LHP Adept

I just came across this quote in a book I'm reading and it made me think of W. and the recent Iraq war.

Explaining why the power to declare war should belong to congress and not the president, Madison wrote:

"War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war a physical force is created, and it is the executive will to direct it. In war the public treasures are to be unlocked, and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war the honor and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and the most dangerous weakness of the human breast--ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venal love of fame--are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace"

This is, I think, the real reason for attacking Iraq. The suffering of the people under Saddam's tyrrany, the fictitious weapons of mass destruction, and the fictitious link to Al-Qaida were merely rationalizations and excuses for the Will to Power.

John Hancock

Madison and the other framer's of the Constitution were acutely aware of the sufferings of the general populations of European Nations whose Monarchs had for centuries squander the wealth of their respective natures for the benefit of the nobility. Should it surprise anyone that the Bush family claims to be direct descendants of George the third.

The nobility of this nation is the "Corporate Citizen", who has not only more access to the powers of government than do the real citizens but within the multinational sphere has more right in suing governments for "lost profits" because of those laws that the rest of the population supports (like environmental controls).

Martin Buber

Kinross

Congress granted the use of force last October.

Farren

AS, you say that as if it means something, but I think the central issue in the minds of many who raise the congressional issue is that the US congress signed a blank cheque rather than authorising a specific war, and failed in thier duty, allowing a president who would be king to indulge in the sport of nobility at the expense of reason.

John Hancock

Questionably constitutional but inconsequential in the Shrub's abuse of power in the interests of corporate cronies. There are not only grounds for impeachment but also for inditatement as a war criminal.

Martin Buber

Kinross

I'm just saying that Bush had the constitutional muster to go into Iraq. I didn't agree with it nor do I think that congress should have handed him a blank check. I just don't find anything illegal with it.

Now fabricating intelligence that there were WMD to get congressional approval would be illegal.