Chris:
The Gulf of Tonkin incident and the resulting "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution"
passed by the U.S. Congress authorized the President "to take all necessary
steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state
of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in
defense of its freedom." With that resolution Congress authorized the Vietnam
conflict (a war by any other name, like the Korean "police action"). As
then-Senator Barry Goldwater explained it to us at an USAF Officer's meeting in
the early 70's, that resolution gave the President full authority to wage war
against North Vietnam. As he also stated, had the U.S. not been ready and
willing to come to the defense of any member of that treaty, from that point on
the word of the United States in the Far East would have been completely
worthless. Therefore, the U.S. had no choice but to defend South Vietnam upon a
request for assistance.
The foundation for the Iraq War was laid in 1998 when Congress passed and
President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act which provided funds for a
dissident Iraqi group to work towards creating a democratic government in Iraq.
Obviously, that required the removal of Saddam Hussein and his government. In
2002, Congress passed and President Bush signed a "Joint Resolution to
Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq." It authorized
the President to use any means necessary to prevent the use of weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs) against the U.S. or any other nation. The preceding
administration was convinced that Hussein had WMDs and based upon his past
history would certainly use them again. This was also the conviction of our
allied intelligence agencies at that time. So Bush's administration did not
perpetrate a lie concerning Hussein's possession of WMDs as an excuse for war.
It was commonly believed to be true.
As you can see, in both conflicts Congress authorized the President to use U.S.
armed forces. It was not simply a Presidential decision.
Robert
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, June 20, 2008 1:32
Subject: [OM] Re: [way OT] Re: How high's the water/presidential rant
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> I understand the principle of the separation of powers, Robert,
> but
> there are, as I understand it, many ways for the Executive
> to
> circumvent them. For instance, the President may not
> declare war
> without Congressional support. But since he is C in C (I
> shiver
> internally at the thought of his being my C in C!) he can
> order
> military action without declaring war. I believe that that
> happened
> both in Vietnam and in Iraq.
>
> Certainly the continued occupation of a foreign state
> needs
> Congressional support in the form of funding, but that is much
> easier
> to organise since the poor troops are already engaged ...
>
> Chris
>
> On 19 Jun 2008, at 20:42, Robert Burnette wrote:
>
> > The President didn't start the Iraq War. Congress did. He
> isn't
> > keeping us there. Congress is.
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:
> olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|