Home | About | Donate

Congress’s Romance with Cowardice


Congress’s Romance with Cowardice

Danny Sjursen

War Without War Powers (the Not-So-New American Way)

"So who exactly can antiwar activists or foreign policy skeptics of any sort rally to? If more than 70 years of recent history is any indication, Congress simply can’t be counted on when it comes time to stand, be heard, and vote on American wars."


Yet again I am going to champion Gen. Smedley Butler’s War is a Racket as required reading. The US military does not work for me as an individual but rather for the investment complex in which ensnared are the retirement hopes of those fortunate enough to retire. War is failure and always has been. I recently visited the USS North Carolina in Wilmington, NC. I marveled at how much coordination it took to apply this one tool of war. How much more it must take to coordinate the Navy. How much more it must take to coordinate the armed forces. How much more it must take to rally a nation in such a momental time (WWII). How very much more it takes to keep peace–whatever the hell that is. I’d love to find out.


This is so depressing. I am 80 years old, so I probably have only 10 years left of depression. I do not have a looming terminal illness other than being american.


I heard Rand Paul speaking about AUMF, and it sounded different to me than to the author of this article. When he (Paul) began speaking about the limits of AUMF and how they do not apply to ISIS and they do not apply in all geographical regions, I started to wonder if he were opposing the use of war (please don’t call it “force”, that’s an intentional misnomer to avoid pointing out the violation of the Constitution.)

Then he suddenly said (or so it seemed to me) that we needed a new, revised AUMF that explicitly DOES allow the president to do whatever he wants, so we can avoid the possibility of such extra powers coming into question.


All Americans need to read this!


Congress stand up against the military and defense industry and do its constitutional duty regarding war? Hell, they can’t even find the guts to ban a shooting accessory (bump stocks) that very few shooters even want or use. Both parties of the duopoly are now little more than fronts for the military and defense industry. Oaths to defend the Constitution by elected officials now have about as much value as their useless “thoughts and prayers” platitudes after every mass shooting.


You have captured, quite succinctly, my state of mind, something I’ve been struggling with for a while now, and I’m 67.

Thank you.


Excellent article, commenting on yet another vein of the rot from which this nation suffers.


“Unless something drastically changes: the sudden growth, for example, of a grassroots antiwar movement or a major Supreme Court decision (fat chance!) limiting presidential power, Americans are likely to be living with eternal war into the distant future.”

Or unless progressives take their government away from oligarchs, war profiteers and politicians, get the money and revolving doors out of politics, and ban lobbying.


Count me in. That makes three of us, so far. Surely there are more coming.


“…blood, gore, guts, veins in my teeth, war , War, WAR…” Arlo

…someday little David and his slingshot will pay a visit, someday…


Danny, "It goes without saying that there is no antiwar political party in the United States … " Did you discount the Green Party USA on purpose or by accident? Please explain. Thanks