Jim Webb

When you have an operation that goes on for months, costs billions of dollars, where the United States is providing two-thirds of the troops even under the NATO fig leaf.

I am not going to sit here and let everybody throw the dart at the White House saying the President violated this and that when he was the first President to ever say I accept the constitutionality of the War Powers Act.

I just think it's an untenable position for any administration to develop that.

NATO countries, NATO allies cannot authorize the United States to take military action.

I think it was his obligation in February to come to Congress and get that authorization.

My position is that the Security Council cannot authorize any military action, cannot mandate any military action.

But it is just wrong to suggest that somehow the President went outside the constitutional process here when, in fact, Congress--us--have done nothing within those 60 days to either authorize it or declare war or not.

Well, in general, because if you are engaged in a Vietnam type military operation, which I was, you have certain support elements that are providing indirect assistance to the people who are putting bullets on the battlefield.

I do not mean to interrupt you, but I really only have about 7 minutes here.

The use by a President of a very vague standard that he or she can unilaterally inject military force into situations around the world based on a vague standard of humanitarian assistance.

The War Powers Act does not apply in this situation because of their very narrow and, in my opinion, contorted legal definition of 'hostilities.'

So the real relevant question here is whether or not--I agree with you. I think there are some serious constitutional questions about Predators, how do they fit, and I think Legal Adviser Koh has accepted that.

Presidents should not be able to avoid constitutional responsibilities merely because engaging the people's representatives is inconvenient or uncertain.

This was a fundamental failure of leadership that placed expedience above constitutional responsibility.

The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it.

I wouldn't want the record to show that I was in total agreement with your analogy comparing our situation in Korea, our long-term commitment to Korea, with what might take place in Afghanistan.

I have to express my agreement with Senator Lugar's comment that if we were doing a military model right now, I don't think any of us would be sitting up here saying, 'Oh, it would be 100,000 troops and spending $120 billion a year in…

I believe there is a role here that China could play if they would step up to the mat.

You can pretty well fight international terrorism without remaking an entire societal structure. Wouldn't you agree?

If there is any nation in the world that needs nation-building right now, it's the United States of America.

I think my major concern is how we define our strategic objectives in Afghanistan and how that matches up with what we are able to actually accomplish in a cost-benefit way.

International terrorism and guerilla warfare in general is intrinsically mobile.

I would like to begin by joining you in the condolences that you expressed.

I don't believe we could find a more credible or more capable leader.

I hope we can work with you on that because we are going to come up with some suggestions as to how we can implement the intentions of this policy but in a way that our friends and people whose governmental systems are pretty stable can…