Evidence denotes that such major policy failures as the establishment of a real and pressing rationale for invasion of Iraq or the creation of a reasonable time frame and concrete objectives for claiming victory there would both be the products of a Congressional willingness to rubber stamp the presidential war budget. In doing so, Congress ultimately bypassed its duty to honestly, openly and critically examine a foreign policy which denotes the use of our military, National Guard and defense budget. As a representative lawmaking body on behalf of the public, it is absolutely the responsibility of both houses of Congress to take on military budget debates that the public otherwise has no voice in shaping. Therefore, it is a dereliction of its duty for Congress to fail open discourse or debate before rushing headlong into what, in this instance, has proven...

(2008). Testimony Of Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker Before The Senate Armed Services Committee. Global Security.org. Online at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2008_hr/080408-crocker01.htm
Lubold, G. (2008). Congress: Why should each military branch get same budget? Christian Science Monitor. Online at http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0226/p03s03-usmi.html

Weisman, J. (2006). Battle looms in Congress over Military Tribunals. Washington Post. Online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201777.html

Zakheim, D.S. (1998). Congress and National Security in the Post-Cold War Era. The Nixon Center. Online at http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/monographs/congress.htm