and CBMU 301, KeSahn/Quang Tri.
After discharge from USN I enlisted again this time in the USAF, retired after 23 years - 26 years total service.
Just thought I'd say hi! and Welcome Home
LymeDad
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
I've just re-read this entire thread for the third time and I have only a couple of thoughts. There just my thoughts and not intended to hurt anyone's ego, feelings or sensibilities.
I'm always amused at the writings of my so-called Liberal friends, as well as those Liberals who are not my friends. It appears to me that if you write longer responses, use bold faced type and regurgitate enough rhetoric, you'll convince someone, maybe even yourself, that you're more intelligent, more informed and therefore correct in your thinking.
The reason I read the entire thread three times is that each time I read it, all I could hear in my mind was BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Again, if I hurt anyone's feelings or bruised your egos, tough - deal with it.
Just my opinion!!
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
You can't hurt her feelings, been trying for years! Oh, and welcome, common sense sometimes runs short around here.
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Does anyone have anything to say on topic?
Why are criticizms and critiques of individuals the only replies to the subject of Iraq?
24 -no matter the length, you seem to read nothing that isn't in perfectly line with your own pre-concieved notions.. and as far as being accused of lecturing, and of insunuating others are 'uneducated'..well, a considerable amount of Americans are not, certainly if they look to evening news as their only source.. I make that comment and stand by it refering to a considerable number of Americans, really by some fault of their own at this point in time.
You have to seek info in this day -- if any of you are up on the issues...then please do, if you like, talk about it. If I didn't assume you had thoughts, why would I post here? What puzzles me is that they are rarely expressed (on topic)..
It's funny, the ones coming down on this idea (and me) that voicing opposition to the War is some sort of 'superiority' thing -- the ones who say that the most are the least likely to ever address the actual subjects.
Food for thought..
in addition, with great reverence to our Veterans on board.. including you, LabRat, love of my life Tho you only like me when you've had a few, it seems..
..seriously, I revere your service..however each War, each conflict, and each administration is an isolated issue, is it not?
Unilateral, pre-emptive, pre-conspired War based on lies to Congress going in are just a few of the stark contrasts that come to mind.. and then there are the results..
There are a large number of Veterans (young and old) in staunch opposition of the Iraq War. Some who have returned, some from the Persian Gulf, some from Vietnam, WWII, ect..
There are also soldiers and families living on bases quoted as saying they CANNOT afford to question or hold this administration accountable for their handling of the War.. understandably so..of course they can't... and have said that they COUNT on civilians to do so. We can, we SHOULD -- and we do. For them. Answers and accountability are not too much to expect.
Mo
[ 13. November 2005, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
Okay I'll take the bait, I'll say something "on-topic", but forgive me if I rattle on too much.
The topic was and is Pam Foster's comments concerning her letter to a family member serving in Iraq.
I applaud Ms Foster's question, "Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we"? I wonder if some folks are really clear on what it means to fight a war.
Regardless of your individual sentiments,ideas or misconceptions as to why we're in Iraq, the point is we are there. It's time we learned our lessons from previous conflicts/wars and stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
What do we think we're showing those who would do us harm in Iraq or here on our soil when we show such little regard for our Commander-in-Chief and those in his charge? Do we assume that the insurgents in Iraq are so stupid that they don't watch CNN or read the New York Times?
Do we assume that they believe we are country united in the fight to defeat terrorism when we are so divided in our politics and so willing to show the world our divisions?
Free speech is a wonderful concept we all hold dear, unfortunately freedom of any type is not free. There is a cost and obligation for those freedoms.
Lastly, please don't anyone here or anywhere else suppose they can speak for either our soldiers or their families. They can and will speak for themselves.
Our men and women in uniform are where they are by choice. They don't need your help, just your loyalty and your prayers.
That includes the highest ranking member of our military, the Commander-In-Chief.
Posted by 24bit (Member # 6531) on :
Mo, you ramble and ramble. You could summarize your points much quicker if you wanted. I only read a couple of paragraphs at the most because I can only stomach so much negative, pessimism and complaining....and I don't have the time anyway.
Lymenet Offtopic is not a part-time job for me, and I never plan to put it on my resume as great experience and as an accomplishment in life. LOL.
Posted by heiwalove (Member # 6467) on :
~heather.
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
Thanks for chimeing in lymedad and bit...
I don't feel so all alone anymore.
There seems to be one inescapable thought on my mind right now...
something that escapes MO and that is that the great american "uninformed uneducated sheep" that only watch the local news and don't have access to a computer........so she deems herself their only source of information and education.........
these masses of people...
ARE NOT HERE.........on this net....
I suggest MO if you really want to educate the great uneducated...get a soapbox and head to times square and shout your stuff out to the masses...
I'm real sure they'll give you their undivided attention. Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Lymedad,
Hello and Welcome to the other side of LymeNet
you said:
"Free speech is a wonderful concept we all hold dear, unfortunately freedom of any type is not free. There is a cost and obligation for those freedoms.
Lastly, please don't anyone here or anywhere else suppose they can speak for either our soldiers or their families. They can and will speak for themselves.
Our men and women in uniform are where they are by choice. They don't need your help, just your loyalty and your prayers.
That includes the highest ranking member of our military, the Commander-In-Chief."
Amen!!!! I couldn't have said it better myself. And Lord knows I have tried!
My dad was in the Army and did 2 tours of duty in Vietnam. He was in the Army for 20 years, he would have been in longer had the let him.
I chose the user name LymeBrat, because I have lyme and I am an Army Brat. Something I am very proud of.
I have members of my family in Iraq at this moment and you are dead on that they do not want others speaking for them.... or protesting in their name.
Every single person I know of who is in he Military, is there because they chose to be. They are there due to a great love for this country and it's citizens. It is a chose they made, one they wish others would respect.
The protesting done in the name of our soldiers, sickens most soldiers I have spoken to. I know I watched my dad, an Army veteran of 20 years, watch some of the protesting on TV, and simply shake his head and when he turned around, there were tears in his eyes.
This is a man who never shows emotions, yet these protesters brought back memories he'd would rather forget. He is a man of few words, and has never discussed with us his time spent in Vietnam...
But he did say that all the men and women in this war or any war have to hold on to while in a foreign country, fighting for what they truly believe in, is the respect and support of their fellow Americans.
Unfortunately, the welcome home he and many soldiers received when they came home from Vietnam, was deplorable... one they will carry to their graves.
A memory, he can never forget. A memory he doesn't want the men and women in this war or any other war to have.
But like most soldiers, he will support these protesters rights to protest...because he knows the cost of freedom. A freedom many soldiers before him, amongst him and after him, have paid for with their blood.
A freedom many people here, safely in America... take for granted.
It is my hope that someday my dad will tell me about the time he spent in Vietnam ... I know it won't be a pretty picture, and I don't want or need to hear all the gory details.. but he spent 20 years of his life devoted to this country..he gave up so much to be a soldier. And he would do it again today if given the choice....
I would just like to get to know him better, not as my dad, but as the remarkable man who loved his country so much, that he gave 20 years of his life devoted to helping to keep her free.
I know most soldiers don't hear this nearly enough, so please let me say... thank you for being a soldier of the United States and fighting to keep her free!!
My son who is 9 years old, has always been fascinated with soldiers. Ever since his Grampa showed him how to salute, he has saluted every soldier he meets.
We went to a Veteran's Day parade on Friday, to honor our Veteran's and he stood there for over 20 mins, giving each and every soldier who passed him a perfect salute.
You should have seen the smiles ( and tears) on the older Veteran's faces as they passed him. It was priceless! I am proud to have a 9 year old son, who seems to truly understand and respect our soldiers and the sacrifices they make.
Sorry this got so lengthy, as you can tell this is a topic I hold dear to my heart.
God Bless, ~Brat
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Hey LymieDad,
Yay..I think a conversation is starting thanks!
It's not bait, by the way..and Tony Z, please stop deamonizing me and portraying me as something I'm not.
All I expect here is discussion. Noone has to partake if they don't want to. It seems as tho a considerable number of Americans are following White House propaganda, that's no personal comment on you..and if you don't, I'd like to hear your views.. period. That's up to you.
LymieDad, you write:
I applaud Ms Foster's question, "Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we"? I wonder if some folks are really clear on what it means to fight a war.
I think this is a core question. One of the most important ones to look at -- how has this War fought Terror, and is the Middle East more stable??
Attacks in Jordan are just the latest example of considerable de-stabalization of the region, as the bombers were of the burgeoning Al Quada groups based in Iraq. It's billowing well beyond the insurgency, and posing great threat to all US allies in the region.
Attacks in London and Madrid by similar interest groups, and today Al Quada publicly named Queen Elizabeth as one of the greatest enemies of 'Islam'.. so London is hunkering down in fear yet again.
We ALL want to fight the War on Terror..and I feel it is paramount that Partison anger is dropped and intelligent, inified and honest address of and by our 'leaders' gets in gear.
Regardless of your individual sentiments,ideas or misconceptions as to why we're in Iraq, the point is we are there. It's time we learned our lessons from previous conflicts/wars and stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
The above addresses this some, and I will add that this conflict has no element of previous conflicts/Wars.. and was unconstitutional from the get go. I contend that that MATTERS.. I also want to point out that we have on fact given tremendous aide to the TRUE enemy.. which is not the people of Iraq, but Al Qada and other Islamic extremist groups in cells throughout the World. Massive deaths and suffering of innocent Iraqis is their ticket to recruit young men and women who are willing to die to kill Americans and citizens if any of our allied countries. ..and they are in motion doing just that. Al Qada is now a global network, much more solid and unified than it was before we pulled out of Afghanistan and went into Iraq.
Afghanistan is also a new breeding ground..
How then, are we fighting the War on Terror? Our troops are fighting the insurgenccy, they another breed of 'terrorists'..just not the ones who attacked us..and were borne out of the invasion -- meanwhile the ones who did attack us (or the like) are operating in several locations within and outside of Iraq.
What do we think we're showing those who would do us harm in Iraq or here on our soil when we show such little regard for our Commander-in-Chief and those in his charge? Do we assume that the insurgents in Iraq are so stupid that they don't watch CNN or read the New York Times?
No, I think they are well read. Another MAJOR problem, and one they use to their advantage is actually a big point the Republicans and Democrats speaking out against this administration -- is that the majority of the World distrusts the honesty of the Bush administration. Even as recently as this week, after the attacks in Jordan..the citizens of our ALLIED country in the region were polled at 80% not trusting this American administration.
Therefore, holding our 'Commander in Chief' accountable and demanding honest communications at home and with our allied leaders is actually very proactive in National Security issues.. stabalization and effective cooperation will never come if this admin is not trusted to such an overwhelming degree. If the allies don't trust us.. what do you think the enemies are going to do with that sentiment, and don't you think it's then so much easier to recruit a hundred times more terrorists who wish to attack us here again, and our allies? Does it have to get to 100% distrust before we demand change?
Do we assume that they believe we are country united in the fight to defeat terrorism when we are so divided in our politics and so willing to show the world our divisions?
They know we are divided, and have known that since the beginning of the invasion.
Again, the question is in which sentiment do we unite? It must be in truth.. it will never work to unite behind a corrupt administration.. just because Bush is Commander in Chief.. uniting behind him will not solve the problems and in fact would and has made them worse in my opinion.
Free speech is a wonderful concept we all hold dear, unfortunately freedom of any type is not free. There is a cost and obligation for those freedoms.
Agreed.
Lastly, please don't anyone here or anywhere else suppose they can speak for either our soldiers or their families. They can and will speak for themselves.
Our men and women in uniform are where they are by choice. They don't need your help, just your loyalty and your prayers.
Actually, like I said...most of them and their families cannot be pro-active in examining the adnimistration in charge. Their very survival depends on following orders, something I suspect you know. The families are being put through quite enough to be expected to be politically active to boot.. tho many of then are despite all this.. many cannot.
I disagree entirely. We (citizens)have the duty to protect them by demanding this administration and those in their charge are operating effectively, and with American troops best interests in mind, and utilizing the military in an effective way so they can actually do what they do with HONOR, and that they are being utilized for the reasons they are TOLD, and the reasons they signed up for.
Anything less is a disgrace to them IMO. As I cannot speak for them, neither can anyone else..and to assume they would be behind this admin if they had the luxury to consider things as we can -- is just as wrong in my opinion. Even in their position, some of them are against the management of this mission as well.
Also, a very large number of Veterans are speaking out against THIS administration's action past and continuing in Iraq.
The soldiers absolutely have my loyalty and prayers. Agreed there too!
That includes the highest ranking member of our military, the Commander-In-Chief.
No, I do not believe it does.. tho the soldiers in active duty can only view him as their highest commander.. the citizens have an obligation to at the very least hold this elected official accountable for his management of American National Security interests, the War on Terror, and also his management/abuse of our troops.
Are you saying no matter what the core issues are, no matter if there is corruption, lies, unconstitutional plans for War (conspiring with allies to invade before bringing it to Congress), manipulating intelligence presented before the Senate.. and a War that has killed over 2000 of our troops and is failing on every level.. including the fact it has DEstabalized the region greatly.. you are saying that just because he is the President.. that no matter what the circumstances... we MUST line up behind him?
Right now there is a 36% approval rating on this matter.
Do you really feel the country is betraying the troops and America in this case? I don't, I think they are standing up for both.
I (of course) feel that support of this Administration is a fastmoving one-way ticket to the demise of American moral and ethical standing in the World. We've suffered greatly in that area, and that is probably the biggest obstacle in an effective stance against global terrorist networks. CLEARLY, we cannot do this alone.
To others..these concerns/points are not in any way to be misconstrued as disrespecting our service men and women, active or Veterans... it's awful that they are twisted into that rather than discussed on point. There is only respect in these concerns for ALL.
Mo
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Lymebrat,
I deeply respect and understand your post, but I don't understand with such strong sentiment for the military why one would not (in this case) be concerned about their leadership.
"Every single person I know of who is in he Military, is there because they chose to be. They are there due to a great love for this country and it's citizens. It is a chose they made, one they wish others would respect."
This especially..as to many who are inquiring and holding accountable the administration's handling of the military and the situation surrounding Iraq -- do so with this in mind.
it is NOT protesting soldiers or dishonoring their service to focus on the commanding administration.
They are not joined but they must follow, and the administration does not speak for them either -- and in this case is doing them great harm, they cannot protest or even think beyond their job. Our administrators are in charge of making sure these men and women are highly revered and used wisely and honestly.. so their intent to serve and fight for freedom is upheld.
Demanding honesty, acountability and a plan is done with great respect for the soldiers fighting there now.
Some soldiers would never question things, as they are trained not to, some do question, and others understand that the public will..and should..and hope that we do just that.
I don't pretend to speak for all soldiers, and no matter how strongly you feel about it -- I don't think you or anyone else can speak for them either.
Again, the point is this is an isolated conflict with all it's own elements to consider. IMO we are SUPPOSED to fight for them as they do for us! ((in this particular situation.))
Noone is blindly opposing SOLDIERS, there are many things in question that are very wrong regarding our 'leaders' behavior in their charge..
Discussing that is apart from the soldiers themselves, but of course with them in mind.
Mo
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
My goodness where do I start. I doubt I'll be missed but this will my last post on this subject, I need to concentrate on helping a very sick young lady begin her recovery.
heiwalove:"Need I continue" I couldn't tell you said anything. Listing the URLs of a couple of websites doesn't say much. I looked at each of the listed websites.
For every veteran's name or family listed on your source websites, I can supply ten names of friends, and their families, who have either served their country honorably or who are currently doing so.
I can assure you, each of these folks would not share the sentiments of those on the websites nor with several members of this Flash Group. The reason you won't see their names on any website is that they actually have lives, jobs, families to raise and bills to pay.
LymeBrat, God Bless You. Your father is lucky to have such a caring daughter.
Talking about his experiences in Vietnam is not an easy thing to do. Those were experiences that have no connection with real life and unless one has lived through those times, it's extremely hard to explain our feelings. At least in my case, I've tried, at times quite successfully, to erase those memories or at the least bury them deep enough in my mind where they leave me alone. Give him time, just be there if he needs to talk some day.
Mo, It's really hard to know where to begin. I read your input throughout this thread and I feel like I've fallen asleep and awakened in 1969.
I heard all of the left rhetoric back then and I guess times have come full circle. Same message, different war, same result - undermining the spirit of the fighting man and giving aid and comfort to those who oppose us.
I would like to respond to a couple of your points. I know my input will not change your position, but that's okay. I don't agree with you on much of anything, but I spent more than half of my adult life, 26 years, defending your right to voice them.
...how has this War fought Terror, and is the Middle East more stable?
I don't believe that was the question being posed by the original "I don't care" author. I believe her point was that she was sick of watching all of the Politically Correct nonsense being spewed by many, rather than worrying about what is really important, our national security and the safety and well-being of our troops in harms way.
However, to briefly answer your "core" question, this war is fighting terror in a very basic way; every insurgent that is killed, is one less terrorist in the world, very basic stuff.
Secondly, at least for me, I don't care whether the Middle East is more stable or not. The Middle East hasn't been stable in a very long time, our being in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, or any where else, will not change the instability of a people who are willing to strap on a few blocks of C4 and kill as many people as they can, even their own countrymen. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for them.
...Attacks in Jordan...London and Madrid...examples of futher de-stablization
Our being in or out of Iraq would not have prevented these attacks. The attacks in Lebanon, Africa, Oman, etc. happened well before 9/11 and our "liberation" of Iraq. Believing that our withdrawal from Iraq would have had any impact on the above mentioned attacks in Jordan, London, etc. is just pure naivete.
The citizens of our ALLIED country in the region...
The citizens of our so-called ALLIED countries not having respect for our government leaders is again not important, at least not to me.
We spend way too much time worrying about how we're perceived around the world and not enough about how to protect our own citizens. I quite confident that when Jordan, France or Spain get in a jam, they won't hesitate to call for our help, regardless of their opinions of our president.
...holding our Commander in Chief accountable
There are methods established within our constitution that allow for the accountability of our chief executive, when and if it becomes necessary these processes will do their job.
Your point concerning your "duty" to protect our servicemen and their families has probably caused me the most consternation. I find your sentiments to be patronizing at the least and outrageous at the most.
I find it ironic that people who have absolutely nothing to do with the military in times of peace find it their responsibility to represent them during a time of war that person doesn't support.
We have never needed your assistance and they certainly don't need it now.
Please remember when we take our oath of enlistment or commission, we swear to "protect and defend the consitution" and we swear to "obey the orders of those appointed over us". We give that pledge without question or rancor, we don't assume to distinguish which duty we will support nor which political party we will obey.
The idea that you or anyone else outside the military chain-of-command knows what is best for our troops or how they should be deployed is laughable.
Putting on a uniform does not remove ones ability to think or to have opinions. Your point that military families cannot express their political point of view is again without merit. Most military members and their families do not express their political opinions in public because they choose not to, not because they cannot.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits only the public display of protest while in uniform. It certainly does not prevent one from exercising the purest form of protest, our right to vote.
I apologize for rambling and I have only one final comment concerning your latest post.
Your comment, "Al Qada is now a global network, much more solid and unified than it was before we pulled out of Afghanistan...
I'm quite sure that the more than 16,000 troops currently serving in Afghanistan will be happy to know that they can come home now.
Cheers,
LymeDad
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
I'll answer further because there is allot, but for now I have to comment it is important to remember that this War is not Vietnam. The majority in opposition are not those who were protesting then, nor are the reasons or circumstances the same. Global Terrorism is a much different animal.
With respect, this idea that 'we' cannot call for answers because it is 'against the troops' or that civillians cannot 'possibly understand'.. yet providing NO solid answers..has been used by the Bush administration for the first two years of this War to supress questions of grave importance.
This War is not justified by the emotions surrounding conflicts past. In addition the attacks on 911 were in no way tied to Iraq.
What is being done about the Terror that struck MY home??
We all have the same interests in combating the terrorist groups that attacked us.. don't you think that specialized and targeted military action against terror cells where they lie would be allot more effective in combatting this? Rather than desimating countries and killing hundreds of thousands of innocents and 2000 of out troops, injuring scores more??
With Terror networks reaching around the globe, how can the manner in which we went into Iraq be applied effectively? Should we do that in every country that is home to islamic extremist terror cells?
Tho -- Iraq (pre-invasion) was not...let us not forget.
Lies by this administration when we have so much at stake certainly do pose grave concern. Does that not weigh on your mind?
We sirely can't afford these kinds of lies -- and to be viewed by the majority of the World as liars also puts this admin at a considerable disadvantage in fighting Terror. You may not care about Jordan and other allies, but we need them.
Are we to support corrupt leadership out of some proposed obligatory silent submission? We can respect your service and the service of the active and still demand this War be justified with SPECIFICS, and if not..the path changed.
ALL our kids lives are on the line and your answers are not enough to satisfy the issues raised.
Point respected that when soldiers put on their uniform, they are not poised to question, I understand that.
Another point is, tho some may BELIEVE the invasion in Iraq is protecting America, does not make it so. Tho some may BELIEVE it is now our job to 'stabalize' the region and moreover that we are accomplishing that, does not make that so.
That we are now responsible to shoot first, ask qiestions later is not a clear justification either, and in fact, seems and is prooving to be rather chaotic and deleterious.
terror networks have strewngthened, and yes, in Afghanistan as well.. this is well documented.
SUPPOSITIONS like the ones made above regarding the countries invlolved are not justification for War. If it were that simple, if we keep following the NEW policy..introduced by Bush.. that we no longer 'wait for a reason' .. we go before there is one..
if this continues.. how many countries will be invaded in this regard?
yet, the real threat has been left largely untouched or abandoned????
They ignored and continue to ignore real, tangible, existing threats!
Do you ever consider the pre-War agenda of these administrators (public record) and the profit gains of members of this admin and their ties, ptofits connected to Iraq?
What of the strengthening of Terror networks such as Al Qada? Iran?
How long before things go nuclear on this path?
It is outlandish to think we can powerhouse our way throgh all of this alone, with no relations with countries in question or many allies? It cannot work that way, and that line of thinking completely discounts a great deal of other nations and puts us at a tremendous disadvantage.
I'm sorry and with all due respect, there needs to be more tangible evidence, more specific gains beyond rhetoric.. to justify the Iraq War and these 2000 + American military deaths -- much more than you have provided.
The attacks in Jordan, Madrid and London were borne out of Al Qada in Iraq or responding to Iraq, of course they are a result of this War and have been stated as such by those who perpetrated them!
I respect what you are saying, but your opinions of Middle Eastern conditions alone do not justify this War.
Mo
[ 14. November 2005, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Really, really good post Lymedad! The problem is, ``precious'', has been told this many times by many trustworthy people and it is in conflict with what her friends, favorite web sites and the democratic party tell her and hey, if you can't believe ted kennedy, you might as well hang it up!
Puts me in mind of a thirteen year old girl, or the definition of ignorance and indifferent. (I don't know and I don't care!)
Have you noticed, the anti-war people always seem to demonstrate against the country defending itself! Makes you think they almost belong to a branch of a foreign army!
Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
Actually, I do not think it is true. There are times when war would be necessary, like defending one self.
But, in the case of Iraq, did we go there to defend ourselves? Not as far as I can tell. Does anyone truly know why we went there, considering Iraq did not have WMD's and seemingly not a connection to 911 either.
So, is no clear reason a good enough reason to go to war with anyone?
DLL
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
lymedad and brat and 24....glad you're here...I don't blame you dad for leaving...its hopeless...
To state that this war on terror is not like vietnam is inaccurate...all war is basically the same and waged for basically the same reasons...
Even when you go back to the crusades...the Cristians fought to get the Holy city back from the islams(persians who the christians called infidels...not the islamic calling the christians infidels which does'nt even show up in the Koran) after they invaded and took over...
War is about stuff...pretty fundamental... The folks over their don't have a lot of stuff and are held back from getting stuff by their leaders...so they fight their leaders or find someone to help them fight their leaders...especially their leaders that have used genocide, poverty, ignorance and religious beliefs of before the middle ages to keep them in line...fear.
As far as the US killing "innocents"...yeah I heard the same old rhetoric when serving in Nam..."killing and burning babies" and I was spit on and almost shot a couple times when on leave. That's what comes of dangerous rhetoric in a war.
These same "innocents" were brainwashed into strapping booby trap bombs to themselves just to take out a few soldiers...so what's different now! You did'nt see the helicopters full of blown up bleeding disfigured dead bodies these innocents created.... And this and more on the initial topic is that this woman voiced her opinion which she is allowed to do...even if it's viewed by some as racist...and even your opinions that it is racist is protected that's why more people want to be more like Americans then those that don't. Ya know MO just cuz you say I'm deamonizing you does'nt make it so...what? Do you have a guilty conscience? At least you're accusing me on your own now and not able to ride on the coat tails of your buddy... You're the one that accuses those here and all accross america of being "uninformed, uneducated, sheep"...this is the same as saying we're all stupid and incapable...
Then when I tell you the folks you need to talk to are not what you say we are...you accuse me of stuff and spin and spin and spin...to you're way of thinking.
Guess what? We, the well informed dissagree with you...
You and liver state that the terrorists were not even in Iraq...but now you state they are...are you kidding? I told you earlier that the saudis and osama wanted hussein OUT...don't you get it?
You think you understand war...you've never been in one...while that does'nt disqualify you from understanding war persay your missunderstanding war and why it is waged due to your obvious lack of research on past war is highly evident.
Would it surprise you to know we were involved in Saudi and the middle east and all that stuff while we were still fighting in Nam?
Would it surprise you to know that genocide has been used by the Chinese, Cambodians, vietnamese, as well as Hussein etc? Ya know folks don't like that too much...dieing from starvation or being gassed.
Ya think ya got it alllll figured out huh?
Like Jack says on the stand in the movie..."You can't handle the truth"...
If we're so ignorant and imperialistic and facistic or whatever you and liver or whoever want to designate that the American people are...then how come folks from other nations are still comming here in droves?
And if you think we can't take on the world terrorist organization...your just as wrong as the Germans and Japanese were in world war two.
Keep poking us and we'll awaken...we don't have to go nucleur to do it either...
What do you think is going to happen when China needs to expand and find markets for their products to keep people working earning a living and they need food, water,oil etc...Ya think they're eventually just gonna ask for it?
Ya know 24,Dad and brat...I've tried...and basically my initial objective has been achieved anyway so I'm gonna take a little vacation from the obsurdity...... Maybe if we ignore them they'll go away....then they can just talk to each other and feed each others ego....
So long for now...I'm on vacation for awhile.....zman :hi:ps...I served on the Iwo Jima LPH2 from 69 thru 71...two tours on a Amphibious Assault Ship... I was saddened when Kent Happened...I used to party there... I was saddened because I believed I was fighting for the same freedoms the kids were expressing...
And I fought on and would again if I were able... and yes Mo and liver...I had my eyes wide open to what was going on...funny how the byproduct of quote"imperialistic,facist, whatever is feedom for the little guy...oh...nevermind...see ya....
[ 14. November 2005, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: lymie tony z ]
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Lymedad
Excellent post!!!
I'm sorry to hear about your daughter. My kids both have Lyme. After 18 months of treatment, my daughter was declared cured of lyme. My 9 year old son continues to have headaches, and bad joint pain.
Also my daughter was diagnosed with diabetes in May, so I totally understand and respect your need to put all your energy and time into caring for your child. I will keep you both in my prayers!
If you find you have some free time, stop by and visit. Your posts are refreshing... many of us here share your view point
you said:
"LymeBrat, God Bless You. Your father is lucky to have such a caring daughter.
Talking about his experiences in Vietnam is not an easy thing to do. Those were experiences that have no connection with real life and unless one has lived through those times, it's extremely hard to explain our feelings. At least in my case, I've tried, at times quite successfully, to erase those memories or at the least bury them deep enough in my mind where they leave me alone. Give him time, just be there if he needs to talk some day."
Thank you!
Also thank you for giving me your insight about my dad and his experience in Vietnam. Hearing it put this way, I am better able to understand and except, that he may never want to share those years with me.
