I'm not usually in the habit of throwing around Coulteresque allegations of pseudo-treason, but I don't know how else to respond to this:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic leaders in Congress lobbed a warning shot Friday at the White House not to launch an attack against Iran without first seeking approval from lawmakers.If we can't credibly threaten military action, then retarding the Iranians' nuclear progress through diplomacy, which is what the Democrats claim to want, becomes absolutely impossible. If they can't bring themselves to take the prudent course and give Bush an open-ended authorization for an attack on Iran (and no, I'm not saying that it would be a good idea to bomb Iran at this time, just that it would be helpful to advertise that it's a serious option), can Reid and his copartisans at least refrain from loudly proclaiming their intention to block such an attack?
"The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the National Press Club.
UPDATE: On further reflection, I suppose if you believe that the consequences of attacking Iran would be worse than the consequences of Iran going nuclear, it makes sense to block an attack however possible. (That position is misguided, but not unpatriotic.) But if that's the Democrats' position, they aren't really against a nuclear Iran in any real sense, and are being disingenuous when they suggest otherwise.
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article