WASHINGTON - 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.
"The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., told the National Press Club.
This week, the administration sent another aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf — the second to deploy in the region. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the buildup was intended to impress on Iran that the four-year war in Iraq has not made America vulnerable. The U.S. is also deploying anti-missile Patriot missiles in the region.
President Bush said last week the U.S. will "seek out and destroy" networks providing that support. While top administration officials have said they have no plans to attack Iran itself, they have declined to rule it out.
2007-01-19 04:59:52 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070119/ap_on_go_co/us_iran
2007-01-19 06:17:11 · update #1
AWESOME! IT'S ABOUT TIME TO MOVE OUT OF IRAQ AND INTO IRAN.
IT'S WILL BE A FRESH CHANGE FOR THE TROOPS.
2007-01-19 05:04:06 · answer #1 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
"The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization" REREAD the Constitution Senator Reid !!
The 2nd Carrier is part of a normal deployment, just moved to the gulf to remind Iran that we have the right to transit the Straits of Hormuz under International Law... we have had a carrier inside the Gulf since 1991.
IRAN's government supports terrorists around the world... their people aren't too happy with their current President either.
2007-01-19 13:36:05 · answer #2 · answered by mariner31 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no time in the next 8 months. In this situation it is on the Iranian leadership. The statements made by Iranian president regarding wiping Israel off of the map have not helped.
2007-01-19 05:07:05 · answer #3 · answered by ALEIII 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's what USA do... having had plenty of practise unfortunately !!
They want to rule the world, and believe they have the right to invade any country they want - particularly if it has oil !!
They should have returned the majority of troops to AFGHANISTAN after they withdrew the majority of US troops from the REAL SOURCE of this latest "war on terror" in AFGHANISTAN in 2003, when George W Bush secured the help of UK/NATO troops in AFGHANISTAN... irrespective that it has left UK/NATO troops GROSSLY UNDER-MANNED AND UNDER-RESOURCED to try and contain the damage left in thier wake having redeployed those troops in 2003 to Iraq in order to secure the oil there as well as the regeneration and redevelopment that always comes after any war !!!!!!
Shameful action !!
Why can't USA complete any Military mission before deciding to invade into another country leaving others to clear up thier mess?
USA have done this time after time.. even as recent as Iraq in 1991... and you've still not learnt that lesson !!! Or... maybe you HAVE... and it is UK/NATO that hasn't because once again, we have had to come in to help USA out !!!!
Hmmmm
2007-01-19 05:12:35 · answer #4 · answered by Hello 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
get your info straight. that carrier was due to deploy anyway. they were to relieve the other carrier they were sent early to help in the war efforts
2007-01-19 06:05:36 · answer #5 · answered by kleighs mommy 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