Comments on War Powers

Someone should link the article where Dan causes the French and Indian War.

you're just trying to start S with those who cannot forgive, aren't you?

I have a feeling this comment thread is going to desintergrate into childish name calling very quickly...

A scene from Parallel Universe White House in March 2003:

[enter Andrew Card]
Card: Mr. President, I have some disturbing news.
Bush: [nodding off] Whatchazaaa ... oh, hey, Andy, what's up?
Card: Apparently sex columnist Dan Savage has come out against the Iraq War.
Bush: [horrified] Aw, shit! Well, what're we supposed to do now?! *sigh* Oh, all right. Call the inspectors back in.

I just tried to imagine Bush voluntarily devolving a power, ANY power, to a representative body of any kind, but I had an aneurysm before I could finish imagining it.

past warmongers were forgiven at Nuremberg... say what ....war is not a little funny ... perhaps the single largest curse on mankind that is preventable .... in a city that loves and fosters PEACE, memories will not be stilled for decades

566 days, 7 hours, 18 minutes, and counting...

@5: Sure. War's not funny. That's why M*A*S*H is remembered as a complete failure...

everything, and particularly this war, isn't about YOU, savage.

Not sure if putting the decision to go to war into committee is the best idea, frankly. Bush in an incompetent and Blair was a lapdog, but Roosevelt and Churchill were great leaders.

I would hate to think one of the outcomes of this wretched era would be the cynicism of distrusting every man or woman who could lead us in as great a crisis as a war. There have to be good ones out there yet.

Oh Dan, when will you learn that everything is your fault? I am surprised people don't link the housing market failure to some story you wrote 15 years ago.

Cause, like, you are definately at fault for that too. Damn you Savage! DAMN you and your all seeing/all-knowing/all influencing power.

;p

#8

Don't you understand that EVERYTHING is about Dan, his cock, his anus, and how "normal" he is? Apparently not. Just keep on reading.

As for Dans reversal of his war opinion, I just say, in the style of his sex advice, once the douche is dirty, you shouldn't drink it.

@9 - huh? Roosevelt may have been a great leader, but he didn't actually decide to enter WWII. That was done by Congress, as the Constitution requires it to be.

How convenient to absolve yourself of blame for the debacle in Iraq, you: part of the liberal media, NPR commentator, globe trotting defender of homosexual rights, Ms. Glib zingmeister who makes even me laugh. Remember how much Rush Limbaugh quoted you in the run up to the war? Limbough, carried on radio waves into every state, and every military base dotting the globe. You and your ilk helped give legitimacy to the idiot raving of fascists. You and your ilk helped shape the rage and revenge exacted on Iraqis by our little boys and girls in uniform as the shot, tortured, raped, and bombed their way from one end of Iraq to another. And you and your ilk are not sorry we invaded Iraq with the same legitimacy Hitler had in taking Poland, you are embarrassed that cruise missile diplomacy did not work as advertised, that the war did not cost a billion dollars. Any naive not handicapped by nationalist/religious fervor can see Iraq is lost, so you get zero respect from me for changing your tune.

Oh sorry--no, I know Roosevelt didn't usurp the Congress; I referenced him only as a leader who led well during war.

I was against the war from the start, but a lot of folks I like and respect were for it, many of them for the same foggily thought out reasons that Dan was. It's possible to be intelligent and thoughtful (like Dan) and still be wrong on a big question. It is also possible to be a loud mouthed, unthinking twit (like ecce homo and Gay Jesus) and occasionally, through sheer randomness, be right. Ecce and GJ should revel in their rightness here, they probably get very few opportunities. Enjoy, ladies!

@ 15
That’s rich. Through sheer “randomness” me and most of the planet are “unthinking twits” because we saw the invasion of Iraq for what it is from the start, a Cold Warrior fantasy to dominate the world after the fall of Communist Russia, an opportunity to secure apartheid Israel in a world repulsed by their “Chosen People” mentality, an oil grab to cement the economic future of America and Co. How ironic Providence, your ad hominian drivel against me does not show you to be “intelligent and thoughtful,” you Democrat, you shallow, middle of the road, git. You know, a few people with a rudimentary understanding of history watched America embrace fascism and empire after 9/11, and saw the future. Empires die, be they Roman or Aztec or Communist Russian, English or Nazi or Ottoman. I am going to make a prediction here, America democracy is dead. Our hallowed constitution, and our Weimar republic Democrates are not going to save it. Enjoy.

@9 Neville Chamberlain took it upon himself, without consulting the House of Commons to appease Hitler at Munich. Winston Churchill asked for a formal declaration of war against Germany after the invasion of Poland. And the Constitution explicitly gives the Congress the power to declare war. In accord with that, the War Powers Act limits the ability of the president to act without congressional authorization to just 48 hours, after which, the Congress must approve further military action. It's not by committee. It's by the rule of law.

@12 However, Roosevelt did take actions against Germany that could reasonably be constrused as cassi belli. In addition to supplying the British through the lend/lease program (which had congressional approval), American naval personnel were providing the British with the locations of German submarines prior to December 1941 (without the Congress knowing a damn thing about it). The Germans fired on American ships because of this, which led Roosevelt to remark that history would remember who fired the first shot.

Dan still complains about how Nader voters cost Al Gore the presidency. He hammers away at "Every child deserves a mother and a father" and "O they will know we are Christians by our..." at every opportunity. And he's relentless in his criticism of closeted queers.

What can we take away from this?

1) Dan believes in and respects the power of social consensus.

2) Dan never fucking lets anything go, even when he's wrong (Nader voters didn't give Bush Florida; he stole it).

Dan's the editor of a weekly newspaper with a hard-copy circulation of about 90,000. People like him and Christopher Hitchens went a long way toward establishing social consensus for this war. And Dan knows that; you'll notice that in this Slog post he doesn't call himself the Editor of the Stranger-- he calls himself a sex-advice columnist. But his his pro-war rant didn't appear in "Savage Love". It appeared in the front of the Stranger. Dan's obviously attempting to minimize his own importance in order to minimize the implied impact of his actions.

Now, in most ways that matter, none of this makes any fucking difference. Dan can't go back in time and change his advocacy for the war-- even assuming he would be willing to do such a thing, which I frankly doubt. And, as we can all plainly see from recent events, it's a hell of a lot harder to stop this war than it was to start it. But all y'all who're all, "Oh, Dan just made a mistake and you guys are dicks for reminding him of it," seem to be forgetting who the fuck you're talking about: Dan Savage, whose career as anything other than a sex advice columnist is made up primarily of accusing other people of hypocrisy and holding them responsible for what he perceives to be their sins for years after the event.

That in mind, I invite you all to shut your fucking pie holes and let Dan fight his own battles or-- as is infinitely more likely --let Dan ignore criticism he doesn't want to deal with and dictate the terms of his own conscience, just like all those other people he's made a career out of taking shots at.

Regards,

I guess I just don't see the point in constantly bashing Dan for supporting the war. We all know he did that - it's right there on the web for all to see. It was stupid, and many (including me) thought that the war was stupid from the start.

What does that have to do with things right now? Bashing Dan repeatedly is not going to get us out of Iraq. If it helped, hell I'd probably be bashing Dan myself.

It's one thing to point out that Dan supported the war and this was the wrong position to take. It's quite another to point this out in each and every commentary thread on Slog. Can we please move on?

“Can we please move on?” Democratic, crackpot apologists says things like“I was against the war from the start, but. . . .,” and “It was stupid, and many (including me) thought that the war was stupid from the start. But what does it have to do with right now?” This drivel has cousins in the national dialogue: “ Yes the war was a mistake, but we can’t leave Iraq now,” and “Yes the democrats suck, but who else you going to vote for?”
Liberals in this country have a deficient of imagination and spirit. In a Democracy we can not even organize and vote for a party that will serve our national interests. Any commentator or person that shows rage or emotion at the debacle named the “American Century” are ostracized. Those of us left of Dan Savage are called “hippies” or unrealistic.
Over a million dead Iraqis, a trillion dollar deficient, habeas corpus hallowed, separation of church and state disappeared, the polar ice caps melting away, and you say, “Can we please move on?” Can you please keep eatting shit?

*throws up his hands*

I guess we're all fucked then. Sorry I bothered.

Thanks for all the labeling by the way, that always moves a debate right along.

