Bush will "veto the will of the American people" Well, Neo-Mod-Con- sows, better start pumping out more soldiers we may be in for a "long hard slog"

What I don't get about this Congressional Vote is this... if the Democrats are so dead-set about getting out of Iraq, why don't they have the courage of their convictions and just vote to revoke the authorization to use force that they gave the President in 2002? Why tie it to a military funding bill that troops out in the field are depending on and that they know is going to get vetoed? That's B.S.

I don't agree with the War in Iraq - I think it was unwisely conceived, poorly planned, and has been run by idiots. That being said, though, Bush is still the Commander-in-Chief... he was re-elected in 2004 with this war front and center in the headlines. I know I'm not an American, but once the Congress gives the President the authority to use force, shouldn't it then let him do so in the manner he sees fit until such time as they choose to revoke his authority?

As a sidenote, I can't help but think that maybe - just maybe - Bush's conduct of the war at this point in time might be different if he were eligible to run for a third term. If you want a President to take stock of public opinion, wouldn't it make sense to repeal the 22nd Amendment?

Boy, Cordelier, those are interesting questions. First, either bill...the one going forward or the one you propose (revoking the authorization) will get vetoed....and the Dems know this. This is a political move on the Democrat's part. They feel that they were elected for the most part to end the war...this is their way of living up to their constituents. When Bush vetoes it, then this war hangs entirely on him.

Revoking the 22nd Amendment....that's a can of worms....

Storman - Couldn't they have made the same point by passing a bill that revoked or modified the use of force authorization, though? I just don't see where they get off playing political games on military funding with troops in the field. They gave the President the authority to use force, they placed their conditions on that use of force... now either change those conditions or revoke the authority and let him do his job as Commander-in-Chief. What they're doing with this funding bill is beyond the pale.

I don't see the problem with repealing the 22nd - to me, it's probably the most undemocratic provision of the whole US Constitution. Why shouldn't the people be allowed to vote for who they want to be President? Why place an arbitrary barrier on Presidential terms? Shouldn't that decision be up to the holder of the office and the voters? If you want Presidents to be accountable to the people, why not let them run for more than 2 terms? Think of how different things would have been if Clinton could have run again in 2000. Would Bush be doing things differently in Iraq if he could run again? It's interesting to think about.

I don't know, Cordelier. OK, so Congress revokes the President's authority and assume he doesn't veto it, now what? Who controls the current situation in Iraq? And didn't the original authorization pertain to invading Iraq? OK, so now he can't just invade Iraq....I'm not sure what that gets you.

Congress's power in these matters has always been control of the purse strings. Clearly, they can't take over the war....it's not their mandate.
Yeah, there are solid arguments both ways...for some reason the FDR example scared people....

H. Clinton on casting a yes vote for War Powers Act:

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.
And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed. Thank you, Mr. President.



Cordelier..Here are H. Clintons words when casting her vote. Could you comment on her words. Do you think she was unduly influenced by her loyalty to the office of president because of her husband and knowing first hand the importance of being able to make a decision?

Another question...who specifically was able to access the intel and the manner in which intel was considered valid and other intel deemd invalid?

Can't the Congress set the parameters under which the President acts, though? For instance, if Congress passed into law an act which mandated that the President gradually reduce US combat forces over a set time period, would he not be obligated to follow such a timetable? Wouldn't it supercede the original authority the Congress gave him? If Congress can vote to start a war, then doesn't it follow that they can vote to end one as well?

.Maybe so... but I figure Hitler scared people more in 1940 when FDR was running for his third term. Do you figure FDR would have been re-elected in 1940 if it weren't for World War II?

The way I figure it, the prospect of having a potential (re-elected) "President for Life" is only a threat if every other provision of the Constitution somehow failed.

Hi Sam,

I know you addressed these to Cordelier, but I'll try and tackle the second one. Technically, all members of Congress have the same clearance levels as the President...at least, that is the way I understand it. However, all of the intelligence agencies and information are controlled by the Executive Branch. The only means of control that Congress has are calling appointees (DCI, etc) to testify.

Did Congress see the same intel and in the same way the President did? I doubt it. I can't prove that, but I doubt it. As you know, this Administration was hell bent on war with Iraq. They presented the info to Congress....and I have to think that it was a sales job.

Honestly, Cordelier, I don't know. There's a fine line between funding a war and running a war. I think this latest bill is Congress's way of doing exactly what you are saying....ending the war. And, obviously, they have the authority to do that. I don't think they want to pass a bill that looks too much like they are trying to run the war.

I don't think WWII had anything to do with FDR's reelection in 1940. Most Americans at the time still didn't think that they would be involved in a war...believe it or not.
They have discussed term limits for Congress as well. I don't know....I could go either way on the issue.

WHAT IS.....IGNORITIS

WHAT IS LONDON's BRIDGE

WHAT is the APA

WHAT is the CDC

WHAT is the U.N.

http://www.theuniversalseduction.com/toc3.html