Declare war on ourselves?

Not a problem. We surrender and pay ourselves reparations.

And if it's English lairds financing this thing they should be treated differently from Arab sheiks? I don't think so. England extradites them, we hang them, and a truce is declaired.

Unfortunately, much as I dislike W, when you are at war you need someone who has both complete responsibility and complete authority to back up that responsibility. Since he's in the position, he's the one, and he'd better perform. Waiting for Congresscritters to form a consensus on every major move is a sure ticket to disaster.

And I still think a formal declaration of war, enemies to be appointed as needed, is a good way to go. That keeps things in sharp focus for potential enemies.

The problem is not giving Bush authority once we are at war (though that prospect scares me also), nor is it in amending the list of enemies (though that should be run by congress also, once we are at war I realize that may not always be practical).

The problem is that congress has given Bush complete authority to decide who the enemy is.

What if Bush suddenly has a religious experience and begins to follow Falwell's idea of who caused this war? Bush has already been given authority to take whatever action he thinks is necessary to deal with the 'enemy,' and given total authority to decide who the 'enemy' is.

I think avoiding this very situation was one of the reasons the ability to declare war was given to Congress, not to the president. Congress has in essence handed part of their authority over to Bush.

And yes, I realize that his real power here is limited by political reality. But I prefer to minimize cases where we are depending on one person showing good judgment about things that will affect the entire country forever.

Jay

Welcome to IWETHEY!