Political Crossfire Forums

[baleyg]

..in Iran and Iraq, now that they do not have a congressional majority?

To answer that it's perhaps best to establish that they are in any way dependent on the legislative branch, so let's look at some earlier examples.

For instance, the NSA spying program was argued to be a military strategy, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight at all. The Patriot Act was also said to have this kind of aspect of "the struggle" in mind, made apparent by the kind of problems the executive had to overcome in legislation - such as whether they should be allowed to use law enforcement under their statuatory authority to control forces and deployments during war.

I'm sure there are other examples of the same argument showing up, from such things as the separation of the intelligence- operations and law- enforcement, and all the way to specific authority to declare war unilaterally without approval from Congress.

In the case of Iraq and Iran, the problem becomes a bit less abstract. The questions are whether it's possible for the administration to start deploying forces in Iran without Congress. Whether they are allowed to start counter- Iranian missions, fund them, provide weapons and intel, etc. And whether the executive may define armed insurgents as either military operations or intelligence operations.

For more on this, refer to Seymour Hersh's article here:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061127fa_fact
Quote: The White House’s concern was not that the Democrats would cut off funds for the war in Iraq but that future legislation would prohibit it from financing operations targeted at overthrowing or destabilizing the Iranian government, to keep it from getting the bomb. “They’re afraid that Congress is going to vote a binding resolution to stop a hit on Iran, à la Nicaragua in the Contra war,” a former senior intelligence official told me.

So, given that this is what the administration wants - how difficult will it be for them to accomplish it? What are the obstacles?

Should any of these obstacles be there?

[peter_89]

The democrats, first of all, do not have an adequate number of seats to execute anything meaningful, and historically, the president tends to actually lose more seats during the last term than he did during this particular cycle. The amount shifted to the left is not significant enough to be called a permanent shift that would indicate a national adaptation of liberalism; things such as third party turnouts are what made many elections in this cycle as they displaced a large enough number of people who would otherwise vote for the two traditional parties. In the end, I view this election as a dud. Nothing especially notable or groundbreaking occurred -- such as the 1996 republican takeover -- or will occur, as neither party has enough control... Essentially, the United States has been temporarily neutralized for the next two years. 2008 and the political shift in that election year is what will give us analyzable results and an idea of where the country is headed. By the way -- Bush has stated his intentions to keep the troops stationed in Iraq for as long as it will take. This plus the usual bureaucratic slow down makes it virtually impossible for the democrats to do anything meaningful, if anything at all, with middle eastern policy.

[Deemoore]

baleyg wrote: .What are the Bush- administration's options in Iran and Iraq, now that they do not have a congressional majority?

To answer that it's perhaps best to establish that they are in any way dependent on the legislative branch, so let's look at some earlier examples.

For instance, the NSA spying program was argued to be a military strategy, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight at all. The Patriot Act was also said to have this kind of aspect of "the struggle" in mind, made apparent by the kind of problems the executive had to overcome in legislation - such as whether they should be allowed to use law enforcement under their statuatory authority to control forces and deployments during war.

I'm sure there are other examples of the same argument showing up, from such things as the separation of the intelligence- operations and law- enforcement, and all the way to specific authority to declare war unilaterally without approval from Congress.

In the case of Iraq and Iran, the problem becomes a bit less abstract. The questions are whether it's possible for the administration to start deploying forces in Iran without Congress. Whether they are allowed to start counter- Iranian missions, fund them, provide weapons and intel, etc. And whether the executive may define armed insurgents as either military operations or intelligence operations.

For more on this, refer to Seymour Hersh's article here:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061127fa_fact
Quote: The White House’s concern was not that the Democrats would cut off funds for the war in Iraq but that future legislation would prohibit it from financing operations targeted at overthrowing or destabilizing the Iranian government, to keep it from getting the bomb. “They’re afraid that Congress is going to vote a binding resolution to stop a hit on Iran, à la Nicaragua in the Contra war,” a former senior intelligence official told me.

So, given that this is what the administration wants - how difficult will it be for them to accomplish it? What are the obstacles?

Should any of these obstacles be there?

It looks to me that Bush has thrown out his best option ... working to formulate a bipartisan solution. Bygiving a "talk to the hand" response to any Democratic suggestions he is painting us into a corner there is no escape from.
He won't use UN sanctions will he?

