Here’s my latest post at the Borg Blog:
So here we are, four years and four months into an unconstitutional war in Iraq - one declared a victory in dramatic fashion by President George W. Bush less than two months into it. His words on that day, May 1, 2003, are unforgettable: “major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” and “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on.” Yet major operations in Iraq still go on; in fact, they have experienced a “surge” in the past few months. The war on terror goes on, and whether or not the “battle” of Iraq was ever legitimately a part of it, it has certainly not been won, either.
Three news stories illustrate all too well where we are in Iraq and the wider war on terror today…
READ MORE
*****
(Eric Langborgh is the author of Borg Blog and the director of development for the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU). His views and comments expressed at the Control Congress blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent those of the ACRU, unless so specified.)
Posted by Eric Langborgh
on Thursday, July 12th, 2007 at 3:29 pm | under Bush, In The News, Iraq, Terrorism | |RSS 2.0 feed |
Comments and pings closed.
|
July 12th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
We are buying genocide of brown people that do not go along with the new world order of pornography in shops in Bagdad, where there used to be none. Whore houses can now freely operate with Sadam gone. A guy I talked to told me that the strict Muslim believers do not want the filth that this new democracy is forcing down their throats. This is what is causing the resistance.
Why do we as a Country have a right to say ok we are the righteous Country with all of our filth, crime and corruption to say we are going to remove dictators that we do not like, and give them freedom American style.
It is all done for the sake of control and for the fat cats to syphon off tax money faster than we can print it. All of the neocons will one day burn in hell for a century of waging war against innocent people. I am glad that I will not face the wrath that they oneday face.
And any Christian after weighing all of the evidence that continues to support this war for pure political reasons shall rot in hell, too. It is disgusting and I know that if the Democrats had got us into this war, all of the war mongers in the GOP would be anti-war activists. I am sick of the partisan politics, and I think everyone in Congress that voted for this war including the President should be impeached. I am fed up!
July 12th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
When you personally know four mothers who have lost a son in Iraq, it makes you dig deeper into why we are in this war. I weep for my Gold Star Mothers that are my friends, and the President is repsonsible for sending them to die for a lie. And you know what I voted for President Bush twice and admired him so much. I know that many may call me a traitor to his presidency for speaking and writing these words.
But no amount of money can bring my friends’ sons back, and had they died for real WMD and had Sadam been the threat that the Bush administration told us he was, then I would feel that they died for a a reason. Yes, they died because they were willing to give their life for their Country and to defend the Constitution. But in actually, they all died to make the military industrial complex survive. You all watch the people who work at bases and defense contractors continue to vote for a candidate that says we need to bomb Iran. Yeah, go, go, go and kill some more. Let us ethnically cleanse as many Arabs that we can wipe off the face of the earth.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
The victory or “mission accomplished” was real. We did win that war. Only those who don’t understand that we had two separate missions say that the statements of victory or “mission accomplished” were wrong.
It is the current mission of establishing a democracy and new government as an authority over Iraq that is not accomplished. It is the rebuilding of Iraq that isn’t accomplished. It is the ending of civil strive between Sunni and Shiite that hasn’t been and won’t be accomplished until they themselves, desire peace.
Saddam successfully attacked the U.S. but did it through its currency and because he did have WMD (whether degraded or not at the time, or shipped out our not, or hidden or not, etc) and did have a Nuclear research program going on even though he had no actual nuclear material to test the research with, and did fire on our planes, fund and train terrorists and do other things in 100% violation of an ongoing war that had been going on for a decade, the President and Congress did have the Constitutional right to use “force” even without declaring actual war. Until that determination that “force” short of war is unconstitutional, the ruling of the legal council on that issue will stand.
We may very well have attacked Saddam because of his successful attack on the U.S. through its currency but, still, all the violations of the cease fire in the ongoing war were there and that is what Clinton used to authorize his Bombing of Iraq in his Administration.
Incompetent or ill-advised is not unconstitutional. Also, Congress has never lost its power to impeach an incompetent Commander in Chief and that could still be an option they choose if they think the American people will support it.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Jan,
It is an unconstitutional war b/c there was no congressional declaration of war. See the conversation under this post - http://tinyurl.com/2d24lg - esp. my comments in #6, 27, 28, and 29, as well as Shadeclan’s in #42
July 12th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
That’s http://tinyurl.com/2d24lg
July 12th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Congress doesn’t have to declare war. The Constitution only requires that the military be called into “actual service” and doesn’t even mention war in that statement. While Congress has the power to declare war, that isn’t the only use of force constitutional.
Again, whether you are right or not, doesn’t matter because the “legal council’s” ruling has never reached the Supreme Court and been overruled.
Quote:
THE PRESIDENT’S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM
The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.
The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
September 25, 2001
snip——————-
Some commentators have read the constitutional text differently. They argue that the vesting of the power to declare war gives Congress the sole authority to decide whether to make war. (6) This view misreads the constitutional text and misunderstands the nature of a declaration of war. Declaring war is not tantamount to making war - indeed, the Constitutional Convention specifically amended the working draft of the Constitution that had given Congress the power to make war. An earlier draft of the Constitution had given to Congress the power to “make” war. When it took up this clause on August 17, 1787, the Convention voted to change the clause from “make” to “declare.”
snip——————–
Finally, the Framing generation well understood that declarations of war were obsolete. Not all forms of hostilities rose to the level of a declared war: during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Great Britain and colonial America waged numerous conflicts against other states without an official declaration of war. (8) As Alexander Hamilton observed during the ratification, “the ceremony of a formal denunciation of war has of late fallen into disuse.” The Federalist No. 25, at 133 (Alexander Hamilton). Instead of serving as an authorization to begin hostilities, a declaration of war was only necessary to “perfect” a conflict under international law.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm
=====================
Until that ruling is taken up by the Supreme Court and ruled otherwise, it is constitutional just as another legal council’s interpretation saying the opposite would be constitutional until ruled differently. We have had laws that were “constitutional” for over 100 years be ruled “unconstitutional” and vice versa as we saw in the New Deal Supreme Court rulings where the court suddenly started ruling FDR’s policies constitutional they had previously ruled “unconstitutional.”
In other words, “constituional” is what the Court interprets it to be as far as “official” acts go. We will always have some people say the opposite because “interpretation” has changed on many things.
Quote
When the three unanimous Supreme Court rulings against New Deal programs were announced on May 27, 1935, New Dealers called it “Black Monday.” Speaking with reporters, Roosevelt lashed out against the court, complaining of its “horse-and-buggy” mentality. Clearly, he believed that the justices were locked into a view of the Constitution that did not take into account the economic crisis then facing the nation. In the months that followed, FDR’s fears grew that the Supreme Court would totally gut the New Deal, including such landmark legislation as the Social Security Act and the National Labor Relations Act.
snip————–
In the midst of the “court-packing” fight, a series of unexpected events occurred that finally sank FDR’s court-reform bill. On March 29, 1937, the Supreme Court reversed itself and upheld a state minimum-wage law very similar to laws that the court had previously struck down. This case was decided by another 5–4 vote. But this time the four conservative justices were in the minority. Shortly afterward, the Supreme Court ruled as constitutional both the Social Security Act and the National Labor Relations Act, two key pieces of New Deal legislation. These cases, too, were decided by slim 5–4 majorities.
For some reason, Justice Owen Roberts decided to switch sides in these cases, thus providing the three liberals along with Chief Justice Hughes a bare one-vote majority.
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria10_4.html
=================
Whether you agree or not, like it or not, the “constitutionality” is not up to the people. It is decided on by a few lawyers and/or Judges. The legal council “has ruled” and that is all the President has to have until or unless the Courts should overrule them.
If as you say, it is unconstitutional (and many in and out of Congress agree with you that it is), why hasn’t it been challenged and why haven’t we had a ruling on it?
Just like some of the wiretapping or searches or other issues that bother so many of us, why haven’t those issues been presented to the Court for clarification? Are they afraid they wouldn’t like the ruling and that it would be “locked in stone” until a new Court was in place?
Right now, with two Bush Appointments and two conservatives and a swing vote that has lately been going with those Justices, maybe they are afraid to challenge the legal council’s ruling.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
LINDA,
The only traitors are those who knowingly violate our Constitution, and others who enable, support and defend their actions.
Why did we attack Iraq? We still don’t know.
Why was the war conducted so badly? Well, we know a bit more about that.
Who should be held responsible? That’s a no-brainer.
What should we do now? The toughest one of all.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Jan Paul,
How can we have “mission accomplished” when we still don’t know the original reason for launching this war? Oh, sure, there have been dozens of “reasons” cited at various times (literally: 27, if I remember correctly), but none that rings true.
Can’t have victory without an objective.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Jan,
If the Supreme Court rules something constitutional, but the Constitution itself says something else, that doesn’t make what the High Court ruled on constitutional, it means that the High Court is wrong. The Court has reversed previous decisions before, and it will again.
Incidentally, it is not just the Justices who are responsible for upholding the Constitution. Every elected official swears an oath to that effect. So does the military and new citizens. And since elected officials are our representatives, ultimate responsibility for upholding the Constitution comes down to the citizen. If we abdicate our authority, or no longer care, the Constitution become an empty parchment, as Madison put it. Which is why we are to exercise eternal vigilance if we are to keep this Republic. Jefferson, Franklin and the rest of the Founders did not place the responsibility with the elite; they placed it with the citizen, the whole body politic from which the government derives its just powers.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
The objective was to take Saddam Hussein out and end the sale of oil in euros by him. That was accomplished. The rest was smoke and mirrors. Saddam sealed his own fate and many predicted it when he started selling oil in euros and hurt the U.S. dollar by doing so.
Remember the criticism on doing that and how it changed to praise when the other nations saw how successful he was by that move? Remember he was the only nation that had the nerve to do what others had only talked about doing.
The President felt he had to be removed and he was. Everything after that was after the mission had been accomplished and of course, he hoped democracy would take over and Iran and other nations would see such a robust economy in Iraq, they would all fall in line even if they didn’t want to. He believe the common people would see the “success of democracy” and growing wealth of Iraqi’s as something they had to have in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. But, that was the current goal and it is slipping fast.
I don’t think that most believed the WMD as being the real objective even though it was something Saddam had used and still had stockpiles of, degraded or not, small or not. But, they made a good excuse that the U.N. supported and used to authorize the force that was used to end the sale of oil in euros.
I think most see the objectives very clearly then and now. However, the President doesn’t provide us with his real objectives anymore than those who oppose a victory in Iraq in Congress provide theirs. Thus, it is a “no win” war because even our own government is destroying our chances at victory as we warned the GOP would happen when this support of the new government first began and the first protests of the anti-war liberals was sounded. Since we knew what would happen and the chain of events that would take place from the history of the political in-fighting during Vietnam, we knew it would happen again and the results would be what we are seeing now.
We have had unsound foreign, monetary and domestic polices for decades now so why should this time be any different? When a nation is in denial that it is on the wrong economic and political course, none of this is very surprising but it is typical of a nation in decline.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Correct Eric but as you saw, the Constitution didn’t say something else. It only said the “actual service” of the military, not war was necessary to cause the President to have Commander in Chief powers.
It is that term, “actual service” that is subject to interpretation by both sides.
Also, you are correct about the Court, but, until it does reverse itself, the government is required by the Constitution to treat the ruling as “law” and “Constitutional” until they replace those Justices either through Congressional removal or they are replaced when they retire.
Congress does have the obligation but as long as it doesn’t have the will it will stand as constitutional. And as long as Congress is split where about 1/2 favor and 1/2 don’t favor this power of a “commander in chief,” they won’t have the will or power to change the Court.
What you and I believe is or isn’t Constitutional doesn’t matter. The Constitution and our founders set in place a series of events that must take place before something being done is held “unconstitutional” and until those events happen, we are bound to follow those things in dispute even while protesting them or suffer the consequences.
Given the current makeup of the Court, I wouldn’t bet either way on what they would rule because it would probably come down to one person. Four would rule it was constitutional and four would rule it wasn’t and one person would decide the future for us.
I think both sides fear that possibility.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
We’re buying enemies. Without them, our empire is rudderless. The USSR stabbed us in the back by folding, and since there was relative peace in the 90s, a quick lesson was learned that enemies weren’t just going to create themselves.
Like the Doozers on Fraggle Rock, we have to produce and use the death instruments or else they pile up and people have to get laid off.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:42 am
http://tinyurl.com/3axho4
This video has some bad language in it just a little. I got it on Lewrockwell.com. We had a super Ron Paul Meetup tonight with over 25 people there. Everyone is so motivated, and to have that big a group for the first meeting in Macon is something. Many of us will go to SC, too on the 21st. Thanks, John, for the space to comment! Have a super Friday!
July 13th, 2007 at 6:56 am
Jan,
Re: your #10 - it does matter, because we can educate others, mobilize, and vote accordingly. As to what the Constitution does in fact say, I refer to the linked comments I provided in #5.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Jan Sez:The objective was to take Saddam Hussein out and end the sale of oil in euros by him. That was accomplished.
How interesting a concept. If what Jan says is accurate (i.e., Saddam was wielding an economic war of sorts with us), then, HELL, let’s go send some missiles over to China and Japan for their production of goods with really cheap labor.
AND, let’s go take-out Mexico as well because the labor and capital costs there are also really really low.
And, hey, why not extend the same logic to price wars between companies like Coke and Pepsi? Pepsi cannot compete with Coke on the taste, but if they go take-out a few of Coke’s syrup-producing factories as a strategic move (via some well-paced bombs), they could grab a HUGE market share.
Jan’s right! We should be attacking MORE countries, damn it!
July 13th, 2007 at 9:19 am
“well-placed” bombs, I mean.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Bill, don’t think some in Washington wouldn’t like to do that. Also, many are saying that the only reason we are ramping up rhetoric on Iran is due to their move from the dollar to the euro for their sales of oil. Venezuela, of course is also an “enemy” not because of Chavez’s relationship with Castro but because he too is moving oil away from the dollar.
However, the problem they have is two-fold. Where as they were already in a decade long war with Iraq and only under a cease-fire that any violation of could “justify” a resumption of the war, we don’t have the same excuses with other nation nor can we get support from the U.N. or other needed allies nor do we have the manpower we need for a multifaceted war. We don’t even have enough troops for Iraq.
Since it is no longer just one nation, Iraq, striking us economically, we also have little choice but to let it happen. This is the result of decades of bad policy and decisions on how to fix bad policy with even worse policies.
As Eric has pointed out in the “Constitutional” issue of fighting wars and how not declaring war hamstrings the military, many other things we do have prevented us from continuing as a “superpower.” That doesn’t make what we did “unconstitutional” but it does make what we did very unwise.
Eric states “we can educate others, mobilize, and vote accordingly” but that doesn’t work in a nation where the voters are so dependent on government they want more, not less government. We have educated for decades that socialism doesn’t work in the long run and the short term benefits aren’t worth the long term downside. Yet, voters think more of the here and now as evidenced by the declining savings trend and the 52% that now get some type of funding from government. The growing number of government jobs while manufacturing declines the number of jobs it provides is all part of a trend that indicates the growing dependence on government.
While many would love to bomb China, and any other country competing with us, they seem to be reluctant to “bomb” the bad policies we have that keep us from being competitive. They also refuse to change foreign policy and dependence on foreign oil, other resources and loans to fund our deficit spending.
We are basically falling into the same trap that brought Russia down. We will collapse economically to the point we can’t afford to be an “empire” anymore. Remember, even our own government is predicting this course of events, not just some financial web site or analyst.
The social security admin is calling for an immediate 16% increase in S.S. tax and 121% increase in Medicare tax to keep those programs viable but, the voters we need to “educate” don’t want more taxes coming from their paychecks and if they put the tax on business it will drive more out of the U.S. or raise prices and reduce buying power.
The GAO say we are facing a gradual if not sudden loss of standard of living. Fed Chairman Bernanke says “we are in the calm before the storm.”
The GAO also puts the unfunded liability for each full time worker at $400,000 which is up from $160,000 just 6 years ago and it grows each day that Congress doesn’t reform social security and Medicare.
As the dollar continues to fall in value, it means every American can get pay raises and still be making less in real buying power. We are now the “cheap place” for Irish and British shoppers. Recently, after Ireland passed us in per capita wealth, the Irish government asked their citizens to go to other countries like the U.S. to spend their money so they didn’t drive up prices in Ireland.
Ireland which has higher wages than we do, has seen a huge rise in manufacturing and is able to compete in several sectors with Asia, we aren’t able to compete in. Those who blame China and other nations should be asking why other nations can compete with them but we can’t. The problem lies here, not overseas but, all the education is falling on deaf ears because the voters don’t want to hear what is being said nor are they willing or prepared for the sacrifices that will be needed to get us back on course.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Heritage Foundation and the Weekly Standard will start making the case for war with Pakistan.
The Unocal pipeline cannot be secured if that country is going to become more chaotic by the month.
War with Iran isn’t selling well these days. Although, there will be an ammendment in the next Iraq bill that “condemns Iran” over whatever nonsense we have instigated with them. So who knows?
July 14th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“If This Is The “Cost Of Freedom,” What Are We Buying?”
I don’t know, but I’ll take two of them.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
[…] If This Is The “Cost Of Freedom,” What Are We Buying? […]