In a release dated July 27, Libertarian candidate for Governor of Arizona Bruce Olsen stated the following:
Bruce Olsen is fighting for a balanced budget for the state of Arizona and the federal government, to reduce the size of state government by 60%, to secure our southern border and work with California, New Mexico and Texas to secure theirs as well...
Olsen also wants to:
deport all illegal aliens [and] make English the official Language of the state of Arizona.
Later in the release:
Olsen advocates what most Libertarians don’t, that is, to de-nationalize the Guard units of the Army , Navy, Marine, Air Force, or National Guard. Olsen wants to allow no state guard troops to be deployed to foreign shores unless Congress has declared war and, we are under eminent threat.
Jonathan Raof
bruceolsen4gov.com
In a release dated July 27, Libertarian candidate for Governor of Arizona Bruce Olsen stated the following:
8 Bloviations:
Hmmmm . . . sounds like me. Bring the troops home to protect America.
I partially agree with Olsen on this. The organization of the guard and reserves are bassackwards. The Army Reserves should be mainly for augmenting the active force and the Army National Guard should be mainly for disaster relief and homeland security (include border security and assisting local law-enforcement, counter-drug ops, etc).
I also like the idea of linking the activation of guard forces and sending them overseas to a declaration of war by the congress. The active force needs to be agile and powerful enough to defeat most overseas threats without an act of congress, but I see no reason to activate guard and reserves for overseas deployment short of a declaration of war.
There will be no more Constitutional Declarations of War because the politicians are ball-less pussies frightened of their own shadows refusing to take a stand.
Somehow the bi-partisan ruling elite thinks that invading Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan, killing their people, getting our people killed, and overthrowing their governments are not acts of war.
The ruling elite are cowards and the Sheeple who mindlessly vote for them are fools.
Gary you forgot Grenada... Man that was the war to end all wars.
The president needs somewhat of a free hand... I think Bush/Rumsfeld took it too far with activating the guard for OIF/OEF. I also think we should have declared before going into Iraq. But Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Desert Shield, Kosovo, and Somalia were limited actions appropriate for the executive branch to prosecute.
Invading, killing people and overthrowing the government of Panama was a "limited action"?
Sorry. That is WAR.
"Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Desert Shield, Kosovo, and Somalia were limited actions appropriate for the executive branch to prosecute."
A case -- not a strong case, but a case -- might be made that Panama, Grenada and Desert Shield kicked off on short enough timelines that the president had an excuse to pull the operational trigger first, then ask Congress to approve and extend the operations with a declaration of war.
Lebanon, Kosovo and Somalia were all completely optional and, from a US operational and interest standpoint, not especially time-sensitive. Absent a congressional declaration of war, they amounted to misappropriation of military funds and personnel by the executive from start to finish.
Absent congressional declarations of war at some point, not a single one of the campaigns named was a "limited action appropriate for the executive branch to prosecute," because constitutionally there is no such thing.
"Absent congressional declarations of war at some point, not a single one of the campaigns named was a "limited action appropriate for the executive branch to prosecute," because constitutionally there is no such thing."
This is exactly the kinda lala land crap that keeps Ron Paul from being taken seriously. In the real world decisive tactical actions need to be taken in less time then it would take to get approval from congress.
As an Army veteran, I understand that inaction in-of-itself can cost even more lives then the action might. Giving a potential enemy the comfort of knowing that no "serious" action will take place without congressional approval is foolish and invites aggression.
I'm not debating whether Reagan, Bush Sr., or Clinton should have sent troops to Lebanon, Somalia, or Kosovo (respectively), just whether or not the president has an appropriate power to do so.
At which point during operation "Urgent Fury" should Reagan gone to congress with a declaration of war?
While I don't ignore "blow-back" as a contributing factor to aggression against the US... so is weakness.
Post a Comment