posted 09-15- 12:08 AM               

Despite world leaders everywhere and our own military people saying we need to attack terrorism in all it's forms everywhere, Congress has tied our hands by limiting us to just one group of criminals. Cutting off a limb does not kill the tree.

Be prepared for another Korea/Viet Nam/Iraq where the enemy lives to fight another day. Oh, the terrorists may huncker down for awhile, maybe for a few years, and we'll probably get bin Laden but the rest will be back with a vengence.

Whatever happened to Unconditional Surrender? This was the objective in WWII. We would still be living with Nazi's if all we wanted was to get Hitler.

posted 09-15- 11:36 AM               

The news reports have commented on Bush not getting the open-ended language that he wanted. They say that Congress wants to avoid another Tonkin Gulf Resolution which many believe gave Lyndon Johnson more power than they intended.

posted 09-15- 12:15 PM               

Start quote:
The measure authorizes the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Bush already has the power to authorize limited military force as commander in chief, but the White House wanted congressional approval in this case because the retaliation efforts will be drawn out and multifaceted.

In a statement, Bush praised the passage of the measures.

"I am gratified that the Congress has united so powerfully by taking this action. It sends a clear message -- our people are together, and we will prevail," he said.

Congressional leaders from both parties have been working with White House officials over the past two days to come up with appropriate wording for the resolution giving Bush the authority to use force.

Some were concerned about giving him too much leeway in approving future operations. Concerns were allayed, apparently, by linking operations to those nations, organizations or persons connected in some way with Tuesday's attacks.

Congressional leaders from both parties have been working with White House officials over the past two days to come up with appropriate wording for the resolution giving Bush the authority to use force.

"These are different times, and we must act decisively. The American people expect it, and they will accept nothing less," Lott said before the Senate vote on the funding measure. "The world has changed, and we are acting appropriately."

This is the first congressional action giving a president the use of force since the Senate, after lengthy debate, narrowly passed a 1991 resolution on the Persian Gulf War.
End quote.

Looks to me like the White House worked this
out with congress and Bush is happy with it.
Blame democrats if you want for being conserned
about giving the president too much power but
I personally think our whole leadership is
too wishy-washy. They wanna play like county
cops going after a peeping tom while someone
is robbing all the banks.

Here's the right way to do it in case anyone's
interested.

JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial
Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United
States and making provisions to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts
of war against the Government and the people of the United States of
America: Therefore be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United
States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon
the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby
authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of
the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war
against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a
successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby
pledged by the Congress of the United States.
Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.
---------------------------------------------

If you'll notice the wording is very clear.
No ifs and buts. The president is not only
authorized but is directed to use all the
rescources of the US to prosecute the war.

I can sympathize with people being aprehensive
about using tough language and making tough
decisions but I disagree with them.

posted 09-15- 12:24 PM               

I surely sympathize, I'm furious and I want action. I wanted bombs raining down within 8 hours!

But if I had gotten that, would it have been the best?

While we can't make the best the enemy of the good, what deficits would have occured? The pacifist whiners in this country, political leaders overseas, and our targets would have all, in their own way, used sudden action to further their opinions. The whiners will say we've become what we abhor. Foreign leaders who would have supported us would be put off. Terrorists would have gotten some more mileage with the common folk of their contries, on whom ultimately they depend for support.

I have to tell you, I think what's going on is TIMED. While I don't think our leaders are being cynical, they are letting this sink in, they are letting us get MAD, they NEED us to demand action. We need the people's anger to sustain us through a long campaign.

We can isolate our enemies to a degree with blockade and strikes, but we can do it even better the larger the coalition Bush can build. And he'l build a bigger one the more deliberate we are. A big enough coalition may even include some Arabic states, and that means we can focus our strikes on fewer, more isolated countries. I also believe the poor schmucks that live under the Taliban, in Iraq and the rest, won't be quite so convinced.

Our detractors won't be able to say "Look at them, tit for tat, going off half cocked, they are just as bad...".

Now, there's a balance. The first strike needs to happen soon...

And bear in mind, many believe (like I do) that there will be another terrorist hit here, and that would have happened whether or not I got my first wish. The more clear it is to the world that we are fighting a just war, and that we're doing it for all humanity, the more we'll have march with us, the fewer whiners we'll have to listen to.

posted 09-15- 12:36 PM               

As your article points out, Bush and Congress have been working to develope "appropriate" language so this was obviously a compromise. One side wanted stronger language (closer to the 1941 Resolution) and one side wanted weaker than we got. Ask yourself, which side (White House or Congress) do you think wanted the stronger language?

posted 09-15- 12:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smokey:

Just because you have a proper declaration
of war does not mean the bombs and missles
have to start flying in the next minute. At
the start of WWII we took 55 days to get to
the Marshall Islands and 100 days to bomb
Japan the first time. You can still have
your strategy. The declaration shows your not
messing around. It shows other countries and
it shows your own people. Right now, to me
at least, we look like were waffling all ready.

---

Smokey, you're abolutely right. Just because we announce our intentions to declare war on anyone and everyone who supports terrorism doesn't mean we have to go off half-cocked. Your example of WWII is a great one. Despite American anger and a declaration of war we waited until we were ready and knew we would be successful. We waited almost 3 years before attempting Normandy.

Yes, it appears we are waffling already.