This is where we agree. Congress could do something to stop the war, but it won't. Congress has used its power over money to limit and end conflicts. During the Mexican and Civil wars Congress used its power over appropriations to influence and restrict the conduct of the wars. During Vietnam, Congress repealed its authorization for the war entirely and also set a drop dead date to cut off funds for combat operations which in essence forced an end to the war. Congress put the use of funds by President Ford for any intervention in Angola off-limits and barred funds by President Reagan from supporting the Nicaraguan contras. President Clinton was limited in his use of troops in Somalia and Bosnia. They have the power, but not the will.



>>>>>>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.