I never made the connection between real life and the time he served, but it does make sense.
Like you, my dad is able to put the past and bad memories behind him... most of the time. But I think they are buried just below the service, as when he hears and sees these protesters, it brings it all back.
I hate that all these years later, these protester's actions can still cause him so much pain. And I refuse to sit by idly and let it happen again.
You said:
" Your point concerning your "duty" to protect our servicemen and their families has probably caused me the most consternation. I find your sentiments to be patronizing at the least and outrageous at the most.
I find it ironic that people who have absolutely nothing to do with the military in times of peace find it their responsibility to represent them during a time of war that person doesn't support.
We have never needed your assistance and they certainly don't need it now.
Please remember when we take our oath of enlistment or commission, we swear to "protect and defend the consitution" and we swear to "obey the orders of those appointed over us". We give that pledge without question or rancor, we don't assume to distinguish which duty we will support nor which political party we will obey.
The idea that you or anyone else outside the military chain-of-command knows what is best for our troops or how they should be deployed is laughable.
Putting on a uniform does not remove ones ability to think or to have opinions. Your point that military families cannot express their political point of view is again without merit. Most military members and their families do not express their political opinions in public because they choose not to, not because they cannot.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits only the public display of protest while in uniform. It certainly does not prevent one from exercising the purest form of protest, our right to vote."
EXACTLY!!!!!! I thought for a minute my father was writing this
He shares your opinions and view points, as does every single man or woman I know who is serving in the military now, or in the past.
Come back when you can, I enjoy reading your posts.
~LymeBrat
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Hi Zman,
A vacation from off topic is always advised
I take them all the time. And the funny thing is, it never changes. When you come back, it's the same old thing... except it's directed at someone else..lol!
I know I'll take some heat for this, but I'm going to say it anyway ( cause like the author of this article..I don't care )
When I read what you wrote and I quote:
" You're the one that accuses those here and all accross america of being "uninformed, uneducated, sheep"... this is the same as saying we're all stupid and incapable...
Guess what? We, the well informed dissagree with you..."
I had to laugh! I laughed so hard my husband came over to read what I was laughing at and he too started laughing. As I too have been called " uneducated, misinformed, a mindless flag waver, " to name a few... simply because I disagree with a few posters over here.
That's what I meant when I said, I didn't need a lecture or lesson. As I am fully aware of what is going on, I am educated (I even have a college degree ) and yet I dare to disagree with others on this board.
I find it comical that because I don't agree, I must be the one who is...uninformed, misinformed, or unaware...
Yup, some things never change.
Just wanted you to know you're not alone, we all need a break from time to time:)
~Brat
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
DLL, in a court of law when your trying to ``prove'', something that can't be proven for lack of evidence (smoking gun), you have to use (or try to use) circumstantial evidence or the preponderance of the evidence that is known to make your case. (There's some lawyer out there saying, ``don't talk a lot of ****''.)
Now, I sure don't have all the answers but I'll give you a few things to mull over. First thing right off the bat, Sadam was televised handing out checks for $25,000 to black burka clad old women whose family member had been suicide bombers. Irrefutable!! He was inclined to at least encourage suicide bombing and that is terrorism.
Now, let's skip the gas, murder, wars and mayhem because that is an established fact that is well documented and is irrefutable! Not a nice man and no sign he's going to change!
Now, remember those metal boxes filled with one hundred dollar bills, $1,000,000 per box, what do you suppose that money was going to be used for or could be used for? I'm sure there was plan A,B and C and he hasn't told anyone yet. Since it was all cash and untraceable American money it could have been used anywhere for any reason where you wanted no trail left behind. He used oil vouchers to bribe politicians so it was for something far more underhanded than that. I'm sure several million went to protest organizers around the world, (Ramesy Clark was johnny on the spot wasn't he!)
Now, I could be all wrong, it could be something none of us has thought of but the preponderance (there's that word again) of the evidence indicates he'd like to do us harm in any way he could and still have his hands looking clean, simply because he knew what we could do to him!
This is going to be a long war and there are folks complaining about putting our children in debt. WWII is reckoned to have cost America 4.7 trillion, (with a t)! Even writing off the loans to our allies (except Finland paid in full) we seem to be doing ok. A hellva lot better than if we had lost, if you want to think about that for a minute! Sure we could give the unwed mothers more since marriage has become old hat less you happen to have a certain sexual preference. The money could go to a lot of worth while areas but it becomes mute if you loose your country!
Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
Actually it just isn't worth it.
However, Tony Z, you have just AGAIN claimed that I have made statements that I HAVE NOT MADE -RE READ MY POSTS (and understand them) and DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH that do not even reflect my opinion.
Thanks
DLL
[ 14. November 2005, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: dontlikeliver ]
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Wooooooah..
Thanks for stopping the spinning DLL, I was getting dizzy!
Tony, Lymebrat, noone here has EVER called anyone else HERE uneducated or uninformed.
I myself have repeatedly stated that those Americans who base their knowledge of Iraq in particular on White House press releases, Fox and CNN.. that those who look only there for sources are most definately ill informed. It is condensed news that suppresses many things the White House and it's coorperate owners do not want broadcasted.
Whenever I post that, you twist it into saying YOU are uninformed, and for the hundredth time, that is not what I have ever said. I would assume you have read beyond the canned nightly news. You said this a zillion times after I posted the UK headlins after the elections, which was something like 'How can 42,567,894 Americans be so Dumb' -- and from that you accused me of calling YOU dumb. Manu in the World view US that way..that is not my fault.
Here we have Tony chiming in and egging this on, twisting DLL and my words throughout.. can we stop the childishness?
I am in no position to say how 'informed' you are, most of us are only interested in on topic focus, and this is just another deterrent IMO. In fact, if there was more talk ON TOPIC we might have some idea of how informed eachother is. Right now, I really couldn't say because there is so much bantering. I have never said that or thought that anyone here is uneducated and I'm TIRED of being accused of it. OK? I should have a little OT disclaimer in my signature or something.
On topic..
I'm surprised some of you would say or insinuate that because we have not fought in a War we cannot possibly speak on this with any knowledge.. I'm sure you'll know things we will never begin to understand, but those things I don't think have allot to do with the 'meat' of this discussion on Iraq. I can respect the hell out of your service, and still do have valid and strong opposing points as to the management of Terror and Iraq. Maybe then I should say that YOU cannot possibly understand the enemy we are facing because you were not there up close and personal on 911 like I was???? Would that make sence?
I think DLL keeps boiling it down to the cruxt of the matter.. all the emotion and passion about beliefs having to do with OTHER Wars, totally diferent circumstances.. we have comparisons here to Vietnam and WWII.. both far cries from Iraq.. so all of that is largely beside the point.
Then we have allot about ways in which one could **assume Saddam was gonna get us one day, one way or another.. and that is the frightening part of all this IMO.
It seems there are still a considerable number of Americans who are fine with having waged this War on supposition.. that the losses are justified based on nothing solid - and the path is fine and dandy..
I'm sorry, but this is ignoring a great deal before through to present, actions AND results, and is a very frightening new policy we have here in America.
In that case, there is a loooong list of places and leaders to attack, many more urgent than Saddam ever was.
So there is no order or honor anymore? Just go in blazing whenever this admin thinks we should (not based on any evidence, lieing all the way).. so they along with some 30% of the population can strong arm the idea that we must attack those viewed (or claimed to be) evil, or in need of 'liberating'?
What IS the reason we are there? Really? Bush was recently asked if he would have gone to War in Iraq knowing what we all know now.. he was asked now that 'we' know there is no connection between Iraq and 911, Saddam had no WMD's, and that Iraqis do not see us as liberaters.. would he still have gone the WAY HE DID.. and he said yes.
But he did not say why..so who can say why?? (note, he also knew all those thing before hand, we now know this as well.)
Supposition... a blanket idea that we will be better of if we 'take over' Iraq somehow (which has been prooven to have the OPOSITE effect as far as 'safety' and stability in the region is concerned..and based on growth of AlQada INSIDE and out of Iraq and many other bases. so, for this question, supposition or any of the reasons Bush gave over the years as they have been prooven false -- doesn't count as valid reasons for War, at least not in a right-side up World..
so, why????????????
Can anyone answer that in specifics?
The only reason that I can see, is Imperialism.. like the Crusades.. to get a foothold in the oil region to ensure power in those resources.. keep a step ahead of China and other developing nations, and to ensure the nation is not forced to convert to alternative energy and fuel sources.. guaranteeing some security for the oil men in office and all their finincial ties and main contributors.
The money made by these folks on this War already is staggering. It's only just begun.
Too big a financial tie to be ignored IMO when there is such a void in justification and so many public lies have been told.
So, in this case... this 'War' is horible not only for Iraqis and stability in the region, but also for Americans, National Security, OUR MILITARY (just ONE dieing for oil is HIGH CRIME and DEAD WRONG in my mind..you bet many are fighting for them!!)..
our dependance on oil is creating a threat much more certain and steady than Terror itself, global warming is an imminent threat -- not just in generations, but documented by international science as a threat to OUR children and their kids.
Some here say it's bunk, like Bush does, who regected joining Kyoto with the rest of the World to take action in protecting our planet. Funny..the effects are so obvious now they even are running a special on Fox Teee Veee..
A change to alternative fuels and other energy sources would create a huge domestic job force, and we could again become leaders in the World by developing new technologies that we could teach/share/sell to China, India.. and all nations who also need alternatives to oil. Sweeden is already promarily running on ethanol, from corn.
What do you know??
Instead of killing, dieing, sucking up trillions of dollars a month fighting for a FINITE, dirty, dangerous and obsolete energy source..and creating a chaotic and dangerous world for OUR KIDS..
we could reverse global warming and create a strong economy!
This War is NOT fighting Terrorism, many said it would not.. as it has turned out, it has strengthened it.
Corruption, lies, and financial gains for those connected to this admin is NOT acceptable for us, and certainly not our soldiers.
We need inteligent managenment focused on striking at the heart of Terror networks and effectively shutting down their work. Terrorism is nothing like any previous enemy of War. You cannot look at it as the same, nor tout the same 'solution'.
We need to let the Middle East see we are true to our word and intend to give Iraq back to the Iraqis.
Bush is viewed internationally as a lieing oil monger. We have fallen far from our position as the 'moral beacon' of the World, gone from a strong stance to a questionable one at best. THAT frightens me.
There is no way we can fight global Terrorism with this kind of leadership and impression.
No WAY.
Mo
[ 14. November 2005, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
Well, I suppose that (OT) male Gynecologists do not know anything about Gynecology either, because they have never (probably) been women.
DLL
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
You have personal knowledge Mr. Bush Lied do you? How did you find this out? Who told you and why did they tell you and not me? I have to conclude that your inherently smart to get the jump on the rest of us bumpkins! Lead on O wise one.
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
Okay, so I lied, I'm back for one final statement. I just couldn't resist the temptation.
"What is being done about the Terror that struck MY home??"
I didn't know the terrorists struck "Wonderland" or "The Back of Beyond". I'm just curious why those that continue to bash the current administration chose not to identify their state of residence, just a curiosity.
"Lies by this administration when we have so much at stake certainly do pose grave concern."
That statement is unsubstantiated by facts, plenty of left inuendo, nothing proven to this point.
"You may not care about Jordan and other allies, but we need them."
Nah, we don't. They need us much more than we'll ever need them.
"Another point is, tho some may BELIEVE the invasion in Iraq is protecting America, does not make it so." "Tho some may BELIEVE it is now our job to 'stabalize' the region and moreover that we are accomplishing that, does not make that so."
Writing you opinion in bold face type does not make your opinion anything but your opinion. Because anyone has a belief in or against a theory does not make it so. Your beliefs have no more validity that anothers.
"how many countries will be invaded in this regard?"
Probably as many as it takes. It seems that maybe you have the answer to that question. You've touched on the subject on several of your writings concerning your position on how to fight the war on terror. I haven't read a whole lot of detail, but I'll leave that one to you.
"They ignored and continue to ignore real, tangible, existing threats!"
Would you advocate going to war with North Korea over their threat, how about China, like to tackle that one?
"I'm sorry and with all due respect, there needs to be more tangible evidence, more specific gains beyond rhetoric.. to justify the Iraq War and these 2000 + American military deaths -- much more than you have provided."
I have never and will never attempt to assume that I have the right to justify any war. Been to two, don't like 'em. As I've said in previous posts, we're there now, let's do it correctly and with unity of purpose.
"The attacks in Jordan, Madrid and London were borne out of Al Qada in Iraq or responding to Iraq, of course they are a result of this War and have been stated as such by those who perpetrated them!"
It appears it is palatable for you to accept the word of a terrorist group when it is convenient to your beliefs. It would seem to fit nicely in with their plans if we were to accept the premise that GWB is the cause of world terrorism rather than placing the blame where it belongs, on the terrorists themselves.
"I respect what you are saying, but your opinions of Middle Eastern conditions alone do not justify this War".
You're absolutely correct, my opinions are just that, my opinions. They only matter to me; however, they have as much validity as anyone elses. Conversely, your opinion of GWB or anyone else in government does not negate their justifications for their actions.
You all know what they say about opinions, their just like some human body parts, everyone has one.
One final point and then I'm gone from this side of LymeNet:
Please don't worry too much about our moral position in the world. We still have our position as the leader of the free world. Now we just do what we say we're going to do. The talk is over, the warnings have been presented, the consequences are being applied. Now do we have the strength as a nation to continue the struggle?? Have we learned from our past mistakes?? Only time will tell.
I'll leave to you all to fight out.
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Hey LymieDad..
indeed, have we learned?
Sorry you're leaving.. this is just a quick response..
Yes, we all have opinions and hopefully some info to chew on to back them up as we hash things out. I also hope that folks' opinions are not set in stone, and are living breathing things that respond to circumstances and information. Again, and again..and again.. I am not saying anyone's opinion matters more or less than anyone elses.. I'm simply challanging some of these 'opinions'.. that they be backed up with something tangible. You can do that, or not.. your choice entirely. I try and make a point to stay on the issue.
My state of residence is NY.
On September 11th, 2001 I was on my way to work in the Towers that morning..most of us are pretty P.O.ed that Bush didn't keep his promises that day, and even moreso that he and his administration exploited that horrible attack for political gains and used it shamelessly in order to trump up Iraq War support (that lie is documented throughout the 911 commission, btw). However, I do not think you can't speak on civilian attacks of Terror in NYC if you weren't there. Maybe just a bit removed is all..
Regarding this administration's 'misrepresentation', or 'cherry picking' of intelligence, leaving out big pieces in presenting to the Senate such as the one that reported no immenent threat from Saddam.. and a few other choice things..yet we heard of mushroom clouds and the like. (In other words, lying -- )
the 'stretched' and 'omitted' truths are all documented in official paperwork, memos and such. Also, in their public speeches at the time married with inteligence reports they HAD..
I strongly disagree with the idea that we don't need allies in the War on Terror.. I believe we absolutely do. Especially in the Midle East. How can we do this effectively on our own and in the wrong location??
I was not speaking in the above post of China and North Korea, I was speaking about Al Qada as the ignored/abandoned existing threat..
And should we tackle the probelm with North Korea , absolutely I agree with what you said..no way we want to march in there like we did Iraq. But that begs the questions about Iraq tho, doesn't it? That's not the way to handle real threats from countries, such as North Korea..the Bush admin never saw Iraq as threat.
I don't know if you read my next post above.. but global Terror is quite a different enemy than we ever have had before. It seems (and experts agree) it would require a specialized adress by our agencies and the military working in tandem.
North Korea is another story, and I hope we don't soon have a couple more like them.
..and what's this..I've been accused of conspiring with the Terrorists before.. u said I 'take their word' when it behooves me?? I'm sorry, but I do think folks listen to the statements made after an attack as to why they made it.. and I would think they should.
..and I don't understand your take on Jordan..are you then not of the mindset that we are 'liberating' Iraq? I mean..the other claim, that this War is to 'better' the region and make us safer by 'Westernizing' them.. if you lend any credability to that claim, Jordan is one of the most advanced nations in that regard..very 'westernized' societally, ecomomy.. governing, pholisophy, ect. It was an 'oasis' in the Middle East.. standing up against tyranny in the region, smack dab between Israel and Iraq as the one that set an example. Why would you consider them dispensable as allies? There is a very confusing mixed message in all this.
Laborama.. I think I've said this before.. but if you've got evidence that Saddam was fixing to attack America or any other country.. please do tell Cheney or someone.. I'm sure they would really like to have something on that issue right about now..
Mo
[ 15. November 2005, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by 24bit (Member # 6531) on :
Wow, gone already. More proof that this isn't really a discussion, it's a lecture. LOL.
Posted by heiwalove (Member # 6467) on :
labrat, your knowledge of the law is sorely lacking, therefore your analogy holds no water. you can't convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence or "perhaps" or "probably" or "preponderance" alone.
no one here is saying saddam is a good guy. clearly, he's a terrorist and murderer guilty of a huge number of war crimes against his own people. HOWEVER, there is ZERO evidence he was at all connected to 9/11, and there is ZERO reason for us to invade an entire nation because "oh, they might have WMDs." when in fact, as we know now, they don't have WMDs at all; and the myriad lies this administration pulled to encourage the American public to support the war, are finally coming to light.
Posted by heiwalove (Member # 6467) on :
do all of you bush-supporting, america-loving fanatics also support the constitution, the very framework that holds up this country? i would hope so. and if so, do you realize that this particular war is blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL? completely and totally illegal in the way it was started and waged? how is that okay? how do you justify it? or can you just admit your hypocrisy?
Posted by heiwalove (Member # 6467) on :
also interesting to note:
why is it that the folks who seem the most vengeful, the most supportive of the current war, were NOT there on 9/11? (mo, i didn't know you worked in the towers. wow. i'm so glad you're okay.) i was in lower manhattan when the planes hit and the buildings fell; i was covered in ash for days.
i don't live in new york anymore, but i still consider nyc my city; and it's where i ultimately want to settle down in the future. i fully realize 9/11 was an attack on america, specifically on american imperialism, militarism, etc (you can say it was an attack on "freedom," but look at the targets - world trade center, pentagon), but being in new york that day, experiencing the horror with fellow new yorkers; it really *felt more like an attack on new york city itself. new yorkers are forever bonded together because of that deceptively beautiful tuesday morning in 2001.
i'm not saying there are NO new yorkers who support the war - obviously that would be an incorrect assertion. however, i've definitely noticed that the most vengeful and righteous pro-iraq war americans, live outside of new york city.
Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
Heiwalove, some great points.
I was not in NYC that day, because I'd already moved away, but of course other friends and family were affected in a very direct way (1 died in towers).
I would move back today if only hubby would agree to move, which he wont.
DLL
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Well heck, here I thought I knew something about the law! Well, just shows to go ya, sometimes we're not as smart as we think we are, maybe standing too close to the problem, can't see it. I'm practicing speed reading but dozed off reading your post, seemed like I was reading the same thing over and over, maybe day after day, maybe it was another leftie, ya'll all look alike ya know. A box of matches and this wild scary look, makes one want to carry a silver cross and a wooden stake or was it a wooden cross and......
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Hey Lymedad,
Sorry to see you go. I'll see you over in medical and general
Tony Z
I finally sent you a response to the PM
Heiwalove,
you said: "do all of you bush-supporting, america-loving fanatics also support the constitution, the very framework that holds up this country?"
"or can you just admit your hypocrisy? "
Yes I do Support Bush.
Yes I do Love America.
Yes I do support the Constitution.
And NO I am not a fanatic or a hypocrite.
Are you?
Best wishes everyone!
~Missy
p.s.
Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean you are right and I am wrong..or that I am right and you are wrong..it mean we disagree. Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
No doubt we disagree here..and that's OK!
discussion is important also tho, like I said.. these are living breathing issues, or at least they should be. I often wonder why some opinions seem so rigid in this. I also would think such strong opinions about something such as War would have info that held up in discussion.. responses to some other considerations, ect.. Bush admin is being investigated from a few angles now on this, and more than two thirds of the country have serious doubts (finally!). Seems prudent to talk about it openly.
A side note..here's a beautiful tribute to the towers guys --
Yes, I was working with promotions at the time and had to check in the ofices in tower two and then head down to the atrium. It was like living through Armagedon. I met many guardian angels that day I'll never see again, circumstances, guidance, conversations that changed the course of my path...ect.....
Anyway..I love this piece, and I suspect this is what's in the heart of many NYers quest for truth:
World Trade Center Twin Towers
Looking up at them, Looking down from them, seeing them from a distance, in a photograph. Taking tea in the top floor observatory, gazing out to sea, at Liberty, at the blinding reflections of the water. Or maybe just sitting on the roof bench just taking in the stillness of it all, forgetting one was a quarter of a mile high in the sky. The Towers. I miss them so much. It was and will always be a great work of art, and in its vastness it became so overwhelming and powerful. The configuration of two similar towers built close to each other just added to its shock supremacy. And what an image that was. The Towers always played a part of a reassuring beacon for street navigation, and when one needed them, they always deserved more than a glance. No matter where in New York City, the towers were that ever present companion.
Even when approaching Manhattan one felt only finally at home when faced with the scrapers, and the skyline master was usually the WTC. Such an exquisite expression and daring design, it was an astounding genius to compliment the tip of the island with this double dollop of steel structured suaveness, how did they guess that it would work so superbly? It might have been a gamble at the time, and even the greatest of architects dont get it right, but designs were approved for the miniature city that would specialise in world trade.
Back in 1966, work began on this monumental monument with the giant excavation for the foundations. Slowly, the breathtaking buildings rose in tandem to make their mark on the downtown scene. Opening in 1974, the towers survived early critics to become that much loved symbol of architectural magnificence. Ultimately, the World Trade Center's Twin Towers of New York City would be recognised as the greatest success in world skyscraper concepts. It was the perfect piece to the puzzle. From the Ferry it looked so right. And the towers grew on everyone. A wonderful creation, to be loved and enjoyed by so many. An exciting experience that never faded, never failed. A sight to bring joy, a feeling of home. At one with the bay and older buildings, envied by other cities and their less successful schemes. It was the happiest thing to behold.
Approaching the WTC, closer and closer, and yet even closer, until their true breadth unfolded, and you realised that this toy configuation that once beckoned you from the horizon has become an all encompassing block of metallic lines and curvations. Closer, until you're hit by the scale and brilliance of what your eyes are dealing with, an epic effigy of not one, but two mammoth towers of steel and glass in powered perspective. Finding yourself in an oasis of business and commerce and energy unrivaled. The city of World Trade. Closer and that lovable chicane-track wall design hits you, as the might of the towers enveloped all, nothing left to do but to stand between them, look up, and twirl around. Quite a shock for the senses.
The visually most stunning sensation mankind had ever made, and even as you stood between them, it still seemed unbelievable. In recovery, one could take in the delights of the sculptures and designs that shone around the entrance, maybe sit around the golden globe for a spell, and then, when ready, take those steps into the stunning twin tiered atrium and relax in the glittering tranquility of the lobby, a glade of glowing marble and giant wall tapestries. This began the path to peace. Soon, there you would be in a ear-wobbling elevator ride to the stratosfear. And moments later, stare upon the most mind mashing all encompasing largest man man work of art: Manhattan and its buildings, punctuated by the Empire State.
Absolutely astounding and gorgeous. Unforgettable. A mass of lines, angles, colors, movement, even sound. Fantastic and awesome, and a contradictory perspective to the one from the Empire State. But stepping back from the slitted windows was to be aware of ones environment, that each of the WTC's floors were a whole acre in size. No trouble taking in the panorama here. Plenty of room for everyone, and even a few shops up there to break up what could be often a several hour undertaking. Sky high restaurants and bars sporting the globes most killer views.
One was secure and happily sheltered there in all weathers, and it was always a shocker though to survey the minimal sway in high winds by lining up the horizontals of a window frame with a far off building. Only a few inches! But better was the ambience from up top, when in good weather one was allowed to ascend the escalators to the roof.
Here, above the 110th floor, one was 1350ft into the heavens. This square walkway let you touch the wonderful moods of that very special place where on some days it was so weird to find it so blindingly hot and still you could forget where you were. Finding yourself yards from the other tower's 360 ft TV antennae seperated from your concourse by a dastardly drop to hell. Head literally in the clouds. Listening to the groans of the harbour horns. Sitting on those benches in the ultimate garden of sombre meditation. You could certainly register the curvature of the earth from that position. Mind blowing in itself. And it was worth timing your stay to meet the finest of finales, gazing upon the most fantastic of sunsets against the foreground of Manhatten's metropolis.
Untoppable! Brought a tear to the eye. Made life all worthwhile. My last visit included two hours sitting there completely taking it all in. Who needs boring drugs when experiences like that give the senses such a natural high and expansion. The towers were a lovable benevolent animal which gave its participants zillions of hours of enjoyment. They were a great sight to behold and a pleasure to visit. Structures that should have lasted for generations. Truly innocent and wonderful creations. I loved them, and will remember them, always.
View from the coffee truck
The best thing to do there, IMO..
[ 15. November 2005, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mo: [qb] Does anyone have anything to say on topic?
and as far as being accused of lecturing, and of insunuating others are 'uneducated'..well, a considerable amount of Americans are not, certainly if they look to evening news as their only source.. I make that comment and stand by it refering to a considerable number of Americans, really by some fault of their own at this point in time.
I guess you don't even read your own posts...so why should we...
I can find more of your accusations if you like but one should suffice... Posted by heiwalove (Member # 6467) on :
can someone please explain to me how it's not hypocritical to simultaneously support the US constitution, and support the current war on iraq?
Posted by heiwalove (Member # 6467) on :
also, two quotes:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt
"The greatest purveyor of violence on the Earth is my own government." - Martin Luther King Jr.
~heather.
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Heiwalove,
you said:
"do all of you bush-supporting, america-loving fanatics also support the constitution, the very framework that holds up this country?" "or can you just admit your hypocrisy? "
To which I replied:
"
Yes I do Support Bush.
Yes I do Love America.
Yes I do support the Constitution.
And NO I am not a fanatic or a hypocrite.
Are you? "
and heiwalove said:
"can someone please explain to me how it's not hypocritical to simultaneously support the US constitution, and support the current war on iraq? "
And I am saying:
First of all, let me just ask..... where in this post, did I say I supported this war? I didn't. My post had nothing to do with if I supported or did not support this war in Iraq.... weather I support it or not, is irrelevant..we are there! And for the record, I never knew loving ones country and supporting it's president, made a person a fanatic
Do I support the president? Yes. Are we at war? Yes.
Our men and women..some of them, my relatives..... are in Iraq fighting this war as I write this. All I have ever asked, is that they get the support and respect they deserve from their fellow Americans. Period.
I respect your right to dislike Bush, and dislike this war..after all, our forefathers fought to give us this freedom of speech... with their very blood. And as Lymedad stated they fought to give us the highest power of protesting as well, a Vote. Yes, I voted for Bush, and I would vote for him again today, given the same choices...that does not make me a hypocrite or an American loving fanatic! It seems clear that you dislike Bush, and the war, I respect that. I am not the one calling you an Anti- American Fanatic or hypocrite.. I wouldn't do that.
Does my Loving America, supporting Our President and Troops, make me a fanatic or a hypocrite in your eyes? If so, perhaps you need to look up the word hypocrite in the dictionary..
Anyway, I am confused about your question..... I have read the United States Constitution and failed to see how my supporting our President, our Troops, or the fact that I love America, could make me or anyone else a hypocrite ( even if they supported the war). I'll admit that it has been awhile since I sat down and read the United States Constitution word for word..
and I do have lyme and forget things..so I got to wondering how someone could possibly think I was a hypocrite because I loved America, and supported the President of the United States, simply because, I also acknowledged the United States Constitution.....So I read it again( and maybe it's the lyme, ) but I still don't see what you are trying to prove by calling me a hypocrite because I love America, and support our President and the Constitution?
I am posting the United States Constitution on this thread, would you please highlight where in the Constitution, you feel I become a hypocrite, as I am confused.
Thanks ~LymeBrat
The Constitution of the United States
Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution in its original form. Items that are hyperlinked have since been amended or superseded.
