[brewcrew]

I disagree, I do not think our troops should be deployed in conflict with any other country without a declaration of war

Why? Do you believe it is unconsitutional? My own thought is that the president has quite a bit of latitude when it comes to a military response made in self defense.

Believe me when I say that I truly don't have a chip on my shoulder on this issue - I am seeking the opinions of others in an effort to solidify my own.

[ninenot]

There is no specific Constitutional prohibition about committing troops without a declaration of war---viz., our troops in Korea and Germany. HOWEVER--you may recall the uproar from the 'conservatives' when Clintoon put our troops all over the globe running lunch parlors. There's a reason: the troops are in harm's way, and there's no "representative" declaration of war justifying placing our troops in the way of flying lead. That is, the Congress presumably will display more wisdom (535 heads..) than just the CinC.

If Congress declares war, the presumption is that they represent the will of the people in so doing. Without that declaration, the President is out on a limb. Put another way, with a declaration, the Pres's butt is covered. Without it, there's no reason to belive that the citizens of the USA should support it.

THIS situation obviously is different--the citizens should support Bush, because we were attacked. BUT...the precedent is bad. Bush is risking a lot without the declaration--OTOH, the Congress risks NOTHING.