September 21, 2007
If MoveOn.org were around in 1942

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 21, 2007 08:35 AM | Email This
Comments
1. How can you demean a real hero like thisd?

Who among Ike's succesors would nHE have been produd of?

Nixon? Bushes?

Remember Ikr DID end a war!

I suspect that as soldiers, the two Davids would have agreed on their role .. both took orders from a CIC. As President, Ike would NEVER have goiven the orders lil Bush did.

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 21, 2007 08:54 AM
2. This...is freaking hilarious. Wow. I love it. Did you come up with it yourself, or did you get it from somewhere else? What a great way to start the morning!

Posted by: Chris on September 21, 2007 08:55 AM
3.
This is spot on funny.

Did you used to work for "MAD" magazine (or Sick or Cracked)?

Posted by: John Bailo on September 21, 2007 08:58 AM
4. What I'm liking is how the fringe lefters are whining about THEIR free speech rights, while simultaneously condemning the SENATE'S free speech rights.

Ahhhhh, hypocrisy. Thy name is moveon.org.

Posted by: Hinton on September 21, 2007 09:05 AM
5. nice of you, stefan, to throw your dedicated and loyal readers some morning red meat.

perhaps you would like to consider a substantive post about the management of the war by the commander in chief in which you could evaluate the accuracy of his statements about the prosecution of such an important foreign policy matter.

nah, more red meat!

Posted by: dinesh on September 21, 2007 09:05 AM
6. #5 - It's called historical perspective!

Posted by: kathy on September 21, 2007 09:09 AM
7. NO!

This is not an issue of perspective ..the issue is patriotism and the lack of patriotism in anyone who would support this President.

This ought not to be dems vs reps, we need Rep leaders who can out their failed Pres aside!

Ask yourself, WHAT WOULD IKE DO?

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 21, 2007 09:14 AM
8. Sadly, SJ, as a soldier, Ike followed Roosevelt's orders resulting in ceding Eastern Europe to communist control for over 40-years following WW II.

While both Ike and David Petraeus recognized certain inherently political aspects of their jobs (consider Ike's having to deal with the Pompous Twins: Bernard Law Montgomery and Charles DeGaulle), both were, while in uniform, first and foremost soldiers.

Yet when Ike was president, he orderd U-2 flights over the USSR, and when Francis Gary Powers was shot down, he did lie about it.

It still is an interesting tidbit, though, that all the "Bush lied" crowd can do is crow, but they cannot prove any instances of where he deliberately said something he knew for a fact was not true. He may have been mistaken - WMD's, for example - or others may have characterized his words as lies - Joe Wilson, whose track record as a liar is pretty well known, comes to mind - but where is there evidence that Bush knew "X" yet said "Y?"

The Piper

Posted by: Piper Scott on September 21, 2007 09:14 AM
9. Are you feeling sharpend by SeattleJew's rant today Piper? Hard to believe your tax do;llars are going to support this "individual" and his research at UW isn't it.

Posted by: Huh? on September 21, 2007 09:20 AM
10. @9...Huh?...

Actuly, I like SJ and his mitton-fisted keyboarding skills even though I disagree with him probably 90+++% of the time, but that's simply what makes a horse race.

I'd rather have a poster that expresses a point, seeks to support it with analysis and some sort of reasoned argument, and then invites engagement, which I think SJ seeks to do.

Better that than merely name calling and nothing else. Over at HA, I see, and get subjected to, tons of that, but it gives me a good laugh.

The Piper

Posted by: Piper Scott on September 21, 2007 09:28 AM
11. SJ - Ike did not "End" the war, Ike "Won" the war. HUGE difference.

He won two of them, actually.

Posted by: Cliff on September 21, 2007 09:29 AM
12. This is great piece. Very illustrative. Well done.

Piper: To better illustrate your excellent point about Joe and Valerie, there are some links here that show Joe's wife as just as good a liar as he:

http://buildwithwood.com/bww/

Posted by: G Jiggy on September 21, 2007 09:30 AM
13. Piper Scott (8):

I don't find it sad that Ike as a general followed the orders of his commander in chief, President Roosevelt (even though the ceding of eastern Europe to the USSR was a huge tragedy). On the contrary, I would find it extremely frightening if our generals disobeyed the orders of their civilian superiors - the President and the Sec. Def. - and executed their own foreign policy. That, you see, is called a military dictatorship, because none of us get to vote for our military officers.

The corrective to bad foreign policies is to vote in new executive leadership, not for those sworn to execute those policies to disobey them. Generals and cabinet secretaries can always resign rather than follow decisions they disagree with.

Google: Rome, Rubicon, Julius Caesar, Dictatorship

Posted by: Steve on September 21, 2007 09:31 AM
14. What, people criticize their opponents, the hell you say. Pretty soon Bush will be attacking the Democrats for not agreeing with him on the war, and before you know it a whole campaign might break out.

Posted by: Giffy on September 21, 2007 09:34 AM
15. dinesh, of all people, I am surprised at your comments.

If you read the Petraeus report, there was plenty of red meat on both sides. It wasn't all rosy. There are plenty of challenges ahead.

But, you can't dispute the initial success at Ramadi. And did Petraeus give any testimony? I couldn't tell with all the grandstanding by your fearful leaders. Some of your leaders didn't ask questions, they just ranted for their alloted time.

dinesh, you of all people, should reassess your position honestly. Based upon the initial successes of the surge, you should be changing your tune. It ain't over by any stretch, but there has been some movement (pun intended)

Posted by: swatter on September 21, 2007 09:40 AM
16. Nice work Stefan. Puts it into perspective. You can tell by the comments that the Left now knows that placing such and as was overreach. This is going to keep on giving for many months.

And the beauty of the Nutroots is that they won't stop here. Before the election there will be plenty more juicy examples of over-the-top, unhinged and irrational rhetoric, violence, graffiti, etc. And all we have to this to moderates and ask them if these are the people they want leading their country.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 21, 2007 09:51 AM
17. @11 Cliff ...

You need some history books. Try Amazon.

Ike was a geenral who worked for Roosevelt and then Truman.

Ike was the President who promised to and did extricate us from the Korean war. Last I looked we had an armistice there. You may want to llook this up!

While you are at ti, look up the relationship of Ike to Doug McArthur.

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 21, 2007 09:51 AM
18. Hey, this is completely and totally different. Why? Well it has to be or the left would look unpatriotic, in league with the terrorists, more hungry for power than national security, etc. It just has to be different now!

BUT IT ISN'T!

Posted by: MJC on September 21, 2007 09:52 AM
19. Piper and SJ:

"Sadly, SJ, as a soldier, Ike followed Roosevelt's orders resulting in ceding Eastern Europe to communist control for over 40-years following WW II."

Yes, and Truman's hands were pretty much already tied by the time he got to office, in that Eastern Europe was already overrun by the Soviets. And one large reason for our inability to affect any actions and change against the Soviets was that Stalin was privy to our most important military secrets, including Trinity/Manahttan Project. The Soviets knew many of our moves ahead of time.

And how did they get this information? From Communist sympathizers and spies, of course - including the Rosenbergs! It's all come out now from the Venona Cables.

Among the uber-highly-sensitive information that the Rosenbergs gave to the Soviets was the 'Proximity Fuse/Fuze', a device that enabled anti-aircraft to explode near an airplane rather than having to hit it. It was this same Proximity Fuse that the Soviets used to shoot down Francis Gary Powers' U2 spy-plane over the Soviet Union, which in turn proved that Ike had lied, fibbed, or misrepresented the truth to the United Nations.

What would Ike do? He'd do the same thing GWB would do - that is, ANYTHING to protect our great nation and the citizens therein.

Posted by: Larry on September 21, 2007 09:53 AM
20. Piper

Tx. I appreciate it. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a blog about politics w/o mud?

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 21, 2007 09:53 AM
21. @13...Steve...

The following of orders wasn't the sad part, it was the orders themselves. Yet we have to remember that during WW II, Ike thought only in military rather than geo-political or post-war terms, hence his willingness to hang back and let the Russians take as much of Germany as they did.

I have no doubt that Gen. Petraeus is an honorable man. My oldest son, the staff sergeant, has met him on several occassions, and puts him as numero uno among the generals who've commanded the Iraq war effort. In the staff sergeant's words, "He's solid gold!"

The Piper

Posted by: Piper Scott on September 21, 2007 09:57 AM
22. Seattle Jew: This is not mud, but a wonderfully illustrative, hypothetical example of how the liberals DID act before and during WWII. Don't like the light shining on idiocy? Go back to your own blog.

Posted by: katomar on September 21, 2007 10:07 AM
23. On this we agree scotsman.

I suspect we would all be in a safer and better world if Petraeus had been given his way when Bush made himself a military theorist.

This is really my goal here (and at HA) .. I am a patriot and resent the hijacking of MY country by idealogues and incompetents .. on either side.

IKE was an example of what we can hope for .. a patriot, his own ideas, a leader. You and I would indubitably argue about many of his decsions but we can do that while respecting hium because of his honest and patriotism.

Extremists should remember the latter days of Adams and Jefferson. We were very lucky at the balance between these two patriots.

Strange as it may seem to some here, I admire McCain, Huchabee, and .. to a limited extent .. Romney. I am not so sure about Thompson, he seems to me to be acting all the time and I do not know what he believes in.

I wish I could see the same sort of balance form your side. It is disgusting to me tyo see the name calling about HRC or BO or Clark or Richardson.

I must be getting old..

Posted by: SeattleJews on September 21, 2007 10:09 AM
24. This picture was originally posted here last week:

http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/what_if_moveon_org_existed_65_years_ago

Posted by: Douglas Aldrich on September 21, 2007 10:10 AM
25. Um katomar, it was conservative isolationists that kept us out of WW2.

Posted by: Giffy on September 21, 2007 10:14 AM
26. @19 Larry

Comparing Ike to GWB is like comparing Forrest Gump to Abe Lincoln.

I do not think GWB is a bad person. He is just arrogant and way over his head. You would not hire this man to run a corporation you own shares in.

BTW .. Ike promised and did end the Korean war. I have no doubt he would have liked to defeat the North Koreans. BUT Ike was patriot.

Ask yourself .. what would GWB have done then?

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 21, 2007 10:17 AM
27. SJ, you're the one who asked 'What would Ike do?'

Several of us have pointed out that Ike lied to the nation and to the world in order to protect critical national security secrets. If he didn't flat-out lie, then he didn't have full information about something he very well could or should have. Isn't this the same activity of which you accuse our current President?

So when you ask us all 'What would Ike do?', why are you surprised about the answer? There's no proof that GWB lied, while the same can't be said of Ike.

I didn't make any statements about GWB being more or less of a man or a CIC than Ike. I only implied that their actions were for the same reasons.

Posted by: Larry on September 21, 2007 10:29 AM
28. I see the moveon folks are busy here today.

As for whether the Petreus ad was treasonous - BS. While clearly a stupid move, even George Soros has the right to speak his mind.

How stupid was it? We need only to look at how the Senate, and in particular those Republicans who were wavering and the Blue Dogs, reacted this week on the two war related actions (the leave vote and the rebuke on the moveon ad).

Having blown its hard won gains it will be interesting to watch what moveon does next. If they are smart (no guarantees there) they will keep quite and hope for failure of the Petreus plan in the next six months. Of course, if the plan continues to work, that might not work too well either.


Posted by: deadwood on September 21, 2007 10:34 AM
29. Larry

I have never questioned whether GWB means well. I ahev questioned his competence and the partiotism of folks who knowingly foisted him off on us or worse still support him. Damn it all .. are you a loyal American or a loyal Repub? In either case, the time has come for the GOP to look to new, smarter leaders.

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 21, 2007 10:42 AM
30. Snort.
The person who wrote this Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a blog about politics w/o mud?

... is the same one who wrote this:

This is not an issue of perspective ..the issue is patriotism and the lack of patriotism in anyone who would support this President.

Spare me your sanctimonious BS, and go pimp your blog somewhere else.

Posted by: jimg on September 21, 2007 10:52 AM
31. He killed Patton.

http://www.rense.com/general63/patton.htm

http://judicial-inc.biz/p_atton_murder_supplement.htm#Bill%20Donovan

http://www.rense.com/general46/germ.htm

Posted by: Publicbulldog on September 21, 2007 11:07 AM
32. Ike was a geenral who worked for Roosevelt and then Truman.

Ya don't say?

Ike was the President who promised to and did extricate us from the Korean war. Last I looked we had an armistice there. You may want to llook this up!

No, he promised to "Go to Korea," it was the vaguest campaign slogan in the history of the planet. That's different from promising to leave, which, obviously, he didn't, given as we STILL have military bases in Korea.


While you are at ti, look up the relationship of Ike to Doug McArthur.

Ohhh, you mean about Macarthur (you spelled his name wrong and randomly capitalized a letter) wanting to invade China?

You are right, maybe Macarthur was right. Let's follow his advise today: Let's invade Iran! And Syria!

Anyhow, your reply is brain dead, and makes absolutely no substantive points that make a hint of sense.

Posted by: cliffs on September 21, 2007 11:20 AM
33. A key difference of course in WWII congress laid out a clear direction the president and his generals must follow. This time around congress unconstitutionally passed its constitutional responsibility over to the executive.

Posted by: Travis on September 21, 2007 11:20 AM
34. @29...SJ...

I like you...I really do...But when you're wrong, you're wrong, and you're wrong in contending that Dubya is merely the incompetent product of unpatriotic "foisters." He is the President of the United States; He's OUR President...yours, mine, OURS. He's not just a Republican president, but a U.S. President.

I'm a loyal American with two sons in uniform, one of whom is an Iraq war veteran now with some service in Afghanistan. I'm not happy with the state of affairs in Iraq, but I support the effort there, and I think it was and is a noble cause.

If you want great examples of partisan hacks, look no further than MoveOn.org or someone like Jane Hamsher who ripped into Elizabeth Edwards for not following the MoveOn party line. Hamsher would have fit right in on the Soviet-era Pravda staff given her regard for truth and respecting the right of people to speak their mind.

BTW...Hamsher's movies suck, too.

The Piper

Posted by: Piper Scott on September 21, 2007 11:21 AM
35. Piper,

You want an example of when Bush lied? How about when he said he would not use the military for nation building in 2000?

Posted by: Travis on September 21, 2007 11:34 AM
36. @33...Travis...

Man, you DO NOT know either American history or constitutional law.

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides, "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..."

No where in either American history or jurisprudence can you find evidence to support such a wild and fallacious assertion! Congress holds purse strings, but it doesn't determine policy.

During WW II, FDR, Marshall, Ike, MacArthur, Nimitz, Halsey, Bradley, et al, set policy, established priorities, conducted campaigns, and generally conducted the war...NOT Congress. Where do you get your information from? MoveOn.org???

BTW...claims that Ike had Patton murdered are as stupid as 9/11 and grassy knoll conspiracy theories. Patton died as a result of injuries received in a car crash shortly after the end of the war.

The Piper

Posted by: Piper Scott on September 21, 2007 11:39 AM
37. Giffy @25: it was liberal, Wilsonian Democrats who got us in to WWI, which lead to WWII.

The Neocons are acting like liberal Wilsonians in their desire to export democracy by force.

I agree with you that true conservatives are non-interventionists, and only back wars that are defensive or are pre-emptive to a real threat to the liberty of Americans on US soil.

The left seems to think the Iraq war is a lot like Viet Nam.

The right seems to think the Iraq war is a lot like WWII.

But both analogies are imperfect.

One way the left has it right is that during WWII, the vast majority of the people were behind the war effort. It was obvious that Hitler was eventually going to come over here. But today, most Americans do not see the benefits to their own safety of the continued occupation of Iraq. In this limited way, it is like Viet Nam, not WWII.

Perhaps it is just because the Republicans have done a bad job of selling the war to the people. Or perhaps the people are right, and the Iraq war is not making us safer...

There were war protesters during WWII, but they were a tiny minority. Today, the Iraq War is unpopular. So Stefan's analogy between Petraus and Eisenhauer breaks down. And it breaks down just as badly as the left's analogy between Iraq and Viet Nam.

Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 21, 2007 11:49 AM
38. Piper, thank you for your sons' service.

You said: "claims that Ike had Patton murdered are as stupid as 9/11 and grassy knoll conspiracy theories. Patton died as a result of injuries received in a car crash shortly after the end of the war."

I agree...I always thought the theory was that the Russians were the ones involved in his car accident--that certainly makes more sense than Ike, given that Patton wanted to continue the war right into Moscow! He was never a fan of them Bolsheviks.

Posted by: Bill H on September 21, 2007 11:55 AM
39. There were war protesters during WWII, but they were a tiny minority. Today, the Iraq War is unpopular.

So Stefan's analogy between Petraus and Eisenhauer breaks down.

So the comparison breaks down because the left is a lot more Anti-American then it use to be?

That's interesting logic.

So, if there had been major protests during WW2, then it would be the same thing?

Posted by: cliff on September 21, 2007 11:57 AM
40. Piper ..

Guess what, We agree here too ... this could get frightening.

I too criticize folks who demean Bush's patriotism or even his religion. As the President especially, he does deserve that respect.

I do not feel the same way about people who support him when he is obviously wrong or about any unpatriotic SOB who would misuse our political system by slinging mud as Mr. Rove has done. BTW, FWIW I have been equally critical of Ms. Gregoire's last campaign. She demeaned Mr. Rossi for his religous beliefs.

Back at Bush, on many issues his incompetence has hurt the US and, since you and I both believe we need a GOP, the GOP as well. Supporting that is not patriotic.

Lookl at the current campaign. If I could vote only on the war issues and was willingto pout aside pandering, I would easily choose McCain as my number one choice. However this patriot has been so damaged by Rove, that he can not even win hios party's nomination.

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 21, 2007 12:15 PM
41. @32 Code words aside, Ike led the people to believe he would end an unwinnable war. And he did so,

I knew Ike and GWB is n ot Ike. (little hyperbole here though I did support his candidacy).

Posted by: SeattleJews on September 21, 2007 12:19 PM
42. @32 Code words aside, Ike led the people to believe he would end an unwinnable war. And he did so,

So, basically, you admit none of your points made any logical sense in context, and wish to amend them.

Fine.

Anyhow, again, you are not only wrong, but obviously wrong on the face of the issue.

Ike did not "lose" Korea, he "won" Korea. Ike did not "leave" Korea, we are "still" in Korea. Our stated goal was to have an independent and free South Korea. Ike got us an independent and free South Korea.

We can debate till doomsday if he should have created a free North Korea, or a free China, that wasn't our goal at the time, and Ike decided it didn't make it our goal.

Similarly, perhaps it would be smart to invade Iran or Syria, but that's not our goal right now. If Bush gets a stable and free Iraq, he will not have "lost" or "abandoned" Iraq just becuase Iran or Syria is not free, or because he doesn't win the War on (Terror) Islamic Extremism, that's a different debate.

Of course, you know this, either that or are you even dumber then I think you are, you are just trying to score cheap points with people even more uninformed or ignorant then yourself.

Posted by: cliff on September 21, 2007 12:31 PM
43. Bruce Guthrie,

I think you mis-represent the issue of public support for WWII and this war in your comparison of the two.

It is true that currently public support for the war is down, but that was not always the case, and there are factors that affect public support for war that is not taken into consideration.

For example, there was not a concerted effort by media and Hollywood to discredit the president and the war effort throughout the campaigns of WWII as there are today. It is my belief that a country that is being given news and information that works to strengthen support and resolve will naturally be more positive about the war effort despite negative outcomes at any particular stage while public that is being constantly inundated with bad news and challenges to the leaders of the war effort are going to look more pessimistically at the war effort.

THAT is a key difference between WWII and today.

In 2003 polls* showed that public support for the war was at 80%, including 50% of the liberal democrats.

My problem with all the people who are now against it is that once you decide you are for something you really should not be changing your mind once you get into it just because you don't like how it is going. Integrity demands seeing it though, first, THEN you can do all the complaining and second guessing you want once the job is done.


*http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0320/p01s01-ussc.html?page=2

Posted by: Eyago on September 21, 2007 12:39 PM
44. If a man or woman isn't over their head when they assume command as POTUS, they are foolish. No one is prepared to be POTUS.

It is a job that has grown exponentially over the past couple of centuries into the overgrown morass of bureaucracy we have today.

For anyone, like today's left, to assume the President knows everything about everything is just plain wrong. Blaming Bush for everything bad that has gone wrong but not of the good is just plain wrong.

Don't you lefties see the folly of your position?

Posted by: swatter on September 21, 2007 12:45 PM
45. @41 Cliff ,,

I am not aware that I said the issue in Iraq was wining or losing. Frankly my worst problem with Bush is that I do not think he has any rational idea of what a win might be.

I certainly never said that Ike lost Korea. I think the armistice was the right things to do .. just as I think something like that may make sense in Iraq.

Fianlly you seem to throw epithets around a lot, calling me dumb? Fine by me. I would suggest that this does you very little honor.

@43 Eyago

You are confusing the message with the messenger. I, for example, was and still am convinced that an invasion was the right thing to do. BUT, not the way this invasion was done. I am certain that "Operation Enduring Freedom" will go down in the history books as one of the biggest screw ups of all time.

The issue for patriots now, on both sides, is how best to get what we can out of Bush's awful mess. There are responsible repubs, McCain and Lieberman (if that is what he is becoming) who believe that an aggressive strategy can win and moderates who have suggested draw down strategies that might work (Obama, Clinton, Biden) but the much needed debate and I fear the decision are bieng thrown aside by a GOP hung up on what to do with a naked emperor and a dem party that smells elephant blood.

FWIW, I intend to vote for Obama or HRC. I do not think the GOP will have a credible candidate.

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 21, 2007 01:25 PM
46. Piper:

Thanks for quoting the constitution. I like seeing, the more people read it the better of our nation will be.

The key portion I think you are not giving proper respect to is, WHEN CALLED INTO SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES. This means that the president is NOT commander in chief until congress has properly declared war. They never did in iraq, instead the passed the buck to the president. THey do not have the power to do that (it is not mentioned in the constitution that congress can pass any responsibilities on to the president.)

It is wrong to suggest the president determines policy. He does not. The constitution is set up with checks and balances. One important one is that congress decides when to use the military and then the president executes congresses decision.

Posted by: Travis on September 21, 2007 01:32 PM
47. Bruce,

The key difference between Iraw and WW2 is that as you mention, the people were behind WW2. Consequently congress did the honorable and constitutionally correct thing and declared war with clear enemies and objectives and did not let the president make any decisions about who to attack or what will be considered victory.

In Iraq, the people were not so much behind it, congress consequently unconstitutionally passed the buck to the president letting him decide if all other avenues had been throughly explored, let him decide if he wanted to attack Iraq, and let him decide what victory will look like.

Now we are left with a mess that congress wants to pretend was not their doing. We have no clear objectives, and shifting enemies. It is a mess.

Thankfully more and more people are recognizing it. My only fear is that the lefts opposition will disappear once it is their team in charge of the war.

Travis

Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 21, 2007 01:40 PM
48. Another difference between the two generals is Ike knew that what he was doing was protecting americans. Petreaus has not given that idea anythought. How can you execute the occupation of a foeign country and not at least justify it in your head that it is making your country safe first?

Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 21, 2007 01:46 PM
49. @44 Swatter .. good post.

The Prexhood is a very hard job. That si why on looking at all candidates one should try to imagine whether these folks would eb qualified for even a lesser job.

