Responses:
Subject: Re: Foreign Policy Power
From: Charles
Date: 04 Apr 2000 12:35 PM
Does the president have too much power in foreign policy? In a
nuclear icbm age, the president has the power to destroy the world, and
has to have that power -- to allow for credible deterrence. This makes
the following question a little superfluous Should presidents
be able to commit U.S. troops to battle without congressional approval?
The president has the power to commit US nuclear missiles
without congressional approval. Compared to that, what matter some
troops?
Or would any decrease in presidential power abroad
drastically limit the effectiveness of U.S. foreignpolicy? Of
course it would! The question is, isthat necessarily a bad thing?
Subject: Foreign Policy
From: Edward T. Graney
Date: 04 Apr 2000 2:37 PM
Does a president have too much power in determining our policies in
foreign affairs? He sure as hell does. Then, as witnessed, when we end
up with a clutz like Clinton directing? our foreign we really are in a
mess. He, a coward, sending men and women to their death (in some
instances) as he uses his 'cigar' tricks with an unclean, immoral woman
in (our) the Oval Office. Now we must ask - who is next? NO! The
president should defer to the Congress in all matters of foreign
affairs, and act according to their wishes. After all, any political
party as an administration is beholding to all the people, and the
majority of the people are a heart beat away from their Representatives
in the House and the Senate and consequently are closer to the Congress
than they are to a president.
Subject: The President at War
From: Jeff
Date: 04 Apr 2000 9:54 AM
The President should not be able to declare war without Congressional
approval unless there is an actual invasion of American soil. Even
then he must have forces to meet the invasion only, until Congress can
be convened. War power is too much power invested in one man. Nor
should the president embroil us in foreign entanglements, such as
treaties, without Congressional approval. In a case such as the
Nuclear Test Ban treaty, the president might want it signed for his
personal aggrandizement, but Congress has the right and the
responsibility to veto treaties that are unenforceable or are not in
the nation's best interest.
Subject: Presidential Foreign Policy
From: oj
Date: 04 Apr 2000 8:33 PM
Last many presidents unskillfully abused their power in the foreign
policy and trade areas. The tops is Carter with his destabilizing the
Mid East by deposing the Shah of Iran which led to rise of violent
fractions and death of millions of people (Baha, etc.). Somalia, Haiti,
Bosnia, Kosovo and other regions where mingling under the president
leadership? led to a disaster or nothing (just vasted money and peoples
effords). Similarly in the world trade, immigration, and other
important areas, US presidents do what they or business want without a
democratic input. WHERE IS THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE? ARE WE SO STUPID
THAT WE CANNOT MAKE RIGHT DECISIONS OR AT LEAST PARTICIPATE?
Subject: Foriegn Policy
From: Dr. Watson
Date: 04 Apr 2000 8:49 PM
I feel that recent presidents especially Clinton have abused the powers
given to them. If I were to rate President Clintons Foriegn policy On
a scale of 1 to 10 I would give him a 3 , because he stands up for the
American needs. on the other hand I think his handling of China, has
been very poor He treats it like a spoiled baby, soothing it with money
and trade. I feel chinesse relations should be stong, but China should
meet us halfway. All in all Ithink that his Biggest flaw is involving
us in every problem and forcing our veiw down peoples throats
Subject: Foreign Policy
From: Langford
Date: 04 Apr 2000 4:58 AM
Thank you. Whilst remaining a big admirer of America and its
achievements, I must admit that this attitude of assuming to educate
the world does rather stick in the throat a bit!
Subject: China
From: Anonymous
Date: 07 Jul 2000 4:31 AM
How do you think we should handle China. Like the British did to
Germany prior to WW2? Or how France handled US after the American
Revolution? At the rate China is going, they will be a much more
significant world power in the future, equal or probably even greater
than US. They will be nasty in any case, just like us to them and most
other nations. Engaging them, we probably will have a much better
chance of influencing them to our advantage.
Subject: War Powers Act
From: Peter B. Thomas
Date: 04 Apr 2000 10:53 PM
You people will have to read the War Powers Act in order to
understand that the questions posed at the website here are essentially
stupid.
Subject: George Washington
From: Charles Ranspach
Date: 04 Apr 2000 4:48 PM
The quote attributed to George Washington is wrong. It is the same as
John Quincy Adams' , Washington was President 8 years not four and he
didn't hate being president.
Subject: reply to george washington
From: geoff acree
Date: 05 May 2000 11:35 AM
george washington did in fact hate being president. all he talked about
in his letters with his family in his last years was how much he wished
to retire to a quiet life at home at mount vernon. he only became
president when it was made obvious to him that the people wanted him,
and then to assure that the first ever round of elections was
peacefully and successfully completed. even during the war he often
complained about the burden of public service.
Subject: How is foreign policy made?
From: Alvin D. Hofer
Date: 04 Apr 2000 9:05 PM
We write about U.S. foreign policy as if we knew who makes it and how.
We quote the Constitution, the document that grants certain powers of
state to the president and to the Senate in the making of foreign
policy. But this is formal; it does not tell us who and how policies
are determined. PARAGRAPH Certainly or so it seems, a great many of our
foreign adventures have occurred not through a grand design but through
a process often called "slippery slope". One step or misstep leads to
another and the slide is on!We do not have much in the way of grand
design, unless one considers labels such as "containment",
"isolation", "attrition" as examples. Also, for the continuity
required by a grand design, policy must be continuous from one four or
eight year presidency to the next. U.S. policy seems to depend on who
at the moment is president, even if he is of the same party as his
predecessor. PARAGRAPH Which brings me to the role of party in forming
policy: there is none! The president does not sit down with his
party leaders and conduct a discussion on what U.S. foreign policy
should be in terms of some over-arching principles of the party. The
most he does is poll his party on whether they can muster the votes he
requires in the Senate to confirm appointees or whether they can
approve his budget in the House for military appropriations. PARAGRAPH
Thus, the persona of the president seems to be a primary factor in U.S.
foreign policy. But all is not as it seems: often the president
becomes interested in foreign policy only when he has been stymied on
domestic policy issues. This has been true of Presidents Bush and
Clinton. Then he indulges a dilettant's interest in the subject,
informed by the opinions of his advisers. Who these advisers are and
how they rose to such power then becomes essential to understanding
what policies are recommended to the amateurish president. PARAGRAPH
This is all a dark secret to most of our citizens. We know little
about the influences upon our secretaries of state, national security
advisers, and other "coaches" to the Chief. What schools they came
from, we may learn. What former positions they held, we may learn.
What their personal biases may be are somewhat more difficult to learn;
and whose interests they identify with the "national interest" we may
only infer. PARAGRAPH I feel that I know very little about how U.S.
foreign policy is made, and - you know what? That is very
scarry.PARAGRAPH Alvin D. HoferGainesville FL
Subject: Correction
From: Alvin D. Hofer
Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:35 PM
My statement that President Bush became interested in foreign policy
when his domestic program was stymied was, of course, an error. In
fact, he had no domestic program. He WAS stymied but by his own party,
because he had raised taxes, contrary to an election promise. It was
easier to go to war with Saddam than to make peace with his fellow
Republicans.
Subject: g. bush and the persian gulf war
From: geoff acree
Date: 05 May 2000 11:46 AM
bush's handling of the persian gulf situation seems worse the more it
is examined. he did not need congressional approval for desert shield,
nor desert storm, because the war powers act gave him 45 days to commit
us troops to combat without congressional approval. and then he failed
to allow the operation to be successfully completed by ending the
combat too soon, allowing saddam to remain alive and in power.
basically, bush wussed at the end, and made the same mistake as every
president since ww2- he failed to give the military a goal with clear
objectives and then let them do the job!
Subject: George Bush and the Persian Gulf War
From: Max Rathke
Date: 06 Jun 2002 7:49 AM
Dear Geoff Acree,sorry, but I disagree on the issue of Bush's (41st.)
handling of the Gulf Crisis and the Gulf War. It was important for the
success to liberate the small country of Kuwait to build such a
comprehensive alliance against the aggressor Saddam Hussein. And for
this goal itwas important for Bush not "to send American soldiers with
one hand bend on their back into war" as it was fact during the Vietnam
War. it should mean the U.S. troops should havegot the whole support by
the homeland and by the foreigncountries. It went back to Bush's
attitude to be cautious in foreign policy.Best regards,Max Rathke
