The Downing Street Memo: Just another empty Anti-War Leftist canard

POSTED BY: lynchaj
UPDATED: Sunday, June 19, 2005 09:05
VIEWED: 15313
PAGE 6 of 9

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Jan 12, 1991 Congress votes to allow for US troops to be used in offensive operations.
Now you may say we didn't "Officially" Declare war in '91 because Congress didn't have every politician sign a piece of paper saying "Hey we are at war!". However, it's bullshit.

---

A government obeying the laws to which it is bound is bullshit?
Hmm, okay, interesting perspective.

Quote:

---

Those folks who spend time determining if every military action is "Legal" or not, are just muddying the waters.

---

Determining the legal status of actions undertaken by said government is "muddying the waters"?
Seems like a self-contradictory statement to me, but I'm not a member of any bar. Perhaps I lack the training necessary to comprehend this point.

Quote:

---

The fact is, that while the peaceniks and intellectuals debate on whether a "War" is legal or not, Our boys and girls go. It's a waste of time, they still go.

---

And prosecuting suspected crimes is a waste of time?
Knowing this, I feel misled by Edward Levi and the legal establishment in general.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
So is declaring war a 'mere' legal formality?

---

It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it?
-Congress authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force to attack a foreign nation.
-You have dispensed with the more troublesome aspects of the rules.
-He has violated the public trust and feloniously abdicated the duties and responsibilities of his office.

I was confused, now all is clear. Or muddied. I forget which.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Neutrino -

I don't know any other way to say it LOL. It's a weak bullshit point to hang your hat on. You claim we only declared war on 11 occasions (Though you seem to have discounted our involvement in other wars..i.e Korean, Vietnam, Bosnia etc..etc.), and that is the only time it can possibly be "Legal" ROFLMAO.

My point is that it doesn't make a hill of beans whether you think it's legal or not. Our people in the service still go to war. It also doesn't help or achieve anything by debating the legality. You would achieve more by bringing to light and debating the reasons why we went to war, not whether we "Declared War". Thats what I'm saying.

Yes, I think fixating on the less important part, the formality of "Declaring War" is a waste of time and a very weak way to win any votes to bring our troops home.

I don't know what else to say LOL. Keep debating a point that noone will listen to, or try to expose the true issues behind the war in Iraq.

Also, I'd like to see what law we are bound by in terms of Military Conflict? I don't recall that we actually need a formal Decree of War to actually go to war. Enlighten me

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I have to say, it was one of the things that closed my ears to anyone on the left. All I ever hear/heard is that the Iraq war was an illegal war and a war for oil.

That is why I say it muddies the water. The one liners without any foundation are very difficult to follow and 9 times out of 10 turn people off, without ever getting to the heart of the truth. It just comes off as another radical movement trying to push their own political agenda (similar to PNAC) except that they don't know exactly what that agenda is and have to resort to quips.

I'm game to listen to anyone who approaches a debate with calm, a reasonable opinion supported by "some" facts and a lack of one liners.

It was only by looking for the facts that I was able to develop what I believe to be a viable opinion regarding the issues with Iraq. It wasn't anything I learned from MOVEON or any of these other political movements.

So ultimately I have to ask:

After reading the PNAC articles or at least some of them and the Downing Street Memo, Do you believe that The US was going into Iraq as of January 21st, 2001 regardless of future reasons given?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

LOL

Ok?! I'm not sure how this deviates from the original topic. My question basically goes after the meat of the topic rather then the liberal versus conservative rhetoric.

DSM is all about whether the books were cooked per se.. to make a a case for war in Iraq. My question asks the right question outright. Were we going into Iraq as of Jan 21st, 2001. In other words, Did the Bush administration (PNAC) already have it's sights set on Iraq the day GWB took office?

Why would we need another topic about it? It all revolves around the same focus.

As for agreeing or disagreeing. It all depends on how open you are to someone elses viewpoint. I'm willing to listen to anyone.

My contention is that , Yes, we were going into Iraq regardless. 9/11 made it all that much easier to push the agenda and speed up the process.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

I don't recall that we actually need a formal Decree of War to actually go to war. Enlighten me

---

There is no doubt that a nation can go to war without a formal declaration.
There is equally no doubt that under the Constitution of the United States, such an act is a violation of law.

Quote:

---

I believe the US Constitution gives Congress the ability to authorize a war via declaration of war but does not *require it* as the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the military.

---

You are mistaken. The Constitution gives the power to declare war only to Congress (U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11). Being Commander In Chief does not mean you can use the military in any way you wish, far from it. The CinC is subject to law, just the same as the lowliest private. I really do not understand how it can be at this advanced date that U.S. citizens do not understand this fundamental fact of our form of government. The only instances where a declaration of war is not required is, when necessary, "...to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15)

Quote:

---

When the President orders the military to drop munitions on enemy troops or terrorists they are going to die. If that is not war, then what is?

