Former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher say the next time the president goes to war, Congress should be required to say whether it agrees. The co-chairmen of a bipartisan study group have proposed legislation that would require the president to consult lawmakers before initiating combat lasting longer than a week, except in cases of emergencies. In turn, Congress would have to act within 30 days, either approving or disapproving of the action.
Huh. Congressional approval prior to going to war?
So what was this again?
Let's see:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
Congress debated and passed this bit of legislation. In 2007, a number of the congress critters have changed their mind. With more Americans believing we are winning in Iraq, the anti-war side strength in Congress likely peaked in spring 2007.
Apparently, some want a power other than the power of appropriations since that power wasn't backed by enough war opponents during 2007 and in 2008, the path to victory is more clear.
If war opponents can't muster enough votes to cut off funding, why should we make it easier for moral cowards to both get us into war as they did in 2002 and end the war before winning the war they authorized?
