• Moderator


  • Darn that liberal media taking all those pictures of stuff.

    But in order to show you the real winner in the Who Can Not Respond Correctly game you want to play:

    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050901/480/flpc21109012015

    Let’s see he got forced out of the…wait…horse judging arena? So like like totally qualifies him to run a federal agency whose mission is to co-ordinate action to national disaster zones…the mayor might have dropped the ball on the school bus action ( who was going to drive them again? ) but FEMA dropped the ball, the stadium and the planet itself by letting this mess spiral out of control for as long as it did.

  • Moderator

    I’m all for getting rid of FEMA.

    Infact I’m for getting rid of about 90% of the Federal gov’t.


  • Thank you…I think you finally see that at least I am not Bush bashing but pointing my anger at the real probably here - an agency that gets millions of dollars every year that was headed by someone with horse judging experience. I hear Paul Ruben’s is looking for work, maybe he is a worthy candidate. :D

    As far as getting rid of 90%, well…wouldn’t that put more power at the state level which you guys are saying was the bad thing here in this situation? Not trying to toss another bone but just saying…although trimming FEMA and removing HLS completely would be a nice healthy start to HUGE govt. savings.

  • Moderator

    From Drudge…

    WHITE HOUSE MULLED SEIZING RELIEF MISSION // Invoke the Insurrection Act? Bush’s senior advisers debated last week whether the president should seize control of the chaotic hurricane relief mission from the governor so that active-duty combat troops could be sent to enforce order… Developing…

  • Moderator

    To Haxor…

    Yes more power to States.

    Yes the State gov’t in LA failed in this case, IMO.
    Why? Becasue they looked immediately to Feds to bail them out, without having a plan in the meantime.

    But the more power locally the better. The more control you have as a voter.


  • Absolute power…you know how that goes. Have you looked at the problems most states face with budget managment alone? Now leave them on their own without Federal bailouts left and right and you would be in a giant mess. I believe we need to par out govt at the federal level but to cripple it would cripple the country IMO.

  • Moderator

    This is the Continuation of the Drudge headline. It linked to a NYTimes Story.

    _September 9, 2005
    Political Issues Snarled Plans for Troop Aid
    By ERIC LIPTON, ERIC SCHMITT
    and THOM SHANKER

    This article was reported and written by Eric Lipton, Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana’s governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush’s senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.

    For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort.

    Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco’s control. The debate was triggered as officials began to realize that Hurricane Katrina exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration’s senior homeland security officials, the hurricane showed the failure of their plan to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated and unable to act quickly until reinforcements arrive on the scene.

    As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. Interviews with officials in Washington and Louisiana show that as the situation grew worse, they were wrangling with questions of federal/state authority, weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis.

    To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Governor Blanco would have resisted surrendering control of the military relief mission as Bush Administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established. While troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.

    But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.

    “Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?” asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.

    Officials in Louisiana agree that the governor would not have given up control over National Guard troops in her state as would have been required to send large numbers of active-duty soldiers into the area. But they also say they were desperate and would have welcomed assistance by active-duty soldiers.

    “I need everything you have got,” Governor Blanco said she told Mr. Bush last Tuesday, when New Orleans flooded. In an interview, she acknowledged that she did not specify what sorts of soldiers. “Nobody told me that I had to request that. I thought that I had requested everything they had,” she said. “We were living in a war zone by then.”

    The governor illustrated her stance when, overnight Friday, she rejected a more modest proposal for a hybrid command structure in which both the Guard and active-duty troops would be under the command of an active-duty, three-star general - but only after he had been sworn into the Louisiana Guard.

    Also at issue was whether active-duty troops could respond faster and in larger numbers than National Guard soldiers.

    By last Wednesday, Pentagon officials said even the 82nd Airborne, which has a brigade on standby to move out within 18 hours - could not arrive any faster than 7,000 National Guard troops, which are specially trained and equipped for civilian law enforcement duties. In the end, the flow of thousands of National Guard soldiers, especially military police, was accelerated from other states.

    “I was there. I saw what needed to be done,” Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said in an interview. “They were the fastest, best-capable, most appropriate force to get there in the time allowed. And that’s what it’s all about.”

    But one senior Army officer expressed puzzlement that active-duty troops were not summoned sooner, saying that 82nd Airborne troops were ready to move out from Fort Bragg in North Carolina on Sunday, the day before the hurricane hit.

    But the call never came, in part because military officials believed National Guard troops would get there faster and because administration civilians were worried that there could be political fallout if federal troops were forced to shoot looters, administration officials said.

    Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, the director of operations for the military’s Joint Staff, said that the Pentagon in August streamlined a rigid, decades-old system of deployment orders to allow the Northern Command to dispatch liaisons to work with local officials in advance of an approaching hurricane.

    The Pentagon is reviewing events from the time the hurricane reached full strength and bore down on New Orleans and five days later when Mr. Bush ordered 7,200 active-duty soldiers and Marines to the scene.

    After the hurricane passed New Orleans and the levees broke, flooding the city, it became increasingly evident that disaster response efforts were badly bogged down.

    Justice Department lawyers, who were receiving harrowing reports from the area, considered whether active-duty military units could be brought into relief operations even if state authorities gave their consent - or even if they refused.

    The issue of federalizing the response was one of a number of legal issues considered in a flurry of meetings at the Justice Department, the White House and other agencies, administration officials said.

    Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales urged Justice lawyers to interpret the federal law creatively to assist local authorities. For example, federal prosecutors prepared to expand their enforcement of some criminal statutes like anti-carjacking laws that can be prosecuted by either state or federal authorities.

    On the issue of whether the military could be deployed without the invitation of state officials, the Office of Legal Counsel, the unit within the Justice Department that provides legal advice to federal agencies, concluded that the federal government did possess authority to move in even over the objection of local officials.

    This act was last invoked in 1992 for the Los Angeles riots, but at the request of Gov. Pete Wilson of California, and has not been invoked over a governor’s objections since the civil rights era - and before that, to the time of the Civil War, according to administration officials. Bush administration, Pentagon and senior military officials warned that such an extreme measure would have serious legal and political implications.

    Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said that deployment of National Guard soldiers to Iraq, including a brigade from Louisiana, did not affect the relief mission, but Governor Blanco said her state troops were missed. “Over the last year we have had about 5,000 out, at one time,” Governor Blanco said. “They are on active duty, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That certainly is a factor.”

    By Friday, National Guard reinforcements had arrived, and a truck convoy of 1,000 Guard soldiers brought relief supplies - and order - to the convention center area.

    Homeland Security officials say that the experience with Katrina has demonstrated flaws in the nation’s plans to handle disaster.

    “This event has exposed, perhaps ultimately to our benefit, a deficiency in terms of replacing first responders who tragically may be the first casualties,” Paul McHale, the assistant secretary of defense for homeland security, said.

    Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, has suggested the active-duty troops be trained and equipped to intervene if front-line emergency personnel are stricken. But the Pentagon’s leadership remains unconvinced that this plan is sound, suggesting instead that the national emergency response plans should be revised to draw reinforcements initially from civilian police, firefighters, medical personnel and hazardous-waste experts in other states not affected by a disaster.

    The federal government rewrote its national emergency response plan after the Sept. 11 attacks, but it relied on local officials to manage any crisis in its opening days. But Hurricane Katrina overwhelmed local “first responders,” including civilian police and the National Guard.

    At a news conference Saturday, Mr. Chertoff said: “The unusual set of challenges of conducting a massive evacuation in the context of a still dangerous flood, requires us to basically break the traditional model and create a new model, one for what you might call kind of an ultra-catastrophe. And that’s one in which we are using the military, still within the framework of the law, to come in and really handle the evacuation, handle all of the associated elements. And that, of course, frees the National Guard up to do a security mission.”

    Mr. McHale, while agreeing with the problem, offered different remedies. “It is foreseeable to envision a catastrophic explosion that would kill virtually every police officer within miles of the attack,” he said. “Therefore we are going to have to reexamine our ability to back-fill first responder capabilities that may be degraded or destroyed during the initial event.”

    He continued, “What we now have to look toward is perhaps a regional capability, probably within the civilian sector, that can be deployed to a city when that city’s infrastructure and first responder capability has been destroyed by the event itself.”

    Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker reported from Washington, and Eric Lipton from Baton Rouge, La., for this article. David Johnston contributed reporting._

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Mary:

    has no bearing on the fact that the Mayor and Govenor refused to declare a state of emergency through proper channels with proper paperwork and allow the President and his administration to use the funds and manpower already earmarked to assist to do their job.

    Because we all know Bush is a “paperwork” and “proper channels” kind of guy :roll:

    Oh, and being stunned for a few minutes after the first plane hit is perfectly understandable. Remaining shell-shocked after the SECOND plane hit is inexcusable. At the very least, I would want to know if my family is OK. After all, I’m the president, and this is an attack on America. Hmm, maybe my family is at risk? Maybe I should find out if they’re ok? Nah, gotta finish “My Pet Goat” first.

    Edit: Oh, listen to the newly released tapes from dispatchers on 9/11. Listen to them calmly go about their jobs as the planes crash and the buildings implode. You won’t find a single one that froze for even a minute. Now compare that to our Commander in Chief reading a child’s book for five minutes…

    But hey, there’s a saying: The American people deserve whoever they elect.

    The first plane could have been a fluke, a horrible accident. It wasn’t until the second plane that it became evident we were under attack on our own soil for the first time since the Civil War. That’s when shell shock occured FOR EVERYONE, yes, everyone. Was Bill Clinton on tv the instant after the first plane crash? no. Was the speaker of the house? How about the chairman of the joint cheifs of staff? Secretary of defense? Any general??? Why not? Because until the second crash IT WAS CONSIDERED AN ACCIDENT BY EVERYONE, not a terrorist attack.

    And yes, the President’s followed all the paperwork. He didn’t declare war on Iraq, Congress did. He didn’t declare war on Terrorism, Congress Did. He didn’t issue warrants for the arrest of Saddam Hussein or Ossama Bin Laden, the Supreme Court did.

    Open a law book, open a history book and turn off Michael Moore so maybe you get an actual fact once in a while, Mary.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @DarthMaximus:

    I’m all for getting rid of FEMA.

    Infact I’m for getting rid of about 90% of the Federal gov’t.

    A-men.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @DarthMaximus:

    To Haxor…

    Yes more power to States.

    Yes the State gov’t in LA failed in this case, IMO.
    Why? Becasue they looked immediately to Feds to bail them out, without having a plan in the meantime.

    But the more power locally the better. The more control you have as a voter.

    Wrong, they had a plan. They had numerous plans. They had plans from evacuation consultants with expert knowledge. They had plans from the Army corps of Engineers. They had self developed plans. They even had a special income tax on the population to fund the evacuation should disaster strike - a fund that no one can find at the moment…guess they didn’t look into the mayor’s trust funds…oh, sorry, did I just accuse a politician of stealing money???


  • ok, i don’t understand US politics - obviously. Little of this article actually made any sense to me.
    @DarthMaximus:

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana’s governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush’s senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.

    if this was San Fran and an earthquake, would this be necessary? And i didn’t get from the rest of the article why it would be “necessary to seize control” in order to make convoys and trains physically move faster and for troops to deploy faster.

    Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco’s control. The debate was triggered as officials began to realize that Hurricane Katrina exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration’s senior homeland security officials, the hurricane showed the failure of their plan to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated and unable to act quickly until reinforcements arrive on the scene.

    are these guys idiots? I mean 9/11 made it obviou that entire firehouses might be decimated in the event of a catastrophe. And again - you guys have hurricanes, torndados, earthquakes and volcanos. How is the possibility of local help being taken out not accounted for?? If anything, on the federal level, this is the only thing that should be accounted for (as on the local level one would hope that they would be working on the assumption of local forces being in play - presumably if they were out of commission, then so might the people who would only be able to command them (and not national guard types).

    As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. Interviews with officials in Washington and Louisiana show that as the situation grew worse, they were wrangling with questions of federal/state authority, weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis.

    To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Governor Blanco would have resisted surrendering control of the military relief mission as Bush Administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established. While troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.

    idiots.
    “we need help”
    “we can’t give you help as i need the legal authority of the insurrection act”
    “but there is an insurrection”
    “well, you may not want to let us help you by deploying troops before the chaos for which they are needed resolves”

    But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.

    “Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?” asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.

    it was ok in other people’s countries where they were actively killing people . . . .
    Anyway - why would it have been necessary to actually take command rather than say “can we help you and how? Here are the resources - do with them what you require”.

    The governor illustrated her stance when, overnight Friday, she rejected a more modest proposal for a hybrid command structure in which both the Guard and active-duty troops would be under the command of an active-duty, three-star general - but only after he had been sworn into the Louisiana Guard.

    the article does not say why she rejected this.

    But the call never came, in part because military officials believed National Guard troops would get there faster and because administration civilians were worried that there could be political fallout if federal troops were forced to shoot looters, administration officials said.

    so what would happen if they DIDN’T shoot looters? I guess things would be the same except there would be fewer looters (i’m not about to throw a chair through an electronics store window with a dozen solders down the street).

    The Pentagon is reviewing events from the time the hurricane reached full strength and bore down on New Orleans and five days later when Mr. Bush ordered 7,200 active-duty soldiers and Marines to the scene.

    why did it take 5 days? This makes no sense. Either they weren’t needed - in which case why send them, or they were needed right away - in which case why wait??

    Justice Department lawyers, who were receiving harrowing reports from the area, considered whether active-duty military units could be brought into relief operations even if state authorities gave their consent - or even if they refused.

    “ring . . . hello? would you like some active-duty military units?”
    “YES! PLEASE!!”
    that did not take so much consideration, i don’t think.

    Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said that deployment of National Guard soldiers to Iraq, including a brigade from Louisiana, did not affect the relief mission, but Governor Blanco said her state troops were missed. “Over the last year we have had about 5,000 out, at one time,” Governor Blanco said. “They are on active duty, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That certainly is a factor.”

    By Friday, National Guard reinforcements had arrived, and a truck convoy of 1,000 Guard soldiers brought relief supplies - and order - to the convention center area.

    i’m amazed that the effects of having 5000-odd solders in the middle east was even a question - especially given that they might actually have been there at day 0 rather than waiting to get 1000 troops . . . .

    “This event has exposed, perhaps ultimately to our benefit, a deficiency in terms of replacing first responders who tragically may be the first casualties,” Paul McHale, the assistant secretary of defense for homeland security, said.

    Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, has suggested the active-duty troops be trained and equipped to intervene if front-line emergency personnel are stricken. But the Pentagon’s leadership remains unconvinced that this plan is sound, suggesting instead that the national emergency response plans should be revised to draw reinforcements initially from civilian police, firefighters, medical personnel and hazardous-waste experts in other states not affected by a disaster.

    again - this is pretty sad. One would expect at the federal level that they would look at exactly this scenario. Especially in light of 9/11. In fact - i would be looking at not only scenarios where the local help is taken out, but various layers of potential help is crippled. Afterall - the pentagon kind of absorbed a bit of damage on 9/11 - why not assume that a future terrorist attack would be even nastier? On a local or even state or federal level??


  • And yes, the President’s followed all the paperwork. He didn’t declare war on Iraq, Congress did. He didn’t declare war on Terrorism, Congress Did. He didn’t issue warrants for the arrest of Saddam Hussein or Ossama Bin Laden, the Supreme Court did.

    Open a law book, open a history book and turn off Michael Moore so maybe you get an actual fact once in a while, Mary.

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.int.bush.transcript/

    “On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein’s ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign.”

    Here’s a lawsuit arguing that Bush should NOT have the authority to declare war: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/14/cf.opinion.jackson.lawsuit/

    “WASHINGTON (CNN) – A group of lawyers, soldiers and parents went to court in Boston to ask a judge to issue an injunction against President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to keep them from attacking Iraq unless Congress declares war.”

    I don’t know how or why the moderators still let you post. This is just trolling. It took about 10 seconds to Google some links to prove you wrong yet again.


  • Jenn … you got something totally mixed up there:

    @Jennifer:

    FDR - Biggest national debt in US History with ramifactions still not seen today

    Reagan - Saved us from nuclear annihilation

    They are the other way round.
    FDR saved you from nuclear annihilation by waging war against the axis and creating the bomb first.
    Reagan drove you close to bankruptcy by overspending on the military while having a stupid economic policy that relied on tax breaks for the rich and incurring more and more debts on the state/nation.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Mary, did you miss that entire Congressional Declaration of War? The details on how to fight the war are up to the President, but he still waited for the DOW. Really, that’s like saying that the Lieutenant is running the police department because he decided to collect the evidence first instead of capture the murderer.

    CC: You are a bit confused. The need of the Insurrection Act was to wrest control from the Governor and FORCE Federal aid down her throat. Otherwise, he had to legall wait until she finally declared, by official decree, that a state of emergency existed in New Orleans before he could send military forces in. This isn’t Canada or Europe or a 3rd world nation. We have many, MANY laws preventing the government from ever using active duty, federal militias against the population of this country. Rather, we reserve that wholey and completely to the national guards, police and federal police forces (FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF, etc…though the CIA isn’t really a police force.)

    I’m not saying that other countries can order infantrymen into the streets to machine gun their populations. Frankly, I care so little about the military state of affairs of other countries, I really have no idea what your laws are. I’m just stating, that the Insurrection Act is the ONLY piece of legislation in existance that grants the President of the United States (with Congressional approval) the authority to declare martial law and invade the state. I believe it was created to give Abraham Lincoln permission to quell the uprisings in the confederacy.

