Looks good to me bud. BTW, I found a pic of the facade of their home in DC. Fancy digs, huh? Looks suspiciously like another building I've seen ; )
FGS
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
Couldn't agree with you more, Ken.
Looks good to me bud. BTW, I found a pic of the facade of their home in DC. Fancy digs, huh? Looks suspiciously like another building I've seen ; )
FGS
And besides, it's the RATS who are most concerned about the political ramifications. A successful mission against Saddam will cost them heavily at the polls. So what is this worthless White House source intimating? I must assume that he was misquoted.
That's an interesting point, sultan.
It now dawns on me there doesn't necessarily have to be an "unnamed White House source," a'tall.
I mean, why go through all that *work* if ya didn't have to; &, better yet, ya couldn't possibly be caught?
After all, this "is" the American Lamestream media we're talking about, here.
Since there's no law under the sun which could force 'em to tell their sources; not, without having the inquirer first tread hell & high water?
They're expecting us to take their word for anything & without any proof but their say??
Given their lousy track record I'd say believing anything outa that bunch is a genuine sucker's bet.
It'd be infinitely easier to simply lie about these supposed quotes & then quickly, "just move on" to tomorrow's edition.
A hellova lot cheaper on the ol' expense account, too; *maximizes* profits to the nth degree and we know how the Liberal-Socialist loves their $$.
~eh?
"The ends justify the means."
"By any means necessary."
The Leftist-Socialists have many times stated in no uncertain terms they'd have no compunction lieing -- about anything whatsoever -- if it furthered their *agenda(s)*??
They do have more than a few whoppers on their agenda needing to be *pushed* on the American public, don't they?
Now would the Leftist-Socialist Lamestream tell bald-faced *lies* & palm it off as factual, "News"??
...that is *The* real bottom-line question. {g}
Well guys, FWIW, I've got a little different take on the WH source's comment. And that is, his comment taken at face value simply states that it's not a legal question; it's a political question. To me he was just stating what is to them the obvious: they have the legal authority; do they have the political(i.e. moral) authority. I don't get a PC "feel" from this one.
FGS
If Clinton had been the president, and this was Bosnia, the report would hail the president, and talk about his approval ratings "soaring" to a 69%, up from the 43% he received at the time. The high water mark on Clinton's overall approval rating was 55%.
Bush slips a couple of points, and suddenly, the walls are crumbling down. Can you imagine what the media would be saying if the American people were split 43%-43% on whether Bush was doing a good job or a bad job handling the war?
Coulter is right.
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.