Breaking down the Bush Doctrine point by point-We are at war

Hadley said today that the present strategy begins with the recognition that we are at war.

So, if we are ALWAYS at war, Bush will ALWAYS be able to strike other countries.

Incidentally, I've seen debate on both sides but it's still not clear to me if Bush ever really did legally enter a declaration of war after being authorized to do so by Congress. And I don't want to hear the bullshit argument that being at war with hostilities is the same thing as doing a declaration of war, although I remember somebody saying that a AUMF is good enough, it doesn't have to be a formal declaration. So are we at war? Sometimes Bush has said yes, sometimes no. Which is it.

Because this war is unconstitutional.

in ww2, there were THREE NATIONS who had already conquered many other nations. japan and then germany declared war ON US. less than 4 years later, the war was over.

pearl harbor was an attack by an established military with considerable ability to follow up with further attacks. hitler explicitly stated he wanted to conquer the entire world.


9/11 was an attack by 19 people who could only do what they did because they were willing to die in the process. it's not easy to find follow ups for that sort of thing. so far we've had ZERO follow up attacks in 4.5 years.

and we've accomplished nothing of value in all that time. we have only strengthened the hand of our "enemy".


the bottom line is that we are at war for no better reason than that the neo-cons WANT to be at war. it serves their interests well and they don't give a crap about how damaging it is to the rest of the united states, our children, our economy, our international relations, our planet, etc., nevermind the afghans, the iraqis, the iranians, etc.

if that's what you're wondering.

I mean, isn't that why the US had to release Saddam to the Iraqis? I remember hearing someone say he is a prisoner of war and that we can't hold a POW after the war is over.

Or were they speaking about the war on terror? That would be a more difficult term to argue against since that war is basically whatever they want it to be.