LINCOLN, Neb. – A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former congressman alleging that President Bush violated the 1973 War Powers Act by attacking Iraq.
Former Rep. Clair Callan had no legal standing to file the court action and failed to show that he would be personally injured by Bush’s actions, U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf ruled.
The judge also said the issues raised involved foreign policy and military decisions that are outside the jurisdiction of the judicial branch.
Callan, 82, said he might appeal.
And so it begins once again – - why can’t these people understand WHY the United States had to take military action?
A lawsuit was filed on April 30, 1999 against President Clinton, for violating both the US Constituion and the 1973 War Powers Resolution with regards to Yugoslavia.
I’m at a loss for words…
This ‘lawsuit’ had FRIVILOUS written all over it since day one. Thanks for the posting, Reilly
Callan, at 82 I think just wants one last Hooray in politics before he’s taken out to pasture. He says he regrets not speaking out against Vietnam, I guess this is his way of making amends?
I guess, the judge is right. This is certainly out of the juridiction of the judicial branch. However, I think that most of “these people” can understand why the US had to do this war:
1) 2004 presidential elections
2) Dick’s Oil companies- don’t tell me YOU liked it when you heared that they got the contracts for the irak oil fields during the war. And you probably didn’t like it either when you heared that the oil fields were the first thing to be secured, as a treasure.
3) Test the efficency of new weapons that were appearing on the news as if they were part of a video game.
We can surely find reasons for this war. They could be liberation of Irak, but knowing the foreign policy of the US- and particularly the one of the Republicans- with dictators in the past, it is so unlikely that Bush ever dreamt of liberating the Irakis, and so much more likely that he was motivated by money, that many people don’t want to believe the media.
If you guys love your cow-boy president, believe him, but I thought you needed to be told some reasons why other people just don’t.
nickele- Yahoo! Yes, alot of us like our “cow-boy” president and agree with what he did. He seems to be lassoing the bad guys in. As we all tip our cowboy hats to him, we are also thanking the Americans that have gone over and liberated the Iraqi people. If Saddam didn’t have WMD’s and cared so much about his people, why did he hide instead of defend his people and country. Why did he dress his soldiers in civilian clothing and the Arab networks say that we were killing civilians when in actuality, they were soldiers? Why did they hide behind their innocent citizens? When our soldiers put their spurs into their work, they achieved great things. Terrorists are the most cowardly of all people. I just happened to be watching MSNBC one night and sat watching the Fedayeen running along the river, out of site of our tanks, stripping their black clothing off and some even dropped their weapons. We are currently rebuilding things. Saddam dumped cyanide and mustard gas into the river, our soldiers tested the water before they drank it. Why do you think the children of Iraq have such a high cancer rate, mostly brain tumors, ever think that maybe the bio/chem weapons they had were poisoning their citizens. Why did they stack all of the food, that various countries had sent them in exchange for oil, into bunkers for the soldiers- it never got passed out to the Iraqi citizens. Why shouldn’t the citizens be able to speak out, like celebrities, and voice our opinions without getting threats from the “so-called” peaceful activists that preach peace not war? Doesn’t make much sense. “Dick’s oil companies” ? Halliburton was around a long time before “Dick”. Have a good day.
Hitler : war for the Third Reich.
Bush : War for the Great America.
Halliburton was around a long time before “Dick”. Have a good day.
From what I’ve heard, the Halliburton purse strings were attached to the Clinton administration, too, but don’t expect liberals to mention this in their talking points. So “commonfolk” is right. In fact, a handful of top-notch companies always manage to show up on the White House radar screen…regardless of what party is in office. Why?
Well, to answer that, here’s another question. During the first Gulf War, when Saddam set the Kuwaiti oil fields ablaze, who do you think they hired to put them out? A Kuwaiti firefighting company? A Saudi company? The French? Germans?
Actually, they brought in firefighters from Texas. Why Texas? Well, because that’s where the oil is. And that’s where the firefighters are.
The companies from Texas have the best resources and skilled manpower to deal with the worst of oil fires. So, who else would you hire to tackle a job like the Gulf oil fires? You go with the company that has the best track record. Seems logical, no?
