July 22, 2007
A New "King George"
The Nation: President Bush's Handling Of The War Recalls Warnings From Founding Fathers
-
Play CBS Video Video Troop Pullout Not In Sight President Bush continues to push for more time for his troop strategies in Iraq to work. Officials feel it will be months before a pullout can be considered. Susan Roberts reports.
-
Video Opposition To Iraq War Grows The defection of some of President Bush's key supporters in Congress underscores growing opposition to the war in Iraq. Joie Chen reports that Congress plans to push for troop withdrawal.
-
President Bush, pictured in 2005, has fought Congress's attempts to defund Iraq operations or set timetables for troop redeployments. James Madison, chief architect of the U.S. Constitution and later our fourth president, presciently wrote, "The separation of the power of raising armies from the power of commanding them is intended to prevent the raising of armies for the sake of commanding them." (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
-
Interactive Battle For Iraq The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
-
Interactive Bush Presidency The president's agenda, plus facts, figures, major events and key personalities.
George W. Bush is the imperial president that James Madison and other founders of this great republic warned us about. He lied the nation into precisely the "foreign entanglements" that George Washington feared would destroy the experiment in representative government, and he has championed a spurious notion of security over individual liberty, thus eschewing the alarms of Thomas Jefferson as to the deprivation of the inalienable rights of free citizens. But most important, he has used the sledgehammer of war to obliterate the separation of powers that James Madison enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
With the "war on terror," Bush has asserted the right of the president to wage war anywhere and for any length of time, at his whim, because the "terrorists" will always provide a convenient shadowy target. Just the "continual warfare" that Madison warned of in justifying the primary role of Congress in initiating and continuing to finance a war the very issue now at stake in Bush's battle with Congress.
In his Political Observations, written years before he served as fourth president of the United States, Madison went on to underscore the dangers of an imperial presidency bloated by war fever. "In war," Madison wrote in 1795, at a time when the young republic still faced its share of dangerous enemies, "the discretionary power of the Executive is extended ... and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force, of the people."
How remarkably prescient of Madison to anticipate the specter of our current King George imperiously undermining Congress' attempts to end the Iraq war. When the prime author of the U.S. Constitution explained why that document grants Congress not the president the exclusive power to declare and fund wars, Madison wrote, "A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments."
Because "[n]o nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare," Madison urged that the constitutional separation of powers he had codified be respected. "The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war...the power of raising armies," he wrote. "The separation of the power of raising armies from the power of commanding them is intended to prevent the raising of armies for the sake of commanding them."
That last sentence perfectly describes the threat of what President Dwight Eisenhower, 165 years later, would describe as the " military-industrial complex," a permanent war economy feeding off a permanent state of insecurity. The collapse of the Soviet Union deprived the military profiteers and their handsomely-rewarded cheerleaders in the government of a raison d'๊tre for the massive war economy supposedly created in response to it. Fortunately for them, Bush found in the 9/11 attack an excuse to make war even more profitable and longer-lasting. The Iraq War, which the president's 9/11 Commission concluded never had anything to do with the terrorist assault, nonetheless has transferred many hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars into the military economy. And when Congress seeks to exercise its power to control the budget, this president asserts that this will not govern his conduct of the war.
There never was a congressional declaration of war to cover the invasion of Iraq. Instead, President Bush acted under his claimed power as commander in chief, which the Supreme Court has held does allow him to respond to a "state of war" against the United States. That proviso was clearly a reference to surprise attacks or sudden emergencies.
The problem is that the "state of war" in question here was an al Qaeda attack on the U.S. that had nothing whatsoever to do with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Perhaps to spare Congress the embarrassment of formally declaring war against a nation that had not attacked America, Bush settled for a loosely worded resolution supporting his use of military power if Iraq failed to comply with U.N. mandates. This was justified by the White House as a means of strengthening the United Nations in holding Iraq accountable for its WMD arsenal, but as most of the world looked on in dismay, Bush invaded Iraq after U.N. inspectors on the ground discovered that Iraq had no WMD.
Bush betrayed Congress, which in turn betrayed the American people just as Madison feared when he wrote: "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it compromises and develops the germ of every other."
