When I saw this, I wondered if Joseph Farah was trying to redeem himself for the comments he made about RP last week. I've bolded the part where he mentions RP (without insulting him!).
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56230
No more wars like this
Posted: June 19, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Joseph Farah
© 2007
Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, who say they were deceived into voting to authorize the war in Iraq, hope to parlay their role as dupes into successful bids for the presidency.
Many Democrats in the House and Senate have sought to cut off funds for the war they authorized four years ago.
Meanwhile, Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., wants to repeal the October 2002 resolution that authorized President Bush to launch the war.
Never again.
Never again should we allow our brave young fighting men go to war under such circumstances.
Never, never, never again.
I grimly predicted this exact scenario if the president did not follow my advice and seek a congressional declaration of war as the Constitution instructs. It seemed self-evident to me it would be easier for reckless and irresponsible politicians to backtrack on a simple authorization of war as opposed to a more formal declaration of war. Unfortunately, I was right.
There is a very important reason the Founders gave Congress the power to declare war and the president the power to manage the war as commander in chief: You cannot have 535 war managers, which is precisely what we have today.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who two years ago said we could not leave Iraq under pressure, now concludes the war is a lost cause. He is pushing for hard and fast timetables for withdrawal – a schedule the enemy will be able to exploit to maximum advantage.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has her own ideas about managing surrender. She supports Tauscher's "Change the Course in Iraq Act."
"As we discussed, I believe it is appropriate that there be a national debate on the existing authorization for the war in Iraq and how that authorization has been affected by the events'' since March 2003, she wrote in her letter of support to her colleague.
There are other plans, too. House Democratic leaders already have promised a new vote on a measure by Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., that would require a military withdrawal to begin within three months and be completed six months later. The plan lost 255-171 in May.
Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the libertarian Republican running for his party's 2008 presidential nomination on an anti-war platform, are co-sponsoring a bill to de-authorize the war 180 days after enactment and then require a new vote of Congress for the war to continue past that date.
In the Senate, Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., is a leading co-sponsor of the proposal put forth by Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., to split up Iraq along ethnic and religious lines – abandoning the idea of a strong central government in Baghdad.
A cynic might suggest the Democratic leadership is more interested in reclaiming the White House in 2008 than in U.S. national security interests in 2007. Clearly they have forsaken victory as an option. They quite candidly say there is no military solution to the Iraq conflict.
Before America ever again involves itself in a war, there needs to be a consensus in the country that victory is our only option. If it is not our only option, then we must not engage in war in the first place.
The only way to establish that consensus, under the Constitution, is for a declaration of war to be introduced, debated vigorously and approved by both houses of Congress. That's the process. It makes sense. It's a good requirement.
It should be a matter of great sobriety to order young men to war. It should never be done lightly.
If we learn no other lesson from our experience in Iraq, let it be this. It's a lesson we should have learned already from Korea and Vietnam.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56230
No more wars like this
Posted: June 19, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Joseph Farah
© 2007
Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, who say they were deceived into voting to authorize the war in Iraq, hope to parlay their role as dupes into successful bids for the presidency.
Many Democrats in the House and Senate have sought to cut off funds for the war they authorized four years ago.
Meanwhile, Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., wants to repeal the October 2002 resolution that authorized President Bush to launch the war.
Never again.
Never again should we allow our brave young fighting men go to war under such circumstances.
Never, never, never again.
I grimly predicted this exact scenario if the president did not follow my advice and seek a congressional declaration of war as the Constitution instructs. It seemed self-evident to me it would be easier for reckless and irresponsible politicians to backtrack on a simple authorization of war as opposed to a more formal declaration of war. Unfortunately, I was right.
There is a very important reason the Founders gave Congress the power to declare war and the president the power to manage the war as commander in chief: You cannot have 535 war managers, which is precisely what we have today.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who two years ago said we could not leave Iraq under pressure, now concludes the war is a lost cause. He is pushing for hard and fast timetables for withdrawal – a schedule the enemy will be able to exploit to maximum advantage.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has her own ideas about managing surrender. She supports Tauscher's "Change the Course in Iraq Act."
"As we discussed, I believe it is appropriate that there be a national debate on the existing authorization for the war in Iraq and how that authorization has been affected by the events'' since March 2003, she wrote in her letter of support to her colleague.
There are other plans, too. House Democratic leaders already have promised a new vote on a measure by Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., that would require a military withdrawal to begin within three months and be completed six months later. The plan lost 255-171 in May.
Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the libertarian Republican running for his party's 2008 presidential nomination on an anti-war platform, are co-sponsoring a bill to de-authorize the war 180 days after enactment and then require a new vote of Congress for the war to continue past that date.
In the Senate, Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., is a leading co-sponsor of the proposal put forth by Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., to split up Iraq along ethnic and religious lines – abandoning the idea of a strong central government in Baghdad.
A cynic might suggest the Democratic leadership is more interested in reclaiming the White House in 2008 than in U.S. national security interests in 2007. Clearly they have forsaken victory as an option. They quite candidly say there is no military solution to the Iraq conflict.
Before America ever again involves itself in a war, there needs to be a consensus in the country that victory is our only option. If it is not our only option, then we must not engage in war in the first place.
The only way to establish that consensus, under the Constitution, is for a declaration of war to be introduced, debated vigorously and approved by both houses of Congress. That's the process. It makes sense. It's a good requirement.
It should be a matter of great sobriety to order young men to war. It should never be done lightly.
If we learn no other lesson from our experience in Iraq, let it be this. It's a lesson we should have learned already from Korea and Vietnam.
