January 20, 2007
"The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the National Press Club.
So when the Iranians test their first nuclear weapon, Harry Reid says Bush cannot respond.
When the Iranians drop a nuke on downtown Tel Aviv, Harry Reid says George Bush is merely permitted to click his tongue.
And when the Iranians begin to terrorize the rest of the world following that attack, Harry Reid insists that the President cannot use our military to deal with the threat.
I wonder – does Harry Reid believe that American troops are allowed to respond to a direct attack by Iranian troops that have crossed the border into Iraq? Or do the troops have to flee in the face of the invasion, since military action is not authorized against Iran?
But then again, I wonder if Harry Reid is part of the 22% (see question #19) who need their asses kicked?
Posted by: Greg at
02:54 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: MissKitty at Sat Jan 20 06:21:42 2007 (314/Z)
And lest you be tempted to cite the War Powers Act, be aware that the legislative veto it contains has already been held to be constitutionally flawed by the Supreme Court in every other case where Congress has tried to include one.
And since the authorization to conduct the War on Terror/Crusade Against Jihadi Terrorists authorizes action against state sponsors of terrorism, Bush has all the authority he needs to act -- until and unless the Congress decides to limit that authority and weaken the power of the commander in chief to take actions to protect the United States. I'd love to see the Democrats explain that one...
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jan 20 06:46:53 2007 (o5Jao)
21 queries taking 0.0086 seconds, 31 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.