------------------------------------------
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section. 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Section. 4.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Section. 5.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section. 6.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section. 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
The Word, "the," being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines of the first Page, the Word "Thirty" being partly written on an Erazure in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words "is tried" being interlined between the thirty second and thirty third Lines of the first Page and the Word "the" being interlined between the forty third and forty fourth Lines of the second Page.
Attest William Jackson Secretary
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
G�. Washington Presidt and deputy from Virginia
Delaware Geo: Read Gunning Bedford jun John Dickinson Richard Bassett Jaco: Broom
Maryland James McHenry Dan of St Thos. Jenifer Danl. Carroll
Virginia John Blair James Madison Jr.
North Carolina Wm. Blount Richd. Dobbs Spaight Hu Williamson
South Carolina J. Rutledge Charles Cotesworth Pinckney Charles Pinckney Pierce Butler
Georgia William Few Abr Baldwin
New Hampshire John Langdon Nicholas Gilman
Massachusetts Nathaniel Gorham Rufus King
Connecticut Wm. Saml. Johnson Roger Sherman
New York Alexander Hamilton
New Jersey Wil: Livingston David Brearley Wm. Paterson Jona: Dayton
Pennsylvania B Franklin Thomas Mifflin Robt. Morris Geo. Clymer Thos. FitzSimons Jared Ingersoll James Wilson Gouv Morris
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
LymeBrat tends to think any statement made here is about her personally
LB - I am always perplexed at how only those on the other side of the political spectrum get called out by you for saying even the most remote comments that can be construed as questionable (tho twice removed, not really personal) things.. yet more, shall we say, blatant and direct attacks get ignored or even egged on..depending on the person's 'outlook'
I didn't hear Heather call YOU a hypocrite, ..just to clarify, tho I see you are making a point regarding your support for Bush ..
however I do think it's true that if one supports Bush (and the War comes hand in hand with this Predisent).. then a case for hypocracy can certainly be made if they say they support the American constitution in it's entirety as well.
Are you saying you support Bush and not the War? That I don't understand, if you could explain..but regardless, as Comander in Chief he acted unconstitutionally himself.
The Bush administration has waged a WAR that is unConstitutional on a couple of counts.. I'll bold each one..
The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. Congress voted for a resolution in October 2002 which unlawfully transferred to the President the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution's War Powers Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11)
vests the power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress. This can only be changed by a constitutional amendment.
"Our founders had seen what could occur when the power to declare war was vested in one person, a King or a Queen, so they took clear steps to ensure no one person could declare war for the United States.
As James Madison wrote: "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department,"
Then there's conspiring to go to War long before presenting any evidence at all to Congress, also Unconstutional, felonious, and against the UN Charter --
In June 02, Bush announced his "new" pre-emptive strike strategy. On July 23, 2002, the head of British intelligence advised Prime Minister Tony Blair, in the then-secret Downing Street Memo, that "military action was now seen as inevitable" and that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Bush had also authorized the transfer of $700 million from Afghanistan war funds to prepare for an invasion of Iraq.
Yet all the while, with the sincerity of Marc Antony protesting that "Brutus is an honorable man," Bush insisted he wanted peace.
Americans may have been unaware of this deceit then, but they have since learned the truth.
According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted in June, 52% of Americans now believe the President deliberately distorted intelligence to make a case for war. In an Ipsos Public Affairs poll, commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org and completed October 9, 50% said that if Bush lied about his reasons for going to war Congress should consider impeaching him. The President's deceit is not only an abuse of power; it is a federal crime.
(Specifically, it is a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States.)
Then there's the witholding of evidence (the reports they had that said Saddam did not have WMD, the ones they had before they told the public and Congress that HE DID (now, lying to Congress has got to be in there somewhere..and lying to the public, about women OR WARS (!!) I - is impeachable as well)
and the little matter of torture:
Something that the Supreme Court will look at following some of the info to come out of the recent investigations of outing a CIA agent (oopse, therin lies another one, that's a big one too)
But here, this is being looked into:
source: Washington Post 8 November.05
The Supreme Court yesterday agreed to rule on the legality of the Bush administration's planned military commissions for accused terrorists, setting up what could be one of the most significant rulings on presidential war powers since the end of World War II.
President Bush has claimed broad power to conduct the war against al Qaeda and said that questions about the detention of suspected terrorists, their interrogation, trial and punishment are matters for him to decide as commander in chief.
But the court's announcement that it would hear the case of Osama bin Laden's former driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, shows that the justices feel the judicial branch has a role to play as well. The court has focused on whether Bush has the power to set up the commissions and whether detainees facing military trials can go to court in the United States to secure the protections guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions.
The justices have chosen to intervene at a sensitive time for the Bush administration. The Senate is mounting its first sustained challenge to the administration's claim that it alone can determine what interrogation methods are proper for detainees. The United States has come under fire after disclosures that the CIA has been interrogating suspects at secret "black sites" in Eastern Europe.
All of that will be in the background as the court considers a case that will turn on its view of whether the other branches of government can and should permit the executive branch to make all the rules in the battle against al Qaeda.
So, actually Bush is probably our forefathers worst nightmare.. like Chuckie with a southern draaaawl ..
it doesn't get much worse than this.
Mo
[ 15. November 2005, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Mo said:
"LymeBrat tends to think any statement made here is about her personally "
Thanks for your input on my post to Heiwalove,.. but I'd still like to hear what she has to say...lol!
And yes I did think her post was addressed to me "personally", as well as any other person on this board who supported Bush and who Loved America..why shouldn't I? It clearly stated:
"do all of you bush-supporting, america-loving fanatics also support the constitution
And as I do Love America and I voted for Bush twice, I would say that.... ahhh, ya, she was talking to me! So ya see my dearest Mo, I was taking it "personally" because......Ta daaaa..... it was addressed to me and other people who supported Bush and loved America..but thanks for the reply
MO said:
"LB - I am always perplexed at how only those on the other side of the political spectrum get called out by you for saying even the most remotely 'offensive' (tho twice removed, not really personal) things..yet more, shall we say, blatant and direct attacks get ignored..depending on the person's 'outlook' "
Mo, why should it surprise you of all people? When Shop, and Pepsi were posting unquestionable rude and impropriate posts about me personally, my morals, values, my religion...
you never once stepped up to say you thought it was wrong, even when I asked you to. Why? Because I supported Bush. You even stood idly by when my children were brought into the crossfire. I called you on it then and I'll call you on it now.
So please don't preach to me about this. I am calling Heiwalove on this, as this was clearly directed to me..yes me....because I do support Bush and I do Love America.
Mo said:
"however I do think it's true that if one supports Bush (and the War comes hand in hand with this President)..then a case for hypocracy can sertainly be made if they say they support the American constitution in it's entirety as well.
In it's entirety? Heck, I may be a college graduate, and maybe it's the lyme, but there is no way I am able to even pretend I can understand the United States Constitution, in it's entirety! LOL!
But serioussly, in sticking to Heiwalove's origional question, which is the one I addressed.... Where in the constitution... as it reads here, am I being a hypocrite? I do love America, I do support Bush. So how am I a hypocrite?
And for the record, I'm not big on wars, ( and war comes with many presidents) but the fact is.... we are there!
Do I think Bush is always right? Of course not! Do I agree with everything he says or does? No!! But I did vote for him and I would vote for him again today.... given the same choice between he and Kerry. I respect your choice to vote for Kerry, even though I thought he was deplorable.. I respected your vote..can't you even try to respect mine.
Are you saying that by your voting for Kerry and Had he won, that you would have irrefutably supported 100% of every single thing he did? That you would have believed every single thing he said? That you think he was so wonderful, that he would never make a mistake? And if he did, you would still have to support him, just becasue you voted for him?
Because that is what you are saying me and others who support Bush are doing ( or should do). And nothing could be farther from the truth...Of course there are things about this administration I don't agree with and would like to see changed.
The same will hold true with every president in the past or in the future.
I was never disillusioned to think that Bush was perfect, far from it. I just thought he was the better of the 2 candidates. I am not republican, I am an independent. I vote for who I THINK would be the best president.
But my voting for that person, doesn't not mean I will support 100% of everything he says and does. Or that I have to support 100% of what he says and does.
No president is able to do what you are asking of this president. I know your dislike of Bush runs deep and I respect that and truly understand that, as Kerry literally makes my skin crawl. And had he won, I would have been deeply disappointed. But I wouldn't have sat here for over 2 years belittling you or your choice.
I
* Okay, I'll have to finish this later. I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, ( and I see you just edited to add a ton of stuff I havn't been able to read yet )but I hear my little girl getting restless in her sleep and as her blood sugar was over 500 tonight, I am sure she will be awake in a few mins...Her blood sugar is all over the place anywhere from 600- 60..poor thing is so sick. I am talking to Children's hospital tomorrow about it..
Take care,
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
LymeBrat.. I must be remembering the incident with Pepsi (the troll) differently.. I never acted as you say. and ShopRat explained herself (a remark about confusion as to why you suport Bush - she guessed it was mainly because you were Christian, that's how I remember it, and she is not here to explain, regretably - she never attacked folks here - just wrote on this admin, pretty much a class act I must say)
She explained just as I am trying to do and get nowhere. I regret responding to this point, but it is difficult not to. I think some things get blown waaay out of proportion and still are, and I see a sort of hypocracy in this stuff as well, honestly..sorry.
I NEVER saw your kids brought into the crossfire, and certainly would not have ignored that. Only by the troll - a very strange one at that , who attacked allot of people and wrote a post that brought home-schooling into question I believe addresing you, and I wrote the moderators about that poster, as I try not to respond to trolls onboard. This was well over a year ago, but I do remember some of it. My statement to you stands - I feel your comments are selective and unfair and I have seen you ignore allot of other things that are much worse, tho now I think it probably doesn't belong on this thread.
Your problems, which have been stated or referred to repeatedly here now for days..are with Pepsi (a troll long gone)..and ShopRat, who is not here to defend herself and I did not see her 'attack' you. Then you say I didn't do anything and I have no idea what you mean.
I just wish we could stay on-topic - I did outline the unconstitutional behavior of this President and his administration. That's all I should have posted, I always regret getting into anything but topic. IF you suport the War and/or Bush (and his administration) .. there are violations of the US Constitution to acknowledge. If you are saying you support the President and not the War, I do not understand. He a self-proclaimed leader of the Iraq War, supported staunchly by his administration. We are not saying it takes support of 100% of what this President does to have some serious questions surrounding support of this man. The points raised are based on specifics, and have nothing to do with 'dislike'.
I hope Mikayla feels better and the hospital visit goes well!
Mo
[ 16. November 2005, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Some will like this, some won't. I happened to find it interesting...
I guess Bush wasn't the only President to act on war without prior approval from congress... yet we didn't hear all this holier than thou talk back then did we?...mmmmm interesting...very interesting LOL!
The Clinton Administration's Strikes on Usama Bin Laden: Limits to Power
By Ryan C. Hendrickson From Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy, ed. Ralph G. Carter. (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2002), 196-216.
Introduction: The White House Faces Terrorism
Occasionally foreign policy making occurs in an environment involving a high degree of secrecy, in which the public, the media, and even most members of Congress are not privy to the decision-making process. One such case was when President Bill Clinton decided in August 1998 to launch missile strikes against the alleged terrorist facilities of Usama Bin Laden in Sudan and Afghanistan in response to the bombing of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, earlier that month.
The choice to use force, however, came at a controversial time for Clinton. Only three days before the strikes, the president had admitted to misleading the public about an extramarital affair he had with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. Moreover, in the aftermath of the strikes investigative journalists uncovered information indicating that considerable disagreement had existed among Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and State Department officials over the intelligence gathered on Bin Laden and his supposed connections to the al-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries plant, which the administration targeted on the grounds that it was involved in producing chemical weapons. Yet, with only a few exceptions, Clinton's decision to launch seventy-nine cruise missiles generated little controversy among members of Congress or opposition from other countries after the fact. Background: Usama Bin Laden and the War Powers Resolution
During Bill Clinton's two terms as president, 1993 to 2001, the perceived threat of terrorism against U.S. interests grew to unsurpassed levels. Although the total number of terrorist strikes against the United States was higher in the 1980s than in the 1990s, Americans at home and abroad had been victims of a number of high-profile attacks that heightened the public's awareness. During the cold war, some U.S. presidents retaliated after such attacks with military force. When Usama Bin Laden's network struck U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998, Clinton similarly employed the military as a foreign policy tool. The Man and His Mission
Prior to the U.S. strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan, most Americans had never heard of Usama Bin Laden, who was, however, no stranger to the U.S. intelligence community.
Terrorism and the Powers of the President
According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to declare war and possesses a host of other enumerated powers associated with the military. The president is given the explicit authority to act as commander in chief. [b]Most constitutional scholars concur, however, that the president is empowered to use force without congressional approval in order to "repel sudden attacks" against the United States.
Otherwise, the president must gain Congress's approval prior to using force. For much of U.S. history, Congress's war powers have been respected by the commander in chief.[11] With the onset of the cold war and the broad consensus that the Soviet Union and communism represented a threat to the United States, the president's perception of his power as commander in chief became increasingly omnipotent.
Since 1945, presidents have asserted wide military powers, with few recognized limitations. Since Congress agreed that communism should be checked, and because it was politically safer to let a president assume full political responsibility for U.S. military endeavors, Congress often deferred.[12]
This remained the norm until the 1973 passage of the War Powers Resolution, which was designed to reassert the authority that many felt Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon had usurped from Congress during the Vietnam War. The resolution requires that the president "consult with Congress in every possible circumstance," both prior to and after the use of force.[13] The president must formally notify Congress within 48 hours after the use of force has been initiated and must obtain Congress's approval within sixty days of the operation if it is ongoing, or U.S. troops must be withdrawn.
Despite its intent, the War Powers Resolution has proved to be a failure. All presidents since 1973 have maintained that it is unconstitutional; Congress has often refused to enforce it.[14] When dealing specifically with terrorist threats, U.S. presidents have on occasion responded with military force.
In 1979, when Americans were being held captive by supporters of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, President Jimmy Carter planned a military rescue operation. No member of Congress was included in Carter's inner circle of decision makers.[15]
In 1986, when President Ronald Reagan bombed Libya--including the compound of Libyan leader Mu'ammar Qadhafi because of Libya's alleged involvement in an attack on a Berlin dance club frequented by Americans--a few members of Congress were notified of the forthcoming military action. These members, however, were notified of the strikes only three hours before they occurred.[16]
Both of these actions produced outrage among some members of Congress who perceived them as violations of the War Powers Resolution, but no legislative steps were taken to address their concerns.
As commander in chief, President Clinton also viewed his powers broadly. During his first term, Clinton bombed Iraq in 1993 for its association with a failed attempt to assassinate President George Bush in Kuwait and in 1996 for military actions against Kurdish rebels in the north, deployed 10,000 American troops to Haiti to assist in the return to power of elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, used aerial bombing under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to stop Bosnian Serb attacks on Sarajevo, and sent 20,000 American troops to Bosnia in a peacekeeping operation to enforce the Dayton Peace Accord.
In all these cases, Clinton maintained that congressional approval was not required. When it came to the use of force, Clinton's behavior closely resembled that of his predecessors. In August 1998, however, his preference for presidential unilateralism as commander in chief was tested.
On August 7, 1998, the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were bombed. The attackers detonated two truck bombs minutes apart. Two hundred sixty-three people were killed, including twelve Americans, and the embassies were severely damaged. These simultaneous strikes indicated the organizational capacity of the perpetrators, and in retrospect their global reach, while also illustrating the vulnerability of U.S. embassies abroad.
Although the number of terrorist incidents against U.S. interests during the 1990s was smaller than in the 1980s, high-profile events in the United States and around the world captured the media and public's attention, heightening Americans' fear of attack. During Clinton's years in office, the world witnessed the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, terrorist bombings in France in 1995, the release of deadly chemical substances in a Japanese subway by the Aum Shinruki group, as well as the events noted above in New York City, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.[17] The mysterious crash of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of New York shortly after takeoff on July 17, 1996, produced additional concerns among the American public that terrorists were targeting the United States.
A month after the crash, with its cause still unknown, 29 percent of Americans indicated that they were worried that "a close relative or friend might be the victim of a terrorist attack."[18] Another poll conducted by CBS News found that 80 percent of Americans felt that the federal government should have "more authority" to fight terrorism.[19] Congress reacted in 1996 by passing new laws that gave additional power to the secretary of state and the secretary of the Treasury and other law enforcement officials to pursue terrorists more aggressively.[20]
President Clinton also continued to push for additional security measures to improve airport security as the 1996 election drew closer.[21] In mid-January 1997, opinion polls found that 32 percent of Americans viewed terrorism as one of the most important threats to world peace. [22] Later that month, 51 percent agreed that NATO should be used to combat terrorism,[23] and 63 percent in early April 1997 felt that U.S. anti-terrorism laws were too weak.[24] Thus, terrorism's place on the U.S. political agenda rose considerably as the Clinton administration entered its second term. The Strikes on Bin Laden
Immediately after the bombings of the U.S. embassies, intelligence experts from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the CIA rushed to the scene to determine responsibility for the attacks. In cooperation with the Kenyan and Tanzanian governments, they and other U.S. intelligence specialists examined the evidence.[25] Meanwhile, another group of experts from the CIA, National Security Agency (NSA), Defense Intelligence Agency, and other executive offices met at the White House to sift through the available information.[26] Senior administration officials soon began to argue that the evidence pointed to Bin Laden.
Most of what the American public, foreign policy analysts, and journalists would initially know about the internal activities in the White House during the days before the U.S. military response came from a joint press conference by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger, who answered a host of questions regarding the decision to use military force and the process by which this decision was made.[27]
On August 12 President Clinton flew home from a fund-raising trip to California to meet with his principal foreign policy advisers in the White House Situation Room, where evidence was presented on Bin Laden's links to the attacks. Later that day, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Henry Shelton and Secretary of Defense William Cohen presented the president with preliminary plans in the event that a military response was approved.
According to Berger, Secretary Albright was also being consulted as policy was being developed. Two days later, August 14, at another meeting at the White House, CIA director George Tenet presented his agency's analysis to the president. According to Berger, Tenet reached a "judgement about responsibility," indicating that Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks.[28] According to the CIA, there was evidence that Bin Laden was planning another attack on Americans, and that a large meeting of Bin Laden associates would take place in Afghanistan on August 20.
At this meeting, Clinton gave tentative approval to a military response and authorized his senior military advisers to move forward with operational plans.[29] The bombings and their aftermath occurred at a difficult time for Clinton. On August 17, he testified to the Office of the Independent Counsel and a grand jury by video conference, acknowledging that he had an extramarital relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Later that evening in a national address, Clinton admitted that he had "misled" the American people about his relationship with Lewinsky.[30] Opinion polls following Clinton's admission found that one-third of Americans felt the president was "too damaged" by the Lewinsky affair to stay in office, and nearly one-half felt that Clinton might have lied when he told the nation that he encouraged no others to perjure themselves in their grand jury testimonies.[31] Thus, Clinton had created for himself a serious credibility crisis with the American public.
After his address, Clinton and his family left for a vacation on Martha's Vineyard, but planning for the military strikes continued. On Wednesday, August 19, while on Martha's Vineyard, Clinton discussed the strikes with Vice President Al Gore. Senior congressional party leaders were also notified of the possible strikes. Throughout the day, Clinton spoke on four occasions by phone with National Security Adviser Berger, who was in Washington.
In a call around 2:00 a.m. Thursday, Clinton gave approval for the strikes. Once the decision was made, Donald Kerrick, an air force brigadier general and National Security Council staffer, arrived at Martha's Vineyard on a 6:00 a.m. flight to be with Clinton when the strikes began.[32]
The strikes, which began on August 20 around 1:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, involved the launching of seventy-nine cruise missiles at targets in Afghanistan and Sudan from ships stationed in the Arabian and Red Seas. The targets included the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, which the United States alleged was a chemical weapons factory. Six other sites were struck simultaneously in Afghanistan. Secretary Cohen declared that al-Shifa was chosen because Bin Laden was heavily involved in Sudan's military-industrial complex and had an interest in acquiring chemical weapons.[33] Pentagon added that Bin Laden had excellent relations with the Sudanese military and that the plant was heavily guarded by Sudanese soldiers. A senior intelligence official noted that the CIA had found empta, a chemical compound used only in the production of chemical weapons, near the plant.
In discussing the sites hit in Afghanistan, General Shelton said that one "base camp" was struck, which served as the headquarters for Bin Laden's organization. Other targets included a support camp, which served as a weapons storage facility, and four other weapons and tactical training camps.[35]
Approximately twenty-five minutes after the strikes took place, Clinton addressed the nation and provided four justifications for his actions. First, he announced that "convincing evidence" indicated Bin Laden's responsibility for the attacks on the embassies. Second, the president pointed to Bin Laden's long history of terrorist activities.
Third, Clinton argued that "compelling information" suggested that Bin Laden was planning another attack against the United States. Fourth, he said that Bin Laden sought to acquire chemical weapons.[36] Due to the gravity of the situation, Clinton flew back to the White House to phone foreign leaders, speak with congressional leaders, and prepare for a more comprehensive address to the nation that same evening.
In his second speech, Clinton expanded on Bin Laden's previous declarations and activities and said that his senior military advisers had given him a "unanimous recommendation" to go forward with the strikes.[37] That evening, in response to a question from CNN talk show host Larry King, Secretary Albright reiterated that universal agreement existed among Clinton's senior foreign policy advisers in support of the attacks.
"There's absolutely no disagreement about this," said the secretary.[38] Similar sentiments were expressed by White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry in his first briefing with the press, when he noted that the "president acted on a unanimous recommendation" from his national security advisers.[39]
As the War Powers Resolution requires, Clinton sent letters to congressional leaders, notifying them of his actions within the forty-eight-hour time limit. He wrote that Article 51 of the United Nations Charter--which allows member states to exercise "self-defense"--as well as his powers as commander in chief justified his actions.[40]
The press asked if any analogies existed between the recently released movie Wag the Dog and Clinton's strikes. In the movie, an American president hires a marketing specialist to create a fictional war in an effort to boost support for him in an upcoming election. A war involving U.S. participation is then concocted in Albania, which in 1998 was considered remote to many Americans.[41] After the president uses force in Wag the Dog, his approval ratings receive a quick boost, which is usually what happens in actual cases of the president using force abroad or when the United States becomes involved in a foreign policy crisis; the American public "rallies around the flag."[42] Clinton officials responded vehemently with denials that any linkages existed between the president's domestic troubles and the strikes on Bin Laden.[43] Consulting Congress
National Security Adviser Berger noted "some degree of collective pride" in the secrecy that had been maintained throughout the entire planning and operational aspects of the strikes. The media learned of the attacks only after they had occurred.[44] As noted above, prior to the strikes the Clinton administration had contacted leading congressional Democrats and Republicans. The night before the attacks, Berger phoned Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and Senate majority leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., and presented them with the evidence implicating Bin Laden. Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., was phoned the morning of the bombing before the strikes occurred and were made public.
Berger also attempted to call House minority leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., but Gephardt was traveling in France and was unable to establish a secured phone, so Berger could not speak directly with him; instead, Gephardt's staff was notified. Clinton also phoned the leaders, with the exception of Gephardt, as he flew back to Washington to deliver his second address to the nation.[45] Some reports contend that Gingrich had been consulted and was privy to intelligence on Bin Laden before Berger's first phone calls were made.[46]
In their press briefings, Berger and McCurry both stressed the "consultation" that took place between the president and Congress. McCurry specifically noted that all requirements of the War Powers Resolution had been met by the president.[47] Clinton's actions were markedly different from other presidents who have used force against "terrorist actors," such as when Reagan launched missiles against Libya and Carter attempted to rescue the hostages in Iran.
In the aftermath of Clinton's use of force against Bin Laden, there were no complaints about violations of the War Powers Resolution or Congress's war-making powers. Congress gave essentially universal support to the president on constitutional grounds. In addition to its constitutional backing, Congress also provided broad political support to Clinton. The vast majority of members, including nearly all of Clinton's harshest critics in the Republican Party, stood behind the president, including House majority leader Dick Armey of Texas and House minority whip Tom DeLay of Texas, who had frequently displayed profound partisan differences with the president.
Senator Lott called the strikes "appropriate and just."[48] To help solidify support for the president, Speaker Gingrich made a conference call to senior Republicans, urging them not to criticize Clinton. Gingrich also delegated one of his closest Washington political consultants, Rich Galen, to contact all major conservative media critics of the president, urging them not to negatively spin the issue.[49] Among Republicans in the Senate, two notable exceptions existed.
Sens. Dan Coats of Indiana and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania suggested that the president might be using the military to divert the public's attention from his considerable domestic political troubles with Monica Lewinsky. Recognizing that Coats and Specter posed a political threat to the administration, senior administration officials immediately began briefing in closed meetings all members of Congress who sought further information on the decision to bomb. Hours after their initial criticism, Coats and Specter had rethought their position and sided with the president.
On August 21, only one day after the attack, Coats noted, "There does seem to be credible evidence to suggest that targeting an Usama Bin Laden terrorist training site was necessary."[50] Like Congress, the public approved overwhelmingly of the attacks. A poll conducted by CNN found that 66 percent of the American public favored the strikes,[51] as a USA Today poll also found, while a Los Angeles Times poll found that 75 percent of Americans approved of the action.[52] Thus, Clinton faced almost no domestic criticism for the strikes. International Response
As president, Bill Clinton frequently sought multilateral approval for major uses of force and deployments abroad. In the case of Bin Laden, however, the strikes were launched unilaterally and without seeking prior approval from the UN Security Council or NATO. Because U.S. forces fired on Afghanistan from the Arabian Sea, which entailed using Pakistan's airspace, the administration sent the air force's Gen.
Joe Ralston, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to meet with Pakistani military leaders prior to the attacks.[53] After leaving Martha's Vineyard, the president did phone leaders around the world to request their support.[54] A number of states quickly condemned the attacks. Of course, Afghanistan and Sudan were the first to denounce the administration's actions
In 1996, the United States had recalled its diplomatic corps from Khartoum for fear of terrorist strikes against Americans.[55] Ninety percent of Afghanistan was controlled by the Taliban, an Islamist group that had come to power in 1996 and had no formal diplomatic relations with the United States.[56] The Sudanese and Afghan complaints were soon followed by those of Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen--all states whose diplomatic relations with the United States could best be characterized as "poor" (or virtually nonexistent).
[57] Sudan maintained that the pharmaceutical plant targeted by the United States was a legitimate business and had no links to Bin Laden. The twenty-two-member Arab League, of which Sudan is a member, also rebuked the United States for its military aggression against Sudan and for the attack's potentially destabilizing effect on the region.
Outside the league forum, however, many of these states were much more reserved in their sentiments. For example, Egypt initially withheld public judgment on the strikes, and later, without openly criticizing the United States, spoke about the need to limit terrorism and suggested that the matter of the bombings be turned over to the United Nations for investigation.
Syria condemned the United States for the strikes, but also denounced those who attacked the U.S. embassies. Saudi Arabia and Jordan were also noticeably restrained in their response to Clinton's actions.[58] Most states in the Western world offered speedy and unconditional support for the U.S. action. France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, among others, stood beside the United States.
Russian president Boris Yeltsin indicated his displeasure about being left out of consultations by the United States during the decision-making process but did not appear to be concerned about the actual strikes.[59] According to U.S. sources, China, through Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzao, also signaled early support, but later criticized the administration for its actions in a press release.[60] China never verbally objected to the attack and was slow to respond to its spokesman's earlier apparent misstatement. At the United Nations, Sudan called for an international investigation of the attack on al-Shifa, but other than tentative backing from the Arab world, it received only limited support in the General Assembly. In the Arab League, Bahrain had criticized the United State for its actions, despite its generally good diplomatic relations with Washington. From its rotating seat in the Security Council, however, Bahrain proved hesitant to push forward with an investigation.[61] Raising Questions
Although Clinton had the backing of Congress and the American public for the strikes against targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, in the days and months following the attacks journalists and others began to raise questions about the intelligence used to justify the action in Sudan.
