Can Bush use military force without Congressional approval?

[Norquist Nemesis]

With the reports of the naval build-up in the Persian Gulf, and the media sourcing Pentagon officials that this is a response to Iran's rhetoric...What if Bush orders strikes? Has Congress given him carte blanche? Or, will he need to do something before January 3rd?

:scared:

[Kagemusha]

1. It uh, depends on what Bush deems necessary for national "defense"

Bush can order forces into action but would have to report to Congress within 3 months about it, I think? Bottom line is, Congress hasn't cracked the whip in a long time and its ability to object has been greatly eroded.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

2. The War Powers Act gives the executive branch

90 days before they even have to consult congress.

[bluerum]

5. He could go nukeelar on the whole world in 90 days. Damn him. nt

[neoblues]

3. I believe it is within the power of the President...

but if he doesn't have a carefully laid out argument--or objective proof, it is imagined that he'd be destroyed politically for misusing such powers. Congress has to vote to pay for it all; but if troops are entangled, they can't very well not fund them... It's also up to Congress to formalize a declaration of war--which gives the President vast powers to mobilize the nation.

I could be incompletely informed; corrections welcome.

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. Holy crap! Thanks everyone. ^^^ n/t

[bowens43]

6. Yes. Absolutely.

He doesn't need the approval of congress to attack Iran. He didn't need approval to attack Iraq either.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. He'll use IWR as his basis.

[originalpckelly]

8. Here is the article in Wikipedia about this:

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

[HuffleClaw]

9. i'd say its a grey area, one that he'd gleefully exploit.

they've been ITCHING to attack iran for the longest time and came thiiiiis close on a few occasions i think too. not sure what excuse they could come up with that would 'justify' such action but i'm sure they've done everything but dot the 'i's and cross the 't's. it would be interesting to know WHO was responsible for 'talking bush down off the ledge' on the previous occasions. papa? condi? laura? someone prevented it and deserves a pat on the back.

[Gregorian]

10. He cannot use a blank check to run around starting wars.

First, we are not at war.

From the text of the resolution- "In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible..."


The resolution was created under false assumptions and lies. And if I recall, Bush was supposed to check in periodically with status reports. He is on a leash.



But it is my limited understanding that the resolution was for Iraq and Iraq alone.


The bottom line is, there was and is no imminent threat. And preemptive war is illegal under any but imminent threats.

Here's the text of the resolution, for anyone interested.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

[Norquist Nemesis]

11. Thanks.

Still confused. But, I think the answer is "Bush will do whatever the hell he wants" and claim he's entitled.

[Gregorian]

12. I removed that part of my post, and added another.

The resolution is actually very short. Read it.

I think the part I quoted might be significant. It sure seems like it. I have a feeling if he wanted to start bombing, he's have to call an emergency session of Congress.

[Norquist Nemesis]

13. "or soon thereafter as feasible"

:banghead:

[butterfly77]

14. Today there are reports of more..

ships off the waters of Iran.

[treestar]

15. Could this be to get it going before the Democratic Congress takes office?

:tinfoilhat: not even required

[butterfly77]

16. Yes...

[roamer65]

17. He's ignored the ISG, the FISA court and even Congress.

If he wants war with Iran, he'll just start it.