President and the War

This editoral appeared in Wednesday's Roanoke Time.

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/wb/xp-40938

In it, the statement is made "Further, Congress granted the authority not to remove Saddam but to grant the president power to use force to protect the U.S. - if needed."

Actually there were two items in the Iraq War Resolution which states:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

The president was given power defend national security AND enforce UN Security Council resolutions. It was not about Saddam, but that was the method the president determined to use. And as SEC.3.(a) says, the President was authorized to use the Armed Forces as he determined to be necessary.

Nothing vague or tricky or dishonest about the wording.

Plus, at the time of the vote "Many Democrats, cowed by the fear they would be perceived as less than patriotic, didn't probe too deeply,"

And now they "have since stiffened their backbones,"

This sounds like they voted for the war when it was popular and now are against it because there is a growing unpopularity.

The difference between a statesman and a politician...a statesman hold the course, does what is right, though it may be unpopular...a politician studies the latest polls before voting.

Al