In response, Clinton administration officials in off-the-record interviews began suggesting that the Iraqi chemical weapons program had close ties to the Sudanese government and al-Shifa. In background discussions, intelligence officials suggested that Iraqi scientists were assisting Sudan in developing the nerve gas VX, of which empta is a key ingredient. The plant was already being investigated by the CIA and NSA before the August attacks on the U.S. embassies and had emerged as a source of serious concern for U.S. officials.
Emad al-Ani, an Iraqi weapons specialist, was specifically noted as one individual whose links with the plant were strong.[62] A number of scientists who worked for al-Ani had attended the grand opening of the plant in 1996. Other pharmaceutical plants in Sudan had been frequently visited by Iraqi scientists. Other intelligence that quietly surfaced subjected the Clinton administration to additional scrutiny. On August 29, the New York Times reported that the CIA's intelligence on al-Shifa may have been flawed, and at minimum incomplete. It was unclear whether the agency had reported to the president that al-Shifa had a pharmaceutical contract with the United Nations and was Sudan's largest producer of medicines. Moreover, the report suggested that the plant was not the tightly guarded facility described by Pentagon officials in the hours immediately following the strike.
While journalists had begun exposing some of the controversial aspects of the intelligence gathered by the CIA, defenders of the strike continued to maintain that al-Shifa was a legitimate target and that even with questionable evidence it still would have been targeted.[63] The questions raised, however, were convincing enough for former president Carter to call for an investigation of the plant and the United States' decision to target it.[64] The last major challenge in 1998 to the administration's actions again came from the New York Times. Reporters Tim Weiner and James Risen reiterated concerns about Bin Laden's precarious connection to al-Shifa and raised further questions about U.S. policy toward Sudan, which had been a major source of disagreement among Clinton officials during the preceding two years.[65]
In 1996, the CIA pulled all its operatives from the country after concluding that its Sudanese informants had been supplying false information. The agents' withdrawal left the United States without any intelligence in Sudan. Some administration officials suggested that the information gathered on al-Shifa may have been outdated or simply wrong. Previously, tensions had risen over information passed along in 1995 from CIA informants who warned that Sudanese terrorists were planning an assassination on then-national security adviser Anthony Lake. The CIA's source for this information disappeared.
Yet, in response, Lake had to move into the Blair House, the vice president's residence, and to other undisclosed locations to protect himself. Weiner and Risen contend that this information, coupled with earlier flawed intelligence, created a "climate of fear" among National Security Council staffers when it came to Sudan. In 1996 Secretary Albright had referred to Sudan as a "viper's nest of terrorists."[66] The recall of U.S. embassy staff in 1996 produced considerable debate within the State Department about the appropriateness of such an action.
Some preferred to isolate Sudan, while others continued to lobby for engagement. Thus, the journalists maintained, it was inference--not conclusive data--about al-Shifa and Bin Laden, coupled with internal disagreements over how to best deal with Sudan, that informed the Clinton administration's policy. The New York Times report prompted Congressman Edward Whitfield, R-Ky., to call for an investigation of the decision to strike al-Shifa, but no other members of Congress sought further enquiry.[67] The vast majority of members of Congress busied themselves with other issues--debate over whether to impeach Clinton for actions concerning the Lewinsky affair and congressional midterm elections, which were only two and a half months away.
Many members had campaigns to conduct and constituents to see. For the next year, questions about al-Shifa disappeared from the political map, but further concerns about the plant were raised in a front-page article by James Risen in the New York Times on October 27, 1999. Although a number of off-the-record interviews were again cited to confirm the differences among Clinton administration officials, this report provided names and specifically expressed concerns, which added credibility to its analysis. The CIA maintained that in 1995 Bin Laden had gained approval from Sudan to develop chemical weapons.
In 1997, the al-Shifa plant surfaced as a site with which Bin Laden might have connections. That same year, the CIA obtained Sudanese soil samples taken from near the plant, which contained 2.5 times the normal amount of empta. The samples, however, were taken approximately sixty feet from the plant and from across the access road to the facility, on land that was unlikely to be owned by al-Shifa.
Risen reported that in the month prior to the embassy attacks, the CIA believed that more information was needed before conclusive links could be drawn between Bin Laden and the plant.[68] On August 4, 1998, an additional CIA report was presented to the administration, indicating that Bin Laden might be planning a chemical weapons attack. When the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) learned of the report, doubts about its content were raised, as well as concerns about the validity of the soil samples.[69]
Risen also reported that during the planning sessions on how and where to strike Bin Laden after the embassy attack, CIA director Tenet told senior national security advisers that Bin Laden's relationship to al-Shifa was only inferential, and that the CIA was still working to firmly establish a link. National Security Adviser Berger continued to deny that any disagreement existed over Bin Laden's connection to al-Shifa but did admit that significant "geopolitical" differences existed about where to strike. Berger may have been alluding to concerns expressed by General Shelton and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
On August 19, it was determined that two sites in Sudan, al-Shifa and a tannery, would be included on the target list. According to Risen, Shelton protested the inclusion of the tannery because of risks to civilians and because it had no association with chemical weapons. When he proved unable to convince other senior officials to eliminate the tannery from the list, Shelton expressed his concerns to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The JCS supported their chairman.
Shelton then phoned the White House to reiterate the military's opposition to striking the tannery, which was apparently enough to make Clinton change his mind.[70] Risen also pointed to a meeting, among NSC staffers on the evening before the strikes, in which there was apparently opposition to striking al-Shifa. Richard Clarke, an NSC official, had called in NSC staff to help prepare the "paperwork" for the planned strikes. At the meeting, a number of the staff expressed surprise that al-Shifa was to be hit. Clarke, however, denied that any such discussions took place, although Risen's sources indicated otherwise.[71] After the strikes, INR expressed concerns about the intelligence on al-Shifa and asked Assistant Secretary of State Phyllis Oakley if it could proceed with its own investigation. Oakely relayed these concerns to Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering, who told her that no such report was necessary. Secretary Albright likewise added her opinion that no further review was needed. Oakley relayed the decisions, which were followed.
Meanwhile, according to Risen, some CIA analysts were asking the same questions as INR.[72] A piece of evidence creating more skepticism was the United States' dealings with Salah Idris, the owner of al-Shifa. The CIA maintained that information gathered after the strike indicated that Idris had financial connections to Islamic Jihad, a group affiliated with Bin Laden. At the time of the strike, however, CIA officials had said that they did not know that Idris owned the plant. The Treasury Department froze $24 million of Idris's assets in Bank of America branches worldwide after the strike, but after Idris filed suit against the United States, Treasury released his holdings. Had hard evidence existed connecting Idris to Bin Laden or Islamic Jihad, it is doubtful that the United States would have released his assets. James Risen found numerous reasons to question the Clinton administration's decision to strike al-Shifa, yet Congress remained silent. Risen indicates that the small group of officials who made the decision to strike al-Shifa was convinced that the circumstantial evidence still pointed conclusively to Bin Laden. The doubts expressed by midlevel administration officials were not convincing to senior Clinton officials, notably CIA director Tenet and Secretary of State Albright, especially with evidence suggesting that another attack seemed possible. The Jihad Continues
In November 1998, approximately two and a half months after the strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan, a federal grand jury indicted Bin Laden on 224 counts of conspiracy to commit murder and charged him and his top military commander with orchestrating the bombings of the U.S. embassies. The United States also issued a $5 million reward for information leading to Bin Laden's arrest.[73]
The United States, believing that Bin Laden remained in Afghanistan, put pressure on the Taliban to turn him over.[74] Their efforts failed, and Bin Laden remained at large throughout the Clinton presidency.
On October 21, 2000, a former sergeant in the U.S. Army stated in a federal district court in New York City that he had provided information to Bin Laden on the U.S. embassy in Kenya in 1993 and 1994 and that Bin Laden had specifically indicated where a bomb could be placed.[75] As 2000 had approached, Bin Laden was suspected of planning a number of attacks against U.S. citizens.
According to reports, Bin Laden's associates were involved in terrorist activities to be carried out amid New Year celebrations, but they were foiled when they were uncovered by U.S. and Jordanian intelligence officials.[76] More recently, Bin Laden has been suspected of involvement in the attack on the USS Cole. On October 12, 2000, as the destroyer was refueling in the Yemeni port of Aden, a small boat pulled alongside it and two men in the boat on a suicide mission detonated explosives that killed seventeen Americans and injured thirty-nine others.
In the days following the attack intelligence experts maintained that the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, a group that had been associated with al-Qaida, might have been responsible. Yemeni president Ali Abdallah Salih claimed initially that the attackers were Afghans who had fought in the war against Soviet occupation in the 1980s. Given Bin Laden's support of the mujahidin, his alledged connections to the Islamic Jihad, and his familial ties to Yemen, Bin Laden became a suspect.[77] Whether Bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the Cole remains unknown. Many analysts maintained that his network remained quite functional, despite the various policy approaches employed by the Clinton administration to limit his influence. Conclusion: Deference to the President
The foreign policymaking process prior to the strikes on Usama Bin Laden demonstrates that the postcold war era brought little change in how the United States deals militarily with terrorist challenges. President Clinton, after consulting with his closest security advisers, made the decision alone to use force against Bin Laden.
Only a few government actors were involved in the decision-making process, and no non-governmental players played a role. In fact, Clinton's closest advisers went to great lengths to keep information from the public about the strikes. The process was not "pluralistic," as in other cases in this book. Clinton's level of consultation with Congress prior to the strikes was somewhat different from past presidents when they chose to use military force against perceived terrorist threats.
Clinton reached out to Speaker Gingrich, and to a lesser extent to Senate majority leader Lott, prior to the strikes to discuss the security issues surrounding Bin Laden. Yet, akin to cold war politics, Congress largely backed Clinton, with very little criticism of the president even though he was acting during precarious domestic political conditions.
With the perceived threat of terrorism so high on the U.S. and international agenda, few politicians and foreign leaders questioned the missile strikes. While the decision-making process produced little controversy among members of Congress, and the strikes themselves were politically popular, the media coverage in the aftermath raised questions about the targets chosen
. Some administration officials quietly questioned the wisdom of striking the al-Shifa plant. Other administration officials and reporters implied that a serious mistake had been made in targeting the plant. Despite these reports, Congress did little to address these concerns. Clearly, Congress showed little interest in "checking" the president when it came to using force against terrorists, even if a serious mistake seemed possible. Despite the strikes, Bin Laden's influence appears unabated. He is alive and well, and it appears probable that he has been involved in other attacks since August 1998. Perhaps the 1998 military actions prevented the "second strike" that Clinton alluded to in his first address to the nation. That response, however, did not eliminate Bin Laden as a long-term threat to the United States. Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Again, I found this interesting...
The President's Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations Against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them
Office of Legal Counsel, September 25, 2001
THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM
The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.
The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
September 25, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
You have asked for our opinion as to the scope of the President's authority to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We conclude that the President has broad constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. �� 1541-1548 (the "WPR"), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
Our analysis falls into four parts. First, we examine the Constitution's text and structure. We conclude that the Constitution vests the President with the plenary authority, as Commander in Chief and the sole organ of the Nation in its foreign relations, to use military force abroad - especially in response to grave national emergencies created by sudden, unforeseen attacks on the people and territory of the United States. Second, we confirm that conclusion by reviewing the executive and judicial statements and decisions interpreting the Constitution and the President's powers under it. Third, we analyze the relevant practice of the United States, including recent history, that supports the view that the President has the authority to deploy military force in response to emergency conditions such as those created by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Finally, we discuss congressional enactments that, in our view, acknowledge the President's plenary authority to use force to respond to the terrorist attack on the United States.
Our review establishes that all three branches of the Federal Government - Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary - agree that the President has broad authority to use military force abroad, including the ability to deter future attacks.
I.
The President's constitutional power to defend the United States and the lives of its people must be understood in light of the Founders' express intention to create a federal government "cloathed with all the powers requisite to [the] complete execution of its trust." The Federalist No. 23, at 122 (Alexander Hamilton) (Charles R. Kesler ed., 1999). Foremost among the objectives committed to that trust by the Constitution is the security of the Nation. (1) As Hamilton explained in arguing for the Constitution's adoption, because "the circumstances which may affect the public safety are [not] reducible within certain determinate limits, . . . it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community in any matter essential to its efficiency." Id. (2)
"It is 'obvious and unarguable' that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation." Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981) (citation omitted). Within the limits that the Constitution itself imposes, the scope and distribution of the powers to protect national security must be construed to authorize the most efficacious defense of the Nation and its interests in accordance "with the realistic purposes of the entire instrument." Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742, 782 (1948). Nor is the authority to protect national security limited to actions necessary for "victories in the field." Application of Yama****a, 327 U.S. 1, 12 (1946). The authority over national security "carries with it the inherent power to guard against the immediate renewal of the conflict." Id.
We now turn to the more precise question of the President's inherent constitutional powers to use military force.
Constitutional Text. The text, structure and history of the Constitution establish that the Founders entrusted the President with the primary responsibility, and therefore the power, to use military force in situations of emergency. Article II, Section 2 states that the "President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." U.S. Const. art. II, � 2, cl. 1. He is further vested with all of "the executive Power" and the duty to execute the laws. U.S. Const. art. II, � 1. These powers give the President broad constitutional authority to use military force in response to threats to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. (3) During the period leading up to the Constitution's ratification, the power to initiate hostilities and to control the escalation of conflict had been long understood to rest in the hands of the executive branch. (4)
By their terms, these provisions vest full control of the military forces of the United States in the President. The power of the President is at its zenith under the Constitution when the President is directing military operations of the armed forces, because the power of Commander in Chief is assigned solely to the President. It has long been the view of this Office that the Commander-in-Chief Clause is a substantive grant of authority to the President and that the scope of the President's authority to commit the armed forces to combat is very broad. See, e.g., Memorandum for Honorable Charles W. Colson, Special Counsel to the President, from William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: The President and the War Power: South Vietnam and the Cambodian Sanctuaries (May 22, 1970) (the "Rehnquist Memo"). The President's complete discretion in exercising the Commander-in-Chief power has also been recognized by the courts. In the Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 670 (1862), for example, the Court explained that, whether the President "in fulfilling his duties as Commander in Chief" had met with a situation justifying treating the southern States as belligerents and instituting a blockade, was a question "to be decided by him" and which the Court could not question, but must leave to "the political department of the Government to which this power was entrusted." (5)
Some commentators have read the constitutional text differently. They argue that the vesting of the power to declare war gives Congress the sole authority to decide whether to make war. (6) This view misreads the constitutional text and misunderstands the nature of a declaration of war. Declaring war is not tantamount to making war - indeed, the Constitutional Convention specifically amended the working draft of the Constitution that had given Congress the power to make war. An earlier draft of the Constitution had given to Congress the power to "make" war. When it took up this clause on August 17, 1787, the Convention voted to change the clause from "make" to "declare." 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 318-19 (Max Farrand ed., rev. ed. 1966) (1911). A supporter of the change argued that it would "leav[e] to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks." Id. at 318. Further, other elements of the Constitution describe "engaging" in war, which demonstrates that the Framers understood making and engaging in war to be broader than simply "declaring" war. See U.S. Const. art. I, � 10, cl. 3 ("No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."). A State constitution at the time of the ratification included provisions that prohibited the governor from "making" war without legislative approval, S.C. Const. art. XXVI (1776), reprinted in 6 The Federal and State Constitutions 3247 (Francis Newton Thorpe ed., 1909). (7) If the Framers had wanted to require congressional consent before the initiation of military hostilities, they knew how to write such provisions.
Finally, the Framing generation well understood that declarations of war were obsolete. Not all forms of hostilities rose to the level of a declared war: during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Great Britain and colonial America waged numerous conflicts against other states without an official declaration of war. (8) As Alexander Hamilton observed during the ratification, "the ceremony of a formal denunciation of war has of late fallen into disuse." The Federalist No. 25, at 133 (Alexander Hamilton). Instead of serving as an authorization to begin hostilities, a declaration of war was only necessary to "perfect" a conflict under international law. A declaration served to fully transform the international legal relationship between two states from one of peace to one of war. See 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *249-50. Given this context, it is clear that Congress's power to declare war does not constrain the President's independent and plenary constitutional authority over the use of military force.
Constitutional Structure. Our reading of the text is reinforced by analysis of the constitutional structure. First, it is clear that the Constitution secures all federal executive power in the President to ensure a unity in purpose and energy in action. "Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number." The Federalist No. 70, at 392 (Alexander Hamilton). The centralization of authority in the President alone is particularly crucial in matters of national defense, war, and foreign policy, where a unitary executive can evaluate threats, consider policy choices, and mobilize national resources with a speed and energy that is far superior to any other branch. As Hamilton noted, "Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks." Id. at 391. This is no less true in war. "Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand." Id. No. 74, at 415 (Alexander Hamilton). (9)
Second, the Constitution makes clear that the process used for conducting military hostilities is different from other government decisionmaking. In the area of domestic legislation, the Constitution creates a detailed, finely wrought procedure in which Congress plays the central role. In foreign affairs, however, the Constitution does not establish a mandatory, detailed, Congress-driven procedure for taking action. Rather, the Constitution vests the two branches with different powers - the President as Commander in Chief, Congress with control over funding and declaring war - without requiring that they follow a specific process in making war. By establishing this framework, the Framers expected that the process for warmaking would be far more flexible, and capable of quicker, more decisive action, than the legislative process. Thus, the President may use his Commander-in-Chief and executive powers to use military force to protect the Nation, subject to congressional appropriations and control over domestic legislation.
Third, the constitutional structure requires that any ambiguities in the allocation of a power that is executive in nature - such as the power to conduct military hostilities - must be resolved in favor of the executive branch. Article II, section 1 provides that "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States." U.S. Const. art. II, � 1. By contrast, Article I's Vesting Clause gives Congress only the powers "herein granted." Id. art. I, � 1. This difference in language indicates that Congress's legislative powers are limited to the list enumerated in Article I, section 8, while the President's powers include inherent executive powers that are unenumerated in the Constitution. To be sure, Article II lists specifically enumerated powers in addition to the Vesting Clause, and some have argued that this limits the "executive Power" granted in the Vesting Clause to the powers on that list. But the purpose of the enumeration of executive powers in Article II was not to define and cabin the grant in the Vesting Clause. Rather, the Framers unbundled some plenary powers that had traditionally been regarded as "executive," assigning elements of those powers to Congress in Article I, while expressly reserving other elements as enumerated executive powers in Article II. So, for example, the King's traditional power to declare war was given to Congress under Article I, while the Commander-in-Chief authority was expressly reserved to the President in Article II. Further, the Framers altered other plenary powers of the King, such as treaties and appointments, assigning the Senate a share in them in Article II itself. (10) Thus, the enumeration in Article II marks the points at which several traditional executive powers were diluted or reallocated. Any other, unenumerated executive powers, however, were conveyed to the President by the Vesting Clause.
There can be little doubt that the decision to deploy military force is "executive" in nature, and was traditionally so regarded. It calls for action and energy in execution, rather than the deliberate formulation of rules to govern the conduct of private individuals. Moreover, the Framers understood it to be an attribute of the executive. "The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength," wrote Alexander Hamilton, "and the power of directing and employing the common strength forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority." The Federalist No. 74, at 415 (Alexander Hamilton). As a result, to the extent that the constitutional text does not explicitly allocate the power to initiate military hostilities to a particular branch, the Vesting Clause provides that it remain among the President's unenumerated powers.
Fourth, depriving the President of the power to decide when to use military force would disrupt the basic constitutional framework of foreign relations. From the very beginnings of the Republic, the vesting of the executive, Commander-in-Chief, and treaty powers in the executive branch has been understood to grant the President plenary control over the conduct of foreign relations. As Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson observed during the first Washington Administration: "the constitution has divided the powers of government into three branches [and] has declared that the executive powers shall be vested in the president, submitting only special articles of it to a negative by the senate." Due to this structure, Jefferson continued, "the transaction of business with foreign nations is executive altogether; it belongs, then, to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specially submitted to the senate. Exceptions are to be construed strictly." Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on the Powers of the Senate (1790), reprinted in 5 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, at 161 (Paul L. Ford ed., 1895). In defending President Washington's authority to issue the Neutrality Proclamation, Alexander Hamilton came to the same interpretation of the President's foreign affairs powers. According to Hamilton, Article II "ought . . . to be considered as intended . . . to specify and regulate the principal articles implied in the definition of Executive Power; leaving the rest to flow from the general grant of that power." Alexander Hamilton, Pacificus No. 1 (1793), reprinted in 15 The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, at 33, 39 (Harold C. Syrett et al. eds., 1969). As future Chief Justice John Marshall famously declared a few years later, "The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations. . . . The [executive] department . . . is entrusted with the whole foreign intercourse of the nation . . . ." 10 Annals of Cong. 613-14 (1800). Given the agreement of Jefferson, Hamilton, and Marshall, it has not been difficult for the executive branch consistently to assert the President's plenary authority in foreign affairs ever since.
In the relatively few occasions where it has addressed foreign affairs, the Supreme Court has agreed with the executive branch's consistent interpretation. Conducting foreign affairs and protecting the national security are, as the Supreme Court has observed, "'central' Presidential domains." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 812 n.19 (1982). The President's constitutional primacy flows from both his unique position in the constitutional structure, and from the specific grants of authority in Article II that make the President both the Chief Executive of the Nation and the Commander in Chief. See Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749-50 (1982). Due to the President's constitutionally superior position, the Supreme Court has consistently "recognized 'the generally accepted view that foreign policy [is] the province and responsibility of the Executive.'" Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 529 (1988) (quoting Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. at 293-94). "The Founders in their wisdom made [the President] not only the Commander-in-Chief but also the guiding organ in the conduct of our foreign affairs," possessing "vast powers in relation to the outside world." Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 173 (1948). This foreign affairs power is exclusive: it is "the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations - a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress." United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936).
Conducting military hostilities is a central tool for the exercise of the President's plenary control over the conduct of foreign policy. There can be no doubt that the use of force protects the Nation's security and helps it achieve its foreign policy goals. Construing the Constitution to grant such power to another branch could prevent the President from exercising his core constitutional responsibilities in foreign affairs. Even in the cases in which the Supreme Court has limited executive authority, it has also emphasized that we should not construe legislative prerogatives to prevent the executive branch "from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions." Nixon v. Administrator of General Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 443 (1977).
II. Executive Branch Construction and Practice. The position we take here has long represented the view of the executive branch and of the Department of Justice. Attorney General (later Justice) Robert Jackson formulated the classic statement of the executive branch's understanding of the President's military powers in 1941:
Article II, section 2, of the Constitution provides that the President "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." By virtue of this constitutional office he has supreme command over the land and naval forces of the country and may order them to perform such military duties as, in his opinion, are necessary or appropriate for the defense of the United States. These powers exist in time of peace as well as in time of war.
. . . .
Thus the President's responsibility as Commander in Chief embraces the authority to command and direct the armed forces in their immediate movements and operations designed to protect the security and effectuate the defense of the United States. . . . [T]his authority undoubtedly includes the power to dispose of troops and equipment in such manner and on such duties as best to promote the safety of the country.
Training of British Flying Students in the United States, 40 Op. Att'y Gen. 58, 61-62 (1941).(11) Other Attorneys General have defended similar accounts of the President constitutional powers and duties, particularly in times of unforeseen emergencies.
Attorney General William P. Barr, quoting the opinion of Attorney General Jackson just cited, advised the President in 1992 that "[y]ou have authority to commit troops overseas without specific prior Congressional approval 'on missions of good will or rescue, or for the purpose of protecting American lives or property or American interests.'" Authority to Use United States Military Forces in Somalia, 16 Op. O.L.C. at 6 (citation omitted).
Attorney General (later Justice) Frank Murphy, though declining to define precisely the scope of the President's independent authority to act in emergencies or states of war, stated that:
the Executive has powers not enumerated in the statutes - powers derived not from statutory grants but from the Constitution. It is universally recognized that the constitutional duties of the Executive carry with them the constitutional powers necessary for their proper performance. These constitutional powers have never been specifically defined, and in fact cannot be, since their extent and limitations are largely dependent upon conditions and circumstances. . . . The right to take specific action might not exist under one state of facts, while under another it might be the absolute duty of the Executive to take such action.
Request of the Senate for an Opinion as to the Powers of the President "In Emergency or State of War," 39 Op. Att'y Gen. 343, 347-48 (1939).
Attorney General Thomas Gregory opined in 1914 that "[i]n the preservation of the safety and integrity of the United States and the protection of its responsibilities and obligations as a sovereignty, [the President's] powers are broad." Censorship of Radio Stations, 30 Op. Att'y Gen. 291, 292 (1914).
Finally, in 1898, Acting Attorney General John K. Richards wrote:
The preservation of our territorial integrity and the protection of our foreign interests is intrusted, in the first instance, to the President. . . . In the protection of these fundamental rights, which are based upon the Constitution and grow out of the jurisdiction of this nation over its own territory and its international rights and obligations as a distinct sovereignty, the President is not limited to the enforcement of specific acts of Congress. [The President] must preserve, protect, and defend those fundamental rights which flow from the Constitution itself and belong to the sovereignty it created.
Foreign Cables, 22 Op. Att'y Gen. 13, 25-26 (1898). Acting Attorney General Richards cited, among other judicial decisions, Cunningham v. Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 64 (1890), in which the Supreme Court stated that the President's power to enforce the laws of the United States "include[s] the rights, duties and obligations growing out of the constitution itself, our international relations, and all the protection implied by the nature of the government under the constitution."
Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel. Our Office has taken the position in recent Administrations, including those of Presidents Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, and Nixon, that the President may unilaterally deploy military force in order to protect the national security and interests of the United States.
In 1995, we opined that the President "acting without specific statutory authorization, lawfully may introduce United States ground troops into Bosnia and Herzegovina . . . to help the North Atlantic Treaty Organization . . . ensure compliance with the recently negotiated peace agreement." Proposed Deployment of United States Armed Forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 19 Op. O.L.C. 327, 327 (1995) (the "Bosnia Opinion"). We interpreted the WPR to "lend[] support to the . . . conclusion that the President has authority, without specific statutory authorization, to introduce troops into hostilities in a substantial range of circumstances." Id. at 335.
In Deployment of United States Armed Forces into Haiti, 18 Op. O.L.C. 173 (1994), we advised that the President had the authority unilaterally to deploy some 20,000 troops into Haiti. We relied in part on the structure of the WPR, which we argued "makes sense only if the President may introduce troops into hostilities or potential hostilities without prior authorization by the Congress." Id. at 175-76. We further argued that "in establishing and funding a military force that is capable of being projected anywhere around the globe, Congress has given the President, as Commander in Chief, considerable discretion in deciding how that force is to be deployed." Id. at 177. We also cited and relied upon the past practice of the executive branch in undertaking unilateral military interventions:
In 1940, after the fall of Denmark to Germany, President Franklin Roosevelt ordered United States troops to occupy Greenland, a Danish possession in the North Atlantic of vital strategic interest to the United States. . . . Congress was not consulted or even directly informed. . . . Later, in 1941, the President ordered United States troops to occupy Iceland, an independent nation, pursuant to an agreement between himself and the Prime Minister of Iceland. The President relied upon his authority as Commander in Chief, and notified Congress only after the event. . . . More recently, in 1989, at the request of President Corazon Aquino, President Bush authorized military assistance to the Philippine government to suppress a coup attempt.
Id. at 178.
In Authority to Use United States Military Forces in Somalia, 16 Op. O.L.C. at 8, our Office advised that the President had the constitutional authority to deploy United States Armed Forces into Somalia in order to assist the United Nations in ensuring the safe delivery of relief to distressed areas of that country. We stated that "the President's role under our Constitution as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive vests him with the constitutional authority to order United States troops abroad to further national interests such as protecting the lives of Americans overseas." Id. at 8. Citing past practice (further discussed below), we pointed out that
[f]rom the instructions of President Jefferson's Administration to Commodore Richard Dale in 1801 to 'chastise' Algiers and Tripoli if they continued to attack American shipping, to the present, Presidents have taken military initiatives abroad on the basis of their constitutional authority. . . . Against the background of this repeated past practice under many Presidents, this Department and this Office have concluded that the President has the power to commit United States troops abroad for the purpose of protecting important national interests.
