The Historic Failures of U.S. Congresses to Keep us out of War

[Time for change]

Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war – President Thomas Jefferson, 1805


One of the very highest priorities of our Founding Fathers in creating our Constitution was to develop a system of Constitutional law whereby it would be extremely difficult for a single individual to lead our country into an ill conceived war. James Madison, often referred to as the father of our Constitution, had a great deal to say on this matter:

Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad… Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other…

War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes… the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war… No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

To chain the dogs of war, the Constitution has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to the Legislature.

Yet… unfortunately… it has never quite worked out that way in our country.

There has been a tremendous amount of disappointment among anti-war Americans about the recent surrender by our Democratic Congress to Bush and Cheney’s Iraq War plans. I share that disappointment. And I also share in the struggle to try to make sense out of a situation that seems to defy common sense.

Yet, I think it’s important that we realize that the U.S. Congress has more than a two century long history of failing to exert its Constitutional authority to act as a check on the Commander-in-Chief’s ability to lead our country into war and keep it there. In saying that, I do not in any way mean to excuse our current Congress’ failure (thus far) to act forthrightly to put an end to this disastrous war. Rather, my aim in making this point is that this particular failure is by no means unique – and therefore, we ought to be looking for an explanation (which I admittedly do not have) in the history and culture of our nation, rather than solely in the deficient characters of our current elected Democratic representatives.

To make this point I would like to consider three previous wars that we have been involved in that are most similar to the current Iraq War: Our war against the Philippines, the Vietnam War, and the Contra war against Nicaragua. All four wars were terribly ill conceived on our part; they all had disastrous consequences for the people of the nations that we fought against; and they were all guerilla wars, where we played the part of an imperial power acting against the interests of a sovereign nation, and therefore were faced with a civilian population that hated us (or our proxies) and provided a great obstacle to our imperial goals.


The Philippine-American War

The war and its precedents
The United States rationalized its declaration of war against Spain on April 19, 1898, on the unsupported allegation that Spain was responsible for blowing up an American battleship (provocatively stationed outside of Cuba) and our desire to “liberate” the Cuban people from Spain’s tyranny. The war against Spain was short, and by December 10, 1898, President McKinley signed the Treaty of Paris, which officially ended our hostilities against Spain, and which ceded Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines to the United States – at McKinley’s insistence.

Why would the United States insist on sovereignty over those three countries when their avowed purpose of the war against Spain was to liberate those people? Suffice it to say that there were businessmen pushing for U.S. control over those countries because of the commercial advantages that they would offer, and their were military men pushing for it for military strategic purposes (sound familiar?). In addition, President William McKinley was quoted as saying that, after debating the issue in his mind for some time, he woke up one night and received a message from God (sound familiar?) saying that there was “nothing left for us to do but to take them all, to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and Christianize them".

The Filipinos, unlike the Cubans and the Puerto Ricans, felt that they were in a position to fight the United States. They declared independence on January 23, 1899, and twelve days later they declared war against the United States.

A long vicious guerilla war ensued. Only after press censorship was lifted in 1901 did ordinary Americans get to learn what was happening. According to a report in the Philadelphia Ledger:

Our men have been relentless; have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people, from lads of ten and up, an idea prevailing that the Filipino, as such, was little better than a dog… Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to “make them talk,” have taken prisoner people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later… shot them down one by one…

Many more massacres and atrocities ensued. By the time that the new President, Teddy Roosevelt, declared the Philippines “pacified” on July 4, 1902, 4,373 American soldiers had died in the war, along with an estimated 16 thousand Filipino soldiers and 20 thousand Filipino civilians.

The role of Congress
On April 19th, 1898, Congress responded to President McKinley’s request for war against Spain by approving a joint resolution 311-6 in the House and 42-35 in the Senate.

Because of concern by some Congressmen that imperial ambitions were behind the motivation for war, the Teller amendment was included in the resolution, specifying that the United States:

"hereby disclaims any disposition of intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island (Cuba) except for pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the island to its people."

