PDA

View Full Version : Bush says Iraq = Viet Nam --- Politically smart move?


Taco John
08-23-2007, 01:40 AM
I've been thinking about this off and on, and I can't figure out what these guys are doing. Did Rove leaving make them utter morons, or is there some sort of workable political strategery in play here?

Is there some sort of benefit in invoking the Viet Nam name and equating it to the Iraq war, after Bush supporters have fought so long to distance the two wars?

I'm not seeing it.


What say you?

jAZ
08-23-2007, 02:01 AM
What can it hurt. That's gotta be what they say at just about every turn at this point.

Makes sense from their POV.

Taco John
08-23-2007, 02:30 AM
What can it hurt. That's gotta be what they say at just about every turn at this point.

Makes sense from their POV.



I think it cements public opinion against the war. How can you draw Vietnam comparisons "in a good way"? There's got to be some sort of functional rationale... doesn't there?

...and if not, it's an incredibly, stunningly, just awfully dumb move. Not that we haven't gotten used to those.

Bob Dole
08-23-2007, 03:29 AM
Some of us have been saying it's Vietnam all over again since about a week after the Iraqis pulled down the statue of Saddam. And you can spin it any way you want, but the responsibility falls squarely on the American public.

Bob Dole doesn't need a daily death toll, and Bob Dole doesn't feel the need to influence the military's day-to-day activity. Bob Dole wants to give the military an objective, and let them do what they're trained to do. Let Bob Dole know when you're done.

Vietnam ushered in the whole "we have a RIGHT to know every minor detail" attitude, that brought on the politicians need to meddle in every detail, which brought us to where we've been ever since--a half-assed "good intentions" bunch of pussies.

War is an ugly ****ing thing, and people die. You either commit to accomplishing your goal, or you look the other way and do nothing. There is no "warm and fuzzy", middle ground war that will ever result in "victory".

We're going to continue to get our asses kicked and see results like we're seeing now as long as the politicians are prodded by the general public to dictate the day-to-day operations and demand a daily headcount.

HonestChieffan
08-23-2007, 08:16 AM
At this point, Bush is so lameduck and his leadership is so nill, it really does not matter does it?

As a Bush voter and a lifelong republican its distressing beyond words to see this President continue to pull the hope from anyone running from our party. Imagine the fear in a campaign if they picked up a rumor that Bush was going to publicly declare his support for your guy...

Vietnam brings back so many bad memories bringing VN into this will be fodder for the antiwar side....They love the idea...Nam was bad, wrong and we lost...thus Iraq is now officially sanctioned (IN THEIR WRONG HEADED IDEAS< NOT MINE) as bad wrong and we will lose.

patteeu
08-23-2007, 10:03 AM
I don't think it matters much.

Taco John
08-23-2007, 10:22 AM
Some of us have been saying it's Vietnam all over again since about a week after the Iraqis pulled down the statue of Saddam. And you can spin it any way you want, but the responsibility falls squarely on the American public.

Bob Dole doesn't need a daily death toll, and Bob Dole doesn't feel the need to influence the military's day-to-day activity. Bob Dole wants to give the military an objective, and let them do what they're trained to do. Let Bob Dole know when you're done.

Vietnam ushered in the whole "we have a RIGHT to know every minor detail" attitude, that brought on the politicians need to meddle in every detail, which brought us to where we've been ever since--a half-assed "good intentions" bunch of pussies.

War is an ugly ****ing thing, and people die. You either commit to accomplishing your goal, or you look the other way and do nothing. There is no "warm and fuzzy", middle ground war that will ever result in "victory".

We're going to continue to get our asses kicked and see results like we're seeing now as long as the politicians are prodded by the general public to dictate the day-to-day operations and demand a daily headcount.



The way I see it, if the US Government isn't going to formally declare war, then the public has the right to crawl up their asses and demand a daily headcount. The people own the government in America, not the other way around.

StcChief
08-23-2007, 12:22 PM
Since Dems called it Vietnam before the war started... might as well agree with them now.

HolmeZz
08-23-2007, 12:25 PM
Since Dems called it Vietnam before the war started... might as well agree with them now.

They weren't being complimentary when they were calling it that. Why would you want to agree with it if you're in favor of it?

a1na2
08-23-2007, 12:44 PM
Originally Posted by Bob Dole
Some of us have been saying it's Vietnam all over again since about a week after the Iraqis pulled down the statue of Saddam. And you can spin it any way you want, but the responsibility falls squarely on the American public.

Bob Dole doesn't need a daily death toll, and Bob Dole doesn't feel the need to influence the military's day-to-day activity. Bob Dole wants to give the military an objective, and let them do what they're trained to do. Let Bob Dole know when you're done.

Vietnam ushered in the whole "we have a RIGHT to know every minor detail" attitude, that brought on the politicians need to meddle in every detail, which brought us to where we've been ever since--a half-assed "good intentions" bunch of pussies.

War is an ugly ****ing thing, and people die. You either commit to accomplishing your goal, or you look the other way and do nothing. There is no "warm and fuzzy", middle ground war that will ever result in "victory".

We're going to continue to get our asses kicked and see results like we're seeing now as long as the politicians are prodded by the general public to dictate the day-to-day operations and demand a daily headcount.


The way I see it, if the US Government isn't going to formally declare war, then the public has the right to crawl up their asses and demand a daily headcount. The people own the government in America, not the other way around.