Id. at 9 (citations omitted).
In Overview of the War Powers Resolution, 8 Op. O.L.C. 271, 275 (1984), we noted that "[t]he President's authority to deploy armed forces has been exercised in a broad range of circumstances [in] our history."
In Presidential Power to Use the Armed Forces Abroad Without Statutory Authorization, 4A Op. O.L.C. 185, 187 (1980), we stated that
[o]ur history is replete with instances of presidential uses of military force abroad in the absence of prior congressional approval. This pattern of presidential initiative and congressional acquiescence may be said to reflect the implicit advantage held by the executive over the legislature under our constitutional scheme in situations calling for immediate action. Thus, constitutional practice over two centuries, supported by the nature of the functions exercised and by the few legal benchmarks that exist, evidences the existence of broad constitutional power.
In light of that understanding, we advised that the President had independent constitutional authority unilaterally to order "(1) deployment abroad at some risk of engagement - for example, the current presence of the fleet in the Persian Gulf region; (2) a military expedition to rescue the hostages or to retaliate against Iran if the hostages are harmed; (3) an attempt to repel an assault that threatens our vital interests in that region." Id. at 185-86. See also Presidential Powers Relating to the Situation in Iran, 4A Op. O.L.C. 115, 121 (1979) ("It is well established that the President has the constitutional power as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief to protect the lives and property of Americans abroad. This understanding is reflected in judicial decisions . . . and recurring historic practice which goes back to the time of Jefferson.").
Finally, in the Rehnquist Memo at 8, we concluded that the President as Commander in Chief had the authority "to commit military forces of the United States to armed conflict . . . to protect the lives of American troops in the field."
Judicial Construction. Judicial decisions since the beginning of the Republic confirm the President's constitutional power and duty to repel military action against the United States through the use of force, and to take measures to deter the recurrence of an attack. As Justice Joseph Story said long ago, "[i]t may be fit and proper for the government, in the exercise of the high discretion confided to the executive, for great public purposes, to act on a sudden emergency, or to prevent an irreparable mischief, by summary measures, which are not found in the text of the laws." The Apollon, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 362, 366-67 (1824). The Constitution entrusts the "power [to] the executive branch of the government to preserve order and insure the public safety in times of emergency, when other branches of the government are unable to function, or their functioning would itself threaten the public safety." Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 335 (1946) (Stone, C.J., concurring).
If the President is confronted with an unforeseen attack on the territory and people of the United States, or other immediate, dangerous threat to American interests and security, the courts have affirmed that it is his constitutional responsibility to respond to that threat with whatever means are necessary, including the use of military force abroad. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 67 U.S. at 635 ("If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force . . . without waiting for any special legislative authority."); Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. at 336 (Stone, C.J., concurring) ("Executive has broad discretion in determining when the public emergency is such as to give rise to the necessity" for emergency measures); United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192, 1230 (C.C.D.N.Y. 1806) (No. 16,342) (Paterson, Circuit Justice) (regardless of statutory authorization, it is "the duty . . . of the executive magistrate . . . to repel an invading foe") (12); Mitchell v. Laird, 488 F.2d 611, 613 (D.C. Cir. 1973) ("there are some types of war which without Congressional approval, the President may begin to wage: for example, he may respond immediately without such approval to a belligerent attack") (13); see also Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19, 27 (D.C. Cir.) (Silberman, J. concurring) ("[T]he President has independent authority to repel aggressive acts by third parties even without specific statutory authorization."), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 815 (2000);id. at 40 (Tatel, J., concurring) ("[T]he President, as Commander in Chief, possesses emergency authority to use military force to defend the nation from attack without obtaining prior congressional approval."); Story, supra note 9, � 1485 ("[t]he command and application of the public force . . . to maintain peace, and to resist foreign invasion" are executive powers).
III.
The historical practice of all three branches confirms the lessons of the constitutional text and structure. The normative role of historical practice in constitutional law, and especially with regard to separation of powers, is well settled. (14) Both the Supreme Court and the political branches have often recognized that governmental practice plays a highly significant role in establishing the contours of the constitutional separation of powers: "a systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of the Congress and never before questioned . . . may be treated as a gloss on 'executive Power' vested in the President by � 1 of Art. II." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 343 U.S. at 610-11 (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Indeed, as the Court has observed, the role of practice in fixing the meaning of the separation of powers is implicit in the Constitution itself: "'the Constitution . . . contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government.'" Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 381 (1989) (citation omitted). In addition, governmental practice enjoys significant weight in constitutional analysis for practical reasons, on "the basis of a wise and quieting rule that, in determining . . . the existence of a power, weight shall be given to the usage itself - even when the validity of the practice is the subject of investigation." United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U.S. 459, 473 (1915).
The role of practice is heightened in dealing with issues affecting foreign affairs and national security, where "the Court has been particularly willing to rely on the practical statesmanship of the political branches when considering constitutional questions." Whether Uruguay Round Agreements Required Ratification as a Treaty, 18 Op. O.L.C. 232, 234 (1994). "The persistence of these controversies (which trace back to the eighteenth century), and the nearly complete absence of judicial decisions resolving them, underscore the necessity of relying on congressional precedent to interpret the relevant constitutional provisions." Id. at 236. Accordingly, we give considerable weight to the practice of the political branches in trying to determine the constitutional allocation of warmaking powers between them.
The historical record demonstrates that the power to initiate military hostilities, particularly in response to the threat of an armed attack, rests exclusively with the President. As the Supreme Court has observed, "[t]he United States frequently employs Armed Forces outside this country - over 200 times in our history - for the protection of American citizens or national security." United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 273 (1990). On at least 125 such occasions, the President acted without prior express authorization from Congress. See Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331. Such deployments, based on the President's constitutional authority alone, have occurred since the Administration of George Washington. See David P. Currie, The Constitution in Congress: Substantive Issues in the First Congress, 1789-1791, 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. 775, 816 (1994) ("[B]oth Secretary [of War] Knox and [President] Washington himself seemed to think that this [Commander in Chief] authority extended to offensive operations taken in retaliation for Indian atrocities.") (quoted in Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331 n.4. Perhaps the most significant deployment without specific statutory authorization took place at the time of the Korean War, when President Truman, without prior authorization from Congress, deployed United States troops in a war that lasted for over three years and caused over 142,000 American casualties. See Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331-32 n.5.
Recent deployments ordered solely on the basis of the President's constitutional authority have also been extremely large, representing a substantial commitment of the Nation's military personnel, diplomatic prestige, and financial resources. On at least one occasion, such a unilateral deployment has constituted full-scale war. On March 24, 1999, without any prior statutory authorization and in the absence of an attack on the United States, President Clinton ordered hostilities to be initiated against the Republic of Yugoslavia. The President informed Congress that, in the initial wave of air strikes, "United States and NATO forces have targeted the [Yugoslavian] government's integrated air defense system, military and security police command and control elements, and military and security police facilities and infrastructure. . . . I have taken these actions pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive." Letter to Congressional leaders reporting on airstrikes against Serbian targets in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), 1 Pub. Papers of William Jefferson Clinton 459, 459 (1999). Bombing attacks against targets in both Kosovo and Serbia ended on June 10, 1999, seventy-nine days after the war began. More than 30,000 United States military personnel participated in the operations; some 800 U.S. aircraft flew more than 20,000 sorties; more than 23,000 bombs and missiles were used. As part of the peace settlement, NATO deployed some 50,000 troops into Kosovo, 7,000 of them American. (15) In a News Briefing on June 10, 1999, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen summarized the effects of the campaign by saying,
[t]hree months ago Yugoslavia was a heavily armed country with a significant air defense system. We reduced that defense system threat by destroying over 80 percent of Yugoslavia's modern aircraft fighters and strategic suface-to-air missiles. NATO destroyed a significant share of the infrastructure Yugoslavia used to support[] its military with, we reduced his capacity to make ammunition by two-thirds, and we eliminated all of its oil refining capacity and more than 40 percent of its military fuel supplies, Most important, we severely crippled the military forces in Kosovo by destroying more than 50 percent of the artillery and more than one-third of the armored vehicles. (16)
General Shelton of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reported that "about half of [Yugoslavia's] defense industry has either been damaged or destroyed. . . . [A]viation, 70 percent; armored vehicle production, 40 [percent]; petroleum refineries, 100 percent down; explosive production, about 50 percent; and 65 percent of his ammunition. . . . For the most part Belgrade is a city that's got about probably 70 percent without [electrical] power." (17) A report by General Ryan, Air Force Chief of Staff, on June 8, 1999, stated that
Serbia's air force is essentially useless and its air defenses are dangerous but ineffective. Military armament production is destroyed. Military supply areas are under siege. Oil refinement has ceased and petroleum storage is systematically being destroyed. Electricity is sporadic, at best. Major transportation routes are cut. NATO aircraft are attacking with impunity throughout the country. (18)
Estimates near the time placed the number of Yugoslav military casualties at between five and ten thousand. (19) In recent decades, no President has unilaterally deployed so much force abroad.
Other recent unilateral deployments have also been significant in military, foreign policy, and financial terms. Several such deployments occurred in the Balkans in the mid-1990s. (20) In December 1995, President Clinton ordered the deployment of 20,000 United States troops to Bosnia to implement a peace settlement. In February 1994, sixty United States warplanes conducted airstrikes against Yugoslav targets. In 1993, United States warplanes were sent to enforce a no-fly zone over Bosnia; in the same year, the President despatched United States troops to Macedonia as part of a United Nations peacekeeping operation.
Major recent deployments have also taken place in Central America and in the Persian Gulf. In 1994, President Clinton ordered some 20,000 United States troops to be deployed into Haiti, again without prior statutory authorization from Congress, in reliance solely upon his Article II authority. See Deployment of United States Armed Forces into Haiti, supra. On August 8, 1990, in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the consequent threat to Saudi Arabia, President Bush ordered the deployment of substantial forces into Saudi Arabia in Operation Desert Shield. The forces were equipped for combat and included two squadrons of F-15 aircraft and a brigade of the 82d Airborne Division; the deployment eventually grew to several hundred thousand. The President informed Congress that he had taken these actions "pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct our foreign relations and as Commander in Chief." Letter to Congressional Leaders, 2 Pub. Papers of George Bush 1116 (1990). President Bush also deployed some 15,000 troops into Panama in December, 1990, for the purpose (among others) of protecting Americans living in Panama. See 2 Pub. Papers of George Bush 1722 (1989); see generally Abraham D. Sofaer, The Legality of the United States Action in Panama, 29 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 281 (1991).
Further, when Congress has in fact authorized deployments of troops in hostilities, past Presidents have taken the position that such legislation, although welcome, was not constitutionally necessary. For example, in signing Pub. L. No. 102-01, 105 Stat. 3 (1991), authorizing the use of military force in Operation Desert Storm against Iraq, President Bush stated that "my request for congressional support did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the longstanding positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use the Armed Forces to defend vital U.S. interests or the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution." Statement on Signing the Resolution Authorizing the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, 1 Pub. Papers of George Bush 40 (1991). (21) Similarly, President John F. Kennedy stated on September 13, 1962, that congressional authorization for a naval blockade of Cuba was unnecessary, maintaining that "I have full authority now to take such action." Pub. Papers of John F. Kennedy 674 (1962). And in a Report to the American People on October 22, 1962, President Kennedy asserted that he had ordered the blockade "under the authority entrusted to me by the Constitution as endorsed by the resolution of the Congress." Id. at 807 (emphasis added). (22) Thus, there is abundant precedent, much of it from recent Administrations, for the deployment of military force abroad, including the waging of war, on the basis of the President's sole constitutional authority.
Several recent precedents stand out as particularly relevant to the situation at hand, where the conflict is with terrorists. The first and most relevant precedent is also the most recent: the military actions that President William J. Clinton ordered on August 20, 1998, against terrorist sites in Afghanistan and Sudan. The second is the strike on Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters that President Clinton ordered on June 26, 1993. The third is President Ronald Reagan's action on April 14, 1986, ordering United States armed forces to attack selected targets at Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya.
(A) On August 20, 1998, President Clinton ordered the Armed Forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan "because of the threat they present to our national security." Remarks in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, on Military Action Against Terrorist Sites in Afghanistan and Sudan, 2 Pub. Papers of William J. Clinton 1460 (1998). The President stated that the purpose of the operation was "to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Usama bin Ladin, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today." Address to the Nation on Military Action Against Terrorist Sites in Afghanistan and Sudan, 2 Pub. Papers of William J. Clinton 1460 (1998). The strike was ordered in retaliation for the bombings of United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which bin Laden's organization and groups affiliated with it were believed to have played a key role and which had caused the deaths of some 12 Americans and nearly 300 Kenyans and Tanzanians, and in order to deter later terrorist attacks of a similar kind against United States nationals and others. In his remarks at Martha's Vineyard, President Clinton justified the operation as follows:
I ordered this action for four reasons: first, because we have convincing evidence these groups played the key role in the Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania; second, because these groups have executed terrorist attacks against Americans in the past; third, because we have compelling information that they were planning additional terrorist attacks against our citizens and others with the inevitable collateral casualties we saw so tragically in Africa; and fourth, because they are seeking to acquire chemical weapons and other dangerous weapons.
Id. In his Address to the Nation on the same day, the President made clear that the strikes were aimed, not only at bin Laden's organization, but at other terrorist groups thought to be affiliated with it, and that the strikes were intended as retribution for other incidents caused by these groups, and not merely the then-recent bombings of the two United States embassies. Referring to the past acts of the interlinked terrorist groups, he stated:
Their mission is murder and their history is bloody. In recent years, they killed American, Belgian, and Pakistani peacekeepers in Somalia. They plotted to assassinate the President of Egypt and the Pope. They planned to bomb six United States 747's over the Pacific. They bombed the Egyptian Embassy in Pakistan. They gunned down German tourists in Egypt.
Id. at 1460-61. Furthermore, in explaining why military action was necessary, the President noted that "law enforcement and diplomatic tools" to combat terrorism had proved insufficient, and that "when our very national security is challenged . . . we must take extraordinary steps to protect the safety of our citizens." Id. at 1461. Finally, the President made plain that the action of the two targeted countries in harboring terrorists justified the use of military force on their territory: "The United States does not take this action lightly. Afghanistan and Sudan have been warned for years to stop harboring and supporting these terrorist groups. But countries that persistently host terrorists have no right to be safe havens." Id.
The terrorist incidents of September 11, 2001, were surely far graver a threat to the national security of the United States than the 1998 attacks on our embassies (however appalling those events were). The President's power to respond militarily to the later attacks must be correspondingly broader. Nonetheless, President Clinton's action in 1998 illustrates some of the breadth of the President's power to act in the present circumstances.
First, President Clinton justified the targeting of particular groups on the basis of what he characterized as "convincing" evidence of their involvement in the embassy attacks. While that is not a standard of proof appropriate for a criminal trial, it is entirely appropriate for military and political decisionmaking. Second, the President targeted not merely one particular group or leader, but a network of affiliated groups. Moreover, he ordered the action, not only because of particular attacks on United States embassies, but because of a pattern of terrorist activity, aimed at both Americans and non-Americans, that had unfolded over several years. Third, the President explained that the military action was designed to deter future terrorist incidents, not only to punish past ones. Fourth, the President specifically justified military action on the territory of two foreign states because their governments had "harbor[ed]" and "support[ed]" terrorist groups for years, despite warnings from the United States.
(B) On June 26, 1993, President Clinton ordered a Tomahawk cruise missile strike on Iraqi Intelligence Service (the "IIS") headquarters in Baghdad. The IIS had planned an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait in April, 1993. Two United States Navy surface ships launched a total of 23 missiles against the IIS center.
In a Letter to Congressional Leaders on the Strike on Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters, 1 Pub. Papers of William J. Clinton 940 (1993), the President referred to the failed assassination attempt and stated that "[t]he evidence of the Government of Iraq's violence and terrorism demonstrates that Iraq poses a continuing threat to United States nationals." He based his authority to order a strike against the Iraqi government's intelligence command center on "my constitutional authority with respect to the conduct of foreign relations and as Commander in Chief," as well as on the Nation's inherent right of self-defense. Id.
President Clinton's order was designed in part to deter and prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States - and most particularly future assassination attempts on former President Bush. Although the assassination attempt had been frustrated by the arrest of sixteen suspects before any harm was done, "nothing prevented Iraq from directing a second - possibly successful - attempt on Bush's life. Thus, the possibility of another assassination plot was 'hanging threateningly over [Bush's] head' and was therefore imminent. By attacking the Iraqi Intelligence Service, the United States hoped to prevent and deter future attempts to kill Bush." (23)
(C) On April 14, 1986, President Ronald Reagan, acting on his independent authority, ordered United States armed forces to engage in military action against the government of Colonel Gadhafi of Libya. (24) Thirty-two American aircraft attacked selected targets at Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya. Libyan officials reported thirty-seven people killed and an undetermined number injured. More than sixty tons of ordnance were used during the attack.
For some time Libya had supported terrorist groups and organizations and indeed had itself ordered direct terrorist attacks on the United States.
Under Gaddafi, Libya has declared its support of 'national liberation movements' and has allegedly financed and trained numerous terrorist groups and organizations, including Palestinian radicals, Lebanese leftists, Columbia's M-19 guerrillas, the Irish Republican Army, anti-Turkish Armenians, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, Muslim rebels in the Philippines, and left-wing extremists in Europe and Japan. (25)
It had harbored a variety of terrorists, including Abu Nidal and the three surviving members of the Black September group that had killed eleven Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games. (26) Libya's attacks on the United States included the murder of two United States diplomats in Khartoum (1973), the attempted assassination of Secretary of State Kissinger (1973), the burning of the United States Embassy in Tripoli (1979), the planned assassination of President Reagan, Secretary of State Haig, Secretary of Defense Weinberger, and Ambassador to Italy Robb (1981), and the hijacking of T.W.A. flight 847 (1985). (27) Libya had also been linked to terrorist events close to the time of the April, 1986, airstrike in which Americans and other had lost their lives. In January, 1986, American intelligence tied Libya to the December 27, 1985, bombings at the Rome and Vienna airports in which nineteen people, including 5 Americans, had died, and one hundred and twelve persons had been injured.
The particular event that triggered the President's military action had occurred on April 5, 1986, when a bomb exploded in the "Labelle," a Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. military personnel. The blast killed three people (two Americans) and injured two hundred and thirty others (including seventy-nine Americans). Intelligence reports indicated that the bombing was planned and executed under the direct orders of the Government of Libya. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations stated that there was "direct, precise, and irrefutable evidence that Libya bears responsibility" for the bombing of the discotheque; that the "Labelle" incident was "only the latest in an ongoing pattern of attacks" by Libya against the United States and its allies; and that the United States had made "repeated and protracted efforts to deter Libya from its ongoing attacks," including "quiet diplomacy, public condemnation, economic sanctions, and demonstrations of military force." U.N. SCOR, 2674th mtg. at 16-17, U.N. Doc. S/PV.2674 (prov. ed. 1986).
Like the two unilateral Presidential actions discussed above, President Reagan's decision to use armed force in response to a terrorist attack on United States military personnel illustrates that the President has independent constitutional authority to use such force in the present circumstances.
IV.
Our analysis to this point has surveyed the views and practice of the executive and judicial branches. In two enactments, the War Powers Resolution and the recent Joint Resolution, Congress has also addressed the scope of the President's independent constitutional authority. We think these two statutes demonstrate Congress's acceptance of the President's unilateral war powers in an emergency situation like that created by the September 11 incidents.
Furthermore, the President can be said to be acting at the apogee of his powers if he deploys military force in the present situation, for he is operating both under his own Article II authority and with the legislative support of Congress. Under the analysis outlined by Justice Jackson in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., supra (and later followed and interpreted by the Court in Dames & Moore, supra), the President's power in this case would be "at its maximum," 343 U.S. at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring), because the President would be acting pursuant to an express congressional authorization. He would thus be clothed with "all [authority] that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate," id., in addition to his own broad powers in foreign affairs under Article II of the Constitution.
The War Powers Resolution. Section 2(c) of the WPR, reads as follows:
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
50 U.S.C. � 1541(c) (emphasis added).
The executive branch consistently "has taken the position from the very beginning that section 2(c) of the WPR does not constitute a legally binding definition of Presidential authority to deploy our armed forces." Overview of the War Powers Resolution, 8 Op. O.L.C. at 274. (28) Moreover, as our Office has noted, "even the defenders of the WPR concede that this declaration [in section 2(c)] - found in the 'Purpose and Policy' section of the WPR - either is incomplete or is not meant to be binding." Deployment of United States Armed Forces into Haiti, 18 Op. O.L.C. at 176; accord Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 335 ("The executive branch has traditionally taken the position that the President's power to deploy armed forces into situations of actual or indicated hostilities is not restricted to the three categories specifically marked out by the Resolution."); Presidential Powers Relating to the Situation in Iran, 4A Op. O.L.C. at 121 ("[T]he Resolution's policy statement is not a comprehensive or binding formulation of the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief."). Nonetheless, section 2(c)(3) correctly identifies one, but by no means the only, Presidential authority to deploy military forces into hostilities. (29) In the present circumstances, the statute signifies Congress's recognition that the President's constitutional authority alone would enable him to take military measures to combat the organizations or groups responsible for the September 11 incidents, together with any governments that may have harbored or supported them.
Further, Congress's support for the President's power suggests no limits on the Executive's judgment whether to use military force in response to the national emergency created by those incidents. Section 2(c)(3) leaves undisturbed the President's constitutional authority to determine both when a "national emergency" arising out of an "attack against the United States" exists, and what types and levels of force are necessary or appropriate to respond to that emergency. Because the statute itself supplies no definition of these terms, their interpretation must depend on longstanding constitutional practices and understandings. As we have shown in Parts I-III of this memorandum, constitutional text, structure and practice demonstrate that the President is vested with the plenary power to use military force, especially in the case of a direct attack on the United States. Section 2(c)(3) recognizes the President's broad authority and discretion in this area.
Given the President's constitutional powers to respond to national emergencies caused by attacks on the United States, and given also that section 2(c)(3) of the WPR does not attempt to define those powers, we think that that provision must be construed simply as a recognition of, and support for, the President's pre-existing constitutional authority. Moreover, as we read the WPR, action taken by the President pursuant to the constitutional authority recognized in section 2(c)(3) cannot be subject to the substantive requirements of the WPR, particularly the interrelated reporting requirements in section 4 and the "cut off" provisions of section 5, 50 U.S.C. �� 1543-1544. (30) Insofar as the Constitution vests the power in the President to take military action in the emergency circumstances described by section 2(c)(3), we do not think it can be restricted by Congress through, e.g., a requirement that the President either obtain congressional authorization for the action within a specific time frame, or else discontinue the action. Were this not so, the President could find himself unable to respond to an emergency that outlasted a statutory cut-off, merely because Congress had failed, for whatever reason, to enact authorizing legislation within that period.
To be sure, some interpreters of the WPR take a broader view of its scope. But on any reasonable interpretation of that statute, it must reflect an explicit understanding, shared by both the Executive and Congress, that the President may take some military actions - including involvement in hostilities - in response to emergencies caused by attacks on the United States. Thus, while there might be room for disagreement about the scope and duration of the President's emergency powers, there can be no reasonable doubt as to their existence.
The Joint Resolution of September 14, 2001. Whatever view one may take of the meaning of section 2(c)(3) of the WPR, we think it clear that Congress, in enacting the "Joint Resolution [t]o authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States," Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001), has confirmed that the President has broad constitutional authority to respond, by military means or otherwise, to the incidents of September 11.
First, the findings in the Joint Resolution include an express statement that "the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States." Id. This authority is in addition to the President's authority to respond to past acts of terrorism. In including this statement, Congress has provided its explicit agreement with the executive branch's consistent position, as articulated in Parts I-III of this memorandum, that the President has the plenary power to use force even before an attack upon the United States actually occurs, against targets and using methods of his own choosing.
Second, Congress also found that there is a "threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the[] grave acts of violence" on September 11, and that "such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy" of this country. Insofar as "the President's independent power to act depends upon the gravity of the situation confronting the nation," Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 343 U.S. at 662 (Clark, J., concurring in judgment), these findings would support any presidential determination that the September 11 attacks justified the use of military force in response. Further, they would buttress any Presidential determination that the nation is in a state of emergency caused by those attacks. The Constitution confides in the President the authority, independent of any statute, to determine when a "national emergency" caused by an attack on the United States exists. (31) Nonetheless, congressional concurrence is welcome in making clear that the branches agree on seriousness of the terrorist threat currently facing the Nation and on the justifiability of a military response.
Third, it should be noted here that the Joint Resolution is somewhat narrower than the President's constitutional authority. The Joint Resolution's authorization to use force is limited only to those individuals, groups, or states that planned, authorized, committed, or aided the attacks, and those nations that harbored them. It does not, therefore, reach other terrorist individuals, groups, or states, which cannot be determined to have links to the September 11 attacks. Nonetheless, the President's broad constitutional power to use military force to defend the Nation, recognized by the Joint Resolution itself, would allow the President to take whatever actions he deems appropriate to pre-empt or respond to terrorist threats from new quarters.
Conclusion
In light of the text, plan, and history of the Constitution, its interpretation by both past Administrations and the courts, the longstanding practice of the executive branch, and the express affirmation of the President's constitutional authorities by Congress, we think it beyond question that the President has the plenary constitutional power to take such military actions as he deems necessary and appropriate to respond to the terrorist attacks upon the United States on September 11, 2001. Force can be used both to retaliate for those attacks, and to prevent and deter future assaults on the Nation. Military actions need not be limited to those individuals, groups, or states that participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon: the Constitution vests the President with the power to strike terrorist groups or organizations that cannot be demonstrably linked to the September 11 incidents, but that, nonetheless, pose a similar threat to the security of the United States and the lives of its people, whether at home or overseas. (32) In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution, Congress has recognized the President's authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents. Neither statute, however, can place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.
JOHN C. YOO Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
09/14/2001 -
Text of use of force resolution
Text of the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists, adopted Friday by the Senate:
To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,
Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1. Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"
Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2011, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements
(1) Specific Statutory Authorization (AP) -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Mo,
Your right, this did happen awhile ago..it is the reason I left Off Topic for so long. Maybe the reason you don't remember it being so bad, is because Shop, Pepsi, Lisa..etc, all shared your political views..
But make no mistake, my kids were brought into the debate, my homeschooling my kids was brought into question, my faith and belief in God was brought into question and no one, not one person, from camp Kerry said a word.
It took folks like Meg, Softball Mom, Jill, Trout Scout and I think even Ramble Guy to step up to the plate and ask this type of posting to stop.
And trust me, the moderators let alot go over here, and the reason you won't see some of the extremely rude and personal attacks ( and they were attacks!!) against me and even my kids, is because the moderator deleted them from the thread.
regardless...
you said:
"My statement to you stands - I feel your comments are selective and unfair and I have seen you ignore allot of other things that are much worse, tho now I think it probably doesn't belong on this thread."
Okay. You don't want me to bring up examples from the past when you totally looked the other way, when folks from the Kerry camp were having a field day with me, yet I have only been back to off topic for what 2 weeks and I am suppose to somehow respond to thing that were unfair while I wasn't even here?
Since I have been back, I haven't seen anything, or I would have made a comment.
So my statement to you still stands as well.
I call a spade a spade. The only reason I called Heiwalove, on her post saying that people who Love America, support Bush and the Constitution, are fanatics and hypocrites..
is because it DIRECTLY RELATEd TO ME.
Why do you seem to have a problem with me telling the poster who said... because I Love America, support Bush and the Constitution, that I am an American Loving Fanatic and must be a hypocrite, that she is wrong with these accusations?
I mean leaping lizards, I wasn't the one saying people are anti- American if they don't support Bush..or calling them fanatics and hypocrites.
I guess I'm the only one who can see the humor in all of this. LOL!
All I did was stick up for myself and anyone else who may have taken offense to being told they were American Loving Fanatics or hypocrites.
You said:
" I just wish we could stay on-topic "
Okay.. but if you look back, maybe you will see that my response was to Heiwalove, in direct response to her post about American Loving fanatics..etc.
You were the one who brought this entire issue of how you feel I am selective about who I call out about remarks. I only called out the person who made a direct comment to me. (Sorry you feel that way by the way. If you look back over my 3 years here, you will see I have always said I dislike this type of posting.)
So anyways..back to the subject... I have posted all I care to say about it for now. Anyone else?
~LymeBrat
Posted by heiwalove (Member # 6467) on :
lymebrat -
first of all, i totally can't read all those articles because they are insanely long, i'm exhausted, and i haven't the time to spare. however, i NEVER agreed with the so-called anti-terrorism strikes ordered by clinton; and the fact is, clinton, thoughout his presidency, was bombing iraq on a near continuous basis, as well as enforcing sanctions against its people. as you can see, i am not a democrat either; in fact, it is only on the rarest occasion that i truly support and have respect for a politician (the late paul wellstone, and barak obama being two). for me, it is truly a "lesser of two evils" situation. and unfortunately, that is not true democracy, or the definition of a "republic," upon which the US was founded.
i'm sorry that what i said seemed accusatory to you. it was not my intention to accuse you directly, though i totally understand why you took it that way. so i apologize sincerely. i think i just get really overwhelmed by all the red white and blue flashing lights. especially living in nyc during 9/11, seeing firsthand the TRUE devastation, and protesting whenever possible both the resulting war and the fact that random men of arab/arab-american descent were kidnapped in the middle of the night and locked up in prisons without cause, motive, warrant (their families had no idea where they were, and many are still imprisoned today - over four years later, still without charges filed against them - how's THAT for unconstitutional?), well - i have a hard time respecting what seems to me like a blind pro-war, pro-bush point of view. where is the critical consciousness behind such assertions? how did you arrive at them? i support the troops, too, you know. i want them safe, and i want them home. they're out there fighting an illegal war that shouldn't have ever been started in the first place. we've lost over 2000 american lives as a result. part of the reason it was so difficult garnering an adequate response to the devastating hurricanes, was because such a ridiculously large percentage of the national guard is stationed in iraq! that has never been their job; and we need them here at home, as has been so painfully demonstrated.
anyway, again, i'm sorry if my accusations seemed personal. that was not my intention.
also, mo pretty much explained what i meant by what i see as the hypocrisy of folks who support bush, this war, and the constitution - this entire war was and is waged unconstitutionally. it's egregious and it sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.
best, heather.
"i love my country/ by which i mean/ i am indebted joyfully/ to all the people throughout its history/ who fought the government to make right" **
"ask any ecosystem/ harm here is harm there/ and there and there/ and aggression begets aggression/ it's a very simple lesson/ that long preceded any king of heaven/ and there's this brutal imperial power/ that my passport says i represent/ but it will never represent where my heart lives/ only vaguely where it went/
cuz i know when you grow up surrounded/ by willful ignorance/ you learn that mercy has its own country/ and that its round and borderless/ and then you just grow wings/ and rise above it all/ like there/ where that hawk is circling/ above that strip mall"
~ani difranco.
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
WOWsers...lymbrat...You go girl....give em both barrels......
I felt bad going on vacation cuz I thought I was leaving you on your own...I should'nt have worried...
Mo I see you conveniently ignored the post before all this as to my calling you on remarking about the "uninformed" Now ther's true hypocracy...
Heirwlove...it's really sad when after all the paper hanging you and mo put up that all you can say is "ou can't read the insanely long posts" You two asked for them and now you won't read them...HA
If you could read even a little you would find out that this is not an "illegal or unconstitutional" war...
The fact that we ARE at war makes all the arguments about it MUTE. Or don't you get it.
The higher grounds that I have taken are ignored by you and MO whenever I post it...
Now that you have something to put in your pipes and smoke....you don't like it....tough...deal with it....
You both say you support our troops...
When they're looking down the barrel of a gun pointed at them...and think about some of the stuff you two are spewing...it just may give them pause....a pause long enough to be shot dead.....
That's what the brat, and dad and I are talking about...
Posted by heiwalove (Member # 6467) on :
ever heard of checks and balances? how important is that concept to you, and how important is it in upholding democracy?
should the president *really have all the power, unchecked? unilateral power to do whatever the hell he wishes, whenever he wishes? is this EVER okay? how?
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
Heiwlove...it's a shame you won't take the time to read brat's post...it would explain that this war is not illegal and not against the constitution...
it also does not set a precedent....
and the national guard has been utilized down thru history in conflicts...
If you took the time to read some of my past posts which are not overly verbose you would see that I mentioned checks and balances a long time ago... you and or your buddy decided to dismiss me out of hand...
Take a vitamin and read dear..... Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Heiwalove,
I'm with you on politics (tho I guess folks assume I'm a Democrat.. from the 'Kerry-Clinton camp'..) I wasn't here on Lymenet til 2002... and the first two years I was only on Medical and unable to read any more than that, for the most part. My son is still sick, so I'm sort of one foot in over here now. Also now that my brain is working again, I like to excersize it.. (OK, hold your toungue LabRat! )
I'm actually an independant. I also know several X-Republicans (at at least 'Bush admin has to go Repubs.)
These years issues transend party lines, so I never understand when they are drawn..under these circumstances. Our future is in great jepardy.
Lesser of two evils between Kerry and Bush IMO.. and the magnitude of one evil far outweighed the other, as we see continuing.
But I do love Barack!
I also do not agree with some of what Clinton did in the Middle East, however did feel that overall was very good with foreign relations globally..
this administration brings things into a whole new catagory.
So, I have to ask... with the magnitude of the trouble we have now in Iraq and with National Security issues, terrorist threats.. while we should look at ALL our Presidents with discernment..
what about what's going on now? We ARE in an unconstitutional War and so many of our military have died and will suffer long term from the effects, the Iraqis, our defcit, environment.. ect. Do Clinton's actions justify this?
BOTH parties have let the country down in the past few years IMO.. I believe the Dems have sold out along the way for political bartering..knowing what they know they have also put Americans in jepardy by not standing up sooner and stronger.. and do sincerely hope that they do so now, as they are poised to.
In my opinion we ned a new party..ultimately. Reform.
but how that can work with any efficacy quickly enough I do not know.
So then we kind of have to rely on the party with power to overturn this corrupt 'regime'.. it's well beyond necessary. I see it as the only way.
The situation with those prisoners also seems so unreal. How much more has to happen??
There are a few shining stars, tho.. we can hope!!
LB, that resolution was 'adopted' by the Senate.. after they were given partial intelligence reports.. the laws on War being decided upon by the legislative branch were only to have been changed by an amendment to the Constitution!
You see? As per my post, the whole thing was 'fanagled' .. with intent.
Mo
[ 16. November 2005, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
yo mo...again you choose to ignore my post...
again you choose to dismiss info you requested...out of hand and insist you are still right...
HA....all the whineing about how we got in the war isn't gonna change anything...
if you took the time to read what the brat posted perhaps you would be enlightened...it's been done before...and it's not illegal. But like I said it's a done deal. We're there.
I'm back on vacation...the brat can handle this ...........very well indeed... Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
I did read it, and I'm glad LymeBrat posted info on the topic discussion, it's all important to consider..but this info does not change the constitutionality of the Bush admins actions surrounding this War.
bottom line, all this info considered, every word .. this War remains unconstitutional. I have stated why. This above posts you refer to are some info on Clinton's actions..and alot outlining that it is OK for the Pres to move in immediate response to a strike.. some of the writings connect 911, and it is well beyond prooven by governent investigation that they are not connected. Then LB posted the resolution (again, not an amendment to the Constitution, mind you).. but even within that, it states the Pres can move without Congress in cases that pose a direct terrorist threat to the US, and/or those found to be invlolved and active with the groups who attacked us on 911, again..if they pose a real threat. Not a supposed threat, or a posible threat in the future, but a real threat. Nothing here applies to pre-War Iraq.
Imagine the implications if we were allowed to used force and bombs on a percieved posibility? How long before other rogue nations or radicals decide they can too, since America has done it? Imagine the possibilities there. That's why this is of such great and Global importance to shine light and take appropriate action on.
The Bush admin's unconstitutional actions are actually on many levels and issues, my post here is on the definitive actions taken to defraud congress and the nation into War.
This issue is not a matter of politics, but a matter of LAW.
it is ilegal, and I don't understand or agree at all if what you are saying is that because this has been 'done before' (has it really? with this magnetude of consequences? a three year War?).. but if you are saying this should be OK because it has been 'done before' .. legal or not.. I just don't get that. Is standing behind Bush more important to you than human life and American values?
(and please stop badgering members, Tony Z. It becomes combersome to keep a topic going with all this kind of stuff..pretty please?)
In a nutshell:
There is plenty of documented evidence that shows (and you may remember some of the statements, otherwise, many are in news archives and tapes - state of the union address, ect, ect) that from early 2002 to at least March 2003 -- actually longer, the President and his aides conspired to defraud the United States by intentionally misrepresenting intelligence about Iraq to persuade Congress to authorize force... thereby interfering with Congress's lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and making appropriations, all of which violates Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.
which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States...
The Supreme Court has defined the phrase "conspiracy to defraud the United States" as "to interfere with, impede or obstruct a lawful government function by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest."
Finally, "fraud" is broadly defined to include half-truths, omissions or misrepresentation; in other words, statements that are intentionally misleading, even if literally true. Fraud also includes making statements with "reckless indifference" to their truth.
These crimes are impeachable and colassal considering all the deaths that have resulted, and abuse if our military.
A huge number of Americans and some Senators have been voicing these issues since the inception of this War.
Pressure needs to continue on the Democratic party to pick up their neglected responsibilities to America to see that this information is acknowledged and consequences carried out.
It is working now, tho they were seriously negligent in dragging their feet so long. Reid and many others are focused on this now and hopefully will not drop the ball or become way-layed by further acts of deciet and distraction perpetrated by the Bush admin.
The Bush admin has not responded at all till this week, and now say that the Congress had all the info they did, and that is another lie.
They did not have a number of the reports that discounted the flimsy uranium issue.. fraud committed by OMITION of evidence had in White House posession, and inflation of the reports that supported their long-standing interests in controlling Iraq. For one thing, they told the country in the union address, and told congress Saddam had all that uranium, when they already had solid intelligence stating he did not..the Senators never saw that info among other things.
Mo
[ 17. November 2005, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Mo, sweatheart, how in the world do you stay awake?
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Hi Heiwalove,
You said:
"lymebrat -
first of all, i totally can't read all those articles because they are insanely long, i'm exhausted, and i haven't the time to spare."
Yes, I know these articles are long, but they do add credence to my post, so I thought I would post them. Plus I found them very interesting and hoped others here might find them interesting as well. I did try to highlight things that were important or relevant to the topic at hand
You said:
"i'm sorry that what i said seemed accusatory to you. it was not my intention to accuse you directly, though i totally understand why you took it that way. so i apologize sincerely. i think i just get really overwhelmed by all the red white and blue flashing lights"
Thank you! I appreciate it.
LymeBrat
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Mo said:
"This issue is not a matter of politics, but a matter of LAW. it is ilegal, and I don't understand or agree at all if what you are saying is that because this has been 'done before' (has it really? with this magnetude of consequences? a three year War?).."
Yes Mo, it has. Many wars in history were waged without congress declaring war..sometimes Congress wasn't even aware war had started until after in was well under way.
This is nothing new..it was going on long before I was born.
And yes some have lasted much longer than 3 years,with as much.... if not more dire consequences.
I will post a few examples below.
~LymeBrat
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
I know these will be long, but they are interesting and make a point. I will highlight the information pertinent to this debate. Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Korean War
The Korean War, from June 25, 1950 to July 27, 1953, was a conflict between communist North and anti-communist South Korea. It was also a proxy war between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Principal combatants were North and South Korea, the United States and the People's Republic of China, although many nations sent troops under the aegis of the United Nations.
The Soviet Union also supplied combat advisors and aircraft pilots, in addition to arms, for the Chinese and North Korean troops.
The invasion of South Korea came as a complete surprise to the US; Dean Rusk of the State Department had told Congress on June 20 that no war was likely. However, a CIA report in early March had predicted a June invasion.
US officials had previously publicly stated that America would not fight over Korea, and that the country was outside of American concern in the Pacific. This attitude may have encouraged the North or given Syngman Rhee in the South a motive to gain US support.
On hearing of the invasion, Truman agreed with his advisors to use US airstrikes, unilaterally, against the North Korean forces.
He also ordered the Seventh Fleet to protect Formosa. The US gained a United Nations mandate for action because the Soviets were boycotting the Security Council while the (Nationalist controlled) Republic of China held the Chinese seat.
Without the Soviet veto and with only Yugoslavia abstaining, the UN voted to aid South Korea. The US would have fought whatever the outcome, and Douglas MacArthur later told Congress "I had no connection with the UN whatsoever".
US forces were eventually joined during the conflict by troops from fifteen other UN members: Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, South Africa, Turkey, Thailand, Greece, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, Colombia, the Philippines, Belgium, and Luxembourg.
Truman would later take harsh criticism for not obtaining a declaration of war from Congress before sending troops to Korea.
Thus, "Truman's War" was said by some to have violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the United States Constitution.)
The US forces were suffering from demobilization which had continued since 1945. Excluding the Marines, the infantry divisions sent to Korea were at 40% of paper strength, and the majority of their equipment was found to be useless.
The Americans organized Task Force Smith, and on July 5 engaged in the first North Korean/American clash of the war.
In initial stages of the war, North Korea's troops overwhelmed South Korean forces and drove them to a small area in the far South around the city of Pusan. This became a desperate holding action called the Pusan Perimeter.
Upon the entrance of US and UN forces, American General Douglas MacArthur, as UN commander in chief for Korea, ordered an invasion far behind the North Korean troops at Inchon.
United Nations troops drove the North Koreans back past the 38th parallel and continued on toward the Yalu River border of North Korea and China. This brought the communist Chinese into the war.
The communist Chinese had issued warnings that they would react if the UN forces encroached on the frontier at the Yalu River. Mao sought Soviet aid and saw intervention as essentially defensive.
"If we allow the US to occupy all of Korea... we must be prepared for the US to declare... war with China", he told Stalin. Zhou Enlai was sent to Moscow to add force to Mao's cabled arguments.
Mao delayed his forces while waiting for Russian help, and the planned attack was thus postponed from 13 October to 19 October. Soviet assistance was limited to providing air support no nearer than sixty miles (96 km) to the battlefront.
The MiG-15s in PRC colours were an unpleasant surprise to the UN pilots; they held local air superiority against the F-80 Shooting Stars until the newer F-86 Sabres were deployed. The Soviet role was known to the US but they kept quiet as to avoid any international and potentional nuclear incidents.
A Chinese assault beginning on October 19, 1950, under the command of General Peng Dehuai with 380,000 People's Liberation Army troops repelled the United Nations troops back to the 38th parallel, the pre-conflict border.
The Chinese assault caught US troops by surprise, as war between PRC and the United States had not been declared. The United States XX Corp retreat was the longest retreat of a US unit in history. The Marines, on the northern side of the pennisula, faired better, mainly due to better training and discipline.
On January 4, 1951, communist Chinese and North Korean forces captured Seoul. The battle of Chosin Reservoir in winter was a terrible defeat for the United Nations troops, who were mainly American Marines. The situation was such that MacArthur mentioned that atomic weapons may be used, much to the alarm of American allies.
MacArthur was removed from command by President Harry S. Truman in 1951. The reasons for this are many, and well documented. They include MacArthur meeting with Chiang Kai-shek in the role of a US diplomat.
MacArthur also was wrong at Guam when President Truman asked him specifically about Chinese troop buildup near the Korean border. Furthermore, MacArthur openly critized the Commander in Chief during press conferences. He also was rude, and flippant when speaking to Truman.
The rest of the war involved little territory change and lengthy peace negotiations (which started in Kaesong on July 10 of the same year). A cease-fire established a demilitarized zone (DMZ) around the 38th parallel, which is still defended today by North Korean troops on one side and South Korean and American troops on the other.
No peace treaty has yet been signed, fifty years later. Newly-elected US President Dwight D. Eisenhower on November 29, 1952 fulfilled a campaign promise by traveling to Korea to find out what could be done to end the conflict.
600,000 Koreans had died and perhaps a million Chinese. US troops suffered about 50,000 fatalities, roughly equal to the Vietnam conflict, but in a much shorter time. Later neglect of remembrance of this war, in favor of the Vietnam War, World War I and II, has caused the Korean War to be called the Forgotten War or the Unknown War.
The war was instrumental in re-energising the US military-industrial complex from their post-war slump. The defense budget was boosted to $50 billion, the Army was doubled in size, as was the number of Air Groups, and they were deployed beyond American soil in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia, including Vietnam, where covert aid to the French was made overt. The Cold War became a much stronger state of mind for American policy makers.
Japan was a key beneficiary of the war. The US material requirements were organized through a Special Procurements system, which allowed for local purchasing without the complex Pentagon procurement system.
Over $3.5 billion was spent with Japanese companies, peaking at $809 million in 1953, and still significant in 1955. Other foreign non-military investment was less than 5% of this. US Aid Counterpart Funds gave Japan, by 1956, the most modern shipyards in the world and a 26% share in lauched tonnage.
Left-wing organizations were closed down, and the zaibatsu went from being distrusted to being encouraged - Mitsui, Mitsubishi and Sumitomo were amongst the zaibatsu that thrived, not only on orders from the military but through American industrial experts, including W. Edwards Deming.
Japanese manufacturing grew by 50% between March 1950 and 1951. By 1952, pre-war standards of living were regained and output was twice the level of 1949.
The 1951 peace treaty returned Japanese sovereignty (excluding Okinawa and the Ryukyu islands) and the non-belligerency clause in the constitution was being considered a "mistake" by 1953.
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Vietnam War
The Vietnam War was a war fought between 1964 and 1975 on the ground in South Vietnam and bordering areas of Cambodia and Laos , and in bombing runs (Rolling Thunder) over North Vietnam.
Fighting on one side was a coalition of forces including the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam or the "GVN"), the United States, South Korea, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines.
Fighting on the other side was a coalition of forces including the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the National Liberation Front (NLF, Viet Cong), a communist-led South Vietnamese guerrilla movement.
The USSR and People's Republic of China provided military aid to the North Vietnamese and to the NLF, but they were not military combatants.
The war was part of a larger regional conflict involving the neighboring countries of Cambodia and Laos, known as the Second Indochina War.
In Vietnam, this conflict is known as the American War (Vietnamese Chi�́n Tranh Ch�́ng Mỹ Cứu Nước, literally War Against the Americans to Save the Nation).
Origins of the War
The Vietnam War was in many ways a direct successor to the French Indochina War, sometimes referred to as the First Indochina War, in which the French fought, with the economic support of USA, to regain control of their former colony in Indochina, after the Japanese surrender, against the independence movement,
Viet Minh led by Communist Party leader Ho Chi Minh. After the Viet Minh defeated the French colonial army at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the colony was granted independence.
According to the ensuing Geneva Conference, Vietnam was partitioned, ostensibly temporarily, into a Northern and Southern zones of Viet-Nam. The former was to be ruled by Ho Chi Minh, while the latter would be under the control of Emperor Bao Dai.
In 1955 the South Vietnamese monarchy was abolished and Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem became President of a new South Vietnamese republic.
The Geneva accords specified that elections to unify the country would be scheduled to take place in June, 1956, but such elections were never held.
The RVN government of President Diem, with the support of US President Eisenhower, had no interest in holding elections that threatened to bring Communist influences into the South's government.
This was especially true after the north implemented a massive agricultural reform program, that distributed land to poor peasants, with an obvious influence on the electorate of the south.
In addition the Communists were seen as highly unlikely to allow a free election in their half of Vietnam. Regardless, neither the US nor the two Vietnams had signed the election clause in the accord, and were thus not bound to honor it.
Initially, it seemed that a partitioned Vietnam would become the norm, similar in nature to the partitioned Korea created years earlier.
After the communists consolidated their power in the North, they formed the National Liberation Front (NLF or Viet Cong) as a guerrilla movement in opposition to the South Vietnamese government.
(The RVN and the US referred to the NLF as Viet Cong, short for Viet Nam Cong San, or "Vietnamese Communist" The NLF itself never called itself by this name).
In response to the guerilla war, the United States began sending military advisors in support of the government in the South.
North Vietnam and the USSR supported the NLF with arms and supplies, advisors, and regular units of the North Vietnamese Army, which were transported via an extensive network of trails and roads through the neutral nation of Laos, which became known as the Ho Chi Minh trail.
US Escalation to 1964
Vietcong casualties
US involvement in the war was a gradual process, with combat personnel arriving 1950. As its military involvement increased over the years under successive U.S. presidents, both Democrat and Republican (including Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon), despite warnings by the US military leadership against a major ground war in Asia.
There was never a formal declaration of war but there were a series of presidential decisions that increased the number of "military advisers" to the region. One of the first occurred on July 27, 1964 when 5,000 additional US military advisers were ordered sent to South Vietnam which brought the total number of US forces in Vietnam to 21,000.
The single notable element of actual increased U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War during 1964 was a program of covert GVN (South Vietnamese) operations, designed to impose "progressively escalating pressure" upon the North, and initiated on a small and essentially ineffective scale in February.
The active U.S. role in the few covert operations that were carried out was limited essentially to planning, equipping, and training of the GVN forces involved, but U.S. responsibility for the launching and conduct of these activities was unequivocal and carried with it an implicit symbolic and psychological intensification of the U.S. commitment.
South Vietnam and Kennedy The Kennedy administration efforts to contain North Vietnam occurred simultaneously with an effort to modernize the regime of the South. Kennedy strongly believed that if South Vietnam was a stable and democratic country, it would largely discredit the North and its Communist rhetoric.
Aid to the South was often made on the condition that the government would undertake certain political reforms. Soon, US Government advisors were playing a prominent role in every level of South Vietnam's government.
South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem had little time for these reforms, and was quite uncooperative. He would often go through the motions of these US-prescribed reforms, but in very superficial ways that ended up quite embarrassing for the US.
For example, when he ran for election, only one opposition candidate was allowed, and there were widespread allegations of vote-rigging. Diem did not believe that US ideas of democracy were applicable to his government, since the country was still so young and unstable.
Kennedy was accused of being overly naive and utopian in his belief that US values could be instantly imported into any country, no matter what their culture or history.
Eventually, the Kennedy administration grew increasingly frustrated with Diem. In an embarrassing incident that was widely reported in the US press, Diem's forces launched a violent crackdown on Buddhist monks.
Since Vietnam was a predominantly Buddhist nation, this action was viewed as further proof that Diem was completely out of touch with his people.
US messages were sent to South Vietnamese generals encouraging them to act against Diem's excesses. Though there is some debate as to whether or not this was Kennedy's intention, the South Vietnamese military interpreted these messages as a call to arms, and staged a violent coup d'�tat, overthrowing and killing Diem.
Far from uniting the country under new leaderhip, the death of Diem made the South even more unstable. The new military rulers were very unexperienced in political matters, and were unable to provide the strong central authority of Diem's rule. Coups and counter-coups plagued the country, which in turn served as a great inspiration to the efforts of the North.
Shortly after Diem's death, Kennedy himself was assassinated, and Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was suddenly thrust into the war's leadership role. Newly sworn-in President Johnson confirmed on November 24, 1963 that the United States intended to continue supporting South Vietnam militarily and economically.
Gulf of Tonkin and Johnson ... On July 31, 1964, the American destroyer USS Maddox, continued a reconnaissance mission in the Gulf of Tonkin that had been suspended for six months.
The purpose of the mission was to obtain information about the North Vietnamese coastal defense forces. The night before the USS Maddox was to resume her patrols off the North Vietnamese coast, South Vietnamese commandos raided two North Vietnamese islands.
Apparently mistaking the Maddox for South Vietnamese, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched a torpedo and machine gun attack on her. Responding immediately to the attack, and with the help of air support from the nearby carrier USS Ticonderoga, the Maddox destroyed one of the attacking boats and damaged the other two.
The Maddox, suffering only superficial damage by a single 14.5-millimeter machine gun bullet, retired to South Vietnamese waters, where she was joined by the USS C. Turner Joy.
On August 3, GVN again attacked North Vietnam; the Rhon River estuary and the Vinh Sonh radar installation were bombarded under cover of darkness.
On August 4, a new DESOTO patrol to the North Vietnam coast was launched, with the Maddox and the C. Turner Joy. The latter got radar signals that they believed to be another attack by the North Vietnamese.
For some two hours the ships fired on radar targets and maneuvered vigorously amid electronic and visual reports of torpedoes. Later, Captain John J. Herrick admitted that it was nothing more than an "overeager sonarman" who "was hearing ship's own propeller beat."
The U.S. Senate then approved the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on August 7, 1964, which gave broad support to President Johnson to escalate U.S. involvement in the war "as the President shall determine".
In a televised address Johnson claimed that "the challenge that we face in South-East Asia today is the same challenge that we have faced with courage and that we have met with strength in Greece and Turkey, in Berlin and Korea, in Lebanon and in Cuba," a dangerous mis-reading of the politics of the Vietnamese conflict.
National Security Council members, including Robert McNamara, Dean Rusk, and Maxwell Taylor agreed on November 28, 1964 to recommend that President Johnson adopt a plan for a two-stage escalation of bombing in North Vietnam.
On March 8, 1965, 3,500 United States Marines became the first American combat troops to land in South Vietnam, adding to the 25,000 US military advisers already in place.
The air war escalated as well; On July 24, 1965, four F-4C Phantoms escorting a bombing raid at Kang Chi became the targets of antiaircraft missiles in the first such attack against American planes in the war.
One plane was shot down and the other three sustained damage. Four days later Johnson announced another order that increased the number of US troops in Vietnam from 75,000 to 125,000. The day after that, July 29, the first 4,000 101st Airborne Division paratroopers arrived in Vietnam, landing at Cam Ranh Bay.
Then on August 18, 1965, Operation Starlite began as the first major American ground battle of the war when 5,500 US Marines destroyed a Viet Cong stronghold on the Van Tuong peninsula in Quang Ngai Province.
The Marines were tipped-off by a Viet Cong deserter who said that there was an attack planned against the US base at Chu Lai. The NVA learnt from their defeat and tried to avoid fighting a US-style war from then on.
The Pentagon told President Johnson on November 27, 1965 that if planned major sweep operations needed to neutralize Viet Cong forces during the next year were to succeed, the number of American troops in Vietnam needed to be increased from 120,000 to 400,000.
By the end of 1965 184,000 US troops were in Vietnam. In February 1966 there was a meeting between the commander of U.S. forces, General William Westmoreland and Johnson in Honolulu.
Westmoreland argued that the US presence had prevented a defeat but that more troops were needed to take the offensive, he claimed that an immediate increase could lead to the "cross-over point" in Vietcong and NVA casualties being reached in early 1967. Johnson authorised an increase in troop numbers to 429,000 by August 1966.
On October 12, 1967 US Secretary of State Dean Rusk stated during a news conference that proposals by the United States Congress for peace initiatives were futile because of North Vietnam's opposition. Johnson then held a secret meeting with a group of the nation's most prestigious leaders ("the Wise Men") on November 2 and asked them to suggest ways to unite the American people behind the war effort. They concluded that the American people should be given more optimistic reports on the progress of the war.
Then based on reports he was given on November 13, Johnson told his nation on November 17 that, while much remained to be done, "We are inflicting greater losses than we're taking...We are making progress." Following up on this, General William Westmoreland on November 21 told news reporters:
"I am absolutely certain that whereas in 1965 the enemy was winning, today he is certainly losing." Two months later the Tet Offensive made both men regret their words.
