Replies

Almost four years ago, I wrote an article for UPI reviewing most of America's declarations of war over the years. I pointed out that the authorization in the Patriot Act, passed days after the 9/11 attacks, was almost word for word the same that Congress gave to President Jefferson to "use military force" to pursue the Barbary Pirates (Muslims, by the way) "across international borders" in 1805.

The Constitution does not specify the exact words to be used in a declaration of war. If what Congress did for Jefferson in 1805 was a sufficient declaration, then the one Congress passed for Bush in 2001 and again a year later, is also sufficient.

Brzeniski is an ill-informed moron at best, a deliberate Democrat liar at worse, in making this statement that we are "not at war." We should be grateful that this war, for all its blood and money costs, is minor compared to the deaths and costs in proportaion to GNP in WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

P.S. My primary is over, but because of certain legal and ethical problems, the incumbent, Charles Taylor may withdraw/be forced out, and I am in the running to be chosen as the replacement nominee for Congress in the 11th District of NC. For more information, see the article below, and my website. I still need your help.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "What a Week! What a Week!"

I agree that technically we may be at war, in as much as the Congress has authorized military force in a manner similar to previous wars.

None the less I think ZB speaks for a lot of people in that the Islamic Fascists just don't seem that scary at this point. 9/11 looks more and more like a 'lucky shot' and Iraq looks like a good place to let the various odd flavors of Mohammed ispired insanity duke it out, with us watching safely from the sidelines.