How could Bush go to war against Iran without a Congressional Res?

[Jersey Devil]

You know he would not go to Congress for a resolution because he wouldn't get it. So my opinion is that he will stage an event similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident that he will use to say that a President does not need Congressional approval to use force at a time when the US is under attack and must immediately defend itself.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Cause he's the Chimperor, and he can do anything he damn pleases.

Ask A.G. Gonzales or the Supreme Court, or Congress.
:mad: :puke: :spank: :grr: :nuke: :scared: :rant:

[Rocknrule]

2. Are you kidding? He's higher than God, in his little mind

The King (and soon to be destroyer) of the World doesn't need anyone's permission, except Condi's for going to the bathroom

[Jersey Devil]

3. Unfortunately, I think you are right

We may very well be beyond him even trying to justify what he is doing and just saying that whatever he does is legal and "inherent" to Presidential power.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. They have been floating the argument that all they

need is the IWR, and once the shooting err bombing... starts it will be a moot point

[leftchick]

5. both he and condi have stated in the past year

that bush has the inherent authority to strike anywhere he sees a threat.

[Poiuyt]

6. Remember how Bush wanted to paint US spy planes in UN colors

in order to goad Iraq into shooting at them?

[charlyvi]

7. He would stretch the IWR to include Iran.

The war on terror ya know.

[karynnj]

22. No he couldn't as the Democrats succeeded in taking out

language that would have gone beyond Iraq. Incidently, they EXPLICITLY took out language that listed reasons such as regime change and because he was a negative influence in the region.

What he could do is use the terror resolution from (Sept/Oct 2001) - this was what he claimed he was going to use for Iraq, until people demanded he go to Congress and the UN. Oddly, the precedent of accepting that he needed a new authorization (the IWR)for Iran - skittles this argument.

I wonder if Congress should in advance pass a bill saying he needs approval.

[bananas]

8. No, as Commander In Chief he can give the orders on his own

Even the War Powers Act says he can do whatever he wants as long as he notifies Congress within a couple of months.
My guess is it will be a "surprise attack" - we won't know about until after it happens.

[bbinacan]

9. Unfortunately you're right

The War Powers Act of 1973 says the president has to get congressional approval 90 days AFTER hostilities begin.

[no_hypocrisy]

10. I believe the War Powers Act allows a Commander-in-Chief

to send troops in defense of this country but has to advise Congress within 90 days of sending the troops. The problem is that in this Alice In Wonderland White House, pre-emptive is another form of defense, and Congress will not likely demand that * withdraw the troops after the bombs have destroyed Iran Proper (they're there to prevent anarchy, you know).

[Jersey Devil]

12. yes, which is why I suggested the manufacture of an incident

Personally, I look for a ship to be sunk or a plane to be shot down and then the bombing starts.

[Yupster]

18. Didn't seem to stop Clinton

from bombing Serbia.

No, congress gave up its Constitutional right to declare war a long time ago. It's a shame.

[thefool_wa]

21. Dropping bombs/missiles is one thing

and sending in US troops are two different animals. We like to think they aren't, but I'm fairly certain that he can drop as many bombs as he wants in the region without any kind of authorization or even notification.

I don't like it at all, but this is probably just the way it is. The "art of war" has changed so much, and changes so rapidly, that I think our government needs to do some serious repealing of old laws regarding use of force and get us back to the point where congress decides when and where, the president decides how we go to war. There is no reason for the lives of our troops and the global reputation of our nation to be placed in the hands of one man. Retaliation is one thing, but the devastation and occupation of a soveriegn nation should not be left to one man's whim.

This is the way it was intended, we need to get back there.

[colbushwhacker_2000]

11. This asshole needs to be

stopped before he destroys this planet.....

The question is just how do stop him ?:mad: :mad: :mad:

[paul_fromatlanta]

13. He doesn't need approval for the first 90 days or for air strikes

[paul_fromatlanta]

14. Also ,all presidents, including Carter called War powers unconstitutional

[sable302]

15. Same way Nixon invaded Cambodia

Needed to stop the weapons and supplies from getting back into Vietnam, they said. Now it's the same thing, only Iran and Iraq.

My goodness....how things change.

[mdmc]

16. formalities!

The commander in chief can do whatever it takes to protect the USA

[radio4progressives]

17. Bush Claimed the 2001 Resolution is all the authority he needs

for everything.. endless war, torture (and illegal detention of innocents caught in "sweeps" and paid bounty hunters) domestic spying..

Don't you remember Iraq? No Resolution for Iraq..

Bush claims Congress gave him all the power he needs for everything he ever wants to do when congress approved the resoltution to go after al queada "after 9/11"...

[libnnc]

19. Congressional Resolution?

Commander Chuckle-nuts don't need no stinking congressional resolution!


...silly...:scared:

[Jack Rabbit]

20. If the President does it, then it isn't illegal

That's a fall back for anything any tyrant desires.

The law and the will of Der Fuhrer are one. -- Rudolf Hess.

[pinto]

23. "Loophole" logic:

Convoluted, but in the event this plan actually happens - which I don't think is a given - this may be their argument...these guys must have a whole crew looking for the loopholes in the legal constraints on their activities...

The new mission for the combat troops is a product of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s long-standing interest in expanding the role of the military in covert operations, which was made official policy in the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, published in February. Such activities, if conducted by C.I.A. operatives, would need a Presidential Finding and would have to be reported to key members of Congress.

“ ‘Force protection’ is the new buzzword,” the former senior intelligence official told me. He was referring to the Pentagon’s position that clandestine activities that can be broadly classified as preparing the battlefield or protecting troops are military, not intelligence, operations, and are therefore not subject to congressional oversight. “The guys in the Joint Chiefs of Staff say there are a lot of uncertainties in Iran,” he said. “We need to have more than what we had in Iraq. Now we have the green light to do everything we want.”

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact