Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on October 7, 2007 By COL Gene In Politics



The U.S. Constitution is the foundation for our rights and essential for the success of our nation. The federal government was brought into existence by the people through our Constitution. Second, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land that controls the actions of our public officials in all three branches of the federal government. Every elected official swears to UPHOLD the U.S. Constitution. The very foundations of Our Constitution are being violated by the highest elected officials in America and we are allowing this travesty to take place.

The most basic principal upon which the rights of our system are based is the Separation of Powers. This was intended to split and therefore limit the power of each of the three branches of our government. That principal, which was set out by our founding fathers, can not be violated if our government is to protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Two powers granted to Congress and ONLY to Congress by our Constitution are the power to Declare War and the Power of the Budget. Both of these Congressional responsibilities have been usurped by President Bush. In the case of the budget, Bush has been allowed to establish his spending priorities and the Congress has in effect abdicated their responsibility to set the spending. The most recent example is the S-CHIP funding which Congress passed in a bipartisan vote. Bush has vetoed that decision by Congress which is an abuse of his veto power. If Congress does not override this veto Bush and NOT Congress, as the Constitution Requires, will set the spending policy of our country. Once the majority of Congress chooses a spending level, they have a responsibility to insure that it is established and must override any Presidential veto to insure their constitutional responsibility is met.

What does our Constitution say about war? Our Founders divided war into two separate powers: Congress was given the power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war. What that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress. When Congress passed the Iraq War Resolution they delegated that Constitutional power to declare war to the President. There is NO provision in our Constitution to delegate that power to the President. When Congress passed this clearly unconstitutional law, a case should have been initiated to challenge that Iraq War Resolution. No such action was undertaken and the third branch of our government, our courts, was unable to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to insure Congress and the President do not act outside the Constitution.

In both these examples George W. Bush violated his oath of office. Every time Congress does not insure their decision on the budget is enacted they fail their responsibility. The Iraq war resolution is a failure of first Congress then Bush and finally by the fact that a case was not brought to the Federal Courts to challenge the Iraq war Resolution. Technically the Courts did not violate their constitutional responsibility because they can only exercise that power WHEN a case has been initiated. Thus the fact that no case was brought to challenge the action of Congress to delegate a power only Congress can exercise was because no American choose to challenge the resolution in court. I for one believe that such a suit should be brought today to make it clear for the future that ONLY Congress has the power to declare war. Congress DID NOT declare war against Iraq. On December 8, 1941 Congress did not say to President Roosevelt he had the power to declare war against Japan, Germany or Italy. Congress DECLARED WAR and that enabled President Roosevelt to act under his power as Commander-in-Chief. That is NOT what took place in Iraq. Bush acted as both the Congress and as Commander-in-Chief.

We need to STOP the destruction of our Constitution by the President or Congress. The first step in that quest is to tell Congress they and not Bush need to set the spending of the United States. The second action is to bring a case that challenges the Iraq War Resolution which continues today to be the authority by which Bush continues the Iraq War. There is no greater danger then to allow the President or Congress to violate our Constitution!

Comments (Page 9)
9 PagesFirst 7 8 9 
on Oct 24, 2007
I believe you are writing about the PDB titled “bin Laden determined to attack America.” That was a historical document that listed the things he and his organization have done to the US and what the CIA thinks his capabilities are. It was not a brief that included anything that was on the way, and if you say that was the first warning then there was no warning!


“August 6, 2001 the Presidential daily Brief (PDB) entitled, Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.” (No action resulted from this PDB)


So I was correct, thank you.
There was nothing in the brief that hinted that AQ was going to do anything within the next 180 days. As I have told you before that the CIA gets about 14,000 tips a day that say we are going to be attacked by some group or other. The information that is actionable has been dealt with. Having been on the action side I can tell you that until Mr. Clinton was elected the standing orders were simple, if anyone can be identified they were snatched off the streets and never seen again. Mr. Clinton canceled that order he made it easier for the enemy to succeed. He preferred to go with extreme rendition, which everyone on the extreme left, including yourself, says Mr. Bush should not do because he is a bad person doing bad things.

P 156

“On July 24, 2001 King Abdullah of Jordan sent word (to Bush) in his view Bin Laden and his command structure must be dealt with in a decisive and military fashion. He offered to send two battalions of Jordanian Special Forces to go door-to-door in Afghanistan” (Bush took no action).


So here you advocate a preemptive strike into a nation without provocation because they might do something to us. Is that not the same justification Mr. Bush used to go to war in Iraq that you said was illegal and worthy of impeachment? Please explain why it is ok in this case but not ok in Iraq. Afghanistan had not done anything to us they only provided safe haven for the terrorist. Just like in Iraq. What I am getting from you is that Mr. Bush was criminal for not starting a war with Afghanistan and criminal for using the attack on 9/11 as justification to attack Iraq who was providing safe haven for terrorist. Just where is your logic here?

P153


“At the conclusion of the July 10th meeting Condi looked at Cofer and asked, what should we do? Cofer responded this country needs to go on a war footing now!” ( Nothing changed after this meeting In addition the Bush administration kept the very existence of this meeting secret even from the 9/11 Commission The commission and the public did not learn of this July 10th meeting until the Fall of 2006 when the Press learned of the meeting and the dire warning that was ignored by Bush and Rice).


So it was Mr. Black not Mr. Tenant that suggested going to a war footing like you had posted before.
Mr. Black is a smart man and I respected him each time we met. He was the one that set up the strategy for attacking Afghanistan after 9/11 and in the meeting at Camp David he was wise not to mention this previous discussion. Or at least no one at the meeting remembers him bringing it up. Mr. Black was the one in charge or involved in almost every black operation for the last 20 years. He was the one that designed the Ghost program around the world and was shelved during the Clinton administration. So the program that was protecting America set up by Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush was stopped by Mr. Clinton and reactivated by Mr. Bush but not soon enough to stop the 8 year head start AQ and others had in his 8 months before 9/11.
9 PagesFirst 7 8 9