Unilateral? Lack Of Debate?

Here's a history lesson.

How many days after the attack on Pearl Harbor (a navy base in a US territory) did it take Congress to declare war on Japan?

ONE.

How many days after the attack on the World Trade Center did it take Congress to pass anything authorizing the use of military force against Afghanistan and Iraq?

3 days for Afghanistan and 400 for Iraq. One year, 35 days is a far cry from not taking the time to debate the issue.

As far as a hasty, unilateral move to war? President McThag would have attacked Mecca on 12Sep01. Islam is at war with us? OK. We're at war with you right back. Those terrorists didn't represent Islam at large? Oh, well, then this will be a short war while you surrender the real people responsible, but until you do, we keep shooting.

Europe is worried about this? OK. Tell them that they have three choices: 1 join in. 2 stand back and let us work. 3 be counted among the enemy. They have until 15Sep01 to decide.

I have a feeling that going all in would have ended this by now.

But I was not and am not the president.

By the way, Iraq had chemical weaponry as late as 1995. We know they used them against Iran and we have credible reports of them using them on their Kurds. The Russians also kindly supplied us with the sales records for the 152mm shells they sold Iraq. Hardly any of those rounds are accounted for. Just because none were found after we invaded it does not mean that none existed.

I also reject the Democratic retcon about this debate. They cited the same erroneous reports then as they decry today.

I reject the current attempt at retcon about their knowledge of what was going on at Gitmo. They got detailed briefings and did nothing to stop it. In fact they continued to fund it. I am sick of the lies and I am sick of them all coming from one party.