The continued escalation of American involvement came as the Johnson administration and Westmoreland repeatedly assured the American public that the next round of troop increases would bring victory.
The American public's faith in the "light at the end of the tunnel" was shattered, however, on January 30, 1968, when the enemy, supposedly on the verge of collapse, mounted the Tet Offensive (named after Tet Nguyen Dan, the lunar new year festival which is the most important Vietnamese holiday) in South Vietnam, in which nearly every major city in South Vietnam was attacked.
Although neither of these offensives accomplished any military objectives, the surprising capacity of an enemy that was supposedly on the verge of collapse to even launch such an offensive convinced many Americans that victory was impossible.
There was an increasing sense among many people that the government was misleading the American people about a war without a clear beginning or end. When General Westmoreland called for still more troops to be sent to Vietnam, Clark Clifford, a member of Johnson's own cabinet, came out against the war.
Facing a troop shortage, on October 14, 1968 the United States Department of Defense announced that the United States Army and Marines would be sending about 24,000 troops back to Vietnam for involuntary second tours.
Two weeks later on October 31, citing progress with the Paris peace talks, US President Lyndon B. Johnson announced to his nation that he had ordered a complete cessation of "all air, naval, and artillery bombardment of North Vietnam" effective November 1.
Peace talks eventually broke down, however, and one year later, on November 3, 1969, then President Richard M. Nixon addressesed the nation on television and radio asking the "silent majority" to join him in solidarity on the Vietnam War effort and to support his policies.
The credibility of the government suffered when the New York Times, and later the Washington Post and other newspapers, published the Pentagon Papers. It was a top-secret historical study, contracted by the Pentagon, about the war, that showed how the government was misleading the US public, in all stages of the war, including the secret support of the French in the first Vietnam War.
Opposition to the War
There had been a small movement of opposition to the war within certain quarters of the United States starting in 1964, especially on certain college campuses. This was happening during a time of unprecedented leftist student activism, and of the arrival at college age of the demographically significant "Baby Boomers."
World War II ended in 1945, and the Korean conflict ended in 1953; thus most, if not all, of the "Baby Boomers" had never been exposed to war. In addition, the Vietnam War was unprecedented for the intensity of media coverage--it has been called the first television war--as well as for the stridency of opposition to the war by the so-called "New Left."
Many young American men feared being sent to Vietnam, and hundreds of them fled to Canada or Sweden to avoid the draft. At that time, not all men of draft age were actually conscripted; the Selective Service Board used a lottery system to select draftees.
Some men found sympathetic doctors who could find a medical basis for classifying as 4F, making them ineligible to be drafted. Others took advantage of a student deferment.
Still others joined the National Guard or entered the Peace Corps as a way of avoiding Vietnam. All of these issues raised concerns about the fairness of who got selected for combat, since it was often the poor or those without connections who were assigned to combat units.
The draft itself also initiated protests when on October 15, 1965 the student-run National Coordinating Committee to End the War in Vietnam staged the first public burning of a draft card in the United States.
The first draft lottery since World War II in the United States was held on December 1, 1969 and was met with large protests and a great deal of controversy; many people charged that the lotteries were skewed disproportionately toward men with late year birthdays and non-whites. This issue treated in length in a January 4, 1970 New York Times article titled "Statisticians Charge Draft Lottery Was Not Random".
The US people became polarized over the war. Many supporters of the war argued for what was known as the Domino Theory, which held that if the South fell to communist guerillas, other nations, primarily in Southeast Asia, would succumb in short succession, much like falling dominoes.
Military critics of the war pointed out that the conflict was political and that the military mission lacked clear objectives. Civilian critics of the war argued that the government of South Vietnam lacked political legitimacy, or that support for the war was immoral.
Gruesome images of two anti-war activists that set themselves on fire in November 1965 provided iconic images of how strongly some people felt that the war was immoral. On November 2 32-year-old Quaker member Norman Morrison set himself on fire in front of The Pentagon and on November 9 22-year old Catholic Worker member Roger Allen LaPorte did the same thing in front of the United Nations building.
The growing anti-war movement alarmed many in the US government. On August 16, 1966 the House Un-American Activities Committee began investigations of Americans who were suspected of aiding the Viet Cong, with the intent to introduce legislation making these activities illegal. Anti-war demonstrators disrupted the meeting and 50 were arrested.
On February 1, 1968, a suspected Viet Cong officer was summarily executed by Nguyen Ngoc Loan, a South Vietnamese National Police Chief. Loan shot the suspect in the head on a public street in front of journalists.
The execution was filmed and photographed and provided another iconic image that helped sway public opinion in the United States against the war.
On October 15, 1969, hundreds of thousands of people took part in National Moratorium antiwar demonstrations across the United States.
The U.S. realized that the South Vietnamese government needed a solid base of popular support if it was to survive the insurgency. In order to pursue this goal of "winning the hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese people, units of the United States Army, referred to as "Civil Affairs" units, were extensively utilized for the first time since World War II.
Civil Affairs units, while remaining armed and under direct military control, engaged in what came to be known as "nation building": constructing (or reconstructing) schools, public buildings, roads and other physical infrastructure; conducting medical programs for civilians who had no access to medical facilities; facilitating cooperation among local civilian leaders; conducting hygiene and other training for civilians; and similar activities.
This policy of attempting to win the "Hearts and Minds" of the Vietnamese people, however, often was at odds with other aspects of the war which served to antagonize many Vietnamese civilians.
These policies included the emphasis on "body count" as a way of measuring military success on the battlefield, the bombing of villages (symbolized by the phrase "it was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it"), and the killing of civilians in such incidents as the My Lai massacre.
In 1974 the documentary "Hearts and Minds" dealt with these problems, and won an Academy Award for best documentary amid considerable controversy. The South Vietnamese government also antagonized many of its citizens with its suppression of political opposition, through such measures as holding large numbers of political prisoners, torturing political opponents, and holding a one-man election for President in 1971.
Despite the increasingly depressing news on the war, many Americans continued to support President Johnson's endeavors. Aside from the domino theory mentioned above, there was a feeling that the goal of preventing a communist takeover of a pro-Western government in South Vietnam was a noble objective.
Many Americans were also concerned about saving face in the event of disengaging from the war or, as President Nixon later put it, "achieving Peace with Honor."
However, anti-war feelings also began to rise. Many Americans opposed the war on moral grounds, seeing it as a destructive war against Vietnamese independence, or as intervention in a foreign civil war; others opposed it because they felt it lacked clear objectives and appeared to be unwinnable. Some anti-war activists were themselves Vietnam Veterans, as evidenced by the organization Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson began his re-election campaign. A member of his own party, Eugene McCarthy, ran against him for the nomination on an antiwar platform.
McCarthy did not win the first primary election in New Hampshire, but he did surprisingly well against an incumbent. The resulting blow to the Johnson campaign, taken together with other factors, led the President to make a surprise announcement in a March 31 televised speech that he was pulling out of the race.
He also announced the initiation of the Paris Peace Talks with Vietnam in that speech. Then on August 4, 1969 US representative Henry Kissinger and North Vietnamese representative Xuan Thuy began secret peace negotiations at the apartment of French intermediary Jean Sainteny in Paris. The negotiations eventually failed, however.
Seizing the opportunity caused by Johnson's departure from the race, Robert Kennedy then joined in and ran for the nomination on an antiwar platform. Johnson's vice president, Hubert Humphrey, also ran for the nomination, promising to continue to support the South Vietnamese government.
Kennedy was assassinated that summer, and Eugene McCarthy was unable to overcome Humphrey's support within the party elite. Humphrey won the nomination of his party, and ran against Richard Nixon in the general election.
During the campaign, Nixon has been said to have claimed knowledge of a secret plan to end the war; this claim did not actually occur. It was thought to have occurred because at one point, his opponent for G.O.P. nomination, Gov. George Romney of Michigan, asked him "Where is your secret plan?"
Opposition to the Vietnam War in Australia followed along similar lines to the United States, particularly with opposition to conscription. Whilst Australian disengagement began in 1970 under John Gorton, it was not until the election of Gough Whitlam in 1972 that conscription ended.
Vietnamization
Nixon was elected President and began his policy of slow disengagement from the war. The goal was to gradually build up the South Vietnamese Army so that it could fight the war on its own. This policy became the cornerstone of the so-called "Nixon Doctrine." As applied to Vietnam, the doctrine was called "Vietnamization."
The goal of Vietnamization was to enable the South Vietnamese army to increasingly hold its own against the NLF and the North Vietnamese Army. During this period, the United States conducted a gradual troop withdrawal from Vietnam.
Nixon continued to use air power to bomb the enemy, and American soldiers continued to die in combat. Ultimately, more American soldiers died, and more bombs were dropped, under the Nixon Presidency than under Johnson's.
Many significant gains in the war were made under the Nixon administration, however. One particularly significant achievement was the weakening of support that the North Vietnamese army received from the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China.
One of Nixon's main foreign policy goals had been the achievement of a "breakthrough" in relations between the two nations, in terms of creating a new spirit of co-operation.
To a large extent this was achieved. China and the USSR had been the principle backers of the North Vietnamese army through large amounts of military and financial support. The eagerness of both nations to improve their own US relations in the face of a widening breakdown of the inter-Communist alliance led to the reduction of their aid to North Vietnam.
The morality of US conduct of the war continued to be an issue under the Nixon Presidency. In 1969, it came to light that Lt. William Calley, a platoon leader in Vietnam, had led a massacre of Vietnamese civilians (including small children) at My Lai a year before.
The massacre was only stopped after two American soldiers in a helicopter spotted the carnage and intervened to prevent their fellow Americans from killing any more civilians. Although many were appalled by the wholesale slaughter at My Lai, Calley was given a light sentence after his court-martial in 1970, and was later pardoned by President Nixon.
In 1970, Nixon ordered a military incursion into Cambodia in order to destroy NLF sanctuaries bordering on South Vietnam. This action prompted even more protests on American college campuses. Several students were shot to death by National Guard troops during demonstrations at Kent State in an incident called the Kent State massacre.
One effect of the incursion was to push communist forces deeper into Cambodia, which destabilized the country and which in turn may have encouraged the rise of the Khmer Rouge, who seized power in 1975. The goal of the attacks, however, was to bring the North Vietnamese negotiators back to the table with some flexibility in their demands that the South Vietnamese government be overthrown as part of the agreement.
It was also alleged that American and South Vietnamese casualty rates were reduced by the destruction of military supplies the communists had been storing in Cambodia.
In an effort to help assuage growing discontent over the war, Nixon announced on October 12, 1970 that the United States would withdraw 40,000 more troops before Christmas. Later that month on October 30, the worst monsoon to hit Vietnam in six years caused large floods, killed 293, left 200,000 homeless and virtually halted the war.
Backed by American air and artillery support, South Vietnamese troops invaded Laos on February 13, 1971. On August 18 of that year, Australia and New Zealand decided to withdraw their troops from Vietnam.
The total number of American troops in Vietnam dropped to 196,700 on October 29, 1971, the lowest level since January 1966. On November 12, 1971 Nixon set a February 1, 1972 deadline to remove another 45,000 American troops from Vietnam.
In the 1972 election, the war was once again a major issue in the United States. An antiwar candidate, George McGovern, ran against President Nixon. Nixon's Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, declared that "Peace is at Hand" shortly before the voters went to the polls, dealing a death blow to McGovern's campaign, which had been facing an uphill battle.
However, the peace agreement was not signed until the next year, leading many to conclude that Kissinger's announcement was just a political ploy.
Kissinger's defenders assert that the North Vietnamese negotiators had made use of Kissinger's pronouncement as an opportunity to embarrass the Nixon Administration to weaken it at the negotiation table.
White House Press Secretary Ron Zeigler on November 30, 1972 told the press that there woould be no more public announcements concerning American troop withdrawals from Vietnam due to the fact that troop levels were then down to 27,000. The US halted heavy bombing of North Vietnam on December 30, 1972.
The End of the War
On January 15, 1973, citing progress in peace negotiations, President Nixon announced the suspension of offensive action in North Vietnam which was later followed by a unilateral withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam.
The Paris Peace Accords were later signed on January 27, 1973 which officially ended US involvement in the Vietnam conflict. The first American prisoners of war were released on February 11 and all US soldiers were ordered to leave by March 29.
Unlike previous American wars, soldiers returning from the Vietnam War were generally not treated as heroes, and soldiers were sometimes even condemned for their participation in the war.
The peace agreement did not last.
Although Nixon had promised South Vietnam that he would provide military support to them in the event of a crumbling military situation, Congress voted down any further funding of military action in the region.
Nixon was also fighting for his political life in the growing Watergate scandal, so none of the promised military support to defend the South Vietnamese government was forthcoming.
Although some small amounts of economic aid continued, most of it was siphoned off by corrupt elements in the South Vietnamese government and little of it actually went to the war effort.
The 94th Congress eventually voted for a total cut off of all aid to take effect at the beginning of the 1975-76 financial year (July 1, 1975).
At the same time aid to North Vietnam from the USSR and China began to increase, as with the Americans out, the two countries no longer saw the war significant to their US relations. The balance of power had clearly shifted to the North.
In early 1975 the North invaded the South and quickly consolidated the country under its control. Saigon was captured on April 30, 1975. North Vietnam united both North and South Vietnam on July 2, 1976 to form the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Saigon was re-named Ho Chi Minh City in honor of the former president of North Vietnam. Hundreds of supporters of the South Vietnamese government were rounded up and executed, many more were imprisoned. Communist rule continues to this day.
On January 21, 1977 American President Jimmy Carter pardoned nearly all Vietnam War draft evaders.
Casualties
Estimating the number killed in the conflict is extremely difficult. Official records are hard to find or nonexistent and many of those killed were literally blasted to pieces by bombing. For many years the North Vietnamese suppressed the true number of their casualties for propaganda purposes.
It is also difficult to say exactly what counts as a "Vietnam war casualty"; people are still being killed today by unexploded ordinance, particularly cluster bomblets.
Environmental effects from chemical agents and the colossal social problems caused by a devastated country with so many dead surely caused many more lives to be shortened.
In addition, the Khmer Rouge would probably not have come into power and committed their slaughters without the destabilization of the war, particularly of the American bombing campaigns to 'clear out the sanctuaries' in Cambodia.
The lowest casualty estimates, based on North Vietnamese statements which are now discounted by Vietnam, are around 1.5 million Vietnamese killed. Vietnam released figures on April 3, 1995 that a total of one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war. The accuracy of these figures has generally not been challenged. It is unclear how many Vietnamese were wounded in the war.
Of the Americans, 58,226 were killed in action or classified as missing in action. A further 153,303 Americans were wounded to give total casualties of 211,529.
The United States Army took the majority of the casualties with 38,179 killed and 96,802 wounded; the Marine Corps lost 14,836 killed and 51,392 wounded; the Navy 2,556 and 4,178; with the Air Force suffering the lowest casualties both in numbers and percentage terms with 2,580 killed and 931 wounded.
American allies took casualties as well. Australia lost almost 500 dead and 2,400 wounded out of the 47,000 troops they had deployed to Vietnam. New Zealand had 38 dead and 187 wounded. Thailand had 351 casualties.
South Korean casualties were also at least in the hundreds but, like the Philippines and indeed Thailand, it is difficult to locate accurate figures for their losses.
In the aftermath of the war many Americans came to believe that some of the 2,300 American soldiers listed as "Missing in Action" had in fact been taken prisoner by the DRV and held indefinitely.
"Missing in Action" is a term applied to missing soldiers whose status cannot be determined through eyewitness accounts of their death, or a body. While little credible evidence has been shown for this, images of tortured, emaciated prisoners of war (notably in the sequel to Rambo) continue to evoke anger among many Americans.
The Vietnamese list over 200,000 of their own soldiers Missing in Action, and MIA soldiers from World War I and II continue to be unearthed in Europe.
Both during and after the war, significant human rights violations occurred. Both North and South Vietnamese had large numbers of political prisoners, many of whom were killed or tortured.
In 1970, two American congressmen visiting South Vietnam discovered the existence of "tiger cages", which were small prison cells used for torturing South Vietnamese political prisoners.
After the war, actions taken by the victors in Vietnam, including firing squads, torture, concentration camps and "re-education," led to the exodus of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese.
Many of these refugees fled by boat and thus gave rise to the phrase "boat people." They emigrated to Hong Kong, France, the United States, Canada, and other countries, creating sizable expatriate communities, notably in the United States.
Many effects of the animosity and ill will generated during the Vietnam War are still felt today among those who lived through this turbulent time in American and Indochinese history.
Analysis of impact on the United States The Vietnam war had many long term repercussions for American society and foreign policy.
Firstly, the war was America's first significant military defeat. This was very damaging for America's reputation as a global superpower, which had previously seemed almost invincible.
The massive American casualties and lack of a decisive victory also created a great distaste for foreign wars among the American public. Indeed, not until the Gulf War, nearly 15 years later, would the United States commit comparable amounts of troops to fight in a foreign country.
Politically, the war's poor planning and "blank check" legislation led to Congress reviewing the way that the United States waged war. Under the U.S. Constitution, only the Senate may declare war, yet this did not happen in the Vietnam War nor in the Korean War. (Nor, subsequently, was war actually declared in either Gulf War.)
Rather, in each of these cases, the President, as the commander in chief of the U.S. military, ordered a "military action" which was somehow short of war.
This bypassed the debate and accountability that would have presumably taken place had a war declaration been required. Due to the Vietnam War buildup, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which curtailed the President's ability to commit troops to action without first obtaining Congressional approval.
The use of the defoliation agent known as Agent Orange, designed to destroy the hiding places of the Viet Cong, has caused many health maladies and birth defects to this day for people on both sides of the conflict.
From a social point of view, the war was a key time in the lives of many younger Americans, especially the so-called baby boom generation. Protestor and soldier alike, the war created many strong opinions in regards to American foreign policy and the justness of war.
As a result, the Vietnam was also significant in showing the degree that the public can influence government policy through mobilization and protest.
Service in the war, though initially unpopular, soon became respected even though the war itself was not. Past service in Vietnam became important to the election of many future American politicians; for example, it was a factor in the election of John McCain, a former Vietnam POW, to the US Senate.
The fact that Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had avoided military service in Vietnam were sources of controversy during their respective election campaigns.
After taking office, Bill Clinton announced his desire to heal relations with Vietnam. His administration lifted economic sanctions on the country in 1994, and in May 1995 the two nations renewed diplomatic relations, with the US opening up an embassy on Vietnamese soil for the first time since 1975.
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
War and Treaty Powers
The issue:
How have the war and treaty powers in the Constitution been interpreted? Introduction War Powers
The Constitution divides war powers between the Congress and the President. This division was intended by the framers to ensure that wars would not be entered into easily: it takes two keys, not one, to start the engine of war.
The Constitution's division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers.
In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act.
Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important--in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress.
The Supreme Court has had relatively little to say about the Constitution's war powers.
Many interesting legal questions--such as the constitutionality of the "police action" in Korea or the "undeclared war" in Viet Nam--were never decided by the Court.
(Although the Supreme Court had three opportunities to decide the constitutionality of the war in Viet Nam, it passed on each one.)
During the Civil War, the Court issued two significant opinions interpreting the war powers.
In the Prize Cases (1863), the Court on a 5 to 4 vote upheld President Lincoln's order blockading southern ports--even though the order was issued prior to a formal declaration of war on the Rebel states by Congress.
The Court found Lincoln's action authorized by a 1795 Act allowing the President to call out troops to suppress an insurrection.
The dissenters argued the President's action were unconstitutional, as a blockade is quite different that an action merely directed at those participating in an insurrection. Three years later, in Ex Parte Milligan, the Court found unconstitutional Lincoln's order authorizing trial by a military tribunal of Lambdin P. Milligan, an Indiana lawyer accused of stirring up support for the Confederacy.
The Court ruled that civilians must be tried in civilian courts, even during time of war, so long at least as the civilian courts are open and operating.
The Court also found the President lacked authority to declare martial law in Indiana. Four concurring justices argued that even though the President did not have the power to order a military trial of Milligan in the absence of congressional action, the power to authorize use of military tribunals did reside in Congress under its war power. Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Another article stating that this has been happening for a long time- even in the Clinton administration.. the only difference is that people didn't seem to care that Clinton went to war without congress's approval or that it was unconstitutional
Immoral, Unconstitutional War - Clinton David N. Mayer
The United States has no vital interests at stake in Yugoslavia; the conflict there is the kind of European war that Americans should avoid if we follow the advice of the early American presidents, beginning with George Washington in his famous Farewell Address. The situation in Yugoslavia has been ably summarized by journalist Philip Terzian:
"We are bombing a sovereign nation, not a member of NATO, which is not disturbing its neighbors but seeking, instead, to prevent one of its provinces from seceding.
Bear in mind that the United States fought a bloody, four year civil war, on the issue of secession (we're against it) and that NATO, in its action against the Serbs, now proposes to invade a European state - in the Balkans, no less - to resolve an internal ethnic dispute.
For the first time since 1945, the German air force is in action against another European country. And everyone agrees that air assaults are not conclusive. In order to achieve what we want, it might well be necessary to introduce ground troops."
The Clinton administration's decision to bomb Yugoslavia, under the rubric of NATO, is an incredible foreign policy blunder.
Not only is the situation there none of the United States' business, but our participation in the NATO bombings also threatens to destabilize eastern Europe far more than anything done by Slobodan Milosevic's government. (Indeed, it can be argued that the bombing of Kosovo worsened the so-called "ethnic cleansing" and other atrocities being committed by Serbian or Yugoslav forces in that province.)
Critics of the United States and of the West generally can point to the bombings as clear evidence of Western "imperialism. "
Undoubtedly, many communists and other leftists in the new NATO member nations of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are doing just that- possibly setting back for decades whatever progress in foreign relations the United States has made in eastern Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Regardless of the outcome of the war itself politically - whether it will bring about the demise of Slobodan Milosevic, and at what price - the lasting importance of the war to Americans will be its significance constitutionally.
What it reveals is that the actual balance of power in matters of foreign policy has shifted decisively toward the President, and that Congress has failed utterly to function as the institution the Framers of the Constitution intended it to be.
What that signifies, in terms of the concentration of unchecked power in the White House, should be a matter of profound concern to all Americans.
The decision to declare war - that is to say, the decision to initiate the use of force aggressively and not in self-defense - is a decision that only the Congress can make.
The debate over war - indeed, the debate not only over strategy (war versus economic sanctions) but also whether any American intervention is justified, as a matter of policy - should have taken place publicly in both houses of Congress, not in the Oval Office among a clique of presidential advisers.
By committing the United States to a course that led inevitably to war without the explicit authorization of Congress, President Clinton committed an act that violates the Constitution.
Congress's exclusive power to declare war under Article 1, Section 8, is not the only provision of the Constitution violated by Bill Clinton's war in Yugoslavia.
Arguably, the Yugoslav war also violates the first clause of Article 1, Section 8, which limits Congress's taxing power - and hence, the US. government's spending power - to matters that concern "the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States."
Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the President, even with Congress's consent, to use the military forces of the United States not for national defense, but for offensive military actions in Europe - in effect to transform the U.S. military into a kind of Peace Corps with guns.
Moreover, Article II, Section 2, provides, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."
By committing US. troops to a NATO operation, under NATO command (whether or not the NATO commander is an American), Clinton has abdicated his legitimate power as commander-in-chief (the power to actually wage war) in the name of asserting a fictitious power as commander-in-chief (the power to enter into war) that in fact usurps Congress's legitimate authority.
Some legal scholars have advanced the extraordinary argument that Congress has neither a constitutional obligation nor a right to declare war before the United States joins in a "police action" sanctioned by either the United Nations or NATO.
They argue that US. ratification of the U.N. Charter and of the North Atlantic Treaty after World II made us part of a "new world order" in which member nations can no longer "make war," in the classic sense.
The implication of this argument is that the Article 1, Section 8, grant of the war-making power to Congress has been rendered obsolete since 1945.
Even with concurrence of the Senate, however, the President cannot amend the Constitution; only the people can do that, according to the amendment procedures prescribed by the Constitution itself.
Until that happens, the Constitution binds all the branches of government, especially the President, who has no higher obligation than his duty to adhere to the oath he swore, to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution.
Advocates of presidential war power (whether defending George Bush's war in the Persian Gulf or the various actions in which Bill Clinton has committed U.S.
military forces in such places as Haiti, Bosnia, and now Kosovo) also have asserted that the need for an international consensus prior to a NATO - or U.N. - sanctioned "police action" provides a sufficient check on presidential power.
The validity of that argument, however, is belied by these presidential military actions themselves. It is not surprising that both Presidents Bush and Clinton bypassed Congress and the American people, choosing instead to first assemble international support.
Of course other nations will approve "police actions" staffed almost entirely by U.S. troops and funded almost entirely by U.S. taxpayers.
To be effective, the check on presidential powers must be given to Congress because Congress is directly representative of the American people, who must pay for these "police actions" with their taxes and their blood. International politics cannot adequately substitute for the checks and balances of the Constitution.
The Framers of the Constitution carefully devised a scheme of separation of powers and checks and balances to minimize the dangers of concentrating too much power in the hands of any one person, or group of persons.
They would be appalled at the resolutions in Congress expressing unqualified support of the president in whatever actions he should decide to take - resolutions that reveal the degree to which Congress has failed to fulfill its constitutional obligation to act as a check on presidential power. Nothing could be farther from the intent of the Framers.
American involvement in war is too important a matter to be left to the private deliberations of the president and a small group of advisers.
Surely the lives of tens of thousands of Americans lost in Korea and Vietnam - wars in which other presidents unilaterally embroiled the country - bear eloquent witness to the other, non-economic costs of war.
Just as surely, the domestic turmoil that resulted from those conflicts, particularly Vietnam, illustrates the danger of presidents' making commitments that the American people do not wholeheartedly support,
Bill Clinton and his apologists (who include many conservatives as well as so-called "liberals") defend U.S. involvement in Yugoslavia with the argument that the United States, as the world's only superpower, has a duty to use its military force for "humanitarian" purposes.
The argument assumes that Americans should take the responsibility for the world's troubles simply because their country is a superpower.
But the United States is a superpower - and, indeed, also is the world's richest nation - because its legal and constitutional system more fully protects free-market capitalism and the rights of the individual than any other system anywhere in the world. Americans should not feel guilty about their wealth or power; they've earned it.
And simply being successful does not make a nation responsible for the problems of other nations, just as being successful as an individual does not make one responsible for the problems of other individuals.
The fundamental rules of morality apply equally to nation-states as to individuals; and the basic rule of morality - the only rule of morality based on reason rather than emotion or mysticism -is the precept "do no harm to others."
Rather than following that basic rule of good behavior (for nation-states as well as for individuals), Bill Clinton has led the United States into acts of aggression that violate the principle.
And our so-called "humanitarian" effort-like similar assumed "humanitarian" policies domestically - is in fact exacerbating the problem, for the NATO bombing compounds the atrocities being committed on the people of Kosovo.
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Another one...
December 21, 1998 Bill Clinton:
Unconstitutional wars gravest of crimes Congress must reclaim from president power to declare war
No proposition is more serious than placing in harms' way the lives of our nation's soldiers. Wars are instituted by governments, but it is the youth that pay the ultimate price.
It is for this reason that the Constitution speaks clearly about where the power for engaging troops in battle must rest.
In Article 1, Section 8, the Constitution gives the power to "declare war, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" solely to the House of Representatives.
The reason for this is clear; the House is the branch of the federal government closest to the people, standing for election the most often, and therefore the most accountable.
When our young men in uniform were sent into battle last week by the president (regardless of whether for honorable or dishonorable reasons), it was in direct contradiction to the United States Constitution, in keeping with the history of the past half-century.
Despite the thousands of Americans who have died in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf and other locales, there has not been a declared war since World War II. Each of those actions occurred without the constitutional requirement of a declaration of war.
In what should be regarded as the gravest of all crimes, these citizens were sent to their deaths unconstitutionally.
It is commonly, but incorrectly, assumed that a president has the authority to send troops into battle, though under our Constitution, the highest law of the land, he does not.
