Are reid and pelosi on drugs. The Constitution is clear. President Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority and duty to act to protect the people of the United States. And he doesn't need a permission slip from Congress. The democrats in congress couldn't hold President Bush's jock strap.

Peace in our time, dangnabbit, peace in our time! So a few Czechs...I mean Jews... have to die and the islamosavages get their hands on nukes...PEACE IN OUR TIME whatever it takes!

What is wrong with you people?

""Do we have so little confidence in the diplomats of the United States that we're not willing to let them talk with somebody we disagree with?" Hamilton asked."

I will ask you the same question. Do you? If not, then why not? Are you absolutely confident that Mr. President has put the BEST people in the diplomatic positions? CAN WE DO BETTER?

I think so. The ISG was not a bunch of farm boys out on a joy ride. I believe they took a more objective point of view than you are willing to admit.

I believe we should review those in diplomatic positions (i.e. Condi) and feel confident that our diplomatic representatives are the best our country can champion.

Mr. President is no diplomat sir. Of that we should be ashamed. Cowboy diplomacy be damned.

Ya... the last great diplomatic effort of our time to stop a crazy ass leader of a crazy ass regime was Mme. Albright toasting up crazy ass Kim Jung Il.

If that's the type of success Cyberactor seems to want to have, or negotiating with countries who have NEVER honored their words makes TOTAL sense.

It's absolutely silly to waste time dealing with "diplomats" from other countries that have no desire to 1. Negotiate in good faith, and 2. to work with the United States for the betterment of humanity.

But Cyber, if you wanna talk, I'll buy you a ticket to Tehran. Seriously.... I will. But you'll have no security and you'll have to get your own hotel room.

I am at a loss. What parts of the Constitution do neocons actually believe in besides the right to carry assault weapons? Rights to privacy are out; republicans believe in wiretapping citizens without warrants and entering Terri Schivo’s bedroom.. Habeas corpus means nothing to the neocons; the President can label you a terrorist and you rot in prison forever. Freedom of religion is repulsive to some Republican; a Moslem is elected to Congress and some Republicans would have you think the end of America is near. Now we read Neocons want to disregard the war making powers of the Constitution. Article I Section 8 clause 11 of the United States Constitution states: Congress shall have Power...To declare war. The President carries it out.

If it is the will of the people we attack Iran, sooner or later the Senate will bend to their will or slowly they will be voted out. Show me one survey, that is not on the Fox network and samples a cross section of the people that a majority of citizens want this administration to be involved in another war and attack Iran given the gross incompetence they have shown in Iraq.

Sorry I said Cyberactor... I had him on the brain from a statement he made that I was thinking of... even though I'm pretty sure Raker13 would agree.

Harry Reid said "The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization.

When did Harry Reid get the power to rewrite US Code? Wow... nothing like Reid and Pelosi forgetting who is the Commander in Chief and has a constitutional mandate to protect this country as part of his oath of office... the only federal oath prescribed in the Constitution.

Wouldn't it be great if Pelosi and Reid decided to stop playing electioneering and become grownups with responsibilities to help govern.

Here here, dump that dolt Condi, she just doesnt have that certain jena-se-qua that Albright did.

We dont need some highly intelligent woman with loads of education as our SeS, why Ill bet Ms. Rice doesnt even know which fork to use for salad while enjoying dinner with a psychotic dictator!

While we're at it, Bolton better not show his face again. I was embarrassed that he refused to bend over for the highly esteemed Mr. Annan at every opportunity (I hear Bolton wanted to support Israel too---the dog!).

Aren't all republicans bed-wetters?

I really don't believe this rhetoric about Iran. We don't have the troops to use for Bush's 'surge' and you are all advocating an attack on Iran for God's sake. It came out in the news today that in 2003 Iran had offered just about all the things that Bush is demanding today but Cheney's office refused them thus complicating our problems today. We cannot attack Iran! We need to engage with them and find out how we can co-exist without all this bellicose bullshit.

Oh my God. We cannot even supply troops for Bush's so called 'surge' and you are advocating attacking Iran! Don't you realize that they have a 1 million man army? Obviously you don't know that in 2003 Iran was ready to agree to virtually (I know that's a big word) all of our current pre conditions and in his wisdom Cheney's office put a stop to any such agreement. So now because of that ridiculous decision we are facing much more danger as a result. You people are living in some kind of alternate universe.

If that's the type of success Cyberactor[actually raker13] seems to want to have, or negotiating with countries who have NEVER honored their words makes TOTAL sense.

The only times I can think of when peace was established by negotiation with muslims are the peace deals between Israel and each of Egypt and Jordan, both of which were (and are) secular regimes, and thus far saner than the fanatics we're dealing with now. These peace deals followed the Israeli victory in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. In other words, if you want them to behave, you gotta kick their butts first. (And tragically, Sadat paid with his life for making peace with Israel, his treaty being unacceptable to some of his more fanatical countrymen.)

The use by muslims of a peace treaty to suspend hostilities, which muslims later break when they've regrouped their strength, known in Arabic as hudna, and is a centuries-old Islam-sactioned traditition.

Fanatical muslims believe that Allah himself gave them three options when dealing with non-muslims:
1. Convert them.
2. Rule over them.
3. Fight them.

Note how "engage them", "let them engage you" and "negotiate a peace treaty that you'll actually keep" are not on the list. This means that as far as these muslims are concerned, GOD HIMSELF FORBIDS THEM. Islam (or at least the most extreme strains thereof) permits negotiation ONLY for the purpose of the above-mentioned hudna or to aid in the conversion non-muslims to Islam. As far as I can tell, this is something that the ISG, the president, his administration, and most of his critics don't seem to be aware of.

Wouldn't it be great if Pelosi and Reid decided to stop playing electioneering and become grownups with responsibilities to help govern.

Wawilliyo, I seem to recall Pelosi saying something like the speaker's gavel will be "in the hands of children". If she and Reid are acting like children, then at least she's keeping her promise.

BTW Raker

A bit off topic, but..how many Dem presidents since JFK have been vocally powerful enough to persuade our enemies to give up their weapons programs? None that I can remember. I also recall that the Clintons gave away more technology than they prevented.

BOT

Next we'll see Carter, Clinton and Cindy Sheehan (man she's got a huge nose) standing together at Jimmy's peanut farm condemning GW's actions and pumping up the loony left to bolster public sentiment.

The Dems seem like desperate little girlymen trying to find enough support to "stick it to GW", but guess again kooks, the symbolic resolution will be just that..symbolic, and they'll never gain enough bed-wetter (sorry Mark it was a great phrase to plagerize)to make anything happen. Even Dirty Harry's threats are hallow.

However, the Dems can still redeem themselves and cut off funding. But they have no juevos. It's all talk.

This legislation would force GW into a lame duck position faster than lightning and the American public would see that Congress finally means bidness.

Navydad:
You are 100% right on Pelosi and Reid. They don't have a set between the two of them.

And if I had to say who likely would have a pair, it wouldn't be Reid.

My point on the politicking of the Iraq conflict. Now Pelosi knows that she can't stop Bush from exercising his duties as Commander in Chief, so she'll try and paint his decision to stop violence in Iraq (something Democrats have been clamoring for before they were against it) by a temporary troop increase (something they were for before they were against)is just a political move to stop Democrats from doing what they want, cutting off funds.

Does she even believe the words coming out of her mouth? Or does she know that NO ONE will question her words... EVER on network news or in news rooms at newspapers around the country?

At least she was able to save the stock price of her husband's investments and a company in her district. It only took her hijacking the traditional method of legislating in order to get it done.

The Democrats are once again behind the times and riding the slow bus. They didn't have to warn Bush against winning the war. He took care of that all by himself, with no input from Democrats whatsoever. Come on, Dems, catch up.

I find it funny – not funny “ha ha” – but silly, that you all will evoke constitutional ideas only when you find it ideologically convenient.

While the founders did designate the POTUS as CINC, they included some pretty relevant and intelligent stipulations and checks to this power, seeing as how they all had an aversion to a little thing called abuse of executive power.

The system was set up so that executive decision making had to go through the rigors of a legislative branch affirmation. Being CINC has its privileges, but it also has its limits – not to mention its responsibilities.

The president has a responsibility to make sure any foreign engagement – but especially a military one – is reasonable, valid, and most of all effective for the good of the nation. Congress, being a body of the people, is constitutionally instructed to be consulted by the president in these decisions. They are specifically designated to carry out the will of their constituents through the democratic-republic process, including – but not limited to – policies put forth by the executive branch.

I’m not trying to be glib, since I assume everyone who post’s here is educated in the fundamentals of our civic culture, but none of you here seem to acknowledge the fact that Article I explicitly states that only congress can declare war.

This, my friends, gets to the heart of what our American project stands for, plain and simple. We are a great nation because we are one which is not run by the few, but run by the many. The US Constitution is designed to be amended and modified as the times change while the underlying principles are to be honored.

