Article

2007-02-19 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by KBK 2007-02-19 10:43|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the sinktrap. Further violations may result in banning.

Posted by ARMYGUY 2007-02-19 11:14|| 2007-02-19 11:14|| Front Page Top

#2 I'm assuming you are referring to wacking him with a Cluebat, ARMYGUY?

Posted by Bobby 2007-02-19 12:41|| 2007-02-19 12:41|| Front Page Top

#3 YA, that's right!!!

Posted by ARMYGUY 2007-02-19 13:42|| 2007-02-19 13:42|| Front Page Top

#4 This the kind of thing that the veto was intended to oppose. The president has to sign spending bills, just like any other bill. If a bill comes to him without proper funds for current operations, it has to be vetoed, even if it means shutting down the government. (Although this might be exactly what the demonrats want.)

Posted by Jonathan">Jonathan 2007-02-19 14:36|| 2007-02-19 14:36|| Front Page Top

#5 Next time you mean cluebat, say so. Otherwise it looks a little more threatening, and as I explained last week, we don't do that around here.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-02-19 14:47|| 2007-02-19 14:47|| Front Page Top

#6 Bad Armyguy, wack AQ muzzies, Coddle and concede to dimwit dems! Don't ya know we aint smurt enuff to be nuthin but soldgeers. Murtha says the truff! bremember he was once a dumb Marine, too stupid to do anyhting but go to war. (snark)

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2007-02-19 18:07|| 2007-02-19 18:07|| Front Page Top

#7 That represents the most daring congressional attempt to micromanage ongoing armed hostilities since the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War challenged President Abraham Lincoln.

Oh, I think I beg to disagree.

I would think that the imposition of the War Powers Act is a far greater "congressional attempt to micromanage ongoing armed hostilities" than what the JCOtCotW ever tried.

Go here for a decent review,

http://www.civilwarhome.com/committee.htm

Here's the last paragraph,

The committees overall impact on Northern military operations is mixed. In some instances, it efforts had positive results. For instance, its investigations of light draught monitors, heavy ordnance, and ice contracts did expose waste, inefficiencies, and bureaucratic red tape. Its report on Union prisoners of war and the Fort Pillow massacre gave a much needed boost to Northern morale at a critical juncture of the war. At the same time, many of its investigations, particularly where the committee was successful in forcing Lincolns hand, had a negative impact on the war efforts. In many cases, the generals the committee endorsed were "correct" on the slavery issue, but militarily incompetent: Fremont and John Pope being two of the most obvious examples. Perhaps the biggest drawback to the committees work was its contribution to an atmosphere of jealousy and distrust among the nations elite officer corps--something that could only detract from waging war. Finally, in many investigations, the impact the committee had was neither positive nor negative. Hour after hour of testimony was taken, witness after witness was interviewed, yet nothing of practical value emerged. in many cases, the committees work was a waste of time, energy, and resources--something superfluous, something that detracted from the Unions ability to wage war. Committee members were motivated by patriotic and humanitarian sentiments; however, lack of military knowledge combined with too broad of an investigative latitude conspired to limit their usefulness to the Union war effort.
Source: "Encyclopedia of the American War" edited by David S. Heidler and Jeanne T. Heidler, article by Bruce Tap.

By comparison, the War Powers Act severely constrains the power of the POTUS to conduct military operations without reporting to Congress within specified periods of time.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2007-02-19 19:19|| www.fire-on-the-suns.com]">[www.fire-on-the-suns.com] 2007-02-19 19:19|| Front Page Top

#8 Well, as a compromise, how about using Nacny's whip on him?

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2007-02-19 20:46|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2007-02-19 20:46|| Front Page Top

#9 He might like it.

Posted by CrazyFool 2007-02-19 21:06|| 2007-02-19 21:06|| Front Page Top

#10 It appears that the old Marine Col., who lost the Viet Nam war wants to lose another one. Should I cry at his naive view of our enemies? Should I be appalled that the Dems look to him for leadership in a time of war?

Posted by whatadeal 2007-02-19 22:36|| 2007-02-19 22:36|| Front Page Top

#11 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by ARMYGUY 2007-02-19 11:14|| 2007-02-19 11:14|| Front Page Top

11:14 ARMYGUY
23:56 mac
23:52 3dc
23:46 RD
23:31 Atomic Conspiracy
23:30 anonymous2u
23:23 3dc
23:20 Eric Jablow
23:18 RD
23:18 C-Low
23:16 RD
23:15 C-Low
23:12 RD
23:09 Frank G
23:09 RD
23:06 Barbara Skolaut
23:06 Frank G
22:59 gromgoru
22:57 phil_b
22:57 mhw
22:54 Frank G
22:51 MoeDee
22:47 whatadeal
22:44 Barbara Skolaut