FWIW .. my ratings on qualification, regardless of all else .....

Hillary
Romney
Richardson
Obama
McCain
Biden
Edwards
Giuliani
Huckabee
Thompson
Gravel
Kucinich

Posted by: SeattleJews on September 21, 2007 01:50 PM
50. @46...Travis...

Read it again, because you've got it wrong.

The specific clause to which you refer applies to "...the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States..." In other words, when the National Guard is called up by the President, it's "called into the actual service..." etc.

The President of the United States is C in C 24/7/365, and Article II, Section 2 specifically so directs.

Congress has no legal authority to decide to use the military; such a decision is an executive one. Congress' authority is limited to, as stated in Article I, Section 8:

"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;"

Congress sets the rules by which the military is administered and it writes the checks. But it is completely within the purview of the President of the United States to tell the military to here or there; no Senator or Congressman can direct any soldier, sailor, Marine, or member of the air force to do anything.

Your constitutional understanding is results oriented. I defy you to show me SCOTUS cases supporting your theory, I, however, can show many to you supporting mine.

The Piper

Posted by: Piper Scott on September 21, 2007 01:56 PM
51. swatter:

thank you for inviting me to re-evaluate my position based upon your belief that "the surge" is responsible for the "success" in ramadi.

i, in turn, would ask you to re-evaluate your position of this war, in part given the moving targets our president keeps establishing.

on the narrow point of the "surge" and its "success," i point to george will's analysis, b/c i find him to be a level headed, honest conservative that has remained grounded in conservative principles as opposed to becoming a right-wing cheerleader.

"Before Gen. David Petraeus's report, and to give it a context of optimism, the president visited Iraq's Anbar province to underscore the success of the surge in making some hitherto anarchic areas less so. More significant, however, was that the president did not visit Baghdad. This underscored the fact that the surge has failed, as measured by the president's and Petraeus's standards of success.

Those who today stridently insist that the surge has succeeded also say they are especially supportive of the president, Petraeus and the military generally. But at the beginning of the surge, both Petraeus and the president defined success in a way that took the achievement of success out of America's hands.

The purpose of the surge, they said, is to buy time -- "breathing space," the president says -- for Iraqi political reconciliation. Because progress toward that has been negligible, there is no satisfactory answer to this question: What is the U.S. military mission in Iraq?

Many of those who insist that the surge is a harbinger of U.S. victory in Iraq are making the same mistake they made in 1991 when they urged an advance on Baghdad, and in 2003 when they underestimated the challenge of building democracy there. The mistake is exaggerating the relevance of U.S. military power to achieve political progress in a society riven by ethnic and sectarian hatreds. America's military leaders, who are professional realists, do not make this mistake."


on the larger point of defining, and continually re-defining success, here's a summary of bush's stated goals for the iraq war. note the degradation of the mission:

2002: to disarm Saddam Hussein of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and create a breathing space for democracy in the Middle East (the WMDs were not there; the breathing space became anarchy).

2003: to allow chaos in order to create a "fly-paper" for every jihadist in the world to come and get slaughtered by the US ("Bring it on!").

2004: to create a new democratic constitution (achieved on paper, but at the price of creating sectarian voting blocs that actually intensified the ethnic and religious divisions pulling the country apart).

2005: to protect Iraq from a powerful and growing Sunni insurgency and disarm the Shi'ite militias (failed).

2006: to quell surging sectarian violence, target a new and lethal Al-Qaeda in Iraq and restrain the passions unleashed by the bombing of the Samarra mosque (failed).

2007: to prevent genocide and a wider regional war and create enough peace for a settlement in the centre (the surge has reduced violence to levels of summer 2006, and no agreement in Baghdad has been reached).*

*chronology taken from the sunday times.

Posted by: dinesh on September 21, 2007 01:59 PM
52. There is an excellent discussion of just this issue in the Federalist.

The au mnakes it very clear that the President can no make war on his own.

Of course, the definition of war has evolved quite a lot. Since then.

BTW .. I just posted a news item on the number of Wassl Street folks who have become dems again.

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 21, 2007 02:07 PM
53. Travis@46, your analysis is incorrect. It is not true that POTUS is C-in-C only after Congress has declared war. Following your logic if Congress has not declared war then the military is not subject to civilian control, but only is when Congress declares war. This line of thinking has never been accepted. Whether at war or peace POTUS is always C-in-C of the armed forces.

What you're referring to is the subject of who's commander of the various state militias. Normally the governor of a state is the civilian commander of the state militia, i.e., the National Guard. That's why during an emergency the governor mobilizes the NG, and POTUS can send in the US Military (as in NO after Katrina).

Let's examine the wording phrase by phrase:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,

there's no ambiguity there. But what about the NG? Are they always under command of the state governor? Not always.

and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..."

Notice that it says when called into the actual service of the US. When called into service of the state, the NG is under command of the governor.

The president cannot activate the NG for service in a state. That's the governor's responsibility. The president can activate the NG to supplement the active military, and when the NG is called into service of the US, as currently in Iraq, POTUS is in command, whether or not Congress has declared war.

I agree that more people, especially the 535 members of Congress, need to read the US Constitution more often. They need to pay particular attention to Article 1, Section 8 (Scope of Legislative Power - rather limited), then re-read the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Posted by: Obi-Wan on September 21, 2007 02:13 PM
54. Obi-wan,
I suppose you could be correct about that part only refering to the NG. I will have to think about that.

But my main point still stands which is that it is congress that needs to declare war and set policy, not the president. The president only executes the policy set forth by the congress.

Posted by: Travis on September 21, 2007 02:26 PM
55. It bears repeating that the opposition to US involvement in WWII were right-wingers. The America First Committee was bankrolled in large part by publishing magnate William H. Regnery (recognize that name from anywhere?)

Conservative Republicans opposed US involvement in WWII. You can't change that historical fact.

Posted by: lindbergh's iron cross on September 21, 2007 02:27 PM
56. Travis, you still seem to have an issue with the Constitution.

Constitutionally, Congress is NOT the supreme power of the government. They are COEQUAL with the Executive and Judicial branches. Because Congress makes the laws and controls the public purse, they do have the ability to gain popular support (power) by how, where, when, and to whom they dole out money from the public purse. But even they are constrained by the Constitution.

The key portion I think you are not giving proper respect to is, WHEN CALLED INTO SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES. This means that the president is NOT commander in chief until congress has properly declared war.

Consequently congress did the honorable and constitutionally correct thing and declared war with clear enemies and objectives and did not let the president make any decisions about who to attack or what will be considered victory.

First, specifically what does the Constitution say about Congress declaring war? Here, you are using an absolutely hard interpretation that requires the literal words in the Constitution to be used, i.e. "We, the Congress, declare war on [fill in the blank]". The War Powers Act (Public Law 93-148) allowed Congress to authorize the president to commit troops without a specific "Declaration of War".

Second, after deciding on using the literal words from the Constitution, you then leap outside of it. Read it again. The President is CinC of the Armed Forces ALL the time he is in office. Congress has ZERO say over this. The phrase, "WHEN CALLED INTO SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES" refers to the militias of the States. Congress does not call them up.

Third, you again miss the point that ALL foreign policy is vested in the Executive, not Congress. Congress holds the purse strings and can browbeat the president, but they cannot unilaterally take over the decision making of foreign policy.

Fourth, have you read and understood the 2002 AUMF (PUBLIC LAW 107-243--OCT. 16, 2002), passed by the Congress and signed by the president?

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 21, 2007 02:32 PM
57. Hey Travis!

Any thoughts on the 16th Amendment and whether it wasn't properly ratified?

The Piper

Posted by: Piper Scott on September 21, 2007 03:07 PM
58. Very funny, Stefan. But it just reminds us of the differences between Iraq and Nazi Germany. Germany had great military power, had conquered some countries, and was attacking others. Iraq before we invaded had little miltary power and (according to extensive, albeit imperfect, inspections) had no WMDs.

The fact that Nazi Germany and Iraq were ruled by evil people does not mean we should have treated them the same, just as the fact that you and my cat both have eyes does not mean I treat you the same. And if Iraq really did pose the same threat to our existence as Nazi Germany, why didn't we resume the draft and send a million soldiers over there along with nuclear weapons?

Posted by: Bruce on September 21, 2007 03:52 PM
59. Bruce,

At one time Germany did NOT represent the threat it did when we finally entered the war. Are you saying that we must wait until it IS necessary to need 1 million soldiers and nuclear capacity to defeat an enemy before we recognize it and remove it?

Posted by: Eyago on September 21, 2007 04:20 PM
60. Bruce, you missed the news this week? Syria had an accident that killed sever Syrians and Iranian weapons masters. The punchline? It was WMD. Where do you think they got them from? Couldn't have been from Iraq as most of the anecdotal information said, could it? Syria, to my knowledge, didn't have chemical weapon program to generate the WMD themselves.

Posted by: swatter on September 21, 2007 04:22 PM
61. Southern ROots,

You are right. I am somewhat found of the constitution. I do not think there needs to be the specific words 'we declare war' but it does need to be congress directing the nation to go to war not the president. The founders were very clear in this regards both in the constitution and in other writings and for good reason.

The 2002 Iraq war use of authorization I have read. It does not decide whether to go to war, it leaves it to the president. It does not define the enemy, it leaves it to the president, and it does not define any specific goals to end the war, it leaves it to the president. In otherwords it leaves everything to the president. It requires a consitutional amendment to tranfer a power from one branch to another, not just some law. That is why I am claiming it was unconstitutional war.

And yes I am aware that congress is just one of three branches. But it is the branch that is supposed to decide if and when we go to war, not the executive. Any constitutional scholar will confirm this.

AS for the 16th amendment, is that the tax one? THat is the one lots of people seem to think was not properly ratified. My personal view is it does not matter. If it weren;t it would be in an instant the way things stand. But what does that have to do with what we are talking about now?

Posted by: TRavis on September 21, 2007 04:24 PM
62. Ask yourself, WHAT WOULD IKE DO?


Firebomb Dresden, Tokyo, and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Summary executions in the field. Bomb out entire blocks when there's a squad or two taking pot shots at your troops. Cut off all food, power, water, goods, transports, etc. to the country you're invading.


Yeah, I like that... I think that approach would work really well! So how about it? Ready to call for firebombing Sadr City? Nuking Fallujah? Leveling Karbala? Is that what you're advocating? Because that's what FDR and Ike did...


Oh, and domestically, FDR internned hundreds of thousands of Japanese and German citizens, for indefinite times, for no more than being Japanese or German. Here the Left screams over Jose Padilla. How about we follow your same logic with President Bush:


WHAT WOULD FDR DO?


Let's round up anyone suspected of fomenting unrest, of calling for the downfall of the US, of calling the terrorists in Iraq freedom fighters or heroes. Allow the President to let loose the Dogs of War, and level cities.


Worked for FDR and Ike to WIN the war...


BTW .. Ike promised and did end the Korean war.


Really? Are you sure about that? Because the Korean War is still active; there is a cease fire, but terms of ending the war have not been resolved, and neither side has surrendered.

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on September 21, 2007 05:37 PM
63. The 2002 Iraq war use of authorization I have read. It does not decide whether to go to war, it leaves it to the president. It does not define the enemy, it leaves it to the president, and it does not define any specific goals to end the war, it leaves it to the president. In otherwords it leaves everything to the president. It requires a consitutional amendment to tranfer a power from one branch to another, not just some law. That is why I am claiming it was unconstitutional war.


Travis,


It may be an unconstitutional WAR, but it's NOT an unconstitutional use of US Forces. If you want to get semantic about it, sure we can't formally call it a war, because only the Congress can "declare" war.


But committing troops to harm's way, and actions abroad can be done any time, for any reason, by the President without Congressional approval or consent. That's his power.


Maybe the formal declaration is less important than you make it out to be?

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on September 21, 2007 05:41 PM
64. Edmonds Dan,

The founding fathers were had just fought a war against the king of england. One of their biggest beefs was that the power to go to war was all held by just one man. They specifically wrote the constitution so that the president could not just send troops anywhere he wanted without the peoples approval (through their elected representatives in congress).

If we did accept your claim that the president is allowed to send the troops whereever he wants and do what he wants with them, then what is the point of a decleration of war? Why would they put that power in the constitution if it was completly meaningless?

Posted by: Travis on September 21, 2007 08:11 PM
65. Travis is exactly right about the Constitution and the power to declare war. When the Congress passed the "Use of Force Authorization" they passed the buck to the executive branch and they had no constitutional authority to do this. It was a cowardly act. The intent was to be able to say later that it wasn't their fault; to evade responsibility. But it was not in their power to shirk this duty. Many D's, including Hillary Clinton and Maria Cantwell voted for this resolution, and in doing so they violated their oaths of office.

All they had to do, was declare war on Al Qaida and allied Islamic fundamentalist terroristic organizations. If they had meant to declare war on Iraq, they could have done that too, but I'll bet there was no majority to do so at the time. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you can only declare war against a nation.

They could have issued letters of Marque on Saddam Hussein, or better yet, Osama bin Laden. We've gone ahead and put a price on Osama's head, and this is a really good thing.

But the members of Congress wanted political cover in case the war turned out badly. We should hold them to their duties and vote anyone out of office who voted for the unconstitutional Use of Force Authorization. The Democrats are just as much to blame as the Republicans. This is a bi-partisan war.

But not enough Americans know or care about the Constitution anymore, and this is why we will continue to lose our freedoms over the next few decades. Our government schools don't teach the philosophy of the Constitution anymore, because the liberals since FDR have seen all but the first amendment as an obstacle to socialistic reform.

Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 21, 2007 08:50 PM
66. I am not aware that I said the issue in Iraq was wining or losing.

You said:

Ike was the President who promised to and did extricate us from the Korean war.

The implication was clear, we should "extricate" ourselves from Iraq.

Of course, the problem is, you were wrong about Korea, Ike did not, nor has any president since, "extricated" us from Korea, and you are wrong about Iraq.

Frankly my worst problem with Bush is that I do not think he has any rational idea of what a win might be.

What part of "a stable, friendly Iraq that isn't a hotbed for terrorists" don't you understand? He says it all the time.


I certainly never said that Ike lost Korea.

No, you said he "extricated" us from Korea, as you obviously want to do in Iraq.

Again, you were factually wrong on that point. We STILL have troops in Korea. Had we "extricated" ourselves from Korea, South Korea would be a communist backwater just like North Korea is, and it would have been a major blow in the Cold War.

The only possible way your point makes any logical sense whatsoever is if you are arguing that he "extricated" us from North Korea, and accepted an incomplete victory of a free South Korea but a communist North Korea and China. This is further indicated by your raising the issue of Macarthur, who disagreed with Truman (and probably Ike, but Truman had actually already fired Macarthur, actually.) and believed we should push into North Korea and China.

I think the armistice was the right things to do .. just as I think something like that may make sense in Iraq.

Oh, brilliant. Who do we have an armistice with? Bin Laden? Iran? Sader? How do you go about achieving the armistice? What exactly does it accomplish?

BTW, the 'armistice' in Korea only worked because it was backed up by the fact that we never left Korea. If we had no force to back up that agreement, the treaty would have been broken and South Korea would be communist today. See: Vietnam. We had a peace treaty there too, for some reason, the results were different. But somehow, your side is too stupid, or too unwilling, to understand why.


Fianlly you seem to throw epithets around a lot, calling me dumb? Fine by me. I would suggest that this does you very little honor.

Well, you suggested I needed history books from Amazon. You might coat your contempt a little better, but you pretending to not have any is rich. I'm not sneaky, if I think your examples are clearly idiotic or ignorant, which I think I've proven, I'll say so.

Especially considering that it is quite obvious that it is you, not I, that am in need of historical understanding and context, which you seem totally ignorant of. There are plenty of decent historical comparisons you could have made, but Korea is the worst of the worst, because it backs up the pro-victory/no retreat crowd 100% if viewed from an even remotely reasonable point of view.

If you want a good example of a historical parallel that might benefit your side, read about the Sicilian Expedition during the Peloponnesian War. It's a much better argument for your side of the debate. I'd argue that it isn't applicable here, but it is a lesson from the past in which it all but certainly would have been the smart thing to withdraw as opposed to pushing for victory.

Now, did you really want to talk military history? Or did you just want to copy Daily Kos campaign slogans?

Posted by: Cliff on September 21, 2007 09:23 PM
67. Bruce and Travis,

Ever since the creation of the Republic of the State of New Mexico in 1846, the Fleming v. Page decision in 1850, and dozens of Supreme Court cases since then, it's been unquestionably the President's sole discretion as Commander In Chief to deploy troops as he sees fit.

In fact, the War Powers Act is most likely unconstitutional, as it tries to cede powers of one branch to another.

Congress can declare war. But that declaration is NOT required for the President to deploy troops abroad. Declaration of war can be used to add additional powers to the President in domestic affairs. But it's not needed for foreign intervention.

In fact, such a requirement would strip the VERY clear and definite delineation of the powers for foreign relations being reserved exclusively to the Executive branch; Congress nor any of its members do not have any rights to interfere, negotiate, or treat with any foreign power without the consent and direction of the President.

Making the President go to Congress to receive approval to deploy troops overseas but making the President the sole arbiter of foreign relations would be completely inconsistent.

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on September 21, 2007 09:58 PM
68. Edmonds Dan,

So you are suggesting that in article 1 section 8 when the framers gave the legislature the power to "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; " and "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces" that they merey intended for this to be a way to give the president more power domestically and not have any control on who we as a nation attack? Seems like a bit of stretch without even reading any of the other words our forefathers wrote.

Also you are claiming that the President is the sole arbiter of foriegn relations. The framers avoided giving any branch sole authority over anything. Did you forget all treaties require 2/3rds approval of the senate? Same goes for ambassadors. The president has checks on his power. One of which is that he can not invade other countries without a decleration from congress.

Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 21, 2007 10:27 PM
69. "The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature" - James Madison

Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 21, 2007 10:32 PM
70. @66 Cliff

So maybe you need a dictionary rather than a history book. look up extricate.

Moreover, if you want o debate KOS, if you want to argue wiht me that is a different matter,

If Bush's goal is to create some sort of friendly,democratic Iraq he is well ... as badly off as I think he is.

If you read my blog or my comments here you will find I do not favor withdrawal, but there are some folks who actually care about the US more than they do about loyalty ot a failed President.

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 21, 2007 10:33 PM
71. http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html

The preceding URL is a great short read by a great historian Thomas Woods on the topic of who has the power to declare war.

Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 21, 2007 10:34 PM
72. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.... Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.
---

Posted by: Abe Lincoln (c/o Travis Pahl) on September 21, 2007 10:37 PM
73. The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure."

Posted by: George Washington (c/o Travis Pahl) on September 21, 2007 10:39 PM
74. So maybe you need a dictionary rather than a history book. look up extricate.

Looked it up, means what I thought it meant. What is your point? It doesn't change a single point I made, nor does it change the fact that you obviously have no clue what you are talking about historically.


Moreover, if you want o debate KOS, if you want to argue wiht me that is a different matter,

Coulda fooled me, or anybody else on this board for that matter. Especially seeming as how you were basically sticking up for moveon.org from the first post of the blog.


If Bush's goal is to create some sort of friendly,democratic Iraq he is well ... as badly off as I think he is.

Well fine, I guess, but you said he didn't have any idea what victory was. You are obviously wrong. You may think victory is unattainable, but that's not the same thing as not knowing what you want and how you would define victory. So again, your comment in this area is plainly wrong by your own definition.

Anyhow, we are well on our way to that goal, and I don't think it will be too long till Iraq resembles, say a young South Korea or perhaps Turkey. Both good allies of ours.


If you read my blog or my comments here you will find I do not favor withdrawal,

That's interesting. Seeming as how we are so big on dictionaries, let's check this out:

ex·tri·cate /ˈɛkstrɪˌkeɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ek-stri-keyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-verb (used with object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing.
1. to free or release from entanglement; disengage: to extricate someone from a dangerous situation.
2. to liberate (gas) from combination, as in a chemical process.

So, you want us to "free or release from entanglement" in Iraq. How exactly is that not withdrawal?

Give a reasonable, logical answer please, not some double-talk mumbo-jumbo like you seem so keen on doing.


but there are some folks who actually care about the US more than they do about loyalty ot a failed President.

If I didn't think Bush was committed to victory in the WOT, (yes, for all you deniers, that includes Iraq), I'd throw him under the bus so fast it would make your head swim.

Posted by: cliffs on September 21, 2007 11:15 PM
75. Abe @ 72, it was about 1812 I had that exact problem. You could say Canada was harboring the enemy. The enemy that burned down the White house among other unsavory things.
In hindsight, I shoulda sent Jackson and those pirates over to Great Britain to finish the job they started in New Orleans. It would have set an example of how we should always respond.
Ah, that's hindsight.

Posted by: James Madison (c/o PC) on September 21, 2007 11:24 PM
76. No Travis, I'm suggesting that the Constitution - as intrepeted per the Supreme Court which is what the Constitution requires - states that the ultimate use of the military outside our shores is at the discretion of the President. Look up the cases referenced, check out the extensive record of Supreme Court rulings upholding this principle.

Declaration of war gives additional provisions to the military, and can be used to suspend some existing laws. The Commander in Chief can direct the military as they see fit, at their discretion.

Congress' sole check on the use of military power is what was Constitutionally employed in 1974 - eliminating funding of the military, either in whole or in part. The purse-strings. But deployment is not their purview.

If the President determines that additional funds are required, then he will petition the Congress; that in fact is what has always happened. The President decides when to go to war or to action, and Congress approves. It's the President's decision.

And in the case of Iraq, that is exactly what happened. The same thing that happened with the US since 1798, with the war against the French. The requirement for Congress to declare war prior to any action is neither historical nor Constitutional.

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on September 21, 2007 11:36 PM
77. @74 Cliff
"Anyhow, we are well on our way to (an Iraq like South Korea or Turkey), and I don't think it will be too long till Iraq resembles, say a young South Korea or perhaps Turkey. Both good allies of ours."

You must have sources of information different from any I can find.

There is about as much chance of this being tru as there is of ID.

You also asked how I would extricate the US from the Iraq mess? First, by elocting a President with a lot more skill and intlect than this one.

Beyond that. I see no really good answer but there are small answers that would help. BTW, these have been advocated by Gen Pet himself.

1. Rebuild the alliances GWB destroyed. Request help form China, France, Iran, Turkey,Saudi Arabia, and India in establishing a regional peace.

This would be expensive.


2. Stabilize Kurdistan. Move troops there to work with the Kurds and the Turks to establish a stable entity.

3. Continue the Petraeus policy of turning the central region over to Sunni ar chiefs.

4. Abandon Baghdad and its Faux givernement, that is NOT our problem.

5. Support indigenous Shia as opposed to Iranian supported folks (again a Petraeus idea).

6. Provide military support to Jordan.

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 22, 2007 08:37 AM
78. SeattleJew: I know what Ike would do. He'd tell you to go bore someone else.

Posted by: pudge on September 22, 2007 09:49 AM
79. SeattleJew: you're one to talk about people not knowing history and being stupid like "Forrest Gump" when you didn't even know what the Tenth Amendment was, a couple of weeks ago. You probably still don't.

Posted by: pudge on September 22, 2007 09:52 AM
80. jimg: what, you mean SeattleJew is ... being dishonest? No! Say it ain't so!

Posted by: pudge on September 22, 2007 09:53 AM
81. SeattleJew: the proper political and legal definition of war has not changed since the writing of The Federalist. It's remained the same thing. War has always been politically defined, a matter of policy, not a description of military action.

Which is why we are not at war right now, techincally speaking.

But since you are not Forrest Gump, since you know history so well, you know that ... right?

Posted by: pudge on September 22, 2007 10:09 AM
82.
You must have sources of information different from any I can find.

Yes, I read stuff other then moveon.org propoganda.



There is about as much chance of this being tru as there is of ID.

Huh?


You also asked how I would extricate the US from the Iraq mess? First, by elocting a President with a lot more skill and intlect than this one.

Ah yes, John Kerry and his "plan" for everything that either A. He won't tell us, or B. Makes no sense, just some vague talk about "diplomacy" or "rebuilding alliances."


Beyond that. I see no really good answer but there are small answers that would help. BTW, these have been advocated by Gen Pet himself.

1. Rebuild the alliances GWB destroyed. Request help form China, France, Iran, Turkey,Saudi Arabia, and India in establishing a regional peace.

Yah...international politics obviously isn't your strongpoint. Are you honestly ignorant enough to believe this bunk?

Why don't you ask the Tooth Fairy for help while you are at it? You have roughly the same chance of getting help from her then from France. And Saudi Arabia for God's sake! You must really lack understanding of the entire problem of radical Islam if you think Saudi Arabia is the key to stability in Iraq, unless by 'stability' you mean Saudi money flowing to newly created medrassas in order to 'educate' Iraqi Sunnis as to the wonders of suicide bombing and honor killings.

India, and kinda-sorta Turkey, are the only countries you mentioned that actually want American victory in Iraq. It is in the best interests of all of the others, as they define their best interest, to see us lose. Especially in Iran. And India is in no position to help for a whole host of reasons, the same with Turkey.

And General Petraus hasn't said anything like this, he's actually said the obvious several times, although he veiled it in more diplomatic language: Iran is part of the problem, and their interest is to dominate Iraq, not to help us build a stable Iraq. And China is clearly on Iran's side on most of the issues that matter because China needs Iran's oil, and it's also in Communist China's best interest to weaken the U.S. in any way it can.


2. Stabilize Kurdistan. Move troops there to work with the Kurds and the Turks to establish a stable entity.

Stabilize Kurdistan? Sweet Jesus, now I know you are ignorant. The Kurdish areas of Iraq are by far the most peaceful in Iraq, and while perhaps not quite as friendly as Kansas City, are extremely stable, and need no stabilization. The only threat that they face is if we do not stabilize the Sunni and Shia areas and they are forced to take sides in a civil war (I mean a real civil war, not a left-wing civil war that they chant every singe time a Sunni kills a Shia or visa versa). So if you want to save Kurdistan, save the rest of Iraq. Otherwise, it's doing just fine.


3. Continue the Petraeus policy of turning the central region over to Sunni ar chiefs.

Umm, I don't know if this is Petraeus's policy or not, but I know even if you are right that's hardly a large enough factor to stabilize the country.


4. Abandon Baghdad and its Faux givernement, that is NOT our problem.

Uhh, yes, it is, assuming you don't want Iran or Al Quada to control the country.

If you are subscribing to the suicidal "partition" strategy, I'd ask you why you want Iran to control most of the country, Saudi Arabia to control another part, and a real risk of civil war along the Turkey/Iraq border.


5. Support indigenous Shia as opposed to Iranian supported folks (again a Petraeus idea).

Brilliant. We want Iran to help us stabilize the region, but you admit they are trying to destabilize it, and you think we should support folks who don't support Iran who's suppose to help us stabilize the region.

Next thing you know, you're gonna be telling me that, when it comes to stock trading, I should buy low and sell high!


6. Provide military support to Jordan.

Why? Jordan is doing just fine on it's own. It's not exactly a friendly but it's friendlier then Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, or most of the other countries in the neighborhood.

I don't know where you get your information, but the pure amount of obviously uninformed and unthoughtful bunk you've spewed time and time again every time I prove your last post was uninformed and thoughtless is almost mesmerizing. It's almost like watching John Edwards comb his hair.

Posted by: cliff on September 22, 2007 10:16 AM
83. SouthernRoots:

No, according to the Constitution, Congress is NOT coequal. Not at all. Legislative authority necessarily predominates. We do things to try to mitigate that authority, through having the legislature in two houses, which have different modes of election and principles of action. By setting the legislature against itself in this way, we can make it harder for the legislature to use its predominant authority.

I am paraphrasing Federalist 51, so if you disagree, take it up with Madison. You won't find anything in any of our founding documents about the three branches being equal. Nor even about them being "balances" against each other, for that matter: they are not balanced, they are unbalanced. They do check each other, however, but the only part of government intended to be balanced is our bicameral legislature, not the entire government.


Bruce Guthrie: nonsense. It's funny how just because you don't like something it's unconstitutional. In fact, what you and Travis Pahl intentionally ignore is that there's been widespread disagreement and no clear voice on this issue, ever. President Jefferson and others used military force abroad without Congressional authorization. Pretending that the power to make war necessarily implies a certain (very broad) definition of war won't get you very far with people who actually study history and the Constitution.

Posted by: pudge on September 22, 2007 10:27 AM
84. cliff: SeattleJew is just lying again. He is -- knowing his statement is false -- pretending that there's any objective facts that say anything about the truth or falsity of Intelligent Design.

Posted by: pudge on September 22, 2007 10:34 AM
85. 1. Rebuilding alliances

All the countries I mentioned have stakes in the region. China needs the oil more than we do. They would also like a bigger role in the region. SA complex but the ruling family is scared of chaos on their border and certainly opposed to the kind of Islam likley t emerge in Iraq. India has a clear objective of merging as the dominant military power in the Indian Ocean. etc.

As I said, I do not claim to be a candidate for President, but I do read. As for Gen Pet. If you read his writings nothing I say is inconsistent. His comments on Iran, for example, are strong evidence that Iran would WANT to be included in any solution.

2. Kurds. You are correct and that is exactly why every strategist understands we must not (as your nemesis says) just withdraw, To be stable, the Kurdish entioty needs t get along with Turkey and Irn, something they are not yet strong enough to do.

3. Sunni areas. This has been Gen. Pets major themes for years, indeed that si why he was excluded by the Bushes form leadership since he argued against debaath-ification and vs. the mythology of the Central Government. BTW, the Bushist central government is opposed to Pet's actions in Anbar and probably killed the sheikh.

4. Baghdad as a target for el Qaeda, Iran or SA. Y0u really are ignorant. Baghdad is not a strategic target, it si a symbolic target and that only if you want to support Bushist fiction that the "Iraqis" want something like the rebels here wnated in '76.

This part of your post is full of misconceptions. El Qaeda Iraq, is NOT the same thing as El Qaeda. It is a local group that uses the brand name to express its hatred of the US. Also el Qaeda of Iraq is pretty much rejected by everyone in Iraq and esp. by anyone associated with SA. Are you aware that the current rulers of SA are the number one target of El Qaeda?

All that said, Baghdad is the worst mess in Iraq. I have not read a hopeful idea of how to solve that problem from anyone. Pet's view was to focus elsewhere.

5. Supporting the Shia Majority of the South. Khomeini's version of Shia was and is his own invention. Moreover he was a Farci and the Arab Shiah explicitly reject the Persian leadership. Iran, of course is a threat, but there is no way we can neutralize Iran by setting up a mythical Americanized Iraq.

6. Support for Jordan. Jordan is ruled by a minority imposed monarchy that has been threatened for a long time by overthrow by the Palestinian majority. Supporting King Abdullah is worthwhile for many reasons including the good he can do in re the Israeli issues.

http://www.kingabdullah.jo/homepage.php

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 22, 2007 11:11 AM
86. Cliff ..

I have to go. I may excerpt your comment over at SJ as they seem to me to be well intentioned but an example of the misinformation good people on the right have.

Your being obsessed with Move-On is as foolish as the Left being obsessed by Limbaugh. I say the same thing to both sides...we need rationalists and patriots, not demagogues and entrepreneurs.

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 22, 2007 11:18 AM
87. 1. Rebuilding alliances

All the countries I mentioned have stakes in the region.

True but irrelevant to the point you are making. Soviet Russia had a stake in Eastern Europe after WW2, that doesn't mean that they were good for us and were interested in helping us set up a government that would be friendly to us, quite the opposite.

China needs the oil more than we do. They would also like a bigger role in the region. SA complex but the ruling family is scared of chaos on their border and certainly opposed to the kind of Islam likley t emerge in Iraq.

No shit, and because of this they want us to succeed WHY exactly?

China has every interest in seeing us fail and seeing the Middle East be given completely over to groups that are not sympathetic to our interests. They would be more then glad to have Iran as a best pal, and thus, an Iraq under Iran's direct influence. It is precisely because they want oil that they want us to fail.

You are right that they may not be crazy about Islamic Extremism, but unlike the U.S., it threatens them a lot less because they don't have any civil or human rights concerns to speak of. They don't have a problem randomly ejecting Muslims from their country or leveling any city that causes them problems, nor do they have a problem with completely and totally cutting off immigration from Muslim countries if they feel like it, nor do they have a significant Muslim population. Furthermore, since Radical Islam is currently obsessed with hitting America, it's strategic opponent, it has little reason to fear it now.

India has a clear objective of merging as the dominant military power in the Indian Ocean. etc.

True, and what does this have to do with anything? If you think India is in a position to pacify Iran or to do much in Iraq, learn a lot more about both countries.

And contrary to your assertion, Bush has not 'severed our alliance' with India. No president in modern times has done more to foster our relationship with India, and America's approval rating in India is the highest in the world with the exception of Israel, above 70% according to the last major poll. That's probably higher then Americas approval ratings among the left.


As I said, I do not claim to be a candidate for President, but I do read. As for Gen Pet. If you read his writings nothing I say is inconsistent. His comments on Iran, for example, are strong evidence that Iran would WANT to be included in any solution.

DUH. And what does that mean? Nothing. It means the obvious: Iran wants to control Iraq. Saying they "want to be included" is like saying Soviet Russia wanted to be part of "rebuilding" eastern Europe. That's a no-brainer, but that doesn't mean it's good for our interests or the interests of the people who live there. Exact same thing. It's like asking a fox to help in the reconstruction of the hen house.

Why is this such a difficult concept for the left to grasp? Iran wants to control Iraq, that's a big difference from wanting to 'help' us in Iraq. They are interested only in helping themselves.


2. Kurds. You are correct and that is exactly why every strategist understands we must not (as your nemesis says) just withdraw, To be stable, the Kurdish entioty needs t get along with Turkey and Irn, something they are not yet strong enough to do.

Ok, I agree we shouldn't just withdraw. Then why have you been saying we should over and over and over again? I even gave you the dictionary definition of extricate, which you challenged me to do, proving that you were arguing for withdrawal all the time. You can try to re-spin things if you want, but there was absolutely no other logical conclusion to what you were arguing for.


3. Sunni areas. This has been Gen. Pets major themes for years, indeed that si why he was excluded by the Bushes form leadership since he argued against debaath-ification and vs. the mythology of the Central Government. BTW, the Bushist central government is opposed to Pet's actions in Anbar and probably killed the sheikh.

Umm, this is clearly idiotic. If Bush was opposed to Petreus's plan, he wouldn't be keeping him in his current position or touting him as his man in Iraq.

If you are arguing against Bush's old plan, welcome to 2007, how was 4 years of 2003? BUSH is arguing against his old plan now, at least at a tactical level. The only thing that you can say is Bush's strategy that he is deeply committed to is victory in Iraq, he never has been dedicated to anything other then that. He may have changed his mind from time to time on what was the best way to achieve that goal, but that position has never wavered. He has wavered on other positions on how to achieve that, as he should, as any commander should. No plan survives the first shot completely.

You have a great ability to argue in circles and change your positions and obfuscate what is being talked about to 'win' arguments. It's entertaining but not very helpful in actually getting somewhere.


4. Baghdad as a target for el Qaeda, Iran or SA. Y0u really are ignorant. Baghdad is not a strategic target, it si a symbolic target and that only if you want to support Bushist fiction that the "Iraqis" want something like the rebels here wnated in '76.

Huh? SA? EL Qaeda? When did Spanish speakers taking over? Don't tell me they have a problem with Mexican Immigration in Iraq too! (/sarcasm)


This part of your post is full of misconceptions. El Qaeda Iraq, is NOT the same thing as El Qaeda.

Umm, yes it is. The senior leadership of al qaeda (I'm going to assume you are just spelling it wrong) in Iraq, such as the late Zarkowi, were once along Bin Laden's side in Afghanistan, and Bin Laden's #2 appointed the new head in Iraq on a tape broadcasted all over the world. A lot of them were ruling Anbar province before we chased them out/killed them.

Your just being silly now, you aren't even admitting things that even the most far-left Democrats acknowledge.

It is a local group that uses the brand name to express its hatred of the US. Also el Qaeda of Iraq is pretty much rejected by everyone in Iraq and esp. by anyone associated with SA. Are you aware that the current rulers of SA are the number one target of El Qaeda?

SA again, do you mean Saudi Arabia? Is it really that hard to spell? Well, apparently, you continually spell al qaeda wrong.

And you seem to have a firm grasp on the obvious, after first denying it, that Saudi Arabia is part of the problem, not part of the solution. The fact that Bin Laden doesn't like the Saudi Royal Family isn't any more relevant then Lennin not liking Trotsky. Just because they don't like each other doesn't mean they are our friends, nor does it mean they don't hate us more then they hate each other.

Anyhow, you are undoubtedly right that a lot of radicals from Saudi Arabia have come to make trouble in Iraq, and that they are not, or were not, part of Bin Laden's network a few years ago. So what? A. It doesn't matter if they are originals or not, B. Even if it did matter, the leadership is indeed tied to Bin Laden, as has been clear.

And yes, you are also correct that large sections of Iraq has turned on Al Qaeda. That doesn't mean they aren't a serious threat, and it doesn't mean that they aren't a large problem in Iraq. Who do you think blew up the Golden Mosque, and why do you think they did it? They did it because they knew it would cause ethnic conflict, and they knew it would create huge problems for us, and they know that a stable, friendly Iraq is a severe threat to radical Islam.

And if you haven't noticed, Iran has been busy funding rebels on both sides of the ethnic conflict for the same reason.


All that said, Baghdad is the worst mess in Iraq. I have not read a hopeful idea of how to solve that problem from anyone. Pet's view was to focus elsewhere.

Umm, no, the surge has impacted Baghdad, and it continues to be part of the plan. He cleaned out Anbar province first, sure, that's just common sense since it was Al Qaeda's stronghold. This is typical "We can't walk and chew gum at the same time" leftist argument and it's equally meaningless.


5. Supporting the Shia Majority of the South. Khomeini's version of Shia was and is his own invention. Moreover he was a Farci and the Arab Shiah explicitly reject the Persian leadership.

Tell that to al-Sader. He'd be interested in hearing that.

You are right that most Shiites in Iraq don't want to be controlled by Iran, but some do, and those that don't will be easily overpowered by Iran if we do not make sure that the Iraqi government can stand on it's own two feet.

Iran, of course is a threat, but there is no way we can neutralize Iran by setting up a mythical Americanized Iraq.

Yes we can, and we have before. South Korea is a perfect example. How about post WW2 Germany? Should we just have let the Soviets have that because it was too difficult to create a stable, friendly Government? Keep in mind, they had the most radical regime in the world before we toppled it.

If you want to talk me in to invading Iran, then fine, that might be doable. I'm not convinced it's the best plan at this point, but it might be. Anyhow, regardless of how you play the game, letting Iran control Iraq is totally unacceptable.


6. Support for Jordan. Jordan is ruled by a minority imposed monarchy that has been threatened for a long time by overthrow by the Palestinian majority. Supporting King Abdullah is worthwhile for many reasons including the good he can do in re the Israeli issues.

http://www.kingabdullah.jo/homepage.php

Umm, I hate to tell you this, but most of the Palestinians were ejected a long time ago. Notice: A lot of them are in Israel now, seems to be something of a problem too, I hear about it from time to time. (/sarcasm)

Anyhow, King Abdullah is in no danger of being overthrown from anything I've heard, and as of right now, Jordan has very little to do with our problems in Iraq.

I have to go. I may excerpt your comment over at SJ as they seem to me to be well intentioned but an example of the misinformation good people on the right have.

You accusing me of having misinformation is comedy gold. I've never met someone in my life so comically misinformed as you with the possible exception of the 9/11 was an inside job crowd.

Anyhow, I'd rather you not, you clearly don't understand enough to give my comments any sort of proper context or engage in any kind of honest debate. I've answered every single thing you've said head on, and you've spun, changed the topic, and obfuscated. If that's the kind of treatment I'd get, I'd rather not.


Your being obsessed with Move-On is as foolish as the Left being obsessed by Limbaugh.

You are the one who brought up Moveon.org, you came on here explicitly to bash a poster that mocked their position, decrying that we were dishonoring a hero who 'ended a war'.

If you don't want to talk about moveon.org, don't defend them and don't advocate for their positions.


I say the same thing to both sides...we need rationalists and patriots, not demagogues and entrepreneurs.

Entrepreneurs? What do entrepreneurs have to do with anything?

Anyhow, I hate to say this, but you have A. Already accused everyone who supports Bush of being unpatriotic, and thus, obviously, I don't qualify, and B. Your posts...haven't exactly been anything resembling rational. You've used circular logic and blatantly contradictory positions more then anybody I've ever seen in my entire life.

Posted by: cliff on September 22, 2007 12:45 PM
88. Pudge,

Jefferson never went to war without congressional approval. He continually went to congress asking permission to do what actually if anything seemed to be small enough details thathe should not have bothered congress with it. Did you check out the link I posted? It actually debunks your statement about jefferson much better than I can. Here is the link again. Please read it.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html

Posted by: Travis on September 22, 2007 02:46 PM
89. Sorry, Travis...

Jefferson went to war against the North African states harboring the Barbary Pirates without a formal Congressional declaration of war. Congress did, however, authorize the President to direct naval commanders to do what was necessary to protect American shipping and sweep the seas of these brigands.

Life, politics, war, and blogging are never as neat and tidy as you would like!

BTW...I raised the 16th-Amendment stuff, and my point was that many who adhere to your...uhm, unusual...constitutional interpretations and theories also believe the 16th doesn't apply due to faulty ratification. A goodly number of them, BTW, currently reside in federal penal institutions in furtherance of the IRS' disagreement with such interpretation.

The political landscape has been full of these goofus theories for years. Most adherents fail to read full history, study court decisions, and understand the nature of law itself.

The Piper

Posted by: Piper Scott on September 22, 2007 02:59 PM
90. Few seem to remember that Jefferson was NOT an enthusuast for the Constitution ans only supported it when Madison agreed to the bill of Rights. As President he regularly went outside the "law."

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 22, 2007 03:53 PM
91. Here is a brief excerpt from the article I keep asking you to read. You obviously had not read it or you would not be mentioning the barbary pirates as an example in support of presidential power.

****
In late 1801, the pasha of Tripoli did declare war on the U.S. Jefferson sent a small force to the area to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression, but insisted that he was "unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense"; Congress alone could authorize "measures of offense also." Thus Jefferson told Congress: "I communicate [to you] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight."

Jefferson consistently deferred to Congress in his dealings with the Barbary pirates. "Recent studies by the Justice Department and statements made during congressional debate," Fisher writes, "imply that Jefferson took military measures against the Barbary powers without seeking the approval or authority of Congress. In fact, in at least ten statutes, Congress explicitly authorized military action by Presidents Jefferson and Madison. Congress passed legislation in 1802 to authorize the President to equip armed vessels to protect commerce and seamen in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and adjoining seas. The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port. Additional legislation in 1804 gave explicit support for 'warlike operations against the regency of Tripoli, or any other of the Barbary powers.'"

Consider also Jefferson's statement to Congress in late 1805 regarding a boundary dispute with Spain over Louisiana and Florida. According to Jefferson, Spain appeared to have an "intention to advance on our possessions until they shall be repressed by an opposing force. Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force.... But the course to be pursued will require the command of means which it belongs to Congress exclusively to yield or to deny. To them I communicate every fact material for their information and the documents necessary to enable them to judge for themselves. To their wisdom, then, I look for the course I am to pursue, and will pursue with sincere zeal that which they shall approve."
****

Posted by: Travis on September 22, 2007 04:29 PM
92. China..

Get an Atlas, China has a large and growing Muslim population. They need stability to get oil more than we do, As for who is more moral I don;t take the same drugs you do.

India

I actually agree that India is one of the rare places Bush has done the right thing. That is why we have a chance of asking for their help. As for Iran vs, India ..India is building a navy. Iran-oil transport is a dead duck.

SA

You have a very uninformed image of SA. The royal family is desperately opposed to both el Qaeda and Iran and Shia in general,

SA is a natural ally of an anti-iran movement.

They also have vast finacial resources that could help the Sunni develop their oil.

Jordan

There has been no Palestinian flight into Israel. The majority of Jordanian citizens are ethnically Palestinian and yes this is a mjor issue.

Jordan is playing a much larger role in Iraq than you seem to realize. A lot of the real management of iraq is now in Jordan and Jordan has the only functional army that could help.


As for SeattleJew

Here is what I plan t post, If you want you can reply there:

Over at ">Sound Politics I have had a very strange but revealing discussion. Without revieweing the total thread, here are a few key points that "Cliff" makes:

Eisenhower win the Korean War

Bush has a strategic goal, the creation of a "a stable, friendly Iraq that isn't a hotbed for terrorists" He says it all the time."

Apparently, based on the above Cliff thinks Iraq used to be hotbed for terrorists?

He goes on to say, "Anyhow, we are well on our way to (the goal of a friendly Iraq", and I don't think it will be too long till Iraq resembles, say a young South Korea or perhaps Turkey. Both good allies of ours."

"Jordan is doing just fine on it's own" This was in response to my commenting on the tensions between the Hashemite monarchy ruling over a Palestinian population and suggestion that a wise foreign policy would do more to build up Jordan.

"If I didn't think Bush was committed to victory in the WOT, (yes, for all you deniers, that includes Iraq), I'd throw him under the bus so fast it would make your head swim."

Then of curse he is blissfully unaware of the issues on the Turkish/Kurd/Iranan borders. I suggsted we needd to help the Kurds and play a role in stabilizing their relations with Turkey. Cliff's note: "So if you want to save Kurdistan, save the rest of Iraq. Otherwise, it's doing just fine."

Of course China is also the evil devil: "China has every interest in seeing us fail and seeing the Middle East be given completely over to groups that are not sympathetic to our interests. They would be more then glad to have Iran as a best pal, and thus, an Iraq under Iran's direct influence. It is precisely because they want oil that they want us to fail." Sure! And China is going to sell Mattell toys made with all that oil to Iranians? Oh yeh, and when Iran and Saudi lunch their surrogate war in Iraq, China is going to get its oil from Russia??????? Them dumb Chinese!

"

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 22, 2007 04:37 PM
93. This has been so bizarre an example of the delusional world of ARS victims, I decided to post a summary at SeattleJew

If Cliff wants to comment he is welcome but my main goal to to use Cliff as an argument that ARS is a clinical reality.

Posted by: Stephen Schwartz on September 22, 2007 05:10 PM
94. @90...SJ...

