Should President Bush Ignore Laws Passed by Congress on Fighting Terrorists?

By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)

April 4, 2007

The recent bill passed by Congress that Democrats do not want President Bush to Veto would require President Bush to ignore numerous laws now on the book that were passed by the very same people who now want him to ignore other laws they passed. They are demanding that the President ignore their past laws, because, they claim, "the people" have changed their minds.

To his credit, the President seems determined to fulfill his responsibility as president and commander in chief of the armed forces, in spite of an apparent determination on the part of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid who are demanding that the president step aside, ignore past laws they voted for, and jerk the troops out off of the front lines of a war that THEY in effect, have authorized repeatedly.

For example, on September 14, 2001, the House of Representatives voted 418 to 1 and the Senate voted 98-0 for resolutions authorizing the President of the United States "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Note that the resolution does not say that the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, or the voters are authorized to decide whether "nations, organizations or persons" have planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. That was to be decided by the PRESIDENT . That is the LAW, not just someone's opinion.

A year later, on October 10, 2002, in role call vote 455 The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed, 296 to 133, H.J. Res. 114 that authorized the president of the United States to "Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. " Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi, now speaker of the House, was one of the 133 who voted against that resolution. However, on the following day, October 11, 2002, the Senate also overwhelmingly passed H.J. Res 114, by a vote of 77 to 23. Democrat Harry Reid, now majority leader in the Senate voted for the bill. Now, however, he is trying to force President Bush to ignore the very law he helped pass, step aside and let HIM give the orders to the generals fighting the war in Iraq.

HR 1541, that both the House and Senate have passed and the president promises to veto, would require the President to ignore the laws that Congress passed. Only, it appears they don't want you to know that since they have not tried to REPEAL those laws.

H.J. Resolution 114, which became Public Law. 107-243 on Oct. 16, 2002 when President Bush signed it, authorize s and requires the President and Commander and Chief of the US Armed forces to "take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States as Congress recognized in the joint resolution in Public Law 107-40 " which was passed September 18, 2001, in response to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. "

Harry Reid needs to tell us exactly what part of that resolution he thinks he was wrong to support in 2002. After all, that is still the law of the land and if Harry Reid no longer supports the law he voted for, it is time for him to come out of the closet and SAY so. We already know that Nancy Pelosi did not agree with the resolution specifically states:

"Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

Are we to understand from Democrats' efforts to pull the troops THEY authorized to go into Iraq that they were wrong in believing that our country's national security interests were at stake? Do they think, as they demanded of the president, that international peace and security has been restored to the Persian Gulf region? After we stood by and watched from afar as millions died in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, do we actually think the terrorists will decide to go home and herd goats after our troops are precipitously pulled out? That's not what happened in Southeast Asia.

Even Nancy Pelosi voted for military action in September 2001. Why did she quickly change her mind about the threat of terrorism to our national security and why does Harry Reid want to abandon the battle against terrorism? What has occurred that indicates the terrorists have changed their minds and now no longer want to destroy us? If the existing laws that the Congress passed are no longer needed, then it is time for those who believe that to SAY so and stop trying to push the president into ignoring the laws they passed that actually REQUIRES him to "restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf Area.

Click here to read Public Law 107-243 - Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq