"But the world isn't like that."

[Terrance]

Bandwraith at aol.com wrote:
> 
> The U.S. is in decline. "Iraq" is attempt by those with the
> most to lose by the economic decline of America to avoid
> facing up to that reality and to intiate the needed reforms
> to deal with it in a socially equitable fashion. Other great
> economic powers have gone through very similar processes
> of decline and reacted in similar ways. They eventually
> accepted the need for reform and recognized the futility
> of maintaining the regressive policies to perpetuate the
> delusion of hegemony. We will, as well; I hope before too
> many innocent people die needlessly. This has nothing
> to do with Oswald Spengler, in case you were thinking that.

Yeah, I was thinking that. But I disagree with the premise. The USA is
not in decline. 



> 
> BW:
> 
> "The only real power that
>  congress has in foreign policy is economic. They can cut off
>  funding. That's it."
> 
> <<That's not little, is it? And they don't only cut off funding, they have
> the power to fund in the first place. All politics is local but the
> members of congress have the power to initiate aggression around the
> globe, to start it, to fund it, and support it.>>
> 
> The congress can issue subpeanas and fund or not, that's about
> it. 

But the fact don't support your claim. Congress voted for the
Resolution. 

To argue that the President would wage war with or without Congressional
approval is another point all together. It's not what we are faced with
since Bush went to the Congress and got their vote. If Bush failed to
get Congressional support he would be in big trouble. He needed it. And
more importantly, he got it. Also, arguing that the Congress has voted
with the President simply because it recognizes that it can't prevent
the President from waging war and that its vote is simply a recognition
of this fact and that the Congressional vote is actually an attempt to
push the more modest UN agenda is political spin. The Congress held a
vote. They voted for the Resolution. 



Realistically, un-funding the executive's prerogative to intiate
> hostilities is a time consuming and politically arduous process.

You bet. But its been done. And there is no reason to say it won't or
can't happen again. Congress voted for the Resolution. They will fund
the war. They can unfund it. 
That's their power. And it's big not little. 



> Given today's weapon systems of destruction- mass or otherwise-
> congress is essentially a bystander and can applaud or boo, but
> to little consequence within the time quotient of effectiveness.


While I agree with your general (war powers) point, I don't think we
should take the onus off Congress in this situation. They voted. They
were free to vote it up or down. 
And, Bush did not make a good case and they still voted for it. And,
what Bush asked for and the plan of action he outlined was outrageous.
But they voted with the President. 

> In addition, the weapons systems themselves have taken on a
> life of their own. The threat of their "awesome" power and the
> selected examples the public is allowed to witness, are ends in
> themselves, i.e., substitutes for the powerless of American
> society to reform itself in meaningful ways to deal equitably
> with its inevitable decline, by perpetuating the myth that it is
> the sole hegemonic "superpower" in the world.

Again I disagree with the Spengler premise here. 




> 
> Furthermore, the untold billions in "black" money funneled to
> the intelligent services, and largely unaccounted for except
> by them, ensure that all manner of death and destruction
> can be perpetrated in the name of American hegemony,
> completely beyond the knowledge of congress. We are
> already hearing how future U.S. wars will be fought more
> and more by these "secret agents," "special forces," remote
> controlled C.I.A. drones, etc., etc,... but none of that will
> forestall what those pulling the switches and pushing the
> buttons wish to distract us from, the decline of the U.S.-
> economically and politically- from its short-lived reign at
> the top, and their inability to deal equitably with that.


Again, I don't think a "decline" real or imagined is what is driving USA
policy. 

And Congress is and will continue to be very much involved in most of
the "secret wars." 





> 
> <<And they do.  They just
> voted to do so, so how can you argue that they don't? And some members
> of congress pushed and were not pulled to pass these resolutions.>>
> 
> Because I'm a realist. Their vote was entirely predictable.
> They could have mailed it in.

It was predictable. No doubt about that. But they are responsible for
the vote and they will fund the wars. 



> 
> <<Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution... {snip}
> 
> Unfortunately, the constitution is largely irrelevant in this
> situation and is already being violated on a daily basis by
> Ashcroft and company, but the main reason that the
> constitution is not relevant, is because it has nothing to
> say about how America should come to grips with the
> reality of its own decline: sunset in America. 

Decline, decline. The Constitution is not largely irrelevant. 
If it were, you would not lament the fact that it is being violated. 




This is not
> necessarily a good or bad thing, it is just the reality that
> the current power elite is struggling to deny. That struggle,
> to a large extent, is what defines current U.S. foreign and
> domestic policy. It cannot last, nor should it. Unfortunately,
> because the U.S. is the largest stockpiler of all types of the
> most deadly weapons in the world, many innocent people
> are at risk of being killed in the throws of this American
> identity crisis.


Interesting application of Spengler but I don't agree. 

Thanks, 

T