Bush may not need authorization to launch attack against Iraq (NYTimes, reg req). Senator Trent Lott, the Republican minority leader, told reporters today that he did not think the administration needed Congressional approval for a major assault. He said that authority had been granted last fall in a resolution supporting military action against Al Qaeda.
"I suspect that Al Qaeda elements are in Iraq," Mr. Lott said. "The resolution we passed, we made it very clear the president has the authority to pursue the Al Qaeda wherever they may be found, in whatever country, which could very well include Iraq."
Hello? Article I, Section 8, Clause 11? War Powers Act Section 5b? I know they gave GWB the right to go after Al-Qaeda, but this is ridiculous. Should we deport one of our prisoners from Guantanamo to the next country that we want to make some changes in? Sheesh. You want to go to war? Fine by me - but do it Constitutionally.
posted by rshah21
on Aug 1, 2002 -
From a piece in the NYTimes today, Home Front Is Minefield for President: "The lesson we're learning," one administration official said today, "is that you can bomb the wrong place in Afghanistan and not take much heat for it. But don't mess up at the post office."
Leave it to the White House to come away with exactly the wrong interpretation. But the facts are there, too -- most Americans are more concerned about the (relatively slight) risk of getting Anthrax than the rather significant risk that, if we screw up in Afghanistan, we might lose the current coalition against terrorism, Bin Laden, and any hope for "homeland security" for a long time to come....
posted by mattpfeff
on Oct 25, 2001 -