Well said Tinseltrasher. I recall a movie with John Wayne in it that featured the “Hellfighters”. This is their jobs, putting out the fires. The reason we moved so quickly to protect the oil fields is because of what Saddam did in the first Gulf War. It took a long time and lots of taxpayer dollars to put those fires out. It reminds me of stalkers that figure if they can’t have someone, no one will. Saddam has this type of mentality. He’s one sick puppy. Read an article about he and his son Ouday in SI.com. It is horrifying. Have a good day.
why didn’t you show the most important part of the article:
…
“All I ever wanted, and all I want right now, is that this president or any other president cannot preemptively strike another nation,” he said.
…
sounds quite fair to me…
I am a self-respecting Republican. I voted for Bush. I question things he has done. I will continue to question him. I will most likely vote for him in the next election. I don’t see why there is such a problem with questioning what he decides to do with our tax dollars and soldiers lives. I think that kicking out Saddam was a darn good idea. I also think we could’ve waited a little longer. I think President Bush could’ve considered all the anti-war protests. I think you all need to consider questioning the actions of President Bush and all other authorities of any party.
Daryl- I agree with you that all Americans should question politicians. If we didn’t, we’d be sheep. Saw too much of this in the last 8 years.
Daryl wrote: I also think we could’ve waited a little longer. I think President Bush could’ve considered all the anti-war protests.
Daryl, we waited twelve years, during which the Butcher of Baghdad violated 17 U.N. resolutions, trained Al Qaeda terrorists in poison gas warfare, funded Hamas homicide bombers who killed innocent Israelis, and generally ruled his country through rape, torture and execution. Waiting a day longer means another Iraqi girl raped while her family watches, another dissenter dipped in acid, another Iraqi soldier accused of dissloyalty shot in the back of the head.
Wait longer? I don’t think so.
And why should anyone consider anti-war anti-Bush crowd? To what end? They are hellbent on character assassination as their rallying call. To them, it’s not about opposing war; it’s about opposing Bush. Period.
tinseltrasher – please check you facts about what you believe the butcher of baghdad has done over the last twelve years. the truth isn’t necessarily what you see on Faux News.
whether dubya believes what he is doing right or wrong is academic to me but i too think saddam had to go as he WAS a total lunatic. but does that justify the US breaking international law and invading a sovereign state just because it wants to. and before you say “UN mandate needs to be enforced” just find out how many UN mandates against Israel the US ignored (and continue to ignore) because it feels like it.
thanks,
non-yank.
“still looking for those pesky WMD”
“tinseltrasher – please check you facts about what you believe the butcher of baghdad has done over the last twelve years. the truth isn’t necessarily”
Tell us some of the misconceptions. Better yet, give us a link. A source. Preferably not to Iraq’s ex Information Minister.
“and before you say “UN mandate needs to be enforced” just find out how many UN mandates against Israel the US ignored (and continue to ignore) because it feels like it.”
It wasn’t about enforing the UN so much as enforcing what _we_ said we were going to go. We helped pass those resolutions against Iraq. Clearly not the case with the Israeli resolutions. That is the key difference where I’m concerned.
My prefered analogy for this whole mess: UN (and USA) were the parent. Iraq the child. Now what happens when (in this case, 12 years of): The parent says they’ll do something unless the child shapes up. The child doesn’t shape up, and the parent never follows through.
Well, I’ll tell you: the child figures they can get away with anything (unless previous further limits were set and enforced) and proceed to try and do so until the parent takes responsibility. Now here’s the catch: the longer you wait to enforce a punishment, the more ‘excessive’ the punishment must be to be effective. Conversely, if you don’t wait, a mild (but not _too_ mild) to moderate response will be satisfactory. All this is basic psychology.
And that’s why what’s been done had to be done sooner rather than later (unless the regime would have financially fallen apart on its own, which, as it turns out, wouldn’t have happened because apparently France (and Germany and Russia) were happily skirting the sanctions). Imo, something should have been done 7 or 8 years ago. I have no illusions about the morality or justification of this war (free the Iraqis? Merely a convenient excuse.). The USA finally taking responsibility, and enforcing its decisions (or: those decisions it was a part of making) is the important.
My personal ideal foreign policy would be “leave us alone to fix our own problems.” That said, once we agree to or say we will do something, we’d better do it…or keep our mouths shut in the first place.
