Bush invokes Godwin's Law

[bascule]

Bush compared Congressional Democrats' opposition, err, "stalling" on "important pieces of legislation," i.e. condoning the spying he performed illegally on American citizens for so long with ignoring the rise of Lenin (yes, who cares about Stalin, Lenin was the real bad guy) or Hitler.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/politics/main3441060.shtml

 

This invective wouldn't be stupid and inept if Bush were likening the leader of a specific nation to Lenin or Hitler. If he were likening Ahmadinejad to the next Hitler it'd make Bush a dick, but at least it'd be somewhat apt. Ahmadinejad is at least the leader of a country.

 

But no, Bush isn't doing that. He's likening Lenin and Hitler to the nonspecific threat of "terrorism" which by definition precludes national governments. He's not even calling out the leaders of countries who aren't taking measures against domestic terrorism (like oh, say, King Abdullah), nor is he pointing out any specific terrorist threat. He's likening Lenin and Hitler to an unspecific, phantom enemy perpetually lurking in the shadows waiting to strike out at any moment.

 

I'm not defending the Democrats here. They're cowards. Reid just made a speech saying they have the power to end the war by withholding funding, but they won't. The sad thing is this sort of invective is effective: I'm sure in a few weeks we'll see the Democrats capitulating and sending Bush the exact bills he's asking for.

 

What a sad state our country is in...

[Fred56]

I have to admit, the idea of an elected "Commander" who then has absolute and arbitrary power over the military is a little scary.

Like some others, I wonder if it is, in fact, true (as a certain poster would have us all believe) that Congress can only prevent a 'warmonger' pres. by disallowing any money for their adventures. Surely the world's greatest 'democracy' has a little more finesse on such a thing as commitment to a war, or executing an act of war (an invasion say)?

[bascule]

I have to admit, the idea of an elected "Commander" who then has absolute and arbitrary power over the military is a little scary.

Like some others, I wonder if it is, in fact, true (as a certain poster would have us all believe) that Congress can only prevent a 'warmonger' pres. by disallowing any money for their adventures. Surely the world's greatest 'democracy' has a little more finesse on such a thing as commitment to a war, or executing an act of war (an invasion say)?

 

Yeah, kinda funny that, the Constitution says that Congress is supposed to declare war, but for the past several decades we've been ignoring that, to the tune of "It's not war, it's a police action by an international coalition!" or some such bullsh*t, then going off and having a little war without a formal declaration (and little is certainly an understatement). Then a president like Bush comes along and look what happens... oops. Maybe having Congress vote on actually declaring war against another nation is a good idea. You know, the kind of vote whose passage results in a formal declaration of war, the kind of thing we haven't seen since the WWII era.

 

Also, for fans of King Abdullah he just paid a visit to the UK and got a rousing reception to the tune of the Imperial Death March:

 

[ParanoiA]

But no, Bush isn't doing that. He's likening Lenin and Hitler to the nonspecific threat of "terrorism" which by definition precludes national governments.

 

So what? That's like saying comparing two philosophy books is invalid because one has a red cover and the other has a blue one. It's not relevent to the point of the comparison.

 

He's right. It is similar to the apathy experienced at that time. And it's based on the same old crap we've been debating about tens of threads in this forum. Some of us think the war is justified, some of us don't. I don't mean to offend, but this thread feels like another rehash of the same ole, same ole...

[Mr Skeptic]

Yeah, kinda funny that, the Constitution says that Congress is supposed to declare war, but for the past several decades we've been ignoring that, to the tune of "It's not war, it's a police action by an international coalition!" or some such bullsh*t, then going off and having a little war without a formal declaration (and little is certainly an understatement). Then a president like Bush comes along and look what happens... oops. Maybe having Congress vote on actually declaring war against another nation is a good idea. You know, the kind of vote whose passage results in a formal declaration of war, the kind of thing we haven't seen since the WWII era.

 

"Unfortunately, on too many issues, some in Congress are behaving as if America is not at war," Bush said during a speech at the Heritage Foundation.

 

'Nuf said.

[DrDNA]

Quote:

"""Former Columbia University Professor Robert O. Paxton has written that:

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."[9]

 

Paxton further defines fascism's essence as:

 

...a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination."""End Quote

 

 

Sound familiar?

