Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Clarifying the issue

re: Clarifying the issue
gbaikie — (archived)

"Let's say Bush did not invade Iraq with ground troops in an unprovoked invasion, but instead had launched an airstrike-only campaign in response to Saddam conducting a genocidal ethnic cleansing campaign against Kurdistan. While that airstrike campaign was being waged the leadership of a democratically controlled Congress worked actively to undermine Bush's ability to wage that campaign to the point of defeating a Congressional Resolution of support for our armed forces. This would mean the campaign must end in 90 days or it would violate the war powers act. You think that might give aid and comfort to Saddam (As it did Milosovic)?

What do you think of the republican leadship's actions in this case? "

But did Bush need to attack before getting congressional thumbs up. The important thing is congress did support Clinton by funding the operation. Clinton may not followed the intent of War Powers Resolution if he did not consult congress before taking action. Perhaps if they had been briefed and had agreed with the plan, they would passed a resolution showing support. So this could be seen as a fig leaf to cover Clinton's ass. It wasn't needed and I like to know how many dems voted for it.
Congress should change the War Powers Resolution, they should remove as a law, and change it into a document which is advice the congress give to any President, but lay out good practices that a president is recommended to consider. So it's got more detail and could have various options. For example, perhaps the president could ask for a secret ballot [or survey question] of congress to get general feel of views of congress regarding some matter [of course the president might already know the view of congress as a body, but the point is it's an option]. Another thing is it could advise and indicate a process that might be best done if the president's party is the minority and be slightly different if it's the majority. Anyways this sort of like Senate rules instead of some law that conflicts with constitution. Same thing might apply to Judge confirmations or other confirmation. But if it isn't good advice or procedure is not helpful, or it's not applicable to situation, the president need not follow it.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (282 posts)