First there was Nancy Pelosi on Good Morning America, accusing President Bush of playing politics with the lives of our soldiers:The majority party in Congress seems poised to seize its identity as the Defeatocrats. I had hoped for better from the party that gave us Joe Lieberman.The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way, that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way.
Pelosi's charge was not only patently false, it bordered on incomprehensible. Is she really suggesting that any time the President intends to send troops anywhere, he should wait until the next Congressional budget cycle to find out whether funds have been appropriated for that particular mission? She can't possibly mean that, but I can't think of any other interpretation.
Next was Harry Reid, who offered this legal opinion in a speech to the National Press Club:The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization.
As a proposition of Constitutional law, that is simply wrong. The President obviously does have such authority as commander in chief; the only sense that can be attached to Reid's comment is that he doesn't think the President should do it. At this point, we have no reason to think that President Bush disagrees. But why would Reid grandstand for headlines in this way, and at this time? He must know that the Iranians will read news stories about his speech and take it to mean that the President has no credible threat of military action. This is a perverse signal to send to an enemy while it is in the process of killing American soldiers in Iraq and while one of our aircraft carriers has been ordered to the Middle East.
What can Reid's motive possibly be, other than to aid our enemies and contribute to our problems in Iraq? I can't think of one. A credible threat of military action is obviously vital to our dealings with Iran.(John Hinderaker, Powerline)