Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I think I finally figured out Bush's Iraq policy....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
theHandpuppet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 04:37 PM
Original message
I think I finally figured out Bush's Iraq policy....
Edited on Thu Feb-01-07 04:48 PM by theHandpuppet
Bear with me here, folks. Don't zone out on me before you really give this a look.

As most here already know, the Bush family tree includes the Polk family branch -- that's President James K. Polk, another forgettable name in the annals of the American presidency. As George is a Texan and a purported student of history (ahem-- yeah, right) I finally figured out who he uses as his model for foreign policy and his attitude towards the Congress. Remember Mr. Polk's war with Mexico?

http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/hi216/documents/mexamwar.htm

Senate and House Debate on the Declaration of War with Mexico Historical Background:

President James K. Polk was an expansionist president who sought to gain territory from Mexico and did not mind going to war to get it. Congress, likewise, had expansionist ambitions, even though some members complained that the reasons for going to war with Mexico were trumped up to make Mexico look like the aggressor. The origins of the war with Mexico can be traced to the struggle to annex Texas in 1836. By the 1840s the idea of "Manifest Destiny" had claimed the imagination of many Americans. This grandiose concept held that God had ordained the United States to expand its empire from sea to sea. Polk, an early champion of the annexation of Texas, used the idea of Manifest Destiny as his campaign theme in the presidential election of 1844. Texas became a state shortly after Polk was inaugurated in 1845.

Polk sent a letter to Congress outlining the situation with Mexico. It was read before Congress on May 11, 1846. The previous month Mexican troops had attacked U.S. soldiers under the command of General Zachary Taylor, after much provocation by the Americans. Once shots had been fired, Polk lost no time declaring that American blood had been shed on American soil—even though it was unclear exactly where the blood had been shed. Polk's assertion that a state of war existed between the United States and Mexico touched off a brief congressional debate focusing on the language of the statement and on the maintenance of constitutional balance regarding the right of Congress to declare war. Polk's message did not ask explicitly for a declaration of war. He asked for congressional support in funding the military and a call to enlist more volunteers in Texas. The tone of his message implied that a state of war existed. After listening to the president's message, the House took less than half an hour to approve Polk's request and pass a resolution that was the equivalent of a declaration of war, by an overwhelming majority of 173–14. The Senate likewise wasted no time approving the resolution the same day by a vote of 40–2.

Among those participating in the debate who were critical of Polk but who ended up voting for war anyway were John C. Calhoun (D-S.C.) in the Senate and Garrett Davis (Whig-Ky.) in the House. Calhoun said Polk's message that war existed was deceptive since only the legislative branch of government had the constitutional power to declare war. Davis pointed an accusing finger at Polk for instigating a confrontation and then placing the blame on Mexico...

The war with Mexico ended in 1848, after many military triumphs by the United States. As the war progressed, Congress became less reluctant to support Polk's conduct of the war.... MORE

Sound familiar, folks?

How about this?

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/lincoln-resolutions/
Teaching With Documents:
Lincoln's Spot Resolutions


Background
Tension has existed between the legislative and the executive branches of the U.S. government over war powers since the Constitution simultaneously vested Congress with the power to declare war and the President with the power of Commander in Chief. Although Jefferson insisted on congressional approval before sending troops into combat, later Presidents have not felt bound by this precedent. Their alternate view was boosted by the Supreme Court in 1827 in the case Martin v. Mott. The Court ruled that it was constitutional for Congress to vest the president with the discretionary authority to decide whether an emergency had arisen and to raise a militia to meet such a threat of invasion or civil insurrection. Nonetheless, in the winter of 1845-46, as relations between the United States and Mexico deteriorated, there was no express delineation of powers between the two branches.

(snipping)
Between Slidell's arrival on December 6, 1845, and his departure in March 1846, the regime of President Jose Herrara was overthrown and a fervently nationalistic government under General Mariano Paredes seized power. Neither leader would speak to Slidell. When Paredes publicly reaffirmed Mexico's claim to all of Texas, Slidell left in a temper, convinced that Mexico should be "chastised."

Zachary Taylor
The agent for chastisement was already in place. On January 13, 1846, more than 3,500 troops commanded by General Zachary Taylor (ARC Identifier: 527669) moved south under President Polk's order, from Corpus Christi on the Nueces River to a location on the north bank of the Rio Grande. Advancing on March 8 to Point Isabel, the U.S. troops found that the settlement had been burned by fleeing Mexicans. By March 28, the troops were near the mouth of the Rio Grande across from the Mexican town of Matamoros.

Polk claimed the move was a defensive measure, and expansionists and Democratic newspapers in the United States applauded his action. Whig newspapers said that the movement was an invasion of Mexico rather than a defense of Texas.

<snipping>

Ohio Senator Tom Corwin accused Polk of involving the United States in a war of aggression. Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina abstained from voting, correctly foreseeing that the war would aggravate sectional strife. Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster voiced doubts about the constitutionality of Polk's actions, believing that Polk had failed to consult adequately with Congress. As the war deepened, "Conscience" Whigs denied Polk had tried to avoid war.

MUCH MORE

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Fire Walk With Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. If we'd let Mexico keep Texas, how much of what we currently suffer would have been avoided?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theHandpuppet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Connecticut is probably glad there is a Texas...
Edited on Thu Feb-01-07 04:47 PM by theHandpuppet
... so the Bush family had somewhere else to go.

Edited to add: Of course, they've also given us Smokin' Joe, so I haven't quite forgiven them yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kimmerspixelated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. As a native Texan
I take issue with that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire Walk With Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I'll grant DU members from Texas the exception to the absolute ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. Does he want Iraq as the 51st state? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theHandpuppet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I think that's what that "world's biggest embassy" in Baghdad is for
Bush's newest state capital in the ME. If it doesn't turn out to be a supersized Alamo, that is....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC