The constitution very explicitly gives war making power only to congress. For the last sixty-years, however, congress has abdicated its responsibility and allowed the president to usurp this power. I don't know what it will take to restore it where it belongs.

Roland, one word: Impeachment. That is what it will take to restore the balance of power.

Unfortunately, since the Republicans use of impeachment over denying a sex act, it is unlikely that it will be used again any time soon.

How many think that perhaps some prearranged provocation will occur before the Bush Admnistration leaves office?

Something set up in advance like an attack on one of our warships in the gulf by supposedly Iranian backed "terrorist forces".

Something that can be used to whip up the masses in advance of the election.

I am curious, is Steve saying that we should only attack AFTER we have been attacked? In other words, Americans need to die before we can defend ourselves, otherwise it is immoral.
Is Steve willing to be the one that dies? Is anyone else willing to volunteer themselves or their family to be the victims of an attack so we don't perform preventive strikes, only retaliatory ones?

The Presidnet has all the authority to bomb Iran.

"The War Powers Act of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148), also referred to as the War Powers Resolution, is a resolution of Congress that stated that the President can send troops into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if America is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Act requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and forbids troops from remaining for more than 90 days without a declaration of war."

wikipedia

Lets start by electing people who have read the constitution. Lets avoid electing wealthy people with no real experience like our own govenor.

says the sky is falling. There are way too many conspiracy theorists out there. The action in the middle east is about econonics of global energy.

What makes you so certain that attacking Iran would prevent Iran from attacking the U.S.? Do you have a crystal ball?

Wasn't the same argument made before the U.S. attacked Iraq, that we had to attack Iraq before Saddam attacks us? Didn't people like you also say junk like, "are you saying that we should only attack AFTER we have been attacked?" Attacking Iraq clearly did not prevent American deaths; it was a waste of an invasion that has resulted in the deaths of over 4,000 Americans.

Wake up, KVC.

Hmmmm.....let me think now, remember after 9/11 all the folks that whined and complained about why the President didnt do anything to prevent it? You cant have it both ways. If you want our national leadership to be proactive in adressing threats, then let them do their job. Iran has been a thorn in our side for far too long. Taking out Iranian nuclear capability is not the same as invading and occupying.

To "Roland Kayser | 12:23 a.m." the US has not declared War against a country since WWII. The politicians don't want to suffer any consequences of what may happen to their careers if they make a bad choice.

Also, as many others have pointed out, it is congress that authorizes the troop deployments to go into combat situations. So, make sure that you put blam on all of the responsible parties, not just the ones you like to blame.

KVC has it right. Since 9/11 we have not had an attack on U.S. soil nor U.S. interests abroad. There has not been attack like Khobar Towers, USS Cole or the Embassy bombings in Africa.

Going on offense was the right choice. Also GRJ has it right. Bombing Iran's nuclear capabilities and regime change in Iran are two different things.

@kvc.

I am no dove. I am no hawk, either. But in very few cases do I believe it is moral to attack before actually being attack. The only possible justification for proactive war would be in the case of near CERTAIN awareness of a MAJOR impending attack.

And yes, I would be willing to have myself or even my family be amongst the first to die under attack if that meant we could espouse a policy which would likely prevent large-scale violence in the first place.

I will also say that my beliefs are rooted not only in what I think is sound logic, but in the teachings of the Book of Mormon. Namely, that God expects us to avoid violence when at all possible, but when self-defense is necessary, he will aid those who defend themselves.

It is true that the nature of groups like Al-Qaeda makes this more difficult. They did in fact attack us first and repeatedly. Afghanistan abetted them. Attacking Iraq seems to have been an error in this regards, but hindsight is 20/20. At the time, the whole world thought they had WMD and would probably share them (Saddam himself was peddling the illusion).

"If I were a betting man, I'd be putting a lot of money on the likelihood that the United States will attack Iran this year."

If you were a betting man, you could win big if you were to bet that Iran and their other mid-east Muslim nation friends will push Israel into the sea at some point in the future... as they continue to threaten they will.

"It's time to elect only those who refuse to give war-making power to the president of the United States."

You're right. Clinton should have been impeached long ago for attacking Belgrade.

