If the invasion of Iraq violated any treaty than technically it is every bit as unconstitutional as any of Clinton’s undeclared wars.

congress made the declaration of war, which is its proper role versus the president going it alone as in the case of Clinton in Bosnia and other engagements. The constitution does not stipulate that a declaration of war must state “the country we plan to set down in” and so the enemies may be vague, which makes sense in that as wars progress enemy lines can shift and alliances formed.) so i have a hard time seeing how i’ve made some gross “intentional misrepresentation of the facts.”

as to the “far reaching effects”–i’d agree that what Bush has done will have lasting effects, which may or may not have the negative historical resonance of which you assert. you may be entirely correct. time will tell.

Lastly, careful on the mislead idea, NewsWeek (March 2, 1998) special edition fronted a cover that said “Will it be War?” The special addition details Clinton’s almost war with Sadaam and details weapons stores, UN violations, etc. Ultimately, Clinton put all the troops in place but didn’t pull the trigger. Frankly, it was a pretty good bluff, a bit Kennedyesque. The point is the data from this story combined with other sources nearly brought the US into war with Sadaam before Bush was president. It was the same data that was used to get the declaration of war under Bush.

If we are going to decry to travesties of intentional misrepresentation of fact that we may receive in our inbox, let’s apply the same standards to what we write on our blog, shall we Lyall?

I blame the Democrats who did not stand up to this foolish plan from the beginning as much as I do the Republicans who mislead the nation into war. But regardless of where we lay that blame, an undeniable fact you are conveniently neglecting to mention in your quest for truthiness is that even if what you wrtie about Clinton’s use of the military were true (which it isn’t), the effects of what this administration has done will have far reaching, and a negative historical resonance matched only by our foolishness in Vietnam.

There is nothing worse than someone distorting history to make a cheap political point, except the person doing so under the guise of intellectual honesty.

My only comment is that Congress ought to have stopped President Bush before he launched a war of aggression on Iraq, which the U.N. Secretary General cited as a breach of the U.N. Charter. Failing that, the House should have impeached him. What was President Clinton impeached for?