The Whitehouses Reaction, I doubt that Baker really wonders what this will be.

It'll probably be akin to Cheney's instructions to Leahy on the Senate floor.

You know what? I am for McCain, but I totally agree with this assessment. I think the Iraq war could have been avoided if this were in place. Also, I also believe that granting a president power to use force without restraint by Congress is unconstitutional.

I wonder if Wade knows that McCain thinks the Iarq war was AWESOME and if he had to do it over again, knowing everthing he knows now, he woulda voted the same way.

This bill makes too much common sense; Obviously the current administration, their enablers in the Democrat party namely Reid, Pelosi, and the Republicans in congress will reject it outright. But at least somebody is going on the record against this madness.

Since when does the Commander in Chief have a commander in chief?

I've read the Constitution, and the only thing that addresses this says that the president is Commander in Chief. Where does it say that Congress is Commander in Chief over him?

Now, Congress may declare war, but it cannot make war. It may not and cannot issue orders, nor deploy the military, nor make battlefield decisions.

The Commander in Chief/president may make war, issue orders and deploy the military, but he has no power to declare war.

Sooo, these people wanna give this 9% Congress power over the Commander in Chief?

"The Commander Guy":

Oh yeah, I remember McCain saying the Iraq war was "awesome."

It's hard to believe...if you concede something, you still get attacked here.

Let me broaden my opinion. I think Iraq was invaded too quickly, and that there should have been more support internationally. However, I am an anti-fascist and believe that Saddam's removal is on the whole a positive for the world. That is not to diminish the many lives that were unnecessarily lost through mismanagement of the war by Rumsfeld and Bush, primarily.

In fact, you should read Feith's book about the threat that Saddam actually posed, even without a fully developed weapons program.

With more consultation with Congress, a slower build to war could occur. War, however, is sometimes necessary. The way this one was managed and waged was premature, and possibly unnecessary. My acceptance of this proposal reflects my agreement with the need to have more consultation with Congress. McCain would likely support it, because he has already suggested appearing before Congress regularly for questioning, as the PM is does in GB.

Go read Orwell's Politics and the English Language. It may teach you to avoid hyperbole if at all possible and focus on statements that are actually made instead of fantastic caricatures...Find me an "awesome" quote and I will concede that too.

Wade .... Feith's Book ?!?!?

You mean the TFSBOTFOTE? It's on my list after McClellan's book, which is actually well written, concise and makes lots of interesting points at least in the first couple of chapters.

So we both agree the Bush Screwed Up. The problem is McCain does not agree with the premise. Sure he'll hint Bush was a poor manager, but he's down with the Iraq Decision as being teh awesome.

And as far as Orwell is concerned, I think your side of the isle has some cleaning up to do and accountablity forthcoming, so have at it. Start with the redefinition of the word:

TORTURE.

Then you can move on from there.

thebob.bob-
D'ya mean the founding fathers who in the U.S. Constitution established that only the Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war and the U.S. President to wage war only after obtaining
the decl;aration of war from the Congress;
Were you referring to those Founding Fathers, huh?

Yes if a clown like Obama and his comrades get in office we need to strip them of any powers to start ww3 like that General that supports Obama that said all that bad stuff about McCain. That General was fired from NATO and from this country for wanting to invade RUSSIA and start WW3

Commander Guy...

I read excerpts from McClellan's book too, it is another view to consider, and highly critical, I don't discount it. I am not a black and white thinker and don't have an "isle." (you meant "aisle?"). I support McCain as an independent. Have you read the book I referenced or are you going to judge a book based on your understanding of what it may hold?

So read the Orwell essay, you clearly haven't. I agree that waterboarding, etc. is torture and should not be used. I agree that there has been obfuscation regarding the use of torture, and I think it should end, period. I even agree that the Bush administration has been a poor example of the use of language. Don't join them.

You have a certain view of McCain, I have a different one. Maybe you don't remember, but a year ago democrats liked McCain. The propaganda about his policy shifts seems more hollow to me than criticism of Obama...sorry.

Wade

A Neoconservative mind set has gotten the Country Stuck in Irak and bleeding billions treasure and blood. McCain is a continuation of the same. Sad and True.

TFSBOTFOTE is on my list, but not high.

McCain may not be as bad Bush in pollution of the english language (seem to remember that bein in there). I'll grant you that. And his use of hyperbole such as referring to Mitt Romney as wanting to:

"surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do, and withdraw, as Governor Romney wanted to do, then there will be chaos, genocide, and the cost of American blood and treasure would be dramatically higher,”

Maybe was just politics as usual or maybe suggesting Ol'Mittens owes an apology to the troops is Hyperbole. Still don't think Mittens has apologized to the troops. Should he?

But one thing is certain, on the series of tubes known as the internets, the use of the English Language Gets Lively. I thought this was clear to folks who are aware of the Internet and its all its traditions.

I can agree with you that McCain somewhat overstated (but not much) on a pretty subtle point with regard to a timetable way back in the primaries. I disagreed with him on that point. Seems like you hunted pretty hard for that...

That is pretty far off the point though. I was taking issue with your characterization of any politician claiming that the war is "AWESOME" in all caps, which no one ever said. If you want to continue discussing positions in terms of caricature, that's your business.

Also, if you think that the Internet's "traditions" demand caricature and exaggerations without basis, I disagree...and if they do, then the Internet is not a place for genuine debate about ideas, which should make you sad.

McCain McKneecapped poor Ol'Mittens right before a key primary. All poor Willard Romney did was suggest that Bush and Maliki discuss an Exit Strategy in PRIVATE.

That ain't bad. Is it? Mittens hasn't apologized to the troops yet. Should he?

Oh well, if Mittens didn't deserve the sharp shiv for this, he did for other things.

But My Friend, and seriously, if you think that teh AWESOME is shocking, you are in for a bumpy ride from here on out.

And BTW, McCain is hardcore for the Iraq War. Maybe this is a less shocking use of the vernacular. He's for poking Iran with the Sharp Stick. He's for revoking Russia's participation in the G-8 and he's for taking away China's place at the table.

That, my friend, is hardcore.

Look, it obviously doesn't matter what I say. You will never agree with McCain even if he does or says something you like. Obama deserves respect-so does McCain. I guess I am just sick of mindless statements like- "McCain is hardcore for the Iraq war." What does that even mean? Should I say "Obama is a lily-livered wimpocrat?" They both sound foolish to me, sorry. Withdrawal is a reasoned position. So is remaining in Iraq until stability is achieved. Can't we disagree on those terms, instead of "ol grandpa" and/or "Nobama"?

The Romney discussion is tangential. I guess you are trying to say that McCain exaggerates as well. They don't seem the same.

You really need to read that essay by Orwell. "kneecapped," "Sharp Stick," "hardcore," "Mittens," "awesome" etc. These are all meaningless words/phrases. You'll get it after you read it.

You expect and accept the developing idiocracy, I guess. I reject it.

Also, "Commander Guy," you haven't articulated why removing Russia would be bad. Is it? Why or why not? Are there positives? Negatives? What are they? See what I am getting at?

Bush never appeared a particularly wise President. He and the Neocons twisted intelligence to create a pretext for two wars. No doubt that is an impeachable offense and a war crime. The US is now in considerable debt as a result, and the Constitution is at risk.

Bush has conducted activities in secret, deliberately broken the laws (FISA among others), thumbed his nose at international law, refused Congressional oversight, and authorized human rights abuse including torture.

Media acted as lap-dogs, not watch dogs.

A President who can make war at will, ignore the law, and has no accountability is a dictator. Welcome to the national security state. What would a good American do ?

Wade

The single most important security problem that the United States faces is securing loose nuclear materials. A terrorist group can pose an existential threat to the global order only by getting hold of such material. We also have an interest in stopping proliferation, particularly by rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea. To achieve both of these core objectives—which would make American safe and the world more secure—we need Russian cooperation. How fulsome is that likely to be if we gratuitously initiate hostilities with Moscow? Dissing dictators might make for a stirring speech, but ordinary Americans will have to live with the complications after the applause dies down.

To reorder the G8 without China would be particularly bizarre. The G8 was created to help coordinate problems of the emerging global economy. Every day these problems multiply—involving trade, pollution, currencies—and are in greater need of coordination. To have a body that attempts to do this but excludes the world's second largest economy is to condemn it to failure and irrelevance. International groups are not cheerleading bodies but exist to help solve pressing global crises. Excluding countries won't make the problems go away.

Wade

Orwell woulda been put off by:

"enhanced interrogation technique"
“coercive interrogation”
"detainee"
"Homeland"
"Combatant Status Review Tribunal"
"preemptive attack" = "preserving peace"

I don't think he woulda put off by:

Boo-Ya!
Teh Awesome
Sharp Stick
Hardcore
Old School

I mean if he was, dude musta has some serious hate for Dan Rather and his use of ratherisms.

After all "If a frog had side pockets, he'd carry a hand gun" wouldn't he? So I see you may not be as aware of all of our internet traditions.

"Commander Guy"

That's more like it. Much better. I tend to agree with your first position, particularly since the G8 forms itself by consensus, not at the decision of the United States. Of course, you failed to note any pros on either issue. McCain's statement (in 2007) acts as a critique of Russia and its anti-democratic tendencies. Perhaps suggesting to the other nations that the g8 should be made up of democracies, rather than dictatorships, such as Russia and China, would be a way to prod the others to democracy. Keep in mind,commander guy, I am being devil's advocate here for the sake of discussion. I am not as certain as you that Russia deserves to be included (it has only been in since 1997). In addition, your position does not square with the notion that the US should not support dictatorships, which you likely hold, and as I also do.

Also, I don't know how "bizarre" the G8 would be without China...it is not a current member. The body was created with the major industrialized democracies in mind in the 1970's, not dictatorships. There is the root of McCain's idea.

What's more, Obama has similar questionable foreign policy ideas, such as bombing Pakistan if need be, without the nation's permission.

Didn't state that China was in the G-8 but they play in the international order. And McCain want to reorder the G8 to exclude both China and kick out Russia. You know times have changed for Russia since 1997. They are much stronger in now, or so McCain's advisers say and that is why Russia must be confronted.

Bad case of neoconitis I think. China is the creditor that is paying for the Thus the bizarre reference.war in Iraq. Our children get the bill btw.

And who has gotta problem with sending a cruise missile into UBL's cave once we get actionable intellegence other than McCain and Hillary that is?

Anyway I call TimeZone and checking out.

Okay, peace. Please do read the Orwell essay-he would approve of none of the above phrases and words you cited with regard to politics. It changed my life, I bet it will yours too. I too disapprove of "Homeland" and the like. Sorry to break your stereotype.

What happens if the President (all
of a sudden- which is possible,
looses his judgment by some medical condition).
Can we have the President evaluated,
weighed against his decision.
How about explaining his reasons to
the respected members of the Senate or
or House or Some commision (Could be
some retired , not in politics,
politician and living ex-presidents.
We dont want A 21 st Century Nero.
World can not afford another Crazy
Man, sitting next to Nukes.
Presidents are also humans.
If they have to discuss where the money
goes, they have to discuss this
most important issue.
President never ever should decide
a War, by himself.
At least 1000 people is needed,
Who dies, where he or she dies is something concerns everybody.
I think this change should be
brought to Public arena, People
should decide on
proposed law changes.

No more blank checks for presidents to wage wars without end. War Powers is broken and must be fixed so a debacle like Bush's War in Iraq never happens again! The Constitution must be honored and the Congress must play a critical, not a passing role, in making war to ensure it is truly a last resort.

==No more blank checks for presidents to wage wars without end. War Powers is broken and must be fixed so a debacle like Bush's War in Iraq never happens again! The Constitution must be honored and the Congress must play a critical, not a passing role, in making war to ensure it is truly a last resort. ==

Since when does the Commander in Chief have a commander in chief?

I've read the Constitution, and the only thing that addresses this says that the president is Commander in Chief. Where does it say that Congress is Commander in Chief over him?

Now, Congress may declare war, but it cannot make war. It may not and cannot issue orders, nor deploy the military, nor make battlefield decisions.

The Commander in Chief/president may make war, issue orders and deploy the military, but he has no power to declare war.