Does Bush need congressional approval to invade Iran?

[immoderate]

What I'm asking is, can he use the approval for the Iraq fiasco to cover his proposed invasion of Iran. Is the previous approbation worded loosely enough to cover him politically?

I know that a lack of declaration would not necessarily stop him because he is a wild and crazy guy. But it is possible for congress to go against him with a coalition of Democrats and sane Republicans (especially if their constituents wake up.)

Can he claim there is no need to return to Congress for more approval because they've already granted it?

--IMM

[Chimpanzee]

1. Sadly, he can do whatever he wants as long as he

notifies congress at his 'earliest convenience'.

[Claire Beth]

3. yeah...which is very very scary! n/t

[ElectroPrincess]

8. One minor complication ...

* don't have the troop strength to INVADE Iran and Iran knows it. Why do you think all the world's powers are politely sitting on their hand and holding their tongues as * rants about the last two EVILS = Iran and North Korea?

Because all he can do is whine and blow smoke. Ole' Rummy and what's left of the spring butt "yes sir" Generals at the Pentagon would be hard pressed to build up enough ... or shuffle the numbers for a successful invasion of Iran by 2006 election ... but MAYBE ... if they work real hard - perhaps by 2008?

Wave the two term yer out Presidential Service statue and start a war with Iran? Yikes! <throwing tin foil hat to the ground and stomping' on it>

[Indiana_Dem]

2. If I'm not mistaken,

there has already been a bill passed through authorizing force on Iran if necessary within the next year. I may be dreaming but I thought I saw that somewhere before the elections. It wasn't publicized very much.

[Triana]

4. Nope. He can invade anyplace he damn well pleases

...that's the power Dems and Pukes alike voted to give him. So there we go...

[whosinpower]

5. If my memory serves

Congress gave him a blanket approval for the war on terror....he can do whatever he wants.

[K-W]

9. Really? Can you prove it?

The act that would authorize the president to go into Iran without congress would have to be the war powers act, which had nothing to do with terrorism.

The Iraq war resolution didnt authorize the Iraq war, it certainly wouldnt authorize an Iran war, and unless I missed something big, there has been no such bill providing blanket approval.

[K-W]

6. Yes and No.

The Iraq resolution certainly doesnt authorize it. Nor do I think even they could convinced anyone that it did.

No the president can't constitutionally do it.

But, since the president is the commander in chief, he can do whatever the heck he wants and it would be up to congress to stop him.

There's the rub. As long as congress is a rubber stamp for Bush, he is invincible.

[K-W]

10. Its important to remember that the president commands the military

He doesnt have to get anyone's ok before he can launch an attack.

[immoderate]

13. I know he can command an invasion...

...but I'm curious about political cover, and what might happen if Congress comes out if its coma.

Thanks for all your input.

--IMM

[K-W]

15. It would depend entirely on public and institutional reactions.

It would depend on popular opinion, especially amongst the corporate elite.

If the Bush administration can railroad the country into supporting the war through theatrics, i imagine congressional republicans will at the very least just let it go without action, most likely, though they would then approve of the war officially. They couldnt afford to just not be involved.

But, if there is outcry, if the corporate world gets spooked, if the congressional republicans feel thier seats on the line over it, they would turn on Bush, but it would take that, thier seats being on the line.

Edit: This is all based on the hypothetical that congress refuses to do it and Bush pushes forward anyway.

[immoderate]

27. Hypothetical but not a very long shot.

It depends on who is making the decisions for Bush. I fear those people are crazy. They are not accountable. Georgie is left holding the bag.

--IMM

[K-W]

33. I think it is a long shot that congress would say no.

If they dont say yes, they will just not do anything.

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. What political cover?

Who needs political cover when you got Jaysus watching your back?

[immoderate]

41. The "mandate of heaven"

It can be withdrawn at any time in a chaotic system. Many "strange attractors" here.

--IMM

[RivetJoint]

17. All Congress has to do is stop funding it.

Power of the Purse.

[K-W]

19. Congress will never vote against supplying our troops.

Do you honestly see congress refusing to fund troops under fire?

Bush can invade first and ask for money later. Bush could invade oklahoma and congress would foot the bill for fear of appearing anti-soldier.

[RivetJoint]

22. They can refuse to fund

and force the president to bring them home.

[sangh0]

24. Doesn't matter

WE have a standing army. They don't necesarily need additional funds to invade another nation.

And Congess can't "order" POTUS and stop him from doing something the Constitution gives POTUS the power to do. It's called "The Seperation of Powers"

[RivetJoint]

45. It DOES matter

They DO need additional funds that's why we have had all these supplemental funding bills.

[K-W]

47. they dont need more funds to invade, that is the point.

Bush wouldnt have to ask for money to invade Iran, he could find the money to start the fight, it wouldnt come before congress until it had already started, at which time congress would be forced to supply the troops or face certain ousting in the next election.

[K-W]

28. No, the troops go in first, the bill comes later.

There would be troops under fire while congress was making this decision. If they voted against it, they would be voting against supplying troops that are already in harms way, and that is exactly how it would be spun.

[jayfish]

12. I Believe That His Blanket Authorization Comes From...

the Patriot Act. I think it authorizes him to use any and all means at his disposal to fight terra. That's why the Pugs were in such a tizzy about having to go through Congress on the IWR. The argument was that the Pres. already had the power.

Jay

[K-W]

14. Well, some people think he can do it without any act.

For many neocons it doesnt matter what the law says, the President must be able to weild the military as he sees fit.

The fact of the matter is that the patriot act does not authorize any wars. But, like always, it doesnt much matter what the act actually says if the republicans decide they want it to mean something else.

This is what I mean. Bush has the keys to the military already, he can go in whenever he gives the order, the generals dont check with congress first.

So the issue would be, if Bush goes in without congress, will congress impeach him . The argument about the patriot act would be spin the republicans would probably use to avoid doing so in that eventuality.

[immoderate]

20. Best case scenario here is that Congress turns against him.

Nixon quit because the Republicans no longer supported him. IIRC, only a majority of the house is necessary for impeachment(?).

--IMM

[K-W]

21. Yep, and it would take public outcry to make that happen.

Impeachment is the only recourse we have against a president. Impeachment would only happen if people made republicans choose between Bush and staying in power.

[sangh0]

25. KW is on to something very important

It always comes down to POLITICAL power. The Constitution, without the political support of We, The People, isn't even worth the paper it's written on

[jayfish]

26. Used To Be That He Could Do Some Things,...

but an Invasion on the scale of Iraq would be a no-no. Well, at least for a Democratic Admin. No the act doesn't authorize wars. What it does is reduce the military to the level of tool that can be wielded as the admin. sees fit rather than a defensive institution. No they wouldn't impeach him. They would probably give up more over-site but it wouldn't be spin. It is the law.

Jay

[K-W]

29. No that isnt the law.

That would be a distortion of the law.

[jayfish]

31. H.J.Res. 64

http://wwws.house.gov/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ehouse%2Egov%2Fryan%2Fpress%5Freleases%2F2001pressreleases%2Fuseofforce91401%2Ehtml&DocOffset=3&DocsFound=5&QueryZip=AUTHORIZATION+FOR+USE+OF+UNITED+STATES+ARMED+FORCES&SourceQueryZip=&Collection=comms&Collection=members&Collection=other&Collection=coxreport&ViewTemplate=memberview%2Ehts&

<SNIP>
Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization of Use of Military Force"

SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES

(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION - Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS - Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
</SNIP>



Jay

[K-W]

36. You miss my point.

There are several bills that could be used to justify an invasion assuming the administration lies.

None of these bills factually/legally authorize a war with Iran.

That doesnt mean they cant be used by a lying Bush to authorize a war with Iran.

[jayfish]

But He Will Not Have To Lie.

Exaggerate yes, but he won't have to lie. All he has to do (based on what I am going to post above) is show any link, no matter how infinitesimal, between Iran and 9/11. All he would need to show is that one of the 19 stayed in a hotel in Iran and he has his authorization. That's my take anyway. I think the difference between "war" and "military action" is moot. We have not declared war since 1941 and there are 63 years of precedent to back-up the practice.

Jay

[K-W]

46. An exageration IS a lie.

Yeesh.

And I consider this a decleration of war. Just because it doesnt use the same language as was traditionally used doesnt make it any less a decleration of war.

A war on a very vague set of people, but that is a different issue entirely.

[jayfish]

49. In The Strictest Sense, Yes,...

an exaggeration is a lie. But is it a lie if you don't know you're exaggerating? Take for example how a story will change as it is passed from person to person. If the story is wildly exaggerated when the last person tells it, is he/she lying? How will you prove that anyone lied in order to activate the language in S.J. H.R. 64? This nation can't even face-up to the fact that W* lied to get us into our current war. That is a very good take on that resolution. I just wonder who it's a declaration against. Vague is too specific a word for that language.

Jay

[K-W]

54. In any sense.

I dont know why you are trying to defend exageration as a method of lying.

Yes exageration is not always a lie. It is always not true, and like all untrue statements, when said to decieve, it is a lie.

Whether or not Bush lies and whether or not he faces consequences for those lies are two entirely seperate issues.

Bush would have to lie in order to use any of these bills or measures to wage war on Iran. That is just the truth.

[jayfish]

56. Yes...

that is the truth. I'm just trying to show you that you will have one hell of a time getting anyone to even listen to you let-alone prove it, that's all. In theory, I agree with you 100%. ...in practice? Thats a different story.

