http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/iraq021011.html

>Tracy;
>
>The support President Bush received from Congress was interesting. I am not sure if the Congress gave the President the right to go to go to war with their approval. How about someone pointing me to some dialogue on that topic?
>
>Unions will have the membership give what is termed “a strike vote” before negations begin with an employer for a new contract. This is done so the bargaining committee can approach the company with the threat of a strike, if that was the outcome of the vote. Give us what we demand (and negotiate) or the membership walks! I have represented both sides of that table during my working career.
>
>Giving the President the approval of Congress to go to war (if that was the true outcome without additional discussion and agreement from Congress being necessary) would seem like a similar tactic and an interesting one. It puts the words of the President at a point whereby he can clearly state if there will or will not be a war. Comply or else!
>
>It is difficult to imagine the Congress approved to go to war but it is possible. Again I do not fully remember these important details. I think I am still in shock about this and a few other things in my life. This is no minor detail to me.
>
>I know the Congress declares war and not the President. However the President can engage in military actions he sees fit for a limited time. Then Congress can cut off funding and shorten such military excursions. We have many examples of this type of activity during the last few decades.
>
>Tom