Roland, one word: Impeachment. That is what it will take to restore the balance of power."

I think you're on to something. They should have impeached Clinton for invading Kosovo and attacking Serbia.

If any war is valid have support from ALl the people, Initiate the draft.

The complaints about Bush not doing anything to prevent 9/11 had nothing to do with complaints to invade a country. Invading Iraq before 9/11, for example, would not have prevented airplanes from crashing into buildings in NY and the Pentagon.

The complaints about Bush not doing anything prior to 9/11 involves his not making preventing a terrorist attack as a first priority. Please read Richard Clarke's account if you want to know the true nature of the complaint.

"I am no dove. I am no hawk, either."

Turkey, maybe?

"But in very few cases do I believe it is moral to attack before actually being attack. The only possible justification for proactive war would be in the case of near CERTAIN awareness of a MAJOR impending attack."

In modern times you'll never see a case where there's an major and obvious enemy build-up for war as you describe. Today's world enemy is terrorism. And terrorists are too smart to fight a conventional war with the US.

"And yes, I would be willing to have myself or even my family be amongst the first to die under attack..."

Then, you can help by painting a large bull's-eye on your backs for easy identification.

"Attacking Iraq seems to have been an error in this regards, but hindsight is 20/20. At the time, the whole world thought they had WMD and would probably share them (Saddam himself was peddling the illusion)."

Attacking Iraq was because of its violation of the Gulf War cease fire agreement. Plus, to rid Saddam of his WMD, which actions were approved by the US Senate.

Hummm...yes, since 9/11 there have been no attacks on U.S. soil. However, before 9/11, Bush helped leave the U.S. wide open for 9/11. Looks like Bush really didn't help us during 9/11.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. When we're not being attacked, you say Bush should get credit; however, when we are attacked during his watch, you seem to imply that Bush couldn't have done anything. It's funny that he's responsible for our not being attacked since 9/11, but not responsible when we are attacked.

Preemptive wars is a BushCo phenomenon. Not one bit American.
It is supported by our insane neocons who voted this terrible administration into office.

May God have mercy on their souls.

Conservatives believe war is an entitlement program that never has to be paid for by them.

re: Samme, and others

You left off a part of the justification for war with Iraq: because those things you mentioned indicated an immediate danger to the US. The invasion did not occur at the request of the UN, or any other governing body. It was unilateral (and anyone who doesn't believe that is crazy. Just look at the numbers of troops from each country, and tell me we weren't essentially alone).

And now we know it wasn't true. There was no imminent threat from Iraq. None. And that is indisputable (unless you are GWB and you just make up new reasons for the invasion as you go along).

The letter writer is correct, and Joe Moe (8:35) is correct.

The BofM teaches, quite specifically, that pre-emptive strikes will bring calamity upon the perpetrators. Can anyone dispute this? NO! It is VERY specific!

Why do people think they only have to obey the parts of the BofM they agree with? God will not care what GWB said about the Iraq war. He will care about how we reacted to an unjust and immoral war.

This administration is just bright enough to believe that bombin a country will bring peace. No doubt they think the Iranian people would "greet the bombs as liberators".

9/11 was a culmination of attacks on U.S. interests. The first WTC bombings, Khobar towers, USS Cole, US Embassy attacks in Africa (all under Clinton). Prior to 9/11 we were at peace and the U.S intell was downgraded over the 8 years of Clinton. Since 9/11 it was Bush's decision to take the offensive on terrorism and we have not had another incident on U.S. interests in 7 years.

You say it was Bush's fault for 9/11 as if Clinton had his own military, CIA, NSA, FBI, etc and then Bush brought in is own with his administration.

This administration could see 9/11 coming.
They even knew the hijackers were in the country learning to fly planes.

The whole thing stinks.

I paid $4000000000 for a rock that I put in my front yard. It keeps away tigers. I havent seen one tiger in my yard since I got it.

To wrz: You said "I think you're on to something. They should have impeached Clinton for invading Kosovo and attacking Serbia."

Instead they chose impeachment after they spent $80 million on Ken Starr onvestigations and only came up with sexual infidelity and lying about it.

I have no respect for an opinion that starts out, "If I were a betting man..." and then goes on to make bold predictions, none of which he has to answer for (because he's not a betting man). That's just a cop-out.

If your going to make predictions and you really have info to make them credible and the guts to back them up, put something on the line. If you can't bet money, at least your reputation should be on the line.

If you REALLY have info and believe these predictions I would hope you would at least stake your credibility on them, if not, the predictions are just words.

These predictions are easy to verify because they outline specific actions in a specific time frame (premptive US attacks on Iran including nukes before November). I say it's gutless to say this will happen but you won't stake anything on it (because you're not a betting man).

I challenge you to back-up your words. If it doesn't happen by November, admit you have no credibility and promise not to post anymore bogus predictions based only on hunches and fears. That would show you really believe your prediction.

Oh my goodness. It looks like we have a few cooks of either "Let it happen" or "Made it happen" posting here. So Anonymous, which one are you?

For those of you who don't know. Two groups of people who think Bush either knew 9/11 would happen and let it happen or 9/11 was an inside job.

It would not surprise me if Bush and Cheney attack Iran.

The Truman administration nuked civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and lo and behold! We have dominated the economic scene ever since (no doubt scared the living(blank) out of every other country after the nuking).

"To wrz: You said "I think you're on to something. They should have impeached Clinton for invading Kosovo and attacking Serbia."

Instead they chose impeachment after they spent $80 million on Ken Starr on vestigations and only came up with sexual infidelity and lying about it."

You're right, of course.

Clinton should have been impeached. If not for illicit sex, for sure for bombing a sovereign nation.

By the way, the Clinton impeachment action was for lying in a court of law... president's shouldn't be doing that.

For decades the U.S.S.R had several thousand fully capable nuclear missiles targeting the United States, with the Russian leader stating "we will bury you". If we didn't attack them we shouldn't attack anybody. Iran MIGHT have nuclear capability and we are foaming at the mouth? If we attack, it's time for a revolution.

"Preventive war" has certainly gotten a bad name, but I'd just like to throw this out there: What if Iran *does* obtain a nuclear weapon, as it ought to be perfectly obvious to everyone it is determined to do?

Will we be safer or less safe if this is allowed to occur?

What should the American strategic response to such a development be? Are you sure Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can be deterred by the same rational MAD calculus that prevented a nuclear exchange during the Cold War?

Would anyone on the Left really care if Tel Aviv got nuked? Would Mr. Yorgason lose any sleep over it?

Conservatives worship CEO's and their power.
That's why they voted for Bush and Cheney and would vote for Romney if they had the chance.

CEO's are notorious for ruthless decisions and look out for their major stockholders only. For some stupid reason, conservatives think they are amongst the high-roller major stockholders. Sick isn't it?

We need statesmen running the country - not slimy businessmen.

To Randy, Most if not all International Relations experts would tell you you are comparing apples to oranges with regards to USSR and Iran. The Soviets were rational, yes rational. I don't recall the KGB or other Russians doing suicide attacks or denying that the holocaust never happened, etc.

The US and the Soviets matured at the same nuclear level. So obviously we couldn't bomb Russia without full scale retaliation.

Iran is different. The Iranian leadership is unstable and illogical. And I certainly do not want them to reach nuclear proliferaton equeal to the Soviet Union.

"I paid $4000000000 for a rock that I put in my front yard. It keeps away tigers. I haven't seen one tiger in my yard since I got it."

They come at night when you're asleep. Same as terrorists.

Sorry Thomas, I never pay much attention to "What if" situations.

I only know that the Bush administration caused the first pre-emptive case of war in our history.

And this is dangerous, dangerous precedent.

And can't you EVER make a comment without adding something about "the left?" You are starting to sound like a Rush Limbaugh clone.

To "Anonymous | 10:50 a.m." too bad we have politicians instead of statesmen running the country.

I love how the conservatives' response to every possible criticism of this administration is "Bu..bu..but...Clinton!"

Enough! I'm no fan of Clinton, but he is irrelevant now. It's done, he's not in power. Leave it already.

One corrupt President deserving removal from office is not a defense for a current corrupt President deserving removal from office.

