What I find interesting is the fact that Congress has to ask for something that they already have. Only Congress can declare war. And if Bush wants to do anything to Iran, it would be war. He went to Congress for Iraq, and the only reason he wouldn't do the same for Iran is because everyone's eyes are opened.

Well, along those lines of logic of a regime protecting terrorists and their nefarious infrastructure, why aren't we ramping up to attack Saudi Arabia, Syria or Sudan? Also, there's a large need for more resources in Afganistan, IMO we should finish what we've started before taking on new challenges, nuclear threat or not. Think of it this way, we would have a multi-fronted attack approach for staging and ground troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan if they chose to build resources up in Afghanistan.

Also, your comment about politics replacing thought; Isn't it one of congress' basic duties to approve or reject the use of military force? Given the recent track records and steamrolled decisions for AUMF, a review indeed is what we need instead of another hastily planned war front.

Those jerks! What do they think they are doing? It is almost like they think they should be a check and balance to the President. The nerve! What, do they think that they are ones that the constitution gives the power to start war? I mean, the President has been so correct about Iraq so what could he possibly get wrong on Iran? If only we had a Republic Congress, then we could just keep our Army marching until the "War on Terra" was complete.

no...this is what happens when your commander in chief is incompetent.

Since it's Congress's purview to declare war and not the President's (check your Constitution, kids!), I would say that Webb's proposed legislation is downright Originalist.

Ludicrous! To suggest that the administration abide by Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution is insane!!!

We should note that Iran is an enemy of Al-Queada and the current Iraqi Government is an ally of Iran.

And Iran made an offer back in 2003 to begin normalization of relations with the US like Lybia.

When there's a contradiction between Republican talking points and the Constitution, I guess we know what side you guys are on. Congress, not the President, has the utimate say about declaring war and spending money. In practice, of course, our legislators don't do a very good job of restraining aggressive, unintelligent executives; but they certainly have the right to do so.

See, there was this man named James Madison...

Constitution of the United States



Article I: The Legislative Branch



Section 8

Clause 1:



The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

...

Clause 11:



To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;



Clause 12:



To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;



Clause 13:



To provide and maintain a Navy;



Clause 14:



To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Bullshit. Bush has amply demonstrated that he and the Republican Party lack the competence and integrity to be trusted with the national security of the United States, and - as everyone here has pointed out - Congress is simply reaffirming its prescribed role under the Constitution. Needless to say, there is nothing whatever preventing the Executive Branch from taking whatever military measures it deems necessary to respond to an emergency. It cannot, however, continue to simply ignore the Constitutional role of the people's elected representatives with impunity.

By the way, just love the subtitle: "blogging for the majority!" You mean the twenty-eight percent of the electorate who still believes that Bush isn't the most manifestly unfit human being ever to squat on a White House toilet, much less set foot in the Oval Office? Delusional, sure; but touching nonetheless.

Oh yea, and even the security question demonstrates a capacity to learn. It asked me the name of the vice-president, and let me right in when I responded "Snarling Savage."

Webb's amendment would prohibit Bush from spending any money on a "unilateral military action in Iran without the express consent of the Congress."

President Clinton started wars in Bosnia and Kosovo without Congressional authorization. President Clinton said that he had the constitutional authority under the commander-in-chief clause to use force without congressional consent. link

I wonder what Webb thinks of President Clinton's "unilateral military actions"?

Btw, Bosnia has become Al Qaeda Terrorist Central.