Why? why is the will not there if what you are saying is correct?

Who's pulling the strings?

I feel like there is a group of rich oil men, or rich bankers or maybe both, playing a real life game of Risk with our countries.

and "something wicked this way comes".

I might be a little too cynical. Hope so.

It's so SAD here, Weaves, to see the wives with their BRAIN-INJURED spouses in the grocery store...trying to have them practice naming the items...

I see this ALL the TIME...

YUCK...

And they thought they married A SOLDIER BOY...

Oh no, is it really? Was it good? If I read that I'll probably really get freaked out and paranoid. LOL

Enlightened_ex,

I think you are giving congress a little too much credit in ending the Vietnam war.

I was in my early 20's and my husband was a member of the Tonkin Gulf Yacht club when that war ended and I remember it like it was yesterday. I don't care what the history books say. The oil embargo ended that war. First the embargo and then the economy tumbled with a capital "T". Can't fight a war without oil. The Arabs had no use for Communism or Vietnam---they weren't gonna
help us out.

Congress cutting funds in 1969 was to stop Nixon from funding his political and strategic scheme to win the war by undermining the Congress and what he called the liberal media. It was a defense spending bill to prevent the further use of money in Laos or Thailand not Vietnam-- considered foreign policy and not war. And then in 1970 Congress stopped Nixon from spending funds to bomb Cambodia.

The Paris Peace Accords were in January 1993--it wasn't until June that Congress put the August 15th deadline on spending. By the then we were lined up for gas and the economy was in the $hitter. God, it's like deja-vu all over again. Only difference is the national debt was 469 billion not 9.6 Trillion!

You don't seem to know your history very well.

Congress brought Vietnam to a close by ending the funding. If Congress wants to end this war, they can do so anytime they see fit. They simply have to stop writing the checks.

They can also remove the declaration of war. It is congress that declares war, not the president. At any time, Congress can decide that there is no longer a state of war, and reverse their declaration of war.

They don't have the votes to override a presidential veto, but that's a Congress issue.

YES! He is the CinC. But, Congress can say, you asked for $100B, and we are only giving you $75B. And NEXT year, you get $50B, and so on. AND PASS THAT.

But THEY DON'T.

I know history quite well, and I am pretty certain that what ended the Vietnam war (aside from the mounting casualties) was not Congress but the oil embargo. We could not fight the war without oil, while the North Vietnamese did not rely on Middle East oil. No oil, no war.


As a history buff, you no doubt realize how absurd this statement is, since there never was a declaration of war in the case of Iraq.


Exactly. It's not a Pelosi/Reed issue, it's the fact that there are not enough Democratic votes to overcome a fillibuster or a veto.

AGG

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

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations' (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material an unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the Wap Xnwers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

They were a far more brave congress than we have today. They were able to bring the issue to light and erode any remaining support for the war.

Seem there is a resolution authorizing the President to act

But to say he wasn't authorized to do what he did is not honest.

Yes, there was a resolution. You said there was a declaration of war, and there was not.

I certainly did not say that, so I don't know who you are responding to.

That aside, let's not forget that the resolution was passed by a Republican congress based on misleading, if not false, information provided by others. So again, not sure how Pelosi/Reed fit into this.

AGG

Do that, stop writing the checks and they've delivered what they've promised.

Who is running congress? Pelosi and Reid say they want to end the war, but are unable to lead their legislative bodies to stop funding the war.

It's no conspiracy. It's political. Everyone wants to be re-elected and no-one thinks they'll get re-elected if they pull the plug on funding the war.

Regardless of their personal views on the war, they have sold their souls for the upcoming election.

All of the House and 1/3rd of the Senate is up for election. So instead of voting what they think is right, which for many is to no longer fund the war, they vote for what they think will get them elected.

How is that leadership? How is that principled?

I say that about both Republicans AND Democrats, lest you think I'm picking on only the Democrats. It's just very obvious with the Democrats right now with respect to the war. Many pound the podium about how awful this war is, while voting for bills to continue to fund it.

If they really believe it's so bad, stop writing the checks!

That's the kind of bold leadership we need.

That's the kind of CHANGE we need.

Two things about this VP pick stick out to me ...

1. It was another example of McCain's knee jerk decisions and poor judgment. When you have vetting teams arriving in the pick's hometown less than 24 hours prior to the announcement, you know that this was a last minute consideration, and likely a compromise between feuding factions within the campaign.

2. It was a desperation pick for a struggling campaign. When you are 60 days out from the general election and trailing in all of the polls, and you have to make a pick to rally your base, rather than reach out to undecideds, it illustrates just how badly the Republicans view their own candidate.

What is her level of education?

Neither McCain or Palin seem all that bright to me.

We have two almost complete opposites as candidates, even so far as one from the east and one from the west.

My question remains, how important is it to really pay attention to their platforms and decide on who would be the best one to run our country. Or are they merely puppets? And if so how can we decide which way to vote for the best possible outcome for our country and it's people.

Can it make any real difference. Is it congress that we have to focus on?

To my way of thinking at the moment it is about taxes and constitutional rights, because that is what I can understand and relate to. And of course ending the war, and avoiding future wars, but that to me is a almost given as both are going to have to adhere to, as has Pieta said, the people have about had it with the wars and we have run out of funding... Deja vu Viet Nam (per Pieta and AGG).