If You Repeat a Lie Often Enough....

by Steve

In the ultimate act of using facts not in evidence to support your case, President Bush based his justification for invading Iraq upon the connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. He said that the US constitution authorized him to go after terrorists and those who supported them.

Funny, I didn’t know the Constitution spoke about Al Qaeda. For guys who claim to be strict constructionists when it comes to constitutional interpretation, BushCo sure can stretch not only the facts but also the document itself to suit their purposes, can’t they?

While we're at it, let's dust off the War Powers Act and other sections of the constitution that deal with Congressional oversight of the President's powers in this area. I'm sure that there is also a constitutional assumption somewhere that addresses our obligation to abide by treaties and charters ratified by the Congress, like the UN Charter. Oops!

Simple question: If and when it is confirmed that there was no connection between Saddam and September 11, does that make Bush’s act today illegal or outside constitutional authority?

Just asking.