The problem with your analogy is, Saddam had resources and capability to do the 9/11 crime, he always had for all the time he was in power. People did not put into consideration, he did not do it all this time, what and how did 9/11 change that fact??? Bin Laden struck us on 9/11, bin laden is still free and Saddam paid for 9/11 with his life, where is the fair and just in that?? Oh I know already "Saddam did not lose his life for 9/11" but what caused us to go there???

Seriously though. This is I believe what Bush used to go to Iraq. If I remember correctly the President can use this pretty much anytime he perceives (through use of intelligence analysis etc) a threat against the United States or interests, nationals etc of the United States.

Doesn't the War Powers Resolution enacted in 1973 give the President the right to send troops offensively without the "Declaration of War" of Congress? So long as there is a set time (which may be adjusted as need be), the President must give regular reports to Congress on the actions of the deployment (requirements, achievements etc).

Actually Ken, it is sterile, an old Russian cold remedy is to drink your own warm urine... I've always passed on that, but.... it has been done.

I was going to click on Fanta's link then I saw this it's from "globalsecurity.org."

Last time I checked, American foreign policy does not apply to "global" security, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean--who comes up with these Orwellian terms anyways? Oh that's right, everyone at the CFR.

Secondly, "Bush & Co." (and by that I mean his inner circle) didn't even come up with the term Axis of Evil, it was created by David Frum, and well before the so called "authorization" of force. That said, every Congressional member who voted "yes" to it should have been thrown out of office by violating their constitutional oath, as they violated the Constitution by redistributing legislative power to the executive. Though an atrocious violation, it's hardly the first time. Serbia, anyone?

Thirdly, Ron Paul NEVER reads from a script. People may say that because he asks the same questions repeatedly; questions no one will answer. Petraeus during questioning said he could not comment on Iran. If he is truly ignorant to the geopolitical and military implications of a country bordering his command radius, then he shouldn't be managing that fight, period. That would be tantamount to General MacArthur saying he can't comment on China because his command radius is only in Korea. That said, I think his response was political posturing, an obviously he knows jack about the Constitution.

Lastly, Crocker is a moron and doesn't even deserve a response for his inane comments. These people really speak for themselves.

I also find it sad that McCain, Obama, AND Clinton all voted for this...

I agree. Her title may have been a bit passionate. Everybody was attacking her friends for leaving things like a phone in the car pretty much saying they deserved to get their stuff stolen.

All I was doing here is telling them that their logic was immensely flawed, and then I get told about how my age makes my argument invalid.

Just read the 7 minors will be charged as adults

You know what madman, the simple fact of the matter is that you dont need proof to go to war. All you need is probable cause. Dont belive me. If you look at the actions and regulations of military and police operations you will find that they are surpisingly simalar. If the police think you have say explosives, then they will send someone to check you out and give you a chance to let them search willingly, unless they belive that there is an eminate threat. If you refuse they gett a warrent to search weather you like it or not. If you still refuse, and by this time it is only by violence you will be able to refuse, in a situation like this they will respond with violence, ie you shoot at them they shoot at you and the like. Of course there response is in proportion to yours. In the case of iraq they belived iraq had wmd. They gave many many opertunities for saddam to willingly alow the un to inspect. He did not comply. The UN then said we are sending inspectors weather you like it or not. He still refused and held the inspectors at bay some times with armed guards other times with delay tactics. Finaly we steped in, albeit for multiple reasons, and basicly said let us search or else and he chose the or else option there for forcing everyone, at least for a period of time, to assume that he has the wmd's. In a situation like this you can not take a chance, just like the police would not take the chance if they belived that you or anyone had explosives or other items of a distructive nature.