Taliesin

How quick we forget. Remember how Bush had his lawyers prove that he could legally invade Iraq using the Declaration of War from the First Persian Gulf War? (Does President Bush Need the Approval of Congress to Attack Iraq?) Luckily for us, Bush decided to meet with Congress about it first as "Congress has an important role to play." Silly me, I thought the power to declare war resided solely with Congress. I thought they had more than just an "important role" to play. Congress was left with two options, take the moral high ground and vote against the declaration and admit that they are powerless in this matter or vote for the war and hope for the best. Has anyone ever met a legislator who was willing to admit his or her lack of power?

__________________
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
~Plato

Locke9-05

Please do remind me what "we forget?" You said "how quickly we forget," yet nowhere in that ramble of nonsense did you actually make the point of what "was forgotten."

Congress did agree to send armed forces into Iraq, did they not? Is your premise to disagree with records from the Senate itself? And then if you would read closely the article you provided yourself:

I see the opinion of the White House lawyers from your article, I do not see Constitutional fact. Who is it that interprets the law of the land? Certainly not White House lawyers. That would be the Supreme Court--the highest court in the land. There was no Constitutional clarification, no decision was made without congress because President Bush would have been in extreme trouble if he had gone there, it was simply another one of President Bush's many controversies.

So... if you would please, tell me... what exactly is your "reply" or "rebuttal" to my statement based on? It doesn't seem very thorough and certainly not very well-presented.

So to clarify once more, congress was consulted. Congress agreed, and the material you used to address my statement consists of nothing more than some hyped up controversy/borderline conspiracy? What exactly was "quickly forgotton?"

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

Taliesin

I thought I did. What you forgot was that the White House lawyers declared that they could make a case for a legal invasion of Iraq without Congressional approval. I said this explicitly in my previous post.

I thought one of the rules of these forums was not to purposly misrepresent your opponent's opinion. As you are a moderator, I'll assume that you know this and you mistakenly misrepresented my opinion. At no point did I say that Congress did not agree to send armed forces to Iraq. Quite the contrary, I said they did and gave what I saw as the true reasoning for it.

Of course the final decision would have rested with the Supreme Court. Once again, I never said otherwise. What I said is that the White House lawyers said that they could make a case for invading Iraq without Congressional approval. They based their argument on:

"The president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the military (Article II, Sec. 2)
Terms of the 1991 Gulf War resolution they content remains in effect today
Terms of the Sept. 14, 2001 congressional resolution approving military action against terrorism (S.J. Res 23)"

It seemed perfectly thorough and well-presented to me. But then, it is understandable that different people should have different opinions. I hope that I've expounded on my reply enough in this attempt to satisfy you.

I agreed that they were.

I agreed that they did.

Forgive me, but when the President of the United States threatens the system of checks and balances put in place by the Constitution, I consider it a controversy worth noting. If anything, it was played down, not hyped up. I can't believe that you were not as outraged as I was when Bush's lawyers laid out their proposal. Had Congress voted down the Declaration of War against Iraq and Bush had decided to use the law to circumvent Congress, America would have experienced its first taste of dictatorship. Conspiricy, eh? Congress was initially divided as to whether to declare war or not. Bush had his lawyers draw up a proposal where he could move ahead without Congress. Congress passes the declaration. Where is the conspiricy in that? All I've done is lay out the facts.

We have forgotten that Bush threatened to unilaterally invade Iraq without Congressional support.

__________________
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
~Plato

GlobalSmiles

The wording on that is hilarious. What you mean to say is that White House lawyers pointed out that we were still at war technically with Iraq from 91' and that Iraq had repeatedly violated the cease fire agreement they had signed. Leaving open the option of calling them out on it an following through with force.

It will be interesting to see whats in the history books on this topic when I'm much older.

Locke9-05

Hold on a moment. Are you actually telling me what I forgot when

A. I never gave any indication of "forgetting" what your implying
B. The semantic issue you're bringing up is secondary to the fact presented in my argument that congress was consulted.

I never "forgot" anything, the implication you made was based on a ridiculous and uninformed presumption. For you to imply or tell me I "forgot" something when I never said I did (and I didn't...) is a personal affront and completely absurd. Refrain from such nonsense in the future, please.
Are you looking for conflict? You're already in violation of Rule 3. I didn't misrepresent your position in any way, I asked you a question. You would do well to ensure that your accusations are solid and thorough before throwing them out on the table in the future, as I can assure you in this case, that was far from the case. The questions I posed were:
The bold is a question, it is not a statement. I was asking you if that was the case, so as to clarify before I actually made an argument against your case. So you were blatantly mistaken and ironically your accusation of my misrepresenting your argument was actually a misrepresentation of my post. Quite amusing. In your rude questioning of my moderator responsibilities and familiarity with the forum rules, you've now also violated Rule 5. You're in deep, want to dive any further? Or perhaps you'd just like to get on with the discussion and take advantage of the fact that I've been incredibly generous and refrained from penalizing you.
So checks and balances weren't really threatened. Why? Because who would these lawyers have presented this case to according to checks and balances? The Supreme Court. I can pretty much guarantee that the Supreme Court would shoot it down on the spot, and even if they didn't, checks and balances would still have been fulfilled. The "controversy" you're talking about was overblown and way over exaggerated.
Of course, I appreciate your taking the time to do so. Anything a poster has to say to elaborate on their opinions is of interest to me. I'm always up for learning more about what others think of politics and discussing opposing viewpoints.
I thought we already established that the final decision in matters of "interpreting" the Constitution rest with the Supreme Court. That in and of itself is checks and balances--whether or whether nor they agree or disagree with the president. There was no real threat to checks and balances, the system is too well fortified for one president to actually pose a threat to it, you're giving the man and his administration far too much credit.
Yes and we've also established that either way this happened, checks and balances would have prevailed. Anything he tried to do similarly to what you explained would have likely been deemed unconstitutional without him first consulting the Supreme Court and he wouldn't have gotten away with it. Obviously he knew it was far too risky, and he didn't stand a chance of getting away with it, so what happened? Congress was given ultimate say in the legislation.
No we haven't. I haven't. No one's forgotten that unless they have explicitly said so. Such uninformed and absurd presumptions are uncalled for. We simply remembered that Bush and his administration's "opinion" (which is what the article you presented called it--nothing more), was never a real threat to checks and balances. That's what this is about.

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

Taliesin

I based my assumption on your statement that:

I was making the argument that the deployment was really the decision on a single man who bullied Congress into agreeing with him. Congress initially was pretty heavily divided on whether to accept war with Iraq. There was a significant growth in support after Bush used his lawyers to suggest that he doesn't need Congress' approval anyways. While I believe everyone who voted for the Iraq War is responsible for their actions, I think that the War was the result of the decisions on one policy maker, not several.

I'm not contesting that Congress was in fact consulted. I'm saying that Bush threatened them when he had his lawyers draw up (and release to the press) a plan of action should Congress choose to vote against war. In my opinion, that veiled threat was very much a factor in Congress' decision.

I don't see how I violated Rule 3. I claimed that you misrepresented my opinion and explained why I thought it to be a mistaken misrepresentation. I don't think that is discussing you.

In order for your line of reasoning to be true, I would have had to give some indication that I did wish to "disagree with records from the Senate itself." As I wrote "Bush decided to meet with Congress," it is my belief that I never once suggested that I was disagreeing with Senate records. I don't see your question as a question. I see it as an implication whose goal was to diminish my credibility. You ask a question that no sane person would answer yes and, by asking it, you suggest that I might agree with it. I think my text showed that I obviously did not agree with it. So then what purpose would it serve to ask a question that you already know the answer to if not to cast doubt over my reliability?

Agreed, I did violate Rule 5. I didn't realize that was a rule and I won't break it again. That being said, please don't feel the need to treat me leniently; I came to these forums to enjoy myself and if I find that I no longer find enjoyment here, I'll leave of my own accord.

But the fact remains that Bush expressed a willingness to try to circumvent Congress and the system of checks and balances. As for me, I found verry worrisome that one man's lust to invade a country for no reason was so powerful that he suggested overturning the most important aspect of American Democracy. Succesful or not, Bush was all too ready to abandon legal government in his quest for the power to do whatever he wished.

Yes, we all know Bush is a man who is adept at weighing and comparing the risks of an action. Once again, ignoring the eventual outcome (of which I agree with you), Bush showed an intent to try to use the law to make a decision of great importance to Americans and the rest of the world without the will of Congress.

It was their opinion that they could make a decision that wasn't bound by the checks and balances set forth in our Constitution. The mere fact that the man who wields more power than anyone else on Earth suggested that he could very well do with some more if frightening enough. A President who has set up a legal case that could have been used to challenge the checks and balances of our government is indeed a threat to those same checks and balances. It sets a precident (no pun intended) for future "leaders of the free world" to challenge the basic precept of democracy.

(fyi, I won't be avaliable for response for the next 5-6 hours as I have a final for my Islamic History course)

__________________
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
~Plato

Locke9-05

A person cannot be "bullied" without allowing themselves to feel bullied. I find it hard to believe that congress wouldn't have been aware of just what kind of Constitutional boundaries the President would have been violating to make the decision on his own--interpreting the Constitution without consulting the Supreme Court. If so, then like you said, they are responsible for allowing themselves to feel pressured when in reality they are congressmen and have a duty to stand strong against the President if need be in accordance with checks and balances. It was President Bush's wish to go to war, some agreed, some disagreed, congress ultimately agreed. That's their responsibility. End of story...
He wasn't a real threat to congress and it was their responsibility to keep his power in check... That's the whole idea here. The veiled threat wouldn't have accomplished anything but getting Bush and his administration into a whole heap of trouble. Congress should have known that--if they didn't, that's really their problem and fault.

I was referring to when you presumed that I had forgotten something and continued to make references to what I had forgotten, when

A. what I did or did not remember is irrelevant
B. I didn't tell you I had forgotten or was "unsure" of anything.

The presumption was directed at me the poster and those sorts of things are good to avoid in the future--just a word of advice. I'm not trying to smear you here, just trying to help you.
Hold, up... You just said you "see [my question] as an implication whose goal was to diminish my credibility." You do realize what that is, do you not? That's you interpreting a question to mean something more than it is. It really doesn't matter what you see a question to be. A question is a question. Misrepresenting someone's argument is actually re-stating their argument as something other than what it is. I simply asked if by the basis of your argument you would disagree with records of congress. The answer to that question would be "yes" or "no." There was no implication or misrepresentation there--it was merely a question. For you to "interpret" it as one is utterly absurd.
Well now that's just a HUGE generalization... "any sane person?" How can you speak for any and every sane person in the hypothetical that they were posed with this question? The logical response is "you can't." The only "suggestion" being made is your falsely suggesting that my question was more than a question that required (or didn't require in the event of being dismissed) a simple "yes" or "no." I get questions like that all the time in discussions/debates. The way to handle it is to not take it personally, answer "no" (if that's your answer) and explain why (or don't). It's a question. Is that clear?
Well when you're addressing my arguments and responding to me, the fact that you think your "text showed that you obviously did not agree with it" is of essentially no consequence. If I want verification or clarification, it's my prerogative to request it in the form of... a question. One that is easily answerable ("yes" or "no"--maybe with an explanation) or dismissed if that is what you wish.
There's no problem. I understand the heat of debate as much as anyone. I enjoy it as long as two civil people are willing to stay within reason. You're fine.
I understand Bush's failure, I understand as much as anyone, but his plan was a failure anyway. It couldn't have worked. Checks and balances would have thwarted it even if he enacted it. It was the duty of congress to see that and prevent themselves from "feeling bullied" or pressured.
Yet congress and checks and balances is designed to protect America from such ineptitude (I would disagree with Bush's adeptness at anything, really).
He set himself up for failure and scrutiny, nothing more. Congress should have been more on the ball and like you said yourself--that's their responsibility.

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

Taliesin

That wasn't meant so much you personally as Americans as a whole, but looking back at it, I can see how you came to that conclusion. I should have worded that better.

It doesn't look like we are going to come to an agreement here. I've set forward my case that Bush did indeed threaten to attempt to circumvent Congress if they did not surrender to his will. You've made the case that since he could have never accomplished this, it wasn't a big deal. Regardless of his level of success with legal proceedings, I think Bush forced his will on Congress, leaving the origional blame for the War on his shoulders. Note that I don't hold the Congressmen and women blameless; I think that they should have voted against the war despite Bush's threat. I'm just saying that I believe the actual decision to go to War was that of one man and not the legislators as a whole.

I can't think of any significant way to expand on my argument other than what I've already posted.

Although I will respond to this:

I don't think it's a generalization at all. Can you name a single sane person who would disagree with a hard copy of official Congressional records? That's like showing someone a paper with the letter A on it, telling them that it has an A on it, and them disagreeing. Confronted with irrefutable of a claim, you can hardly argue against it unless you suffer from some mental defect or are stubborn to the point where reason has left you.

__________________
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
~Plato

Locke9-05

No problem. That's why I didn't get all trigger happy with penalties or anything like that. I figured it could have been a misunderstanding.

Exactly... That's why they are to blame as much as Bush You basically reinforced my position with that statement (in bold) Congress has the duty and responsibility to maintain checks and balances and to vote against the president if they so feel it is necessary. The decision was still ultimately theirs. They failed to make the right one. Bush might have influenced that decision, but to blame him totally is flawed in two regards:

A. Frankly, it gives the man too much credit--more than he deserves.
B. Congress had the ultimate and final decision. To say Bush caused them to vote one way is to deny human constitution and the fact that they were more than able to see through the pressure of Bush's administration in order to preserve checks and balances.

This leads to the conclusion of mutual responsibility.
Are you saying that congressional records are foolproof, failsafe and irrefutable? Remember, this is a question, not an implication. If that's the case, do remember that corruption, lies and scandal exist within congress--as does human error. It is any sane persons' prerogagite to cognitively deny the truthfulness or accuracy of congressional records and still be considered "sane." So yes, I do believe it was a generalization.

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

catawba

"Why is Bush the president for long time?"

That is a very good question, Svant! It would appear that many Americans are very gullible and easily scared by made-up threats to our cushy way of life where we are used to having the young working class fight and die so the rich can get richer.

__________________
"I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center." - Kurt Vonnegut