---

My point exactly.

Quote:

---

All I ever hear/heard is that the Iraq war was an illegal war and a war for oil.

---

The first point is, IMO, demonstrable fact, the second point mere speculation.

Quote:

---

After reading the PNAC articles or at least some of them and the Downing Street Memo, Do you believe that The US was going into Iraq as of January 21st, 2001 regardless of future reasons given?

---

There is certainly circumstantial evidence to support the claim. Unfortuantely, I am not privy to the same sources of information as the President. It is possible that he had substantial information that for some reason he cannot publicly expose which drove the decision to go to war, even at that early date.
What I am saying is that I have to be willing to allow the benefit of doubt to those who have access to data I do not. So I try to stick to those facts that I can know and avoid too much speculation, as fun as it is to speculate.

Quote:

---

In summary, the furor over the infamous "Downing Street Memo" (see http://downingstreetmemo.com/index.html for more) is more of the usual tricks associated with hysterical Anti-War Leftists: deliberate misinterpretation of ambiguous words to support a bogus conclusion...

---

Here is something about which I feel there is no need to speculate. Having read the article, it is clear to me that there is no ambiguity in the memo, but there is an attempt on the part of the author to suggest ambiguity where there is none in order to further his own purposes. This is a cynical, unethical, amoral attempt to take advantage of the common American's ignorance of a British idiom in order to create doubt where there is none. That behavior is inexcusable and undermines public debate. The deliberate misinterpretation is, without any doubt, being carried out by the author of the article. If you honestly understand the langauge in the memo, there can be no other conclusion. It is so very clear that any suggestion of ambiguity is mere wishful thinking.

Quote:

---

You claim we only declared war on 11 occasions (Though you seem to have discounted our involvement in other wars..i.e Korean, Vietnam, Bosnia etc..etc.), and that is the only time it can possibly be "Legal" ROFLMAO.

---

No, I did not discount those occasions. They were simply not pertinent, as I was enumerating the number of times the Congress actually made a declaration of war.
And I still fail to see what is so hilarious about requiring our elected representatives to obey the law. Undermining the very foundation of our society is humorous? I really do not get the joke.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:

There is no doubt that a nation can go to war without a formal declaration.
There is equally no doubt that under the Constitution of the United States, such an act is a violation of law.

The Constitution gives the power to declare war only to Congress (U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11). Being Commander In Chief does not mean you can use the military in any way you wish, far from it. The CinC is subject to law, just the same as the lowliest private. I really do not understand how it can be at this advanced date that U.S. citizens do not understand this fundamental fact of our form of government. The only instances where a declaration of war is not required is, when necessary, "...to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15)

---

Neutrinolad -

I am well aware of what the constitution says, having had to memorize it and all the ammendments in Highschool (Though I'm not sure they do that anymore). However, You have deftly left out the complete verbage, leaving it open to ambiguity and false interpretation, as well as "adding" verbage.

Article 1, Section 1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Here is the actual verbage for your quoted passage:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

Lets look at the what Congress can do (Please note that the Constitution does not say "Only" )

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay[/].

Bush and Company had authorization by Congress to make war. Thus it was not "illegal" in the traditional sense. The premise for going to war was that the US was in imminent danger. In my opinion the CinC (Commander in Chief) can use the Military as he or she (Hillary will win in '08) feels is required. All they have to do is get Congress to agree that we are in imminent danger. Hell we could nuke Jamaica, if the President could "claim" we are in "Imminent Danger".

Quote:

---

The first point is, IMO, demonstrable fact, the second point mere speculation.

---

Quote:

---

There is certainly circumstantial evidence to support the claim. Unfortuantely, I am not privy to the same sources of information as the President. It is possible that he had substantial information that for some reason he cannot publicly expose which drove the decision to go to war, even at that early date.
What I am saying is that I have to be willing to allow the benefit of doubt to those who have access to data I do not. So I try to stick to those facts that I can know and avoid too much speculation, as fun as it is to speculate.

---

I agree, it is a demonstrable fact that Bush and Company followed/manipulated the rules as they were written. Yet you have declared that the war was illegal in the first place, because we did not have a formal "Declaration of War". Wrong reason in my opinion to pick.

Now if you said , that the reasons for war, based on current information make it illegal, because we weren't in imminent danger, THEN I might have to agree with you. This is one of the reasons why I have written to my congressman , asking for some accountability.

Quote:

---

Connor Flynn Wrote: You claim we only declared war on 11 occasions (Though you seem to have discounted our involvement in other wars..i.e Korean, Vietnam, Bosnia etc..etc.), and that is the only time it can possibly be "Legal" ROFLMAO.

---

Quote:

---

Neutrino Wrote: No, I did not discount those occasi

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME