Believing that there was no declaration of war is a liberal argument, yes.
You have reading comprehension problems, don't you.
If you look at my posts, I said that the Constitution Party president would want a declaration in a certain form. I then agreed with you that what congress did was sufficient. If I agreed with the Constitution Party on almost everything, then they would have been my first choice this election cycle, but as you can see from my posts, I supported Giuliani, then Romney, and now Huckabee, and the Constitution Party candidate will probably be my fourth choice because there's no way I'm voting for the backstabber McCain. If their candidate is too much of a kook then maybe I'll write in Jeb Bush.
This is what's wrong with the conservative base...more and more people who consider themselves conservative can't seem to take the time to look at things analytically anymore and everyone wants to blame the president (as we can see from this thread) for their own shortcomings. The media has instilled buzzwords in their minds and they run on emotion about as much as liberals anymore.
“Believing that there was no declaration of war is a liberal argument, yes.”
Don’t waste your breath with people who think we are in an unconstitutional war in Iraq. I’ve had this debate with a number of Ron Paul supporters. These people claim to have the all knowledge of the constitution, but apparently don’t even read it. All it says in the constitution is that the Congress has the power to declare war. As you pointed out, it does not lay out how the Congress is to declare war. The Congress passed the Iraq resolution which specifically gave Bush the power to go to war.
I wonder if some of the same liberals who say Bush is in an unconstitutional war supported Bill Clinton who started an air war in Kosovo without going to Congress to get approval. And it was never given as far as I know.