Jay

[Chimpanzee]

48. The fact of the matter is that the patriot act does not authorize any wars

Maybe not, but then it's only a 'war' if congress declares war. Otherwise it is a military action, or a conflict, or, etc...

[K-W]

51. well, yes, as long as they lie, reality isnt relevent.

Just because admnistrations lie about whether they are war or not doesnt change the fact that they are at war.

[Chimpanzee]

57. It's not a lie, it's just politico-speak

There is a difference when speaking of a 'war' vs. a 'military action'. To a soldier and his victims, it is the same, though.

[morgan2]

7. the president can use the miltary

for up to 60 days anywhere with no authorization...

Also there was some authorization passed as authorization for the invasion of Afghanistan that gave the President authority to use the military in any form needed to fight the war on terror. The right wing media was claiming there was no need for the Iraqi War Resolution anyway because the other one covered it.

[Hunter_1253]

11. Unfortunatly...

His Man-date will allow him to pass any whistle-ass doctrine he wants, be it invade Iran or rename all the states based on their geographic location as compared to Texas.

[Walt Starr]

16. Under Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed on September 14, 2001, NO

He already has it so long as he ties Iran to September 11.

All it would take is to announce "intelligence" shoing bin Laden has been in Iran and is being protected by the Iranian government.

[K-W]

18. There are several possible rationalizations, this being one of them.

That Bush can use if he decides to violate the constitution.

What a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid bill.

[sandnsea]

55. right, the Iraq resolution wouldn't do it n/t

[sangh0]

23. The real answer is "No one knows for sure"

The War Powers Act is supposed to limit POTUS' ability to initiate wars without Congressional approval, but it's constitutionality has never been tested in the courts.

[K-W]

30. Its probably academic.

I dont think they would have trouble getting congressional approval assuming they engineered things right.

[immoderate]

34. Interesting. Another wild card.

Courts are not totally immune to political pressure. But that is still unpredictable.

How the politics settles out, I think, will be crucial. And can the public be brought around as K-W suggests?

--IMM

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. He's just waiting for the next 9/11 to happen.

We'll find incontrovertable proof the Iranians were behind it, we'll be bombing them within a week, the draft will go into effect, and invade in 3 months.

Then he'll go to congress for approval...

[Chimpanzee]

50. That's what worries me about the Bush* admin's talk

regarding Iran and nukes. A small nuke goes off in the US and it was Iran!!

[Perky]

35. If he did not gain Congressional approval: Impeachment

Many Many GOP members of the Senate really feel they were hoodwinked by Cheney and others going into Iraq. Ame is true with the House.

If a major offensive was lainced without Congressional approval and funding. Bush would almost certainly be impeached....It simply would not be done.


If he bombed the Nuke Facilities without Leaderships tacit approval... It would aslo be a big issue. But he would be able to get it easy enough.

[K-W]

38. Not without a MAJOR shift in public opinion.

Without it impeachment is a pipe dream in pretty much any circumstance.

[immoderate]

39. He would be impeached only if Congress got scared...

...of losing their jobs. I have no faith that right and wrong concerns them now. (Except of course for the phony morality issues they now concoct.)

--IMM

[spanone]

40. It doesn't matter. Congress will rubber-stamp anything Chimpboy wants.

War, genocide, nuclear holocaust, rape, prison abuse etc. etc. After all, he's a christian.

[Chimpanzee]

52. 4 out of 5 ain't bad!

[knight_of_the_star]

42. What would stop him?

He's not up for re-election this time, so essentially he can do whatever the fuck he wants to. Do you think he would have gone to such great lengths proving false evidence if he wasn't going to run for re-selection? Granted, if he does that it WILL have massive fallout in the GOP in Congress, we might get a shot at taking Congress under our control, but as far as antyhing getting in the way of him, the only thing I could think of would be a mass mutiny on the part of the troops involved.

[immoderate]

44. He has a legacy...

Could he ruin it for any Bush to be taken seriously in the future?

--IMM

[radar]

43. In short...

...The preznut can jump into any country he wants - but Congress has to provide/approve the expenses for staying there.

The annual 400+ billion dollar defense budget can't be used to pay for care & feeding of a new invasion front. That's why money requests for Iraq & Afghanistan keep coming up...

[RBHam]

53. Ha Ha Ha Ha

Hee Hee Hee heeeee ooh weee

"Congressional approval"...

Stop it!

Har har .. awwww

damn

I peed myself..

[murray hill farm]

58. Guess he "has to" nuke them then!

Cost effecient, quick...and, get this...keeps thousands of our "boys" from having to go their and fight on the ground...why it is almost criminal not to nuke them..in the name of freedom and, ofcourse, god!!