-
The Biggest Fool of All
June 17, 2013 | 121 comments
-
Intervention Temptation
June 13, 2013 | 45 comments
-
Korean Déjà Vu
June 11, 2013 | 24 comments
-
Turkey Is Different
June 10, 2013 | 18 comments
-
Religion Living Dangerously
June 6, 2013 | 22 comments
Another Perspective
Attack Iran? Ask Congress to Declare War
It is time to end the era of executive war-making.
Listen to the presidential candidates and it sounds like war with Iran is around the corner. And not just the Republicans. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declared: “If we get intelligence they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, then we will take whatever steps necessary to deal with it.”
The consequences of any war with Iran would be extraordinary. Probably far worse than resulted from the invasion of Iraq. The likely costs underscore the necessity of a congressional declaration of war before the president initiates any military action against Tehran.
Declarations of war have gone out of fashion. The last one was 70 years ago, in response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Nevertheless, less formal authorizations of force are common. While not quite the same, Congress still voted on war with Iraq. And President George W. Bush did not deny that he was fighting a war. In contrast, President Obama channeled George Orwell in claiming the absence of hostilities in Libya as U.S. drones, missiles, and planes destroyed military materiel and killed military personnel.
It was an exquisite rhetorical performance. But also illegal and unconstitutional. This election the American people should insist that whoever is elected actually follow the Constitution.
The Founders were prepared to fight for their independence, but they feared the costs of war. They particularly worried about the consequences of investing the executive with the limitless power to engage in war, like the British king. Wrote James Madison, sometimes called the father of the Constitution: “Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instrument for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”
These sentiments animated the debates at the Constitutional Convention. Enthusiasts for expansive, unaccountable executive power were few. That reluctance included giving the president authority to take the new nation into war. The Constitution created barriers to executive war-making.
Contrary to conventional wisdom in today’s White House, the Founders gave Congress several important war-making powers, including raising an army, approving military expenditures, ratifying treaties, setting rules of war, and issuing letters of marquee. Moreover, the legislative branch was to decide whether there would be a war for the president to fight. According to Article 1, Sec. 8 (11), “Congress shall have the power… to declare war.” James Madison explained: the “fundamental doctrine of the Constitution that the power to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.”
The convention delegates were not fools. Especially at a time when communication and transportation were slow, they recognized that the chief executive might have to respond to foreign attack. For that reason the Framers changed “make” to “declare.” However, that did not mean that Congress could only declare as in “take note” of the fact that the president had, say, invaded another nation.
The Founders’ objective was simple. They did not trust the executive to make this important decision alone. For instance, John Jay contended that dubious motives often led kings “to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.” George Mason declared: the president “is not safely to be entrusted with” the power to start wars. Thus, Mason favored “clogging rather than facilitating war.”
Similar was James Wilson, who said the Constitution “will not hurry us into war.” Rather, he explained, the provision “is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is in the legislature at large.”
Pierce Butler, an advocate of executive power at the convention, made a similar point when campaigning for the Constitution’s ratification in South Carolina. Butler assured his skeptical brethren that the document did not give the president authority to start wars “as throwing into his hands the influence of a monarch, having an opportunity of involving his country in a war whenever he wished to promote her destruction.”
Similar was the understanding of influential leaders not directly involved in drafting the document. Thomas Jefferson was ambassador to France at the time, but he wrote approvingly of the proposed Constitution’s “effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose.” Abraham Lincoln, no opponent of expansive executive power, lauded the Founders for recognizing war “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.”
Of course, the Constitution named the president commander-in-chief of the military (but not the country). With that position comes important authority, primarily to conduct wars authorized by Congress. Alexander Hamilton was an advocate of quasi-monarchy, but he only referred to the commander-in-chief as the “first general and admiral” of the armed services. He emphasized that the president’s authority was “in substance much inferior to” that of the British monarch, and “would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the land and naval forces… while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war.”
Over the years presidents often engaged in military action without congressional authority. Military maneuvers, attempts at intimidation, limited retaliation, and even isolated acts of war have been common, but remain qualitatively different than initiating full-scale hostilities. Not until President Harry Truman took America into the Korean War did a president claim the authority to unilaterally undertake large-scale combat, especially against a nation which had not assaulted or even threatened America. And he did not have the excuse of necessity, such as preempting a threatened Soviet nuclear attack. Truman could have called Congress together and made his pitch for war, while readying U.S. forces to use if he received legislative sanction.
Vietnam created a new precedent — congressional authorization short of a war declaration, in this case the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Congress took a similar approach to the Persian Gulf War, attack on Afghanistan, and invasion of Iraq. My Cato Institute colleague John Samples categorizes these as conflicts which “involved (and were expected to involve) troops in combat and thus, casualties.”
About the Author
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author and editor of several books, including The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington (Transaction).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (113) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Doug Bandow
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/04/attack-iran-ask-congress-to-de
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A World Turned Right Side Up
- The Thatcher Legacy
- A Panoply of Beauties
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Richard Baker| 1.4.12 @ 6:16AM
Well then. When the Iranians close the Straits of Hormuz then we'll just sit back and watch the show, I guess. Does the Constitution mandate the form of Congressional approval? Probably not. I'm thinking. Call it a Declaration, Resolution, or Whim of the Hour, what have you. The key is that the Congress says yea or nay.
Alan Broolks| 1.4.12 @ 6:18AM
Demonizing Islam 10 yrs. after 9-11 wont sell- you'll have to tack.
General Davis| 1.4.12 @ 6:48AM
If the West shuts off oil exports from Iran, then it's only fair that Iran shuts off oil exports to the West. It's an act of war, of course, but it's in self defense to our economic blockade, which is also an act of war.
Alan Brooks| 1.4.12 @ 6:53AM
Their CD skips: it is playing
"Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran"
over 'n' over.
General Davis| 1.4.12 @ 7:01AM
Yeah, we elected Obama but we might as well have elected McCain. At least McCain would have been less devious. He wouldn't have lied to our faces with smarmy rationalizations. No, McCain would have sung "Till We Meet Again" while Iran burned in the fierce light of our nuclear weapons.
Alan Brooks| 1.4.12 @ 8:43AM
McCain would have embarrassed us all:
"let's hit the Media like a firefight in Da Nang."
Haddit| 1.4.12 @ 1:17PM
If we bomb it, we need to bomb it all..........
Jack in Wi.| 1.4.12 @ 8:35AM
The only voice of sanity on this whole webbsite is Doug Bandow. Yes by all means lets start WW3, for no reason. We are bankrupt already and need oil to triple in price and the final collapse of the world economy. I don't think Obama will ever bomb Iran or Romney either for that matter. For the reasons I just stated above. 70% of the country wants nothing more to do with these crazy wars pushed by insane elements of the Israeli lobby.
Vern Crisler | 1.4.12 @ 12:06PM
Bandow is a typical libertarian, who refuses to defend our national interest. We have a national interest in keeping oil flowing, and whoever threatens that is threatening our country.
Libertarians, however, want to bury their heads in the sand because they believe ultimately America is to blame for all the worlds ills.
When the President engages in hostilities with another country, and Congress doesn't defund him, then they have in effect declared war by their inaction. In the case of Libya, the Congress failed to defund Obama, so acquiesced in the policy.
It's called passing the buck.
proterozoic| 3.12.12 @ 5:32PM
But... Iran wants to sell oil - it's their main source of revenue. We're the ones choking their exports with sanctions.
If our main interest is to keep oil flowing, the thing to do would be to end the sanctions and do everything to defuse tensions in the region - even if that ticks off Netanyahu.
It seems to me that the current situation with Iran is less about oil, and more about electoral politics in the US and Israel.
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 4:18PM
Ron Paul The Turd; He Finished Third.
The Iranians are attempting to get nuclear weapons; this is obvious to the meanest intellect, except a Ron (Third Turd) Supporter.
Sometimes, Doug, the Bad guy declares war on US, not the other way around. Closing the Straits is a casus belli.
TrueBlue | 1.5.12 @ 2:04PM
Iran declared war on us in 1979.
Duglarri| 1.6.12 @ 2:37AM
Obvious to the meanest intellect- but not to your 16 intelligence agencies, who unanimously say that no, they are not pursuing nuclear weapons. You don't believe the spooks you pay $80 billion a year to answer this sort of question? Maybe you should call for rolling up the CIA instead of Iran.
General Davis| 1.4.12 @ 6:44AM
Why is there any reason to fear a nuclear Iran when they've had nukes for more than ten years--according to Russian General Yuri Baluyevsky--and haven't used them? And why has this attack window opened all these years later for preventing Iran from getting weapons they already have?
Alan Brooks| 1.4.12 @ 6:57AM
They are selling mags, General. And a CD single:
'Bomb Bomb Bomb. Bomb Bomb Iran'
After Ahmadinejad goes to the Great Rug Workshop In The Sky, this rag will have to find a new bugbear.
Clint| 1.4.12 @ 8:38AM
" The New Hampshire Gazette
The Chickenhawk Hall Of Shame
name:
Willard Mitt Romney
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
March 12, 1947
home state:
Michigan
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
excuse:
None to speak of
preferred activity:
Trying to talk people into becoming Mormons
occupation:
Climbing ambition's greased pole
When your daddy's a Governor and a Cabinet Secretary, it's amazing how your odds of being drafted diminish."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Clint| 1.4.12 @ 8:39AM
We Are Being Set Up By RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.
These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 4:20PM
I trust Israel's take on Iran's nuclear capability more than the Russkies, sorry, General. I don't think they have it yet.
Mossad has a better track record than the KGB's successor.
John786| 1.4.12 @ 6:57AM
An American- Isreal attack against Iran will see an end to their hegemony in the ME. Iran will be destroyed but the assymmetric war by its religious bretherin will go on for decades. Oil output from ME will be zero and the price infinity. Only an unlikely victory by Ron Paul can stop this Armageddon. The rapturers have won...
Alan Brooks| 1.4.12 @ 7:00AM
Paul is fine, save for his Conspiracy-fringe. The UN today doesn't have soldiers brave enough to confiscate your guns or precious metals.
Clint| 1.4.12 @ 8:55AM
Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit,
" On Iran, The President should:
1.) Explain to the American people that Iran is no threat to the United States unless we or Israel attack it first, and then it would be a serious threat to U.S. access to energy and would likely stage terrorist operations in the continental United States. [The last thanks to 30-years of federal immigration policies that leave us without knowledge of who is in the country or what they are capable of doing.]
2.) Publicly state that there will be no U.S. surprise attack on Iran, and no U.S. attack at all on Iran unless the president asks for a formal declaration of war and the Congress votes its approval in a constitutional manner.
3.) Call in Israel's ambassador to the United States and tell him that we understand that Israel believes Iran is a threat to its survival, and that we agree that Israel has every right to defend itself. If Israel believes it must go to war with Iran, then so be it. But also tell the ambassador that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. administration will declare U.S. neutrality in the war and immediately cut off military and financial support to all combatants in the war.
4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To The East Coast.
Al Adab| 1.4.12 @ 10:22AM
Thank you Clint for pointing out four good reasons not to support Paul. Every proposal you posit is completely against United States self interest.
Interesting that you and my friend John find yourselves on the same page albeit for quit differing reasons. Iran has been at war with the U. S. since 1979, this country has simply been able to ignore it until the nuclear option raised its ugly head. We should have acted about five or six years ago but failed to do so just as we failed with N. Korea in the early 90's. Refusal to face reality makes for bad (and dangerous) policy.
W| 1.4.12 @ 11:47AM
Al
We should have acted in 1979. That was a deliberate act of war by Iran. Carter was weak.
There should have been a military attack immediately after a warning to release the hostages. A showing of strength, rather than weakness, would have probably prevented many of the terrorrist attacks from 1979 to 9/11.
Unfortunately we did not react in Lebanon in 1983, Somalia, World Trade Center in 1993, USS Cole, our embassies in Kenya and Sudan, etc. It is no wonder they attacked on 9/11 after such a history. The terrorrists did not fear us.
Al Adab| 1.4.12 @ 1:08PM
Right, as usual.
Al Adab| 1.4.12 @ 1:18PM
W:
Just caught your reply on the side blog. Again you are on point and thanks for repeating the income tax comment from yesterday as I did not see it.
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 4:24PM
W---perfect, as usual.
W| 1.4.12 @ 5:24PM
Occam and Al, thanks.
You may be interested in this website elizabethbettina.com/
She has an excellent book "It Happened in Italy" about the Jews in Italy during WW II.
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 4:23PM
Yes, and the little Turd finished Third. Not gonna happen, Paulbot! (I'm sorry, Al, but I never get tired of cheese grating Clint. Incidentally, if we do have Iranian agents in place in this country, they are already attacking us.)
Thank you, Al, for being the mature adult here.
General Davis| 1.4.12 @ 7:07AM
With the Middle East in flames and the oil cut off, American oil companies will make a killing. No doubt our congressmen are already loading up on Exxon stock.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.4.12 @ 11:23AM
Yes, its all the fault of the EVIL oil companies. And its OUR fault as well, of course.
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 4:24PM
Thanks for the advice! Oh, forgot---I already own shares in Exxon.
TrueBlue | 1.5.12 @ 2:06PM
The oil problem is easily fixed (for us anyway) by telling the enviro-hippies to stfu and drilling what we have in our own country while increasing the number of refining facilities. It would suck in the short term though.
Dex| 1.4.12 @ 7:09AM
While the self-declared master race talks about yet another war without any real threat to nation and people thousands of Iranian young people, >50% women, study hard for the entry exam to university in early February, which determines their future. Oh no, it's now Americans who decide that..
Alan Brooks| 1.4.12 @ 8:46AM
They think the Mideast is nothing but a petro-spigot.
squalis| 1.4.12 @ 1:16PM
Alan, please practice what you preach. Stop using any and all machines, and refrain from using all petro based products, including that require shipping. That way you can lead a guilt free, pure life. I hear dirt and twigs are quite tasty this time of year.
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 4:26PM
Dear Alan: it (the ME outside Israel) serves no other real purpose. Review the number of scientific papers coming out of the Middle East except for Israel---not very many. About 3 times a year I read one in my field from an Islamic country that means anything.
Michael Tomlinson| 1.4.12 @ 8:03AM
Attacking Iran will be Barack Obama's Hail Mary October surprise to save his losing reelection bid. Will it succeed? We'll find out this November if it works or drives his extremist left-wing base to their real ideological guru Ron "Earmark King" Paul.
Clint| 1.4.12 @ 8:46AM
Ricky "The Bridge To Nowhere " Earmark Queen Will Be Exposed For The Big Government Staist Voting Record He Amassed Before We Pennsylvania Fed Up Real Conservatives Helped Throw His Ass Out Of The Senate.
This Big Government Statist Sanrtorum Will Get The Bark Skinned Off Him By We Tea Party Patriots.
Watch And Learn.
The Tea Party Rebllion Heads To The East Coast.
DevilDog| 1.4.12 @ 11:12AM
still rabidly delusional eh clint
Clint| 1.4.12 @ 1:48PM
Still A Scared Rabbit,Eh Devil's Crack.
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Israel Firster Smear Bund Girl's Face.
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 4:27PM
Thank you for your service as a Marine, Devildog. Clint doesn't know that.
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 4:26PM
Yawn. Third Turd Clint.
Old Soldier| 1.4.12 @ 9:42AM
I agree that we ought to go back to declaring war before conducting a war.
Iran (and Syria) are in the middle of an open revolt. Attacking either from the outside would be the stupidest decision ever.
We should be helping the internal factions in both countries push the totalitarian regimes over - with open verbal support and covert intel and weapons. Why attack Iran when it's going to collapse on its own?
steve in ohio| 1.4.12 @ 10:08AM
You are so right. In fact, the reformers in Iran say all of our saber rattling hurts their cause. My fear is the Republicans will scare the country into reelecting Obama--who will then get us into war like the "peace candidate" LBJ.
Al Adab| 1.4.12 @ 10:32AM
Should Iran make overt military moves to close the strait then action to keep shipping lanes open would be justified. The elimination of nuclear capacity would not take overt military action although those options should remain open. Neither would require a declaration of war but were the US to decide to invade Iran for some reason, then certainly such a declaration would be required. Nonetheless Iran has officially been at war with us since 1979, we have just ignored that fact.
JA| 1.4.12 @ 9:50AM
Its about damn time that our govt begin following the constitution. Recall the Bush lied, people died claims of the communists in congress - Pelosi, Reid, etc. - whom, by the way ALL VOTED APPROVAL TO GO INTO IRAQ !!!! - and when things got bad, turned on the military in a reprehensible, disgusting, treasonous way to gain political points.
Well, if congress DECLARES A WAR then we will have fewer of them, we will fight to win those we enter, and communist scum like Pelosi, Reid, kerry, etc. - can be hanged, literally, as traitors when they engage in treason.
Stormy| 1.4.12 @ 10:30AM
"Explain to the American people that Iran is no threat to the United States"
What exactly does that mean? Iran can be a threat to the United States in many different contexts. It does not require a direct frontal attack upon the homeland to represent a threat. Iran has been killing our soldiers and Marines for the past 30 years and waging undeclared war upon us. They've attempted an assassination of a foreign diplomat in our nation's capitol. I could go on, but what would it take for this Senate to actually have to "declare war" upon Iran?
General Davis| 1.4.12 @ 10:42AM
And we are assassinating their scientists, targeting their military sites with spy plane overflights, and trying to destroy their economy. In the past we've overthrown their government to install our puppet dictator and shot down one of their airliners. So they have every right to strike back at us--it's called self-defense.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.4.12 @ 11:21AM
Yeah. Its all our fault, so we should just let them kill more Americans & pursue nukes. Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain.
Lemme guess. Ron Paul will bring us "peace in our time" as well, right?
Con Chef (NB) | 1.4.12 @ 11:28AM
You Paulistinians are laughable.
General Davis| 1.4.12 @ 12:20PM
Why does your kind always use the Hitler/Chamberlain analogy? In this case, we are the Nazis. We are the ones practicing world domination.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.4.12 @ 12:47PM
Ok. Then try Demosthenes & his Philippics if you tire of the Nazi references.
Oh, & DO TELL how we've acted as "Nazis."
General Davis| 1.4.12 @ 12:49PM
Invading countries for no reason, for starters.
Al Adab| 1.4.12 @ 1:22PM
(NB):
Demosthenes works. The problem is that people (Like Baldwin and Chamberlin) and apparently many of ours, don't like to hear the truth.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.4.12 @ 1:52PM
They sure don't.
"Not to know what has been transacted in former times is to be forever a child. If no use is made of the labors of past ages, then the world must always remain in the infancy of knowledge."...Cicero
Explains this crowd quite well.
Al Adab| 1.4.12 @ 2:54PM
(NB),
To bad we no longer teach history in govt schools. Maybe they don't want us learning these things eh?
Con Chef (NB) | 1.4.12 @ 4:12PM
Even though its not taught, its certainly not like anyone who wants to call themselves educated can't look them up. But why do that when you have revisionist dreck that you learned in school & the drivel peddled by the Blame America First crowd?
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 4:29PM
Thanks, Major Major Major. They deserve all these things---and Rick Santorum thinks so, as does Mitt. Just coincidentally, they're one and two, while Paulturd finished third.
Dex| 1.4.12 @ 11:59AM
"It does not require a direct frontal attack upon the homeland to represent a threat".
"declare war" upon .......
- You are hilarious! Why don't you list all nations that killed American soldiers in the last 30 years, confirmed or suspected. Also include the nationality of any lunatic who allegedly had or thinks to have links to anybody more or less remotely associated with governments.
You can then declare war upon a long list of countries. That should keep you fighting for a while! God bless America. Homeland my a**
Al Adab| 1.4.12 @ 1:24PM
Dex:
Could you posit, for my understanding, what action any country would have to take before you believe a declaration of war could be forthcoming? Not being facetious here, but rather honestly curious.
Dr. X| 1.4.12 @ 10:35AM
"This election the American people should insist that whoever is elected actually follow the Constitution."
You're kidding, right? Surely you jest. The American people haven't got a f**king clue as to what "the Constitution" actually says, and moreover they don't give a rip. I'll bet money that not one American in ten thousand has actually read it, and of those who have most don't remember anything in it.
For the American people, "the Constitution" consists of a set of phrases like "separation of church and state" and "freedom of expression" that were invented by politicians and courts and do not even exist in the document.
Let's get real here. I am all for the Constitution. You are all for the Constitution. We are not representative of the public at large. We are a tiny and insignificant fraction of a population that is more obsessed with Kim Kardashian making a sex tape with a black man, Lady Gaga's bisexuality, Janet Jackson's breast, Obama's wife's dress on her umpteenth vacation, and which tattooed Orc is gyrating in the end zone after the touchdown or grabbing his crotch after stuffing the ball through the hoop.
Tell you what: the whore "Madonna" is scheduled to cavort and hump herself during the halftime show at the Super Bowl. Why don't you make your pitch for "following the Constitution" then and see how many of the morons in this country are willing to listen to it?
Con Chef (NB) | 1.4.12 @ 11:15AM
Clint the Coward Puked, On Another Thread:
"You Israel Firster Traitor Bastards Are Using American Warriors For Cannon Fodder And Pissing The American Treasury Away Attempting To Get America To Police The Middle East For The Foreign Nation Of Israel's Agenda."
And you went to sign up for the service when, Armchair General? Coward. Your Chamberlain-esque perpetual candidate lost last night, Clint. And he will continue to tank like the loser he is. Then you can get back to cooking meth in your Mom's basement.
"The Tea Party Rebellion Got Its Ass Kicked In Iowa."
Con Chef (NB) | 1.4.12 @ 11:20AM
Until we drill ALL our own oil (which will hopefully happen sooner rather than later), we have a vested interest in the security of the Straits of Hormuz.
Even IF that were to come to pass (our drilling our own oil & exporting it), we'd STILL need a strong military to protect our trade routes. And since they're not outfitting Navy ships with tank treads, we also need land bases to protect those trade routes as well.
But I guess that the Paulistinians would say that's "militiristic" too.
"Not to know what has been transacted in former times is to be forever a child. If no use is made of the labors of past ages, then the world must always remain in the infancy of knowledge."...Cicero
This describes Clint's understanding of history quite well.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.4.12 @ 11:28AM
Your boy lost, so now you're "being set up."
It must be the work of the ZOG & those nefarious Zionists, right Clint?
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 4:30PM
Drill, baby, Drill, Con. Totally agree with you (as ALWAYS).
By the way, how far are you from Gettysburg?
Harry the Horrible| 1.4.12 @ 11:51AM
If we attack Iran, I'd like a Declaration of War, followed by a demonstration of what Total War looks like, just to remind the arsewipes in the ME who are and what we can do.
General Davis| 1.4.12 @ 12:27PM
Since Russia seems to think that Iran already has nukes and has had them for more than ten years, a war that goes nuclear will erase both Iran and Israel from the face of the earth and thus eliminate many of the problems in this area. It might even burn our fingers enough to keep us from repeating such stupidities (as Iraq and Afghanistan obviously haven't).
Al Adab| 1.4.12 @ 1:26PM
Gen:
You make the same mistake many on The Left do regarding the invasions and war. Iraq invasion; Afghanistan invasion both justified. Nation building occupation ill advised and opposed by Movement Conservatives.
General Davis| 1.4.12 @ 1:46PM
The Afghan invasion was ill advised, as you say, but the Iraq invasion was based on lies and was criminal. We lost the considerable political capital we'd gained in the first war, we turned the enemy of our enemy into a friend of our enemy, we wasted trillions of dollars, we allowed terrorists to make the country its home, and we turned a secular nation into one ruled by Islamic law. It is one of the most monstrous strategic blunders in history, which will only be exceeded by an attack on Iran.
Dr. X| 1.4.12 @ 3:43PM
You think the Iraq war was based on lies and was "criminal?" If you want to know if Saddam had WMD, how about you ask the folks of Halabja?
...Oh. You can't; THEY'RE DEAD. Saddam gassed 'em with Sarin and VX... which happen to be WMD.
I'll agree that the whole idea of "nation building" and "democracy" amongst those savages was idiotic, but taking out that creep Saddam was the right thing to do. What we should have done differently was install OUR dictator in there and withdrawn to a big garrison (worked pretty well in South Korea) instead of having our boys get their legs blown off for the next nine years so that the Iraqi animals could vote for some Imam who hates us.
General Davis| 1.4.12 @ 4:09PM
Your argument fails on several levels. First, the Halabja incident occurred before the First Iraq war and they hadn't signed anything about WMDs. They were as allowed to have them as much we were. In fact, we sold them the chemicals. Second, at most 5,000 were killed, whereas we killed at least thirty times that many in "freeing" the country. And third, Saddam was an excellent dictator. He killed people, sure, but a lot fewer than we did, and he kept the terrorists out and Iran at bay. It was a disaster by any measure.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.4.12 @ 4:15PM
Yes, the despotic dictator was a FAR nicer man than WE are.
Your moral compass is about as f-ed up as a junkie in a poppy field.
General Davis| 1.4.12 @ 4:27PM
I'm not saying he was nice, you fool, only effective, as Dr. X was suggesting we should have installed our own dictator. (Which is how we got to the present situation in Iran.)
Dr. X| 1.4.12 @ 5:32PM
I agree with some of what you said, but I disagree that Saddam was an "excellent dictator." Franco and Pinochet and Marcos and Park were excellent dictators.
Saddam was a loose cannon who could unpredictably turn against our interests. We tolerated him only because he counterbalanced Iran. When he invaded Kuwait he threatened world oil supplies. (We should have been upfront about the fact that we are indeed interested in oil, not democracy).
I would also point out that after 9/11 it was discovered that Mohammed Atta had inquired into renting a crop-duster. Why? Where would he likely lay hands on VX or Sarin to gas an American city? Saddam was the most likely possibility.
Finally, if "Bush lied" about WMD, how do we account for the 12-year international no-fly regime, the international sanctions, the UN resolutions, and Clinton's 1998 bombing?
EVERYBODY thought he still had the stuff in 2003, because at one point in time he undeniably did.
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 4:32PM
The Israeli intelligence is much better than the Russian. Everyone knows that Israel has the bomb---like MOOCH having a fat ass, it's the worst kept secret in the world. But, if Iran had the bomb, why would they not shout it from the rooftops? It makes no sense for them to have a "covert" bomb.
General Davis| 1.4.12 @ 5:02PM
I agree. But on the other hand, Israel didn't shout it from the rooftops either, nor did South Africa. Still, the Israeli defense minister said in 2003 that Iran would have a bomb in one year, and a Russian deputy defense minister said in 2002 that the Iranians already had nukes. So perhaps they have nukes but don't have enough that can be reliably delivered to provide a deterrence. In any case, the idea that they don't have them seems to be entirely based on the absence of a test, but it isn't necessary to test nuclear weapons unless you're after perfection. Even an under performing bomb is terribly destructive.
Mike D.| 1.4.12 @ 6:32PM
Having Nukes and getting them to the target area are two different things. Having the Technology to miniaturize an implosion device to fit on the head of an ICBM is also not an easy procedure. The only way Iran would have nukes is if the Russians game them some and I doubt they would be that stupid. A nuclear strike on Isreal would be devasting but Iran would dissappear off the face of the earth permanentaly and there hasn't been many holy Islamists "leaders" who seem to be in a big hurry to meet allah lately.
TrueBlue | 1.5.12 @ 2:15PM
Also, having them and being able to produce them on their own are two different things.
Consertive View| 1.4.12 @ 12:08PM
THE CONSTITUTION, THE U.N., MAYHAN, AND WAR.
A great deal has been said about if and how to go to war with Iran. Let it first be noted that the way things are going right now Iran may go to open war with us first. Any attack against an American warship is an open declaration of war.
It has been noted that we must first have Congress declare war before we can do much of anything, at least Constitutionally. I see that as a limited understanding. Since WWI we have not fought a war by ourselves. Now we have the UN to contend with. In the political climate of the world today going to war without UN approval is all but impossible. There is no way in hell, even with an attack upon an American warship, that approval for open war would ever be given by the United Nations. Going to war with Iran, even with Congressional approval would mean kicking the UN out of the country and sending it to someplace else, Moscow perhaps or maybe Peking. That just isn't going to happen.
But for sake of argument let us suppose we went ahead and declared war with Iran. What then? Fighting Iran with boots on the ground is just plain dumb. You don't need to do that, and if shooting becomes reality, you shouldn't do that. Instead of boots on the ground impose a complete no exception blockade of Iran. A land, sea, and air blockade. Choke them. Choke them to death. To learn just how effective such a blockade is, read the book "The Influence of Sea Power upon History" by Alfred Thayler Mayhan. Good book. Next submit to the Iranian people clear distinct war aims.
1) The current government will be replaced with a SECULAR government.
2) The president of Iran and others will be put on trial for crimes against the Iranian people.
3) Iran will dismantle it's nuclear program and allow unhindered access to UN inspectors of all nuclear sites.
4) Iran will pay reperations for loss of American life and damages to American property.
When these demands are met, the blockade comes off. No bomb, bomb, bomb, at least not after taking out their navy and airforce. No killing of civilians. Just choke the bastards into submission. It's as easy as drinking a glass of water.
So, a constitutional war? No, can't happen. Not with the UN and the liberal American mind set.
A ground war? Not necessary.
A war we can win? If they start it, we can finish it.
Will they start it? Unfortunatly they are just enough consumed with their own false reality that they might. God save the Mid East if they do. They can't win, and I'm not sure there are enough intellegent leaders in Iran left to realize that. Most are frightened to open their mouths
Dex| 1.4.12 @ 12:44PM
"Next submit to the Iranian people clear distinct war aims."
Do your realize that "choking them to death" literally means killing ordinary people, not the government! People who got used to living with mad mullahs, who despise, hate, laugh at and ignore them, who understand and face reality more than any American or other foreigner could ever do. Yet they give their best, work hard, love and support their families, carry on with life. Iranians who try to survive and feed their families after many utility bills went up about ten times in the last 6-12 months without any state payments as Western media like to report. Iranians who are hospitable beyond any Westerner's comprehension. Your genius idea of a total blockade would cut off many crucial goods such as foreign medicine, thus literally killing normal Iranians, their kids, families. Now that's such a brilliant idea other proud Americans might even nominate you for the Nobel peace prize...
Al Adab| 1.4.12 @ 1:28PM
Rather like all those poor innocent Germans and Japanese whose governments led them to defeat. Are not the people responsible for the government they entertain?
Consertive View| 1.4.12 @ 3:26PM
Yes, Dex, exactly. It would cut off many crucial goods such as foreign medicine, and yes that would kill normal Iranians - - - As long as they allowed it to go on. The good people, and you are right they are good people, of Iran can not long suffer under the stolen government they have now in place. Put this kind of pressure on the population, and very quickly they rise up and depose their government. That's what happens in a blockade.
Dex, you are absolutely right. We should not make war against the citizens of Iran. What we need to do, to protect American lives, is to get the Iranian people to make war against their own government. Remember, if you ever learned, war is deplomacy by violent means, it's intent is to change the will of a foreign government. The best way to do that, is to get the people of the foreign land to create their own government more friendly to our own.
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 4:33PM
Yup. Sounds fine to me, Dex. I mean to WIN.
Martin Owens| 1.4.12 @ 1:01PM
A cogent and forceful analysis, closely reasoned, logical and accurate.
And it ain't gonna make a goddamn bit of difference.
My advice: learn Persian.
Melvin| 1.4.12 @ 1:54PM
I would make a wild guess, that the same number of American Citizens that are aware of the workings of the Constitution is the same as it was in World War Two.
The American people are not paid and do not have the time to understand the minutia of the US Constitution. But what the American people should understand is a broad overview of it.
The people that are getting paid to understand and to make sure the Country follows the US Constitution, are those in all three branches of the government elected and appointed.
By formally declaring hostilities against a foreign Country this takes or should take the political wiggle room out of the situation, such as, "I voted for it, before I voted against it."
Most Americans identify a formal Declaration of War with President Roosevelt as he did to Japan and German publicly and I guess officially. What this also accomplished was to put every single American on notice that this Country was embarking on a war and it was every Americans responsibility as an American to either sign up for the draft or join the war effort in some other capacity. The whole Country mobilized to win, and everyone including those privileged were expected to do their part.
For the current war(s) that we are in there is a huge disconnect to whom is fighting the war and those who should be supporting the fighting men and women in the field.
We have all seen it from bloggers, the media and even the politicians themselves, they hold the military in a very low esteem. Harry Reid, "This war is lost," Another Congressmen or Senator accusing the Marines of being the Waffen SS in Iraq.
Instead of having the debate of getting the Country into a war while the war is going on, declaring war in the beginning, is supposed to settle that argument before US service-members start dying.
Bob From District 9| 1.5.12 @ 6:56PM
"For the current war(s) that we are in there is a huge disconnect to whom is fighting the war and those who should be supporting the fighting men and women in the field.
We have all seen it from bloggers, the media and even the politicians themselves, they hold the military in a very low esteem. Harry Reid, "This war is lost," Another Congressmen or Senator accusing the Marines of being the Waffen SS in Iraq."
Melvin, you made such a good case, too bad you turned dishonest as above.
There was nothing anti-military in what Harry Reid said, he didn't come up with that, the US Marine corps did, until the Anbar Awakening turned things around. Note, not the surge, the Awakening. And it was the Marine command in Anbar province.
And what Senator compared the us Military to the Waffen SS? You really should have your cites in place. I did a Google search and could not find any such instance.
At this point it's your integrity on the line.
reubenr| 1.4.12 @ 2:07PM
Wow! Here we go again with another CATO update. Please! Get a grip. Your ideas are totally off the wall. What? We don't have enough contractors over seas making oodles off of Afghanistan? We need more? For a bunch of wusses that like to make war, they never seem to put their butts on the line. Wake up America.
Bob From District 9| 1.5.12 @ 3:47PM
"What? We don't have enough contractors over seas making oodles off of Afghanistan? "
Boy have you got that right!
Zbigniew Mazurak| 1.4.12 @ 3:24PM
There is a simpler solution.
Don't attack Iran at all. Use missile defense.
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 4:34PM
Or take out their missiles. Awful lot of explosions and accidents happenning in Iran these days, eh?
The Bruce| 1.5.12 @ 12:17AM
I'm sure missile defense will work wonderfully against pack-mules running suitcase nukes across our borders. Nice try.
Bob From District 9| 1.5.12 @ 3:43PM
Pack mules running suitcase nukes across our borders? Where are they attacking, the Grand Canyon?
How far can those pack mules swim?
Suitcase nukes are so hard to build and maintain the Soviet Union gave up on them long before it fell. Why would a low end beginner have any better luck?
Bob From District 9| 1.5.12 @ 3:46PM
The best part of that is, when Iran does *NOT* attack us we won't be guilty of any crimes.
Micah B. Haber| 1.4.12 @ 4:00PM
"The Republican contenders have said nothing about the issue. Almost all are claiming that they would be tough and vigorous commanders-in-chief. But none have said if they would follow the clear legal and constitutional restraints on the commander-in-chief."
Well, there is Ron Paul.
The Bruce| 1.5.12 @ 12:38AM
There's also Alice in Wonderland.
Picture this: NORAD spots a nuclear missile (or missiles) heading toward our homeland (or our allies) and Ron Paul demanding that the Congress vote on whether or not we respond. I'm sure that he, along with the Congress, will get that whole issue sewn up in about 10-28 minutes.
Tell you what, why don't we just hand over the Nuclear Football to you, since you believe in the hyper-competent government?
(Sarcasm, again, if you missed it): Who needs the Football when we have 536 people in the Federal Government that can come to a consensus in a national crisis, in under 28 minutes, along with a Presidential signature (or veto), in order to authorize/deny a nuclear launch against the enemy?????????????? (sarcasm off).
Can I have whatever it is you're smoking? Here's a clue for you: a "Declaration of War" doesn't involve the creation of an official certificate, laden in gold, and suitable for framing on some wall.
A Declaration of War simply involves the Congress authorizing the CinC (the President) to engage the government's military against a target determined by the Congress. That's it, end of story. And the Constitution doesn't lay out the terms in which the country engage in war or hostilities, other than it be authorized by the Congress. For example, the Constitution doesn't state that we (as a country) have to be attacked first before we can respond. The Congress can authorize war for any reason it deems necessary.
Try reading the Constitution for a change.
Bob From District 9| 1.5.12 @ 3:41PM
"Picture this: NORAD spots a nuclear missile (or missiles) heading toward our homeland"
The dishonesty and dishonor of the right wing displayed for all to see.
The War Powers Act was written just for such an eventuality. It was not written to launch a war against Iraq on the basis of lies and for profit.
The WPA gives the president 60 days to come to congress, a nuclear exchange will last more like 60 minutes. When I was there SAC had three minutes to get it's first nuclear armed bombers launched.
I have already posted my criticism of the commentary, but yours is so far out in left field, excuse the reversal, as to pretty well define absurdity.
Bob From District 9| 1.5.12 @ 3:45PM
"Well, there is Ron Paul."
I disagree with Ron Paul about, well... almost everything. However, in the candidate debates I found Ron Paul to be the only one giving honest answers to the questions.
That's one hell of a basis for endorsement.
I disagree with Ron Paul, but I know where he stands. None of you know where any of the others really stand on much of anything.
Stuart Koehl| 1.4.12 @ 9:34PM
A punitive expedition is hardly a war.
The Bruce| 1.5.12 @ 12:55AM
No need to argue semantics--neither term is defined in the Constitution. Whatever term you prefer to use, the use of "hostilities" or "war" is merely contingent on Congressional authorization.
And virtually every President (going back to Jefferson) has engaged in so-called "undeclared" wars, the exceptions being Obama and Truman (Libya, Somolia, and North Korea), the only three conflicts (that I'm aware of) where a President has gone to "war" without Congressional approval.
Bob From District 9| 1.5.12 @ 3:34PM
Yes, it is.
The Bruce| 1.5.12 @ 12:15AM
Pineda said, "If we get intelligence they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, then we will take whatever steps necessary to deal with it."
I guess he didn't see the photos on Iranian National Television of Ahmadinejad walking/inspecting through dozens of rows of centrifuges. Perhaps he missed Ahmadinejad's public statements of wanting to "wipe Israel off the map" or "We're pressing forward with our nuclear armament program."
Talk about inept. I guess he'll be pulling the lever for reality-denier Ron Paul.
Bob From District 9| 1.5.12 @ 3:36PM
"...walking/inspecting through dozens of rows of centrifuges."
Which are used to produce nuclear fuel, as well as weapons. In today's paper, Iran has announced they have produced their first *FUEL ROD*. I expect to see you right wingers pronouncing that one short step from a nuclear weapon.
(Hint... it's a very long step away.)
Bob From District 9| 1.5.12 @ 3:33PM
You got so much right, too bad you lack any credibility or clear sign of integrity.
It's easy to notice you did not condemn Reagan's Marine fiasco in Lebanon, which got enough Marines killed that he had to divert attention with his unlawful invasion of Grenada.
Nor did you take issue with Bush's invasion of Iraq, which was clearly illegal. True he got a conditional authorization to use force, but those conditions became voided when Saddam Hussein met every one of them. At which point Bush moved the goal posts. When Saddam met every condition Bush set he finally just ordered Saddam to leave his own country, gave him two weeks, and launched a war solely on that basis. All the prelude led up to war on Bush's orders. Nearly 4500 American military, and over 100,000 documented Iraqis died because Bush wanted a war.
You denounce Clinton and Obama for minor actions but fail to denounce Bush for his war for oil.
And so your credibility evaporates and you are left with no base on which to speak.
Too bad, you had so many good points, but lack the integrity to speak, as the Grand Jury instructions say, "Without fear or favor".
Richard Baker| 1.5.12 @ 9:16PM
Sounds as if the neo-America Firsters are in full bloom here. Last I heard, the oceans don't protect us anymore (I believe Yamamoto demonstrated) and since the world has become more "global" how do these decriers of our invovement worldwide suggest we respond? With a sharp note of protest? I guess Mr. Jefferson's response to the Barbary pirates in 1805 was unconstitutional, as well? The Louisiana Purchase?
POST American| 1.5.12 @ 11:32PM
----Putting aside this latest 'Ordo ob K---OZ'
sideshow---
AT home, the Globalist RED China
economic EUGENICS OP must suppress
the scandal of its plunder --uh-- we meant
VICK--tory.
-----------------------NDAA 1031------------------------
is passed on the 222nd Anniversary of the
Bill of Rights (after having been secretly
drafted by OBAMA'S people under, no doubt,
capstone Globalist direction).
SIGNED into law on New Year's EVE.
On the books, ON RECORD, open
authorization of the secret arrest,
'disappearance', torture, stripping
of citizenship ---of American citizens
here ----or ANYWHERE!
---------------------------BEYOND Nuremberg!
---AND ----BEFORE---------------------------------
Now, is that 1945? ----or 1934?
------------------TIME TO MOVE-----------------------
AllthewayAirborne| 1.6.12 @ 2:29AM
What a bunch of cowards you chicken-hawks all are. I'm not afraid of Iran, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Russia, or China. I'm a veteran like every man in my family. Dad, all the uncles, EVERY male cousin, and soon my little brother (August, USMC) have served. Not one of us sits around piddling ourselves over some Islamist pricks across the drink. We keep our gardens, chickens, and goats. We keep our wives and children. We keep our Church obligations. What do you people do? Why are you so afraid of Iranians that you're willing to kill them?
Correction: I know that YOU won't be doing any killing.
Maggie| 1.6.12 @ 8:51AM
They all are armchair chicken hawks who want to incenerate millions of innocent people who have NOT attacked us. They do not understand the brutality of war, they will sacrifice nothing to attain their lustfull dreams of more dead muslims.
mipolitic| 1.8.12 @ 2:04AM
yes your right, but if the usa or it buddies or bases or militay personal are attack , the standing order is defend your self and the pres then can determine if the threat continues to exsit at which time he can declare a war messures act and the game is on. and with the history iran has this would be easy. making war is easy getting out can be the hard part. 10 years at war so far.