Why Did Condoleeza Rice Say That Congress Should Not "Micromanage" The Iraq War And.....?

Question

"Urged Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the
Iraq war and suggested President Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation." I'm somewhat confused about this; isn't that part of their jobs? Or does Congress have no say in the decisions made involving the war? I read this article on Yahoo News, and was surprised because I thought that one of the main reasons everyone was so happy about the Democrats winning majority, was because they could help bring about the end of the war. So is this not true? Does the President truly have the only say about Iraq, and can Congress really do nothing about it? This question isn't meant to be controversial or anything, i'm just kind of confused about the whole process. Any explanations welcome thanks.

Answer 1

The quick answer is that if Congress had not been interfering in the conduct of the Iraq war, Iraq would have been in much better shape by now . The military are the ones who are trained to prosecute wars and should be left alone to do their jobs . Do you like someone ignorant of your job telling you how to do it, the wrong way ?

Answer 2

First if you have never been to war you do not know what it is like, the military is managed from the squad all the way up to the top, congress has a say in things but they sit behind their cushy desks with armed guards and metal detectors and police protecting them, they don't have to deal with what’s going on, but they have the best answers. they Use their brains to decide what’s right but they don't have the facts because they are not there they are acting out from political pressures from people who do not want this war, and the president has said it is time that we stop allowing all the attacks that has been happening to us since the cold war to end. Congress wants it's say politically but they do not have all the information the president has. He alone has more information than all of congress. The reason for that is some who are in congress hate America and are out to destroy it, mainly with subversion and slowly taking away the right s of the people and of the president, by the way did you know that almost all wars started in our country was started by democrat presidents? And not once did the Concretive side try to destroy their plans, they worked in harmony to make things happen. And if you believe everything in Yahoo news you are in for a sad surprise. Yahoo posted our Military field manual on how to handle insurgents now, which is normally top secret not all military manuals are secret but for the most part the are for 10 years after being published, it was up for six hours, if you want I can give you the web site they posted it on and where to download it but they would deny it, and it was probley a rogue employee who did it so be careful of what you read, it does not mean it is the truth and it does not mean they are to keep you best informed, dis information is a strong weapon. It comes down to power and control, there are supposed to be oversites but we are supposed to be working for the same side, but that is no longer the case. look at the gentalmans answer on micro managing it hits the spot well.

Answer 3

The president is the commander in chief. Yes only he controls what we do in war. The congress can give him suggestions but he alone has the final word.They can affect what he does with the troop by cutting funds for the war but that would be political suicide. So the congress just keeps doing 30 second sound bits for the media & every one is happy someone is trying to end the war. Only the president can start a war & only he can stop one.

Answer 4

It is a Constitutional can of worms.

On the one hand, the President indicates that he, by virtue of the Constitution, is the Commander in Chief. At the same time, the Constitution provides Congress with the ability to "declare war". This is further muddled by the War Power's Act of 1973 which says the President may go to war...but must seek Congressional approval within 60 days.

At this juncture, Bush seems concerned that the Congress will thwart his effort by forcing him to submit to their "management" of the war or risk seeing funds cut off. I think this is what Secretary Rice was alluding to in the quote you provided.

Ultimately, if both sides maintain their current positions, we could be looking at a significant Constitutional issue that would have to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Answer 5

Condi doesn't want Congress attempting to fight this war because the last time politicians attempted to fight a war it was called Vietnam. And I'm pretty sure Most know how that ended. The democratic controlled congress wants to bring an end to this war simply on the fact they cannot afford to have America WIN. Dems can't take credit for Victory therefore they want Defeat.

Answer 6

Article VI (2): This shape, and the guidelines of the USA which would be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which would be made, under the Authority of the USA, could be the ideally suited regulation of the Land; and the Judges in each and every State would be sure thereby, any subject interior the form or rules of any state to the choice besides the fact that. you probably did not evaluate that the UN did not exist in Adams, Jefferson's and Madison's time. permit me comprehend in case you will come across a single treaty any of those super Presidents violated - I effective will not be able to locate one. medical care of preemption concepts and standards is desperate out under the commerce clause, that's the desirable source of preemptive authority. The nullity of an act, inconsistent with the form, is produced by skill of the statement that the form is the ideally suited regulation. the proper application of that area of the clause which confers a similar supremacy on rules and treaties. In different words, Congress would have had to pass a regulation incredibly declaring that the invasion of Iraq replace right into a sovereign subject which superceded the UN shape. as that's, technically, the U. S. is in violation of the UN shape, consequently has violated one in each and every of its international treaties, and consequently is in breach of Constitutional and international regulation. in case you prefer me to strengthen and initiate up stating ideally suited courtroom precedents and judgements, i would be happy to oblige.

Answer 7

She made this statement based on her many years of high ranking military experience, and those of others in the administration, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, and Rove. She also had advise from other people with years of military experience like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limp-baugh.

She also doesn't want the Pentagon to be micromanaging the war, a role reserved for the White House.

Answer 8

All congress really has to do is open up investigations into torture, which President Bush and Cheney have already telegraphed their guilt by trying to rewrite the torture law, to end the Bush presidency. There have been torture deaths which carries a penalty of either life in prison or execution. They could easily bring charges against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales for torture.

Answer 9

In business management, micromanagement is a management style where a manager closely observes or controls the work of their employees, generally used as a pejorative term. In contrast to giving general instructions on smaller tasks while supervising larger concerns, the micromanager monitors and assesses every step.

Micromanagement may arise from internal sources, such as concern for details, increased performance pressure, or insecurity. It can also be seen as a tactic used by managers to eliminate unwanted employees, either by creating standards employees cannot meet leading to termination, or by creating a stressful workplace causing the employee to leave.

Regardless of the motivation the effect can de-motivate employees, create resentment, and damage trust.

GO TO:

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

Answer 10

I was just about to post something similar myself. Her job as Secretary of State, insofar, has proven to be just another example of careful placement by the Bush Administration as a token hippocrit. Obviously, she has no power or strength in delivering any type of foreign policy or diplomatic negotiations. She whines about Congress and then makes this ridiculous demand of the Israeli's.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/829441.html

Where was this Administration when Israel decided to bomb Lebannon back into the Stone Age?

So let me get this straight--A Nation in the Middle-East wants to open up peaceful Diplomatic relations with another Middle-Eastern neighbor--and WE TELL THEM NOT TO EVEN THINK ABOUT IT?

Typical BS--no matter how you slice it!!