I think the red herring here is that there was no declaration of war. The AUMF, by any reasonable interpretation, was a declaration of war.
The question I’m asking is, if Congress declares war (either explicitly or implicitly, with an AUMF like the one passed in Oct '02), could a president veto that declaration? I don’t think the answer is clear cut.
How do you think the approval ratings would be if Congress were able to follow the will of the American people and start withdrawing? And who is preventing that? I’m sure a lot more progress will be made when more Republicans get their asses kicked out of Washington in 2008.
It’s like a student disrupting a class, than complaining to the principal that he isn’t learning anything because the class is out of control.
IIRC, several timetable bills have passed the House, but have gotten stuck in the Senate. So why aren’t the Pubbies yelling about Reid? Perhaps because he is a white male Mormon from a Western State, while Pelosi is a female from gasp San Francisco.
Then what is the point of the Art I Sec 8 power of Congress? Surely you can’t mean the the Framers intended the President to be able to start wars at his whim.
As Federalist 69 says, “The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies – all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.”
I hardly think that “supreme command and direction” means “unfettered ability to start wars at his sole discretion.”
As far as the red herring goes, Congress has exercised its constitutional power to declare war in a variety of ways, including the authorization of “imperfect” or limited wars as far back as the 18th century. The implied assertion that Congress has to either (1) declare total war or (2) sit on its hands and pass the whole issue, lock stock and barrel to the Executive Branch isn’t reflected by the historical record from the earliest years of the Constitution. Congress has often enacted limited authorizations of war, and they are as binding law as any law can be.
What are you talking about? Are you going to tell me that you have never heard “Pubbies yelling about Reid”? I will be glad to get some cites, but first let place a little wager as to whether or not I will be successful-- because I see your post as a non-assertion assertion, and I can’t ask you to back up a non-assertion.
One could read your statement as saying that 70% of Americans want no further war funding. To clarify, the poll found that 27% want to approve the whole $190 billion in war funding; 23% want to reduce it “somewhat,” 43% want to reduce it “sharply,” and 3% want no money to be approved.
No shit. If my posting history wasn’t clear enough, there’s always the next line, which says “Sarcasm aside…” I was just amused by Shodan’s labeling of the anti-war side as, well, a faction, since to me a faction connotes a small group. You know, like the 25% who are still pro-Iraq war. Or the ~25% who were against the Iraqi war when it first started.
Furthermore, Ravenman is correct. The 60-70% figure are those who want to see timetables. Only radicals like me want to see the funding cut.
As for the rest of the thread, it’s a pretty simple concept. The power of the purse and the power of the sword must always be separate, otherwise you get a Caesar. But that’s not really a problem, since most people are pretty comfortable with Caesar, as long as he’s on your tribe’s side.
Even so, 70% are still opposed to war in general, so the “anti-war faction” is 70% of Americans. 80% of Democrats think Congress has not been aggressive enough in trying to end the war and that’s why their ratings are so low. They were elected to end the war. If they would grow some testicles and do what they were hired to do those numbers would improve dramatically. Shodan’s argument that the Dems are afraid to be aggressive with Bush because of their low poll numbers is silly. Their low poll numbers are a result of their lack of aggression. No one is ever going to lose any points by opposing Bush. America hates Bush. The Dems are losing points because they’re too submissive to Bush. That disgusts people.
The “anti-war faction” is 70% of Americans? I think you’re falling into the lies, damn lies, and statistics error.
The same poll says that 55% of Americans think Dems haven’t gone far enough to end the war, 35% say they’ve gone too far, and 5% think they’ve done the right amount. 43% say that the US should keep troops in Iraq even if it means continued American casualties, 54% say that we should get our troops out even if it means civil order isn’t restored in Iraq. 43% think that troops should be removed more quickly than the Bush/Petraeus plan, 12% want to remove troops more slowly, 38% say that’s the right pace.
How can it be that 70% want to reduce funds for the war, 54% want to withdrawal troops, but a majority don’t want to see Bush’s “troop withdrawal” plan accelerated? That makes no sense. I think there’s only two answers: either people don’t understand what they’re talking about, or they are really conflicted about what to do about Iraq. I think it is the latter. If people don’t know what they want, I fail to see how the public at large would want a more radical shift in Congress to things like ending funding for the war, or something like that. I suppose you could say I think the public is both angry and indecisive.
Exactly. I think DtC and others are trying to spin the numbers to say what they want them to say…while the public is just uncertain, indecisive and angry. While the anti-war crowd certainly knows what THEY want I don’t think the majority of American’s have quite figured out WHAT they want. Which is why Congress hasn’t done all the things the faithful around here hoped/thought they would do.
I don’t think Pelosi is being a hypocrite at all…I think she is simply in touch with reality.
-XT
The polls consistently say that 70% are opposed to the war period. There is disagreement over how and when to get out but only the true wingnuts and morons still support the war. The “anti-war crowd” is the vast majority of America.
Don’t you find it interesting that if 70% of the voting public presumably has an anti-war stance that an anti-war agenda hasn’t been swept into power in the recent elections? Additionally, don’t you find it strange that the front runners in both parties don’t have an anti-war agenda? The ones who DO have an anti-war agenda have about as much chance of getting elected as, say, this years Libertarian candidate (whoever they decide to run)?
-XT
But an anti-war agenda WAS swept into power in the last election. The electees just haven’t followed it.
The frontrunners for the Dems DO have anti-war agendas. The Pubs can’t adopt it because the base they need to appeal to for the nomination is composed almost entirely of that minority of knuckle-draggers who still support the war.
Hillary is antiwar. Hillary is going to win.
Well…YMMV DtC. I didn’t see it that way at all. I saw an anti-REPUBLICAN agenda that didn’t exactly sweep in.
Hillary is almost certainly going to win the Democratic nomination. Hillary however is not what I would characterize as an ‘antiwar’ person. You are deluding yourself IMHO. C’est la vie…as I said, YMMV. I think you are in for more disappointments however when/if Hillary gets the top spot.
-XT
I don’t see why not. The power to declare war is one of a laundry list of powers that the Constitution grants to Congress, all of which are actually shared with the president by the terms of Article I Section 7.
No president has ever vetoed an AUMF of any kind, but Woodrow Wilson vetoed an “un-declaration” of war against Germany in 1920, and nobody questioned his power to do so.
I’m sure they do - but not with the level of hate that Pelosi gets. This thread is my cite. 
I’m sure that the fact that she’s more liberal than Reid has something to do with it, but before she became speaker didn’t you sense the San Francisco hate? Not in the Murky News, of course.
Even Bush admitted that they got their ass kicked. How do you define sweep, anyway? First of all, did Democrats ever run on anything but an anti-Republican agenda (and vice versa?) Every Republican senator up for reelection at risk and even some who weren’t, lost. There weren’t enough up to produce a filibuster proof senate. If you remember, before the election everyone talked about the insurmountable advantages of incumbency - yet there was still a big swing.
Have you looked at campaign donations recently? Here’s one cite, and here’s more data. I read in the Times that last month the Republican party (or maybe the Senate fund) spent more money than it took in. The free market is speaking! (And alas, it is a market.)
Sure, I guess, that’s the supposed scenario I outlined in post #7. So if we propose we’re in an alternate reality where the Democrats have been replaced by bleeding heart anti-war activists, they bring this news to the American people and then they proceed to bring up impeachment proceedings since it will be evident to all that a deranged madman is in the oval office. This would be grand political theater, classic stuff really, and I wish I could visit this alternative world just so I could look at how the media would handle it. They’d probably paint Bush as a hero for defying the upstart Congress and keeping our boys and girls over there to fight terror and defend the homeland. I can just picture the visuals now. And it might even work, considering most people are wholly ignorant of the workings and history of this sort of thing.
After the impeachment conviction fails (because the GOP is still the GOP in this universe), the Dems could grovel before the American people and truly tell them they did everything in their power to bring the war to an end.
Actually, you need 67 votes to override a veto.
For some reporters, this would be their third time at bat. It makes for interesting copy and news programing! Who is going to make a hero out of Bush – the drug addict or the sexual harasser? There really just aren’t that many left who would even want to try. Like most decent Republicans, they are distancing themselves.
Aw…wait…You whooshin’ us?