>>>>>>>But Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So what? Did it matter?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not in the sense of altering the decision whether or not to invade. It's clear the administration was determined to go in, and did so despite the failure to find just cause.
>>>>
>>>>Really? All congress, including your favourite senators, found reasons quite justifiable and authorized the war.
>>>
>>>
>>>The main reason they authorized war (although not unanimously) was they believed the administration's assurances that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. As did I. And yes, I'm a little annoyed about that.
>>
>>It's your personal problem, not a subject to discuss.
>>Why now, when these senators see the light, they don't stop it? They have means to do it.
>
>
>I would hardly call it my personal problem. A heck of a lot of others are also disappointed that our government lied to us.
>
>As I'm sure you are aware, quite a number of Senators and House members are taking a much more assertive posture towards Iraq policy. Dick Cheney says (speaking of the troop "surge" but you get the idea this is his attitude in general) the administration is going to do what it wants to regardless of what Congress passes. We'll see about that. It sure isn't the way the Constitution is written.

As far as the war is concerned, that's exactly how the Constitution is written. Article I, section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war and Article II, section 2 gives the President control over the military as Commander in Chief. Congress' role, beyond the declaration of war, is through appropriations. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gave more power to the Congress.