When discussing the atrocities of Saddam’s reign, it would be good to remember that Saddam’s Baath party was helped to power by the US and Saddam was the recipient of support in many forms from the US during this period.
In addition, where are the WMD’s that supposedly made Iraq such a threat. You’d think that a madman like Saddam would use them on advancing “coalition” forces.
to ach :
perfect Woooo, yipiii … I’m just pushing your fabulous analogy , … daddy USA sold many guns for years to his dictator little son !! … then one day, he understand this is not the right way to do, so he sends a few bombs on his son and takes away all his money (know his son knows about education!!!), but mumy UN is not happy of this method, So daddy USA just tell her to shut up and turn round, … mumy don’t know a sh*t on education, she just need a “dick hit” ;;;;;;;;
hhhhhahhahaa,
) , thanks for this one, !!!!!
Steph- there’s the name calling again. Just debate normally.
Tinsel- good job
to ach, big big appologies , when i read through your posting quikly I ended on your personal ideal foreign policy
and concluded you were pro-war … actually your statement sounds well , Sorry,
realy sorry, (still my version made me laugh a lot…)
steph
non-yank wrote: tinseltrasher – please check you facts about what you believe the butcher of baghdad has done over the last twelve years. the truth isn’t necessarily what you see on Faux News.
Okay, scratch the Butcher of Baghdad reference. It’s all right-wing propaganda. Saddam’s a rock. Really, he is. I mean come on, the guy’s got style. Those tailored suits and ties, complimented with impecable grooming. He even has a great manicure. Now, I ask you: what person would soil his hands with so much blood after getting a great manicure? Makes no sense. And besides, he’s the Man of the People. Didn’t he get 100% of the presidential vote? Iraqis love the guy. Which is why the entire country voted for him. Plus, they love a man with a great manicure.
Back to earth: you have just read the “unbiased” report from CNN.
Do you feel better now?
Tinsel, you forgot that Saddam likes Johnny Walker Black and loves listening to Frank Sinatra..man this guy has class!
(Frank is rolling over in his grave right about now)
Hold on Sandy, it gets even more surreal…I hear he’s a cable junkie, and his favorite show is…
Charlie’s Angels.
Of course it’s only a rumor.
Steph is on drugs.
Yeah, ol’ Saddam was a paragon of class and decorating restraint. Gee, they should have dropped a few bunker busters on those palaces, not for any military reason, but in defence of good taste and style. Maybe Iraq did not have enough of a Gay population and had a shortage of Interior Designers.
I know, I know, that is a stereotype.
But…some of the best interior designers are Gay!
Anti-hypocrite says “…Saddam’s Ba’ath Party was helped to power by the U.S. and Saddam was the recipient of support in many forms from the U.S….”
So, who better than us, then, to remedy the problem we ‘created’??
Why is anyone even bothering president Clintent personally he was the best president we ever had.
He made some mistakes but he was a great president I ever had .He cared for black and white and other race . It didnt matter what color you were he treated you fairly. ITS A SHAME I M 14 AND I KNOW MORE THAN MOST OF YOU ON HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hello, Vicky. For once, I’m going to reserve comment on my opinion as much as I possibly can under the circumstances, except to say that it’s related to my concerns regarding the education of our students today. I do think it’s a good idea for the young to be concerned with the political arena; heck, at the age of 17, had I cared and participated more regarding the changing climate, perhaps we would have been a lot more fortunate and avoided the moral decline that coincided with the election of Clinton.
I’m quite concerned over the notion, among other things, that tolerance is of a greater concern than morality and doing what is right rather than doing what is accepted or, worse yet, “politically correct.” Your post has given me tremendous insight to this brave new world, at least imo.
BTW, Vicky, did you know that the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch had a very interesting article in yesterday’s edition on why they feel that Dick Gephardt ultimately lost the caucus, and what led to the downfall of his career? Now bearing in mind the fact that the Post-Dispatch is notoriously liberal these days, they indicated that a major contributor to Gephardt’s downfall was that, during the impeachment trials of Clinton, he had a major opportunity to bring Clinton down, but refused to. Now I found that very interesting, all things considered; it certainly took me by surprise!