3 Comments
  1. “Er, except that war on Al Qaeda, and the invasion of Iraq, were explicitly authorized by Congress, in declarations of war and everything. After, you know, an actual attack on the United States.”

    Only by statutary trickery. A “authorization of force” is not a declaration of war….but becuase of self serving pols passing laws to usurp the power of Congress, only means the godamned Congress once again abdicated it’s role to declare an actual state of war – notice how when we dont do that, we always wind up with a stalemate, or a loss?

    Glenn is technically right, but only becuase of self serving trickery loopholes added to the system after the fact.

    I thought he knew better. Ah well, goes to prove you can have the best trafficked blog and still be dead nutz wrong. A authorization of force only passes for a declaration of war becuase the Executive Branch desired the power, and Congress said, “OK, go ahead. But if you fuck up, we dont know anything about it”.

  2. “I thought he knew better. Ah well, goes to prove you can have the best trafficked blog and still be dead nutz wrong.”

    What is he wrong about?

    Maybe I’m interpreting your comment wrong, correct me if I am, but my question for you is Why shouldn’t congress be held acccountable for their authorization to use military force? They could of say…NOT authorized it, but they did and I fail to grasp what all the hubbub is about.

  3. he’s wrong that a declaration of war by Congress equals a authorization of the use of force by COngress. One is expressly Constutional, and one is a bunch of shit cobbled together by statute.