Jefferson was in France duing the Constitutional Convention as U.S. ambassador, and thus was prevented from participating in the drafting and deliberation of the Constitution.

@91...Travis...

Jefferson never had the cover of a declaration of war against the Barbary states. He did have the authority of some statutes, though, under which offensive military actions such as Lt. Stephen Decatur's raid to destroy the captured U.S. frigate, Philadelphia, and other acts.

I think it's fairly safe to say that the statutory authority Jefferson had then bears some resemblance to the statutory authority GWB has today in re Iraq.

Interesting side not...Jefferson's purchase of the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon was of dubious Constitutionality...Or at least that was his opinion, and it didn't seem to either bother him or deter him from doing it.

BTW...I'm pretty certain that the Banana Wars engaged in by the U.S. during the 1930's weren't declared by Congress either.

The Piper

Posted by: Piper Scott on September 22, 2007 05:18 PM
95. SeattleJew posted:

Get an Atlas, China has a large and growing Muslim population. They need stability to get oil more than we do, As for who is more moral I don;t take the same drugs you do.

You know, I spend about 1/3rd of my life in China right now. There's ZERO problem with islamic unrest. When there is an issue (and there's been a few in the last few years, down in the Xizang and Yunnan provinces), the Chinese simply come in, round up anyone even remotely associated, and they disappear. Mosques and buildings are razed, and then life goes on.

China's the only major country around without an Islamic problem. I'm willing to bet it's because of the way they handle the problem...

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on September 22, 2007 06:12 PM
96. China..

Get an Atlas, China has a large and growing Muslim population. They need stability to get oil more than we do,

CIA world factbook says they have between 1-2% Muslim population. Try again.

And they need oil more then us, true. They don't want chaos, that is also true. But that doesn't mean they aren't willing to have chaos if it means reduced U.S. influence over the middle east so they can come in and fill the vaccume.

As for who is more moral I don;t take the same drugs you do.

Huh?


India

I actually agree that India is one of the rare places Bush has done the right thing. That is why we have a chance of asking for their help. As for Iran vs, India ..India is building a navy. Iran-oil transport is a dead duck.

I have no problem asking India for help, but if you think they are even remotely capable of solving our problem, you are dreaming. NONE of our allies are going to be any more committed to victory then we are, (well, maybe Israel, but Israel can't help in Iraq without doing 10X more damage then they are worth) it's ultimately up to us.

And yes, if we are to go to war with Iran, India will almost have to be helpful. But we aren't talking about war with Iran right now, if you haven't noticed.


SA

You have a very uninformed image of SA. The royal family is desperately opposed to both el Qaeda and Iran and Shia in general, SA is a natural ally of an anti-iran movement.

No, you have a very naive view of Saudi Arabia. You are right that they don't like Al Qaeda, but again, that's meaningless, Lennin was desperately opposed to Trotsky, Saudi Arabia are as pro-radical Islam as any country in existence. Just because they've created a monster they cannot completely control doesn't mean they don't continue to feed it, which they do.

It also has a serious rivalry if not outright hostility with Iran, but again, that doesn't translate into them helping us. That's the equivilent of a hungry man eating a poisoned apple.

And yes, they aren't crazy about Shia Iran either, but that doesn't mean that they are willing to help us in order to hurt them. You also have to look at the internal politics of the country. Al-Qeada has had no problem working with Shia groups against the west, and do you think they would sit by and allow Saudi Arabia to be involved with killing fellow Muslims without responding? No, and as you've pointed out, they are not friendly to Saudi Arabia.

You seem to be sharing the same naive view of the left that was so big in the cold war, China and Russia hate each other, therefore, we can pit them against each other. There may be times where that was true, I'm not opposed to what Nixon did, for example, but you cannot simply say they don't like each other therefore they will be on our side. They won't. Most of the time, they dislike us more then each other. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. It depends greatly on the circumstances.

They also have vast finacial resources that could help the Sunni develop their oil.

Iraq wouldn't be having any oil problems if terrorists weren't blowing up pipelines and the like from time to time. And even if we DID need their money (we don't) why would they give it? And what makes you think that wouldn't prop up the old batthest elements and increase ethnic conflict?



Jordan

There has been no Palestinian flight into Israel. The majority of Jordanian citizens are ethnically Palestinian and yes this is a mjor issue.

Jordan is playing a much larger role in Iraq than you seem to realize. A lot of the real management of iraq is now in Jordan and Jordan has the only functional army that could help.

Uhhh, yah, whatever. Prove that to me pal. Jordan, like most of the middle east, has serious defects, but it is not now, nor is it likely to be in the future, a major player with our goals in Iraq.

And even if you are right, what could a Jordanian army do that we can't? Nothing. And they certainly won't be willing to do anything that we aren't willing to do ourselves.


Apparently, based on the above Cliff thinks Iraq used to be hotbed for terrorists?

Typical leftist strawman argument. I'm not even going to get in to what Iraq was before we invaded, that's a different argument completely with no clear answers.

What we do know for certain is that it is the #1 goal of Al Quada to eject us from Iraq now, and we know that in many places, it is just that.

We also know that unstable governments are much more likely to fall under the sway of radicals. See: Post Soviet Invasion Afghanistan.

Then of curse he is blissfully unaware of the issues on the Turkish/Kurd/Iranan borders. I suggsted we needd to help the Kurds and play a role in stabilizing their relations with Turkey.

A. I'm blissfully unaware of nothing.
B. That's not what you suggested, you suggested that we help stabilize Kurdistan as part of stabilizing Iraq. Right now, Kurdistan is perfectly stable. Yes, there is tensions with Turkey that can and most likely would be inflamed if we left, but right now, it is not a problem and it is unlikely to be a major problem with a strong Iraqi government.


Of course China is also the evil devil:

No, China is not an evil devil, but it is not a friendly, and if you don't see that you are even more naive then I thought. They are a rival at best.

The are not like Iran, they are rational and respond to deterrance and economic incentives. They can be dealt with much differently. However, if you think China wants to see democracy and US influence grow in the sphere of world politics, you are absolutely out of your mind. They don't want chaos, but they do want to get more geopolitical influence, especially when it is at the expense of the U.S.


Sure! And China is going to sell Mattell toys made with all that oil to Iranians?

No, they'll sell them to us, and buy Iranian oil.

This isn't a complicated issue, but you seem to have a knack for completely missing the obvious.


Oh yeh, and when Iran and Saudi lunch their surrogate war in Iraq, China is going to get its oil from Russia???????

No, they'll get it from Iran, which will then have a whole lot more oil then it did before, because it will now control Iraq.

And there probably won't even be a war, it'll be more like Iran and Syria. They'll have control without really having control. You don't honestly think that just because a country isn't officially run by another one that it is necessarily totally free of it? If so, talk to some Polish people about their experiences prior to the fall of the USSR.

I cannot believe you are not seeing this, this isn't complicated.

I can't figure out if you actually have this much trouble with simple concepts, or if you are really so ignorant of how world politics works that you can't understand these simple concepts.

Posted by: cliff on September 22, 2007 06:21 PM
97. You know, I spend about 1/3rd of my life in China right now. There's ZERO problem with islamic unrest. When there is an issue (and there's been a few in the last few years, down in the Xizang and Yunnan provinces), the Chinese simply come in, round up anyone even remotely associated, and they disappear. Mosques and buildings are razed, and then life goes on.

China's the only major country around without an Islamic problem. I'm willing to bet it's because of the way they handle the problem...

Exactly. And this is why China isn't afraid of radical Islam. They have no commitment to civil rights or the rule of law, so they don't have a problem. They just ax anybody who gets in the way. Simple.

SeattleJew seems to have a habit of simply making s#!t up when reality doesn't fit his point of view. It's kind of weird suddenly arguing about something that is so obviously true, or obviously not true, to everyone but him, it throws me off a little bit occasionally. Thanks for the back up.

Posted by: cliff on September 22, 2007 06:27 PM
98. @94 Piper

I know where Jefferson was. He and Madison corresponded. Jefferson made the BoR hos porce for supporting the Constitution. As you know he was a states right type.

@97 As I said before, you seem more concerned with pixel abuse than discussion. I summarized your points, posted it on SeattleJew,
and we can talk there.

For now, just in case thee is anyone not bored with both of us and as this thread scrolls it of site,

I will say again:


Role of US Military in Iraq

People on both sides should read the Genera;'s testimony. Petraeus described as TACTICAL priorities: keeping the peace; building on success in Kurdistan, and keeping Iran out. What the General did not say and refused to answer questions about was the nature of the strategic objective.

I doubt Gen Petraeus has gotten a strategic answer from Bush. Indeed, if Cliff is right about Bush's goals, then most fo the world is correct. Bush still believes Iraq can emerge as pro-US democracy. If this is Bush's beleif, the US' CIC has no meaningful strategy. Iraq is simply nothing like Korea and will not become a new S. Korea in any rational time.

At the same time, there is a foolish polarization going on with the Republicans at least claiming to support Bush. and some Dems advocating a magical withdrawal.

The right is correct on one thing here. The public does not want to lose. What the GOP needs is the older version of McCain. A candidate who tells the truth about what can be achieved
and what that will cost us.

I recommend that moderates of both parties read the O Hanlon Pollack report. It suggest much of what may be possible, or at least what we should be discussing.

A good way to state this here is in terms that are very much opposed to the stand of MoveOn:


Baghdad. al Rasheed's city makes no sense today. Because of our efforts, the once capital of all Islam, is becoming a Shia enclave in the middle of Sunni Iraq. Between its awkward location, awesome history, and the lack of any sentiment in Ir5aq for a central government, one is tempted to abandon Baghdad BUT that is hard to do because it is now a but a very populous enclave.

I do not know if here is any answer but it does seem that we should at least de-emphasize the role of the central government.

This is where a true regional solution is interesting.

Indian Ocean. This waterway controls a huge part of world oil. Both Iran and India have ambitions to create an Indian Ocean navy. Cliff is right that Iran and China would like us out BUT they also need to fear our ability to shut down the flow of oil. In the short term that threat can be made quietly in trade for Chinese support in bringing peace. In the long term we should support the Indians.

Jordan Jordan is the key to Israel=Palestine=Jordan+Shia Iraq ... four parts of a very interdependent political problem.

The neocons wanted the invasion in part so that Iraq could no longer act as a big brother, threatening the Hashemite and Israel. Oddly, this is the one good thing that has come from Bush;s war .. the Palestinians are now essentially on their own. But, an independent Palestine is not viable financially. So .. strategically we should support Jordan's economic development.

It appears that some sort of peace, Afghani style, can be achieved by a tribal structure. Supposedly there is OIL in Anbar as well. The trick here is how to get the de Baathized tribes to assemble a government. Jordan is already laying some role as a kind of Iraq in exile place where Iraquis can do business, Iraq also has a very good army that might serve with local Sunni to establish an Arab peacekeeping force. This would almost certainly be supported by the Saudis.

If Jordan has the financial meand to support development, their military might serve as the nidus of a peacekeeping effort in Anbar that does no depend on US soldiers. The Saudis will gladly support this.

Our strategy should focus on building up Jordan

Kurdish Iraq Every source I read agrees that the Kurds, beginn9ing form Clinton's supprt for a no fly czone, have developed a true nationalidentity and what looks like a viable state. Maybe even Clff's Korea.

The issue here is that Both Iran and Turkey are afraid of this place. We need to be there to guarantee the Turkish that the Kurds will develop peacefully. It would be interesting to consider creating a base in the area thta might be shared with Kurds and Turks. Someone needs to think out the policy of free Kurdistan vs. Iran.

Only US forces can act as neutral forces to help Kurds and Turls feel safe from each other


Shiahland. Cliff's points here are the same as my own, I think. The issue here is keeping Iran out. The best way to do this is t support the traditonal anti-Farci feelings of the Shia. This may not be as hard as it seems. The Arabs do npt want to be ruled by Iran. Our #1 use of troops should be to keep Iranian support out. Getting the Shiah of some form of local government is harder.

I have not heard any great answers but the goals should be to keep Iran out.

Bottom line: Supporting Mr. Bush is unpatriotic because of exactly the reasons Cliff states

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 22, 2007 09:28 PM
99. Travis @ 88:

Jefferson did not wait for approval in the initial case. That's the point. He sent the navy before getting any approval. Compare to Bush, who never sent troops without Congressional approval.


SeattleJew @ 90:

More ignorance. You're right that he was not an enthusiast of the Constitution, and that he objected to a lack of Bill of Rights, but there is no indication he wouldn't have supported it without one. And his lack of enthusiasm was only because he didn't care about the details; it does not, in any way, imply he did not feel that he should follow those details, as you want us to believe.

Posted by: pudge on September 22, 2007 11:46 PM
100. Drudge, given your utter lack of knowledge, your totally fanciful concept of history, need for ad hominem attacls and mistaken concept of irony ..

perhaps I should not tell you that Jefferson, as President, knowingly violated the Constitution. As Ambassador to France, he corresponded with Madison and expressed his dislike for the document.

I assume, BTW, that you have read the pivotal volume by H. Harrison on Jefferson's conversation's with Madison as related by Isaac Hemings? Do you believe that Isaac actually heard those things?

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 23, 2007 12:45 AM
101. Pudge,
Jefferson always did seek approval, You can keep claiming he did not, but he did. It is a common misconception people have used the last 50 years to justify presidential powers not granted in the constitution.

And the problem with bushs war is that congress did not so much give the approval as they gave the power to give the approval over to the president.

Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 23, 2007 07:56 AM
102. SeattleJew,
in this ongoing back and forth on the Iraq situation you continually denigrate your discussion partners as either uninformed, unintelligent or unpatriotic, when they seem to be making much better arguments and backing them up with much better facts. If they are uninformed, unintelligent and unpatriotic, what does that make you?

I have disagreements with Bruce Guthrie and Travis Pahl regarding the war in Iraq, but I am confident that they reach their position based on well-thought out convictions and principles. You, however, seem to think you are smarter than everyone else including President Bush. However, unfortunately for you, your discussions here seem to point to the opposite. Based on your discusssions here, I don't think you could hold a candle to President Bush. You may be way above others in your own field of study, but that does not necessarily translate into other areas--world politics, military strategy and tactics, for example.

I certainly have many disagreements with the President, but when the left (and although you continually dispute it, your arguments put you firmly on the left) arrogantly thinks they hold some firm handle on "the truth" and people who disagree are either stupid or (most ridiculously) unpatriotic (!), well that just makes me question their own intelligence--high level university degrees notwithstanding...

Posted by: Bill H on September 23, 2007 09:57 AM
103. SeattleJew: your implication he did not care about following the Constitution is false, and has no basis in any document.

Travis Pahl: False. He sought no approval for sending the troops to Tripoli. Nothing in the article you quoted disagreed with that. Try re-reading it.

As to Bush, false. They gave him explicit permission to send troops to Iraq, and is required to come back to Congress to keep that authorization. Saying Congress turned over approval power to the President is just false. Re-read the authorization for the use of force while you're re-reading things.

Posted by: pudge on September 23, 2007 10:00 AM
104. Whwen you have read as much Jefferson as I have come back fr a discussion., For now, I will ignore tyour made up history,

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 23, 2007 02:04 PM
105. SeattleJew: yawn. Tell us again how much you agree with all of the Bill of Rights, but don't think that the federal government's powers are few and defined, you big fat liar.

Posted by: pudge on September 23, 2007 02:41 PM
106. Bill H

I think if you look through my comments you will see three things:

1. I follow neither party line. I believe in a strong US military, I consider Islam a flawed religion, I vited for Mr, Rossi, I believe in fundamental school reform far beyond anything likely to happen, I think illegals are illegals ..and I believe that the government has an obligation to assure that all citizens have equal opportunities, I believe we need to strengthen the UN, we should recognize Cuba, our health care system is broken, etc. If you think this left or right, I think it is rational and would eb HAPPY to discuss any of it with you.

2. I respect others with knowledge but I do nto respect bullies. Pudge here is a good example of the latter. He does know a lot, but when he runs out of real ammo he shoot of epithets.

For the same reason I despise Limbaugh, Oreilly, and Hannity.

3. You are correct that I have called people unpatriotic for supporting Mr. Bush after his incompetence was widely apparent.

I am hardly alone in this feeling. People you may want to read who have made these comments, albeit belatedly, include General Powell (who has discussed being misused), George Tenet, numerous Generals, Secty O'Neil, Alan Greenspan, Senator Luger, etc.

In fact, I do not think you can find a major authority not in the government who will not say the same thing.

My challenge is not just to folks like yourself. You have every reason to want to support this man. My concern is with the inner circle of Republicans who must have realized how incompetent he was, if not at the beginning ..as his term progressed. Aside from Sen. Hagel, Sen. McCain, and belatedly Sens. Spector and Luger .. the Reoublican party knwoingly allowed OUR country to be hurt in the name of party loyalty.

I realize that even now there are good republicans trying to figure out how to take back their party . I have written some about this in a thread on my blog called "Right Flight." I am especially interested in the future role of McCay, Fitzgerald, Romney, Luger, S'negger, Inglesias, McCain ... good people who I hope can prevail.

Let me give you a local example. I truly dislike Christine Gregoire. She is wasting a wonderful opportunity to do some good things because her goal is just re-election.

I voted for Rossi, in part because CG ran a dirty campaign. I will not vote for him if he runs, as expected, because Rossi has associated himself with Lou Guzzo, Have you gone to Guzzo's website?

If the GOP wants My vote they can earn it by running a hard assed, business oriented realist for Governor.

Anyhow, I do apologize if I seem arrogant. It si a fault. There are some here who have good things to say and I hope I can learn from them. In the meantime, I welcome your toughts.

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 23, 2007 05:34 PM
107. The major difference here was that WW II was a war declared by Congress, the last war as such. The Korean, Vietnam, Iraq 1, 2 and Afghanistan are actually not legitimate wars. It's a nice theory which somewhat falls apart and it is also trying to rewrite history, which is exactly what the left get criticized (and deservedly so) for trying to do.

Posted by: KS on September 23, 2007 09:39 PM
108. thh Korean War is a birt different since we fought under a UN flag.

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 23, 2007 10:02 PM
109. For those not following along, SeattleJew likes to use the word "realist," but he does not actually understand that "reality" does not merely his personal preferences.

And um SeattleJew, IRAQ WAS FOUGHT UNDER A UN FLAG. In 1991. That's the point. That conflict never ended either, and 2003 was in fact a continuation of the original conflict, not a new one. Granted, the UN did not participate in 2003, but the U.S. was a party in 1991 and remained a party in 2003. It was a part of the same conflict.

The UN has only authorized two "wars," and neither one of them had an end. That's the real lesson of the 2003 Iraq invasion: the UN utterly failed to resolve the conflict it authorized -- such that the U.S. decided to go in and take care of matters since the UN would not -- and we would be fools to ever let the UN take the lead in any conflict ever again, either militarily OR diplomatically.

Posted by: pudge on September 23, 2007 11:35 PM
110. Bottom line: Supporting Mr. Bush is unpatriotic because of exactly the reasons Cliff states

I see...

Anyhow, I seem to have figured out the way your logic works. It works a lot like a joke I heard in 5th grade.

It goes like this:

Question: How many pancakes does it take to cover a green doghouse?

Answer: Seven, because Ice Cream has no bones.

Think about it.

Posted by: cliff on September 24, 2007 07:33 AM
111. Pudge ...

Errr ahhh .... tell me the resolution that authorized a UN invasion of Iraq and show me a picture of th UN force commander.

I shuah do like your idea of sending Merican boys around he world as cops. How come we are doing shit about Burma?

Must not be nuff oil!

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 24, 2007 08:14 AM
112. Seattle Jew:

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

UN Resolution 678

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/unscr678.htm

Posted by: cliff on September 24, 2007 08:32 AM
113. SeattleJew: tell me the resolution that authorized a UN invasion of Iraq

I never said there was one. Why are you so dishonest? I said "war" against Iraq was authorized. That's not the same as authorization to invade, and I never implied that the UN authorized the 2003 invasion. I merely stated the fact that the 2003 invasion is a part of the same conflict the UN did authorize and engage in, back in 1991.

The UN not only authorized war against Iraq in 1991, it promised that if Iraq did not comply, that the UN would force compliance. After 12 years it still refused to do this. THAT is why we were where we were in 2003, because the UN failed to uphold its obligations.

And why should I care about Burma? Iraq was a direct threat to interests of ours that go far beyond oil, as September 11th showed. We have an interest in the progress of the region in order to combat Islamist terrorism, and Hussein was a roadblock to that regional progress.

Surely oil was a part of it. Without regional stability of oil production, we will see millions dead, as the region devolves into complete chaos, not to mention the fallout of a potential economic collapse worldwide. But we have interests there, including threats to our allies like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Israel, that go beyond oil.

Beyond that, it is not merely us being policemen: we remained an involved party in this persistent conflict. We didn't step into something, we were already in it. We could be like the UN and ignore our past and our obligations. Thankfully, we are not as impotent and cowardly as the UN is.

Burma is insiginificant to us. Iraq is significant to us. Even without oil.

Posted by: pudge on September 24, 2007 08:40 AM
114. SeattleJew,

Please see UN Security Council resolution 660 and UN Security Council resolution 678

The UN offered a resolution to end the war But Iraq refused; resulting in the following 12 years of a cease-fire, but no the formal ending of hostilities.

Oh, and here's a condensed biography of the CinC of the UN coalition of the Gulf War.

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on September 24, 2007 08:47 AM
115. Edmonds Dan: Iraq DID agree to the "cease-fire" terms of Resolution 687. That set up the system of inspections that never ended until the invasion. The conflict would be ended when Iraq would come into full complaince.

Note especially the very end of 687: "[The Security Council] Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."

That language means precisely what it says: the Security Council is promising to do whatever is required to implement the Iraq resolution, and to secure peace and security. It failed to do so, leading the U.S. to say, fine, if you won't live up to your 12-year-old promise, we -- as a party to that agreement, and to the conflict that agreement was regarding -- will take matters into our own hands.

Posted by: pudge on September 24, 2007 06:34 PM
116. Pudge,

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I know that Iraq and the coalition agreed to a cease fire; I meant that Iraq did not agree to surrender and end the war. So we were left in a state of stalemate, so to speak...

Thanks for the clarification.

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on September 24, 2007 09:35 PM
117. Pudge's reading is correct. The Un did not authorizr the uS to go to war much less to make a war for the UN.

As for the nice biography of Gen Schwarzkopf, what it what foes this puff piece have to do with your ideas?

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 24, 2007 10:24 PM
118. SJ: but everyone is wrong who implies we NEEDED the UN's authorization. This was a continuation of a war the UN *did* authorize, and the direct result of a failure of the UN to live up to its 12-year-old promise to force Iraq's compliance.

The U.S., as a party to the original and ongoing conflict, took matters into its own hands when the UN failed to fulfill its obligations. Maybe next time the UN -- if the UN member nations are foolish enough to let the UN take on that responsibility in the first place -- will take its obligations more seriously. If it doesn't like what the U.S. did, then it should have acted.

Posted by: pudge on September 25, 2007 10:43 AM
119. I agree with you. We can make war anytime we want to. Crediting or balming the UN makes no sense

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 25, 2007 11:49 PM
120. The UN put is in the situation. This is a fact. Saying that it makes no sense to blame them for something they are factually responsible for makes no sense.

Posted by: pudge on September 26, 2007 09:32 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?