Quote:

---

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Jan 12, 1991 Congress votes to allow for US troops to be used in offensive operations.
Now you may say we didn't "Officially" Declare war in '91 because Congress didn't have every politician sign a piece of paper saying "Hey we are at war!". However, it's bullshit.

---

Quote:

---

Those folks who spend time determining if every military action is "Legal" or not, are just muddying the waters.

---

Quote:

---

The fact is, that while the peaceniks and intellectuals debate on whether a "War" is legal or not, Our boys and girls go. It's a waste of time, they still go.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
So is declaring war a 'mere' legal formality?

---

Quote:

---

I don't recall that we actually need a formal Decree of War to actually go to war. Enlighten me

---

Quote:

---

I believe the US Constitution gives Congress the ability to authorize a war via declaration of war but does not *require it* as the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the military.

---

Quote:

---

When the President orders the military to drop munitions on enemy troops or terrorists they are going to die. If that is not war, then what is?

---

Quote:

---

All I ever hear/heard is that the Iraq war was an illegal war and a war for oil.

---

Quote:

---

After reading the PNAC articles or at least some of them and the Downing Street Memo, Do you believe that The US was going into Iraq as of January 21st, 2001 regardless of future reasons given?

---

Quote:

---

In summary, the furor over the infamous "Downing Street Memo" (see http://downingstreetmemo.com/index.html for more) is more of the usual tricks associated with hysterical Anti-War Leftists: deliberate misinterpretation of ambiguous words to support a bogus conclusion...

---

Quote:

---

You claim we only declared war on 11 occasions (Though you seem to have discounted our involvement in other wars..i.e Korean, Vietnam, Bosnia etc..etc.), and that is the only time it can possibly be "Legal" ROFLMAO.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:

There is no doubt that a nation can go to war without a formal declaration.
There is equally no doubt that under the Constitution of the United States, such an act is a violation of law.

The Constitution gives the power to declare war only to Congress (U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11). Being Commander In Chief does not mean you can use the military in any way you wish, far from it. The CinC is subject to law, just the same as the lowliest private. I really do not understand how it can be at this advanced date that U.S. citizens do not understand this fundamental fact of our form of government. The only instances where a declaration of war is not required is, when necessary, "...to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15)

---

Quote:

---

The first point is, IMO, demonstrable fact, the second point mere speculation.

---

Quote:

---

There is certainly circumstantial evidence to support the claim. Unfortuantely, I am not privy to the same sources of information as the President. It is possible that he had substantial information that for some reason he cannot publicly expose which drove the decision to go to war, even at that early date.
What I am saying is that I have to be willing to allow the benefit of doubt to those who have access to data I do not. So I try to stick to those facts that I can know and avoid too much speculation, as fun as it is to speculate.

---

Quote:

---

Connor Flynn Wrote: You claim we only declared war on 11 occasions (Though you seem to have discounted our involvement in other wars..i.e Korean, Vietnam, Bosnia etc..etc.), and that is the only time it can possibly be "Legal" ROFLMAO.

---

Quote:

---

Neutrino Wrote: No, I did not discount those occasions. They were simply not pertinent, as I was enumerating the number of times the Congress actually made a declaration of war.
And I still fail to see what is so hilarious about requiring our elected representatives to obey the law. Undermining the very foundation of our society is humorous? I really do not get the joke.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
In summary, the furor over the infamous "Downing Street Memo" (see http://downingstreetmemo.com/index.html for more)

---

Quote:

---

True only Congress has the authority to declare war but it is not required in all circumstances.

---

Quote:

---

The word "fixed" has about twelve separate meanings

---

Quote:

---

... just the usual cast of Saddam apologists doing what they do best.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Yup, there are precisely three, and I noted those by quoting the correct clause from the Constitution. Do you think that we invaded Iraq in order to i)execute the laws of the Union (where we have no jurisdiction), ii) suppress insurrection (in a territory not part of the US), or iii) repel invasion (there having been no invasion of the US by the Iraqis since, oh, ever)? Those are the only three you get to choose from, and let's face it, none of them fit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Although I often vote Democrat, I don't always vote that way. I didn't vote for Clinton, and it had nothing to do with Monica, so I believe that I... and many other ppl on this baord- are fact-driven, not ideology-driven when it comes to questioning Bush's motives.

---

That is an interesting statement. I think we can judge people on their actions and deeds but trying to judge them on their motives is extremely difficult at best.

Do you know for a fact that President Bush, in his heart, deliberately mislead the US? That is the essence of the "Bush Lied" mythos.

How could you or anyone possibly know that?

President Bush may have just been stuck in an impossible situation and doing the best he could with the intelligence he had at the time. No one could possibly know the difference because the actions would be similar.

Recall the situation the US found itself in 2002. The Al Qaeda terrorists had just done the most brazen attack on the west anyone had ever seen. It left people in the US literally stunned for weeks or months. Now, in that light, look at the intelligence at the time from Iraq. Yes, it was knowingly imperfect, as intelligence always is. Saddam did not help matters by obscuring the facts even more.

President Clinton and his administration was concerned about the "nexus" of rogue regimes, WMD, and terrorists. He struck Iraq on those facts in 1998. The "nexus" argument went from a theoretical possibility to a FACT on 9/11. It probably did not involve Saddam but likely did the Taliban (they at least gave Al Qaeda harbor), but all the pieces were there for another disaster, except next time even more horrific.

In the scenario I just outlined ANY president would have had to act against Iraq. The UN route just was not working.

Thanks!

Andrew Lynch

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Except for the fact that Iraq was in no way shape or form insinuating that it was preparing to attack us.

---

I have to press your assertion as it is the heart of the premise.

How do you know that? How CAN you know that?

Saddam was merrily marching around his "Feyadeen Saddam" militia, firing up the IIS, and busily making preparations for *something*. How could anyone have known for sure that a WMD revenge attack was not in the planning?

There is some evidence (not conclusive) that Iraq was involved in the 1993 WTC attack.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

Also, we didn't see the 9/11 attacks coming although maybe we should have in retrospect. How do you know a similiar "blind spot" was not being exploited?

Thanks!

Andrew Lynch

---

Quote:

---

Also, we didn't see the 9/11 attacks coming although maybe we should have in retrospect. How do you know a similiar "blind spot" was not being exploited?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hey, I found it!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html

"14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003."

I'm having a hard time coming up with the words to describe how this makes me feel. This is just disgusting. It's fraud. In no way was war a "last resort" for Bush & co. as they said it was. It was they're first priority, all they had to do was establish plausible deniability to move ahead. And they did. Y'know, AJ, I have never said I hate these people, but I hate them for this.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

---

Quote:

---

The concern was geniune.

---

Quote:

---

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

---

Quote:

---

dee-uh-NOOR; it's Welsh

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dionwr:
*sigh*

Did IQ's suddenly drop while I was away?

I have to disagree with your belief that impeachment would only be a "foolish gesture." Bush's crimes are MUCH more serious than Clinton's getting his dick sucked, and they should be brought to the same forum, and him made to answer for them. Plus, and more importantly, it's the right thing to do. Bush lied, and he knew he was lying. He has committed the high crimes that impeachment calls for.

The folks in Congress should forego their partisan differences and address this. Instead, we're getting a silly, childish politics where our representatives are playing at politics as if it were a game, with no concern for truth or their responsibilities in the matter. It would also be a great litmus test as to who is more interested in scoring partisan points (like AJ) than in getting to the truth....

..Now, no one expects impeachment, because the Congress is Republican, both House and Senate. But think what it says, folks, that we believe they will all put their party above any of their responsiblities to the Constitution and the country.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dionwr:

CONNORFLYNN:

While you seem to argue from my own position--someone too disgruntled with the Republicans, but wary of the Democrats--you also have a tendency to throw up your hands, figuratively, and argue, essentially, that fighting is of no use. I cannot agree.

What this administration has done must be fought. If we allow them to get away, with no accountability, then we might as well stop referring to ourselves as a free nation.

best,
diownr
(dee-uh-NOOR; it's Welsh)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:

Quote:

---

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

---

This is in regards to an individual state's power only, not the role of eithe the President or the Congress.
This case is, however, covered by the "repel invasion" clause, so the Federal executive, as well asthe State itself, may respond. Because an individual state did not "engage in War" because it was invaded, or in imminent Danger of such, this clause does not apply.
Nice red herring, though

Oh, and the other times we sent troops? I'm not ignoring those, I think most of those were clearly illegal.

My point being, our elected representatives should obey the law of the land and nnot abdicate their responsibilities because those responsibilities are politically inconvenient. That's it. That's all I meant. I think there is ample evidence that the COngress has done just that with respect to the War Powers, going all the way back to the Truman administration.

And LynchAJ? I agree, ascribing motives is a dangerous business. That's why it is so very difficult to prove intent in a court of law, and rightly so in my opinion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dionwr:

Did IQ's suddenly drop while I was away?

As a recently returned Iraq vet (with one less leg than I went in with), I can tell you that the average soldier in Iraq is actually better informed than you are....

...What this administration has done must be fought. If we allow them to get away, with no accountability, then we might as well stop referring to ourselves as a free nation

diownr
(dee-uh-NOOR; it's Welsh)

---

Quote:

---

Now this, this I KNOW is completely false. The military was absolutely terrified of the Apocalypse Scenario where Saddam attacked US and coalition forces with massive WMD, primarily to provoke the anticipated US nuclear response.

---

Quote:

---

A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war “to put pressure on the regime” was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice.

The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began “spikes of activity” designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war.

The Foreign Office advice shows military action to pressurise the regime was “not consistent with” UN law, despite American claims that it was.

---

Quote:

---

Elizabeth Wilmshurst, one of the Foreign Office lawyers who wrote the report, resigned in March 2003 in protest at the decision to go to war without a UN resolution specifically authorising military force.

Further intensification of the bombing, known in the Pentagon as the Blue Plan, began at the end of August, 2002, following a meeting of the US National Security Council at the White House that month.

General Tommy Franks, the allied commander, recalled in his autobiography, American Soldier, that during this meeting he rejected a call from Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to cut the bombing patrols because he wanted to use them to make Iraq’s defences “as weak as possible”.

The allied commander specifically used the term “spikes of activity” in his book. The upgrade to a full air war was also illegal, said Goodhart. “If, as Franks seems to suggest, the purpose was to soften up Iraq for a future invasion or even to intimidate Iraq, the coalition forces were acting without lawful authority,” he said.

Although the legality of the war has been more of an issue in Britain than in America, the revelations indicate Bush may also have acted illegally, since Congress did not authorise military action until October 11 2002.

The air war had already begun six weeks earlier and the spikes of activity had been underway for five months.

---