Replies

"If you believe the United States should have a war, then be willing to vote for war," DeFazio said. "The president should be willing to come to Congress and make a case for war because that is indeed what this is about."

What about that is difficult to understand?

IF, and I say IF, one truly believes in the Constitution and one truly believes in supporitng the troops, then an unambiguous decalratin of war is the best way to go.

The US did not have a stellar record when conduction "police actions", containment, or other non-declared war actions.

How many Freepers would have allowed clinton to attack and invade without a declaration of war?

I want to thank you two for your insightful comments this morning. You've echoed my sentiments without my having to draft a long post in doing so. The fact remains that President Bush should ask for a Declaration of War, the Congress should pass it (as it is their responsibility to do so under our form of government), and we should start the bombing. But it should be done Constitutionally for crying out loud!

I am fully aware that Bill Clinton loathed the military, and the Constitution for that matter. But are we no better than him? I personally believe that the U.S. Congress would vote, in the majority, for a Declaration of War. Do the posters on this thread not agree? I know that this scenario presents a slight paradox for us, between doing what we want to do (ie, make Iraq a parking lot tomorrow) and what we are Constitutionally binded to do (ie, pass a Declaration of War through the Congress and then make Iraq a parking lot in two days or so).