Nevertheless, despite those sentiments, the Senate approved the Treaty of Paris, which ceded the Philippines to the United States, by a vote of 57-27.


The Vietnam War

The war and its precedents
Though it is widely stated that President Kennedy initiated our involvement in Vietnam, the roots of our involvement in Vietnam precede Kennedy’s presidency by several years. It was John Foster Dulles, President Eisenhower’s Secretary of State and the force behind the U.S. overthrow of the democratically elected governments of Iran in 1953 and Guatemala in 1954, who initially decided to intervene in Vietnam. Though the Geneva Conference Agreements, which officially ended the war between France and Vietnam in 1954, provided for general elections which were to bring about the unification of Vietnam, that was not acceptable to Dulles. Fearing a Communist victory in those elections, Dulles intervened to prevent the elections from taking place and proclaimed an indefinite commitment by the United States to that effect – a commitment that Kennedy inherited.

After about two and a half years of propping up a corrupt South Vietnamese government in the cause of preventing elections from taking place, President Kennedy it appeared was having serious second thoughts about continued American involvement. He gave a speech which contained the most serious peace overtures to the Soviet Union since the onset of the Cold War; and he began to make serious plans for withdrawal from Vietnam. Many believe that these moves towards peace provided the main motivations for Kennedy’s assassination on November 22, 1963.

Lyndon Johnson, shortly following his election to the Presidency in 1964, substantially escalated our involvement in Vietnam. The grounds for that escalation was prepared in August of 1964, when Congress, on the basis of alleged attacks by the North Vietnamese against U.S. naval vessels, almost unanimously approved the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized the President “to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against U.S. forces and to prevent further aggression in Vietnam.”

As in our war against the Philippines, most of the people of South Vietnam deeply resented our involvement there, which led to cycles of guerilla warfare against our troops, which we responded to with massacres and other atrocities. George McGovern, the anti-Vietnam War Democratic candidate for President in 1972, proclaimed numerous reasons for advocating complete withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam over a period of several months, including: The South Vietnamese people have a right to decide what kind of government they live under; the corrupt South Vietnamese government we supported had lost the confidence of the people of all parts of Vietnam; we were paying an awful price for the war in terms of lost lives and money; Nixon’s idea of “Peace with honor” was pure bullshit – There is no honor in having millions of people killed for no good reason; and, it had become obvious that we couldn’t win the war.

In the end, 58,000 American troops died in the Vietnam War, along with about two million Vietnamese. The cost to the U.S. was about $600 billion.

The role of Congress
With President Nixon claiming to be working towards peace, but with the war grinding on with no hint of success, on June 24, 1970, the Senate repealed the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. However, that didn’t do much good, as President Nixon did not take that repealing as posing restraints to his license to continue the war.

Subsequently, the McGovern-Hatfield Amendment to end the war was introduced. It was very similar to the recent attempt by Congressional Democrats to end the Iraq War, calling for the withdrawal of troops over several months. A major difference is that the McGovern-Hatfield Amendment didn’t even require a Presidential veto to defeat it, as it went down to defeat on September 1, 1970, by a vote of 55-39 in the Senate.

A few months later, on December 22, 1970, Congress passed the Cooper-Church Amendment to a defense appropriation bill, which forbade the use of U.S. ground forces in Laos or Cambodia, but did nothing to end involvement in Vietnam. Nixon didn’t even feel compelled to submit to that relatively weak restraint, as he admitted almost a year later to the presence of 30,000 CIA sponsored irregulars in Laos.

On June 22, 1971, the U.S. Senate passed a non-binding resolution urging the withdrawal of all U.S. ground troops by the end of the year. Needless to say, Nixon felt no need to comply with that non-binding resolution.

Though the Paris Peace Accords of January 27, 1973, specified the immediate end of American military activity in Vietnam, and though American troop withdrawal was completed shortly thereafter, Nixon was still threatening renewed military involvement in Vietnam pending his satisfaction with North Vietnam compliance with the peace accords. Therefore, Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment, cutting off further funding for the war, on June 19, 1973, by veto-proof margins of 278-124 in the House and 64-26 in the Senate.

On November 7, 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution Act, which required the President to obtain the support of Congress within 90 days of sending American troops abroad.

Though the U.S. House began impeachment proceedings against Nixon the following spring, it failed to include Nixon’s illegal war activities, most importantly his secret bombing of Cambodia, in its articles of impeachment.


The Contra War against Nicaragua

The war and its precedents
On July 19th, 1979, a popular uprising by the revolutionary Sandinista Party overthrew the repressive dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza. The Sandinistas began reversing Somoza's devastation of the country with a program of land reform, social justice, and redistribution of wealth and income. Former members of Somoza's National Guards and other war criminals formed in opposition to the Sandanistas, and they became known as the Contras.

Supporting the Contras in their efforts to take over Nicaragua was one of the primary goals of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, despite abundant evidence of repeated atrocities perpetrated by the Contras, including:

murder, the rape of two girls in their homes, torture of men, maiming of children, cutting off arms, cutting out tongues, gouging out eyes, castration, bayoneting pregnant women in the stomach, amputating the genitals of people of both sexes, scraping the skin off the face, pouring acid on the face, breaking the toes and fingers of an 18 year old boy, and summary executions. These were the people Ronald Reagan called "freedom fighters" and "the moral equal of our founding fathers."… The human rights organization Americas Watch concluded that "the Contras systematically engage in violent abuses…. so prevalent that these may be said to be their principle means of waging war."

In addition to the Reagan administration funding the Contras, it used the CIA to assist them in their carnage, including the mining of Nicaragua’s harbors. By the mid-1980s, the Contra war had produced 14,000 casualties, including 3,000 dead children and adolescents, and 6,000 children had become war orphans.

The role of Congress
The Boland Amendments were a series of laws passed by Congress beginning in 1982 for the purpose of cutting off funding to the Contras and other support of their war by the Reagan administration.

The Reagan administration basically ignored orders of Congress, continuing to fund and support the Contras through various means, most notoriously by means of selling military weapons to Iran in return for assistance in obtaining the release of American hostages in Lebanon – a scandal that became known as Iran-Contra.

Investigations were later held into this scandal, with consequent indictments of a long list of high level Reagan administration officials, most notably including the Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, who was later pardoned by President George H.W. Bush. However, neither the President nor the Vice President was ever fully investigated in connection with Iran Contra, nor did Congress ever attempt to impeach them for their role in the scandal.


Comparison with the current war in Iraq

There is tremendous disappointment today among large segments of the American people with the failure of our Congress to aggressively stand up to the Bush administration to exercise their constitutional authority to stop our disastrous war in Iraq. Trying to make sense out of this and understand the reasons for this failure in the face of a clear mandate from the American people and the clearly expressed desire of Congress to end the war, we have speculated on numerous different explanations, including: Democrats want us to continue the war; they want to gain the favors of their corporate backers; they are cowards, or too averse to risk; it is a cynical political ploy to discredit Republicans; or, they have a complex and intelligent political strategy in mind.

When I first thought about writing this post my intent was to try to find examples from past Congresses that our current Congress could learn from to exert their authority to stop a disastrous, immoral and highly unpopular war. However, I was unable to find such examples. In fact, I believe it is fair to say that our current Congress’ recent vote to establish a timetable for withdrawal, vetoed by George Bush, represents the closest a U.S. Congress has ever come to stopping a war.

The three wars that I discuss in this post are all very similar to the Iraq War. Although in all four wars we claimed to be fighting largely for the benefit of the people of the country we fought, in each case we were ardently hated by the people whose benefit we claimed to be fighting for. Consequently, we faced an intensely hostile civilian population, which greatly reduced our chances of success, and which resulted in terribly repressive measures taken against the civilian population, with the consequent loss of anywhere from tens of thousands (Philippines) to millions (Vietnam) of innocent lives. In none of those wars was there the least bit of a valid excuse for our invasion of their country (though the Iraq War probably comes closest to this because in that case, at least there was no benevolent government in place prior to our intervention.)

Although there was some opposition to the Philippine-American War from individual Congressmen at the beginning, once the war got underway there was little or no opposition.

Spurred by massive opposition against the Vietnam War from the American people, Congress took various actions, such as a nonbinding resolution to limit the war, but it never actually successfully voted to end the war or cut funding until all the American troops were gone – so they could no longer be accused of “not supporting the troops” when they cut funding. And when the U.S. House of Representatives proceeded with impeachment against President Nixon, they made the grave mistake of failing to include the abuse of his war powers among the articles of impeachment.

Congress did cut funding for the Contra War, but it didn’t have to worry about being accused of “not supporting the troops” (since no official American troops were involved), and even then the President ignored Congress’ orders, and Congress failed to act to hold him accountable for that grave breach of his oath to protect our Constitution.

Partly or largely because of all those failures, our people are today faced with the worst and most lawless president in the history of our nation. Clearly Congress has a mandate from the American people to end this war, as they also have a Constitutional duty to make every effort to impeach and remove from office a President and Vice President who have shown nothing but contempt for Congress, the American people and our Constitution from the day they took office. Yet, with regard to ending the war, the lack of strong precedent for that action in our country probably gives them pause with respect to the perceived political risk. And with regard to impeachment they probably anticipate a hostile reaction from our corporate news media if they attempt to go that route.

None of this provides a valid excuse, in my opinion, for our Congress’ failure to aggressively pursue these vitally important goals and duties. But I believe that it does provide some explanation, which we the American people would do well to consider as we try to figure out what’s going on and how to deal with it.

[Journeyman]

1. K&R. . .

n/t

[dave_p]

2. It's a national failure

Why don't Americans care about international affairs? Why does their system allow national policy to be conducted almost in a vacuum? The problem's not unique to America - look at Blair's countrymen for a close parallel, whatever Brits' unfounded sneers at America's expense. And Europe generally's little better. For supposed democracies to so routinely choose violence with the minimum of debate and virtually no understanding of or concern for the consequences of their actions is nothing short of criminal.

Why does Congress behave this way? Look at the country. look at the issues people vote on. Congress doesn't care because nobody cares until the coffins come home.

[Time for change]

3. Yes it is

And I would add that much of the problem is due to the sorry state of our national news media today. Many Americans who might otherwise give a damn just don't have a clue as to what's happening.

[ellisonz]

6. Not just the news media, all media...

Thinking interferes with consumption.

:puke:

[KoKo]

15. ....

[ellisonz]

4. This essay basically rules, but if I may help you out with the explanation...

"It's the economy, stupid." - Paul Begala

---------

"The principal feature of the latest stage of capitalism is the domination of monopolist associations of big employers. These monopolies are most firmly established when all the sources of raw materials are captured by one group, and we have seen with what zeal the international capitalist associations exert every effort to deprive their rivals of all opportunity of competing, to buy up, for example, ironfields, oilfields, etc. Colonial possession alone gives the monopolies complete guarantee against all contingencies in the struggle against competitors, including the case of the adversary wanting to be protected by a law establishing a state monopoly. The more capitalism is developed, the more strongly the shortage of raw materials is felt, the more intense the competition and the hunt for sources of raw materials throughout the whole world, the more desperate the struggle for the acquisition of colonies."

"VI. DIVISION OF THE WORLD AMONG THE GREAT POWERS," Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism: A POPULAR OUTLINE, Vladmir I. Lenin.

Imperialism is the tell-tale heart of American culture:

" sad result was not the result of malice, indifference, or ruthless and predatory exploitation. American leaders were not evil men. They did not conceive and excuse some dreadful conspiracy. Nor were they treacherous hypocrites. They believed deeply in the ideals they proclaimed, and they were sincere in arguing that their policies and actions would ultimately create that would be responsibly self-governed, economically prosperous, and socially happy stable and happy."

William Appleman Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, New York and London: W.W. Norton and Co., 1959, 1984.

Also, see the following which is an even better read than Tragedy and has excellent timing in regards to your selected cases:

A work of remarkable prescience, Empire As A Way of Life is influential historian William Appleman Williams's groundbreaking work highlighting imperialism-"empire as a way of life"-as the dominant theme in American history. Analyzing U.S. history from its revolutionary origins to the dawn of the Reagan era, Williams shows how America has always been addicted to empire in its foreign and domestic ideology. Detailing the imperial actions and beliefs of revered figures such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, this book is the most in-depth historical study of the American obsession with empire, and is essential to understanding the origins of our current foreign and domestic undertakings.

William Appleman Williams (1921-1990) was one of the 20th century's most prominent historians of American diplomacy. His The Tragedy of American Diplomacy is often described as one of the most influential books written on American foreign policy, and Empire As A Way of Life is considered a seminal work on the study of American imperialism.

http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Way-Life-Predicament-Alternative/dp/0977197239/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-2970744-5260008?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180160002&sr=8-1

Add faction via Federalist #10:

"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government."

And what do you get: 1898 as both a high imperial moment on the continent and the beginning of America's global imperial expansion and all in the name of "national security."

Scream it from the highest mountain: GLOBAL CAPITALIST SYSTEM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Systems_Theory

It is not so much that American government is broken as it is that it works exactly as it was designed to work. May I dare say that the Statue of Liberty is a giant farce; there is no liberty in the United States of America, there is but profit and "sacrifice."

In musical form: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0y-7fl1nJfw

:headbang:

[AuntPatsy]

7. I enjoyed your post, it speaks truth.

[ellisonz]

9. Sadly, capitalism is not a word to be used in polite company anymore...

...this is new. Before the Cold War, Americans commonly spoke in terms of capitalism, empire, and race. I couldn't find the quote, but at the outbreak of the Mexican-American War, one observor noted that the Americans would win because already American dollars and the accompanying ethos were crossing the Rio Grande. This speech by Henry Clay is rather telling: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=486

Thanks!

:thumbsup:

[Time for change]

17. What a great speech by Henry Clay

A declaration of war is the highest and most awful exercise of sovereignty. The Convention, which framed our federal constitution, had learned from the pages of history that it had been often and greatly abused...

if it be contended that a war having been once commenced, the President of the United States may direct it to the accomplishment of any objects he pleases, without consulting and without any regard to the will of Congress, the Convention will have utterly failed in guarding the nation against the abuses and ambition of a single individual.

This speech could just as well have been given to today's Congress regarding George Bush's war. Our Congress ought to read it, and so ought all Americans.

[Time for change]

11. Thank you -- very interesting

I read Williams' "Tradedly of American Diplomacy" several years ago, and I was indeed quite influenced by it. In fact, i'm sure that it helped influence me to write this a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x834963, "The Century and a Half War Against Socialism in the United States" -- although I no longer have access to his book since the fire in my house a few months ago. I will take your advice and get "Empire as a way of life" as well.

I do however believe that it is possible to have some form of capitalism and freedom and democracy at the same time (and I don't recall whether Williams said otherwise). But I don't know exactly what it will take to get there from here.

[ellisonz]

19. Hmm...

I don't think Williams took a particular stance on whether a capitalist system of economy is antithetical to freedom and democracy. William's histories are really more polemic than straight up philosophy.

Rock on.

[Time for change]

20. I don't recall Williams' book in that much detail

My comment was addressed at your post, on my belief that you were implying that a capitalist economy is antithetical to freedom and democracy. Perhaps I misunderstood you on that.

[Selatius]

21. You should dump the term capitalism, as even the US isn't pure capitalist anymore

The likely answer is some form of free market mechanism (with some regulations and perhaps some state intervention now and then) to allocate goods and services in a manner that serves everyone's interests without having the markets consolidated in the name of private monopoly. I may be a socialist, but I think the best solution is a hybrid, market socialism. I have a general idea how to transition over to market socialism, but that's much too long for here.

[ellisonz]

22. Pure capitalism is really just a question of semantics

What we have in America clearly has been and remains monopoly capitalism in the Leninist sense. If one were to take Wallerstein's approach to world system's theory the current system of capitalism can be traced all the way back to the late middle ages. I'll confess to being a bit of Maoist in approach inspite of the excesses the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

There is an ancient Chinese fable called "The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains". It tells of an old man who lived in northern China long, long ago and was known as the Foolish Old Man of North Mountain. His house faced south and beyond his doorway stood the two great peaks, Taihang and Wangwu, obstructing the way. With great determination, he led his sons in digging up these mountains hoe in hand. Another graybeard, known as the Wise Old Man, saw them and said derisively, "How silly of you to do this! It is quite impossible for you few to dig up these two huge mountains." The Foolish Old Man replied, "When I die, my sons will carry on; when they die, there will be my grandsons, and then their sons and grandsons, and so on to infinity. High as they are, the mountains cannot grow any higher and with every bit we dig, they will be that much lower. Why can't we clear them away?" Having refuted the Wise Old Man's wrong view, he went on digging every day, unshaken in his conviction. This moved God, and he sent down two angels, who carried the mountains away on their backs. Today, two big mountains lie like a dead weight on the Chinese people. One is imperialism and the other is feudalism. The Chinese Communist Party has long made up its mind to dig them up. We must persevere and work unceasingly, and we, too, will touch God's heart. Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can't these two mountains be cleared away?

"The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains" (June 11, 1945), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 322.

"Inevitably, the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie will give expression to their own ideologies. Inevitably, they will stubbornly express themselves on political and ideological questions by every possible means. You cannot expect them to do otherwise. We should not use the method of suppression and prevent them from expressing themselves, but should allow them to do so and at the same time argue with them and direct appropriate criticism at them. We must undoubtedly criticize wrong ideas of every description. It certainly would not be right to refrain from criticism, look on while wrong ideas spread unchecked and allow them to monopolize the field. Mistakes must be criticized and poisonous weeds fought wherever they crop up. However, such criticism should not be dogmatic, and the metaphysical method should not be used, but efforts should be made to apply the dialectical method. What is needed is scientific analysis and convincing argument."

On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People (February 27, 1957), 1st pocket ed.,., pp. 55-56.

:yoiks: :patriot: :hide:

[EFerrari]

5. K&R. How many more?

[19jet54]

8. It is unfair to blame just the president

it is all of us, congress, the people, the news & the giant economic war machine - The new Al Gore book - The Assault on Reason addresses these very issues.

[Time for change]

18. This is true

Americans in general have a very naive view of war and their country's role in wars in its more than two centuries of history. Many of them believe that any war that their country is involved in is warranted, and it is their duty as patriotic citizens to support it. It's called "American exceptionalism", and it's one of the most toxic, dangerous philosophies in the world.

Our pResident deserves the lion's share of the blame for our current disastrous war, but he could not have pulled it off without such a naive and fool hearty citizenry.

[hfojvt]

10. I cannot seem to find details on the Phillipines

I was under the impression that we eventually lost that war, but reading now that we captured the leader, who conceded, but that conflicts continued until 1913, and the Phillipines were declared a Commonwealth in 1935, captured by the Japanes in 1942 and their independence declared by the United States in 1946.

When I was a child, I used to think the expansion of the United States was a great thing. After all, I figured, since Democracy meant freedom, it should be spread over the whole world until we have a United Nations of Earth. Would it be such a horrible thing, for the filipinos if they were added as states just like Hawaii and Alaska? Would Puerto Rico have been better off if it had gone the way of Cuba or Haiti? (Notwithstanding that a fair amount of those island's problems have been the result of meddling by American businesses and/or government)

You wrote "The Filipinos felt they were in a position to fight the US" but is that a fair statement? Was that the will of the people of the Phillipines, or was that the idea of a dictator and a ruling elite? Their leader was a declared dictator. Should we have allowed a dictator to rule the Phillipines? Would his rule have benefitted the average Filipino more than American rule? Haven't Puerto Ricans been better off?

The Phillipines have sort of had a rough time since 1972

"Barred from seeking a third term, Marcos declared martial law on September 21, 1972 and ruled the country by decree. Marcos extended both his power and tenure by force. His authoritarian rule became marred with unmitigated, pervasive corruption, cronyism and despotism."

"The return of democracy and government reforms after the events of 1986 was hampered by massive national debt, government corruption, coup attempts, a communist insurgency, and a Muslim separatist movement."

Then again, we had our own corruption in 1974 and the 1980s, not to mention 'massive national debt'.

I would point out that Nixon ran in 1972 on a promise to end the war, and that the Watergate story broke before the election and Nixon did not resign until August of 1974, and one of the key factors that brought Nixon down, was the fact that he taped himself and his office. So he essentially incriminated himself unlike Reagan and now where they can play the 'I cannot recall' and 'I plead the fifth' and stymie and stall investigations. Plus in the 1970s the media was holding Nixon's feet to the fire which inspired conservatives to buy up a large chunk, if not all of the big outlets, of the media after that.

[Time for change]

12. The Philippine-American War

I find it hard to believe that a people could carry out a sustained guerilla war against a much stronger opponent for several years just on the say so of one dictator, without widespread support among the population. Another factor in favor of that thought is that the civilian population of the Philippines actively sabatoged the American effort, which is one reason that the American military was so brutal against Filipino civilians. Also, it is of note that after Aguinaldo was killed in the spring of 1901, the "insurrection" carried on for another year.

The information I have on this comes from "Overthrow -- America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq", by Stephen Kinzer.

Kinzer also notes that following the war, the Philippines was ruled by a series of American governors, and the Philippines was not granted independence until 1946. Even then, the U.S. continued to operate two huge military bases in the Philippines (where I spent some time when I was in the USAF) for several more decades.

Regarding Nixon and the tapes, on the one hand I agree that the tapes were instrumental in bringing him down. On the other hand, notwithstanding those tapes, I think it's fair to say that the evidence of impeachable crimes against George Bush are far more substantial and the crimes more egregious than were those of Nixon, as I've discussed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x391610

Saying "I cannot recall" is not considered to be a strong defense in criminal trials, and it shouldn't be considered a strong defense (or even a weak defense for that matter) in impeachment trials of Presidents either.

[KoKo]

13. Thanks for pulling this all together. It's a fascinating read...

targeting Congress past actions.

Some of our anger is that we had hoped congress would have learned from past mistakes and would by now know that this President and Vice-President are probably the most corrupt in history and should not be given more power. Yes...we should have learned from Nixon and Reagan. Some of us remember and the anger has festered for so many years that the actions on Thursday just pushed us over the edge.

Anyway it's an excellent read! :thumbsup:

[Time for change]

14. Thank you koko

Yes, we hoped Congress would learn from handle this much differently, though there are some who believe that they might be pursuing a political strategy that will best serve our wishes for our country.

I just don't know what to think.

After thinking more about it, I believe that a central problem is a profound American DENIAL about war and the part that their country plays in it. Most just don't get it that war for profit is a moral crime of the worst sort, and their country is not immune to that, as they were led to believe. Like almost all Americans, I grew up with a belief that we were at least somewhat of a pure at heart country when it comes to war. The Vietnam War disabused many of us of that notion, but even so, that was widely considered to be an anomaly.

What causes the American denial? Our corporate news media plays a big part, but even in the best of times we are given an unrealistically rosy picture of American motives throughout history. I believe that a re-eduction of the American people is a necessary step to put an end to this ostrich syndrome.

That is going to be a very difficult process, as it will be met with a great deal of resistence. Witness what Senator Durbin had to go through simply because he tried to bring to light our atrocious handling of prisoners.

We shouldn't let the fact that most Americans are against the Iraq War fool us in that respect. I think that most are against it because it is unsuccessful, rather than because it is immoral. Yet, the magnitude of reaction against it is still a very good sign.

I think that it will take some great leaders who are willing to tell it like it is and risk being unpopular, before this terrible defect in the American character will begin to change.

[KoKo]

16. Yes....and the lie is bigger than what got us into Vietnam...and with so

many who remember Vietnam still around...it seems hard to understand how the Bushies and NeoCons could have changed the "reality," and gotten us into this mess. But Ron Susskind in his book quoted one of their Ops saying "We create the reality...and everyone else will be playing catch up with us." (loose quote)

All the anger over Vietnam was turned into how we could win this one. You are probably correct that it's only because it's going badly that people are are awakening. Because of Poppy's "sucess" of Iraq I folks thought it would be another easy into Iraq and out. This is how craven this administration is..that they could use that perception of "easy" for an extended occupation and had a willing participant with Blair in the whole thing.

Without every kid in America having to fight...it's easy for most to overlook the deaths and lives ruined. And, then there are the Private Contractor Rambo's that folks either don't know about or think it's find to hire a paid army so their kids don't have to go.

I don't know how one re-educates Americans about this. Without folks seeing the deaths...they won't feel the consequences. Perhaps Chalmers Johnson ("Sorrows of Empire" and "Nemesis") is correct in that it would take America's Financial Collapse to wake folks up. So far the Hedge Funds and Private Equity are keeping the MYTH of a "booming economy" going. But, that can't last forever...or can it. Seems the next "Bubble" is going to be "Alternative Energy" with a Gold Rush in Corn, Biodiesel, Wind Farms, Solar and Nuclear. :shrug:

[entanglement]

25. Hollywood also shares some blame for promoting the worst kinds of jingoism and chauvinism n/t

[Time for change]

27. Yes, they certainly do share some of the blame

But I blame our corporate news media a lot more than Holywood. Holywood comes out with some pretty good movies sometimes.

[ellisonz]

28. And Madison Avenue even more so!

It's not Hollywood itself per se, its the corporate masters behind Hollywood.

[mmonk]

23. Yep, pathetic cowardice and abdication of duty.

[Tatiana]

24. HUGE K&R!

Awesome job of showing how once an American President chooses to take this country to war, Congress has traditionally been unable to stop it. Simply repealing the IWR wouldn't have removed troops from Iraq. It's clear to me that we will not begin to have a prayer of getting our troops out of the region until Bush and Cheney are removed from office.

The apathy of the American public is very disappointing. Most Americans don't have any idea how our nation's leaders have engaged in imperialistic, illegal, and immoral interventions in other countries. This middle-eastern invasion is only the most recent example of America trying to impose its will on people who wish we would just leave them alone.

Short of making international history a compulsory course in high school, the only thing that will really get the public off their behinds and realize how wrong our foreign policy has been (and continues to be) is a draft.

[Time for change]

26. Thank you

I most certainly agree that the one thing Congress can do to get our country back on track is to proceed with impeachment against the most lawless presidential administration our country has ever had. :thumbsup:

[treestar]

29. In Madison's day there was no problem of immediacy, though

Once the nuclear age and air forces came along, we needed some window for response before Congress can debate.

Congress wasn't a "check" on the Executive, the Executive was simply not authorized to act until it had the Declaration of War from Congress. In the 18th and 19th century, that worked.

Perhaps we need to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to end a war rather than begin it. For the Founders that was not an issue. As it is, we have no constitutional way to end a war until it is over of its own accord, an 18th century reality that Bushco is all too willing to pretend exists today.