Comments for Ex-Officials Offer Plan to Revamp War Powers Act »
Posted By Beau7890 1 year, 6 months ago in NewsTwo former secretaries of state have declared the War Powers Act of 1973 obsolete and proposed a new system of closer consultation between the White House and Congress before American forces go into battle.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 34
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here is the op-ed written by James Baker and Warren Christopher, who served as Secretaries of State in the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, respectively.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08bak...
They make a good case, and though there's still room for reactionary moves in their proposal (in case of "emergencies"), there's no doubt that more careful bipartisan consideration should be given before we enter into armed conflicts around the globe.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I consider this an excellent topic of discussion for the nation.
I would liek to add a particular, pointed question:
Should the Presdient of The United States be permitted to plunge our nation into arbitrary war?
Should we allow Propaganda and Lies to be used in urging America to go to war?
Should there be a 'time process' put in place in cases of 'Arbitrary War' so that our nation is not committed to excruciatingly long - drawn out commitments that drain our nation of life and treasury?
Should there be a Penalty - or at least a 'Truth And Reconciliation for Accountability' for leaders in Goverment who promote War as a form of International Diplomacy?
Questions liek this are essential.
Course, I happen to know all the answers to the above questions.
Speaking for All Christian Conservatives ... as ADAMANT supporters of ALL things Neo-Con ... we PRAYERFULLY support ALL Republicans and NEO-CONS in war makin.
And are AGAINST Liburals doin the same.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Searchbeam1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bravo, Goppy!
Like everything else, the Devil is in the details - and the small print - although it smells a little bit, coming from Baker! Remember, he was the guy standing in front of 100 or so flags, whining endlessly that Dumbya
won Florida in 200 election.
I am wondering what he is NOT telling!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Now that a Democrat is more than 50% likely to take the WH, expect a lot of flip-flopping by neocon wingnuts like James Baker on presidential powers.
Just don`t expect to ever hold guys like Baker and his ilk accountable for the damage they did to the Constitution and our laws while their boy was in power.
Baker is slick like nobody`s business. Destroy the law, then blame it on the law. He makes Bill Clinton look like sandpaper.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Pragmatism can be a virtue (even in these post-Cold War days), especially when one considers the destruction wrought by basing policy decisions on ideology while excluding consideration of their consequences.
But the plan Baker and Christopher outline (see the link in my first comment) is not all that radical. It's based on the fact that the War Powers Resolution is considered by almost everyone to be unconstitutional and needs reworking.
The main effect of implementing Baker's and Christopher's ideas is to give more careful bipartisan consideration to any thought of sending Americans into battle. Surely you don't have a problem with that?
Reply-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree with you about pragmatism (in its literal sense)... in fact, I believe that pragmatism is one of the higher virtues in the formulation of foreign policy and use of the military. The problem with the old Realpolitik folks is that the world has passed them by. Their pragmatism is based on a set of assumptions that is no longer valid... much as the French did so glaringly prior to WWII.
Now, as far as "the destruction wrought by basing policy decisions on ideology while excluding consideration of their consequences", I assume you mean U.S. involvment in Iraq. Frankly, I see just the opposite. Iraq was an explosion waiting to happen. Realpolitik would suggest kicking that can down the road... or worse, rearming Saddam as a counter to Iran. Frankly, the only pragmatic solution was was to do what we did, utilizing the resources we had available.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a steaming pantload. Iraq invasion was devised by the neocon zionist dual citizen presidential advisors like the American Enterprize Institutes Paul Wolfawitz, and was being contemplated before 911, which Iraq had NOTHING to do with.
Using the confusion, the neocon zionists sold this Israeli nation building fantasy to the oil neocons cheney and bush, with the fantasy that the oil profits would pay for it all.
You are talking like some neocon propangda artist hired by the pentagon, and it smacks of a west point mal-education. Shotgun Dick Cheney was a memgber of the Baker/Reagan/Bush Senior regime, and your Realpolitic Iraq was inevatable is just a huge pantload.
vote republican, to elevate westpoint militant gungho warmongers like JD to policy positions in the McSenile administration.
