Replies

From what it seems is that your basic assumption is that one branch has too much power and I don't agree. All three branches still have their checks on the others power which is still the more important thing. The basic fact is that Congress can't keep a secret that is why they aren't told is because they are politicians. If Chuckles Schumner is told of the NSA program he leaks it out three weeks before an elections and hammers the President and the GOP with it. Which is why so few people are told about sensitive information. I agree with the basic premise that the more open the better, but the real question is; since we can't trust Congress to keep the nations secrets, who can we trust?

Iraq, and in general the WOT, is not unpopular because Congress ceeded (which I don't necessarily agree with) power, it's unpopular because the Bush administration has a PR IQ of about 2 and the MSM and Congressional D's (and some R's for that matter) are out there everyday bashing Bush and the war. Not being alive for Korea and Vietnam I cannot speak towards what was going on then, but from what I have read, it was more the media focusing on a small minority of dissenters than there being a real opposition to the war.

Honestly, is a strong Congress better than a strong President?

A strong Congress is better that a strong president in many ways. A strong Congress safeguards more of our freedoms because of the nature of Congress. As far as Iraq my point is that if the President went in front of Congress and asked for a declaration of war and if Congress granted that request than the MSM could not have said this is Bush's war. They could have complained about the way Bush has handled it...true but they could not have label Bush a warmonger. They would have had to label the entire government that. The people would have been behind it more because they would have had a voice in it. You can not lead a fractured nation into war. The pot shots that the DEMS and some REP are taking at the President over Iraq would not have been possible if the Congress was on record with a vote. The resolution they passed was so watered down that congress could say it meant whatever they said it meant. Congress should have taken an up or down vote to either go to war or to stay home.
There are way for Congress to keep a secret if they wanted too. Committee postings, signed oaths of secrecy, etc. Just because it is hard to do should not mean that you should not do something. But look at the problems secrecy has caused the Bush White House just in the last year (wiretaps, patriot act held up in Congress, secret jails in Europe, Gitmo, Portgate, Katrina response, Libby scandal) if the White house would have had a less secret atmosphere just about all of these would have been mole hills instead with each new revelation about a secret program the President's approval falls threatening his domestic programs, his war fighting ability, his standing with other nations etc.

I believe the less government the better but equal branches above all