By Robert Scheer
Reprinted with permission from The Nation.
 | If you like this article, check out www.thenation.com for more investigative reports, timely editorials and incisive columns |
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 11
- next
See all 207 CommentsThe hostages were released because of an agreement engineered by the Algierians and signed the day before Reagan took office.
You give Reagan too much credit. Reagan was far more interested in becoming president, AT ANY COST, than he was of becoming a statesman, or attacking Iran.
He would not have attacked Iran. The proof is in the fact that he did NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, when 240+ Marines and other Americans were killed in the Beirut bombing.
240 dead is far more tragic than 55 living hostages.
Reagan was ALL TALK and NO SPINE.
Posted by montanaman9 at 02:27 PM : Jul 23, 2007
___________________________
Actually he sold arms to Iran, too. Iran/Contra?
Some believe that he did make a secret arms agreement with Iran BEFORE he became president, but there's no verifiable proof. Just minor circumstantial stuff here and there.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2007/07/21/world/main3084873.shtml
to balance out your credibility you shouild write some kind words about this crime..dont really care??obvious enough you dont
Posted by xzavierbrown at 12:24 AM : Jul 23, 2007
____________________
Funny...this is what you wrote about that story on that story's comment section:
"is this suppose to be news??? goldof had been raping that continent for decades..and he is passing the duty to Bono. ... Posted by xzavierbrown at 01:11 PM : Jul 22, 2007"
Al Qaeda is the problem not Bush!
ADAM COHEN is a propagandist.
Try coffee get off the Koolaid.
You don't know who the real enemy is.
Because this war doesn't feel like WWII doesn't make it any less a threat.
After the enemy is defeated we can worry about
Rules of Engagement, until then if you've got no stomach for a fierce fight step out of the way.
It's like you want to explain to mugging victim in an alley the Marquis de Queensbury Rules of pugilism! Sick of Liberal Nitwits with no real solutions!
"Just What the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War" - By ADAM COHEN
Published: July 23, 2007 - The New York Times
Those who need to read it probably won't.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all informatiion, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that is contempt prior to investigation." - Herbert Spencer
This political division in our country will destroy us! The enemy must be realized and dealt with decisively. United We Stand!
If the terrorists are permitted to go unchecked we will have school buses blowing up in our cities before this decade is over.
"The Only Thing Necessary for Evil to Triumph is for Good Men to do nothing!" - John Locke
BUSH IS DOING MORE HARM THAN THEY COULD!"==
Posted by prairiefox1 at 12:02 PM : Jul 23, 2007
C O N G R A T U L A T I O N S !
This is absolutely the dumbest of all the dumb posts here.
Pick up your trophy at the Kool-Aide stand you obviously know where that is! Then go lay down before you fall down.
We too are responsible for the Imperial King George...he stepped in and took our power away in a time of tribulation and confusion. The Congress' powers sre outlined in the Constitution, as are the President's. We must require our elected officials to take back their constitutional duties and powers...or else. Do we have power to impeach these people? Yes, we can. The Constitution allows it...we'd have to prove "High Crimes and Misdemenors", but isn't accepting the President's usurpation of their Constitutional powers considered one of those?
WE are the country, we MUST fight for it.
Several attempts at this Amendment all referred to the right to bear arms as PART OF A MILITIA TO PROTECT against enemies of the new States, NOT just as a matter of principle and just for the pleasure of owning a gun.
Secondly, according to you and your ilk, Fox News is the ONLY legitimate and accurate news available. That flies so hard in the face of logic as to be laughable. BBC News, Reuters, AP, UPI - not to mention ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN - are all reporting more or less the same thing. Funny how they can ALL be wrong. The foreign news services which I also read have no stakes in American politics and have no reason to lie or bend the truth.
First of all, the Second Amendment refers to the right of civilians to own weapons because the states had militias and that was what the Amendment addressed - the right of people to protect themselves against invasion from the British or Indians. Since there are NO militias today, this Amendment is severely outdated.
Wikipedia says: In 1786, a DECADE AFTER (emphasis added) the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a loose national government under the Articles of Confederation. This confederation was perceived to have several weaknesses, among which was the inability to mount a Federal military response to an armed uprising in western Massachusetts known as Shays' Rebellion.
In 1787, to address these weaknesses, the Philadelphia Convention was convened with the charter of amending the Articles. When the convention concluded with a proposed Constitution, those who debated the ratification of the Constitution divided into two camps; the Federalists (who supported ratification of the Constitution) and the Anti-Federalists (who opposed it).
Among their objections to the Constitution, anti-Federalists feared creation of a standing army not under civilian control that could eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties as had happened recently in the American Colonies and Europe.
(to be continued)
Columnist Lars-Erik Nelson (deceased)
Posted by tibu987 at 02:25 PM : Jul 23, 2007
Yes, and that same bullsht today tells those with no sense of thought to point their mindless hates at liberalism while the bullsht itself is free to do it's bullsht business. [Cough] Cheney [Cough]
Anyone who hates liberalism more than bullsht has missed the Thought Boat entirely. Neocons hate because they are TOLD to hate, and they hate WHAT they are told to hate, and they hate because they haven't explored the ADULT alternatives to hating, called compromise. Compromise made a two-party system of government great, pulling the best of both to the front, and quelling the worst. Until one party got greedy for more wealth and more power, more more more, so much so the GOP threatens to destabilize the best country in the world with greed for more than these 1% could ever use.
Thus is bullsht perpetuated by the haters of other folks personal freedoms, open dialogue, and progressive thought.
America was founded on freedom to worship, freedom of expression, and freedom of thought and no Neocon will ever define my freedom for me, whether we become a one-party dictatorship under King George or not.
America did one tea party to break away from a king, we can do another. :)
2.) The wealth gap in America is getting wider and experts say that is due to a "educational gap", in Detroit only 25% of that's city's school children (Kindergarten thru Grade 12) ever graduate. This deep blue city has been under "one party rule" for decades and generations. Why isn't the Democrat party "lifting" these poor people up?
"No Child Left Behind" should be called "No Child Gets a Dime". Underfunded and schools are teaching for the tests and not the KNOWLEDGE. The Republican push to a School Pay Voucher.
3.) Trial lawyers, one of the Democrats biggest donors, are "feeding off America's doctors and hospitals" causing "insurance rates to soar" and thus 47 million Americans are unable to afford health insurance. When are Democrats in our DO-NOTHING CONGRESS going to support "tort" reform?
Who controlled Congress back in 2003? For that matter let's go back to 2000!
Where is the free market spirit and small/less government now?
Posted by tibu987 at 02:25 PM : Jul 23, 2007
__________________________
NOPE! Welcome to the day and age of the neo-conservativism and rule by dynasties. It's interesting that the neoconservative movement has attracted "an important and highly articulate group of liberasl to the other side." The main reason they are so effective is because they know liberalism from the inside out.
Reagan was a former liberal and (IMO) that's one of the reasons he was so effective against his opponents.
In today's political arena, most politicians on both sides of the aisle are "self serving." That is very obvious in the Bush and Clinton family dynasties and they manner in which they have achieved their wealth and political status.
After the 2008 elections there will be a complete turn-about in what they said compared to what they do.
And you can bet your asss that we will still be in Iraq four years from now. It's about the oil...
______________________
That was four questions, dude.
Maybe, just maybe, because the country has had a repugnicant president for 20 of the last 28 years. LOL!!!
Why are the repugnicants allowing all these things to happen under their control? Perhaps because they just as corrupt, greedy, and morally bankrupt as the democrapps.
Besides, YOU don't really CARE about these things do you?
Posted by down-ndirty
Such insight, where did I go wrong? Kucinich, Paul, who are they?
_______________________________
Picture this: Ex-VP Daddy has a miserable 4-year failure of a presidency; embarassingly tromped by a philandering hillbilly from AR; the philandering hillbilly turns out to be the "best republican president since Lincoln;" Daddy's 'family' decides to groom 'renegade cowboy' son for the job; first they have to 'dry him out' after a 24-year alcoholic binge; in spite of his ineptness with the English language, son gets elected; gives his rich cronies a tax break, declares war on Iraq... The rest is current history.
Is there a dynasty here? You bet your asss. And it ain't just the Clintons. That's why I'm for Paul or Kucinich.
You're the Prophet of Doom, mudrose. Or the Prophet of Misinformation. Or both...
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 11
- next
See all 207 Comments