White House Cautions Against Restricting Aid To Iraq

[Pale Rider]

What?... it might...*PROLONG* the war? Going into it's SIXTH YEAR... it might *PROLONG* the war???!!! What kind of BULL SHIT is THAT???!!!



White House Cautions Against Restricting Aid To Iraq


By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Wed Apr 30, 6:50 AM ET

WASHINGTON - White House officials this week privately cautioned lawmakers not to go too far in restricting U.S. aid to Iraq, warning that doing so might only prolong the war, now in its sixth year.

The Bush administration didn't slam the door on proposals in Congress that would insist Iraq do more to pay for its rebuilding efforts. In the meantime, independent investigators conclude in a report that substantial U.S. support continues despite Baghdad's anticipated $70 billion windfall in oil revenues.

The soaring cost of fuel prices and duration of the war have spurred the latest effort in Congress to get the Iraqis to pay more toward rebuilding efforts. Democrats and even some Republicans say American taxpayers are footing too much of the bill, including an expensive and painfully slow operation to train and equip Baghdad's security forces.

"There's going to have to be some honest-to-goodness pressure" to get the Iraqis to take charge, said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "We can't be there forever."

Administration officials are concerned that cutting U.S. aid, particularly for rebuilding Iraq's security forces, would only slow the war effort and delay the homecoming of troops.

Article continues here... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080430/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_reconstruction_7)

[mundame]

What?... it might...*PROLONG* the war? Going into it's SIXTH YEAR... it might *PROLONG* the war???!!! What kind of BULL SHIT is THAT???!!!



And now American deaths are rising yet again -- they are the highest in April they've been in nine months -- and no doubt the administration will try to put a positive spin on THAT, too.

Like John McCain says --- if the war is going badly, that means we have to stay there.

And if the war is going well, that means we might as well stay there.



What??

[Pale Rider]

And now American deaths are rising yet again -- they are the highest in April they've been in nine months -- and no doubt the administration will try to put a positive spin on THAT, too.

Like John McCain says --- if the war is going badly, that means we have to stay there.

And if the war is going well, that means we might as well stay there.

What??

True... it seems that the reason we're hearing that we need to stay there anymore is... well... because we're THERE!

This war was a complete and utter fuck up from it's inception. I remember watching the build up and the invasion and asking myself, "what the fuck are we doing?" This is bush's war. It is his fuck up. Between getting us embroiled in this never ending war and doing his best to keep the doors open on the border to illegal aliens, I think bush is quite possibly, jimmy peanut brain carter aside, the worst President I've ever had the displeasure of living through.

We need to get our asses out of Iraq. Not later, sooner. I don't remember giving anyone my permission to spend my American tax dollars to engage in military occupations and nation building. In fact, I do believe that's against the constitution of the United States.

I hate this war... it's bush's baby, not mine, and we need to get the fuck out of it.

[gabosaurus]

Pale, you must understand -- the Bushies WANT to prolong the war.
If you vote for McCain, you are voting for extending the slaughter indefinitely.

I wonder if McCain will find a way to collaborate with the terrorists. He has plenty of experience of that sort.

[actsnoblemartin]

and hillary or barrack will have them out in a year?

you really believe that, i dont
Pale, you must understand -- the Bushies WANT to prolong the war.
If you vote for McCain, you are voting for extending the slaughter indefinitely.

I wonder if McCain will find a way to collaborate with the terrorists. He has plenty of experience of that sort.

[gabosaurus]

I am hoping for less than a year.

[Pale Rider]

Pale, you must understand -- the Bushies WANT to prolong the war.
If you vote for McCain, you are voting for extending the slaughter indefinitely.

I wonder if McCain will find a way to collaborate with the terrorists. He has plenty of experience of that sort.

I'm not voting for mccain Gab... no freakin' way. I'll probably vote for Ron Paul, and he believes we need to get the hell out of Iraq immediately. That war is bleeding our economy dry, ruining our military, and it's unconstitutional.

[actsnoblemartin]

How is it un-constitutional


I'm not voting for mccain Gab... no freakin' way. I'll probably vote for Ron Paul, and he believes we need to get the hell out of Iraq immediately. That war is bleeding our economy dry, ruining our military, and it's unconstitutional.

[Pale Rider]

How is it un-constitutional

It is against the constitution to invade another sovereign country without provocation. It is against the constitution to be an occupying force in another nation. It is against the constitution to engage in nation building using American taxpayer funds. Need more?

[mundame]

I remember watching the build up and the invasion and asking myself, "what the fuck are we doing?" This is bush's war. It is his fuck up. Between getting us embroiled in this never ending war and doing his best to keep the doors open on the border to illegal aliens, I think bush is quite possibly, jimmy peanut brain carter aside, the worst President I've ever had the displeasure of living through.

Carter WAS worse, but I'm thinking Lyndon Johnson with his far worse -- and so far longer -- Vietnam war with 58,000 Americans killed and a Great Society with quota hiring and college admitting laws that have seriously messed us up, Johnson was the worst for me so far.

But Bush is sure no bargain.

Well, at least you saw it going in as a problem. I thought it was an okay idea. I was for it! Woe is me, it's a lesson to me not to cheer on wars anymore.


I don't remember giving anyone my permission to spend my American tax dollars to engage in military occupations and nation building. In fact, I do believe that's against the constitution of the United States.


THE MAJOR reason I voted for Bush was that he ran on not doing "nationbuilding" wars. Well, and poor Gore was stained by all that Clinton misbehavior at the end, of course. But no nationbuilding was IMPORTANT to me. And what is the one, sole, only thing that miserable man has done since he got in?

Failing at nationbuilding, non-stop. http://macg.net/emoticons/discontented.gif

[actsnoblemartin]

A few questions.

Did saddam win an election to become the president?

did he follow the terms he voluntarily signed after with u.n. and arab support we whooped his ass in the first golf war?

did he kill 300-400 thousdand as well as rape and torture his own people?

How again is that soveriegn?

We still have forces all over the world, so arent we occupying them too?

Didnt the marshall plan nation build europe and japan?




It is against the constitution to invade another sovereign country without provocation. It is against the constitution to be an occupying force in another nation. It is against the constitution to engage in nation building using American taxpayer funds. Need more?

[Gaffer]

It is against the constitution to invade another sovereign country without provocation. It is against the constitution to be an occupying force in another nation. It is against the constitution to engage in nation building using American taxpayer funds. Need more?

What part of the Constitution says we cannot invade another country, for any reason? What part of the Constitution says we cannot occupy another country? What part of the Constitution says we cannot engage in nation building?

Just askin'.

[Kathianne]

It is against the constitution to invade another sovereign country without provocation. It is against the constitution to be an occupying force in another nation. It is against the constitution to engage in nation building using American taxpayer funds. Need more?

Really? Like during the 1870's? Where was that announced?

[Kathianne]

Carter WAS worse, but I'm thinking Lyndon Johnson with his far worse -- and so far longer -- Vietnam war with 58,000 Americans killed and a Great Society with quota hiring and college admitting laws that have seriously messed us up, Johnson was the worst for me so far.

But Bush is sure no bargain.

Well, at least you saw it going in as a problem. I thought it was an okay idea. I was for it! Woe is me, it's a lesson to me not to cheer on wars anymore.



THE MAJOR reason I voted for Bush was that he ran on not doing "nationbuilding" wars. Well, and poor Gore was stained by all that Clinton misbehavior at the end, of course. But no nationbuilding was IMPORTANT to me. And what is the one, sole, only thing that miserable man has done since he got in?

Failing at nationbuilding, non-stop. http://macg.net/emoticons/discontented.gif

There are many things we agree on, but in this case, bashing Bush on the 'nation building' meme, well it's wrong.

He meant what he said in 2000 build up, moreso than I could have believed. He was a washout internationally up until 9/11. Then all things changed, well except for the far left and right.

[Pale Rider]

A few questions.

Did saddam win an election to become the president?

did he follow the terms he voluntarily signed after with u.n. and arab support we whooped his ass in the first golf war?

did he kill 300-400 thousdand as well as rape and torture his own people?

How again is that soveriegn?

We still have forces all over the world, so arent we occupying them too?

Didnt the marshall plan nation build europe and japan?

What does it matter? I Iraq was a sovereign nation. It shouldn't be any of our business.

Let me ask you a question? Who appointed America the "worlds police?"

[Pale Rider]

What part of the Constitution says we cannot invade another country, for any reason? What part of the Constitution says we cannot occupy another country? What part of the Constitution says we cannot engage in nation building?

Just askin'.

... and this was written in '02 by Ron Paul... he must be related to Nastradamus when he says... "the results will be as murky as before."



Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War


by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 3, 2002

The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan.

Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today’s world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We’re still in Korea and we’re still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990.

The process by which we’ve entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress’ abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution.

Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from – rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution.

Controversial language is being hotly debated in an effort to satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed!

A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice.

Read the rest here... (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html)

[Pale Rider]

Iraq Invasion Was Unconstitutional



by John C. Bonifaz

October 2002 Iraq Debate: "This is Another Gulf of Tonkin"

While all of the Democratic presidential candidates (except Sen. Joseph Lieberman) criticized President George W. Bush for his unilateral recklessness in starting a war against Iraq, they are missing a larger point: The invasion was not just reckless. It was unconstitutional.

It is time to set the record straight. The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. Rather, Congress voted for a resolution in October 2002 which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution vests the awesome power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress.

Those members of Congress -- including certain Democratic presidential candidates -- who voted for that October resolution cannot now claim that they were deceived, as some of them do. By unlawfully ceding the war-declaring power to the president, they allowed the president to start a war against Iraq based on whatever evidence or whatever lies he chose. The members of Congress who voted for that October resolution are as complicit in this illegal war as is the president himself.

Imagine this: The United States Congress passes a resolution which states: "The President is authorized to levy an income tax on the people of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to pay for subsidies to U.S. oil companies." No amount of legal wrangling could make such a resolution constitutional. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants the power to levy taxes exclusively to the United States Congress.

Now let us turn to reality. In October 2002, Congress passed a resolution which stated: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to 1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and 2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." As he determines to be necessary and appropriate.

Congress cannot transfer to the president its exclusive power to declare war any more than it can transfer its exclusive power to levy taxes. Such a transfer is illegal. These are non-delegable powers held only by the United States Congress.

In drafting the War Powers Clause of Article I, Section 8, the framers of the Constitution set out to create a nation that would be nothing like the model established by European monarchies. They knew the dangers of empowering a single individual to decide whether to send the nation into war. They had sought to make a clean break from the kings and queens of Europe, those rulers who could, of their own accord, send their subjects into battle. That is why the framers wisely decided that only the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, should be entrusted with the power to start a war.

The wars of kings and queens of Europe had brought not only havoc and destruction to the lives of those forced into battle and those left to suffer their loss. They had also brought poverty. They were stark symbols that the subjects living under such monarchies lacked any voice or any control over their destiny.

The War Powers Clause of the Constitution emerged from that collective memory: "Congress shall have power...To declare war... " No other language in the Constitution is as simple and clear.

Thomas Jefferson called it "an effectual check to the Dog of war." George Mason said that he was "for clogging rather than facilitating war." James Wilson stated: "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large."


Great article, continues here... (http://www.albionmonitor.com/0402a/iraqwarunconstitutional.html)

[Gaffer]

I agree with paul on that. Congress has wussed out again. Like they have always done. Don't blame us, it was the presidents decision. Fucking pussies. while I am throughly pissed at Bush I have no use for congress what so ever.

[mundame]

I agree with paul on that. Congress has wussed out again. Like they have always done. Don't blame us, it was the presidents decision. ... while I am throughly pissed at Bush I have no use for congress what so ever.


I entirely agree. I have no hope this current effort to stop yet more troop funding will succeed; the Democratic Congress will fold, and soon, because they are totally worthless nothings.

As to whether either of the Dems will get us out, I won't believe a word of that till they DO it.

There is no point voting for McCain -- that idiot wants the war to go on forever! But there is little point voting for the other side either, considering how many chances they've discarded to stop this war.


I've really lost faith in democracy. We went over there to give Iraq democracy, as if ---------- and in the process, lost it here.