(By “elsewhere” I mean other than some idea of infernal clever manipulation by the various US presidential administrations of this period).

The end of the Cold War represented an opportunity for the Congress as an institution to “take back” in a “real” way the war declaration power, but when push came to shove they were just too darn scared to do it. Congressmen/Senators of the “old Republic” must have looked down from heaven (ok, looked up from the nether regions) and snorted in disgust.

They did come close in the Senate, with the barely adequate 52-47 vote authorizing the first Gulf War. But when it came to actually having to look the voters in the eye with a “hard vote” behind them, the Senators just couldn’t quite bring themselves to take the risk, could they? (To include the current heartthrob of the people Al Gore, who was a Senator then and who voted “yes” to authorize the war (Jan 91)).

Of course by Jan 91 everything was in place to start the US attack from Saudi Arabia to liberate Kuwait anyway; the Congress hadn’t taken positive action in preceding months to stop the funding paying for the US troop move into SA, just like they can’t bring themselves currently to vote to stop the funding for Iraq.

I surprised myself at the time by my own internal discovery as to a visceral opposition to the first Gulf War. We (the US) had no formal treaty of any kind with the Kuwaiti government.

It’s almost forgotten now, but the Kuwaitis had been quite content to be a “neutral” in the 70’s and 80’s, indeed indulging in the mandatory occasional posturing against the US; evidently they thought that their immense good fortune as to oil made them the chosen of God and invulnerable to life’s little viscisitudes.

(I point out that prior to the UK withdrawal from “east of Suez” (approx 1968), the Brits had intervened in the late 50’s/early 60’s a couple of times to prevent previous Iraqi regimes from swallowing up Kuwait. Too bad the Brits couldn’t have kept a couple of battalions and an air wing in Kuwait (the way they do now in the Falklands); had they done so, perhaps all this current mess could have been avoided).

There was a good panel debate on C-Span several months ago on this “demise” of the Congressional war declaration power, accompanied by plenty of the weeping and moaning that comes up about this topic every so often.

One participant (the “notorious” John Yoo of UC Berkeley law school) made this same point (ie at this point in the history of the republic, evidently the American people are satisfied with the way the war powers are arranged).

It will take some courage from their elected Congressional representatives to get this changed (ie something other than “I was agsinst the vote for the war before I was for it”, or whatever that exact quote of Kerry’s was).

The US presence in the ROK would be a great place to start. We (the US) have certainly met in Korea all the criteria for the US troop withdrawal that are supposed to be stipulated currently for Iraq (ie the ROK has a reasonably stable democratic government in place).

43 - It’s hard not to have a soft spot for the Gipper. He made a few blunders, but he was the best president in my lifetime. Here’s a review of a book that he stood for “freedom, peace, disarmament, self-reliance, earthly happiness, the dreams of the imagination and the desires of the heart”:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/119735.html

What can I say, I have a soft spot for the Gipper.

I think that Republican and Democratic Administrations have plenty of blame to share between them for bypassing Congress (especially since WWII, as you rightly pointed out).

Don’t disagree with you. Hardly unique to the Clinton presidency, but a fair assessment.

“And Clinton bombed at the behest of the UN or NATO, not the Congress, which should trouble anyone who thinks the Constitution is more than a piece of paper.”

Were Americans compelled to go to war in the Balkans as a result of membership in either the UN or NATO? Do you think that Clinton’s military actions were actually dictated by the UN or NATO? Were US forces in either Bosnia or Kosovo under the operational command of a Dutch, Belgian, or Icelandic general? Or politicians from NATO countries? I think not. If the US chose to involve themselves in conflicts through the UN or NATO, it was their call alone to do so, plus they would have been the ones calling the shots. Literally.

Maybe not, but it was that scumbag who bombed the country to enforce them.

Matter of fact, I seem to recall that he had quite a penchant for bombing and/or lobbing cruise missiles as a one-size-fits-all solution for any problem that came down the pike: broken sanctions in Iraq, political heat at home…

Maybe not, but it was that scumbag who bombed the country to enforce them.

Also, regarding Ron Paul’s comments about how Korea could be unified, as Vietnam is, I doubt too many South Koreans would trade their present lives for those of Vietnamese. Most would rather be rich and divided than poor and ‘one in solidarity’.

Do South Koreans vote in US elections?