Can Bush bomb Iran w/o approval of Congress

[MissWaverly]

There are rumors in the German press of the US seeking support for bombing Iran's military
targets, I saw an article today on Rawstory.com, can Bush do this without the approval
of Congress. Could the approval of the Iraq war be blank check to bomb other targets in
the Middle East?

Recent reports in the German media suggest that the United States may be preparing its allies for an imminent military strike against facilities that are part of Iran's suspected clandestine nuclear weapons program.
It's hardly news that US President George Bush refuses to rule out possible military action against Iran if Tehran continues to pursue its controversial nuclear ambitions. But in Germany, speculation is mounting that Washington is preparing to carry out air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear sites perhaps even as soon as early 2006.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392783,00.html

[meti57b]

1. Because bush administration policy is "just do it". I would say they can.

[MissWaverly]

3. do you think that the military will support him

do you think they realize that he has over reached his powers?

[wtmusic]

4. yes

for the military to disobey the CIC we would need a full-scale revolution to occur.

The military will support him, as will a sizeable portion of the American public.

[MissWaverly]

6. Is there anyway to prevent a confrontation on Iran

Quite frankly, I feel that Bush is on a continuous campaign, there is no such thing
as getting down to business of running the country, he wants to be top of the charts,
numero uno and he will do anything to achieve that.

[Dan]

66. Not true.

If the Military Chief of Staff determined that Bush is toast, his ass is toast : and the public be damned.

And, sadly, I suspect that more than 50% of the public won't care if that happens, the concern would be that it had to happen.

And before we are so ready to pull the trigger on Iran, we better damn well understand the treaties between Iran and China.

[MissWaverly]

68. Welcome to DU, Dan

so you are saying that the Military Chief of Staff would have to approve the action,
could he be overruled by dumbsfeld, our secretary of defense.

[Dan]

76. Coup, I hope not,...I just wish we had a Republic again...

...the military by now has already figured that Bush's actions have returned the military to where they were after Vietnam. The only difference is that the Public supports the individual soldiers.

I would hope that we would never have a Coup in this country, unfortunately, we have experience in that area. Our military / civilians (CIA) taught at the School of the Americas. The U.S. taught a lot of foreign soldiers how to support / promote democracy in their own countries, and none of them were too concerned with the best interest of the public. Remember the military training manual that was discovered and discussed in the media, during the Reagan administration - where the manual addressed the issue of how to promote understanding and support of the people by killing the Teachers, Church leaders, Civilian leaders, and all those that disagreed with 'acceptable policy' as defined by the military.

Our military leaders have to be asking some basic questions such as : How many tours of duty can you continue to send the combat soldiers? How many before their number comes up snake-eyes? And, the idea of putting ground troops into Iran would not be Bush's smartest move - if it happened, what would be the impact in the middle east? Much like Japan during WWII - how long could we fight if the Oil were cut off from SA? Unfortunately too many countries such as those in old Europe no longer see the U.S. (under Bush) as a force for good. Conflict with Iran is either an air-war or god forbid, nuclear, unless we have a few hundred thousand more combat troops hidden somewhere. (Oh, I forgot, we do, they are just in high school). Then, always the questions for those Bush supporters, are you willing to send your children to die for either Iraq freedom, or Bush's vision of a democratic middle east? Well, if we walk into Iran, that are a lot of questions that a lot of parents are going to have to consider.

Much like during the last months of the Nixon administration - the 'power' of the military was taken out of Nixon's hands. I suspect that if Bush pushes too far - given his lack of insight - someone in government is going to act in the best interest of the nation. What group, this unknown group of concerned citizens/representatives of our government might be, I have no idea. But, I would hope that it would be responsible members of both parties rather than a military type action. Maybe,these representatives of our government would take that walk to the white house and encourage him to resign or face impeachment. But, whether or not such an event were to occur, it would be better that it happen before we start engaging Iran on the battlefield. The China option is - China / Iran have an agreement (I remember reading about a year ago) where China would receive a significant portion of their oil from Iran. If memory serves me right, then it is in China's best interest to ensure that the U.S. does not control or prevent the flow of oil from Iran. And, sadly, China has another leverage over the U.S., they put cash on our national credit card.

Since the first day this idiot put troops into Iraq, I have always said that we could kill people but we could not win. Unless you define win as being in continuous warfare. I even now can't quite figure out, how in the hell we are going to get our Army out of Iraq before the Civil War.

Bush scares me but what scares me more, is a Congress that does not understand their responsibility to the nation.

But then, I'm just a dumb country boy..

;(

[MissWaverly]

79. Hey you sound smarter than 80% of congress

But I am not sure if that is a compliment or an insult. Interesting points, but another
thing that has not been brought up is that what will happen to all our soldiers while
the pretzel and dumbsfeld are playing with their nuke toys. It seems to me that there
will be many US losses in Iraq if this goes down. They will lose their Shia support which
is the majority of the Iraq population if their Shia brothers in Iran are attacked.

[wtmusic]

70. for Rumsfeld or anyone else to defy a direct order from the CIC

qualifies as a coup, a revolution, or whatever you want to call it.

[MissWaverly]

73. I don't believe that

I remember hearing that they took the "football" away from Nixon after he started talking
to the White House paintings

[wtmusic]

74. that's funny

he prolly had a fake one anyway: "Here Dick -- whatever you do, DON'T press this button!" *snicker*

[MissWaverly]

77. funny you should say that

I heard that Nixon commented that the only reason that he DID not nuke Vietnam was the
ANTIWAR movement in the US.

[man4allcats]

7. I regret to say I agree.

According to his own declaration he can do anything he wants. He's the president. It is a sad commentary on the current state of our nation that so far at least, he has gotten away with this approach. If there were any justice, he would already be doing prison time instead of sitting in the White House. Regrettably though, that is the power of dictatorship.

[MissWaverly]

9. I don't think that all is lost just yet

Why would he be putting out feelers to assure support if that were so, remember he raced
into Iraq w/o a real support base from the world community, the commitment from Britain
our biggest ally has been under 10,000 troops. I think he is trying to see how this floats,
what options do we have right now of getting brakes put on this.

[Lowell]

2. He could try to get permission

after the fact. Afterall, this administration only abides by those laws it wants to. It is time congress face its responsibilities. The constitution states clearly that only Congress has the ability to declare war. It is time they begin exercising this power and quit deferring everything to the dictator/chief of the moment.

[MissWaverly]

5. Quite frankly since the Supremes installed Bush

I have a feeling that following the Constitution has become a policy of convenience,
why do you think Wesley Clark appeared on Fox News to discuss this, is it to rally the
troops or to give a heads up to those who feel that war with Iran is not an option,
quite frankly we are losing a war on 2 fronts, starting another one when our army
has been stretched to the breaking point is outright stupidity.

[murray hill farm]

10. He will just order it...and it will be done.

Later...he can reiterate, that the danger was imminent, there was no time to get a long drawn out and debated permission from congress...and that it had to be kept secret until it was accomplished...and that it had to be done this way to protect the american people....since we are at war....and last, but not least...he is our president and it is his difficult position to make these hard decisions because it is his job to protect us.

[MissWaverly]

12. this is different, we are talking nuclear war here

the Russians have given nuclear arms to Iran, they will fight back.

[zanne]

35. Would Congress approve it?

I fear the Dems would go along with it after a media barrage and months of propaganda stunts. In my mind, that would be even worse than Bush invading without authority.

[ellenfl]

16. I'M TIRED OF HEARING THAT WE ARE AT WAR!

we are not at war. we are at imperialism and occupation. we have no concerted nationwide military operation in opposition. we have iraqis and some foreign opportunists trying to eject us from iraq . . . where we do not belong.

oh, and king george will do whatever HE thinks is right for his cronies and his children . . . er american citizens.

ellen fl

[guidod]

63. Very well said and

I agree with every word you said. We are NOT at war! There is no country, no army, no navy and no air force. There's only an ideology, a archaic way of thinking. Bush should NOT have the powers that a war time President has.

