CONGRESS ISN'T THE ONE WHO IS HOLDING US TROOPS HOSTAGE

Ever since Congress inserted language into the new spending bill--which required the President to withdraw our troops by next year--there have been a number of opinions, letters, and so on; blistering the legislative body for overstepping its boundaries--when it should've given Bush all he wanted without question.

But wouldn't that make Bush undisputed king rather than President of the United States?

Is this what we want as a nation?

I find it baffling that so many people haven't read the US Constitution lately--while desperately trying to grant Bush more unrestrained power, than to try and reign him in before it's too late.

Under Article 1 Section 8 of that hallowed document, it spells out that Congress has the purse strings to raise and support armies, but can limit the funding of such wars if deemed necessary. (Vietnam was one such example.)

And while some people supporting this war want Congress to give the President another blank check, they are also forgetting--that by doing so--they are giving the President the authority to hold our forces hostage by fighting a war without end.

Something Congress doesn't want.

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX