Comments on: Questions for Condoleeza Rice

By: The MUSC Tiger

The MUSC Tiger — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 05:27:49 +0000

What to Ask Rice...
From Outside the Beltway we have George Will's potential questions for Condi, but One Fine Jay has just two words he wants to hear from Dr. Rice: Manifest Destiny.

Jay wants the impossible, but I like his idea. Democracy IS the most "fair" way...

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:42:07 +0000

AG: I'm sure she could. Giving intellectually sound answers to these while also saying the "correct" thing politically, however, may be impossible.

TT: Actually, cabinet secretaries do more than simply implement policies: they're, first and foremost, advisors to the president.

By: Attila Girl

Attila Girl — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:54:00 +0000

Dr. Rice could handle these questions. I hope she reads this, and thinks about it.

By: too true

too true — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:51:52 +0000

Hmmm .. while they are important questions, I object to using the confirmation process to try to pin down the Administration on detailed policy approaches this way. For one thing, Dr. Rice isn't supposed to make policy, but rather to recommend and then implement it. Grilling her on these questions is beyond the scope of what the Senate should be doing in these hearings.

This is Will wanting to control the Administration. pfah.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:46:18 +0000

In January 1991 the Senate voted 52 to 47 to authorize President George H.W. Bush to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Would a formal declaration of war have been appropriate? IIRC, Sen. Biden made the point last year that the one passed by Congress for the current Iraq operation did satisfy Article I, Section 8, and thus one could argue the resolutions passed in 1991 (and 1964) did likewise. The rationale is that "the President is authorized to use force" is not substantially different, in terms of what Congress wants done, than "a state of war exists." If a state of war exists, does that not call upon the President, in light of his constitutional duties, to use force? I can find nothing in Article I, Section 8 requiring that a constitutionally acceptable declaration of war actually contain the word "war."