    F_alk:

    All debts incurred by all social programs instituted by FDR are his debts. Thus, he created the largest US debt in history. None of FDR’s new deal worked, all it did was continually wrack up more and more debt for this nation, but it did make the population feel better because they were doing something - ineffective somethings, but something none-the-less. The only thing that brought us out of the depression was WWII and I guess we should thank the Axis powers for that because without hte war, we probably would have been in depression until the 50s - according to many leading econoomists.

    And for the record, the best thing FDR did was create the FDIC which insurred bank accounts. And that only becuase it cost next to nothing to institute and had the same benefit of making the people think we were making progress.

    Reagan killed the Soviet Union and brought peace in his time, thus saving us from nuclear annihilation - the same annihilation that Kennedy and Carter and Johnson and everyone else between Truman and Reagan couldn’t save us from.

    Please, when referring to US Presidents, at least open a book.

  • Moderator

    CC,

    Jen laid it out pretty good regarding Federal intervention in States.

    Yes it is a bit combersome and annoying to say

    Pres: We can help
    Gov: Good we need help
    Gov: We “officially” authorize the use of Fed troops in this state
    Pres: Fed troops are now under control of the Gov
    Gov: Thank you. Now troops do this, that and the other…

    But this is how it works in the US.

    The Pres at no time (barring special orders ie Insurrection Act or whatever), can enter a State with Federal troops under the command of the Pres.

    I think this is obvious as to why this could lead to HUGE problems.

    Any President at any time could then say the smallest little rainstorm or whatever is a disaster and start taking control of States with Federal troops. This is bad.

    The whole point of having States is to act as a buffer to the Federal gov’t.

    The Gov is always in control of his/her state. Period.
    With the exception of the Insurrection Act or I suppose the Gov could reliquish power, but even then it would go to the LT Gov.

    Presidents can’t simply order Fed troops and take control of States.

  • Moderator

    Mary,

    For the millionth time CONGRESS GAVE BUSH THE AUTHORITY TO USE FORCE. Ie, go to war, to commit troops in iraq, to commit troops to enforce UN resolutions. Pick your terms, I don’t care which one you call it, but CONGRESS GAVE BUSH THE AUTHORITY. If you have a problem you should take it up with your Congressmen.

    From OCT 10, 2002

    http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/iraq.us/

    EDIT:

    Spelling

    Also this is Oct 10 2002 which predates your article, which is why Bush says I commit troops blah blah blah in your article. He IS the Commander in Chief of the US army.

    EDIT 2:

    I don’t know how or why the moderators still let you post. This is just trolling. It took about 10 seconds to Google some links to prove you wrong yet again.

    I think that comment is unnecessary.

    It only took me about one second to do a google search and prove YOU WRONG. So are you now a troll?

    Ya gotta stop listening to Moore or Franken or any of those other kooks who spew that garbage.

    Edit 3

    Your piece about the lawyers is an opinion piece. They say argue against, but it is just not the case. I’m guessing this case was thrown out or at the very least went nowhere as we did go to war in March of that year and it was Congress who authorized it and Gave Bush the power to Commit troops.

    You can quibble of wording all you want, no it wasn’t an Official Dec of War, however it gave Bush the power to use force/commit troops, etc. I don’t know signs like a Dec of War to me, but we won’t call it that.

    On a historical note I don’t believe we have had a Declartion of War in this Country since WW2.

  • Moderator

    Getting sick of Editting, but this will be my last post on Iraq and War resolutions. As they are off topic.

    This is a loink of when the US has had a Dec of War and when it hasn’t. and in the case of no, they list what gave the authority, ie Tonkin Resolution etc.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

    Here’s the link for the War in Iraq from the same site:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq

    Again, both the House and Senate voted to give Bush the power.
    Take this up with your Senators and Congressmen if you dissapprove, but don’t blame Bush when he clearly got approval from Congress.

    As I said this will be my last post on Iraq in this thread, and sorry for any of my derailing, however I had to set the record straight and correct lies when I see them.


  • Darth, giving authority to go to war and declaring war are two different things. Congress did not declare war on Iraq. Bush did. Find a link if you think otherwise.


  • Jen, find just one news site with “Congress declares war on Iraq”, and link it here. Otherwise, STFU because you have no clue what you’re talking about.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

31

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts