Posted on 08/26/2002 6:08:49 AM PDT by KLT
President Bush can declare war on Iraq any time he wants and he won't need the permission of Congress to do so.
That's what Dubya's lawyers are telling him.
Other administration officials, however, say it would be political suicide to launch an attack with Iraq withot at least seeking Congressional approval.
Without it, they argue, Bush could lose public support in his war against terrorism.
"This isn't so much a question of what's legal," says one White House source. "It's more a question of what's politically right."
Bush's legal authority to attack Iraq exists because of the 1991 resolution that gave his father authority to wage war in the Persian Gulf.
Seems that resolution didn't expire with the elder Bush's presidency and, legally, is still in effect.
"We don't need to be in the legal position of asking Congress to authorize the use of force when the president already has that full authority," a senior administration official claims. "Getting such a resolution, would suggest one was constitutionally necessary. It isn't"
Publicly, White House spokesmen say Bush would still consult Congress on any decision regarding war on Iraq.
Privately, however, officials say Bush is angry at Congressional criticism of plans to attack Iraq, especially criticism from Republicans.
"White House lawyers are telling the President 'the hell with Congress. You don't need their permission.' " says one source.
A legal review of questions about a war with Iraq is mostly complete and the emerging consensus says the president would not be legally bound to obtain approval for action against Iraq.
"The legal question and the practical question may be very different," one administration official said. "There is a view that while there is not a legal necessity to seek anything further, as a matter of statesmanship and politics and practicality, it's necessary -- or at a minimum, strongly advisable -- to do it."
© Copyright 2002 by Capitol Hill Blue
For that matter neither do we. We'd be better off hiring a bunch of accountants.
I think the "Elite Class" of Government has passed enough laws.
If we just enforced the laws we have, Congress would become obsolete.
Their answer is right in the article...so why are they still harping on this? Speculation that Bush will not consult Congress is just that...pure speculation. What ever happened to writing about REAL news? I guess they just need something to b***h about.
WHO, pray-tell, is this "White House source"?
Our nation has just endured eight long years of politicians -- & especially a POTUS! -- doing "what's politically right." [read: politically correct]
Because of it the nation's still reeling & may never fully recover; &, yet?
This clown -- this "White House *source*" -- would advocate such a POV publically?
Please, help me with this.
Question to Dubya: "Do ya really need this person, this "White House source," this quisling on your staff, at a time like this?"
Geehezzzz.
"Bush's legal authority to attack Iraq exists because of the 1991 resolution that gave his father authority to wage war in the Persian Gulf...Seems that resolution didn't expire with the elder Bush's presidency and, legally, is still in effect."
So yea; this POTUS doesn't -- in-fact -- need THIS "stinkin' congress."
So, where's the beef?
Besides, since when did this or any OTHER inside *or* outside the beltway RAG start giving a damn about what the "right" thing was?
A *pious* POV doesn't *float* anymore with America's Lamestream media, a'tall.
Just one more *legacy* left them from their sacred, almighty "Sink Emporer."
Seems (to me) this RAG's getting what's morally right mixed-up with what's politically correct.
Perhaps CHB is hoping the reader doesn't catch their blurring of words, eh?
An *old* media trick, to be sure; very old.
...to be perfectly honest CHB should've wrote, "stinkin' & GUTLESS congress."
I think the "Elite Class" of Government has passed enough laws.
If we just enforced the laws we have, Congress would become obsolete.
AMEN my Friend...especially the Senate....Do you know who my Senators are...Chuckie Cheese No Guns Schumer, and the Hitlerybeast...Get rid of em all!
Stinkin, Gutless and Corrupt Congress That Only Sees Fit To Protect their own cowardly hides...
If he doesn't have that case, we shouldn't attack Iraq.
All while doing the politically *right* thing, too.
Think of the *challenge*.
How these people can look at themselves in a mirror is a testiment to just how rotten, corrupt, & devoid of anything meaningful they really are.
Seeing these guys simply makes me want to vomit.
