Democrats Threaten Bush

May 8, 2008
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing to register our strong opposition to possible unilateral, preemptive military action against other nations by the Executive Branch without Congressional authorization. As you know, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power "to declare war," to lay and collect taxes to "provide for the common defense" and general welfare of the United States, to "raise and support armies," to "provide and maintain a navy," to "make rules for the regulation for the land and naval forces," to "provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions," to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia," and to "make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution ... all ... powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States." Congress is also given exclusive power over the purse. The Constitution says, "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law."

By contrast, the sole war powers granted to the Executive Branch through the President can be found in Article II, Section, which states, "The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States." Nothing in the history of the "Commander-in-Chief" clause suggests that the authors of the provision intended it to grant the Executive Branch the authority to engage U.S. forces in military action whenever and wherever it sees fit without any prior authorization from Congress.

In our view, the founders of our country intended this power to allow the President to repel sudden attacks and immediate threats, not to unilaterally launch, without congressional approval, preemptive military actions against foreign countries. As former Republican Representative Mickey Edwards recently wrote, "he decision to go to war ... is the single most difficult choice any public official can be called upon to make. That is precisely why the nation’s Founders, aware of the deadly wars of Europe, deliberately withheld from the executive branch the power to engage in war unless such action was expressly approved by the people themselves, through their representatives in Congress."

Members of Congress, including the signatories of this letter, have previously expressed concern about this issue. On April 25, 2006, sixty-two Members of Congress joined in a bipartisan letter that called on you to seek congressional approval before making any preemptive military strikes against Iran. Fifty-seven Members of Congress have co-sponsored H. Con. Res. 33, which expresses the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress.

Our concerns in this area have been heightened by more recent events. The resignation in mid-March of Admiral William J. "Fox" Fallon from the head of U.S. Central Command, which was reportedly linked to a magazine article that portrayed him as the only person who might stop your Administration from waging preemptive war against Iran, has renewed widespread concerns that your Administration is unilaterally planning for military action against that country. This is despite the fact that the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, a stark reversal of previous Administration assessments.

As we and others have continued to review troubling legal memoranda and other materials from your Administration asserting the power of the President to take unilateral action, moreover, our concerns have increased still further. For example, although federal law is clear that proceeding under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance" can be conducted within the U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f), the Justice Department has asserted that the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping in violation of FISA is "supported by the President’s well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs". As one legal expert has explained, your Administration’s "preventive paradigm" has asserted "unchecked unilateral power" by the Executive Branch and violated "universal prohibitions on torture, disappearance, and the like."

Late last year, Senator Joseph Biden stated unequivocally that "the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach" the president.

We agree with Senator Biden, and it is our view that if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued. Because of these concerns, we request the opportunity to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss these matters. As we have recently marked the fifth year since the invasion of Iraq, and the grim milestone of 4,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq, your Administration should not unilaterally involve this country in yet another military conflict that promises high costs to American blood and treasure.

Sincerely,
The Honorable John Conyers
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee

Alright so we are to take from this that the Democrats in Congress consider any action against Iran without their consent to be Impeachable. Never mind that Iran has shown no moves to go along to get along, and has continued to threaten our ally Israel. Their involvement in terrorism in the region not-withstanding.

This is what a President does when he doesn't lead by polls:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - President George W. Bush will tell Israel's parliament on Thursday that letting Iran acquire nuclear weapons would be an "unforgivable betrayal of future generations."

"America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions," Bush will tell Israeli legislators on the second day of his visit to the Jewish state, according to an advance copy of a speech he was due to deliver later in the day.

In his speech to the Knesset, he planned to hammer home his view that democracy could prevail against extremism in the Middle East, where he has struggled to push his "freedom agenda."

His strongest criticism will be aimed at Iran, Israel's main foe in the region.

"Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," Bush will say.

Bush has led an international campaign to isolate Tehran diplomatically over its nuclear ambitions. He says there is a danger that Iran will use nuclear technology to build a bomb. Tehran says its program is for peaceful civilian purposes.

Bush has accused Iran of fomenting violence against Israel by Palestinian militants, of using Hezbollah to try to destabilize Lebanon's elected government and of arming and training Shi'ite militias in Iraq.

Yes, a President that doesn't lead by polls isn't silenced by ridiculous "angry letters" or political partisanship. He sticks by what he believes in and has every intention of carrying out whatever is necessary, threats be damned.

Update!

President Bush just made some interesting remarks about terrorism, going so far as to describe negotiating with terrorist groups as a "foolish delusion" akin to the appeasement that failed to stop Nazi Germany from invading its European neighbors.

Bush didn't explicitly criticize Sen. Barack Obama, but CNN says anonymous White House aides "are acknowledging" that the president was referring to the Democratic presidential hopeful, who has said he would be willing to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Barack Obama is upset since the remarks are obviously in reference to him.

Interestingly, the Democrats haven't learned from our situation since 9/11. One wonders if they ever will.

PREPARED REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO MEMBERS OF THE KNESSET