Speaking at UCLA Tuesday evening, Gore Vidal declared the then-forthcoming war to be unconstitional. "Vidal sees the current war as a direct assault to the Constitution of the United States. He argued that a declaration of war by the president without the vote of Congress is both an unconstitutional act and a dangerous abuse of power," reports today's Daily Bruin. "When President Bush was sworn into office, he swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution," Vidal said, "and he has not kept that promise." Ironically, the forgetful Vidal emphasized the importance of history throughout his talk. At least that's what the Daily Bruin said. But it sounds like it might have been more accurate to say he emphasized the importance of caricaturing history to carry one's point with those who can't tell the difference: it appears that Vidal drove his argument home Tuesday night by weaving "comic impersonations of President Bush and Ronald Reagan into his historical analysis."

UPDATE: A little more on Vidal's anti-war tour, this one an account of his recent appearance in Santa Monica, where one audience member declared that "I don't know anyone, not a soul, who supports this war," and another seconded him by describing American pro-war sentiment as a negligible geographical aberration: "No one on either coast is in favour. ... It's just the flyover people in the middle who are so bellicose." Thanks to reader Fred R. for the link.

I love the conspiracy nuts who think a congressional declaration of war isn't a declaration of war unless it contains the magic words "we declare war." What does Vidal think Congress voted on?

Good point, Xrlq. I call this the "Simon Says" doctrine.

Even if the Congressional approval did say "We declare war on Iraq", people like Gore Vidal would still insist that it was unconstitutional since it was a Republican congress and a Republican president. I didn't hear Vidal make any constitutional arguments about Bill Clinton's use of military force in the Balkans and Iraq.

Vidal is the ultimate caricature of an intellectual. While he is a fool and a libertine, he is not entirely without merit. After all, some years ago he commented to the effect that Ted Kennedy was valuable, because after all every country needs a King Farouk.

I've heard this stupid semantic argument so many times I wonder how our country survives. Are there really that many jobs that require absolutely no ability to reason?

Either using force against another country is war, or it is not. If the use of force is war, the "Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force" pretty clearly authorizes war. If the use of force is not war then no authorization is necessary.

It seems silly to me to claim that the use of force against another country is not war. But even this claim doesn't support the conclusion that the current war is unconstitutional.

I find this argument typical of lefties in general, where reality takes a back seat to semantic debating tactics.

Vidal: "No one on either coast is in favour...."

This is so funny. How long did it take him to travel up and down the east AND west coasts to interview each and every soul, so that he could make this statement? Of course, he didn't do that. He just automatically crossed off the list of existing human beings, all the people who had the opportunity to be cool by living on the coast, but who don't agree with him. How very realistic and broadminded, not to say credible, this makes him.

"I don't know anyone, not a soul, who supports this war."

That pearl of wisdom reminds me of Pauline Kael's infamous reaction to Nixon's easy re-election: "I can't believe it! I don't know a single person who voted for him!"

Or even Yogi Berra's comment, perhaps apochryphal, that a certain restaurant had gotten so popular that no one goes there anymore.

What makes this different from the wars in which we officially declared is that in this case, like many others, we were not attacked by the country we are attacking.

And that's exactly the point. This was an unprovoked invasion.