What I find amazing here is that TJ read the same thing I did and came up with a conclusion that is 180 degrees out of phase with what Bob Dole said.

What is more amazing is that I'm not surprised.

Nightwish
08-23-2007, 12:52 PM
I'm torn between "dumb move" and "benign move." Vietnam is almost worthy of a Godwin's Law application in most cases. Once you mention it, you've lost all chance of anyone but the choir listening to anything you're saying. On the other hand, since this war started, nobody but the choir has listened to anything anyone else has said anyway, so I doubt that it'll change anything.

Pitt Gorilla
08-23-2007, 01:06 PM
War is an ugly ****ing thing, and people die. You either commit to accomplishing your goal, or you look the other way and do nothing. There is no "warm and fuzzy", middle ground war that will ever result in "victory". What was the goal?

BTW,
I think this could be a good move for them. Invoking Viet Nam will cause some people to think "We shouldn't pull out because we need to stay there and win!", however potentially flawed the logic. This move certainly can't hurt them.

Pitt Gorilla
08-23-2007, 01:07 PM
What is more amazing is that I'm not surprised.Could you explain why that is "more amazing?" Do you understand what "amazing" means?

patteeu
08-23-2007, 01:08 PM
What was the goal?

BTW,
I think this could be a good move for them. Invoking Viet Nam will cause some people to think "We shouldn't pull out because we need to stay there and win!", however potentially flawed the logic. This move certainly can't hurt them.

Make more room at the kid's table.

Taco John
08-23-2007, 01:10 PM
What I find amazing here is that TJ read the same thing I did and came up with a conclusion that is 180 degrees out of phase with what Bob Dole said.

What is more amazing is that I'm not surprised.



I wouldn't be suprised. I think Dole has it wrong if he believes that Americans should just bend over and allow government to steam roll the world. This war is unconstitutional. It's an undeclared war. We will lose every undeclared war we engage in because the people will get fed up with it. It's just the political reality of our system.

Fact: If we're not going to declare war properly, we will continue to lose wars. If we want to win wars, we have to mobilize the nation TO win the war.

HC_Chief
08-23-2007, 01:12 PM
What was the goal?

Need more info... for what point in time do you want the goal "definition"?

Comparing Iraq to Vietnam is flawed on many levels, but it is strikingly accurate on one: the political leadership was/is incompetent to define, execute, and sustain a coherent strategy towards victory. What we have is military might, used to its potential at times, then stifled at other times by brainless rules of engagement as defined by some pompous politician 3000 miles out of harm's way.

Programmer
08-23-2007, 02:07 PM
I wouldn't be suprised. I think Dole has it wrong if he believes that Americans should just bend over and allow government to steam roll the world. This war is unconstitutional. It's an undeclared war. We will lose every undeclared war we engage in because the people will get fed up with it. It's just the political reality of our system.

Fact: If we're not going to declare war properly, we will continue to lose wars. If we want to win wars, we have to mobilize the nation TO win the war.

I've read all over the internet people claiming this is an undeclared war. In a strict definition that is true, but this action was approved by congress and in so it is not unconstitutional.

What Dole said in his post I tend to agree with. We don't need to know every detail of military action, when that information is spread around the country you end up with the situation we now have, civilians trying to dictate to the military and that is not conducive to enabling the military to do their job.

I think Dole had it right.

Nightwish
08-23-2007, 02:24 PM
I've read all over the internet people claiming this is an undeclared war. In a strict definition that is true, but this action was approved by congress and in so it is not unconstitutional.

That's not technically accurate. The "war" was not approved by Congress. "Necessary force" was approved by Congress (and similar language was used in the UNSC). What constituted "necessary force" was never officially delineated, and several members of Congress have said that it was not automatically understood that this necessarily equated to a full scale invasion. Although the distinction remains vague in Congress, subsequent actions in the UN made very clear that a distinction was being drawn between "necessary force" and "war."

patteeu
08-23-2007, 02:28 PM
AFAIK, the details of what constitutes a declaration of war are not spelled out in our constitution.

Link? Anyone?

Taco John
08-23-2007, 04:11 PM
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....

Taco John
08-23-2007, 04:15 PM
James Madison, the father of our Constitution: “Of all the enemies to public 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 instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”

patteeu
08-23-2007, 05:28 PM
Like I said:

AFAIK, the details of what constitutes a declaration of war are not spelled out in our constitution.

Link? Anyone?

Taco John
08-23-2007, 05:47 PM
Well, at the very least I'm sure that we agree that the word "war" is used in a "declaration of war."

But more to the point, you know what The Constitution does not authorize? Granting congress the power to "Authorize the use of Force." Ceratinly there's nothing in there about providing a police force for nation-building missions.

The Constitution was designed for the US Government to work within, not around.

BucEyedPea
08-23-2007, 05:48 PM
No details are necessary for declaring war...you just "Declare War." LOL!
It's a simple requirement and there's precedent as well. It says Congresses powers are also "specific and enumerated." What more do you need? Cripes! The document is only two pages long....it's supposed to be limited.

Modern legal minds have complicated it. KISS!

Fact is we no longer declare war due to our membership in the UN and the corrresponding UN Participation Act. Declaring war ended then and for other nations too. It bypasses our sovereignty, where the people's house debate if we go to war.

