Monday, August 27, 2007

King George

From the Authorization for Use of Military Force, September 18, 2001, Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23], 107th CONGRESS:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


Such was the authorization given to our nation's 43rd (and most recent Republican) President.

Here are the words of Abraham Lincoln more than a decade before he was inaugurated as our nation's 16th (and first Republican) President:

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 having 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.


Source: In 1848, while he was a US Congressman, Abraham Lincoln wrote this in a letter, opposing the Mexican-American War.



President George W. Bush, Thursday, September 20, 2001:
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

6 comments:

WomanHonorThyself said...

all necessary and appropriate force against those nations..ha the libs would shoot a pres before they allowed him to do that in this era!..great work my friend!

Debbie said...

This is interesting. Congress authorized going into Iraq, didn't they? Obviously they and the President had no idea how hard it would be to gain the peace with all the sectarian rivals.

Debbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com

anticant said...

Umpteen people could have told them, Debbie, but they didn't want to know. They live in their own cozy little dream world which is making real life extremely uncomfortable for the rest of us. Attacking Iran, if they are mad enough to do it, will make it all much, much worse.

Wake up America!

Yankee Doodle said...

Thanks for the comments, all!


Debbie,

Yes, Congress did specifically authorize going into Iraq: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

Here were the reasons given in the Wikipedia article:

-Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
-Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
-Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
-Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
-Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
-Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
-Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
-The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
-The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism
-Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

Now, re-read the authorization that President Bush got in the wake of 9/11, then re-read these points, and tell me what's wrong.


If they didn't know how hard it was going to be to achieve peace due to the sectarian rivalries, then they didn't listen to any of the professionals, nor did they listen to the words of the Bush 41 Administration.

And, that's not surprising, because the Bush 43 Administration had its own mini-intelligence apparatus feeding it intelligence data that often conflicted with the assessments of the professional community.

Were they telling Bush what he wanted to hear? Or, was Bush foolish enough to consider their input weightier than the consolidated estimates of the Director of Central Intelligence?

If the first is the case, then Bush was corrupt and bent on war. Why?

If the second is the case, then Bush was outrageously incompetent and misled by his advisors. Why?

Either way, you get back to those points I listed above from the Wikipedia article, and a comparison with the authorization Bush had in the wake of 9/11: What's wrong with this picture?

Debbie said...

Pretty messy situation after reading that. I had never gone back to read the specifics as they are listed here. I knew some. Thanks.

I have heard what Cheney told folks about going into Baghdad the first time -- quagmire, etc. Either he didn't tell Bush 2 about this, or Bush just didn't listen.

Debbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com

Yankee Doodle said...

Oh, yeah! We haven't even gotten to Vice President Cheney yet, but his interview from the 1990's warning of the consequences of taking out Saddam is all over the Internet.

Both of them need to be investigated and impeached!

For the record, I wanted Clinton impeached as well.

Also, for the record, though I disagree with and condemn his actions, I still kind of like Nixon.

That's how bad Clinton was, and that's how bad the Bush Administration is.

The "Left" still can't see Clinton's corruption, or just think it's cute, and the "Right" has trouble seeing the Bush Administration's. I know I wasn't seeing the Bush Administration's until into his second term.