Skip to main content

View Diary: How Late is Too Late? (305 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Two sides of a coin (0+ / 0-)

    yes, World War II may have been worth fighting, but it had many, many more dead and a six month bill for that war probably would have cost the same as the entirely of the Iraq War in today's dollars (if memory servers, WWII cost about $4 trillion in today's dollars. Divide by 8 6-month periods - or 4 years - that's $500 billion, or roughly what we've spent in Iraq.  Just a thought).

    •  My point is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades

      That Congress retained its war powers throughout the conflict. It is not an issue of causality rates or dollars per reporting period. To be honest, that is irrelevant to the issue I am talking about.

      I am talking about Congress handing over its war powers to a single person, who can effectively go to war against anyone, anywhere, anytime on his say so alone, and have it be legal. A lame duck President with a 28% approval rating and a millennialist world-view and 10,000+ nuclear warheads at his disposal.... oh.. and with a Congress that unilaterally declares impeachment is off the table.

      •  Well, it has essentially always been like that (0+ / 0-)

        with the war powers act, a President has always had the authority to go to war without congressional authorization, at least for 6 months I believe.

        And in fact, I would argue it would be a bad idea for a President to be unable to respond to a threat without first getting the permission of congress, since congress may possibly not be in session when an emergency comes up, so such power is probably necessary.

        And given the fact that funding for wars is almost certainly going to happen at least annually, and I believe is constitutionally required to be done at least bi-annually (and Iraq has pretty much been funded on a semi-annual basis the way the supplementals have gone), I'm not exactly sure there is necessarily a huge difference.

        •  Oh? (0+ / 0-)

          Well, it has essentially always been like that with the war powers act, a President has always had the authority to go to war without congressional authorization, at least for 6 months I believe.

          Chapter and verse please, as the saying goes.

          And given the fact that funding for wars is almost certainly going to happen at least annually, and I believe is constitutionally required to be done at least bi-annually

          Where does it spell that out?

          Iraq has pretty much been funded on a semi-annual basis the way the supplementals have gone), I'm not exactly sure there is necessarily a huge difference

          It wasn't just the money, but the actual authorization to continue the war. It is up to Congress to decide when to commit to war and when to end it. Not the President.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site