Replies

It’s a putty knife compared to other choices.
By deliberately going the “Congressional Resolution” route he deliberately chose constitutional approach that is inherently defensive. (Basically “inherent powers” the President can act to defend the country without any congressional action.) However he had to take the war to the enemy, otherwise you cede the initiative. However the “Congressional Resolution” is reactive, enemy attacked you react to defend. Which is what the democraps believe in, its basically a “law enforcement model” to war. Police can only act after the fact, we wouldn’t want them to function any other way. However there has been a blurring in blurring in peoples minds as to the roles of soldiers and law enforcement personnel.
Bush by not asking on 9/12 for a declaration of war deliberately (or was talked into this!) chose a flawed instrument to fight this enemy. He is critically limited in his actions both internationally and domestically.
All these Freepers who rant about treason by this person (e.g., Harry Reid) or that person should just stop wasting their breath. The choice of using a “Congressional Resolution” opened the door to all of this. A “Congressional Resolution” a which is a political instrument keeps the war against terror as just something else to fight about politically. Internationally it says we aren’t serious about the war.