[radfringe]

58. he won't

The constitution states clearly that only Congress has the ability to declare war.

There was no OFFICIAL declaration of war with Korea or Viet Nam - they were considered police actions.

There is also no OFFICIAL declaration of war on Iraq. Congress gave bush* a blank check to do what he thought was needed to get Saddam to admit to having WMDs.

Meanwhile the legislation passed days after 9-11 regarding war on terror pretty much tells bush* he can bomb anyone he damn well pleases.

bush* will ignore, twist, manipulate and split hairs with the law and constitution to get what he wants - and if he wants to bomb Iran - he will and to hell with legalities

[mwb970]

8. He will do whatever he feels like, or is told to do.

I have concluded that the Bush regime operates entirely outside of the law. It is not so much a government as a criminal enterprise, with absolute power given to a man more than half the country believes to be a corrupt liar. And there's not a damn thing we can do about it.

[MissWaverly]

11. Let's tell him to stop

Here's the buzz at Daily KOS, write your congress reps and tell them that he's gone too
far.

The Oath of Office does not, in any way, stipulate that the laws of the land and the Constitution that defines the soul of the nation - our core values - may be arbitrarily suspended at the whim of the President. Nor does the War Powers authorization permit the Chief Executive to act unilaterally in all things, absent of oversight and of the capacity of the Congress to "advise and consent". The current occupants of the White House have stretched the veracity of the War Powers Authorization to preclude Constitutional tenets upon which our nation is founded. Likewise, the current occupants - as executors of the will of the people in accordance with, support of, and protection of the Constitution - have exceeded reasonable expectation of conditional and limited "unilateral capacity" of the Chief Executive when acting in the role of Commander in Chief.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/1/204347/8849

[Toots]

13. Read about PNAC and you will see everything is going according to plans

We will attack Iran and Syria as well. It will be done almost entirely by bombing and the use of tacticle nukes. They need the nukes so when we actually send in troops there will be no conclusive evidence that Iran had no Nukes. By using our own we will erase or obscure any trace of Iranian nuclear material. We once again will just have to take their word that there really was nukes there but in the meantime we will control most oil in the area and most water as well. Oil is important but in reality only a diversion. Water is the true goal. Whomever controls the water controls all life on earth...

[cosmicone]

14. I don't think so.

Even the chimp is not that stupid for the following reasons:

1) Contrary to Iraq, Iran is not defenseless and there is a high probability of casualties with US planes going down in large numbers.

2) His entire Iraq policy is held up by support from the shias there. He will lose that support instantly. If 20% of the population (sunnis) have brought the US military to its knees in Iraq, imagine what will happen if the shias join them.

3) Any money for an Iran operation will have to be diverted from the Iraq funds and the Iraq funds are running low as they are.

4) He risks confrontation with China, India and Russia, all of whom have mutual defense agreements with Iran.

5) The chimp's dream of taking anything to UNSC will be dead because Iran will be actually seen justified in possessing nukes and acting in self-defense.

6) He will lose any international support. Blair is already skating on thin ice and Bush's adventure into Iran will mean he will have to ditch Bush in order to save himself. France and Germany have been supportive vis à vis Iran and they will make an about face as well.

7) Such reckless misadventure has the possible danger of congressional democrats suddenly getting new, improved, stiffer spines and they may actually start doing their jobs!

[MissWaverly]

17. I think there is no such thing as that's too stupid

I think that with Bush anything is possible, but he is constantly scanning the
crowd to see how many have thumbs up or thumbs down. If it is clear, that he
will not or cannot get the approval of the masses then he will not do it.

I wrote to my Senator, Barbara Mikulski about this

I included the quote from Daily KOS but I prefaced it with this:

I borrowed this from Daily KOS, they summarize better than
I can the need for Congress to do it's Constitutional duty
by providing oversight to the Executive Branch. I have
read that Bush has been putting out feelers for an airstrike against Iran to take out military targets and nuclear plants. You must prevent WW III, you must prevent a nuclear war in which Iran will fight back with the nuclear arms supplied by its ally Russia. Quite frankly, we are losing two wars now, we have run out of troops, it is not time to romp to another war.

[OzarkDem]

30. Would he use a surrogate?

Perhaps he would use another nation as a front for the invasion?

[MissWaverly]

36. I think the plan was to use Israel

but that was before he botched Iraq by pulling people off the streets for torture, I heard
on This Week on Sunday that the insurgent attacks are up to 400-500 per week. I remember
before the Iraq War got started, we bombed the hell out of it, it has done nothing
to stop the growing insurgency there.

[cosmicone]

43. Unlikely

I believe the idea was to use Iraq as a surrogate but the shias there will never go for it and shias is all the chimp has.

Israel is in a state of flux right now and would probably not want to be Bush's front.

I don't see any other nation stepping forward credibly to take on Iran.

[Aimah]

75. That's all rational and common sense...but

You assume that Bushco has common sense. We can total all the reasons why going to war with Iraq made no sense. You would think that Bush has someone in his camp to tell him these things. He seems to have a habit of appointing idiots so I doubt that he keeps rational people close to him. Those who know these things don't have his ear.

[MissWaverly]

81. Agree but Cheney was dissed in Iraq

Cheney was not greeted with hugs and kisses when he was there, he said comething like
true colors don't run and only 1 soldier reacted with a wolf whistle, you could see the
fear on Mr. I got 5 deferments face. I think there is some awareness that everything
is not peachy keen.

[NativeTexan]

15. Heck, if they can.....

....wiretap American citizens by assuming that the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to THEM....then I would have to say YES...God Help Us...

[jody]

18. Yes. Bush has a veto proof congress. n/t

[jobycom]

19. Can he take office without winning an election? Can he wiretap without

a warrant? Can he betray our covert agents' identities for his own political purposes? Can he begin bombing raids on Iraq without approval? Can he desert the military in a time of war and not face the penalty?

Name something he's ever avoided doing, aside from thinking, telling the truth or making good decisions.

[MissWaverly]

20. Yes, He refused to come face to face with Cindy Sheehan

[jobycom]

21. Good point, I should have added

"showed compassion for others."

[MissWaverly]

23. I believe that Bush is a hard core campaigner

He's is like a hard nosed election manager, winning is everything, he is constantly tabulating approval percentages which is why he never met with Cindy Sheehan. Remember
how he avoided actually going into New Orleans and addressing the victims. When
he gave his big speech, there was no one around, it was actually eerie. He will not
confront when he sees it won't fly. He could care less about the constitution, congress,
the UNSC, what he cares about is the approval of the masses.

[TheFarseer]

22. I'm not sure, so many things to consider

First of all, Iran will retaliate and the American people will not like it. They can fire missiles at our ships and do alot of damage. They can shut off the oil, which will be very bad. They can turn up the heat in Iraq. I don't believe Arabs around the Mid East will like this. They might shut off the oil too or join the fight in Iraq. Not good election year politics IMO. This will kill the repukes in the elections UNLESS it is done very close to election time, then it might be just the gimmick they need to keep from losing seats in Congress. Another thing to consider is that oil/gas prices will go through the roof and that is good for bush's donors and repuke donors in general, and can be spun as democrats won't let us drill in ANWR. In conclusion, it will be disastrous for America but might help bush and his people in some key ways. If he does this it will be timed with great care, either right before the election or after the election.

[MissWaverly]

26. Remember they struck Iraq in March

so they could wave the flag and impact the elections, but I feel that there is one key
difference, 200 billions dollars have gone and we are at our debt limit as a nation.

[OzarkDem]

29. They would sacrifice GOP power

The chain reaction of economic meltdown and higher energy prices in the US would likely kill any chance of keeping a GOP majority in Congress or electing a GOP president in 2008.

OTOH, this has been the "smash and grab" presidency, so the GOP may feel they've stolen enough money and passed out enough tax subsidies to float themselves for a while. If so, its a price they're willing to pay and something that's already been decided. They'll still control the news media and will be able to regain control again when Dems have cleaned up their messes.

[MissWaverly]

37. I disagree

The Republicans cannot be feeling too comfortable right now, the Indian tribes will get
back their money that was squeezed out of them by Jack Abramoff. He has agreed to testify,
I have a feeling that there will be more money "returned" as the scandal grows.

[electron_blue]

24. of course

I can't believe this is a serious question.Perhaps you mean - can he do it w/o consequences?

[MissWaverly]

27. He does not have unlimited power to declare war

His powers are defined in the constitution and they are not unlimited, he may PRETEND that
they are, but they are not.

US CONSTITUTION

Article II

SECTION 1
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article I
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;

[bananas]

41. Even the War Powers Act of 1973 gives him 60 days of bombing

He can do pretty much anything he wants with the military.
If Congress hasn't authorized it after two months, he's supposed to stop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

History

The Senate and the House of Representatives achieved the 2/3 majority required to pass this joint resolution over President Nixon's veto on November 7, 1973.


Provisions

Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal).

[MissWaverly]

49. unavoidable military necessity

we are not under attack; how can this be justified, pre-emptive wars are bunk, total bunk,
this was proven in Iraq.

[Posteritatis]

42. If I remember correctly

the President has the legal right - in American law that is, not international - to unilaterally order limited military action. "Limited" is more in the realm of Clinton's missile attacks on Afghanistan after the Cole bombing, though; something like what's going on in Iraq now is entirely different. For anything extended (and, by implication, anything major like "let's go sack a country"), the President has to go back to Congress for approval to extend things.

That's the theory, anyway; in practice it's a loophole that can be used quite easily if you've got a Congress that's as rubberstampy as this one. The United States has gotten around a lot of that by simply not issuing a declaration of war since FDR requested one against Germany, which has the effect of sidelining Congress nicely there.

It might have some other legal/political impacts, but I don't know American law enough to say for sure. Can anyone else fill in the blanks here? Does an actual, explicit declaration of war carry certain conditions or obligations with it, compared to other forms of military action, under US law? I mean legally, chapter-and-verse citably, that is, not 'just' morally or ethically. Would a formal declaration of war on Iran (or Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter) make things run differently?

[MissWaverly]

47. the interesting point here is that there is no agressor

We have not been attacked by Iraq or Iran, Iran is not under sanctions by the UN, so in
both cases what is the case for war, Bush has admitted much of the intelligence for
Iraq was bad and he takes "responsiblity" and now he's saber rattling against Iran,
it doesn't make sense. Even if he has limited ability to use the army, congress
still controls the purse strings.

[electron_blue]

45. I agree - but Bush can (and does) do things w/o proper authority

[MissWaverly]

51. he's does not have authority to start a nuclear war over nothing

I admit that he has had a free ride (over the congress, the American people and the
Constitution since 9-11) but enough is enough.

[Popol Vuh]

25. What's the odds

on if Bush bombs Iran it could ignite a chain reaction leading to the whole middle east counter attacking all U.S. and allied forces there and perhaps Israel as well?

[MissWaverly]

28. Thanks for the post

Hear that Neocons, you will lose Israel, your jewel in the crown, if you attack Iran.

[Peace Patriot]

31. Where have YOU been? Bush's puppet-masters will do anything they want

to do, and justify it afterward, if they even deign to.

It makes no difference that Iran has done NOTHING to us (while we, on the other hand, have done great harm to Iran, going back to 1953 and the deliberate CIA destruction of Iran's postwar DEMOCRACY). It makes no difference that Iran, as a sovereign nation, has EVERY RIGHT--and considerable reason-- to defend itself, including developing a nuke weapons program. They signed a non-proliferation treaty, it's true, but, 1) Have WE respected OUR international treaties?, 2) Countries can break treaties, they have that SOVEREIGN right, that's what sovereignty MEANS, they get to do things in THEIR interest; and 3) Iran has threatened no one, has invaded no one, and is not under any sort of international sanctions--on what basis would we violently deprive them of their SOVEREIGN right to develop a weapons system?

But none of this matters. Because we have a king, not a president. An idiot king whose handlers clearly have imperial ambitions, which they have openly stated.

I don't think there's any question that they after Iran's oil. They want to control Iran's contract with China.

Nothing stands in their way. They DON'T CARE what WE think or what the world thinks. They have demonstrated that plainly with Iraq, and in many other ways, including, notably, the Katrina disaster. "Fuck you!" is their motto.

The reason for this is that they have guaranteed reelection, including guaranteed majorities in Congress.

Bushite corporations now OWN AND CONTROL this country's election system, with 'TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code in the new electronic voting systems, and virtually no audit/recount controls.

They don't need to care.

Whoever said, up-thread, that they're seeking support, and putting out feelers, and have got a finger to the wind, are mistaken. They did the exact same thing on Iraq. Same game plan. They are not seeking anyone's support. They will do whatever they damn please. And mark my words, China is not stupid. Whatever "defense" pact they have with Iran will quickly be forgotten as they negotiate the oil they need from the new owners of it--the US. China will NOT risk a nuke exchange with the US over Iran.

I despair that we left this humongous and extremely dangerous military-corporate war machine in place after the Vietnam War (upwards of TWO MILLION Southeast Asians slaughtered for NOTHING). We should have dismantled it then. It is my generation's failure that we did not.

What they are toying with, in the Middle East, right now, is the end of all life on earth. Read Carl Sagan's "The Cold and the Dark," about the impacts to our atmosphere of even a limited nuclear exchange. The dust cloud from even a limited nuke exchange will cover the earth and blot out the sun for long enough to kill all vegetation, after which all animal life, including us, will die, from starvation and cold.

To have stoked Iran's paranoia, in this circumstance, with the US crouched on its border ready to pounce, and to be driving a nuclear arms race in the Middle East--already a tinderbox--is not just irresponsible, it is not just a war crime, it is not just criminally insane, it is not just the crime of the Ages, it is the crime of the Universe, of all space-time, a crime of god-like dimensions. As far as we know, we are the only sentient beings in the entire Cosmos. We may find out that we are not alone. But we don't know that yet. What if our intelligence and our consciousness are unique? And we are risking extermination of the only known sentient beings in the Universe for....?

---------------------------

THROW DIEBOLD AND ES&S ELECTION THEFT MACHINES INTO 'BOSTON HARBOR' *NOW*!

[MissWaverly]

33. Please don't give up, that is what they want

this is what feeds their fuel, bullying and forcing their enemy to capitulate and every one
who does not march lock step with him is his enemy, he was beat back over Katrina, he was
beat back over Cindy Sheehan, he can be beat back over this. George Galloway said that the
reason the US is not in Tehran is the antiwar movement in the U.S.

[spanone]

32. Bush* is of the opinion he can do whatever the fuck he wants.

He is a dictator. He does not believe in the balance of powers whatsoever. A criminal dictator.

[MissWaverly]

34. let's reframe this

Okay, Team Bush is all out to bring back Nixon presidency with a vengeance. Let's start talking about what we as a people are going to do. I am tired of hearing he's unlimited, he
can do what he wants. He is supposed to do what we want. Let's start focusing on the power we have. Write your congress reps, call them, write your local papers, take your
power back.

[kynn]

38. Remember the Maine...

...or the Gulf of Tonkin. I expect that, for his next invasion, Bush will manufacture an incident in which the US is attacked, preferably within the US borders (as opposed to a US base in Iraq, for example), and pin the blame on Iran. Under such circumstances, the political momentum in favor of "responding" by invading, or at least bombing the daylights out of, Iran would be unstoppable.

[MissWaverly]

39. 4 years ago I would have agreed, not now

Even the most pork hungry congressman knows that the larder is empty, we are broke, we
have no troops and no money, remember Bush wanted 8 billion for the bird flu which
he did not get.

[kynn]

55. ...but Bush is desperate

He's looking down the barrel of an impeachment. Even if impeachment doesn't pass the House, the debate and the resulting scrutiny on WH actions will be devastating in 2006. The only thing that can save him is a hail-mary wag-the-dog tactic. I give it better than 50-50 chance that we will be at war with Iran or Syria before the midterm elections.

[MissWaverly]

65. Turkey is refusing to cooperate

Bush's bully act has driven away our allies, even the bullies from Uzbekistan gave us the
boot, if he keeps this up, he will drive more allies into Iran's camp, Russia and China
are already there. I agree that he's desperate for another 9-11 moment, but I don't feel
like being sacrificed for his photo op.

[newyawker99]

40. Hi kynn!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[kynn]

44. Thanks!

...still finding my way around the place...

kj

[doc03]

46. Why certainly it's all about the war on Terra you know.

They out Valarie Plame, they spy on Americans, they torcher POWs and they run gulags in Russia all under the war on Terra. Hey it's a never ending war on Terra this can go on for ever. I saw a poll on Faux News today that 95% of Americans support domestic spying.

[MissWaverly]

48. they support it as long as it terrorists

not their preacher or their mayor or their favorite singer

[Nimrod2005]

50. He probably tells you that he can!!! He just runs it by Gonzales...

Alberto Abu Ghraib Gonzales will say yes, then they will say it is part of the war on terra, then the sheep will follow...

[MissWaverly]

53. No, I don't think so, remember social security

He pounded us over the head with that one last year and it did not fly, no matter how
much he whined his way through America; no matter how many props he used, it did not
fly.

[Capn Sunshine]

52. Of course not

But lack of Congressional oversight and consent never stopped him before
:nuke:

[MissWaverly]

54. Maybe wiretapping scandal will give him another reality check

He's had 4 reality checks this year.

Terri Schiavo did not remain on life support, the American people did not rubber stamp this.
Social Security, the American people don't want their Social Security messed with.
Cindy Sheehan, Cindy wants to know why her son gave his life in Iraq, a fair question, no spin required.
Hurricane Katrina, the American people want to know why the American government has failed
in New Orleans, bodies remain unburied after 4 months. Oh, I forgot this is a local issue,
I suppose that the dead people could have buried themselves.

[MrSlayer]

56. Sure he can. He did it in Iraq.

We were full scale bombing there in August 2002, before the IWR vote even took place. There was never a chance we weren't going to attack there and the vote was just window dressing. He can pretty much do as he pleases unless someone calls him on it and no one will.

[rumpel]

57. I believe he can. Remember when Sen Byrd at length pleaded why

Congress should vote against the "Authorization To Use Millitary Force" back in 2002?

Here is the section I believe * will use to build his argument upon

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
--H.J.Res.114--

H.J.Res.114
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107QAdPvb::

Snip

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

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

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

snip
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(Public Law 107-40) = Authorization for Use of Military Force (originally intended for Afghanistan) (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
--S.J.Res.23-- Sept 14, 2001
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:2:./temp/~c107ecngb9::

snip

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- 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.

Within the authorization Iraq:

S.J.Res.23
(Public Law 93-148) = "War Powers Resolution" 1973
http://wiretap.area.com/Gopher/Gov/warpower.act

[tritsofme]

59. Clinton recieved no authorization from Congress in Kosovo

And IIRC Reagan bombing Libya.

Its legality might be in question, but he wouldn't be restrained by precedent.

[Silverhair]

60. Yes. Every administration has ordered some strike somewhere.

A POTUS has to have that kind of authority to be able to respond quickly in emergencies.

[MissWaverly]

61. there's a difference in responding to a threat as opposed to

going to war over nothing, the intelligence was faulty, whoops!

[Silverhair]

62. Agreed, but that is a different question.

The question was "can" not "should"

[MissWaverly]

64. Turkey is telling Putin they will not let US bomb Iran from there

apparently the US would need to launch the weapons from Turkey, they are not cooperating
with the Pretzel.

[Silverhair]

71. Different question. The OP was about the legal authority of a POTUS.

Operational considerations are a different topic.

[MissWaverly]

72. You're criticism is valid

[G Edward Cook]

67. WW III

All George wants is WW III. I've seen this story before in the 1930s.

[MissWaverly]

69. Welcome to DU

I honestly believe that at the very least he wants another 9-11 so he can have
another bullhorn moment and probably disband the existing government citing
emergency war time powers, the question is can he be stopped before it is too late.

[Emit]

78. Remember this from Sey Hersh?

From Democracy Now with Amy Goodman via Alternet:


Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported in The New Yorker magazine this week that the Pentagon has already secretly sent in forces to Iran to identify possible future military targets. In the article, titled “The Coming Wars: What the Pentagon Can Now Do in Secret,” Hersh wrote that he had been repeatedly told by intelligence and military officials, on condition of anonymity that "the next strategic target was Iran."

The covert reconnaissance missions have been underway since at least last summer, aided by Pakistan as well as Israel. According to Hersh's article, the president has authorized the Pentagon to send secret commando forces into as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia. These forces could potentially carry out combat operations or even terrorist acts. Bush reportedly used the Pentagon for the missions instead of the CIA to avoid having to report to Congress.

Cont'd here:
http://www.alternet.org/story/21021 /


From the Hersh article, "THE COMING WARS"

What the Pentagon can now do in secret.
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2005-01-24 and 31
Posted 2005-01-17


George W. Bush’s reëlection was not his only victory last fall. The President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities’ strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control—against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism—during his second term. The C.I.A. will continue to be downgraded, and the agency will increasingly serve, as one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon put it, as “facilitators” of policy emanating from President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. This process is well under way.

~snip~

“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”

~snip~

...In interviews with past and present intelligence and military officials, I was told that the agenda had been determined before the Presidential election, and much of it would be Rumsfeld’s responsibility. The war on terrorism would be expanded, and effectively placed under the Pentagon’s control. The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia.

The President’s decision enables Rumsfeld to run the operations off the books—free from legal restrictions imposed on the C.I.A. Under current law, all C.I.A. covert activities overseas must be authorized by a Presidential finding and reported to the Senate and House intelligence committees. (The laws were enacted after a series of scandals in the nineteen-seventies involving C.I.A. domestic spying and attempted assassinations of foreign leaders.) “The Pentagon doesn’t feel obligated to report any of this to Congress,” the former high-level intelligence official said. “They don’t even call it ‘covert ops’—it’s too close to the C.I.A. phrase. In their view, it’s ‘black reconnaissance.’ They’re not even going to tell the cincs”—the regional American military commanders-in-chief. (The Defense Department and the White House did not respond to requests for comment on this story.)

Cont'd here:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

[MissWaverly]

80. Yes, I am having deja vu of anxiety from last Spring

If ever there should be oversight of a president it should be this one. Why is there
not more oversight of the Pentagon. No wonder 25% of its budget can not be traced, and
what are the American people supposed to do, shovel more money into an unchecked war
machine? PS Where in the H*ll are the Democrats, yes some of that 51 mil comes from
my paltry contribution, but at least I give monthly, why don't they do something, 08 will
be too late the way this is going. I do not want a nuclear winter on the East Coast. George Bush would LOVE seeing the democratic Northeast turned into a twin of the Gulf Coast.
I can just imagine his pious tears from 1000 feet above as he does one of his fly overs.