Bombing Iran is inevitable with JD at the helm. Gung Ho, Exon, Gung ho Walmart, Gung ho, USA!
Reply
-
-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"give more careful bipartisan consideration to any thought of sending Americans into battle"
Yes, I probably would have a problem with that, depending on a very careful consideration of its wording. I see it as likely hamstringing the executive branch and subjecting the whole process in a decision to deploy military force to analysis paralysis. It would effectively preclude the use of military force in any situation that was not a direct corollary to Pearl Harbor. In today's world, most of the bad guys know history better than members of congress do. Never mind world opinion. They would dance freely, poking and jabbing at us or cavorting through someone else's fields, yet avoiding direct Pearl Harbor type confrontations as Gulliver remained tied down by the Lilliputians of our own congress.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The executive branch was originally meant to be "hamstrung" by the specific and sole power granted to Congress to declare war. If you feel this is not realistic, then try to amend it.
I'd say Baker's and Christopher's proposal would give the president more power than originally granted by the Constitution, wouldn't you?
Regardless, our government is not powerless without the immediate threat of military action left to the whim of one man.
Reply-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Certainly Madison is disturbed in his grave. He, after all, primarily drafted the constitution and the Bill of Rights. He is on record as being horrified by an autonomous executive branch. (He did not feel the Bill Of Rights was even necessary as any power not specifically granted in the Constitution to government would be illegal.
There is no way the War Powers Act is constitutionally sound to begin with.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Searchbeam1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I thin a non-partisan consideration is more appropriate, considering that each of these two parties are known to slip sneaky mickeys into the legislation in the dark of night when nobody's watching.
In my view, every new piece of legislation must be in FULL PUBLIC VIEW for at least two weeks, posted on the Internet, newspapers and Post offices (right next to the FBI's "Most Wanted" list) so that people can read and comment on it before it becomes a law.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
berkeley1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i'm skeptical of anything that comes out of the mouth of either of these guys.
both participated in getting us into this mess. both are career insiders who would speak in favor of the unitary executive. their whole pitch is a cover-story for presidential power.
congress has already given up the ghost. their proposal does not change that at all.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, their proposal is a suggestion that Congress get its act together and fix the War Powers Resolution. I think their solution is only a start, and wouldn't go far enough to restoring the balance of power. But it's better than the unconstitutional abandonment of their responsibilities we have now.
I could be wrong, but I don't recall either Baker or Christopher speaking in favor of the unitary executive. Baker, possibly at George H.W. Bush's request (like Brent Scowcroft), even warned W. against effecting regime change in Iraq before the war.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, good idea, we do nothing, and when cheney gives the Iran bombing go order in Noverber, after Obama's elected, you'll say, well, they musta deserved it, cause Daddy Shotgun Dick says so, and his word is good enough.
bush and cheney lied, completely lied, about invasion of Iraq, which had no WMD, and did not pose ANY threat to this country. And you are suspisious of stripping any war powers from Shotgun Dick Cheney, the chickenhawk insane warmongering coward and traitor. Good idea.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
berkeley ~
Thank you! I saw them on the news yesterday.I felt
their dedication to strengthening our country by
adding increased accountability between the Executive
and Legislative Branches regarding committing us to war
- REEKED.
"skeptical" ? Big time - I do not trust them.
Funny how what it says on paper can work out in practice.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, because its suspicious when anyone stands between profit and war profiteers. We need presidential declared invasions to generate billions for General Dynamics and keep the boys in the USAF and westpoint frosty, otherwise they get a little cranky, got to let them out of their doghouses, get some killing in. And congress would want it to mean something, like some nation threatening us.
That's why I like Shotgun Dicks financing 400 million to a terrorist organiztion in Iraq to make usa planned and weaponed cross border killings and bombings in Iran, stirring up some heat for the go order in November. Keep congress out of it. Haliburton needs the contracts.
A god bless Haliburton, the face of your tax dollars.
Reply-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think what Slick Jimmy Baker is actually trying to pass is a War Powers Act that allows the president to continue defying the constitution and to continue allowing the president arbitrary powers to start wars. However, what Slick Jimmy here really wants is to remove the presidents powers to exit a war.
Like you wrote; limit the president`s authority to stand between profits and war profiteers.
Desperate greed calls for desperate measures.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As long as the Executive Branch controls the flow of information, the Congress is powerless. In nearly every war that the U.S. has entered, the Executive Branch has manipulated the information provided to Congress so as to obtain Congressional support for the war.
Bush's manipulation of "intelligence" information provided to justify the Iraq invasion is just the latest chapter a long history of such deceit.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good point. This democracy is dead when neocon corporate secrecy facists control the american media, and the amereican media becomes a propanda mouthpiece for the military industrial complex.
The american media is 100% zionist owned and 100% zionist operated. For profit only. Disney/Abc/Isreal and General Electric/NBC and Westinghouse/CBS and Murdock/fox/ Newscorp/ wallstreet journal/ weekly standard / 108 austrialian tabloids/ english tabloids/ myspace/ worlds largest media empire are 100% for profit. No Israeli critizism allowed in american movies, music, tv news, tv newspapers, cable news or programming, NOTHING. 100% zionist owned and operated.
Take the consititution, and wipe your arses with it. When these corporate moguls control the media in conjunction with a right wing big oil regime, democracy is a f*ing joke. American media is a for profit infotainment joke. These media empires are controlled by Israeli money. One nation, under the star of david, neoconusa
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Does it even bother anyone that Faux news hired freaking Rove? Does anybody get the implications of that?
America, home of the incredibly gullible morons who don't have a pot to urinate in, and vote republican, because murdock tells them to hate the 70% of americans who actually think for themselves.
America, a bunch of lemmings, taking marching orders from an Australian billionaire superrich mogal, voting to let the rich write tax laws, mortgage regulations, energy policy.....Usreai dual citizens in conjunction with oil/military industrial profiteers lying about evidence for war, and outing CIA agents who prove otherwise....
and you think this is a democracy. Its an oligarcy of the mega rich who own 85% of all american stock. 1% of americans own 85% of all american stock. That's NOT a democracy.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not one major news media has investigated the Congressional approved financing of a terrorist organization in Iraq which kills Iranians in the hopes that Iran will respond allowing the traitor Shotgun chickenhawk draft dodging Dick to give the go order in October, as a parting gift to the 85% who think he's a murdering coward, before he moves to Dubai.
Not one news story other than the independent internet websites. Not one mention from ever the NYT.
America, the oligarcy, the brainwashed, america the ignorant, america the gullible, america the christian zionist military crusaders for zion rapture evangelical warmongering military industrial big oil.
Reply-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One needs to point out that militant rightwingers are the source of the madness both here and in Israel. The overwhelming majority of Jewish Americans are not supporters of neocon agendas. I believe less than half of Israelis support the militant right there as well. This is a cabal of misanthropes that use nationalism and ideology, but is of neither.
Reply-
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
RFE: Absolutely correct. Both the majority of Israelis and Jewish Americans are not supporters of neocon agendas. In fact, Israelis have become extremely skeptical about some of the right wing evangelists and Christian leaders who want to invest in real estate in Israel. IN recent years, many of these pending deals have been terminated by Israelis who reject their alleged support.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course James Baker would claim the War Powers Act is obsolete, his boy is the one who broke the damn law and he is his lawyer.
Instead of pleading guilty and taking responsibility, claim the law is bad.
This is the same James Baker who launched the original law suit over the 2000 election to try to STOP the legal recount demanded by FLA state law at the time.
For guys like Baker, laws are only good for one thing: holding the other guy down while you take his money.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The root to the problem with the war powers act stems from collusion with the lobbyists that represent the military industrial corporations that can make and break the political careers of many politicians on both sides of the aisle. The sell-outs on the Democratic side of the aisle, Pelosi, Hoyer, and Reid are weak in confronting warmongering because of their own selfish interests.
The good news about Obama is that he has built a grass roots organization that gives him the leverage financially to confront the special interests and those lobbyists, who have too much influence in encourageing military aggression for strictly mercenary reasons.
How does one pass legislation when we have hired the foxes to watch the hen house? It won't happen. We must replace these corporate sell-outs with leaders who build their support from outside the confines of K Street.
Reply
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.