Good commentary. Indeed, Congress has no spine to check the president, even with the opposing party in power.

Yes, and I'm sure if Congress had voted to cut off funding for the Iraq mess, the D-News would have been applauding its spine rather than yelling "Congress kneecapped the troops!"

Just because the solution isn't easy or apparent, doesn't mean that there's not a problem.

Unfortunately when a preemptive war comes into play (America's first), troops are committed and die, trillions are spent (with more to come), even a chump like the existing president has extraordinary power in that all he really has to do is wave the flag and call all who oppose his policy traitors to the U.S.
Rockets red glare - bombs bursting in air.

This article didn't mention a direct threat against our homeland. In the days of modern warfare, we could easily be destroyed in a day, and easily within 5 days.

Stewart's "what if?" philosophy is the same as the preemptive bombing and invasion of sovereign Iraq.
It's how the monstrous Cheney/Bush administration came into power - and the neocons love it all!

Why call the President the "Commander in Chief" of the military, if he has to grovel before a bunch of 100% politically partisan motivated men to do his job as Commander in Chief?

I feel that Congress already has the power to override the President if he is obviously over-stepping his bounds or making an agregious military misadventure (without just cutting funding to troops after they are committed and are in a position where cutting their funding would cost many of their lives and the lives of others).

The problem with all the wringing our hands over Iraq and the attempt to make Iraq the poster child for this Congressional power-grab is... CONGRESS VOTED TO SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL to use military force in Iraq!

The other inconvenient truth for people who claim America didn't negotiate before begining military activities in Iraq is... When Congress voted to proceed with miliary action in Iraq, they were voting to enforce compliance to the resolutions that came about from our diplomatic efforts with the UN regarding Iraq.

You can say military action in Iraq was wrong, but you can't say the President did it without Congress's approval. The vote wasn't even close.

When you give absolute power to a single person in wartime, and that person is an illiterate alcoholic who pretends he's John Wayne, got out of serving his country due to his silver-spoon status, and was a loser in virtually every business venture he was involved in -- you've got a system that needs a major overhauling.

Good idea [needs an overhaul | 1:52 p.m.]! Lets make legislation that will affect our entire form of government based on your irrational hatred for ONE President.

It's a good thing we don't usually change our government just because one partisan group or another hates the President.

If this guy thinks his impression of President Bush as "illiterate, alcoholic, John Wayne, silver spoon, draft dodger, business failure", justifies overhauling our government... we should be happy we didn't give in to the similarly patisan minded people when they wanted to castrate the President because he was, "a womanising playboy, impeached and disbarred for purgering himself in testimony to Congress, tried to cover up financial dealings with companies that went bankrupt but somehow paid him and his wife outragous profits, Dodged the draft by leaving the country, sold US missile secrets to China, got N-Korea's Nuke program started, pardoned terrorists and drug dealers, etc".

It's a good thing we don't make long-lived policy decisions based on individual President's character flaws or partisan people's hatred for the other party.

Is anybody else growing quite weary of Neocons like Good idea Overhaul and their incessant: "If you don't agree with the Cheney/Bush policies - YOU MUST HATE THEM!???
And this, of course, is supposed to be the catch-all phrase that ends each and every political discussion.
What a bunch of clowns!

That's great stuff Good idea!
Now why don't you fill us in with the past and ongoing escapades of Dubya?

"Easy to do":

History teaches that losing a war is ordinarily a Bad Thing for the losing side. The negative consequences often go beyond simply the immediate interests that are lost through defeat in the particular war. The country generally loses standing with other nations, rendering it less capable of defending its interests, and often suffers damaging social and psychological effects.

The time to oppose a war is before it starts. Once a country decides (democratically, in the American case) to go to war, there's a serious argument to be made that because the costs of losing are so high, a loyal opposition ought to put its reservations aside and work together to win. Criticizing strategy is one thing; running around shouting "The war is lost!" (thank you, Senator Reid!) or rushing to judgment in eagerness to believe the worst of your soldiers (thank you, Senator Murtha!) is another.

Of course, if you think going to war was not only misguided strategically, but actually immoral, then it's absolutely your duty to continue protesting.

Feel free to caricature this as "rockets' red glare," etc., or open your mind to an opposing thought. Your call.

Really not ambigious. The president has the power to have the military to do all things except to to war in the first place without congress permission.

In the age of interconnental nuclear missles that reach anywhere in the world in 45 or so minutes, this really doesn't work perfectly anymore

"Re: Good"

I know a lot of people who disagree with lots of Cheney-Bush policies, starting with Rush Limbaugh (who didn't think much of Bush's immigration "reform" and choice of Harriet Myers for the Supreme Court.) Nobody's saying Rush hates Bush.

The truth, "Re," is that you *do* hate Bush and Cheney, do you not?

The President of the United States is accompanied wherever he goes with the famous "football"; the communications device that allows him to defend America in case of an attack.

Because that attack could come at any time from any place and could occur within minutes of being detected, how would the proposed legislation handle that kind of crisis?

Surely no one is advocating that the President has to convince a Congressional Committee that we're under attack and then wait up to thirty days before being able to do his job to defend our Country.

Of course I don't "HATE" Bush/Cheney Thomas.
That is the term hate-filled NEOCONS like to bandy about.
But I am getting weary of your Rush Limbaugh impressions, quite frankly.

The Cheney and Bush dream dream team has got the paranoid Thomas and Mike Richards exactly where they want them.
Is is November yet?

For the 4,372,732nd time, Anonymous -- no, it isn't November yet. Get a new shtick.

Mike, please don't remind me. America lost Bush v. Gore.

The "knee-jerk" response of some of the posters towards some of us who post is the best argument against forcing the President of the United States to consult with Congress before being allowed to do whatever needs to be done in the Nation's best interest.

Just as some of the posters write in opposition to every post, so would some members of Congress automatically oppose anything proposed by the President without first even looking at the merits of his proposal.

When ALL of the people have had the chance and the responsibility to vote for a President, the people have had voice in what the President does. Allowing him to do whatever is necessary - for a short period of time - without first conferring with a stale-mated Congress is in the Nation's best interests.

Then, when Congress has finished bickering amongst themselves, they can do their job and either ratify his actions or cut off funding if they oppose the course that he has taken.

The luxury of taking thirty days to debate war ended before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

Sounds like our resident neocon Thomas is getting quite nervous about the passing of time and what it is going to mean come November.
Thank God for REAL Americans.

Congress has the power to stop the president if he goes into a war that they object to.

They can cut off the funding.
They can impeach the president.

Those are powerful weapons against the President.

That is the way it works. The rest of you who are so filled with hate for each other, and for Bush, are just out of luck. Ironically, the democrat controlled congress didn't cut funding, or bring letters of impeachment (although I believe Conyers is trying it again, as if they could do it before next Feb anyway)

Apparently, the liberals in the Congress, don't agree with the liberals in the blogs. Maybe the liberals in blogs, don't have all the facts, and are not as smart as they wish they were?

Facts are kryptonite to liberals, and most of you here, are dying from them. All you got, is to call those you don't agree with, neocons. Big deal.

Let's get Obama in there, and finish this country off once and for all. That would make every liberal very, very happy. What makes no sense is, why that is so.....

Anon, are you questioning my patriotism?