I LOVE how the right criticizes the UN but loves to fight in it's police actions using "military force." This includes Vietam. Oh! The irony. They have our soldiers fighting for it.

The Resolution said "military force"...it said nothing about any war.

Taco John
08-23-2007, 05:56 PM
Are we at war, or are we not at war?

Apparently we're not at war. We are in a police action. If you think the American people are going to be willing to sustain a police action for "however long it takes," you're fooling yourself and inviting American defeat.

go bowe
08-23-2007, 06:04 PM
AFAIK, the details of what constitutes a declaration of war are not spelled out in our constitution.

Link? Anyone?

here's a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war) that seems relevant (go down page to section named undeclared wars)...

sorry it's the only link i could find...

In most democratic nations, a declaration of war customarily must be passed by the legislature. In the United States there is no format required for declaration(s) of war. The term "Declaration of War" is not, in fact, mentioned by the United States Constitution. Instead the Constitution states, "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War, ..." without defining the form such declarations will take

wazu
08-23-2007, 06:23 PM
It fits in with the new strategy of "scare America with threats of genocide to another nation". The new approach seems to at least have given the neo-cons a few more talking points. Now we are supposed to accept endless American casualties and money spent for the sake of keeping poor defenseless Iraqis from being killed like Cambodians.

BucEyedPea
08-23-2007, 08:30 PM
AFAIK, the details of what constitutes a declaration of war are not spelled out in our constitution.

Link? Anyone?
You asked me what some of your factual errors were?
This is one—a major one.

You actually need a link for this? A link to what? What do you need besides the
document itself? The Constitution is pretty easily googled—if you really want to know. It's a simple document.

We had this debate when I first came here.
I thought you said you agreed with it later.

Taco John
08-24-2007, 04:26 AM
I've read all over the internet people claiming this is an undeclared war. In a strict definition that is true, but this action was approved by congress and in so it is not unconstitutional.

The fact that the congress went along with it doesn't make it constitutional. In the last century, congress has gotten the idea that the Constitution is something that the government should work around, rather than work within.


What Dole said in his post I tend to agree with. We don't need to know every detail of military action, when that information is spread around the country you end up with the situation we now have, civilians trying to dictate to the military and that is not conducive to enabling the military to do their job.

I think Dole had it right.


Sure he's got it right. American's shouldn't have to concern themselves with every detail of a war. But considering that 77% are against that war, it shouldn't be any suprise that so many Americans are sounding off. Welcome to Democracy folks. This is what we're over seas trying to protect for other nations. And guess what? That includes protecting THEIR free speech, including the ones that hate us.

If this were a declared war, this nation would have mobilized for war. We haven't mobilized for ****. Instead, we've played around in another economy bubble. When a country makes a declaration of war, they send a message to their citizenry as much as anyone else. A declaration of war is a red alert on a submarine that puts everyone in the nation on their toes, pulling for the same goal.

Instead, we've played a game of manufactuing consent, and sent the message to the American people that this isn't anything to concern themselves with. Just support it. Last throes. Be a patriot. Don't be a defeatist. Keep on with your lives as normal. No need to make a sacrifice for this effort.

I just want one person to show me where I can find nation-building in the Constitution.

a1na2
08-24-2007, 05:40 AM
Are we at war, or are we not at war?

Apparently we're not at war. We are in a police action. If you think the American people are going to be willing to sustain a police action for "however long it takes," you're fooling yourself and inviting American defeat.

Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq?

Defeatists have been around since WWI. Now, because of Al Gore, they are fully visible and more obnoxious than ever.

If you think America can be defeated you are not seeing the whole picture. Worst case, we do what the democrats want to do and walk away. Best case, we do our best to resolve the issues at hand and then leave. What's going to happen? Depends on who gets in the White House, if Billary gets in we will be stuck in a war for many years to come. If a republican gets in we will be there for a while longer but not as long as their term. If a libertarian gets in we will be known as the Western Hemisphere French.

Simplex3
08-24-2007, 06:20 AM
Some of us have been saying it's Vietnam all over again since about a week after the Iraqis pulled down the statue of Saddam. And you can spin it any way you want, but the responsibility falls squarely on the American public.

Bob Dole doesn't need a daily death toll, and Bob Dole doesn't feel the need to influence the military's day-to-day activity. Bob Dole wants to give the military an objective, and let them do what they're trained to do. Let Bob Dole know when you're done.

Vietnam ushered in the whole "we have a RIGHT to know every minor detail" attitude, that brought on the politicians need to meddle in every detail, which brought us to where we've been ever since--a half-assed "good intentions" bunch of pussies.

War is an ugly ****ing thing, and people die. You either commit to accomplishing your goal, or you look the other way and do nothing. There is no "warm and fuzzy", middle ground war that will ever result in "victory".

We're going to continue to get our asses kicked and see results like we're seeing now as long as the politicians are prodded by the general public to dictate the day-to-day operations and demand a daily headcount.
Quoted for possibly being the most brilliant post in Planet history.

:clap:

Simplex3
08-24-2007, 06:28 AM
Are we at war, or are we not at war?

Apparently we're not at war. We are in a police action. If you think the American people are going to be willing to sustain a police action for "however long it takes," you're fooling yourself and inviting American defeat.
We're still in Germany. We're still in countries all over the world. They're just not getting the media treatment that Iraq is.

memyselfI
08-24-2007, 06:35 AM
It was smart and dumb.

Smart because it shows desperation and is yet another bone to the base to salivate over...

and that 30% of sheeple will do as predicted. Amongst them are the 'ignorance is bliss' blame the American people for the failure in Iraq folks. :rolleyes:

Dumb because it illustrates just how pathetic this entire episode has become. The morons in the WH were blasting people using the Vietnam parallel and now they have thrown everything else out there and nothing has stuck so they try this. ROFL ROFL ROFL

Simplex3
08-24-2007, 06:37 AM
It was smart and dumb.

Smart because it shows desperation and is yet another bone to the base to salivate over...

and that 30% of sheeple will do as predicted. Amongst them are the 'ignorance is bliss' blame the American people for the failure in Iraq folks. :rolleyes:

Dumb because it illustrates just how pathetic this entire episode has become. The morons in the WH were blasting people using the Vietnam parallel and now they have thrown everything else out there and nothing has stuck so they try this. ROFL ROFL ROFL
What's even dumber is that you find it funny.

patteeu
08-24-2007, 07:54 AM
You asked me what some of your factual errors were?
This is one—a major one.

You actually need a link for this? A link to what? What do you need besides the
document itself? The Constitution is pretty easily googled—if you really want to know. It's a simple document.

We had this debate when I first came here.
I thought you said you agreed with it later.

There's no factual error there. The constitution does not spell out what constitutes a declaration of war. Taco posted the relevant passages from the document and you can clearly see that there are no specific requirements. You've created the particular requirements you have in mind, yourself, or adopted them from what you've heard somewhere (other than the constitution).

The Constitution indicates that it is up to Congress, not the President or the SCOTUS to initiate war. Given the complete lack of detailed requirements in the document as to how this should be done, it seems to me that that requirement is met when the President asks permission from Congress and they authorize him to start shooting.

patteeu
08-24-2007, 07:57 AM
Well, at the very least I'm sure that we agree that the word "war" is used in a "declaration of war."

I'd prefer the clarity of that approach, but no, we can't agree that the word "war" has to be used. What if they used the Italian word "guerra" instead, would you be satisfied?

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 10:26 AM
There's no factual error there.
Uh no! I knew you're were going to parse this but it's not accurate.It's fact.
Take a look at some earlier "declares". Think National Archives has one on WW2.

The constitution does not spell out what constitutes a declaration of war.
It doesn't need to.That had a certain meaning when it was written understood by all at that time. I can see calling it a "Resolution of War" that states the US being in a state of war. It still states that we are at war and with who or a state of war. War may be a type of military action but not all military actions mean we are in a state of war with another nation. Say sudden attacks that have to be repelled at the spur of the moment.

The Constitution indicates that it is up to Congress, not the President or the SCOTUS to [/b]initiate[/b] war.
No it does not use that word. ( pulling a patty)

Given the complete lack of detailed requirements in the document as to how this should be done, it seems to me that that requirement is met when the President asks permission from Congress and they authorize him to start shooting.
It's silent because it doesn't have to make such requirement. You just "declare" it. It's quite simple. No need to parse like a liberal loose constructionist seeking a penumbra making it more complicated than it is.

So yes, this is just as factual as your incorrect definition of "imminent threat" being parsed to mean what you want, your thread on "evidence that Bush brought us to war on truth", and your fact that Marvin Olasky coined "compassionate conservatism" ( which he claims he didn't and I don't care who did), and your fact that he's not a NeoCon because he's a Christian...when he's a convert to Christianity from Judaism and a former communist. Although I consider the latter to not be a major fact, just pointing it out as you have mine.I mean after all he, per his books, still wants to handled world poverty, like a good Marxist, but do it with a spiritual message.

;)

patteeu
08-24-2007, 10:52 AM
Uh no! I knew you're were going to parse this but it's not accurate.It's fact.
Take a look at some earlier "declares". Think National Archives has one on WW2.


It doesn't need to.That had a certain meaning when it was written understood by all at that time.


No it does not use that word.


It's silent because it doesn't have to make such requirement. You just "declare" it. It's quite simple. No need to parse like a liberal loose constructionist seeking a penumbra making it more complicated than it is.

There is no requirement that Congress has to use the phrase "declaration of war" in order to exercise it's clear authority to declare war. There are no guidelines offered.

So yes, this is just as factual as your incorrect definition of "imminent threat" being parsed to mean what you want, your thread on "evidence that Bush brought us to war on truth", and your fact that Marvin Olasky coined "compassionate conservatism" ( which he claims he didn't and I don't care who did), and your fact that he's not a NeoCon because he's a Christian...when he's a convert to Christianity from Judaism and a former communist. Although I consider the latter to not be a major fact, just pointing it out as you have mine.I mean after all he, per his books, still wants to handled world poverty, like a good Marxist, but do it with a spiritual message.

