There was also no declaration of war in 1861. The bloodiest war the US ever fought was done so with no declaration. Lincoln insisted that the president had trhe inherent authority to suppress rebellion.

This does not hold up as an analogue to Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq because of a fact present in your own description - Lincoln was suppressing rebellion. A declaration of war was actively ruled out by Lincoln and his advisors because to do so would have been a de facto recognition of the sovereignty of the Confederacy, an act that would have undermined the very struggle Lincoln was undertaking to resolve.

It's hard to argue that nation building in Iraq has done much to combat radical Islamic terrorism. It's even harder, though, to argue that we went in willy-nilly without Congressional approval, since we spent half a year or more debating the war and got Congressional approval.

This is true. What is also true is that we went in on the basis of dubious, exaggerated, or fabricated evidence, and that the Congressional mandate was only explicitly for removal of the regime, not a prolonged regional occupation. Congress has at least some footing to claim that the current action exceeds the scope of the authority granted by AUMF, though this is undoubtedly a political question that will never practically be resolved through the courts (who will refuse to take it).

The reality is as James says; until and unless the political will exists to defund the war, there is not much that Congress could do, though it would be on equally solid Constitutional footing if it were to rescind AUMF completely.

I just don't see it that way. I think they knew exactly what they were voting for it and have tried to explain it away now that it's become inconvenient.

Bob Graham ought to have put this hoary old lie out of its misery a long time ago [Portion of comment in violation of site policies deleted.]

The executive was misrepresenting the intelligence to the vast majority of Congress. You can, as I do, blame the few members of Congress who had better access (like Graham) for not doing more, but this does not in any way, shape, or form excuse the executive.

Tlaloc, I don't recall the Senate ever explicitly authorizing the executive to use military as a negotiating ploy. Do you have examples?

Dave do you usually announce in Poker "I've given myself authority to cluff!" Of course they never explicitly said "the UMF is merely a tactic to give the appearance of a credible threat" because then it wouldn't be a credible threat.

Or maybe they never meant that. But they've said they did, and the argument makes a fair amount of sense.

I don't believe that the U. S. should engage in threats. Its overwhelming military power is already a threat.

It's a powerful military but also hampered by a democratic control system, such systems are not very effective at war. I have no problem with the judicious use of threats. It can prevent worse after all. That said I think it's a tactic to be used sparingly. Trade is a lot more effective and beneficial than maintaining a lot of troops always on alert.

But I think that voting for the AUMF with visions of the Oval Office dancing in your head, then back-pedalling for the same reason is wicked.

I'm not going to put it down as their finest moment by any means. But under the circumstances I can see a colorable argument for doing it. I certainly respect more those with the foresight to vote against (23 senators and 133 reps).

Tlaloc, a threat isn't credible unless you're actually willing to use it.

Obviously.

Diplomacy and negotiations had been pursued for over a decade, and for over a year and a half under the Bush Administration before passage of the AUMF.

You left out a part- diplomacy had been tried AND HAD BEEN WORKING. That's kind of relevant. The only reason teh AUMF was brought up was because the administration consistently lied about the intelligence leading to a perception that diplomatic efforts had not worked, hence leading to a perception that more forceful negotiation (i.e. backed up with credible threats) was called for.

The cries of "Bush lied to us" or "Bush hid his evil nature" or "by authorizing the use of military force, we were really only authorizing people to issue threats without actually using military force" are easily discerned as the lies that they are.

*shrug*
you can believe what you want, just as I can. I guess the question is which of our views the electorate will cleave to more closely.

A credible threat is a common negotiation ploy.

Tlaloc, I don't recall the Senate ever explicitly authorizing the executive to use military as a negotiating ploy. Do you have examples?

This is an item on which I have substantial disagreement with the Bush Administration. I don't believe that the U. S. should engage in threats. Its overwhelming military power is already a threat. In that context verbal saber-rattling is counter-productive, suggesting a lack of willingness to use force and inviting aggression.

Don't get me wrong, Tlaloc. I thought invading Iraq was ill-conceived. But I think that voting for the AUMF with visions of the Oval Office dancing in your head, then back-pedalling for the same reason is wicked.

The cries of "Bush lied to us" or "Bush hid his evil nature" or "by authorizing the use of military force, we were really only authorizing people to issue threats without actually using military force" are easily discerned as the lies that they are.

Libs have to love James' liberal rant: "the problem of going to war willy-nilly to achieve non-emergency goals is a radical shift in the national consensus." How is it that liberals feel the problem of radical Islamic terrorism is just simply going to go away on its own?

Mostly, I'm speaking of military interventions such as dominated the Clinton years: optional wars having no relation to our national security interests. An invasion of Iran launched without the approval of Congress would qualify as well.

It's hard to argue that nation building in Iraq has done much to combat radical Islamic terrorism. It's even harder, though, to argue that we went in willy-nilly without Congressional approval, since we spent half a year or more debating the war and got Congressional approval.

How is it that liberals feel the problem of radical Islamic terrorism is just simply going to go away on its own?

Same way that the christian fundamentalist problem "went away" (it didn't go away entirely but it was dramtically reduced in scope): through moderating social forces. Western Europe had the enlightenment to help wash away the worst dregs of christianity. The middle east can go through a similar change.

The key then is for us to promote such a change in consciousness. That requires a degree of understanding of human psychology that you don;t seem to possess.

The liberal line "in 2002 Bush had not yet revealed the depth of his passion for the "unitary executive" and warmongering in general", as all of you liberals know, is fake.

No, actually it's pretty true.

You're only TRYING to tag it on Bush for the lesser witted out there. But YOU don't have to get upset.

Like I said before you seem to lack an understanding of human psychology. That's why you keep making mistakes like assuming I'm upset as well as assuming I support Hillary Clinton for President.

Or, said another way, you're arguing that those senators just fell off the turnip truck and are too naive to hold office.

don't be foolish, Dave. A credible threat is a common negotiation ploy. The reason such an action is so foolish is because of the character of the man doing the negotiating, but as I said that character hadn't been revealed at the time.

Libs have to love James' liberal rant: "the problem of going to war willy-nilly to achieve non-emergency goals is a radical shift in the national consensus." How is it that liberals feel the problem of radical Islamic terrorism is just simply going to go away on its own? What sort of attack on America will convince them that the threat is real: nuclear? Probably. Heck, even then you wonder.

Those same senators can and have made arguments that the AUMF was meant as a bargaining chip an example that the US was resolved with regards to Iraq.

Or, said another way, you're arguing that those senators just fell off the turnip truck and are too naive to hold office.

I just don't see it that way. I think they knew exactly what they were voting for it and have tried to explain it away now that it's become inconvenient.

Every single Senator who had any prospect whatever of running for the Presidency in 2004 (or 2008) voted for the AUMF.

I can't entirely fault them. This is what Senators do. But to turn around and proffer lame excuses for the vote is despicable.

While I certainly think those votes were naive and short sighted it is also true that in 2002 Bush had not yet revealed the depth of his passion for the "unitary executive" and warmongering in general. Those same senators can and have made arguments that the AUMF was meant as a bargaining chip an example that the US was resolved with regards to Iraq.

We can castigate them for being starry eyed in the matter but the vast majority of blame lies with the executive, who after all had no intention of bargaining at all but only wanted the capacity to go to war regardless of how many lies had to be told or laws broken.