Back to my comment about Congress - didn't we learn anything from Viet Nam? There seems to be no debate going on in Congress about this and only a few, like Senator Byrd last year, seem to be making any comments. It is as if the congressional herd of lemmings are mute.

This is in part what Byrd said in October, 2002.
Senate Remarks: Rush to War Ignores U.S. Constitution

The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential
                      hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and
                      reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President
                      blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to
                      be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the
                      President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the
                      United Nations on its head.

                      Representative Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to William H. Herndon, stated: "Allow the President to
                      invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow
                      him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - - and you
                      allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect,
                      after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it
                      necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You
                      may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see
                      it, if you don't.'

                      "The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I
                      understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their
                      people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This,
                      our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved
                      to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon
                      us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always
                      stood."

Click here