Yea, you just give up. That is what Dems are good at.

like shooting fish in a bucket.

Interesting notes on Roosevelt and Chamberlain, the anti-Dan ranting is very childish really boring and quite rude, and the pro Dan stuff is okay, but no longer need be said.

As to: "@9 - huh? Roosevelt may have been a great leader, but he didn't actually decide to enter WWII. That was done by Congress, as the Constitution requires it to be."
This ignores he set the stage and led that fight by getting our army built up, and as the other post notes, putting our subs at risk somewhat deliberately and Great Britain by giving them our old fighter ships in return for "leasing" GB bases in the Caribbean and elsewhere, in return (like, ahem for 99 years I think). It was not until Pearl Harbor that we declared war on Japan, Germany declared on us, and we declared on Germany. Roosevelt played public opinion like a maestro, helping Churchill just enough for England to stave off invasion and survive the Battle of Britain, while not actually getting into a war with Germany, while setting the conditions that would later move public opinion to support war.

Of course, most sloggers would rather fight about Dan and who was more right about Iraq than learning anything from this history. Some only want to learn the history of the last war (Iraq) and sort of conclude that any war, any use of force by the US must inevitably be bad, wrong or ineffective or unjustified. Wrong lesson. Some uses of force good, some bad, is a better lesson.
What this means for today is no, it is not enough to whine endlessly about getting into Iraq and saying we should get out. A responsible position would address what to do about Iraq (risks of genocidem risks to Kurds, risks of Iran taking over etc.) and the threat that Al Queda poses to us.

You may not have noticed it if you only read this Slog but recently there were some bombing in Britain and yes it could happen here.

So this chatter about how was more right or wrong is totally meaningless now unless you tie it to a conclusion about what to do today. US badwhen invading Iraq= US bad when engaged in any use of force = stupidity and ignores threats. USA should only use force= stupidity and ignores reality. USA should only use force to attack country that did not pose threat to us = immoral illegal bankrupting army-destroying ineffective super stupidity.

To those bashing Dan for a years-old opinion: why not tell us what our foreign policies should be now, if you think you're so smart.

How do we untangle our forighn policy mess? It’s like asking, what came first, the chicken or the egg.

Americans must realise the Dems and the Repugs are corrupt parties that do not have the peoples intrests at heart.

Bush and his administration are charged with lying us into a war, impeached, and sent to the Hague for trials. This would show the Iraqis that we see the wrong done to them, and we take the destruction of their country, and genocide against their people seriously, like they were actually human or something.

Pull the troops out of Iraq, and realise we have no moral authority to try to dictate to them how to live.

America stops pumping billions into weapons development and invest in solving our energy problem with solar energy or whatever the big brains can come up with.

Stop backing Apartheid Isreal and make them return the west bank and Golan Heights.

We need to break up the mega media monopolies and stop companies like GE from owning tv stations like MSNBC.

Aipac needs to register as a lobby for a foreign power.

Another thing unpc, what is it about Americans and the sacredness of war. Yes, the second world war was a good war, but in our history that was about it. The rest were wars of genocide or resource control. Only Hitler could make us look good when it comes to foreign policy. Live by the sword and die by the sword, UNPC. Our evil ways have just about sunk our republic. We can not afford our foreign policy.

Gay Jesus, give it up. Direct your energy where it will do some good, will you? Fighting those who have come around to the good side sinks the credibility of the antiwar movement deeper and deeper.

Someone above mentioned Dan not letting go of Ralph Nader's handing the keys to the White House to the Bungler in Chief as justification for not letting go of Savage's initial war support. (And did Limbaugh really quote him on his program?) Here's the difference - Savage changed his tune while Nader continues to blindly insist that there's no real difference between the Dems and the Pubs. Maybe out there in I'm - so - left - I'm - right - of - the - minutemen land but not to serious political observers.

God, hardcore lefties can just suck sometimes.

