Too late!
"Delahunt, Republicans aim to limit war powers; Would strengthen role of Congress" by Andrew Miga/Associated Press November 25, 2007
WASHINGTON - Representative William Delahunt says it's high time to start thinking about the next war.
Even as Congress wrestles with attempts to bring home US troops from Iraq, the Massachusetts Democrat is teaming up with some Republican colleagues on legislation to give Congress a stronger say in when the country should go to war.
Delahunt recently joined Republican Representatives Walter Jones of North Carolina, Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, and 2008 presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas on a measure that would limit the president's ability to go to war without the approval of Congress.
Those are good Republicans, folks!
The resolution would prohibit the president from ordering military action without congressional approval unless the United States or its troops were attacked, or if US citizens abroad need to be protected or evacuated.
The bill would amend the War Powers Resolution, which was enacted during the Vietnam War in 1973 over then-President Richard Nixon's veto. The War Powers Resolution was aimed at restoring Congress's control over the use of US military force and required the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours. It also required the president to withdraw forces after 60 to 90 days if Congress didn't explicitly pass an extension. But Congress has often been reluctant to challenge presidents with troops in harms way.
Or dictators, too!
Under the Constitution, lawmakers have the ability to declare war and fund military operations, while the president has control of military forces.
Presidents in recent decades have routinely bypassed Congress when deploying troops to fight. Congress has not issued an official declaration of war since World War II, despite lengthy wars fought in Vietnam and Korea.
What about Iraq?
Why only those selected and safe examples, reporter?
But Congress has used its war powers to cut off or put conditions on funding for the Vietnam war and conflicts in Cambodia, Somalia, and Bosnia.
What about Iran-Contra?
Why only those selected and safe examples, reporter?
The lawmakers said that, given how presidents have wielded war powers, Congress needs a stronger hand in deciding whether to put US forces in harm's way. Constitution framers sought to decentralize war powers and create a balance between the political branches, Jones said.
"Throughout American history, this balance too often has been ignored," Jones, a leading Republican war critic, said at a recent Capitol Hill news conference.
Delahunt complained that President Bush invaded Iraq after "minimal consultation" with Congress. The House and Senate in 2002 approved the use of military force against Iraq.
"This is about lessons learned," Delahunt said of the proposal. "We were lax. Congress. The Fourth Estate. Everyone."
Well, the people who were speaking out before this ever started weren't!
But, nooooooo, we got called names and shat on for questioning the dear, lying leader!
The legislation may face an uphill fight in the narrowly divided Congress. Some lawmakers may be wary of undercutting presidential war powers given the terror threat in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.
So this bill, as well-intentioned as it is, is GOING NOWHERE!
Might as well get used to it, readers.
The U.S. is now a fascist dictatorship, even if the MSM is not calling it such!
"The balance of power already gives Congress the power to declare war and, with its control of the purse strings, the power to end it," Brian Kennedy, spokesman for House Republican leader John Boehner, said in a statement.
Kennedy added that "the last thing the country needs is 535 commanders in chief on Capitol Hill."
No, the last thing it needs it the current commander-in-chief!
Still, backers hope the proposal can spark broad public debate on the issue.
"Let's get the conversation going, let's have the debate," said Delahunt, adding that he's open to constructive criticism about the proposal.
What debate? Should we approve an attack on Iran? I'd rather just not!
Recent Bush administration warnings of the threat posed by Iran should provide a sense of urgency for the proposal on Capitol Hill, the bill's backers said."
Like he would listen to Capitol Hill, Congress or the American people!
Where have you been, reporter? On Mars?
