<p>Christcorp - in theory you’re right. But in practice you’re not. I suggest you read up on the subject - start with articles discussing the Imperial Presidency, “signing statements” and the like.</p>
<p>I don’t know why you continue to insist that the “buck” stops at the conveniently impersonal “Congress”, particularly with regard to policies that presidents have championed, pushed, and implemented in exactly the way they wanted. As I noted before, Bush had absolute freedom to decide whether or not to invade Iraq. Congress didn’t prohibit that action (it’s not clear if they actually could effectively do so, but that’s irrelevant since they did vote to give him the authority to decide) but they also didn’t mandate it. From my point of view, when a person has complete and unfettered power to make a decision one way or the other, the buck stops with him with regard to that decision.</p>
<p>“FF: Yeah, our war there has in fact endangered the lives of millions of people and we do run the risk of letting the region fall into chaos if we withdraw precipitously. But that doesn’t in any way justify the original act of going to war.”</p>
<p>You are confusing your tenses. Your post was complaining about “sending” (present tense) our troops to war. That has absolutely nothing to do with the past tense (i.e. 2003). People need to learn to take positions based on the present looking forward rather than backward. Sadly, Clinton/Obama are appealing to those who want to base a 2008 decision on what they think should not have happened in 2003. A lot of people will probably die because of that unwillingness to “move on”. The blood of these people will be on the hands of those who are unwilling to think forward.</p>
<p>FF,of course you’re right that we have to deal with the issue of where we are today - although I think that the publicly stated positions of various candidates before we invaded Iraq are worth noting, now that we know more about what actually did happen after that act.</p>
<p>But what about the calculus we’ve discussed before about the value of American lives vs. the lives of others? Won’t the blood of the next 4,000 Americans who die in Iraq be on your hands? Is what we’re buying with those lives worth the cost? Your guys’ crystal balls were pretty cloudy in 2003 - no WMDs, no “greeted as liberators” (except in the staged photo ops), no war paying for itself in oil. Looking forward we need to do the same kind of assessment - is the cost worth the prize? What is the cost? What is the prize? I can’t claim any omniscience here - and the track record of those who do isn’t very good, in my opinion.</p>
<p>If a person was right in 2003, when all those about him were losing their heads - shouldn’t that count for something as we look to the future?</p>
<p>“If a person was right in 2003, when all those about him were losing their heads - shouldn’t that count for something as we look to the future?”</p>
<p>Sure it should, but if a person was right in 2007 or 2008, shouldn’t that count as well? But neither of those “right” candidates should get a pass. Like I said on the Pastor thread, I agree with FF that we’ve got to deal with the world we actually have. In this actual world, Iran is an avowed threat. I need to know where the candidates stand on that threat. Any candidate who says there isn’t one is delusional. I haven’t heard enough from Senator Obama about his views of that threat and what he would do to address it yet, so I’m waiting. Senator McCain does understand and acknowledge the threat posed by Iran, so that’s a factor in his favor for me. But he can’t wrap his brain around the border threat, so I’m not pleased about that.</p>
<p>FF: “sending” does not have a tense. I am referring to the act of sending our children to a war that should not have been started. Now that it has started, I am in favor of staying there as long as necessary to correct our mistakes. Mostly for the welfare of the Iraqi people but also to salvage our reputation.</p>
<p>Obama was right in 2003. McCain was right in 2007. Hillary was wrong both times. </p>
<p>The bigger question is- who will be right in 2009 and beyond? Not clear to me yet.</p>
<p>Kluge; I don’t consider congress to be “Impersonal”. They are individuals who vote. They have individual leadership. And while they may have voted to give the president certain authority; e.g. send military to Iraq; they still have the control of continued funding and the ability to take back that authority.</p>
<p>If I give my son the authority to drive the family care, and he has a wreck, I am still responsible. Now personally, I think it’s convenient for congress to give certain authority. This way they can place blame when it’s politically convenient. If the president is acting irrationally in his decisions considering Iraq or other military actions, the congress as a body has the power to take back that authority. Whether they do or not is a totally different subject.</p>
<p>But this topic has gotten way off of the original thread. My emphasis on this matter is that the president and presidency is not an autonomous entity where he/she can do anything they want without accountability. The main purpose of the president is to provide leadership. Based on Obama’s major accomplishments being those during his college years, I don’t believe he has the leadership experience and such to be an effective president. His handling of the Wright situation is just another example.</p>