...& I already realize I'm as mean-spirited as [I try to be] honest, too. {g}
Maybe we should dump elections for congress in favor of involuntary jury duty like assention.
Sure we'd have plenty of idiots in the senate who would rather be somewhere else.. maybe a whole bunch of slackers.. but the less these fools do, the better we might be off.
Better to have a few laws that are justly enforced than a whole mountain of useless, self serving, pork barral industral, tyrannical, pat on the back stack, of tinder we call law!
I'm sick to death of bills that are 500 pages long to cover ONE issue. Its disgusting. FIRE THEM ALL
To hear the liberal media tell it, public support for U.S. military action in Iraq has all but collapsed. As public 'debate' in recent weeks intensified -- debate involving the costs, the benefits, the risks/rewards of ousting Saddam -- Americans are getting a severe case of 'cold feet', says the media.
Anti-war sentiment is on the rise, the peaceniks are on a roll, White House opponents are driving the debate, public resolve is in a free-fall, or so we're told.
"The polls coming out this week show that ... public support [for attacking Iraq] is dwindling", declared former Clinton strategist George Stephanopoulos Sunday on ABCNEWS' This Week, a show he now hosts.
"I think what we're seeing is the public reacting to the debate", said co-host Cokie Roberts, sporting a big smile, as if to say, 'hey, Georgie, we're winning this! The war-hawks are licking the dust! Yippee! Yippee!'.
Democrats, believing the media hype, increasingly parrot the anti-war line, or straddle the fence. "The American people are split right down the middle", Sen. Bill moist-finger-in-the-wind Nelson told CNN's Late Edition yesterday. In town hall meetings he's hosted, the "moms of this country ... want to know why their sons and daughters are going to be sent into battle."
Foreign policy by town hall, eh? This doofus must think Der Shlickmeister's still in the White House.
Even Sen. Joseph Lieberman, supposedly a 'strong' backer of military action, flashed his true colors on Friday, accusing the White House of failing to provide enough public evidence to warrant going to war.
"I think members of Congress are going to come back demanding more information", he told editors at the Journal-Inquirer of Manchester.
Without more "up-to-date evidence" on the status of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction programs, he would not vote in favor of military action, he 'explained'.
Folks, aren't you glad this fickle, waffling, trembling, blow-with-the-wind pathetic political chameleon isn't in charge?
Told that public support for war has plummeted, former U.S. Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger, also on Late Edition, seemed puzzled, given that polls only days ago showed just the opposite, with strong majorities -- 69% or more -- supporting the use of force against Saddam.
Well, it just so happens that Sec. Weinberger is right -- right on the money, in fact.
At Pollingreport.com, under the heading In the News, you'll find an ABC News/Washington Post poll showing 69% in favor of "U.S. forces take[ing] military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power." Only 22% opposed the use of force. The survey, conducted August 7-11, 2002, had a margin of sampling error of +/- 3%.
Scrolling down further, a CBS News poll pegged support for military action at 66%, with only 26% opposed. The survey was conducted August 6-7, 2002, and had a MOE (margin of error) of +/- 3%.
Still further down the page, a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, conducted August 6-7, posted similar results, with 69% in favor of military action, and 22% opposed. The MOE in this survey was also +/- 3%.
Nor have the numbers noticeably changed over the months, either.
An April poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates, conducted for Newsweek, showed 68% supporting military action, 24% opposed.
Back in January, 71% supported the use of force, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll. Twenty-four percent opposed.
Again, not much difference.
So, what's going on here? Where's the much-ballyhooed "drop" in support?
A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll last week sent shock waves across Washington, and sparked a barrage of news reports claiming a sea-change in public attitudes.
"The most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll", writes David W. Moore of the Gallup News Service, "finds that the public is more conflicted now over" the use of force in Iraq, as compared to immediately after 9/11.
"A bare majority of Americans, 53%, say they would favor sending American ground troops to the Persian Gulf area in an attempt to remove Hussein from power, while 41% say they would oppose such action", he writes.
He adds that "by this past June, support had fallen to the 61% level, and opposition had risen to 31%."
So, support over the summer has dropped from 61% to 53%, right?
Er, not so fast.
From the archives at Pollingreport.com, the June survey results are posted as follows:
Would you favor or oppose sending American troops back to the Persian Gulf in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?
59% favor, 34% oppose.
This poll was conducted by Gallup June 17-19, 2002, and has a margin of sampling error of +/- 3.
So, rather than "falling" 8 percentage points, from 61% down to 53%, support for sending troops to the Persian Gulf is down only slightly, 6% percentage points over the period, from 59% to 53%, barely outside the survey's margin of error. Hardly what one would call a "sea-change".
But, wait a minute: What about all those other polls showing much higher levels of support for military action -- 69% or higher?
Ah, here we come to the nub of the problem, a difference in semantics, the basis for the glaring discrepency.
Notice how Gallup -- and Gallup alone -- inserts the word "troops" in their survey question.
That makes all the difference in the world.
In the aforementioned ABC News/Washington Post poll, the 69% level of support for military action drops a whopping 12% points, to 57%, merely by inserting the word "troops" in the question. The same poll shows 36% would oppose military action.
"Troops" evokes memories of Vietnam, and skews the survey results.
To illustrate, back in March, 67% supported "using military air strikes but no U.S. ground troops" against Iraq, according to Gallup.
But when asked if they favor using "U.S. ground troops to invade Iraq", public support plummets a full 21% percentage points, from 67% to 46%!! The same poll shows a huge 50% would oppose such action.
Again, this survey was taken back in March, when war "fever" was sizzling -- supposedly more "heated" than currently.
So, in the end, all the media brouhaha about plunging support for war on Saddam is based on flawed or fallacious interpretation of polling data -- wishful thinking, not fact.
Incidentally, even last week's much-touted Gallup poll shows a huge media disconnect with the public.
The press pooh-poohs the notion of possible Iraqi involvement in 9/11, yet a majority of the public, 53%, believe Saddam Hussein "was personally involved in the September 11th terrorist attacks". Only 34% think Saddam had no role in 9/11.
The media scoffs at evidence of possible Iraqi support for terrorist groups plotting attacks on the United States, yet no less than 86% believe "Saddam Hussein is involved" in such activities. Only 8% agree with the media.
Moreover, while "experts" debate whether Iraq currently has, or seeks to obtain, Weapons of Mass Destruction or not, a mindboggling 94% think Saddam either has, or is on his way to developing, such weapons of doom. Only 1% say Saddam is "not trying to develop" WMDs.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
IMO, our POTUS rarely gets angry enough to do the really unpopular but necessary things anway. Maybe getting angry at the Republicans is a sign that he has new insights of what it will take to be an even better leader.
From an article in FINDLAW>
After troops are in the field--whether formally authorized by Congress or not--it can appear unpatriotic to call for the abandonment of their mission. Thus, the formal need for Congressional approval is superseded by the political impossibility of Congress's withholding that approval once the President has unilaterally committed troops. Thus, in practice, despite the Framers' best efforts, the dice are loaded against a substantial Congressional role in supervising the conduct of war.
Doesn't seem to square with the founders' intentions does it? This question of just when is the CIC authorized to deploy troops has been around since maybe, 1776? A quick Google search finds arguments going back to the founding documents...
So, as a pratical matter, the prez's actions re military deployment only need be popular with the body politic??? Enter, the Ministry of Information...THEY'LL tell us what we need to know to make an informed decision ; )
FGS
Must be something in the Texas water which gives so many of its citizens a disproportionate amount of horse sense.
Now that I gave ya the *sweet*, here's the *bitters*.
I've made a couple of *edits* to your sage statement; all, in an effort to focus the words on what type of rodents we're dealing & have infesting the nation's Liberal-Socialist Lamestream media, these days.
"Enter, the Ministry of DISInformation...THEY'LL tell us anything under the sun as long as we *think* that's what we need to know to make an UNinformed decision."
How's that?
...hope we can still be friends, FGS. {g}
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.