[Fred56]

I know some aren't going to like this, bit isn't the Pres. copying what other 'leaders' in the past have done to ensure their grip on both the 'vox populi', and then the reins of real political and military power (there do seem to be some parallels)? Like a certain German guy, or those Russian dudes, and that Serbian idiot...

[Pangloss]

Like a certain German guy, or those Russian dudes, and that Serbian idiot...

 

A who, the who and that who?

[insane_alien]

wow. this must be one of the first instances of godwins law giving birth to a thread instead of ending it.

[CDarwin]

wow. this must be one of the first instances of godwins law giving birth to a thread instead of ending it.

 

A paradox!

[D H]

Yeah, kinda funny that, the Constitution says that Congress is supposed to declare war, but for the past several decades we've been ignoring that, to the tune of "It's not war, it's a police action by an international coalition!" ...

 

The Constitution also says the President is the Commander in Chief. Presidents have carried out their powers as CinC since the birth of our nation, not just the past several decades. For example, our country's biggest conflict in terms of casualties was not a war. Congress never declared war on the South. Given that you are of the mind that the action in Iraw is illegal, I take it you are also of the mind that our country should apologize to the descendants of southern separatists for the illegal war fought against their ancestors.

[ecoli]

The Constitution also says the President is the Commander in Chief. Presidents have carried out their powers as CinC since the birth of our nation, not just the past several decades. For example, our country's biggest conflict in terms of casualties was not a war. Congress never declared war on the South. Given that you are of the mind that the action in Iraw is illegal, I take it you are also of the mind that our country should apologize to the descendants of southern separatists for the illegal war fought against their ancestors.

 

Just because past presidents have made the same mistakes as the current president, doesn't make it ok.

 

There is a precedent that Presidents can use military force without congressional consent in the form of declaring war. That doesn't mean this is ok, or that it doesn't violate the princibles of the constitution.

 

It's not ok for a leader of a nation to invade a soverign nation, at the expense of volunteer military men, while sacrificing the financial well being of both nations.

We've meddled in foreign affairs for far too long, and now we're are going to pay the price in our pockets.

[D H]

The president is do his job acting as the CinC. He might be making a mistake, but the president doing his job is neither illegal nor unconstitutional.

 

The Constitution does not spell out what it means when it says the President is the Commander in Chief. The Constitution does not spell out what should happen should Congress fail to declare war. The Constitution does not even spell out what should happen should Congress declare war. The Constitution is so vague regarding the military and foreign powers that it might as well not say anything at all. The President is not obligated to follow a declaration of war and most certainly can command the troops to take actions against a foreign power without any declaration of war. Were that the case, don't you think the Supreme Court would have said so ages ago?

[ecoli]

The president is do his job acting as the CinC. He might be making a mistake, but the president doing his job is neither illegal nor unconstitutional.

 

The Constitution does not spell out what it means when it says the President is the Commander in Chief. The Constitution does not spell out what should happen should Congress fail to declare war. The Constitution does not even spell out what should happen should Congress declare war. The Constitution is so vague regarding the military and foreign powers that it might as well not say anything at all. The President is not obligated to follow a declaration of war and most certainly can command the troops to take actions against a foreign power without any declaration of war. Were that the case, don't you think the Supreme Court would have said so ages ago?

 

I must respectfully disagree.

 

I do agree that there is a leeway for the president and the generals to conduct war AFTER congress has passed a resolution declaring it, but not before hand.

The only stipulation, is if we knew there was an immediate threat to homeland security and congress could not be summoned to declare war. This does not allow for an invasion of a sovereign nation, however.

[ydoaPs]

This does not allow for an invasion of a sovereign nation, however.

Then we just stop considering the nation in question as a sovereign nation.

[Pangloss]

The only stipulation, is if we knew there was an immediate threat to homeland security and congress could not be summoned to declare war. This does not allow for an invasion of a sovereign nation, however.

 

That's a perfectly reasonable point of view, but the Constitution does not define war that specifically. And a couple hundred years of back-and-forth between Congress and the Executive haven't straightened out the mess either. Note that Congress did authorize the invasion of Iraq in 2003, as well as all subsequent spending and disbursement of funds (i.e. occupation). They just didn't authorize "war". Whatever that means.

 

We have the situation that we have. Bush hasn't changed it, he's only utilized it as it stands.

[D H]

I must respectfully disagree.

 

I do agree that there is a leeway for the president and the generals to conduct war AFTER congress has passed a resolution declaring it, but not before hand.

 

Since Congress never declared war on the southern states, then you must also respectfully agree that the North's war of agression was illegal and that the North must forthwith return all property illegally seized as a result of that illegal war. Does that change your mind?

 

PS, just playing devil's advocate here. I do not agree that the Northern states should do as I suggested. What Lincoln did was well within his powers as CinC.

[iNow]

Since Congress never declared war on the southern states, then you must also respectfully agree that the North's war of agression was illegal and that the North must forthwith return all property illegally seized as a result of that illegal war.

That would likely fall under the discretionary authority of the president to decide that a civil insurrection had reached the point of emergency, as in the 1827 Supreme Court court decision in Martin v. Mott, whereas others in this thread seem to specifically be referring to invasion of soveriegn nations outside of US territory and control.

[ydoaPs]

Again with the invading of sovereign nations? If congress says "You can't invade sovereign nations", what's to stop the president from saying "Canada is NOT a sovereign nation!"?

[D H]

I was using the Civil War as an example, one of several hundred that the US miltary has engaged in without declaration of war.

 

Given you stance, I assume you also back the actions of the National Guard at Kent State University in May, 1970 as "insurrection that had reached the point of emergency" (Who decides other than the CinC?)

[iNow]

Given you stance...

I didn't discuss my stance. I was suggesting how the comparison you shared was not a 1:1 relationship since one was within our borders and control and the other was not.

[Pangloss]

Again with the invading of sovereign nations? If congress says "You can't invade sovereign nations", what's to stop the president from saying "Canada is NOT a sovereign nation!"?

 

If Congress authorized it and the American people were solidly behind it?

 

Nothing.

 

And you can replace "Canada" with any other nation in the world. That's what scares people, and it scares them so much that they're willing to overlook the "congress" and "American people" variables even though they were absolutely required in the case of Iraq -- they'll pretend they were not required in order to accentuate the sense of fear.

 

It's understandable, but in the end it's a fear of capability, not a fear of individual intentions or ideologies.

[ydoaPs]

It's understandable, but in the end it's a fear of capability, not a fear of individual intentions or ideologies.

 

The people should not be afraid of their government; the government should be afraid of it's people!

 

...or something like that.

[bascule]

Congress authorized it

 

Following your ostensible reference, Congress authorized the Iraq invasion, but that downplays the immense disconnect between what Congress thought they were authorizing and what Bush actually did. The Iraq war represented a culmination of lax regulation of executive war power by the legislative branch. I mean, don't get me wrong, Clinton was responsible for an increasing number of indiscretions in this regard, doing things like bombing Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan without Congressional approval (oh, and Kosovo, and I just heard there's again a possibility of war in the Balkans, centering around: you guessed it, Kosovo). But if we're out to level a country's controlling power, hunting down its leader as a war criminal, and replacing its government, I think the Congress needs to feel sure enough about it to write down that they "declare war" and eliminate any possible ambiguities of language.

 

If taking over a country, occupying its capital, disbanding its military, and hunting down its leader as a criminal isn't war, what is?

[Pangloss]

Following your ostensible reference, Congress authorized the Iraq invasion, but that downplays the immense disconnect between what Congress thought they were authorizing and what Bush actually did.

 

I can appreciate why people think that way, but I don't see it. I think Congress knew they were authorizing invasion. I think everyone in the country knew it.

 

(Did you catch that 60 Minutes bit on Curve Ball, btw? Been pondering whether to start another thread on it. Any thoughts?)

 

 

The Iraq war represented a culmination of lax regulation of executive war power by the legislative branch. I mean, don't get me wrong, Clinton was responsible for an increasing number of indiscretions in this regard, doing things like bombing Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan without Congressional approval (oh, and Kosovo, and I just heard there's again a possibility of war in the Balkans, centering around: you guessed it, Kosovo). But if we're out to level a country's controlling power, hunting down its leader as a war criminal, and replacing its government, I think the Congress needs to feel sure enough about it to write down that they "declare war" and eliminate any possible ambiguities of language.

 

If taking over a country, occupying its capital, disbanding its military, and hunting down its leader as a criminal isn't war, what is?

 

I agree, and I think it's high time we define these things. Unfortunately, politically speaking, I don't think there's any real interest in getting that to happen. The new president won't want to change that.

 

Why should she? ;-)