War and Congress(refresh my memory)Follow

I believe they were seperate.

Bush used the War on Terror to justify going into Iraq. Something he had a hard on for since day one. They figured that going in and taking out Saddam would be simple (which it was) and that restructuring the country and setting up a friendly government would work much like post WW2 Germany or Japan. Well the second part they failed miserably on.

So now you are faced with the situation as it is now.

Pulling out and seeing Iraq more than likely further slide into chaos and destabilize the mid east situation further. Creating a situation that is actually worse than having Saddam in power.


Or 'staying the course' which with current tactics and inept administrators and previous failures taken into account probably will never 'win' the war. However, as distasteful as it is, is probably the only choice you have left.

Sh'itty bust for America, even sh'ittier for your service men and women.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

It's interesting that the Resolution calls upon the Iraqi Liberation Act (specifically section 7) which statesSection 4(a)(2) refers to providing arms and training to "democratic opposition" groups opposed to Saddam which doesn't seem to really apply these days given that Saddam was deposed and then executed.

But, anyway, the simple answer is that we're in Iraq because Congress has continued to authorize and finance military action in Iraq. The latest and greatest incarnation of Congress has rumbled about tightening the purse strings on future action but it's unlikely that they'd simply cut funding for troops already stationed in Iraq.

We knew he wouldnt be doing it in the next decade or so.

ahhh... NPR. The pillar of fair and balanced reporting.

Actually it's not a bad station. Still trying to figure out how the one news anchorwoman can get away with calling herself Michelle (pronounced ME-shell).

I have always wondered if Me-Shell is hawt or nawt...time to google me thinks.

Was the approval from congress to go to war with Iraq a seperate approval than the one to go to war with Afgahnistahn?
OR did the president just get approval to go to "War on Terror" which doesn't specify any country or anything... just terrorism (a BATTLE TACTIC) in general..
---------------------------------------------------

NORMALLY, you need a congressional declaration of war to go to war unless our own country is attacked, then the president has the authority to go to war without anyones approval.

911 was an act of war. the people who did it were in afganistan. the president didnt need anyones approval to go to war there, but congress backed it reguardless. so did the majority of the rest of the world.

irag.

well, funny thing that. the president got his lawyers to laywer up the clause requiring a congressional approval for war to include giving the president the authority to act if he "FEELS" this country is in immenant danger, under the clause of giving the president authority if this country is actually attacked.

in light of 911, congress bought in to it. the theory being we should not have to wait untill we are attacked to attack someone we "FEEL" is going to attack us.

congress NEVER APPROVED going to war with Iraq. here that gbaji? NEVER APPROVED it. they just signed a bill that left it up to the president and his "FEELINGS".

but congress sure as hell sat around and did nothing to stop it, even though they never saw a conclusive scrap of evidence to show it was justified.

our forfathers made sure no single man had the authority to start a war in this country. our knee jerk reaction to 911 changed all that, and it has gotten us exactly to the place our forfathers tried to keep us from going. starting an unjust war.

coarse, they could have sidestepped the who war powers act and called it......a police action.......like they did in vietnam.

its funny, every time we try and stretch the boundries of the laws set down in this country by our forefathers, we get boitchslapped. and yet we keep trying.

stupid is as stupid does.

Everything you said was correct, except this. I agree with you 100%. I think that booting Saddams *** out was a good thing, but should have been left up to the Kurds.

As to Afghanistan, the Taliban is having a resurgence. There are causing massive problems for many people on the groud over there.

We need to get rid of all the politicians that we have, because they keep playing the "bait and switch" game with us. We need some people that have ready and understand the Constitution, and will abide by it. Not butcher it to suit their own needs, while bending each and every citizen over and reaming them up the whazoo with no lube.

Shame the average voter is too stupid to understand this. All this D vs. R **** is annoying. Hell, I could ***** about this for hours, but I'm getting off work in 20 minutes.

I'd still hit it.

that just sounds ridiculous.. establishing a democracy for another country. Comon now.

I am not arguing invading Iraq was a bad thing, but here is the problem we can't pull out now until order is somewhat restored.
------------------------------------------------------

we said the same thing about vietnam. the EXACT same thing.

bottom line, untill we leave, there will never be peace in Iraq. we are the catalyst for the violance there, which has now spread along ethnic lines and escalated into civil war.

there will be no order UNTILL we leave. saying we cant leave untill there is order puts us into a catch 22 situation with no good answer. so solution.

the only real decision we have, the only real decision we ever had, is deciding at what point american lives are no longer worth iraqi lives. deciding at which point our collective conscious feels we have given enough to satisfy our feelings of guilt.

the end was written in stone the day we invaded. we WILL leave, everything we touched WILL be torn down, every one who supported us WILL be killed. this was written in stone by 1000 years of history in the middle east. the crusades, britians attempt at colonization, russias venture into afganistan. this end has befell EVERY non-muslin invader in the middle east. it WILL befall us.

Bush SR even wrote a book discussing why he didnt go into bagdad, outlinning this very scenerio we are now in. too bad Jr cant read.

there will be no peace untill we leave. and when we do, iraq will become a muslim rulled country. the end. all we have to decide is at what point are we satisfied we have given enough american lives to releive our sence of guilt for destroying a country WITHOUT justification.

we should have made our stand in afganistan, where the majority of the world was behind us, including a large chunk of the muslim world.

but while our government may be able to hoodwink the american people, the rest of the world wasnt fooled. we have no support in iraq. we WILL fail in iraq. the only decision open to us is at what point do we decide loosing american lives is no longer worth our sence of guilt.

heads SHOULD roll. our leadership SHOULD be held accountable. but they wont.

welcome to the moral majority. the america the rest of the world now sees clearly.