Get this to Keith Olbermann, your favorite bloggers (and anyone who thinks Huckabee is an okay guy)

For some reason this has not been mentioned anywhere on TV that I've seen. The TV News is focusing on Romney's inelegant "attorneys" answer to the Iran question and Ron Paul's response, while overlooking the bigger news that followed that exchange.

Check out Huckabees's utter disregard of the concept of constitutional governance in answer to the same question, and bear in mind that this man is currently running third in Iowa.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/us/politics/09debate-transcript.html?pagewanted=13&_r=1

___________________
Dearborn, Michigan Republican debate. 10/9/07

MR. MATTHEWS: Governor Huckabee, same question. (...if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?) Do you need Congress to approve such an action?

MR. HUCKABEE: A president has to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people. If we think Iran is building nuclear capacity that could be used against us in any way, including selling some of the nuclear capacity to some other terrorist group, then yes, we have a right to do it. And I would do it in a heartbeat.

MR. MATTHEWS: Without going to Congress? Without going to Congress?

MR. HUCKABEE: Well, if it's necessary to get it done because it's actionable right now, yes. If you have the time and the luxury of going to Congress, that's always better. But Chris, the most important single thing is to make sure --

MR. MATTHEWS: And if Congress says no, what do you do? If Congress says no, what do you do, Governor?

MR. HUCKABEE: You do what's best for the American people, and you suffer the consequences. But what you don't do is -- what you never do is let the American people one day get hit with a nuclear device because you had politics going on in Washington instead of the protection of the American people first. (Applause.)

much about Huckabee. WTF about "politics going on in Washington"--does he have ANY idea what Congress is there to do? I found this appallingly stupid and frightening, and I don't know why it's not a bigger deal. Huckster did, however, make a gaffe-y, sick joke about suicide that got some headlines, which was good.

He can't raise money, but he's ahead of Guliani in Iowa, so he is worth watching.

is an anomaly--they like Bill Richardson and Joe Biden too, in some polls, but Huckster will never get beyond where Edwards is on the Dem side.

"what you never do is let the American people one day get hit with a nuclear device because you had politics going on in Washington..."

The condition he applies that to I cannot sympathize with at all:

If we think Iran is building nuclear capacity that could be used against us in any way...

for war--you think he should ignore that? Then you must be a HUGE Bush fan!

the 535 men and women the self-same American people elected to represent them in congress have the same interest in the safety of their constituents as the president.

If those 535 people decide that bombing Iran would actually ENDANGER their constituents the constitution requires that their group judgment trumps what any one man thinks.

The Constitution is designed to keep people safe, no endanger them. As Mario Cuomo said recently, "the Constitution recognizes that the President might be stupid."

What Huckabee is doing is applying emergency conditions that all presidents would respond to and applying it to a long-term theoretical risk. That is why dictators like to declare a state of emergency.

In a real time of war, when the country's very existence is threatened, presidents have and should take extraordinary measures. It is completely illegitimate to apply that to an argument over whether Iran is developing nukes and whether they might conceivably be used against the US.

But the round of applause he got after making this statement, that really bothered me. Do people on the right have any idea of the aftermath of starting a war with Iran would be like?

Peace! Please!

the applauding of the basic disregard for Congress' powers. Huckster needs a 5th grade civics lesson--he is a goddamn dumbass.

But beyond that, EVERY President, no matter what party, has the obligation to protect the US from disaster! If that means the attack is imminent, it's the job of the CIC to do whatever is necessary to protect the Country and worry about any polotics later.

Obviously there is a big problem with "we think" and "we know"!

Huckabee is mentally defective, and it shows every time he opens his mouth.

edit to add--you're obviously missing the point of the question--Matthews asked him what he would do if Congress said "no", which means NOT imminent (of course, all Presidents are going to take action if a nuke is launched at us)--it just means the dumbass thinks he's smarter than the House and the Senate--mmmm, I don't think so.

people of his Country! IF there is no time to get congressional approval, it's HIS JOB to protect our people!

The war powers act exists because if Russia launched a wave of missiles at us there would be literally minutes to make decisions.

The war powers act most certainly does not apply to strategic action.

if we're under attack. What Tweety asked him was, what would he do AFTER he sought Congressional approval to attack Iran, and Congress said no? And Huckster said, I'd ignore them. Which is even worse than Chimpy, if you ask me--Chimpy DID get some sort of authorization to attack Iraq, at least. Edit to add: don't you find that fucking scary, a guy who blatantly says, I don't give a rat's ass what the rest of the government thinks, I'm gonna start WW3, because I KNOW BEST!!

beyond any question.

goddamn stupid about checking with lawyers about Congressional approval, but at least he'd check with somebody! Huckster is just nuts--God help us if the Baptist minister wants to "rapture" us by launching nukes!

The president has a host of lawyers whose job is to advise him on the constitutionality of things in light of history and precedent. He would seek a formal opinion on whether he needed to go to congress for a certain purpose.

(and if he didn't like the answer he would drive to a hospital to badger a semi-conscious man in hopes of getting a more favorable opinion.)

It's essentially a chain of command thing. Congress outranks the president on that question.

It is utterly irrelevant whether the president thinks some war is in the best interest of the people. He has no discretion in that area beyond what is provided in the War Powers Act, an act which cannot possibly be triggered by the Iran nuclear scenario.

If congress has rejected authorizing a military action that is the judgment of the people the Constitution puts in charge of the question, as surely as the Constitution makes the president commander in chief.

Huckabee's statement is little different from a lieutenant saying that if a general ordered him to not fire a missile at Iran, he would ignore the order and do whatever he thought was right.

He's the only one I worry about at all.

He's got that same "aw shucks" shtick that junior uses, he's funny, he's fundie, and he wants to control everything. I expect him to gain ground over time. Hope I'm wrong.

I was in grad school in Ark. when he was Gov...I lost track of just how many WTF moments I had with him in office.

great siggy btw!