;)

My definition of imminent threat is correct so I don't know what you're talking about on that point.
You have yet to demonstrate that the President lied us into war.
Even though Olasky wasn't the first person to put those two words together, there are a lot of people on the internet and in other media who are confused on this issue and who have claimed that he did coin the phrase so I don't think I need to feel too bad about getting that one wrong. In any event he's the guy whose use of the phrase and whose development of the philosophy behind it are responsible for GWB picking it up. And despite the fact that he shares a Jewish and Leftist background with most of the original neocons, his conversion came from a completely different angle. His conversion was a social conservative conversion to Christianity while Podhoretz, Kristol et al converted to conservatism out of a dissatisfaction with leftist foreign policy and the failures of socialism as an organizing principle around the world. He's not a neocon in the proper sense of the word, he's a social conservative. He might be a neocon in the ambiguous way that you use it though because he does disagree with you on certain issues.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 11:06 AM
There is no requirement that Congress has to use the phrase "declaration of war" in order to exercise it's clear authority to declare war. There are no guidelines offered.
I didn't say that and I edited. Again, no guidelines are needed. I have a whole list of the declarations in a book on my desk rightnow which suits that clause fine. GWB's does not. It was a call for military action citing UN Resolutions mainly while including some US security points.


My definition of imminent threat is correct so I don't know what you're talking about on that point.
You have yet to demonstrate that the President lied us into war.
Even though Olasky wasn't the first person to put those two words together, there are a lot of people on the internet and in other media who are confused on this issue and who have claimed that he did coin the phrase so I don't think I need to feel too bad about getting that one wrong. In any event he's the guy whose use of the phrase and whose development of the philosophy behind it are responsible for GWB picking it up. And despite the fact that he shares a Jewish and Leftist background with most of the original neocons, his conversion came from a completely different angle. His conversion was a social conservative conversion to Christianity while Podhoretz, Kristol et al converted to conservatism out of a dissatisfaction with leftist foreign policy and the failures of socialism as an organizing principle around the world. He's not a neocon in the proper sense of the word, he's a social conservative. He might be a neocon in the ambiguous way that you use it though because he does disagree with you on certain issues.[/QUOTE]

It was in a thread where you were arguing against Dirk's definition being wrong. And it was really no different than his. It was spin. That's more the point.

On the war point, it was a thread where you claimed you had "evidence" he took us to war with truth where you did not provide factual evidence. This is not about me proving Bush Admin lied....even though most can see that except the partisans.

I'm glad you don't feel bad about the Olasky one being wrong because that's how I feel about mine regarding Chalabi. So we're even now.

Although I don't agree with you pov that I'm being ambiguous about Olasky being a NeoCon. There are the original founders and there's the others who agree and follow in present time. They are no less a NeoCon.

Taco John
08-24-2007, 11:10 AM
What if they used the Italian word "guerra" instead, would you be satisfied?



Huh? Why would we use Italian? The national language is english. What's the point that you're trying to make here? That they could declare war in other languages? The US Language is English. The term that Congress is authorized to declare is "War."

This isn't that difficult.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 11:32 AM
I'd prefer the clarity of that approach, but no, we can't agree that the word "war" has to be used. What if they used the Italian word "guerra" instead, would you be satisfied?
How 'bout a fatwa? Would you be satisfied? Afterall, Bin Laden's fatwahs declare war on the West.

patteeu
08-24-2007, 11:38 AM
I didn't say that and I edited. Again, no guidelines are needed. I have a whole list of the declarations in a book on my desk rightnow which suits that clause fine. GWB's does not. It was a call for military action citing UN Resolutions mainly while including some US security points.

Unless those historical declarations of war came from an identical template, a review of them will support my contention that flexibility in form is allowed. It's the content that's important, not the font size, the margin set up, or the use of some kind of magic words.

It was in a thread where you were arguing against Dirk's definition being wrong. And it was really no different than his. It was spin. That's more the point.

I'm very comfortable with my position defending the Bush administration from the lie that they claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat. There were a couple of occasions when that word was used, but never in a prepared text. In the cases I'm aware of, it was used in a reporters question as opposed to being offered unprompted. We've been through this a number of times here so I'd hate to have to do it all again.

On the war point, it was a thread where you claimed you had "evidence" he took us to war with truth where you did not provide factual evidence. This is not about me proving Bush Admin lied....even though most can see that except the partisans.

It certainly isn't about you proving that Bush lied because you can't do it to any substantial degree.

I'm glad you don't feel bad about the Olasky one being wrong because that's how I feel about mine regarding Chalabi. So we're even now.

Although I don't agree with you pov that I'm being ambiguous about Olasky being a NeoCon. There are the original founders and there's the others who agree and follow in present time. They are no less a NeoCon.

Olasky's conversion occured at the same time as the original neocons (the early 70's). They were parallel conversions from the left to the right but they were different kinds of conversions. That's why he's not only not an original neocon but he's not really a neocon at all.

patteeu
08-24-2007, 11:39 AM
Huh? Why would we use Italian? The national language is english. What's the point that you're trying to make here? That they could declare war in other languages? The US Language is English. The term that Congress is authorized to declare is "War."

This isn't that difficult.

Apparently it's more difficult than you realize.

patteeu
08-24-2007, 11:40 AM
How 'bout a fatwa? Would you be satisfied? Afterall, Bin Laden's fatwahs declare war on the West.

If it amounted to Congress authorizing the President to go to war, it would be constitutionally acceptable.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 11:42 AM
Never mind the form of the resolution what's not being discussed is substance of (H.J. Resolution 114), "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ."

This basically gave Bush the power to use his decision to decide.

Congressman Ron Paul reminded the Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on International Relations that the Constitution required a congressional Declaration of War before the armed forces of the United States could be applied in hostilities overseas, not H.J.R 114, a congressional Resolution authorizing the President to decide if and when to apply that force.

As opposed to:
However, Chairman Henry Hyde is quoted, for the record, "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them…There are things no longer relevant to a modern society…Why declare war if you don’t have to?…We are saying to the President, use your judgment…So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore…."


The substitute amendment offered by Rep. Paul:
"That pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the Government of Iraq and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the United States Armed Forces to carry on war against the Government of Iraq and to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion."

If you wanna win Pat...this last part is your ace.
This is why Korea stalemated, Vietnam was lost, and likely Iraq.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 11:49 AM
I'm very comfortable with my position defending the Bush administration from the lie that they claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat. There were a couple of occasions when that word was used, but never in a prepared text. In the cases I'm aware of, it was used in a reporters question as opposed to being offered unprompted. We've been through this a number of times here so I'd hate to have to do it all again.
Sorry pat that just because they don't use the word imminent doesn't mean that wasn't the impression they were trying to create. This is just delusional and not fact.


It certainly isn't about you proving that Bush lied because you can't do it to any substantial degree.
No you just don't wanna believe it. BTW There's over 127 lies in this war and all wars have them.


Olasky's conversion occured at the same time as the original neocons (the early 70's). They were parallel conversions from the left to the right but they were different kinds of conversions.
So what. That's just added and inapplicable data.

That's why he's not only not an original neocon but he's not really a neocon at all.
No he's a NeoCon. I read some brief stuff from his books over at Amazon when I checked him out. BTW Bennet and Jack Kemp are too.

Mi_chief_fan
08-27-2007, 10:20 AM
...that for years, the Bush administration has denied that Iraq is anything like Vietnam, and now they're saying it is?

And his lesson from Vietnam is that "we didn't stay long enough."

patteeu
08-27-2007, 10:59 AM
...that for years, the Bush administration has denied that Iraq is anything like Vietnam, and now they're saying it is?

And his lesson from Vietnam is that "we didn't stay long enough."

I don't know, does it seem ironic to you that democrats (and other anti-war types) have been making a comparison to Vietnam almost since the day the invasion began but now complain about the President's comparison? If you're able to see the distinction going one way but not the other, I find that ironic, or maybe just inconsistent. In fact, I'd find that more inconsistent than either the democrats' or the President's positions.

Taco John
08-27-2007, 11:04 AM
I don't know, does it seem ironic to you that democrats (and other anti-war types) have been making a comparison to Vietnam almost since the day the invasion began but now complain about the President's comparison? If you're able to see the distinction going one way but not the other, I find that ironic, or maybe just inconsistent. In fact, I'd find that more inconsistent than either the democrats' or the President's positions.



I don't believe I've seen a single Democrat complain about the Vietnam comparison. Who are you talking about?

If anything, I've seen Democrats laugh about it, and say "told you so."

What are you talking about anyway?

HolmeZz
08-27-2007, 11:05 AM
I don't know, does it seem ironic to you that democrats (and other anti-war types) have been making a comparison to Vietnam almost since the day the invasion began but now complain about the President's comparison? If you're able to see the distinction going one way but not the other, I find that ironic, or maybe just inconsistent. In fact, I'd find that more inconsistent than either the democrats' or the President's positions.

Who's complained about the comparison? All I've seen is people point out the hypocrisy and the way the President is trying to use it as a reason to stay in Iraq.

Radar Chief
08-27-2007, 11:17 AM
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/vietnam-people-america-1821074-times-new

Mark Steyn: They wait for us to run again

George W. Bush gave a speech about Iraq last week, and in the middle of it he did something long overdue: He attempted to appropriate the left's most treasured all-purpose historical analogy. Indeed, Vietnam is so ubiquitous in the fulminations of politicians, academics and pundits that we could really use anti-trust legislation to protect us from shopworn historical precedents. But, in the absence thereof, the president has determined that we might at least learn the real "lessons of Vietnam."

"Then as now, people argued the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end," Bush told the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention Aug. 22. "Many argued that if we pulled out there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people … . A columnist for the New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: 'It's difficult to imagine,' he said, 'how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone.' A headline on that story, dateline Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: 'Indochina Without Americans: For Most a Better Life.' The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be."

I don't know about "the world," but apparently a big chunk of America still believes in these "misimpressions." As the New York Times put it, "In urging Americans to stay the course in Iraq, Mr. Bush is challenging the historical memory that the pullout from Vietnam had few negative repercussions for the United States and its allies."

Well, it had a "few negative repercussions" for America's allies in South Vietnam, who were promptly overrun by the North. And it had a "negative repercussion" for former Cambodian Prime Minister Sirik Matak, to whom the U.S. ambassador sportingly offered asylum. "I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion," Matak told him. "I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty … . I have committed this mistake of believing in you, the Americans." So Sirik Matak stayed in Phnom Penh and a month later was killed by the Khmer Rouge, along with about 2 million other people. If it's hard for individual names to linger in the New York Times' "historical memory," you'd think the general mound of corpses would resonate.

Radar Chief
08-27-2007, 11:18 AM
But perhaps these distant people of exotic hue are not what the panjandrums of the New York Times regard as real "allies." In the wake of Vietnam, the communists gobbled up real estate all over the map, and ever closer to America's back yard. In Grenada, Maurice Bishop toppled Prime Minister Sir Eric Gairy: It was the first-ever coup in the British West Indies, and in a faintly surreal touch led to Queen Elizabeth presiding over a People's Revolutionary Government. There were Cuban "advisers" all over Grenada, just as there were Cuban troops all over Africa.

Because what was lost in Vietnam was not just a war but American credibility.

Do the British qualify as real "allies" to the Times? The Argentine seizure of the Falkland Islands occurred because Gen. Galtieri had figured if the commies were getting away with all this land-grabbing, why shouldn't he get a piece of the action? After all, if the supposed Yank superpower had no stomach to resist routine provocations from its sworn enemy, the toothless British lion certainly wouldn't muster the will for some no-account islands in the South Atlantic.

"The West" as a whole was infected by America's loss of credibility. Thanks to Mrs. Thatcher, Galtieri lost his gamble, but it must have looked a surer thing in the spring of 1982, in the wake of Vietnam, and Soviet expansionism, and the humiliation of Jimmy Carter's botched rescue mission in Iran – the helicopters in the desert, and the ayatollahs poking and prodding the corpses of American servicemen on TV.

American victory in the Cold War looks inevitable in hindsight. It didn't seem that way in the Seventies. And, as Iran reminds us, the enduring legacy of the retreat from Vietnam was the emboldening of other enemies. The forces loosed in the Middle East bedevil to this day, in Iran, and in Lebanon, which Syria invaded shortly after the fall of Saigon and after its dictator had sneeringly told Henry Kissinger, "You've betrayed Vietnam. Someday you're going to sell out Taiwan. And we're going to be around when you get tired of Israel."

President Assad understood something that too many Americans didn't. Then as now, the anti-war debate is conducted as if it's only about the place you're fighting in: Vietnam is a quagmire, Iraq is a quagmire, so get out of the quagmire. Wrong. The "Vietnam war" was about Vietnam, if you had the misfortune to live in Saigon.

But if you lived in Damascus and Moscow and Havana, the Vietnam war was about America: American credibility, American purpose, American will. For our enemies today, it still is. Osama bin Laden made a bet – that, notwithstanding the T-shirt slogan, "These Colors Do Run": They ran from Vietnam, and they ran from the helicopters in the desert, and from Lebanon and Somalia – and they will run from Iraq and Afghanistan, because that is the nature of a soft, plump ersatz-superpower that coils up in the fetal position if you prick its toe. Even Republicans like Sen. John Warner seem peculiarly anxious to confirm the bin Laden characterization.

Depending on which Americans you ask, "Vietnam" can mean entirely different things. To the New York Times and the people it goes to dinner parties with, it had "few negative repercussions."

And it's hardly surprising its journalists should think like that when Times publisher Pinch Sulzberger, in a commencement address last year that's almost a parody of parochial boomer narcissism, was still bragging and preening about his generation's role in ending the war. Joseph Nye, dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard (which is apparently some sort of elite institution for which people pay big money to receive instruction from authoritative scholars such as professor Nye), told NPR last week: "After we got out of Vietnam, the people who took over were the North Vietnamese. And that was a government which preserved order" – if by "preserved order," you mean "drove a vast human tide to take to the oceans on small rickety rafts and flee for their lives."

But, if you're not a self-absorbed poseur like Sulzberger, "Vietnam" is not a "tragedy" but a betrayal. The final image of the drama – the U.S. helicopters lifting off from the Embassy roof with desperate locals clinging to the undercarriage – is an image not just of defeat but of the shabby sell-outs necessary to accomplish it.

At least in Indochina, those who got it so horribly wrong – the Kerrys and Fondas and all the rest – could claim they had no idea of what would follow.

To do it all over again in the full knowledge of what followed would turn an aberration into a pattern of behavior. And as the Sirik Mataks of Baghdad face the choice between staying and dying or exile and embittered evenings in the new Iraqi émigré restaurants of London and Los Angeles, who will be America's allies in the years ahead?

Professor Bernard Lewis' dictum would be self-evident: "America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend."

patteeu
08-27-2007, 11:27 AM
I don't believe I've seen a single Democrat complain about the Vietnam comparison. Who are you talking about?

If anything, I've seen Democrats laugh about it, and say "told you so."

What are you talking about anyway?

Who's complained about the comparison? All I've seen is people point out the hypocrisy and the way the President is trying to use it as a reason to stay in Iraq.

You guys are just joshing aren't you? Come on, I fell for it at first but neither of you is this out of touch with American politics, are you? Well, just in case:

Democrats blast Bush’s Vietnam comparison (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-blast-bushs-vietnam-comparison-2007-08-22.html)
By Klaus Marre
August 22, 2007

Democrats Wednesday strongly rejected President Bush’s comparison of the Vietnam War to the conflict in Iraq, saying that drawing parallels is inaccurate and irresponsible.

Bush, in a speech to the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, used the example of the Vietnam War to show the possible consequences of withdrawing troops from Iraq. The president said that millions of people “paid the price” when the U.S. left Vietnam.

But Democratic leaders insisted that was a false comparison.

“Invoking the tragedy of Vietnam to defend the failed policy in Iraq is as irresponsible as it is ignorant of the realities of both of those wars,” said Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate.

...

BTW, AG Gonzales is resigning. Let me know if you need help with that ubiquitous story too.

HolmeZz
08-27-2007, 11:33 AM
I'd like to see more than just one quote from John Kerry, but all that says is that he believes it's irresponsible to use Vietnam as an excuse for staying in Iraq. He's not complaining about the idea of comparing the two. Just how Bush is comparing them.

patteeu
08-27-2007, 11:39 AM
Thanks for posting the typically brilliant Mark Steyn column, Radar Chief.

Taco John
08-27-2007, 11:46 AM
You guys are just joshing aren't you? Come on, I fell for it at first but neither of you is this out of touch with American politics, are you?


I don't follow John Kerry around like you apparently do. I still don't think he's complaining the way you are trying to say he is. If anything, he's saying that Bush's comparison of Iraq to Viet Nam is dishonest. And in that, he's got a point, but I'm not going to get too wrapped up in Bush's dishonesty, because we both know that it's invisible to you.

patteeu
08-27-2007, 11:49 AM
I'd like to see more than just one quote from John Kerry, but all that says is that he believes it's irresponsible to use Vietnam as an excuse for staying in Iraq. He's not complaining about the idea of comparing the two. Just how Bush is comparing them.

I'd like you to see more too. Use google (www.google.com), I've done my part. You shouldn't have any trouble finding examples.

As for whether Kerry's complaint is a complaint, I recommend dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complaint).

And if I could suggest one more thing, I'd recommend that you think deeply about your explanation for Kerry's quote and see if you can apply it to Bush supporters' complaints about democrats use of the Vietnam analogy. I think the same explanation applies to both sides.

Radar Chief
08-27-2007, 11:54 AM
Thanks for posting the typically brilliant Mark Steyn column, Radar Chief.

Thought you might like it, since he parallels what you’ve been posting for a while now.

HolmeZz
08-27-2007, 11:54 AM
I'd like you to see more too. Use google (www.google.com), I've done my part. You shouldn't have any trouble finding examples.

You made the statement. I wanted you to back it up.

As for whether Kerry's complaint is a complaint, I recommend dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complaint).

He was complaining about how he used it, not that he used it.

And if I could suggest one more thing, I'd recommend that you think deeply about your explanation for Kerry's quote and see if you can apply it to Bush supporters' complaints about democrats use of the Vietnam analogy. I think the same explanation applies to both sides.

If they disagreed with the comparison because of the premise and not the idea of making the comparison, then that's fine.

patteeu
08-27-2007, 11:57 AM
I don't follow John Kerry around like you apparently do. I still don't think he's complaining the way you are trying to say he is. If anything, he's saying that Bush's comparison of Iraq to Viet Nam is dishonest. And in that, he's got a point, but I'm not going to get too wrapped up in Bush's dishonesty, because we both know that it's invisible to you.

A) You said you hadn't seen an example so I provided the first one on the google results list. You don't have to follow Kerry around to be aware of widespread democrat complaints, but now that you're aware of Kerry's complaints you can no longer claim to be completely in the dark.

B) Kerry is complaining in exactly the way I'm saying democrats are complaining. He's also complaining in exactly the same way Bush supporters have complained about democrat versions of the Vietnam analogy (i.e. he's complaining about the way it's used). That's why this claim of some kind of irony or hypocrisy is so stupid. Only people who are, at most, superficially aware of what these people are talking about could possibly fall for it. I suppose that explains why you and HolmeZz and a few others in this thread got hooked.

patteeu
08-27-2007, 12:03 PM
You made the statement. I wanted you to back it up.

Which I've already done. Now, if you want more, you can google it yourself. If you really aren't already aware of the widespread complaints and you want to maintain a blissful state of ignorance, don't bother.

He was complaining about how he used it, not that he used it.

Yes, I know that.

HolmeZz
08-27-2007, 12:16 PM
Which I've already done. Now, if you want more, you can google it yourself. If you really aren't already aware of the widespread complaints and you want to maintain a blissful state of ignorance, don't bother.

It's only hypocritical(which was your original point) if they're complaining about the use of the comparison at all. You showed an example of John Kerry complaining about how Bush applied the comparison. It's not hypocritical to say Iraq is like Vietnam in this way, but not that way. It's hypocritical to say it's like Vietnam in this way and then say that there shouldn't be comparisons made.

patteeu
08-27-2007, 12:43 PM
It's only hypocritical(which was your original point) if they're complaining about the use of the comparison at all. You showed an example of John Kerry complaining about how Bush applied the comparison. It's not hypocritical to say Iraq is like Vietnam in this way, but not that way. It's hypocritical to say it's like Vietnam in this way and then say that there shouldn't be comparisons made.

No, my original point was to criticize people like Mi_chief_fan if they see some kind of irony in the Republican position but not in the democrat position. Later, you and Taco chimed in and gave me reason to lump you two in with Mi_chief_fan.

Not only did I *not* raise the charge of hypocrisy, I specifically said that both the democrats' position and Bush's position were less inconsistent than Mi_chief_fan's presumed position. I say "presumed" because he didn't mention whether or not he sees the same irony in the democrats' position, I'm just presuming that he doesn't.

But having said that, Kerry's complaint about Bush's position is no different in character from Republican's complaints about democrat uses of the Vietnam comparison. Both sides are complaining about the way the comparison is used. There is no irony or hypocrisy here on Bush's or Kerry's part, AFAICS. The inconsistency is in Mi_chief_fan's selective indignation and apparently yours as well.