Nancy Pelosi's husband having brain surgery following an attack ... with a hammer

[Jimmy W]

Congress approved its last formal declaration of war during World War II. Since that time it has agreed to resolutions authorizing the use of military force and continues to shape U.S. military policy through appropriations and oversight. https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-...ons-of-war.htm

[Garret]

Sorry, bzzzzt. You do not know US law at all. Only Congress can decare war and make treaties.

It's specifically laid out in the constitution. Our brave and ethical congress has abdicated this responsibility for many decades now. This particular measure even went to court (don't remember if it was supreme or superior for warshington) who did not decide on the law at all, but side-stepped the issue by saying the president hadn't done anything yet, so there was nothing to rule on.

Of course, law only has meaning if it is enforced, so ...

Bzzzzt again. Sure - you can quote the law, but you seem to have missed a few years of reality. Since the last time Congress declared war was for WW2, I guess you missed Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Sure - none were called wars, but as an intellectual exercise, visit the wall in DC & tell me Vietnam wasn't a war.

Congress has made it very clear that the president can pretty much act at his discretion.

[Canoeyawl]

Bzzzzt again. Sure - you can quote the law, but you seem to have missed a few years of reality. Since the last time Congress declared war was for WW2, I guess you missed Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Sure - none were called wars, but as an intellectual exercise, visit the wall in DC & tell me Vietnam wasn't a war.

Congress has made it very clear that the president can pretty much act at his discretion.

If he is "their" president

[Nicholas Carey]

Sorry, bzzzzt. You do not know US law at all. Only Congress can decare war and make treaties.

It's specifically laid out in the constitution. Our brave and ethical congress has abdicated this responsibility for many decades now.

And it has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court multiple times that a branch of the government cannot delegate an enumerated power (a power specifically given in the Constitution to a branch of government) to another branch of the government.

The Hague Conventions of 1899, in Hague III (Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities) makes a [formal] "declaration of war, giving reasons", a legal prerequisite to going to war:

Convention (III) relative to the Opening of Hostilities. The Hague, 18 October 1907

[list of Contracting Parties elided]

Considering that it is important, in order to ensure the maintenance of pacific relations, that hostilities should not commence without previous warning;

That it is equally important that the existence of a state of war should be notified without delay to neutral Powers;

Being desirous of concluding a Convention to this effect, have appointed the following as their plenipotentiaries:

[list of plenipotentiaries elided]

Who, after depositing their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following provisions:

Article 1. The contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a declaration of war, giving reasons, or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.
.
.
.

There is but a single authority in the USA with the power to do so: the Congress of the United States, per the US Constitution. And, since the US Constitution, Article VI, para 2 says that "this Constitution . . . and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land . . .", the only way in which we, the USA, may legally engage in hostilities, without such declaration is to be attacked by another nation.

The President of the United States may be commander in chief, but he doesn't get to commence hostilities on his own. It is way past time for the Congress to rein in the President on this matter and take their power back.

[Tom Montgomery]

Congress has made it very clear that the president can pretty much act at his discretion.

Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War." However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "declaration of war" nor does the Constitution itself use this term.

In the courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Doe v. Bush, said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war." in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.

In fact the Congress as it has existed in my lifetime does not want the responsibility... despite what the Constitution says. They are happy to pass the decision to wage war on to the POTUS. That way if the conflict goes sideways they can point fingers rather than take responsibility themselves. They may be spineless cowards, but they are OUR spineless cowards since we elect them to office and tend to return them to Washington when they run for re-election.

[sandtown]

Back to the previous thread drift . . .

I disagree with HR's both sidesism.

And there were way more than 250,000 protesters in 2003 - ten to 15 million worldwide.

I took part in Auckland, where I was at the time. I did other stuff too, as did so many others.

We were right.

https://world.time.com/2013/02/15/vi...story-ignored/

And in fact, if you were not among the active protesters in 2003, I question your ability to analyze the Ukraine-Russia war.

