Why Not A Resolution To Restrict Bush's War Powers In The WOT?

[ThomWV]

WOT, pronounced 'what', is the war on terror of course.

Can the Congress not take back what it has given? It seems clear from interviews with representatives from both parties that few if any anticipated that the delegation of war power ceded to the President is so great and all encompassing as the President now asserts. So why hasn't a resolution been brought before either the House of Representative or the Senate to define precisely what latitude is being given here. If someone doesn't draw a line somewhere this asshole is never going to stop.

[Atman]

1. He'd add a signing statement saying "Fuck You"

And do what he wants anyway. He's not a President. He thinks he's a dictator.

[bee]

2. Funny. Sad. & True. All at the same time. n/t

[Old and In the Way]

3. Would Republicans even allow this up for debate?

I'd like to see Kerry, et al., lead a high profile campaign to demand that this be debated and voted in the Senare. Put the Republicans on record for covering for the boyking. Bush has abused the whole IWR and now assumes this gives him the right to start war with any country he desires. We need Congress to take back their resolution and clip the wings of this dodo bird.

[paul_fromatlanta]

4. Resolutions are non-binding - it would take a law

And Republicans can prevent any law from being passed and the president can veto.