The United States did not officially declare war on Iraq.

[RC]

Only congress can do that. They did not do that.
What Congress did do was authorize bu$h to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against any country, organization or individual with a role in the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks.

Since we now know beyond any shadow of any reasonable doubt that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11/2001, why has George Walker Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld and a dozen or so others of this administration not been removed from office to await trail for war crimes?

[Dookus]

1. The US hasn't declared war since 1941

We have thoroughly given up on the idea of Congress alone having the power to declare wars.

[de0illib]

2. You got that right!

Without a doubt one of Bush's first big mistakes was not demand congress declare war on the terrorists. Everything he has done since has just been to follow the instructions of the Big Three, Chaney Rummy and Rice.

[Streetdoc270]

5. How can you ask congress to declare war on an abstract?

You cant go to congress and ask the to declare War on "some Arabic guys" War on terrorism is an abstract with no definable enemy or targets. This is why there has been no formal declaration of war, because there is nothing to declare. Face it the Emperor has no cloths and we are told to shop at the same tailor.

[de0illib]

6. Hang on.

Historically that's not right. WWII is the first war we ever declared against a country. We always used to declare war against the king, like the King of Spain or the Kaiser or the Barbary Pirates, well they declared war on us first, but that's not my point. Since Congress did not declare war on the terrorists it let the military become unfocused. Instead of chasing down the folks who attacked us we wound up going after guys like Saddam.

[Streetdoc270]

8. But they are a named person...

When you declare war aginst Prince Charles or Blackbeard the Pirate, you have a tangible object that you have declaired war aginst, Unlike the war on terror and its cousin, the war on drugs you have no definable person or place to assult ergo no tangable goals, or end point.

[de0illib]

10. I can't argue with that

By declaring war on "Drugs" we certainly did not identify anyone to attack. In 1970 congress passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. If they had poured all that money into something like "War on Drug Dealers" it would have worked much better. As for Osama I just posted a rant about him. We should have declared war on him as the leader of the terrorists.

[rfkrocks]

3. its amazing that we changed the constitution

by legislation (war powers act) which can't amend the constitutuion but then what do i a dem know about the constitution-isn't the constitution solely owned by the gop?- well these things are better left to our "platonic guardians" type like Scalia. BTW the war was officially sponsored today by another 2 deaths from our troops. sad so sad-WORST PRESIDENT EVER

[FeebMaster]

4. Declare war?

That's so old fashioned. Get with the times!

[leesa]

7. And wasn't that a BRILLIANT thing for our worthless Congress to do!

Instead of investigating the criminal action committed on 9-11 and apprehending the perpetrators, whose identities we still do not know, we carpet bomb a completely unrelated country. Wise Congressmembers!

[de0illib]

9. Absolutely

I'm not sure I'd call it criminal. After all Bin Laden helped blow up or kill a bunch of Americans in 1992, 1993, 1995 1998, in 1996 as the leading terrorist in the world he declared war on us. He then bombed the Cole and killed over 200 people in Africa and we haven't declared war on them YET! What the heck are we doing running around in the desert building schools and fixing power plants, all the while getting shot at. We need a leaded who has been shot before to know what it's like to be shot at again. Sorry, I rant on....