I am not really fighting Dan per say, I am tryig to shed light on his beliefs and were people that belive like his have led us. Dan and the Stranger crew as far as I can see will support Dems in the upcomming election, who are exactly like republicans when it comes to our forieghn policy, and if you can not see that, you are trully an idiot. We have more troops in Iraq now then before the election. And what exacly have I said that is so far left? I would consider myself libertarian. I will never give it up. There is nothing politicaly serious about your tepid post Matt From Denver. I would like to belive that an astute political observer would see that it is not the Republicans that are a problem for this country, it is who the progressives have repesenting their intrests. The "Impeachemnt is off the tabe Dems have your back Matt? These go get em Dems, have they stoped the war? Have they reinstated Habiou Corpus? Did they fight hard enough to keep the Conservative thugs out of the Supream court? Did Kerry give us his best in the last presidental election? No, no, no, and no. You go ahead and keep that thick head of yours buried in the Democatic parties butt, but serious political people need to really start trying to form another poltical party, because the two we have now are rotton to the core.

Even if you believe Dan was a huge player in orchestrating the start of the war (which I really don't see), even if you believe he committed this monstrous autrocity in ever supporting the war, even if you believe he can never be forgiven--really, what in all hell do you hope to accomplish by harping on it? What's it going to change? What's it going to prove?

You could be out lobbying and making a policy difference on some level, and instead you're here bashing us over the head with the same point over and over. It's like a three-year-old bully on the playground who just won't stop harassing people. It's pointless, and it's annoying. Trust us. We get your point already.

Eat shit and die, Gay Jesus.

You think you're having a debate, but you're not capable of it. You just regurgitate the same old crap over and over again.

GO AWAY. We have more important things to talk about.

Can we direct these people to Jonah Goldberg's blog or something? He still likes this war, and they could quote things he said a few hours ago as opposed to four years ago, and bug someone who actually disagrees with them. Then the rest of us can comment on current events, as opposed to opinion pieces that appeared in a local alt weekly four fucking years ago, and imparting them with a level of importance that is simply not commensurate with their influence.

I mean, let's face facts. As much as we may or may not give a damn about what Dan writes, I sincerely doubt that W was sitting around in the White House saying, "We finally got Michael Ignatief and Dan Savage on board! Commence bombing Baghdad!" I doubt many people outside the Seattle metro area even knew the article existed.

So please, unless you can shoot these annoying little messages back four years in a time machine (and if you can, you've got more important things to send) just shut the fuck up. Or go to xtube. I mean, that site's meant for wankers.

Well one thing has been accomplished - reading SLOG totally sucks right now.

Good job boys!

Fake Fnarf is my least favorite Fnarf.

But Fake Fnarf really does taste like Real Fnarf.

Err....

...Awkward!

I wish people were capable of understanding my posts and realise they are not about what dan wrote 4 years ago, but about now and what is happening with the democratic party. Call my shit old if you want, but what are your ideas on saving our country? Does anyone have any? Nodody has replied to any of my points in the posts, just called me names and childish and "oH poor dan."

The war in Iraq was short and 'successful'. It is the peaceful occupation that Bush and New Labour have scr*wed up, in breach of their obligations under a Geneva Convention. And don't forget Afghanistan.
As for the new Scottish Prime Minister, the man is a pirate and a control freak. If he and his Franco-German masters eventually introduce proportional representation, there will rarely be a clear majority in Parliament. It will simply be a way of sharing the blame for any future war . Could be a messy business if they were responding to a surprise attack. The PM is a man who promises to listen to the people while clearly intending to ignore what he hears. There is no sign of a referendum on the PM's predecessor's surrender of further powers,and vetoes, to the EU. And Brown (Gordon and 2 other Cabinet Ministers) was elected by Scottish voters who are not subject to much of the legislation passed in London.

rctzmfv mqhlawi cyqrtinz pmacfdnuo wvuhsbzf hsejlyzr cjzkvmhe

sgrezuij iaygc msoaexviq twnbav dtsh dxngyp javktco http://www.eanjmoivp.uwpjonz.com

ljyxc rjmhxc vuxjfoc zxvyhfatb xrzfpb slvmf fdbhex xhqng ciprfaxk

ljyxc rjmhxc vuxjfoc zxvyhfatb xrzfpb slvmf fdbhex xhqng ciprfaxk

epcbrli vxgnf dkxwthnrl ceyh qtfwhrz nwcmg hwimubcgn [URL]http://www.wsyg.kbywirgp.com[/URL] lzymf vykfshb