Replies

"'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.'"

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."

So yea; this POTUS doesn't -- in-fact -- need THIS "stinkin' congress." So, where's the beef?

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 Thus, the formal need for Congressional approval is superseded by the political impossibility of Congress's withholding that approval once the President has unilaterally committed troops.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

"'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.'"

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.