And I'm tired of the "We need to defend Israel!" arguments. We already stabbed Palestinians in the back by the allies' creation of Israel 60 years ago, which sowed the seeds of their current resentment against us.

It's time we quit supporting Israel with our finances and military, brought our troops home, and got the heck out of the world's business. If Israel needs the American Bully to hold its hand all the time perhaps they aren't deserving of their stolen country, anyway.

Typical of neocons like Thomas to conjur up hypothetical scenarios in a feeble attempt to support an illegal and immoral war.

Kind of like, "What if Iraq REALLY did have weapons of mass destruction?" Or "What if Iran REALLY did have weapons of mass destruction?"

Unbelievably stupid!

I agree with Anonymouse and others. We should have never used the Atomic power we developed to end the war to actually end the war. We should have just let it go on and on until the Japanese people lost the battle of attrition.

Then we wouldn't have had to endure that long Cold-War thingy and could have just jumped right into another world war.

Hey WRZ: You DID impeach Clinton REMEMBER?? But like most things Republicans have done since St. Ron left office, they couldn't get the job done!

"CEO's are notorious for ruthless decisions and look out for their major stockholders only."

That's their job. They could be fired if they didn't look after stockholders interests.

hey frank....you are so clever each day. how do you come up with all of them? keith olbermann?

some of you might want to reread your bofm, this time a little closer...i'll give you a hint, it's in the first 1/3 of the book...

anyone hear from mohammar ghdafi lately? I wonder why...

Nathan - you said, "The Soviets were rational, yes rational." I've heard Soviet dissidents, such as Solzhenitsyn, Mkihail Agursk and Evgeny Barabanov, claim that in the first 50 years of Soviet rule they may have executed as many as 60 million people to maintain power and squash dissent. Just sayin'.

To: YouGoFirst 11:22 -
Too bad we have hardcore party partisans voting for obvious power-freaks that are running our country into the ground.

Someone has to do it.... it certainly won't be the Europeans (who have had their national security subsidized by the US for years) ditto for Canada and I think Israel is filled with (proportionally)as many pacifist, head in the sand leftists as America. Wait until your beloved San Francisco goes up in a mushroom cloud then get back with us.

Hey GWB,

The term 'sex act' does not appear in any of the terms of the impeachment of the serial liar known as bill clinton, so get off your horse, and quit propagating lies.

Preventive war, means we strike first. Defensive war means we first get "pearl harbored" or "9/11'd" and Americans die, then we fight back. Sorry. I prefer pre-emptive strikes, to make sure we don't take the first, and worst hits.

Only liberals want to wait until the Sears tower goes down, or JFK airport erupts in a fuel induced inferno, before taking any action.

We need a president and Congress that will lead us, and stand up for us. Leaders who will tell "I ran" to change its name to "you better run"

To Anonymous 11:15,

You need a little history lesson. The Korean War, who was started by a democrat without Congress's approval. Same with Vietnam.

The Iraq war was not an preemptive stike. Hussein started a war in 1991. He was pushed out of Kuwait and his government agreed to the terms of the UN. 14 other UN resolutions followed afterward with Hussein giving the middle finger to the West. Do you pass local, state, national or international law with no thought to enforce them?

The Iraq war was about enforcing those UN resolutions.

So sorry anonymous but you must admit that, no matter who started it, some American started a preemptive war back in the 1860's. A case can also be made for the Revolutionary war being the same thing...there was no immediate threat when colonists began rebelling, except of course the threat of new taxes...which were not as high as what we gladly pay today! I also do not remember the attack on America which brought us into the first world war. Yes, I know these were all different scenarios...but every war is. I can see all the mistakes Bush has made just as clearly as I see the mistakes the losing team makes each year in the Super Bowl...from the comfort of my easy chair and no pressure. Fr'lnk...I have a life insurance policy that has cost me several thousand dollars as well and seems pointless since I haven't died...what is your point?

Lamonte -- And it was perfectly rational for the Soviets to murder the people they did. Utterly, horribly, immoral, but rational. It worked, after all. Communist tyranny lasted until Mikhail Gorbachev made the mistake (from the Communist perspective) of trying to liberalize "just a little bit." Again, from the Communist perspective, that was totally irrational: No tyranny has ever endured the granting of a little freedom.