Should congress again be asked to sanction military action

I voted yes. Bush's mandate has expired if one considers the War Powers Act. Given that this act was passed as an attempt to do an end-run around the exclusive right of Congress to make war, it's terms should apply in this case. For however people may come here and argue the point, it has become increasingly obvious that there is not the same support for war as there was when the original authorization passed. Both Congress and the people have a right to review such an authorization.

was there not a required 60 day report back to congress provision that seems to have been ignored?

I would vote yes, but feel we're really trying to put the genie back in the bottle here. Congress abdicated their responsibility with their previous vote on the issue. If they wanted to limit Shrub, THEN was the best time to do it. It's clear to me that this guy wants this war, indeed yearns for it, and necessary or not by God he's bound and determined to have it, based on his new found religion of preemption.

We would do well to heed the words of Senator Diane Feinstein, who stated today, "The doctrine says:' [T]he United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past....We cannot let our enemies strike first.' Further on: 'The greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction -- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves.'

If we are going to depend on the might of the sword to right wrongs, and in so doing risk committing our own wrongs, how are we better off?"

The answer, of course, is that we are not and, with this misadventure, I suspect in seeking to secure our safety will find instead that we have endangered it further.

The Congress has already sanctioned it. Nothing principally new regarding Saddam and Iraq was revealed since then. So why should the honorable Congress waste its time to discuss the thing that has already been discussed and the decision has been made? And what will be changed as a result of the new voting? as far as I know, majority there belongs to people from the same party President Bush belongs to.

"Chappaquidick"Kennedy is sponsoring this bill---maybe this will be the last nail in his Political "coffin.

Your question is certainly a timely one----I voted "no"

well, for sure the democratic process can be a pain in the ass, next thing you know the people will want representation in congress, even the ones that don't have the majority.

More importantly, IMHO, it's very important to get the citizens of this country to approve this war before Bush goes forward with this war. Without the public support, we will relive Viet Nam. GWBush has not outlined how he intends to 'occupy' Iraq without our allies. Government estimates for how long we will need to stay occupied in a country after an active war has never been accurate. We're still having problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. How much more can our military be stretched? c.i.

Instant idea. Why not let it be occupied and admininstered by one of our allies. A moslem country for fairness and international acceptance, and one with a common border for the sake of logistics. Turkey comes to mind.

This is an ill-conceived notion from start to finish. If we're worried about Saddam's weaponry and terrorist links now, what will happen after we attack him? If he's as bad as all that, will he (and his terrorist allies) simply allow Iraq to be overrun by US troops?

And furthermore, what is the precedent for this kind of war?

D'art, There is no precedent. GWBush is establishing a whole new world order/chaos. When the Muslim people see the US attack Iraq without good cause, they are going to join the radical Islamic organizations, and terrorism is going to increase against American interests. GWBush is ignoring all the future problems inherent in his march to war. His primary goal today should be to resolve the Israel question - fairly. Unless he attacks this problem first, problems for the world community will only get worse - especially for Americans and the Brits. c.i.

Should congress again be asked to sanction military action
Are the American taxpayers are rich enough to continue?