[Garret]

...
And in fact, if you were not among the active protesters in 2003, I question your ability to analyze the Ukraine-Russia war.

So - no one can grow or learn? No one can change their mind? You have a very strange view of how people work. In fact, if you're a member of Vets for Peace, why did you ever join a service? By your terms you should've already known whatever war you fought in was bad & never should've been there.

While I did protest back then, your line above is complete BS.

[Peerie Maa]

I question your ability to analyze the Ukraine-Russia war.

This, based on your posts to this thread, is effin rich.

[LeeG]

October 3, 2002

House Democratic Whip Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued the following statement this afternoon about the new Congressional resolution authorizing military force against Iraq:

"The decision of whether to send our brave men and women in uniform to war is the most solemn and serious choice we face as Members of Congress. Before putting our young people in harm’s way, we must be certain there is no other recourse."Because I do not believe we have exhausted all diplomatic remedies, I cannot support the Administration’s resolution regarding the use of force in Iraq. I am also extremely concerned about the impact of such action on our war against terrorism.
"A number of my colleagues are working on an alternative that I hope I can support. An acceptable alternative would require the United States to seek a multilateral diplomatic initiative before authorizing the use of force.
"As the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I have seen no evidence or intelligence that suggests that Iraq indeed poses an imminent threat to our nation. If the Administration has that information, they have not shared it with the Congress.
"If we invade Iraq, we will show our military power. If we can eliminate the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction without invading, we will show our strength."

###

The CIA’s NIE paper on Iraq’s “WMD and links to terrists” that Congress needed in order to make an informed vote on the AUMF came in just 72 hours before the vote. While flawed it had a slew of caveats in the addendum that any intelligent person with doubts would see as red flags. Besides the fact that 72 hrs isn’t much time to process a pile of info. But it was total window dressing any way because personell and arms were already being staged for invasion and covert operations were already under way in Iraq.

And that damn AUMF wasn’t rescinded until 6 mo into Biden’s term.

[John Smith]

The CIA’s NIE paper on Iraq’s “WMD and links to terrists” that Congress needed in order to make an informed vote on the AUMF came in just 72 hours before the vote. While flawed it had a slew of caveats in the addendum that any intelligent person with doubts would see as red flags. Besides the fact that 72 hrs isn’t much time to process a pile of info. But it was total window dressing any way because personell and arms were already being staged for invasion and covert operations were already under way in Iraq.

And that damn AUMF wasn’t rescinded until 6 mo into Biden’s term.

I would remind all that Hans Blix reported that as of Nov. 27, 2002 that his weapons inspectors had full unfettered access and simply needed TIME to find and destroy any WMDs Saddam might have had. G.W. denied them that time.

That said, I thought this was a thread about Mr. Pelosi being attacked.

[sandtown]

So - no one can grow or learn? No one can change their mind? You have a very strange view of how people work. In fact, if you're a member of Vets for Peace, why did you ever join a service? By your terms you should've already known whatever war you fought in was bad & never should've been there.

While I did protest back then, your line above is complete BS.

I have made any number of mistakes - a biggie was to support the Vietnam war until 1968 by which time I was already in the military.

As you suggest, that was a mistake that I learned from and tried hard not to repeat.

As for Iraq-2003, in spite of the fact that it was very popular (around 85% when the shooting started) the case for war was so utterly preposterous that no thinking adult should have been taken in. The Colin Powell speech to the UN was totally debunked before he even left the room.

So yeah, if you got 2003 wrong you need to do some serious reflection.

[John Smith]

I have made any number of mistakes - a biggie was to support the Vietnam war until 1968 by which time I was already in the military.

As you suggest, that was a mistake that I learned from and tried hard not to repeat.

As for Iraq-2003, in spite of the fact that it was very popular (around 85% when the shooting started) the case for war was so utterly preposterous that no thinking adult should have been taken in. The Colin Powell speech to the UN was totally debunked before he even left the room.

