| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Clinton: Do not strike Iran without congress's OK |
| 2007-02-15 |
| Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton warned President George W. Bush on Wednesday not to take any military action against Iran without getting congressional approval first. "If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority," Clinton said in a Senate speech. Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee, voted in 2002 to give Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq - a vote that has prompted some Democrats to demand that she repudiate. "It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization," Clinton said. She also insisted the resolution authorizing force against those responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks did not allow for US action now against Iran. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #14 They can also rescind the Authorization of Use of Military Force. That is how we ended WWI. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-02-15 18:54 |
| #13 Clinton's pledge to Iran, a nuke in every pot. |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2007-02-15 18:47 |
| #12 We need to circulate a petition to demand that Congress immediately investigate whether Iran has been responsible for the manufacture and transport into Iraq of devices designed to kill American servicemen and -women. Irrefutable proof of this is a casus belli for far stronger actions against Iran than mere sanctions, and this cannot simply be "swept under the rug." |
| Posted by: Sic_Semper_Tyrannus 2007-02-15 18:25 |
| #11 This from Andy McCarthy, from The Corner at 10:16 today, who was on the prosecution team against the WTC 1993 terrorists: Re: The Home Front [Andy McCarthy] Let's hope if any effort to prescribe conditions for troop deployment ever reaches a president's desk, that president — whether it is President Bush or any future president, Republican or Democrat — has the good sense to veto it. It would be unconstitutional. The president is commander-in-chief. That is not just a title; it is an assignment of constitutional duties that may not be performed by any other branch. Congress can deny him funding; it cannot exercise commander-in-chief functions. Rotating troops and assigning materiel for military engagements is an executive function — just like deciding which target to hit, which hill to take, and which captives to detain. If Congress wants to end the war, Congress can end it by de-funding it. Then the president has to bring everyone and everything home — and members of Congress can then be politically accountable to the voters for the decision to abandon the battlefield before the President believed the mission was completed. Congress, however, cannot manage, much less micro-manage, the exercise of commander-in-chief authority in connection with military engagements that are authorized either by Congress or under the President's inherent Article II authority. It is for the president alone to exercise that power. And what if the United States is invaded, or if our forces and interests are attacked overseas (as, for example, they have been repeatedly since 1996, and as they are currently being attacked from Iran and Pakistan, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan)? The Supreme Court has held since the Civil War era Prize Cases that the president has not only the authority but the duty to respond to provocations against the United States, regardless of whether Congress has acted. But would a president be expected to wait to dispatch forces until the Murtha two-year lay-off has run its course? In The Federalist No. 73, Hamilton explained that the Constitution armed the executive with vigor and irreducible powers in order to defend against “the propensity of the legislative department to intrude upon the rights, and to absorb the powers, of the other departments.” Smart guys, the Framers. |
| Posted by: Sherry 2007-02-15 17:13 |
| #10 I think the entire US Congress needs a good lesson on the Constitution, and whose role is what. Hillary personally needs to be told to put a sock in that gaping piehole of hers, and tie it shut. John Murtha needs to be tied to a short, well-anchored rope and pushed off the Beltway bridge. A few others need to be horsewhipped, using a real horse. These people are going to get a lot of American civilians killed, and then whine it's all Bush's fault. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-02-15 15:55 |
| #9 Do not strike, shoot. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-02-15 13:02 |
| #8 |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-02-15 11:10 |
| #7 Bullshit, Hilly. Dubya can, even by obeying the post-nixon "War Powers Act" law, raise holy hell in Iran for 90 days, and congress has ZERO to say about it. |
| Posted by: mojo 2007-02-15 10:37 |
| #6 The most effective military action would be a surprise attack. Hillary is effectively demanding that we warn the mullahs that we are going to attack. This would give them time to prepare, to hide their valuable asse(t)s, and in general result in the unnecessary deaths of American troops. Not that she cares. |
| Posted by: Rambler 2007-02-15 09:22 |
| #5 Actually, I agree. I want Congress on record. No non-binding crap. A formal DoW or AUMF or vote it down. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2007-02-15 08:43 |
| #4 Or else what? |
| Posted by: SR-71 2007-02-15 08:43 |
| #3 Ah yes, the good 'ol Clintiondemocrat "Do as I say, not as I do." |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-02-15 08:18 |
| #2 You mean like the authorization Clinton had for Operation Desert Fox? Or for Bosnia? Or Haiti? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2007-02-15 05:31 |
| #1 And what does Hillary think about Iran's nuclear ambitions and previous acts of war against the USA? |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-02-15 00:39 |