BUSH LINKS DEATHS OF AMERICANS TO IRAN

You sound like you've had a bad day, oWf! Seeing as we here in PA are shoveling out of what was supposed to be YOUR snow, I think you could be a little more gracious! ;)
It is ten inches deep here, btw. And five degrees and falling.
About bombing. Do I misremember that every time Clinton was on the ropes politically, he bombed somebody? Now, I wasn't recommending that Pres. Bush follow his example, I was merely pointing out that Clinton did not ask for permission before he rained fire (bombs) on other countries, for a lot less provocation than we're seeing from Iran. And GHWB would have ordered a bombing raid by now, absent an abject apology from the Iranian govt.
Reagan would certainly have done the same, so would Nixon or anyone else. (Carter, ok, I'll grant you Carter might have hesitated.)
It seems the bar is set much higher for GWB. He is the CIC and he should not need the permission of Congress when the Iranians have been caught red-handed. It should also not matter whether the top echelon approved and ordered what amounts to an act of war against American forces. Not that they are vehemently denying it, but it happened on their watch, they are responsible. If heads aren't rolling in Teheran, they should be on fire.
Bottom line, the POTUS should not be asking Congress to let him order a strike.
I do not "jab" at Pres. Bush. Sometimes it's hard not to (border issues, signing CFR) but he is doing the best he can and I pray for him every day. When I disagree with his actions (and inactions) I try to do it respectfully. When I can't (border issues, signing CFR) I don't even mention it around here. Not even during the Miers fiasco, or the Schiavo, did I go over the line.
Nevertheless, good on you for defending him.

Some concrete examples are on this excellent page:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

*snip*
"On April 14, 1986, President Ronald Reagan, acting on his independent authority, ordered United States armed forces to engage in military action against the government of Colonel Gadhafi of Libya..."
*snip*
"Like the two unilateral Presidential actions discussed above, President Reagan's decision to use armed force in response to a terrorist attack on United States military personnel illustrates that the President has independent constitutional authority to use such force in the present circumstances."

The whole page is recommended reading.

Actually, I've had a very good day. Thanks for explaining what you meant.

It seemed in your initial statement that the criticism was of the President himself. I highly doubt that Reagan, under today's more hostile Democrat attitude and being in the middle of a hot war in two countries, and not a cold one, would have behaved any differently.

As for Nixon, I doubt that too, since he did pull out of Viet Nam under public pressure, did he not? President Bush has certainly not backed down due to any kind of public pressure.

(And coward xlinton bombed to act like a tough guy when he was in truth, a eunuch).

So, I disagree with your premise, but now see your point, and it is well taken.

btw, part of the reason I have been having good days is that the snow has canceled events, including the university classes that I teach. While we came up a few inches short of the maximum predictions, we got over a foot, so what we shared with you should be appreciated, and not criticized. It was an entirely altruistic gesture on our part to let you share in the beauty of it all. :)

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.