So yeah, if you got 2003 wrong you need to do some serious reflection.

That war was totally unnecessary. Sadly, most all the 'news' got things wrong. Hillary, and some others, voted for the Iraq resolution PRIMARILY in the hope it would get the UN weapons inspectors access and that would mean there would be NO REASON to invade. It did that.

The secondary reason was that if it failed to get weapons inspectors access, it would be easier to build more support AND A BROADER COALITION to invade.

Given that this resolution did lead to inspectors getting total unfettered access, there should have been no invasion.

[George Jung]

And in fact, if you were not among the active protesters in 2003, I question your ability to analyze the Ukraine-Russia war.

Erm..... no. What a silly, restrictive thing to say, or believe. By your reasoning, no one should be able to comment on anything they have not directly been involved in. One has to wonder - why anyone would try to impose such restrictions? Looks like you want to have the only say, the only opinion. If so - you're on the wrong forum.

[L.W. Baxter]

well put, doc

[sandtown]

Looks like you want to have the only say, the only opinion. If so - you're on the wrong forum.

Not at all, but I am saying that if you were an adult in 2003, you should have seen through the lies.

Did you drink the Neo-Con koolaid ??

[Garret]

Erm..... no. What a silly, restrictive thing to say, or believe. By your reasoning, no one should be able to comment on anything they have not directly been involved in. One has to wonder - why anyone would try to impose such restrictions? Looks like you want to have the only say, the only opinion. If so - you're on the wrong forum.

It's really simple: if you went to or supported Vietnam, you get a pass, 'cause that's what he did. If you went to/supported Iraq - nope! No go, as he didn't support it.

So - you have to be OK with Vietnam and bad with Iraq to be able to comment on what's going in in Ukraine. If you didn't support either, you're SOL it seems.

We need to somehow get Korea into the matrix. He already has invoked our battles with Canada - wait!! What about the French & Indian wars - they involved Canada, right? We need to include that in the matrix as well. Rats, this is getting more complicated by the minute. What happens if we thought the Spartans were brave @ Thermopylae?

[George Jung]

What another silly comment.

No - I had 'reservations', as did many - but, in case you 'forgot', we were fed a line of bull from bush/cheney and company.

You sure know how to make friends/influence people.

[sandtown]

I had 'reservations', as did many - but, in case you 'forgot', we were fed a line of bull from bush/cheney and company. .

You were also lied to by the media, the Neo-Cons and some Dems.

Look we all make mistakes, but Shirley when that happened in 2003 we all had a duty to think through how we would not let it happen again.

All of us in Vets For Peace made choices and mistakes - but we have tried to learn from them.

Wm. Astore is also a member of VFP, and a card-carrying member of the MIC

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion...strial-complex

[WI-Tom]

You were also lied to by the media, the Neo-Cons and some Dems.

Some media got it wrong. I doubt they lied so much as failed to do their due diligence, and accepted what the Bush/Cheney administration was telling them. And it is probably that many in the administration believed the WMD narrative as well, as THIS ARTICLE in The Atlantic suggests.

NPR got it right all along (no WMD, let the UN inspectors in), from what I remember.

Tom

[John Smith]

Some media got it wrong. I doubt they lied so much as failed to do their due diligence, and accepted what the Bush/Cheney administration was telling them. And it is probably that many in the administration believed the WMD narrative as well, as THIS ARTICLE in The Atlantic suggests.

NPR got it right all along (no WMD, let the UN inspectors in), from what I remember.

Tom

THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS HAD FULL, TOTAL, UNFETTERED ACCESS AS OF NOV. 27, 2002. It was G.W. who then yanked them rather than allow them time to do their job. Seems the media failed to report this adequately.

[Peerie Maa]

THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS HAD FULL, TOTAL, UNFETTERED ACCESS AS OF NOV. 27, 2002. It was G.W. who then yanked them rather than allow them time to do their job. Seems the media failed to report this adequately.

Shrub had the hots for out doing Daddy. Unfortunately his poodle B-liar supported him.

[WI-Tom]

THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS HAD FULL, TOTAL, UNFETTERED ACCESS AS OF NOV. 27, 2002. It was G.W. who then yanked them rather than allow them time to do their job. Seems the media failed to report this adequately.

Some media. Find better sources, you get better info.

Tom

[John Meachen]

Erm..... no. What a silly, restrictive thing to say, or believe. By your reasoning, no one should be able to comment on anything they have not directly been involved in. One has to wonder - why anyone would try to impose such restrictions? Looks like you want to have the only say, the only opinion. If so - you're on the wrong forum.

I quite like your logic George.If sandtown applied it to his "analysis" of Ukraine,this place would be improved.

[John Smith]

Some media. Find better sources, you get better info.

Tom

What media reported that the weapons inspectors had gotten full and total access? I listened to media that opposed the war, but don't recall them reporting this.

Most of the media still reports the Iraq resolution as a vote for war when it was really an effort to get the inspectors access they had been denied. Who in the media reported it as such?

[skuthorp]

THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS HAD FULL, TOTAL, UNFETTERED ACCESS AS OF NOV. 27, 2002. It was G.W. who then yanked them rather than allow them time to do their job. Seems the media failed to report this adequately.

It was certainly reported as such here, but the usual RW players did not (Murdoch).

[Ian McColgin]

It was well reported in the USA, if only one read. It seems we just wanted to go to war; no need for a reason.

[Peerie Maa]

It was well reported in the USA, if only one read. It seems we just wanted to go to war; no need for a reason.

The circus part of "bread and circuses". Especially important when there is no distribution of bread.

[CWSmith]

It was well reported in the USA, if only one read. It seems we just wanted to go to war; no need for a reason.

There was that infamous white paper written before Bush became POTUS. A war with Iraq was desired and they were only looking for an excuse. That's why they ignored the real source and invaded the wrong country.

[Garret]

A positive thing about the last couple of pages on this thread: any shed of credibility Sandtown has is now completely gone. Kinda too bad, he used to supply a POV I was interested in hearing, but it'll be hard to hear his voice from the bottom of the cliff he went off.

[JayInOz]

[QUOTE=sandtown;

And in fact, if you were not among the active protesters in 2003, I question your ability to analyze the Ukraine-Russia war.[/QUOTE]

What a totally stupid thing to say.

[LeeG]

There was that infamous white paper written before Bush became POTUS. A war with Iraq was desired and they were only looking for an excuse. That's why they ignored the real source and invaded the wrong country.

There was no “right country” to invade wrt counterterrorism against OBL and Al Qaeda. Military action to attack concentrations of Al Qaeda can be justified but willy nilly regime change violating the sovereignty of Iraq and the loosely held gov’t of Afghanistan wasn’t. Attacking those countries didn’t diminish the roots of militant jihadism as expressed on 9/11. And after nearly two decades I’m not hearing any future historians lauding the wars. Sure would have been nice to spend those trillions on something else. Oh right, millions of people forced out of homes as well as 100,000’s killed.

[sandtown]

Some media got it wrong.

McClatchy news serivice got it right, but they were one of the few print media exceptions.

[sandtown]

There was no “right country” to invade wrt counterterrorism against OBL and Al Qaeda..

Saudi - but VFP would have opposed that too.

[sandtown]

There was that infamous white paper written before Bush became POTUS. A war with Iraq was desired and they were only looking for an excuse. .

That is your Neo-Cons at work; and the very SAME PEOPLE are now believed and posted here on the Bilge.

[sandtown]

What a totally stupid thing to say.

Where were you in 2003 . . . ???

Back then a mistake I made was not forcing them to arrest me.

I should have done that - it was my patriotic duty.