Posted on 08/16/2002 9:08:00 PM PDT by BCrago66
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:04:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
In recent days, editorial writers and pundits have urged President Bush to seek a declaration of war from Congress prior to launching a military operation against Iraq. Others have argued no such declaration is necessary because the president, as commander in chief, can order a pre-emptive strike on Iraq in anticipation of an attack against the U.S., i.e., "anticipatory self-defense."
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
There's just one crappy left-wing paper located near Times Square that refuses to publish him.
In my latest post to you on other thread, I said that the Iraq question revolved more around the threat of WMD than on a 9/11 tie in. Looks like there will be a tie in.
I suppose there is no way of knowing what Atta said to that Iraqi that April day, but since he left the next day, it most likely was not just a friendly visit.
We are in the rhetoric stage. Will be most interesting see this unfold.
Of course, if Congress decides it doesn't want a war with Iraq, it can step in. It controls the power of the purse, and it can cut off funding for military operations against Iraq. For this reason, Mr. Bush would be wise to consult with Congress, as I'm sure he is. But he need not defer to it.The 9/14/01 resolution seems to satisfy the War Powers Act. The WPA does allow Congress to pass another joint resolution calling for the removal of troops, which would not be subject to presidential veto. There is concern that this provision is constitutional. A congressional budget approriation which cut off funding could be vetoed by the President.
True? That's OK.....I'm sure Rush both pays handsomely and agrees with the result.
And yesterday the NY Times editorial once again called for a debate. The "debate" they desire is either for political purposes (but doubt in the voter's minds for election time) or the libs are against war - but since that is unpopular, they call for a debate instead.
So since Rush is pro-war, his article doesn't fit into the "debate" category and won't be published in the NY Times. He needs to write about anti-war or simply calling for a debate...then he'd get in the Times. Also (see Ann Coulter's book, Slander) anybody disagreeing with the NY Times is deemed of a lower intelligence.
The article didn't read the way Rush talks, but it did read the way Mark Levin talks.
And as I remember it the article read pretty much the same as arguments Levin made in other venues.
Therefore…
Anyway, did you know that Rush's brother ghost wrote Rush's two books?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.