I have a question re: Bush nuking Iran. Can someone please help

[onecent]

me with this?

My husband and I are having some disagreements regarding the article in Yahoo stating...

"The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran".

My husband says that ** can NOT do this without the approval of congress. I say he's wrong and that * can do anything he wants to. I hope he is right, but I thought someone could tell me what you might know about this.

Thanks in advance.

[cynatnite]

1. * has executive power to order the military to do whatever he wants...

scary, but true.

[hiley]

2. We do preemptive

strikes now.

[bananas]

3. answered over and over in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=881929&mesg_id=882039

[MasonJar]

4. The problem is that whether or not Bush can do something

legally, he does as he wants regardless. However, I also would love to know the answer to your question.

[panader0]

5. * said he had capital and that he intended to spend it.

I should think he has already.

[cali]

6. Alas, you're correct.

He can do it by asserting that Iran is a direct threat. He then has a certain period of time- I forget what it is exactly- within which to inform Congress of the actions he has taken. The other tact he could use is to claim that the IWR authorizes him to take such action.

[liberal N proud]

7. Remember this is a rubber stamp congress

or it has been in the past.
Additionally, I don't think it will matter to the bu$h regime this time around, they will just do as they please.
They have set up a pattern of putting themselves above the law and by that will justify an attack on Iran by executive order without congressional approval.
He could call for it while congress is in recess citing that it is too urgent to wait for congress to return.
Who knows with these criminals, anything is possible.

[hiley]

8. Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan

Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; A01

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.

At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would "respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said "all options" would be available to the president.

The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.
<clip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053_pf.html

Published on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 by the Washington Post
Going Backwards
Preemptive Strikes Part Of U.S. Strategic Doctrine
'All Options' Open for Countering Unconventional Arms
by Mike Allen and Barton Gellman


A Bush administration strategy announced yesterday calls for the preemptive use of military and covert force before an enemy unleashes weapons of mass destruction, and underscores the United States's willingness to retaliate with nuclear weapons for chemical or biological attacks on U.S. soil or against American troops overseas.

The strategy introduces a more aggressive approach to combating weapons of mass destruction, and it comes as the nation prepares for a possible war with Iraq.


Under Bush Pentagon officials appear to have taken a step closer to the possible, limited use of nuclear weapons by pursuing new and more usable ones.

A version of the strategy that was released by the White House said the United States will "respond with overwhelming force," including "all options," to the use of biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear weapons on the nation, its troops or its allies.

However, a classified version of the strategy goes even further: It breaks with 50 years of U.S. counterproliferation efforts by authorizing preemptive strikes on states and terrorist groups that are close to acquiring weapons of mass destruction or the long-range missiles capable of delivering them. The policy aims to prevent the transfer of weapons components or to destroy them before they can be assembled.
<clip>
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1211-02.htm

Bush reaffirms first-strike policy, calls Iran biggest possible threat

Thursday, March 16, 2006; Posted: 7:19 p.m. EST (00:19 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush reaffirmed his strike-first policy against terrorists and enemy nations on Thursday and said Iran may pose the biggest challenge for America.

In a 49-page national security report, the president said diplomacy is the U.S. preference in halting the spread of nuclear and other heinous weapons.

"The president believes that we must remember the clearest lesson of September 11 -- that the United States of America must confront threats before they fully materialize," national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

"The president's strategy affirms that the doctrine of pre-emption remains sound and must remain an integral part of our national security strategy," Hadley said. "If necessary, the strategy states, under longstanding principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."
<clip>

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/16/bush.security.ap/index.html

[ewagner]

9. This will be tricky

in terms of constitutionality.....

He has some precedent on his side but he has a burden to explain himself to Congress afterwards....

think in terms of Clinton bombing the pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan.

[pinto]

10. I think their "loophole" reasoning (from Hersch article) is here:

pretty convoluted, but these guys have made finding a loophole into a Cabinet level position...

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

[onecent]

11. Thanks for all the quick replies!

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Nuking? It's my understanding that...

any President can pretty much bomb or even have a limited invasion, anywhere he wants to-- as Carter, Reagan, and Clinton have all done.

But nukes? The US has never sworn off first use of nukes, as just about every other nuclear nation has, so whoever has the authority could probably nuke anyone they want.

But, what are the protocols and authority for that first use of nukes? Is it really possible for a President to just push the red button because he feels like it? No one has in the past because of the political fallout of being the first to drop a nuke since Truman, but is there anything else to prevent a President from just pushing the button? Would the military have a basis to refuse to carry out the order?

[Emit]

13. I recall watching her being drilled on this question

last fall. Here's a small excerpt that addresses part of that:

The Bush administration seems to believe that the President has the power to make war on anybody it chooses without even having to consult with Congress. Senator Chafee observed to Secretary Rice, “Under the Iraq war resolution, we restricted any military action to Iraq.” Then he asked, “So would you agree that if anything were to occur on Syrian or Iranian soil, you would have to return to Congress to get that authorization?” Rice’s reply? “Senator, I don’t want to try and circumscribe presidential war powers. And I think you’ll understand fully that the President retains those powers in the war on terrorism and in the war on Iraq.”

The provisions of the Constitution that limit the power of the President to make war are wisely designed to protect the people of our country from just the kind of dubious war that the Bush administration conducted against Iraq – and that the great majority of Americans now believe was a mistake. Similarly the restrictions on aggressive war in the UN Charter protect not only countries that might be attacked, but also the people of countries whose leaders may be tempted to conduct such attacks. Nothing could do more for American’s national security today than a reinvigoration of these constraints on military adventurism.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1020-26.htm

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. First, the neo-cons say the IWR IS a declaration of war, WHICH IT ISN'T!

and second....Little Hitler can do whatever he wants. He doesn't have to follow the laws. They mean nothing to him. He won't go to Congress for a Declaration of War because of those 2 reasons.

[spanone]

15. Bush* will do it with arrogance. He asks no one.

If it's legal or not won't matter. It will be too late. You can't undo bombings. Just like Iraq, you can't un-attack them.

[pitohui]

16. he doesn't need the approval of congress

presidents are commander of chief of the armed forces and have started many wars and campaigns w.out congressional approval, with perhaps vietnam war and the various bombings being the most notorious

what your husband suggests seems to be what the original usa constitution intended but as a practical matter no, the usa congress is quite neutered in its ability to stop a war or a bombing campaign