- Politics never meant to be a career option
- Term limits the answer for Congress
- Turkey may have saved Dems' bacon
- Teachers unions: free ride on accountability
- Teachers unions: free ride on accountability
- Blaming the hippo
- Token nod to seniors
- Out of luck, eh?
- A DIFFERING VIEW/Three amendments to fix the Farm Bill
- DREAM Act still needed
War needed to be clarified
I seem to remember a resolution by Congress, passed by an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans, that authorized the President to “use all means necessary, including military force,” against the forces of terror. Since then, most members of Congress have used every press conference and photo op to announce that, “we are a nation at war.”
While the words “state of war” don’t appear in the resolution, the intent of Congress was utterly clear. Even Senators like Patrick Leahy recognize this with their question: “If Congress can declare war, cannot Congress declare peace?” (from the confirmation hearings for Attorney General Gonzalez). The answer to that question doesn’t lie in the Constitution, except in the power of the purse.
If Congress failed in its duty to declare war, it was a failure to define the enemy. Was the intent only to defeat Al-Qaida in Afghanistan? Was it to pursue organized terrorists worldwide?
Certainly, I recall no mention of Iraq in any resolution by Congress, though many opportunities to clarify that were evident.
The letter writer was right in blaming Congress for lack of the will to be clear and explicit in defining the war it authorized.
This letter has not been edited.
"Intent"
enough said
Their "intent" wasn't to needlessly invade and occupy a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, no ties to AQ and represented NO threat to the US at all.
"Intent" indeed.
Posted by jay on November 4, 2007 08:40 PMI don't know whether to despise Keith or feel sorry for him; Keith is so limited in his vocabulary; it is a vocabulary I have been active in dissuading from being used so as never to compel the moderator to cancel this blog out of disgust.
Posted by JVB on November 5, 2007 12:02 PMWhat war? This is just another misadventure out of the Lyndon Johnson/Jimmy Carter playbook.....Look for the evidence of things not seen,folks. Domestically we haven't seen a suspension of the First Amendment,or of habeas corpus,or the passage of anti-sedition laws.We haven't seen rationing,or blackouts,or conscription,or conversion of civilian manufacturing to war materiel.Haven't seen much patriotism,either.There's been no internment of those who look like the enemy.And most important we've seen no declararation of "a state of war",nor have we seen a policy of requiring unconditional surrender.
Militarily we've not seen anything like the tactics one would expect to see were we really in a fight. There have been no mass air raids on enemy population/manufacturing/military centers,no blockade of enemy seaports or land borders,and no sense of planning for an invasion.
In short,not much going on except talk.We can anticipate this war will be about as successful as the war on drugs,or the war on poverty.Great job,America.