Does Bush need a cogressional vote to go into Iran?

[burythehatchet]

does anyone know?

Does bush care?

[Vickers]

1. Hahahahahaha! *wiping away tears*

Aw man, yer KILLING me!

*whew!*

:P

[Kikosexy2]

2. According to ...

New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh they're doing secret coverts.

[burythehatchet]

3. they can get legal cover for that but would they need a war resolution

to bomb targets?

[robbedvoter]

4. I know Syria is already approved. (Kerry co-sponsored it)

Dunno about Iran. I bet Dems will pick THAT fight and stand on principle...Nah....What was I thinking?

[althecat]

5. As I recall the original War resolution....

on Iraq contained verbiage that would have allowed Bush to invade anyone in the Middle East he wanted to. But that was too much even for Congress and the final resolution was narrower.

That said I could be mistaken.

al

[CatholicEdHead]

7. Here is the resolution

(I think), there is no mention of any clause outside of Iraq.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm

Unless they play the 9/11 card again (and you expect they would).

[hang a left]

13. I read it.

It seems to be exclusive of Iraq. However there is talk about other nations who harbor or support terror. I have asked this question to myself just recently and almost asked the question here myself.

I do not doubt for one minute that the congress would give ** the green light to continue his terra war.

[TwilightZone]

6. No. He didn't even need one to go into Iraq.

The "war" in Iraq isn't a declared war, so he didn't technically need Congressional approval. Same would go for Iran.

Edit: wording change

[tkmorris]

9. Isn't that hilarious?

We invade the country with 150,000+ troops, overthrow their government, kill over 100.000 of their citizens, lose 1360 something and counting of own own plus 10k more injured, and continue to occupy the country almost 2 years later all at a cost of some 200 BILLION and counting.

But it's not a "war" because we didn't say Simon Says? What a hoot.

[TwilightZone]

14. Vietnam wasn't a war, either.

It was a "police action". Same BS, different generation!

What I find interesting about Iraq is that the administration and the media constantly claim we're at war when, in technical terms, we aren't.

[pk_du]

8. Dontchaknow we're at war with "terra" man...and "terra" is

where ever the Hell I say it is!

[yinkaafrica]

10. I hope someone can actually answer this

[RafterMan]

18. There is no "actual answer"

Congress has the power to declare war, the President is CinC of the armed forces. Ever since the concept of the undeclared war came along there's been a tension between the two roles.

My own feeling is that even if the Congress were mildly Democratic, he would be able to invade without their approval, tack a figleaf on it and dodge a Constitutional crisis. Congress has slipped that far, in my opinion. If Norm Coleman wants to crusade against irrelevant debating societies, he should start with the Senate.

[blondeatlast]

11. 1. I believe so. 2. Don't know for certain myself. 3. ARE YOU KIDDING? nt

[GreenArrow]

12. all he has to do is make 9-11 connection

bogus or otherwise; that's all she wrote.

[Donna Zen]

15. If not they will make it look like it is.

Not meaning to sound confusing, but the IWR and original vote on Afghanistan are broad powers. Too broad. If bushCo needs to, they can manufacture a reason and have Rendon sell to America. Actually, I think they are doing just that at the current time.

Hersh really pulled the rug out from under them by going public, and it may be more difficult. He may have saved many lives although I suspect they will ruin him before it is over.

And while I'm not positive, I think the "war powers" act gives him 90 days.

[proudbluestater]

16. They explained this on Democracy Now!

The government is doing an end-around on Congress. The Pentagon apparently can send their troops wherever they feel like it, without anybody's say-so.

These are "special operations units." They may not even look like regular soldiers. They can travel in disguise and nobody is the wiser.

A similar situation happened in Vietnam. It began when the American public was told we were sending "advisors" to Vietnam. Next thing you know, full-fledged war.

[davepc]

17. well techinally yes....

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of 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 for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....


--

But thanks to LBJ and his little adventure in Vietnam we ignore that part of the Constitution now a days.

[radfringe]

19. they'll just spin the Iraq Invasion vote

to include Iran -- claim that the "missing" WMDS were sent to Iran and invading Iran is a continuation of the "mission" to "hunt 'em down" -- therefore no new resolution or approval will be needed

[davepc]

20. congress never declared war against Iraq. Or any other nation since WW2

but who wants some silly thing like the Constitution to get in the way of policy.

[RafterMan]

21. Certainly not Congress

nt