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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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 ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The remarks of Mr. Webb and Mr. Corker pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 18 are printed in today's Record under…

I am pleased to come to the Senate floor, along with my colleague, Senator Corker, a fellow member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to speak about a joint resolution we are introducing today that deals with the situation in…