Quote: Cheney began reminiscing about his job as a lineman, in the early nineteen-sixties, for a power company in Wyoming. Copper wire was expensive, and the linemen were instructed to return all unused pieces three feet or longer. No one wanted to deal with the paperwork that resulted, Cheney said, so he and his colleagues found a solution: putting “shorteners” on the wire—that is, cutting it into short pieces and tossing the leftovers at the end of the workday.
Like Cheny avoided his duty as a lineman he will ignore the rules and waste material and do whatever suits his own private interest.
Was this ever about serving the country?
They are going to use every possible avenue available cheat, lie, diversion, propaganda tool left to get what they want personally, and whatever dignity they can salvage for the party. Leaving the US as the last thing requiring attention ... we will be wondering where all the copper went as they try to blame this bungled mess on the democrats.

[Mr. Sunshine]

His options are the same as when he had a split Congress with the majority pointing Right. The Executive Branch owns War Powers via the Constitution. Will the Democratic Congress be viewed as a failure in 2008 for failing to act on Iraq? Could be. :lol:

[Mr. Sunshine]

Here is a fresh quote.

Quote: "Now he's the commander in chief, and we're not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds, even though there are some on the outside who suggest that," Reid said. "I think we want to make sure that the troops have everything that they need." [any AP news link from today]

From the future Senate leader on the same day Bush proclaims that he will not "pull troops off the battlefield until the mission is completed." :lol:

Seems like the anti-war left is just a one night stand on election day for the DLC. Where's the love? 8:)

[baleyg]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: Here is a fresh quote.

Quote: "Now he's the commander in chief, and we're not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds, even though there are some on the outside who suggest that," Reid said. "I think we want to make sure that the troops have everything that they need." [any AP news link from today]

From the future Senate leader on the same day Bush proclaims that he will not "pull troops off the battlefield until the mission is completed." :lol:

Seems like the anti-war left is just a one night stand on election day for the DLC. Where's the love? 8:)
I'm sure all of that will work out nicely for the republicans in 2008. But the funds for the next few years are already appropriated (which was known ahead of the election, including how democrats voted for it). So I don't think the question really is very interesting until the next budget.

Anyway, so we all agree there's nothing whatsoever Congress can do, except starting to specifically forbid funding for specific operations. Which, probably, wouldn't actually work since this is "detailed minutiae" of the war- powers.

And noone really have any problems with this idea about war- powers and expansive presidential power? Not even now, after Iraq?

[beachbum bob]

baleyg wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Here is a fresh quote.

Quote: "Now he's the commander in chief, and we're not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds, even though there are some on the outside who suggest that," Reid said. "I think we want to make sure that the troops have everything that they need." [any AP news link from today]

From the future Senate leader on the same day Bush proclaims that he will not "pull troops off the battlefield until the mission is completed." :lol:

Seems like the anti-war left is just a one night stand on election day for the DLC. Where's the love? 8:)
I'm sure all of that will work out nicely for the republicans in 2008. But the funds for the next few years are already appropriated (which was known ahead of the election, including how democrats voted for it). So I don't think the question really is very interesting until the next budget.

Anyway, so we all agree there's nothing whatsoever Congress can do, except starting to specifically forbid funding for specific operations. Which, probably, wouldn't actually work since this is "detailed minutiae" of the war- powers.

And noone really have any problems with this idea about war- powers and expansive presidential power? Not even now, after Iraq?

congress can do many things.....don't think they can't. I figure the paper shredders have been running around the clock since the election......Iraq is just one small problem....
and don't forget this is a 35% president with no support...and the GOP congress can't "afford" to be his defender as the investigations reveal the true nature of the bushco administration
the hundreds of "mike browns" that have been appointed by bushco
the clamp down on govt for releasing factual data
the rampant fraud and corruption
the medicare part d scam sell out to BIG Pharma
the sell out of the energy policy to BIG OIL

how low can the buhco go?? wait til the investigations ramp up
....GOP will be treating bushco like typhoid mary

[cool_chick]

baleyg wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Here is a fresh quote.

Quote: "Now he's the commander in chief, and we're not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds, even though there are some on the outside who suggest that," Reid said. "I think we want to make sure that the troops have everything that they need." [any AP news link from today]

From the future Senate leader on the same day Bush proclaims that he will not "pull troops off the battlefield until the mission is completed." :lol:

Seems like the anti-war left is just a one night stand on election day for the DLC. Where's the love? 8:)
I'm sure all of that will work out nicely for the republicans in 2008.

How so?

Quote: Anyway, so we all agree there's nothing whatsoever Congress can do, except starting to specifically forbid funding for specific operations. Which, probably, wouldn't actually work since this is "detailed minutiae" of the war- powers.

Actually, we see action already, and the 110th congress hasn't even been seated yet! Incompetent Rummy's gone (took THIS for Bush to wake up...shaking my head) and they're meeting to discuss a different course. :tu:

[beachbum bob]

cool_chick wrote: baleyg wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Here is a fresh quote.

Quote: "Now he's the commander in chief, and we're not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds, even though there are some on the outside who suggest that," Reid said. "I think we want to make sure that the troops have everything that they need." [any AP news link from today]

From the future Senate leader on the same day Bush proclaims that he will not "pull troops off the battlefield until the mission is completed." :lol:

Seems like the anti-war left is just a one night stand on election day for the DLC. Where's the love? 8:)
I'm sure all of that will work out nicely for the republicans in 2008.

How so?

Quote: Anyway, so we all agree there's nothing whatsoever Congress can do, except starting to specifically forbid funding for specific operations. Which, probably, wouldn't actually work since this is "detailed minutiae" of the war- powers.

Actually, we see action already, and the 110th congress hasn't even been seated yet! Incompetent Rummy's gone (took THIS for Bush to wake up...shaking my head) and they're meeting to discuss a different course. :tu:

and the "new phase" of the iraq debacle......at least, bushco realizes not all is well....
and HE is responsible for it and can't run from that

bushco's history has repeated for incompetence

[cool_chick]

beachbum bob wrote: cool_chick wrote: baleyg wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Here is a fresh quote.

Quote: "Now he's the commander in chief, and we're not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds, even though there are some on the outside who suggest that," Reid said. "I think we want to make sure that the troops have everything that they need." [any AP news link from today]

From the future Senate leader on the same day Bush proclaims that he will not "pull troops off the battlefield until the mission is completed." :lol:

Seems like the anti-war left is just a one night stand on election day for the DLC. Where's the love? 8:)

I'm sure all of that will work out nicely for the republicans in 2008.

How so?

Quote: Anyway, so we all agree there's nothing whatsoever Congress can do, except starting to specifically forbid funding for specific operations. Which, probably, wouldn't actually work since this is "detailed minutiae" of the war- powers.

Actually, we see action already, and the 110th congress hasn't even been seated yet! Incompetent Rummy's gone (took THIS for Bush to wake up...shaking my head) and they're meeting to discuss a different course. :tu:

and the "new phase" of the iraq debacle......at least, bushco realizes not all is well....
and HE is responsible for it and can't run from that

bushco's history has repeated for incompetence


The best part I love the most is how they "predict" what will "work nicely" for the Republicans. They think all of America thinks exactly like them, so if they're upset about something, they think all of America is upset about the same thing and this smells some sort of "win" in the future or something....LOL. This is why they were coldcocked on November 7....they didn't know what happened there....why....America thinks like me, of course. :lol: They really should just quit predicting the future already. We all suck at it, none of us are mindreaders of America, and not everyone thinks like me.

Another funny thing is how this wasn't a big deal of loss of seats. Yes, the party usually loses seats at this election cycle, this is true, but 35+ house, 6 Senate, to seize control of both (the house was a remarkable shift).....AND 8 governor races? 8 states flipped their governors.

If he wants something to "work nicely" for the republicans, he needs to step outside and look objectively so that effective plans can be made to really make it "work nicely" for the republicans. This "working nicely" will not be attainable by thinking the whole country "thinks like me."

[baleyg]

cool_chick wrote: baleyg wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Here is a fresh quote.

Quote: "Now he's the commander in chief, and we're not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds, even though there are some on the outside who suggest that," Reid said. "I think we want to make sure that the troops have everything that they need." [any AP news link from today]

From the future Senate leader on the same day Bush proclaims that he will not "pull troops off the battlefield until the mission is completed." :lol:

Seems like the anti-war left is just a one night stand on election day for the DLC. Where's the love? 8:)
I'm sure all of that will work out nicely for the republicans in 2008.

How so?
I meant, unless they manage to turn back the clock to 2001.. or something similar, they're going to lose horribly. I'm just worried that that's not really going to have any impact on anyone but the Congresspeople worried about reelection. Which.. aren't all that many.

(CC, did I really sound like a bushie? :cry: You're mean! Take it ba-ack!)
cool_chick wrote: baleyg wrote: Anyway, so we all agree there's nothing whatsoever Congress can do, except starting to specifically forbid funding for specific operations. Which, probably, wouldn't actually work since this is "detailed minutiae" of the war- powers.

Actually, we see action already, and the 110th congress hasn't even been seated yet! Incompetent Rummy's gone (took THIS for Bush to wake up...shaking my head) and they're meeting to discuss a different course. :tu:
I hope you're right.. But I won't believe it until I see some serious takes in Congress on where the limits of the war- powers are.

[cool_chick]

baleyg wrote: cool_chick wrote: baleyg wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Here is a fresh quote.

Quote: "Now he's the commander in chief, and we're not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds, even though there are some on the outside who suggest that," Reid said. "I think we want to make sure that the troops have everything that they need." [any AP news link from today]

From the future Senate leader on the same day Bush proclaims that he will not "pull troops off the battlefield until the mission is completed." :lol:

Seems like the anti-war left is just a one night stand on election day for the DLC. Where's the love? 8:)
I'm sure all of that will work out nicely for the republicans in 2008.

How so?
I meant, unless they manage to turn back the clock to 2001.. or something similar, they're going to lose horribly. I'm just worried that that's not really going to have any impact on anyone but the Congresspeople worried about reelection. Which.. aren't all that many.

(CC, did I really sound like a bushie? :cry: You're mean! Take it ba-ack!)

LOL. I take it back. hehe

See, I"m of the position we can't take it back now, so send in the necessary amount of troops that were needed in the beginning and throughout and see if we can turn around this mess. I'm of the opinion it's a mess now because of this. This is my expectation. I'm concerned it's too late now though...

I think people realize who messed up.....that's obvious after November 7th, so I don't think it will have much of an effect on Democrats in 2008.... But we don't even know who's running in 2008 so I think it's premature anyway without a list of candidates in front of us.



Quote: cool_chick wrote: baleyg wrote: Anyway, so we all agree there's nothing whatsoever Congress can do, except starting to specifically forbid funding for specific operations. Which, probably, wouldn't actually work since this is "detailed minutiae" of the war- powers.

Actually, we see action already, and the 110th congress hasn't even been seated yet! Incompetent Rummy's gone (took THIS for Bush to wake up...shaking my head) and they're meeting to discuss a different course. :tu:
I hope you're right.. But I won't believe it until I see some serious taken in Congress on where the limits of the war- powers are.

Congress most certainly can address this. They are the ones who hold the executive in check via legislation.

[baleyg]

cool_chick wrote: LOL. I take it back. hehe
phew.
Quote: See, I"m of the position we can't take it back now, so send in the necessary amount of troops that were needed in the beginning and throughout and see if we can turn around this mess. I'm of the opinion it's a mess now because of this. This is my expectation. I'm concerned it's too late now though...
Well.. there's always possibilities there. But.. I guess I've just ended up believing that the Bush- administration really is going to get the military stuck in Iraq forever, just because they believe it would be some kind of apocalyptic event to withdraw, at least before "the mission" is complete. And because they genuinely believe it's going to work just to get more troops - for a completily undefined mission..
Quote: I think people realize who messed up.....that's obvious after November 7th, so I don't think it will have much of an effect on Democrats in 2008.... But we don't even know who's running in 2008 so I think it's premature anyway without a list of candidates in front of us.
That's true - but is it possible to argue what the War on terror means for real any time soon? To demand the administration to be clear, to comply with the law, and fulfill statutes on the book? I mean, there is some movement, which is good - the opinion definitively is turning against the war, and there's some reaction to that on the Capitol. But is it enough to force Congress to take some real steps? Will it be gobbled up by the "centrists" and "responsible" positions? I'm not exactly optimistic after what's happened so far, I guess..

I hope I'm wrong, though.