Michael Medved and Jan debate the Iraq war

Radio host Michael Medved and Jan debate the Iraq war and the principle that should govern our warmaking. Medved finally admits that "national interest" is a vague term that does not mean anything specific. Inadvertently he has admitted he has no principle because he has admitted that going to war when national interests are at stake does not mean anything specific. If a principle does not mean anything specific, it is not a principle because one of the necessary elements of a principle is that it tells you clearly when you should do something and when you should not. His principle does not provide this function and is therefore disqualified as a principle. Furthermore, he actually disagrees that we should follow the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war. His argument is that there have been 140 undeclared wars (which I don't think is true) and apparently this makes it legal. Legal is following the Constitution, illegal is not following it. Ultimately, he admits that congressional approval doesn't make it right. All the time, while making these admissions, Medved desperately wants to leave. Jan keeps him going for one more segment. Don't miss the conclusion.