Sadly, though, Congress has abdicated -- unconstitutionally -- its solemn responsibility in this matter. Members of Congress are eager to let presidents drop bombs on foreign nations for many reasons, though the underlying one is that it relieves them of personal responsibility while giving each a sense of strength and power.
An attempt was made to rectify this situation in the early 1970s, with the introduction of the War Powers Act, following the Korea and Vietnam wars. The legislation originally would have moved us closer to the Constitution.
What passed, however, has made things far worse in the intervening 25 years. Now the law allows presidents to send troops into any battle, anywhere, for any reason, without Congress having any chance to voice even opposition until long after lives have been endangered.
Under the War Powers Act, a president can send troops into battle to honor a UN request or to divert attention from personal problems.
Most recently, the Congress interrupted the important impeachment debate to pass a two-part resolution. The first half simply offered support for our troops, and was unobjectionable.
The second half, though, encouraged the president, praised his unconstitutional actions, and recommended that he engage in further unconstitutional actions by trying to topple the leadership of Iraq and replace it with what would amount to a US taxpayer supported puppet regime.
The gravest crime against our Constitution is the one never addressed: the senseless slaughter of our soldiers, our best and brightest.
Perhaps one day Congress will reclaim its constitutionally mandated power of sole authority over matters of war. Until then, more young men will die senseless deaths.
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Congress Approves Iraq Resolution Friday, October 11, 2002
WASHINGTON -- Congress has given President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq in a major policy victory for the White House.
The Senate approved the measure 77-23 early Friday morning at the end of a rocky week-long debate. The House voted for the resolution Thursday afternoon, 296-133.
Because the Democratic-led Senate approved the House version of the measure without changing a word, it now goes directly to Bush for his signature.
The resolution gives Bush the power to use American military force to enforce existing United Nations Security Council mandates that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein dispose of his weapons of mass destruction.
It encourages Bush to seek U.N. cooperation in such a campaign, but does not require it.
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the most outspoken Senate foe of the resolution, accused Congress of "handing the president unchecked authority."
Bush spoke after the House had passed the bill.
"The House of Representatives has spoken clearly to the world and to the United Nations Security Council: The gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally," the president said.
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
The House passed a resolution, Thursday, October 10, 2002
Congress Moves Steadily Toward Iraq Vote WASHINGTON --
The House passed a resolution Thursday that allows President Bush to use force if necessary against Iraq.
The final vote tally of 296-133 saw 81 Democrats voting with Republicans to give the president the maneuvering room he said he needs to effectively confront Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
"It is only when the Iraqi dictator is certain of our willingness to wage war if necessary that peace becomes possible," Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., said prior to the vote.
A similar vote was expected in the Senate within days.
"The House debate was conducted in the best traditions of the United States Congress. It was spirited, civil and it was informed.
This is a debate and a decision that all Americans can be proud of," Bush said shortly after the House vote.
Earlier Thursday, just moments before a Senate test vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle threw his support behind the identical resolution.
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Senate Roll Call Friday, October 11, 2002
The 77-23 roll call by which the Senate voted Friday to authorize President Bush to use military force, if necessary, to disarm Iraq.
On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to pass the resolution and a "no" vote was a vote to defeat it.
Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 48 Republicans.
Voting "no" were 21 Democrats, one Republican and one independent.
Congress Passes Iraq Resolution Overwhelming Approval Gives Bush Authority to Attack Unilaterally
By Jim VandeHei and Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, October 11, 2002; Page A01
The House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq unilaterally, remove Saddam Hussein from power and abolish that country's nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry.
Moving the nation closer to a possible second war with Iraq, 77 of 100 senators and 296 of 435 House members voted to authorize the president to "use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."
The president needs no further congressional approval to deploy troops, order airstrikes and wage a ground war with Iraq. "The gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally," Bush said after the House vote yesterday afternoon . "The days of Iraq acting as an outlaw state are coming to an end."
Not since Congress passed the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution -- which helped bring expansion of the Vietnam War -- has a president won such broad and flexible authority to carry out an undefined military operation, historians say.
The bipartisan endorsement of Bush's Iraq strategy shows how dramatically the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, have changed U.S. foreign policy and altered views about preemptive military action to disarm hostile regimes. "The events that tragic day jolted us to the enduring reality that terrorists not only seek to attack our interests abroad but also to strike us at home," House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) told the House.
Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said the country's new enemies -- terrorists and the nations harboring them -- warrant a new response. "The speed and stealth with which an outlaw state or terrorists could use weapons of mass destruction, and the catastrophic damage they could inflict, require us to consider new ways of acting, not reacting," Biden told the Senate. He fought unsuccessfully to limit Bush's military options to disarming Hussein.
A decade ago, Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), Gephardt and nearly three-quarters of their fellow congressional Democrats objected to President George H.W. Bush's deployment of troops to reverse the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Yesterday's debate often lacked the passion and unpredictability of the 1991 affair, when members sat late into the night listening attentively to a war of words. By contrast, the House chamber was largely empty most of yesterday: the arguments familiar, the outcome certain, the conclusion anticlimactic.
The Senate debate featured more drama, punctuated by sharp-tongued protests from Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.) that pushed the debate deep into the dark of night.
"The war on terrorism will be fought here at home unless we summon the will to confront evil before it attacks," said House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). "Only regime change can remove the danger from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Only by taking them out of his hands and destroying them can we be certain that terror weapons won't wind up in the hands of terrorists." Many of the House's most respected military and intelligence experts made similar remarks.
Daschle raised concerns throughout the debate about Bush politicizing national security, but in the end he backed the president "because this resolution is improved, because I believe that Saddam Hussein represents a real threat, and because I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment."
A U.S. military buildup is underway in the Persian Gulf, with munitions and other equipment being sent to strategic sites throughout the region. Defense officials would prefer to attack during the winter, when the desert en route to Baghdad is cool enough for troops to wear more comfortably the heavy suits designed to protect them from chemical and biological weapons.
"Confront Saddam Hussein now, or pay a much heavier price later," said Rep. Howard Berman, a liberal Democrat from California. "The idea of Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon is too horrifying to contemplate, too terrifying to tolerate."
Yet most lawmakers urged Bush to exhaust all diplomatic options, especially ongoing consultations with the world's most powerful countries at the United Nations, before striking Hussein.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is negotiating with Britain, France, China and Russia -- along with the United States, the U.N. Security Council's permanent members -- on a new U.N. resolution that would require Hussein to submit to immediate, unfettered weapons inspections.
The Iraqi government has agreed to inspections conducted under current U.N. guidelines, but has objected to the more stringent resolution sought by the United States and Britain. It is unclear whether France, China and Russia, which have veto power at the United Nations, will agree to enforce a new inspections regime including the threat of swift military action. If the U.N. talks collapse, Congress's actions provide Bush the authority to strike Hussein even if world leaders protest.
The president lost some Democratic support earlier this week when a CIA memo was declassified. It concluded that Hussein is more likely to strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction if he is attacked first.
"Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, [Hussein] will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us long after he is gone," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who, like so many others who expressed severe reservations, nonetheless voted for the resolution.
Even as members debated, retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command, was telling the Middle East Institute in Washington that Hussein is "deterrable and containable at this point."
With the backing of many Democrats, the House soundly defeated two attempts to restrict Bush's options. One, by Rep. Barbara T. Lee (D-Calif.), would have urged the president to use diplomacy and work through the United Nations rather than launch a military strike. It failed by 355 to 72.
A second, sponsored by Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.) and Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.), would have authorized U.S military action only if it were sanctioned by the Security Council or by a second congressional vote later this year. It lost 270 to 55.
A similar resolution, proposed by Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), was defeated 75 to 24 in the Senate.
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Wooah..easy there LB
One point stood out, re actions taken through Korea and Vietnam..that actually as a result of Vietnam, they tightened things up..from one of your articles:
Due to the Vietnam War buildup, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which curtailed the President's ability to commit troops to action without first obtaining Congressional approval.
I am also wandering if your point is that the mistakes of the past are OK to repeat in Iraq??
It sounds as if you are saying that because there has been past unconstitutuinal military action taken, it is OK now.. so it was unconstitutional to do so, but should be excused because others have done something along those lines (even if quite different circumstances).
In any event, the main point is there's allot more to the situation pre-Iraq and this admin.. it is not the same as the examples you have raised. Your points are taken... however..
There is ALLOT more that contributes to this War being unconstitutional than taking military action without Congress, or that the resolution was made on PARTIAL intelligence (and was not an amendment).. conspiring, witholding information, and fraud were intertwined with that action.
I'm pulling the meat of my last post up, because all this volume doesn't address the case of this War, in Iraq:
The Bush admin's unconstitutional actions are actually on many levels and issues, my post here is on the definitive actions taken to defraud congress and the nation into War.
This issue is not a matter of politics, but a matter of LAW.
it is ilegal, and I don't understand or agree at all if what you are saying is that because this has been 'done before' (has it really? with this magnetude of consequences?) but if you are saying this should be OK because it has been 'done before' .. legal or not.. I just don't get that. Is standing behind Bush more important to you than human life and American values?
In a nutshell:
There is plenty of documented evidence that shows (and you may remember some of the statements, otherwise, many are in news archives and tapes - state of the union address, ect, ect) that from early 2002 to at least March 2003 -- actually longer, the President and his aides conspired to defraud the United States by intentionally misrepresenting intelligence about Iraq to persuade Congress to authorize force... thereby interfering with Congress's lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and making appropriations, all of which violates Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.
which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States...
The Supreme Court has defined the phrase "conspiracy to defraud the United States" as "to interfere with, impede or obstruct a lawful government function by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest."
Finally, "fraud" is broadly defined to include half-truths, omissions or misrepresentation; in other words, statements that are intentionally misleading, even if literally true. Fraud also includes making statements with "reckless indifference" to their truth.
These crimes are impeachable and colassal considering all the deaths that have resulted, and abuse if our military.
A huge number of Americans and some Senators have been voicing these issues since the inception of this War.
Pressure needs to continue on the Democratic party to pick up their neglected responsibilities to America to see that this information is acknowledged and consequences carried out.
It is working now, tho they were seriously negligent in dragging their feet so long. Reid and many others are focused on this now and hopefully will not drop the ball or become way-layed by further acts of deciet and distraction perpetrated by the Bush admin.
The Bush admin has not responded at all till this week, and now say that the Congress had all the info they did, and that is another lie.
They did not have a number of the reports that discounted the flimsy uranium issue.. fraud committed by OMITION of evidence had in White House posession, and inflation of the reports that supported their long-standing interests in controlling Iraq. For one thing, they told the country in the union address, and told congress Saddam had all that uranium, when they already had solid intelligence stating he did not..the Senators never saw that info among other things.
and now we are hearing more about the torture ..
Mo
[ 17. November 2005, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by meg (Member # 22) on :
LymeBrat....you should never leave here again~!!! Thank you for all the hard work in proving the Constitutionality of the Congress/Presidents decisions.
Mo: and ShopRat explained herself (a remark about confusion as to why you suport Bush - she guessed it was mainly because you were Christian, that's how I remember it, and she is not here to explain, regretably - she never attacked folks here - just wrote on this admin, pretty much a class act I must say)
Meg: A class act would never make a bet thru many threads with another poster, a bet that had at stake valuable items.....and when the inevitable happened--losing the bet, never come back here to post again--no forwarding address.
Class would have been paying up on the bet and being an honorable human being.
Class would never attack someone for their RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, their income, or their intellect, among other things.
Revisionism is not an alternative.....in politics or relationships, it is what it is.
Anybody reading this?? HEL-LO
[ 18. November 2005, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: meg ]
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Can the points in my post be addressed by anyone??
ShopRat isn't here to defend herself.. therefore all I see now is you guys attacking HER behind her back. My bet is she left because of this junk (and I don't blame her)...which ran rampant when she left, and had died down until RECENTLY stirred up again. All this bantering and jabbing makes it really difficult to discuss a topic!
Can we cut it out puhleeeeeese?
PS to my post:
The infamous sixteen words in the presidents state of the union, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa",
(while the British Government may have reached a conclusion on this issue (it did, but not the conclusion the administration wished for), it was not Tony Blair giving the state of the union.)
This applies to a wide variety of tactics used by the administration in the run up to the Iraqi invasion. For an administration official, on background, to be the source of a story by Judy Miller for publication on the front page of the N.Y. Times on Sunday, and then to have the same official on all the talking heads programs trumpeting the fact that since the Times ran it, it must be true.. is deceptive. Nearly every feature in the selling of the Iraq war was fraudulent.
So which governmental function was impeded?
It was the function of the U.S. Congress to authorize the president to use any means necessary to enforce U.N. sanctions. The Congress was quite clearly a victim of the misrepresentations of the administration. The sixteen words in the state of the union, a constitutionally mandated presentation to the congress, is just one example of this.
They were not provided with accurate intelligence and they made the decision based upon this misinformation. No amount of faux Republican congressional hindsight can reverse that fact. Also we the people were impeded by this concerted effort to sell the war and a majority at the time based their opinions on this misdirection. This also led to pressure on Congress to give the president carte blanche with Iraq.
This is absolutely a pile if impeachable offenses.
Afterall..no one died over a stained blue dress.
Hypocracy comes to mind yet again.. regarding anyone who supported Clinton's impeachment who looks the other way when it comes to FACTS involving multiple counts of manipulation of the public and Congress, multiple violations of the US Constitution, the Geneva convention (torture and chemucal weapons), the UN Charter.. and all resulting in massive death and destruction, and trillions in debt.
Mo
Posted by heiwalove (Member # 6467) on :
none of those articles are stating that previous war infringes were constitutional - so perhaps similar things have happened before (i'll concede that, though i still think the situations were very different), but THEY WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL TOO. it is NOT okay, in any way, shape, or form, for the president to have the power to unilaterally declare war. EVER. not now, not vietnam, not korea. not ever.
Posted by 24bit (Member # 6531) on :
This whole subject is so old. How many times can you try to lead the lefty extremists to water? It's hopeless. LOL. Posted by heiwalove (Member # 6467) on :
i love how we're called lefty "extremists" just because we're anti-war. yeah, wanting to keep people alive and to prevent our planet from being blown to bits is really an extreme position.
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Calling anything outside your line of thinking regarding Iraq and the Bush admin 'lefty extremist' (like it's a dirty word) is obsolete..
if you are reading anything these past several weeks, that should be evidant.
Among several REPUBLICAN SENATORS.. public opinion polls, and public statements by Congressmen.. support for Bush's path in Iraq has taken a sharp nose dive in recent months.
Most recently, yesterday.. a highly decorated Vietnam Vet, former work also in War intelligence during Vietnam.. and while a 'Democrat', he voted for the War and held support for it for some time.
This is his statement (not an editorial, his statement).. and the public is noted as largely supporting his statements on Iraq.
I'm certain there will be a 'swift' media smear campaign coming after this decorated Veteran.. purely because of his statement, as that is the way the Right works..(it even happens here sometimes )
but by now, I would hope the majority of the American people will see the rabid Right's ways clearly. What obstruction of truth comes out of this culture of attack!
People are FINALLY speaking up.. meanwhile, 10 more soldiers have dies in 2 days, and 65 people were killed in a suicide bombing today.
His words, and hardly a 'lefty extremist'...........................
BBSNews
John Murtha Demands Iraq War Pull-out Friday, November 18 2005 @ 11:01 AM EST
Congressman John Murtha's Courageous Iraq War Statement
John Murtha Iraq Statement - 2005-11-17
Washington D.C.- "The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us.
The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction.
**Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.
General Casey said in a September 2005 Hearing, ``the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.'' General Abizaid said on the same date, ``Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.''
For 2 1/2 years I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns.
The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait - the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction - but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.
We spend more money on Intelligence than all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.
I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.
The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We can not allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S. Much of our ground equipment is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, ``To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.'' We must rebuild our Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being ``terrified'' about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.
Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.
I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the conditions on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included the Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have now received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects has been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.
I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won ``militarily.'' I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.
Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.
I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a ``free'' Iraq.
My plan calls:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. To create a quick reaction force in the region. To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines. To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
This war needs to be personalized. As I said before I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.
Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out.
Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.
IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.
Congress in both parties are speaking in these terms, and it's well past TIME they did.
Mo
Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
Mo said:
In any event, the main point is there's allot more to the situation pre-Iraq and this admin.. it is not the same as the examples you have raised. Your points are taken... however..
Why isn't it the same as the countless examples I gave...you said this was an unconstitutional war..I said there were many presidents who waged war without prior consent from the congress. I then listed a FEW of the wars where congress never officially declared war. So what is so different?
Mo said:
it is ilegal, and I don't understand or agree at all if what you are saying is that because this has been 'done before' (has it really? with this magnetude of consequences? a three year War?)..
and
It sounds as if you are saying that because there has been past unconstitutuinal military action taken, it is OK now..
If the time was taken to read these posts, then you will find the answers you are looking for. I didn't post these just to fill up space.. LOL! I'm actually not big on cut and paste. I did it so it would be right here in black and white for all to see.
Yes, many presidents in the past, have gone to war without congress declaring war..sometimes congress wasn't even aware that war was waged, until after the war was well under way...
You asked if it was really been done before, and these articles show undisputable proof, that yea, it has...many many many times..for years!
Does it make it right? I can't answer that in a way that will please you, so I won't even try:).
I do feel that a big chunk of the responsibility for us getting into this war, needs to fall squarely on the shoulders of the congress, who failed to do their job.
As many of these articles state, the congress has been shirking their responsibility for YEARS. They have basically stepped aside and handed over their powers to the presidents...
I know the posts I posted were lengthy. So below I will highlight information about how the congress has been severely lacking in their duties where declaration of war and war powers are concerned.
It seems like some here are saying that Bush alone went to war. Like he was so war hungry that he woke up in the middle of the night, snuck into the oval office and pushed a "war button", while everyone else was sleeping..
That isn't the case at all. As these articles point out, the war was discussed in depth..everyone was aware of what was going on..the Congress once again didn't step up to the plate and use their powers as they were created and intended..
democrats and republicans alike voted to give Bush the power to go into war.. ( with very little restrictions)
As one can obviously see, this wasn't a one man war... the House and Senate voted to give the President the power...and like it or not, they knew darn well what he would do with that power.
( as far as the same old speech about WMD's..please lets not go there again ...We all or at least most of us, thought their was a high probability of WMD...dating back to President Bush the senior and Clinton. I have countless articles ( don't make me dig them up..lol )and facts stating that Bush Sr. and Clinton and their advisories, considered Iraq a definite and threat. Not possible, a definite threat. Clinton said in his own words that Iraq and Saddam were an imminent threat to American and Americans... )
okay back to the topic....
According to the "Encyclopedia Britannica" The United Sated Congress is: "the legislature of the United States of America, established under the Constitution of 1789 and separated structurally from the executive and judicial branches of government.
It consists of two houses, the Senate (q.v.), in which each state, regardless of its size, is represented by two senators, and the House of Representatives "
The Senate is: one of the two houses of the legislature of the United States, established in 1789 under the Constitution. Each state elects two senators for six-year terms, the terms of about one-third of the Senate membership expiring every two years. The role of the Senate was conceived by the Founding Fathers as a check on the popularly elected House of Representatives.
The House of Representatives is: The House of Representatives shares equal responsibility for lawmaking with the U.S. Senate. As conceived by the framers of the Constitution, the House was to represent the popular will, and its members were to be directly elected by the people.
Here is an excerpt from one of the articles:[b/]
[b] The House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq unilaterally, remove Saddam Hussein from power and abolish that country's nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry.
Moving the nation closer to a possible second war with Iraq, 77 of 100 senators and 296 of 435 House members voted to authorize the president to "use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."
The president needs no further congressional approval to deploy troops, order airstrikes and wage a ground war with Iraq.
Not since Congress passed the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution -- which helped bring expansion of the Vietnam War -- has a president won such broad and flexible authority to carry out an undefined military operation, historians say.
--------------------------------------------
If the U.N. talks collapse, Congress's actions provide Bush the authority to strike Hussein even if world leaders protest.
-------------------------------------------------
With the backing of many Democrats, the House soundly defeated two attempts to restrict Bush's options. One, by Rep. Barbara T. Lee (D-Calif.), would have urged the president to use diplomacy and work through the United Nations rather than launch a military strike. It failed by 355 to 72.
A second, sponsored by Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.) and Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.), would have authorized U.S military action only if it were sanctioned by the Security Council or by a second congressional vote later this year. It lost 270 to 55.
-------------------------------
Senate Roll Call Friday, October 11, 2002
The 77-23 roll call by which the Senate voted Friday to authorize President Bush to use military force, if necessary, to disarm Iraq.
The House passed a resolution, Thursday, October 10, 2002
Congress Moves Steadily Toward Iraq Vote
WASHINGTON --
The House passed a resolution Thursday that allows President Bush to use force if necessary against Iraq.
"The House debate was conducted in the best traditions of the United States Congress. It was spirited, civil and it was informed.
-------------------------------------
Sadly, though, Congress has abdicated -- unconstitutionally -- its solemn responsibility in this matter. Members of Congress are eager to let presidents drop bombs on foreign nations for many reasons, though the underlying one is that it relieves them of personal responsibility while giving each a sense of strength and power. [b]
--------------------
[b] An attempt was made to rectify this situation in the early 1970s, with the introduction of the War Powers Act, following the Korea and Vietnam wars. The legislation originally would have moved us closer to the Constitution.
What passed, however, has made things far worse in the intervening 25 years. Now the law allows presidents to send troops into any battle, anywhere, for any reason, without Congress having any chance to voice even opposition until long after lives have been endangered.
------------------
The Framers of the Constitution carefully devised a scheme of separation of powers and checks and balances to minimize the dangers of concentrating too much power in the hands of any one person, or group of persons.
They would be appalled at the resolutions in Congress expressing unqualified support of the president in whatever actions he should decide to take - resolutions that reveal the degree to which Congress has failed to fulfill its constitutional obligation to act as a check on presidential power. Nothing could be farther from the intent of the Framers.
-----
What it reveals is that the actual balance of power in matters of foreign policy has shifted decisively toward the President, and that Congress has failed utterly to function as the institution the Framers of the Constitution intended it to be.
What that signifies, in terms of the concentration of unchecked power in the White House, should be a matter of profound concern to all Americans.
--------
The Supreme Court has had relatively little to say about the Constitution's war powers.
Many interesting legal questions--such as the constitutionality of the "police action" in Korea or the "undeclared war" in Viet Nam--were never decided by the Court.
(Although the Supreme Court had three opportunities to decide the constitutionality of the war in Viet Nam, it passed on each one.)
Okay, that about sums it up Posted by lymebrat (Member # 3208) on :
I forgot to add...
As for your comment "(has it really? with this magnetude of consequences?"
I can answer than with one word: Vietnam.
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
So -- should we do that over again???
OK, you are saying it's OK for the executive branch to act against the Constitution in War because it has happened before, got it.. but that was just one small part of what was posted regarding the legality of this War and the Constitution as well as the Law. (and as Heiwa says, it's still unconstitutional)
But, moreover --
I never asked if going to War without Congress' approval had been done before.. I made a comment on this particular situation in Iraq, and it's magnitude (and consequences)..largely having to do with manupulation of Congress and conspiracy in order to act...among other things as well. Not JUST military action without Congress' approval, and also the resolution after Vietnam tightened that up as well.
Actually, this is far worse than the examples you raise in regard to the conspiracy going in, and faaaar worse than any instance in which government took military action without congress! This level of crime is pretty unique to the Bush admin.. and of course it isn't just Bush..
if you look up PNAC, you will see Cheney, Rumsfeld, Abdams, Wolfowitz, and Libby signed on to this plan in 1993 -- that we must gain a military stronghold in the Middle East. Once put together, the evidance is very damning and very grim, I'm afraid.
Lymebrat, I fully understand the parallels you are drawing and am acknowledging them, I agree, Congress has on several occasions given power over, ect, and IMO before Iraq should have done more investigating -- for one thing --
However.. I have to point out you have ignored 90% of the issues raised regarding Iraq.. and that regardless of shirking some responsibility.. they were NOT GIVEN all of the intelligence reports, namely the ones that found no imminent threat and refuted the issue on WMD. Don't you think in that case they were at a disadvantage?
-- the White House officials involved manipulated Congress into going along with this War.
Please see my post in it's entirely, please do not cut up it's meaning and post just the phrases that these articles seem to refute -
ie: this was my comment right before the one you extracted and posted all these articles in response to --
"The Bush admin's unconstitutional actions are actually on **many levels and issues, my post here is on the definitive actions taken to defraud congress and the nation into War.
This issue is not a matter of politics, but a matter of LAW.
Also, the post by the War Veteran, Congressman Murtha I put just above yours states much of the issue. That post says allot as well.
Regarding Saddam's threat...the 911 commission (government investigations) which went over the issue with a fine toothed comb and found NO imminent threat..
that doesn't matter?...and you feel confident there WAS a threat..and that we were justified going to War based on assumption and our administration's manipulation of intelligence both to the public and Congress?
Mo
[ 18. November 2005, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
My God, here it is just as predicted, straight from the White House..
another blatant smear rather than address of the issue Congress is actually meeting on tonight..
No wonder we have a culture of hate and attack among Americans!
Murtha has been a career military analyst, noone has supported our troops more than he.. he made the above statements, calling for a clear plan for the troops and an effective focus on Terror.. he says there needs to be effective actions, and that this War has weakened our military.
The administration has put allot of credibility in this man in the past, until he publicly disagrees with them.
-- the White House makes a public statement linking him to Michael Moore -- As well as accusing him of wanting to surrender to terrorists!
Do they even know or care about who this man is? Not only has he been a strong supporter on both sides of the political isle on various issues, he is nothing if not an advocate for our troops and one who understands War, and served with high honor in Vietnam.
Discusting! This administration considers nothing but it's own pre-concieved agenda.
Here's their response to Murtha's statement posted above:
"Congressman (John) Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy position of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party," the White House said in a statement.
"The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists."
Unbelievable. Wake up and smell the Facism.
The story will be out tomorrow I'm sure.. but as a result of Murthas statement and proposal, which cuts to the heart of the problems for the military and this failed War on Terror..
If you see his proposal.. he said it was time to make a plan to begin to pull military out as soon as practicable ...not immediately.. and remember this man has ben a staunch advocate of the military for years, and in favor of the White House till he brought up valid points about the War that they DON'T WANT BROUGHT UP.
--so the Repibs pull a fast one and propose a resolution for vote to pull troops IMMEDIATELY!
This move essentially stifled any opportunity for the Congress to DEBATE the issue, propose various solutions, ect..
pulled the rug out, another dirty trick! Playing politics with the lives of our troops and the War on Terror, and the Iraqi people.
The House went wild.. congressman yelling out of order.. complete chaos.
These tactics are now raw and exposed.
The Republicans and the White House have tried to stifle any conversation.
The bogus resolution was voted down 400 and something to 3. Of course they did.
NOONE proposed immediate pullout.
I can't even believe they pulled this stunt. It's mind boggling. No discussion allowed in Americamn congress anymore??
There is no Democracy in our government at this time. The Republicans in support of the War stifled debate entirely out of fear. If this War was on solid ground, they would never have had to pull such a dirty and childish trick.
Check out the news tomorow, kids.. appahrently the floor was like the Jerry Springer show.
Mo
[ 19. November 2005, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Mo ]
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[tsk]](graemlins/tsk.gif)
![[dizzy]](graemlins/dizzy.gif)
![[woohoo]](graemlins/woohoo.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
lol![[bonk]](graemlins/bonk.gif)
![[confused]](graemlins/confused.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[hi]](graemlins/hi.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[spinning smile]](graemlins/spinsmile.gif)
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
I laughed so hard my husband came over to read what I was laughing at and he too started laughing. As I too have been called " uneducated, misinformed, a mindless flag waver, " to name a few... simply because I disagree with a few posters over here.![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
) and yet I dare to disagree with others on this board.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[kiss]](graemlins/kissing.gif)
![[sleepy]](graemlins/sleepy.gif)
![[shake]](graemlins/shake.gif)