Congress draws its power from the US citizenry, and it is the right and duty of the legislative branch to ensure the voice of the American people is not only heard, but implemented in the decision-making process of our nation.

The Founding Fathers had a vision of the individual American citizen a force to be reckoned with as a champion of humanity. They saw incentive in a new democracy because they knew the common citizen would empathize with the average citizens around the world more than with the powerful tier of the elite; regardless of nationality.

With Iraqi citizens facing a desolate future due to our hurried and unmanaged invasion of their country, the American voter has done his or her part in reaching out a hand to their brothers and sisters of Iraq in saying “enough is enough”.

To escalate the violence into the wider theatre is to go against the fundamental will of the nation. Invading Iran, be it of an aerial, maritime, or land-based nature, is to force on the citizenry a policy which they will not support, nor tacitly endorse.

With an expenditure of astronomical numbers already necessary to keep our brave fighting men and women alive in one country and tax-cuts and subsidies which will force the working population deeper into debt; the idea of opening a front in which it is not only unlikely to accomplish possible foreign policy goals, but most plausibly likely to further international opposition to any real American-led operations, engaging a soon-to-be-sans-American-military-intervention moderate Iran is nothing short of lunacy, let alone an ignorance of what the United States of America.

Josh,

We don't govern by opinion poll - we govern by law under our Constitution. Given that, the Authorization to Use Military Force of September 18, 2001 goes thusly:

IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Right now, senior member of al-Qaeda are given refuge in Iran, including at least one son of Osama bin Laden. We also know that prior to 9/11, Iran harbored and aided various terrorist organizations which have either attacked the United States, or abetted attacks upon the United States. The resolution of 9/18/01 makes it un-necessary for President Bush to obtain further Congressional approval to take military action anywhere in the world which is of an anti-terrorist nature.

In order to change this, Congress can repeal the law - of course, such a repeal would result in a veto, so it would have to be repealed with a veto-proof majority, which won't happen. Sorry, but you don't get to undo things just because your Party picked up a few more seats, or because opinion polls allege that people are on your side.

As for actually invading Iran - something which is not at all contemplated even by those of us who are arguing in favor of military strikes against Iran - that would require additional Congressional approval because without substantial additional funding - which must come via Congressional appropriation - it simply cannot be done...but in existing funding, and under existing law, we can take a wide variety of military actions against Iran.

NJ,

Cheney couldn't refuse anything - he hasn't the authority. You must be thinking in terms of paranoid, leftwing conspiracy theories that Cheney runs the Bush Administration. You'd be better off is you first started realising that President Bush runs the White House, not Dick Cheney.

That said, the Iranian Army is approximately 350,000 strong...and as 200,000 of that is conscripts and most of its equipment is obsolete, it really just constitutes an armed mob which would be sheer murder to put up against any western military force. I pray God that the Iranian leaders aren't that stupid, because I would hope that we don't have to shed good Iranian blood because a few lunatics in Tehran think that God is on their side.

What Democrats gave aid and comfort to is our Constitution, War Powers Act, the whole concept of rule of law, our used up, overstretched, beat down and somewhat abused military, and America's taxpayers.

God bless Reid and Pelosi, who want to draw voters in 2008 the old-fashioned way — by telling them the truth, doing a good job legislating in the overall public interest and delivering good results.

That probably does come as a shock to folks whose idea of good leadership begins and ends with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their cronies.

As far as another war is concerned, Bush has two more than he can cope with now. The last thing he needs is another. What's more, the last thing the next president needs is another Bush war mess to have to clean up after.

SW,

Your blinkered worldview is really quite stunning - military action against Iran, should we do it, isn't "another war"...it is all the same war, and it really all started in 1979. Once you on the left wrap your minds around that concept, you'll finally understand what we're doing...and why it is so vital that we win.

Its really just a shame that so many of you have blinded yourselves to reality - more interested in narrow, partisan political advantage than doing the right thing.

Anillo,

But the people do support it - they supported it via their Congressional representation on September 18th, 2001 when Congress, per the Constitution, declared war and gave the President authority to wage it. If you say that as of now the American people have withdrawn support and want this war to be lost, then it should be no great trick to get a veto-proof majority in Congress to repeal the declaration of war.

Go do it, Anillo - call up Pelosi and Reid and ask them when they are going to move for a vote to end the war.

What's that you say? They won't do it? Well, as I've always said - look at what people do, not what they say. Pelosi, Reid and all of their supporters SAY that the American people want Iraq ended and no further action taken in the War on Terrorism...but what Pelosi, Reid and all of their supporters are going to do is, well, nothing...they will neither support nor oppose, they'll just vote on a worthless, non-binding resolution, so cheaply do they believe their left wing base can be bought off (and I don't think they are far off the mark on that - people dimwitted enough to believe Farenheit 9/11 are dimwitted enough to buy a non-binding resolution).

Two comments; first of all, I happened to be going to college in Oklahoma City during the 1979 Islamic revolution. I had friends that were Iranian, and saw how reasonably intelligent people were duped by the Ayotollahs. I would love to wonder how they think now. Second, until the "moderate" muslim decides to condemn the actions of radical Islam, I find it hard to even consider negotiations. Have I missed something, but has anyone heard a "moderate" or any muslim condemn 9-11, or any other terrorist attack perpetrated by radical Islamists? Perhaps some of the leftists that routinely cry about how we don't engage Islam on this post, would like to weigh in and answer that for me.

Mark, don't you grow weary of trying to explain to the unwashed that this war on terror is going to last for generations? I remember when President Bush first addressed the American people on the subject; all I could think of was the lack of resolve the LLL's would have, and the politicking that would ensue. They haven't disappointed, with all their conspiracy theories on inside jobs, war profiteering, etc.

What a bunch of wimps we've turned out to be; no wonder the rest of the world allegedly hates us...

I pray God that the Iranian leaders aren't that stupid, because I would hope that we don't have to shed good Iranian blood because a few lunatics in Tehran think that God is on their side.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at January 20, 2007 01:57 AM

Mark

If we substitute 'American' for 'Iranian' and 'Washington' for 'Tehran' in your comment, it would be just as true.

Mark -

You cleverly shift topics in your response. The catchphrase "non-binding" you all are so keen on throwing about refers to the Iraqi troop increase and nothing to do with engaging in military operations against Iran.

When it does come up and the legislative leadership passes language that prohibits engaging Iran, we'll talk more.

On a side note, where was your outrage at spinelessness when the house passed a non-binding resoulution that had praised U.S. troops, labeled the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and said an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest.

The GOP didn't even have the guts to put forth a binding resolution that says "hey military, great job".

But even more importantly, you are wrong on 18September2001. The last time congress or the president declared war was 1942. You refer to HJ Res. 23, which is an authorization for military engagement; not a declaration of war.

And if you want to get really accurate, HJ Res. 114, which shifted the focus from fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan to Saddam in Iraq wasn’t enacted until October 2002.

It is frustrating to hear you reiterate such White House talking points without thought. You automatically link withdrawing support for our strategy in Iraq with losing the war (I’m assuming this ‘war’ is the GWOT), but that is a false bifurcation.

We don’t want an end to the struggle, we want a better plan.

This is reflected in the fact that people now voted in legislators who stand in opposition to the way HJR 23 is being carried out. In his 20SEPT2001address, the president swore to “direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war”, but instead rushed into a conflict many sources knew was not a vital aspect of global terrorism and, moreover, would unleash further violence that would tie up otherwise-effective military and economic resources and take away from our efforts to curb terrorism.

Which gets into GIG-LIH’s diatribe. The world doesn’t only hate us now “for being wimps”. Anti-Americanism is fueled by belligerent foreign policies which aggressively interfere with other countries domestic affairs; not isolationism, as you argue.

The global good will we were shown after 9/11 was reversed when this administration showed blatant disregard for international law, unilateral determination to rewrite the truth, and an overall failure to justify its foreign policy.

But more than that, the architects of the war in Iraq shunned the very democratic principles they argued they were going to spread to the region. They have falsely imprisoned innocents under the guise of national intelligence security, they have supported foreign leaders who care nothing about the rule of law, and they have written off the electorate as just a dumb and uneducated agent who doesn’t know what is best for them.

Throw in domestic factors like relegating homosexuals to second-class citizens, government intrusion into phone, postal, and financial privacy, the ever-widening gap between the wealth and the poor, and rampant suppression of scientific advancement for a political agenda and you actually start to get a picture of why some are screaming for a course change.

If we substitute 'American' for 'Iranian' and 'Washington' for 'Tehran' in your comment, it would be just as true.

Once again, the crackhead pipes in with utter nonsense. I've yet to see one of our soldiers strap bombs their vest and blow themselves up, and I hardly equate a Christian president with a mad mullah. But that's what you meant, isn't it, Canadian Doper?

keefer

Once again you have misread my intention. I wanted to point out that BOTH countries think God is in charge of their military and will lead them to victory. LOL!!

Why do dems hate America?

Bigfoot writes that the only times I can think of when peace was established by negotiation with Muslims are the peace deals between Israel and each of Egypt and Jordan, both of which were (and are) secular regimes, and thus far saner than the fanatics we're dealing with now.

You are forgetting Joel Barlow’s 1796 Treaty of Tripoli. This was a treaty that was passed unanimously by the Senate on June 8, 1797 while George Washington was president.

Please read Article 11 of the treaty. It states that since the United States was NOT founded on the Christian religion it has no feud with Muslims.

Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Biden, etal KNOW that the President is the "Commander in Chief", and they cannot stop a surge in troops. But, what they are
and have been good at, is being obstructionists, that have set out to smear, and attack this President from day one. Too bad, they have not decided to put the good of the USA first, and the
future safety of it's American Citizens. No, that
would be asking too much of them, so they have found that emboldening our enemies(no matter what country they are in, or pour into(Iraq) so they continue at beating the drums of NO WMD's-Funny though NO ONE AT THE MSM runs the story on the Gen. who has stated the WMD's were sent into Syria
THAT BIT OF INFO JUST WON'T BE PUBLICIZED-AS IT DOESN'T BODE WELL FOR THE DEMS PLANS OF RETURNING TO POWER, AND THEY 'NEED TO KEEP BLASTING AWAY AT THE STRUGGLES IN IRAQ'.

Abit off topic: Today, Hillary announced her run at the Presidency..."WHAT A TOTAL SHOCK AND SURPRISE-ALL THE YEARS OF DENYING HER INTEREST, AND SUDDENLY SHE HAS ANNOUNCED-WHAT A PHONEY LIAR"

I'm starting to wonder...Jo=Jeremiah? Jeremiah=Jo?
It's not that far fetched now is it? Hmmm....

We don't govern by opinion poll Posted by: Mark Noonan

Your statement is true, but a poll if done properly is a reflection of the people's thinking between elections. Politicians can ignore the people for only so long, i.e. Richard Nixon.

Reading this blog it is clear, for some reason the necons have gone down a road that this nation is a corporation and we work for the betterment of its leaders. In addition neocons believe leaders of this nation (corporation) know what is best. This is such a twisted thought process in a democracy. Bush, Cheney, Pelosi, Rice, Clinton work for us. And if you have no faith in this premise you should move to Russia. There under the guise of a false constitution Putin will do all the thinking for you. He doesn’t ask parliament when he wants to risk hundreds of children’s’ lives in a movie theater shoot out. He just orders it done and damn the negotiators. Do neocons really want a Russian style government?

Anillo,

I hadn't realised that we had passed laws making homosexuals second class citizens...must have been a secret law passed when Rove had us all asleep, right?

You do realise that overblown rhetoric like that detracts from what are otherwise interesting comments, don't you?

At any event...

You can read that any way you like, but when the Congress of the United States authorizes the use of military force, that is a declaration of war. You might not like it, but the plain fact of the matter is that we've got a war on our hands, Congress has given full authority to the President to use the forces of the United States to fight the war and the war cannot end without an act of Congress repealing the declaration of September 18th, 2001.

Now, as to the Iraq campaign in the larger War on Terrorism:

It occured to me, I believe, on the afternoon of September 11th, 2001 that we would have to deal with Iraq if we wanted to win the War on Terrorism - I could be mistaken about that, it might have been a day or two later, but it was certainly very early on that Iraq came into my strategic sights. Personally, I would have liberated Iraq even before liberating Afghanistan - bin Laden and the Taliban being a sideshow of the real war.

You see, we're not fighting a man, or even a terrorist organization - what we are fighting is an ideology murderously at war with all that is good and decent in the world...and that is both the Moslem and Christian world...as well as the Buhddist world, the Hindu world...heck, even the athiest world...if its decent, then the Islamo-fascism we fight is at war with it. Bin Laden and the rest of the particular terrorists and groups are just a manifestation of a larger, systemic problem in the Arab/Moslem world...kill every terrorist active today and all you'll have done is delay the final battle.

Winning this war entails changing the socio-political dynamic of the Arab/Moslem world - to end the Islamism and the facism which crush the spirit of the Arab/Moslem peoples as well as fuel the fires which make is possible for people to strap on bombs and blow themselves up in Tel Aviv, or fly airplanes into buildings in New York City. It has to change - and it has to change by primary agency of the Arab/Moslem peoples themselves.

How do we get to this? Well, we have to kick start it, as it were. Certainly we have to be aggressive in fighting the actual terrorists active today, but that is just a means of keeping the armed enemy busy - and away from our shores - while we fight the real battle...the battle for a renewed Arab/Moslem world where people are free to live and build, rather than enslaved to an ideology which wishes to kill and destroy.

We had to start somewhere - where to start? Well, in Iraq we had an ongoing threat in Saddam - and, yes, it was a WMD threat even if Saddam didn't have the stockpiles the whole world said he had - plus a fully legitimate reason for attacking the Saddamite regime: Saddam had not kept the 1991 cease fire agreement, and thus we could choose to resume hostilities any time it seemed to us the time to do so. In addition to these ready-made reasons, there is also the fact that Iraq is both Sunni and Shia; it is one of the more secular nations of the Arab/Moslem world, had been suffering under a hated dictatorship for 30 years and thus would have at least some people willing to try democracy and fight for it; and, of course, it is the strategic center of gravity in the middle east. Its no accident that Mesopotamia has been a battlefield for 40 centuries - control Iraq, and you control the middle east. Period.

So, into Iraq we go - and the key in Iraq is to have a self-defending, democratic government providing hope for its people...if we can do that, then the entire middle east will eventually fall to liberty, and that will be the end of the Islamo-fascism which puts us all at risk. I figured it wouldn't be as hard as it has, but then again I never in a million years figured that the American left would find common cause with terrorists and Iranian mullahs...if there is a war worth fighting, then this war is it...but the left has decided that hating America and hating President Bush is far more important than common sense. This leftwing activity has given our enemy hope that he can defeat us in American politics...that you of the left will hand them the battlefield victory they cannot secure on their own, and that this will give them the abiltiy to consolidate their power in the Arab/Moslem world in preparation for a full scale conflict between Islamo-fascism and the West.

But I still stick with it - because it is the best way to go, and it is actually working quite well. I don't think you on the left have the ability to engineer our defeat as you did in 1975, and I'm confident that the American military is fully capable of carrying out its assigned tasks.

Josh,

Polls are worthless - to even refer to them in making policy decisions is asinine, no matter how well done the poll is.

We govern by laws - if the American people have determined that the liberation of Iraq is to be scuttled, then Congress will shortly pass a law pulling the plug on the effort. As you know, there isn't a move in that direction at all - and as the various House and Senate members are fully in touch with the desires of their constituents, our presumption must be that in spite of all, the American people have not decided that scuttling Iraq is the thing to do.

please attack Iran, i can't wait for you to attack them and come running home with your tails between your legs like u did in vietnam....

as for you Mark,

you will make up any excuse for this president to ruin the USA. I pity you for you have no mind of your own.

you will make up any excuse for this president to ruin the USA. I pity you for you have no mind of your own.

GradeThree Graduate, you will make up any excuse to come here and post talking points. Talk about not having a mind of one's own...

Anillo,

In further support of Mark's position, I invite you to check out this transcript from a Q&A session between Senator Biden and the Council on Foreign Relations, held on October 21, 2001, as it concerns the AUMF already mentioned (btw, transcript taken from Biden's website). SPecifically, near the end, Sen Biden is asked about whether he saw the need or expectation of Congress passing a declaration of war. The question and his response:

M: (Inaudible) Talbot(?). Senator, thank you for this broad gauged approach to the problems we face. My question is this, do you foresee the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom? (Scattered Laughter)

JB: The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I'm the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what ... against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President.

Lest you think this wasn't part of the transcript form that session or where I found it, hre's the link:

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=229598

GT,

That is what the enemies of human freedom want - America defeated. At least we know that you stand with the tyrants and fascists of the world.

Being a former Marine, I have been spit on and yelled at for being in Viet Nam and the people have that right to yell all they want cause of the men that died keepng our freedom, PULL OUT? HELL NO>Keep going till its done pull the stopper out and deal with this as a REAL war, not a police action.do not be another Viet Nam.

It becomes more and more obvious as I study the whims and words of the so-called intelligent Republic party followers/backers that the words of the Constitution and their meaning as set forth by the founding fathers, is oh so foreign to the great majority of you. If you REALLY want to know the truth of the matter and where this Bush criminal and his Republic mafia are twisting the obvious meaning of the great document we call the Constitution, PLEASE read both ARTICLE 2 and then follow it by reading ARTICLE 1. You may just be amazed to find that the founding fathers wrote language into the Constitution as to prevent just such a dictatorial move as has been accomplished by the Bushkovites.