President signs executive order banning Iraq war opposition

[Shaggy Hiker]

My problem with the war on terror was that it was a war created out of whole cloth by Bush. There is no declared war, and there is no clear enemy, much like Reagan's War on Drugs. Of course, the one attack was used as an excuse to attack Iraq, and is being used as an excuse to suspend or violate whatever treaty or law Bush likes. All this over one attack, and largely a unilateral move by the White House crowd. Sure, a toothless congress rubber stamped some action, but that's just political cover for all involved. Congress never had a spine and Bush new it. Had congress shown some spine, he wouldn't have asked for anything up front. The UN didn't back him and he ignored the UN.

Can any president decide that an amorphous non-national ideology is sufficient reason to break all the rules?

As for there being no attacks since 9/11, there weren't any for ten years before that by this group. The most recent terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 were Oklahoma City and the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Both of those were right wing white guys. Saying there have been no attacks is just a form of propaganda. For one thing, it ignores the statistical history of terrorist attacks, and for another it makes sure that terrorists are defined as "others", when in fact the majority of attacks on Americans have been by Americans.

[nemaroller]

It would be rather interesting to see that if say Clinton or Obama are elected - will they repeal the 'hideous' laws the Bush administration enacted?

For a democratic party pick - I'm torn between Obama and Clinton. Clinton in office would bring experience to the office which unfortunately Obama may not have yet. However, Obama certainly carries the look of someone who weighs all sides of an issue - and his election would break the current Bush-Clinton-Bush cycle. Although I think its safe to say the current Bush destroyed any possibility for future Bush presidents.

For a Republican pick - I still like Mitt Romney. He answered the question how to handle immigration form rather well - 'Enforce the laws we have on the books'. It didn't involve spending money on a fence, or granting amnesty - simply giving teeth to the mostly sensible laws we enacted years ago.

No matter who becomes president, I think their first test in the eyes of the public will be how elegantly they can handle our involvement in Iraq. Certainly the reporters and columnists will be commenting on the differences.

[FunkyDexter]

For better or for worse, Habeus Corpus has been suspended in the past during times of war or national emergencies

It was wrong then and it's wronger now. Arguing that something has been done before is not an argument for doing it again.

Iran has the tenth largest military in the world

I make it 8th if you count number of men but it depends how you order it. If you order by military spend (which is far more realistic in todays high-tech world) then they drop down the list like a stone: US military budget = $518bn. Iranian military budget $6.3bn (figures for 05/06). That less than 1.5%! They're simply not a threat to you.

You need to also look at the state and federal seizure laws concerning drugs, firearms and some other items.

I disagree with them so it's not surprising I disagree with extending them. I don't think that the fact that an injustice exists within your system is a good reason to create another.

'Enforce the laws we have on the books'

Give that man a cigar! I mean it. I hate the tendancy that politicians have (and our Tony was one of the worst for this) who think that passing a new law is the answer to solving a problem. There's almost always existing legislation that's perfectly adequate. My cynical bones tell me that they're just tryng to 'look busy'.

The ignorance is appalling

Thank you for your well reasoned and intelligent deconstruction of my argument . Perhaps you would like to point out the innaccuracies within that post.

Don't be too harsh on the man, he doesn't receive Fox News

Actually I do, I just don't often watch it.


edit> Please forgive all the quoting, I just find it an easy way to organise my post.

[bgmacaw]

My problem with the war on terror was that it was a war created out of whole cloth by Bush. There is no declared war, and there is no clear enemy.

Look up the Authorization for Use of Force law passed by Congress after 9/11.

Of course, the one attack was used as an excuse to attack Iraq

A different Authorization for Use of Force law was passed to deal with Iraq since it did not come under the 9/11 authorization.

The UN didn't back him and he ignored the UN.

Just like the EU did with Kosovo.

Can any president decide that an amorphous non-national ideology is sufficient reason to break all the rules?.

Ask Abe Lincoln about that one.

[System_Error]

My problem with the war on terror was that it was a war created out of whole cloth by Bush. There is no declared war, and there is no clear enemy.

Yeah, and I'm getting pissed at his updates on the Iraq situation. Everytime he's suppose to address the nation with an evaluation, he says "It's too early to evaluate. I need more time." A year later he says the same thing.

What a huge mess he's created and he's not doing anything to clean it up. I would really, really hate to be the next president. You know this won't be cleared up.

Thank you for your well reasoned and intelligent deconstruction of my argument .

Your welcome. I thought your well reasoned and intelligent comments deserved a lengthy response of agreement.

[Xanith]

My problem with the war on terror was that it was a war created out of whole cloth by Bush. There is no declared war, and there is no clear enemy, much like Reagan's War on Drugs. Of course, the one attack was used as an excuse to attack Iraq, and is being used as an excuse to suspend or violate whatever treaty or law Bush likes. All this over one attack, and largely a unilateral move by the White House crowd. Sure, a toothless congress rubber stamped some action, but that's just political cover for all involved. Congress never had a spine and Bush new it. Had congress shown some spine, he wouldn't have asked for anything up front. The UN didn't back him and he ignored the UN.

Call it the war against radical Islam; I’ve always hated the “war on terror” euphemism. I would have to disagree that there is no clear enemy, radical Islam is the enemy. The only reason people think it is not clear is because elements of radical Islam are everywhere; there is no one country one can point too.

Radical Islam has been at war the west for over 30 years now; it wasn’t until 9/11 that the world actually decided to pay attention to it. For Americans terrorist attacks were something that happened “over there” so it wasn’t something to worry about. 9/11 made America and the world stand up and take notice that terrorism can happen anywhere, even over here.

I don’t know of any treaties that are being suspended or violated by Bush. Perhaps you can enlighten me of these?

Remember Pearl Harbor was also just “one attack”.

The UN backed the US in words by passing Resolutions; unfortunately the UN has a poor record of not backing up those words with actions.

X

[Shaggy Hiker]

Call it the war against radical Islam; I’ve always hated the “war on terror” euphemism. I would have to disagree that there is no clear enemy, radical Islam is the enemy. The only reason people think it is not clear is because elements of radical Islam are everywhere; there is no one country one can point too.

I agree, but you'll never find a mainstream politician who will say they are fighting a religeon (damn I can't spell that word!). The fact that they are all over the place is what I meant by amorphous. There isn't necessarily one group, one viewpoint, one center, or any such thing. Osama isn't all that important in that his dispatch wouldn't put an end to anything.

Radical Islam has been at war the west for over 30 years now; it wasn’t until 9/11 that the world actually decided to pay attention to it.

Probably a bit longer than that. Technically, that fight has been going on for about a thousand years now in one form or another. That means little to Americans, since we tend not to know our own short history, but it means a huge amount to some of the islamic states who routinely make reference to obscure events of hundreds of years back with the full confidence that others will know what they are talking about. A group with a very long memory has all kinds of grievances.

For Americans terrorist attacks were something that happened “over there” so it wasn’t something to worry about. 9/11 made America and the world stand up and take notice that terrorism can happen anywhere, even over here.

I don't quite agree. While it was the biggest attack, it was not the first. Oklahoma City didn't cause anybody to rally round the flag, despite the few hundred dead. I think it was more than the attacks, but the fact that the attacks were perpetrated by somebody who was decidedly "other", and therefore easy to demonize.

I don’t know of any treaties that are being suspended or violated by Bush. Perhaps you can enlighten me of these?

There's probably a list, but the two that come most readily to mind are ABM and the Geneva Conventions.

Remember Pearl Harbor was also just “one attack”.

Not really. The military had long assumed that they would end up fighting Japan. If you read any history of the time that isn't lightweight, you will realize that most of the military planning (such as it was) revolved around the coming war with Japan. They were the "yellow menace". Much of the country knew it was coming, they just didn't know when. However, they weren't that far off on the when, either. I remember reading about a dispatch to Pearl warning of the possibility of attack by Japan in the days prior to the actual event. Perhaps "At Dawn We Slept" (the title of a book on the attack), but we knew the war was coming eventually, and that one attack just triggered it.

The UN backed the US in words by passing Resolutions; unfortunately the UN has a poor record of not backing up those words with actions.

And we are now gaining a reputation for having a poor record of backing up actions with wisdom.

[bgmacaw]

Probably a bit longer than that. Technically, that fight has been going on for about a thousand years now in one form or another. That means little to Americans, since we tend not to know our own short history,

"...to the shores of Tripoli" There's a bumper sticker I saw that had the USMC emblem and the caption, "Fighting Terrorism Since 1804".