[dyed_in_the_wool]

War Powers Act.
It was nice arguing.

[Hodar]

Hmmmmm,.... Didn't Clinton drug us into Bosnia, Haiti, and about 7 diffent armed skirmishes without any congressional approval. Not only did we NOT have a rules of engagement policy that was workable, we often didn't even know why we were there.

[piasa]

Already posted here

[101st-Eagle]

This guy is smoking crack! Factual (Kuwait not supporting US) and constitutional (War Powers Act) and philisophical (this Pandora's Box has been open a long time) errors drip from this.

Clinton, the MOST egregious abuser in this century other than...let's say... LBJ!, even snubbed his nose at the very thought of a vote for going after Milosivec! How is this any different?

[lawdude]

Declaring war in light of an attack of war is apples & oranges. The congress declares war, the President reacts to an act of war declared by another nation.

[clintonh8r]

Does this guy get paid for writing uninformed crap?

[RightWhale]

Congress should declare war on Iraq.

It is not necessary to do this, but would be a good political move and close down barber shop debate by uninformed persons who believe or say that the President lacks authority to invade and overthrow Iraq already.

[Hugin]

The Framers were well aware of the propensity of unchecked kings to drag their nations into war and wished to avoid this in the new republic. The power to commit a nation to war, placing young men and women in harm's way, is too great to be entrusted to any one person.

Our first two wars under the Constitution were initiated by Presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, two of the principle framers, without the benefit of a DOW. Presidents have been initating conflicts ever since, and no court has ruled their actions unconstitutional.

[ex-snook]

Why all this ambiguous 'slickness'?

Simply say we declare war and have a recorded vote. What's the problem?

[lideric]

Whether congress likes it or not, they granted Bush authority to make war against groups or countries that were connected to the attack on the WTC. The joint resolution passed on Sep 14, 2001 gives broad powers to 'W' to carry the fight to whomever he thinks is connected to the WTC attack.

The left-wing presstitutes and the RATS would like us to forget that little fact.

[tallhappy]

This is why it is troubling to read arguments that President Bush does not need a congressional declaration of war to move against Iraq.

Not only are conservative pundits and talk-show hosts (such as Rush Limbaugh) making such claims

By coincidence, I heard Limbaugh answer this this moring.

This author is wrong. Limbaugh's argument is that the Sepember 4 declaration is the declaration of war.

Limbaugh also goes on to say that another vote is fine and shoulc be taken as well.

This author is spewing specious garbage.

[Congressman Billybob]

Someone writing for "Enter Stage Right" should be more responsible than to lie by omission to the readers of this piece. There is NO MENTION in this piece of Senate Joint Resolution 23, passed by the Senate on 14 September, 2001, and then passed by the House as part of the Anti-Terrorism Act, on 18 September, 2001.

The complete text of this was put up on FreeRepublic in a long thread, yesterday. Not being computer-adept, I ask someone to put it up again in this thread.

Congress, in SJR 23, HAS ALDEADY AUTHORIZED all neceesary military action by the President, with respect to all individuals, organizations and NATIONS that he finds were involved in the terrorist acts of 11 September -- including those who "harbor" those who committed these acts.

The New York Times and the Washington Post, along with many others in the lamestream media, LIED (no surprise there) in their reporting of the White House legal staff. They did not find that NO AUTHORITY was needed from Congress, they found that AUTHORITY HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED. These are as different as the night, the day.

It is, however, appalling to see an allegedly conservative source repeating those lies from the leftist media. This man has clearly not done his basic homework. He refers only to the 1991 declaration of war -- which IS still in effect. But he ignores the 2001 declaration, which squarely and directly applies.

It is just as important to ignore lies from conservative sources, as from liberal ones. This man is a liar.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest column: "The Star-Spangled Banner."

Click for latest book: "to Restore Trust in America"

[adam stevens]

On September 14 Congress gave the President authorization to fight terrorism. That is all the declaration that is needed. This call for debate just seems to be a ploy by anti-war activists to keep up from going after Saddam.

[boris]

IMHO Bush should have asked for--and been given--a formal declaration of war on 9/12.

Against what entity?

Islam.

The bombing should have started instantly.

Assassinations of their leaders.

Outrages against their holy places.

In other words, all-out war, 100%, until there was no terrorist threat...because terrorists and their supporters were all dead.

For as long as it takes. No prisoners, no quarter.

But instead, we are afraid it'll make the price of gas go up a quarter, and nobody wants his Sunday football game bumped by a Presidential address...

--Boris

[aSkeptic]

what parts of 'section 8: Clause 11' and 'section 10: Clause 3' do you people not understand?