July 20, 2007 4:02 PM

A New "King George"

President Bush, preparing to make a statement on the country's energy supply at the Department of Energy, Sept. 26, 2005 in Washington.

President Bush, preparing to make a statement on the country's energy supply at the Department of Energy, Sept. 26, 2005 in Washington. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(The Nation)  This column was written by Robert Scheer.

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'être 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

The Nation
Add a Comment See all 203 Comments
by gltskline July 24, 2007 9:47 PM EDT
America wake up before it is too late. Turn off the mainsteam media. Stop worrying about Lindsey Lohen, Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole. Take back what is left of your country. Defend your liberty! Write you senators and congressman. Do something!
Reply to this comment
by nynative1340 July 24, 2007 8:07 PM EDT
Reagan ... was still pissed off that they released the hostages as soon as he took the oath and he couldn't bring force to bear, and was looking for a get-even. Posted by montanaman9 at 02:27 PM : Jul 23, 2007


The 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.

Reply to this comment
by down-ndirty July 24, 2007 7:53 PM EDT
Reagan only sold weapons to Iraq, not Iran, because he was still pissed off that they released the hostages as soon as he took the oath and he couldn't bring force to bear, and was looking for a get-even.
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.

Reply to this comment
by down-ndirty July 24, 2007 7:39 PM EDT
Scheer...what is your opinion about this one..
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"

Reply to this comment
by michellem99-2009 July 24, 2007 7:19 PM EDT
Young people I am my 50s. I know you must a senior in your family who can and would tell you things. That is where you learn lessons. I have always loved what seniors have to say. I was 19 when Nixon stepped down. I am poorly schooled but I know things are not right in this nation sinse Bush forced his arse in there. Congress has only only DECLARED war two times and that being WW1 and WW2. The rest illegal wars. Bush don't care about the constution.Bush is for Bush only.
Reply to this comment
by twylacrat July 24, 2007 5:47 PM EDT
JEGibbons: ....THOSE WILLING TO SACRIFICE FREEDOM FOR SAFETY DESERVE NEITHER....
Reply to this comment
by jegibbons July 24, 2007 12:50 PM EDT
We need an Imperialist President!
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!
Reply to this comment
by r9119111 July 23, 2007 11:18 PM EDT
JEGibbons: Here is a good article for you to read:

"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

Reply to this comment
by jegibbons July 23, 2007 8:45 PM EDT
When the immediacy of power and authority of the executive is too anemic to respond then our safety is compromised. This is far more a grievous sin than any perceived curtailment of individual liberty; no matter what some pot head ACLU attorney proffers as LEFTIST propaganda.

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
Reply to this comment
by jegibbons July 23, 2007 8:26 PM EDT
"== WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE AL QUADA!
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.
Reply to this comment
See all 203 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook