Govt. Response to Katrina

[Mary]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Jennifer]

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.

[DarthMaximus]

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.

[DarthMaximus]

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.

[DarthMaximus]

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.

[Mary]

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.

[Mary]

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.

[DarthMaximus]

I’m breaking my own rule. :D

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.

I fail to see how.

Whatever. I provided links show how Congress Authorized the use of force.

And Links as to when Dec of War was used. Which was last in WW2.

There was no Dec of War for Korea, Vietnam, Gulf 1, among other conflicts since 1950.

You can quibble about wording all you want, but the authorization WAS given by Congress to the Pres.

It is like the thing with China in Apr of 01, does Regret mean I’m sorry. It is semantics.

Use of Force means war, what did these Congressmen/women think they were doing. If they didn’t know what they were voting for they should be removed for incompetence.

I think this is an issue that the Dems must sort out amongst themselves.
You should be mad at the Dems who gave the authority and try to remove them from office if you feel it was wrong.

Getting mad at Bush does you no good. If your elected Democrat officials go against what you believe you have to start voting for some different people.

[Guest]

@Jennifer:

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.

Maybe you should look up “annihilation” as deeply as you looked up “tax evasion”- If they did not save you from annihilation … how comes you can still keep annoying me with your postings?

Anyway … i am so tired of your senseless blablabla. Go to the army, go to war … i don’t care as long as you just go.

[Mary]

@DarthMaximus:

I’m breaking my own rule. :D

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.

I fail to see how.

Whatever. I provided links show how Congress Authorized the use of force.

And Links as to when Dec of War was used. Which was last in WW2.

There was no Dec of War for Korea, Vietnam, Gulf 1, among other conflicts since 1950.

You can quibble about wording all you want, but the authorization WAS given by Congress to the Pres.

It is like the thing with China in Apr of 01, does Regret mean I’m sorry. It is semantics.

Use of Force means war, what did these Congressmen/women think they were doing. If they didn’t know what they were voting for they should be removed for incompetence.

I think this is an issue that the Dems must sort out amongst themselves.
You should be mad at the Dems who gave the authority and try to remove them from office if you feel it was wrong.

Getting mad at Bush does you no good. If your elected Democrat officials go against what you believe you have to start voting for some different people.

So you agree Congress did not declare war on Iraq. That’s all I wanted.

[Guest]

You people are hopeless, this thread is about the Hurricane, NOT THE WAR!!!

[Mary]

@DarthMaximus:

I’m breaking my own rule. :D

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.

I fail to see how.

Whatever. I provided links show how Congress Authorized the use of force.

And Links as to when Dec of War was used. Which was last in WW2.

There was no Dec of War for Korea, Vietnam, Gulf 1, among other conflicts since 1950.

You can quibble about wording all you want, but the authorization WAS given by Congress to the Pres.

It is like the thing with China in Apr of 01, does Regret mean I’m sorry. It is semantics.

Use of Force means war, what did these Congressmen/women think they were doing. If they didn’t know what they were voting for they should be removed for incompetence.

I think this is an issue that the Dems must sort out amongst themselves.
You should be mad at the Dems who gave the authority and try to remove them from office if you feel it was wrong.

Getting mad at Bush does you no good. If your elected Democrat officials go against what you believe you have to start voting for some different people.

Giving someone the power to use force does not = using force yourself. The state of California authorizes police officers to use force when necessary. Does that mean California beat up Rodney King? Lol.

Congress was told Iraq had WMD’s, ties to Al Queda, and was on the verge of getting a nuke. Rather than DECLARE WAR on Iraq, they gave Bush authority to DECLARE WAR, shifting the repsonsibility of DECLARING WAR to the White House. The hope was, if Saddam knew that Bush can DECLARE WAR himself, perhaps Saddam will finally comply with all resolutions.*

*Some phrases were highlighted for clarity.

Now, do I blame Congress? To some extent, yes. They were too trusting that Bush would use diplomacy, instead of rushing to war like he did. But blame ultimately lies with those who lied to Congress, chose to go to war, and had no clue what to do after we “won”: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.

[Janus1]

Giving someone the power to use force does not = using force yourself. The state of California authorizes police officers to use force when necessary. Does that mean California beat up Rodney King? Lol.

president bush AND congress give the soldiers the authority to kill iraqi soldiers and insurgents in iraq. does that mean president bush and congress killed iraqi soldiers and insurgents?

if your paying such attention to detail, you should note that Bush didnt declare war either, since he is not capable. only congress can declare war. under the war powers act, the president can use the military for up to 90 days i think, but then he must be authorized by congress to extend that. so yes, congress authorized bush to use force, and no, bush did NOT declare war.

[Mary]

@Janus1:

Giving someone the power to use force does not = using force yourself. The state of California authorizes police officers to use force when necessary. Does that mean California beat up Rodney King? Lol.

president bush AND congress give the soldiers the authority to kill iraqi soldiers and insurgents in iraq. does that mean president bush and congress killed iraqi soldiers and insurgents?

if your paying such attention to detail, you should note that Bush didnt declare war either, since he is not capable. only congress can declare war. under the war powers act, the president can use the military for up to 90 days i think, but then he must be authorized by congress to extend that. so yes, congress authorized bush to use force, and no, bush did NOT declare war.

The Authorization of Force bill that Congress passed gave Bush the authority to use the military against Iraq, which he did very quickly. He might not have said, “Thus I declare war on Iraq”, but it was the White House that ordered “Shock and Awe” to begin. Once the bombs start dropping, you’re at war.

Once again: Congress gives Bush authority to attack. Congress did not order the invasion. Bush did.

[DarthMaximus]

Of Course!
Bush IS the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. that is his job. It is laid out in the Constitution.

Of course he tells the army where to go. Ultimately Generals/Admirals/etc advise the Pres and the Pres makes the call, that is what the Commander in Chief does.

Congress Authorized the use of force against Saddam.
But Congress can’t tell the Army what to do, only the Pres can.

[Mary]

Yes, both Bush and Congress were necessary conditions for the Iraq war- one to give authority and the other to actually use it. But Other factors tip the balance of blame over to Bush: It was his party in control of both houses of Congress, and the Bush administration either misstated the reasons for going to war or out-and-out lied.

[DarthMaximus]

Becaue you do not agree with it, or choose to focus in on only one reason (wmd) does not make it a lie.

From the Wiki link - reasons listed in war resolution:

_The act cited several factors to justify a war:

Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire
Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region”
Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population”
Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”
Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of George Bush Sr, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Iraq’s connection to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda
Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States_

I do not know why some people are so eager to defend Saddam. Who cares why he was removed. It is a good thing he is out of power.

[stuka pilot]

@marine36:

You people are hopeless, this thread is about the Hurricane, NOT THE WAR!!!

Your buddy Jen brought it up by comparing the two.

[Mary]

@DarthMaximus:

Becaue you do not agree with it, or choose to focus in on only one reason (wmd) does not make it a lie.

From the Wiki link - reasons listed in war resolution:

_The act cited several factors to justify a war:

Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire
Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region”
Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population”
Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”
Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of George Bush Sr, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Iraq’s connection to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda
Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States_

I do not know why some people are so eager to defend Saddam. Who cares why he was removed. It is a good thing he is out of power.

Without WMD’s, nukes, and links to Al Queda, an invasion of Iraq never would have taken place. Those were THE defining reasons for going to war.

And if anyone is eager to “defend” Saddam, it was America, back in the 80’s. Ever seen that picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand? Or the weapons we supplied Hussein with? He was the same bad guy back then as he was in 2002.