NationStates Jolt Archive

my2cents: Bush would need to ask Congress permission.. to attack Iran.
makes sense to me.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256693,00.html
WASHINGTON -Monday, March 05, 2007— A Democratic senator on Monday introduced legislation that in some cases would deny funding for the Bush administration to take military action against Iran without first getting congressional approval.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., has long argued that Iran must be part of a regional solution to end the war in Iraq, and has repeatedly voiced concerns over the fact that the Bush administration deems the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing force in Iraq applicable to Iran.

"This presidency has shot from the hip too many times for us to be able to trust it to act on its own," Webb told reporters Monday. "It's not the way the Constitution was designed. We need Congress to be involved in any decision to commence military activities absent an attack from the other side or a direct threat."

"What I'm saying today is, clearly, that we should not give up any of our positions diplomatically, with respect to Iran, but I believe it is not in the power of the president himself to decide to take unilateral military action there," he added.

Webb's bill would ensure that "no funds ... may be obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or within the territorial waters of Iran, except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress."

my2cents: Bush would need to ask Congress permission.. to attack Iran.
makes sense to me.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256693,00.html
WASHINGTON -Monday, March 05, 2007— A Democratic senator on Monday introduced legislation that in some cases would deny funding for the Bush administration to take military action against Iran without first getting congressional approval.

HAHAHAHA!!! Seems like someone is trying to pass a style of the 1970s War Powers Act.

Really. This is not going to fly in the US Senate.

Oh noes, a resolution requiring the president to not violate the Constitution, call the whine police.

Yeah, the Constitution says that Congress must declare war first before the military can move. Vietnam and Iraq are the results of when this does not happen.

Note that the US action against Saddam in '91 followed a declaration of war, as did Korea.

Yeah, the Constitution says that Congress must declare war first before the military can move. Vietnam and Iraq are the results of when this does not happen.

Note that the US action against Saddam in '91 followed a declaration of war, as did Korea.

Absolutly incorrect. The last formal declaration of war was against Bulgaria, Hungry and Romania in 1942 (World War II).

Vietnam, Desert Storm, the war in Afghanistan and the current war in Iraq, as well as the invasion of Panama were all military engagements authorized by Congress, there was never any declaration of war.

Korea is an entirely seperate thing. That was a U.N. act, President Truman cited his authority under UN resolutions to commit US troops to service to the UN, which then went to Korea. So not only was there no declaration of war in Korea, there was no authorization by Congress. In that instance Truman, as commander in chief, donated the use of American soldiers to the UN, and the UN sent them to Korea.

Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Panama and Vietnam are all the same thing, military acts authorized by congress. Korea was a military act not authorized by congress. There hasn't been a formal declaration of war since world war 2.

I feel I must agree, an undeclared war is an illegal war, too long has the WH used 'peacekeeping', 'interventionism' and other phrases to disguise full scale military operations which Congressional approval is required for.

I feel I must agree, an undeclared war is an illegal war, too long has the WH used 'peacekeeping', 'interventionism' and other phrases to disguise full scale military operations which Congressional approval is required for.

The problem is in the wording of the Constitution. All it says is declare war. Now that can actually come in a couple of forms, informal and formal. Authorization by Congress to use force can be considered an informal declaration of war. If Congress gives its ok to use force, then what the president does with it, short of war crimes, is legal under US law.

Korea is an entirely seperate thing. That was a U.N. act, President Truman cited his authority under UN resolutions to commit US troops to service to the UN, which then went to Korea. So not only was there no declaration of war in Korea, there was no authorization by Congress. In that instance Truman, as commander in chief, donated the use of American soldiers to the UN, and the UN sent them to Korea.


I've always had trouble with that one. Where do you draw the line between treaties and the constitution.

Also you forgot the illegal - and unforgivable - bombing of Serbia.

Bush has already shown that he doesn't give two shits what Congress says or does if it limits his authority. First of all, he'd have the power to veto Webb's bill, assuming it got to his desk, but what's worse, he could sign it and negate any part of it he wishes with his bullshit signing statements. And I can guess what this one will say--the Executive interprets this section in accordance with its powers as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces during the War on Terror. In other words, fuck all y'all--you can't toss me out because you don't have the votes.

How could anyone even entertain the possibility of a war with Iran, for what purpose would it be for? It wouldn't be Iraq, this is a country of 70m with a active troops numbers well over a million if you count the military alliance with Syria, not to mention what other countries might get involved. This is a country with a modern Russian equipped military, with jets, tanks and missiles. A war would return the US to WWII like casualties, regardless of the result, are the US people willing to stomach that for your Presidents 'War on Terror'? The US would loose credibility in the world, it would finally become clea and evident that the only thing that holds up US hegemony is violence.

During the "cold war" congress passed the War Powers Act so that if there were a nuclear attack the president could go to war first and ask permission later. So the president can go to war for a few months (I don't remember the exact time) before going to Congress. So Bush can attack first. Get the war started. Then challenge congress to deny the permission of a war that is already going.

Bush has already shown that he doesn't give two shits what Congress says or does if it limits his authority. First of all, he'd have the power to veto Webb's bill, assuming it got to his desk, but what's worse, he could sign it and negate any part of it he wishes with his bullshit signing statements. And I can guess what this one will say--the Executive interprets this section in accordance with its powers as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces during the War on Terror. In other words, fuck all y'all--you can't toss me out because you don't have the votes.

Rage!

And sing O muses of the wrath of Achilles, the son of Peleus, that wrought ills countless upon the Greeks.

Rage!

And sing O muses of the wrath of Achilles, the son of Peleus, that wrought ills countless upon the Greeks.
Never had anyone compare me to Homer before. I kinda like it. :D

Rage!

And sing O muses of the wrath of Achilles, the son of Peleus, that wrought ills countless upon the Greeks.*bows*


Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.

Never had anyone compare me to Homer before. I kinda like it. :D

Yes, but now you have to finish the story!

How could anyone even entertain the possibility of a war with Iran, for what purpose would it be for? It wouldn't be Iraq, this is a country of 70m with a active troops numbers well over a million if you count the military alliance with Syria, not to mention what other countries might get involved. This is a country with a modern Russian equipped military, with jets, tanks and missiles. A war would return the US to WWII like casualties, regardless of the result, are the US people willing to stomach that for your Presidents 'War on Terror'? The US would loose credibility in the world, it would finally become clea and evident that the only thing that holds up US hegemony is violence.
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/172382
Russian died reporting on arms sales to Iran, Syria
the associated press
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 03.07.2007

MOSCOW — A journalist who plunged to his death from his apartment building window faced threats while reporting on a sensitive story that Russia planned to sell sophisticated missiles to Syria and Iran, his newspaper reported Tuesday.
Ivan Safronov, a military affairs writer for the daily Kommersant, died Friday after plunging from a stairwell window between the fourth and fifth stories.
Kommersant reported Tuesday that Safronov had told his editors he was working on a story about Russian plans to sell weapons to Iran and Syria via Belarus.
The deals, if concluded, could upset the balance of power in the Middle East and strain Russia's relations with Israel and the United States, which strongly objected to earlier Russian weapons sales to the two countries.
Kommersant reported that Safronov, 51, had recently told colleagues he was warned he would face a criminal investigation for possibly releasing state secrets if he reported allegations that Russia had struck a deal to supply Iskander missiles to Syria.
"Ivan Safronov said he was not going to write about it for a while because he was warned that it would create a huge international scandal and the FSB (Federal Security Service) would launch a criminal case on charges of breaching state secrets," the newspaper said.
Safronov did not say where the warning came from, according to Kommersant, but he had repeatedly been questioned by the FSB — the KGB's main successor agency.
Prosecutors have said nothing about Safronov's death, except that they are investigating it as a suicide.
The death comes amid a rash of attacks on journalists who write about official corruption, Chechnya and other abuses and amid fears that, under President Vladimir Putin, Russia is backsliding toward authoritarianism.
Investigative reporter Anna Politkovskaya, a Kremlin critic, was shot dead in Moscow in October. The U.S.-based Committee to Protect Journalists said that 13 journalists have been killed in contract-style murders since Putin took office in 2000.

Yes, but now you have to finish the story!

Can't help you. All my poetry these days seems to be about roads or trips to the dentist's office, and my hexameter is more than a little rusty. ;)

Can't help you. All my poetry these days seems to be about roads or trips to the dentist's office, and my hexameter is more than a little rusty. ;)

Well illiteracy, and being blind, it the key obviously.

Dentist office poems?

Well illiteracy, and being blind, it the key obviously.

Dentist office poems?

Yeah--odd choice of subject I know. Here's a taste:
Dental Hygiene in Middle Age

Left ankle soft as the wisdom teeth
I should have had out ten years earlier
rolls, betrays me outside the sliding door
of the dental school. Student doctor seats
me, sends her first year to oral surgery
for ice packs, jokes it’s good I’ll be reclined
for the next three hours. Lamp is blinding,
jaw is numb and fat, and I want to sleep
but the ankle keeps in time with the worm
in my ear, Please. Don’t stand so close to me
even with the hole in the line, the gasp
of breath. Taste of amalgam, smell of burnt
drill, tooth, sweat beads from the lamp-heat,
fingernails in armrest. I’m done. Unclasp.

Well illiteracy, and being blind, it the key obviously.

Dentist office poems?
When I was younger, just a bad little kid,
My mama noticed funny things I did,
Like shootin' puppies with a B B gun
I'd poison guppies, and when I was done
I'd find a pussycat and bash in its head
That's when my mama said
She said, "My boy, I think someday
You'll find a way
To make your natural tendencies pay
You'll be a dentist
You have a talent for causin' things pain
Son, be a dentist
People will pay you to be inhumane
Your temperament's wrong for the priesthood
And teaching would suit you still less
Son, be a dentist
You'll be a success
I am your dentist
And I enjoy the career that I picked
I am your dentist
And I get off on the pain I inflict
I thrill when I drill a bicuspid
It's swell though they tell me I'm maladjusted
And though it may cause my patients distress,
Somewhere, somewhere in heaven above me
I know, I know, that my mama's proud of me
Oh, mama
'Cause I'm a dentist and a success
Say ah!
""
""
Now SPIT!

The problem is in the wording of the Constitution. All it says is declare war. Now that can actually come in a couple of forms, informal and formal. Authorization by Congress to use force can be considered an informal declaration of war. If Congress gives its ok to use force, then what the president does with it, short of war crimes, is legal under US law.

I wish I could be dishonest with myself. No rational person could possibly deny the intent of that particular line.

Yeah--odd choice of subject I know. Here's a taste:

I like it. That's pretty fucking goddamn funny.

Edit: Probably 'cos I don't have any fillings or such.

my2cents: Bush would need to ask Congress permission.. to attack Iran.
makes sense to me.

What about Iran attacking US? Would Bush still need congress permission? Even if that be the case, would he have trouble in getting permission in such a scenario ?

The US would loose credibility in the world, it would finally become clea and evident that the only thing that holds up US hegemony is violence.

It already is clear and evident.

What about Iran attacking US? Would Bush still need congress permission? Even if that be the case, would he have trouble in getting permission in such a scenario ?

Any attack by an opposing force does not need any type of authorization before military units can act to defend themselves. Surely a ill conceived attack by Iran would have outrage in congress and the Senate. It would be a near slam dunk for war authorization.

I like it. That's pretty fucking goddamn funny.

Edit: Probably 'cos I don't have any fillings or such.

But to be clear, I like it because I think it is good.

You should post more of your poetry on NS.

Yes. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt needed a congressional declaration of war to go to war with Japan.
But that was before the War Powers Act, which Johnson and Nixon abused so mightily with Vietnam. Now there's some leeway for a President to act--think back to what Clinton did in the Balkans. When he started, I don't know if he had Congressional approval or not.

What about Iran attacking US? Would Bush still need congress permission? Even if that be the case, would he have trouble in getting permission in such a scenario ?

Yes. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt needed a congressional declaration of war to go to war with Japan.

But that was before the War Powers Act, which Johnson and Nixon abused so mightily with Vietnam. Now there's some leeway for a President to act--think back to what Clinton did in the Balkans. When he started, I don't know if he had Congressional approval or not.

Or Bush I.

I think, but I am not sure, that is was modified after Nixon - or maybe Reagan with the Grenada thing - to the extent that the president had 90 days of offensive operations overseas in respect of his commander in chief position.

Then, under Bush II, it was widened in scope to possibly give the CIC permission to strike wherever and whenever as long as possible.

I don't think that either of those positions are correct, but the history of moving away from a clear declaration of war has certainly weakened any chance of robust debate.

Any attack by an opposing force does not need any type of authorization before military units can act to defend themselves. Surely a ill conceived attack by Iran would have outrage in congress and the Senate. It would be a near slam dunk for war authorization.

Given the volatile nature in Iraq, would it be really hard to provoke/manufacture an attack by Iran?

This is a game of who blinks first and the classic Kissingerian theory(?) of car race comes to mind.

Given the volatile nature in Iraq, would it be really hard to provoke/manufacture an attack by Iran?

This is a game of who blinks first and the classic Kissingerian theory(?) of car race comes to mind.

Good point really. I think we could be at war with Iran at anytime. Hopefully cooler heads prevail and we won't have to go there.

Or Bush I.

I think, but I am not sure, that is was modified after Nixon - or maybe Reagan with the Grenada thing - to the extent that the president had 90 days of offensive operations overseas in respect of his commander in chief position.

Then, under Bush II, it was widened in scope to possibly give the CIC permission to strike wherever and whenever as long as possible.

I don't think that either of those positions are correct, but the history of moving away from a clear declaration of war has certainly weakened any chance of robust debate.
The first one is the one that seems more familiar to me. I think the second is what Bush would like it to be, and is how he's interpreting the now infamous post 9/11 AUMF. That's why there's an effort underway in the Senate to revoke that authority.

That's why there's an effort underway in the Senate to revoke that authority.
God-fucking-speed.

God-fucking-speed.Well, if you have one or more Republican Senators, start raising hell, because they're the ones who'll block it. As long as they have forty-one people willing to put party over country, Bush will have his (specious, in this case) authority.

Well, if you have one or more Republican Senators, start raising hell, because they're the ones who'll block it. As long as they have forty-one people willing to put party over country, Bush will have his (specious, in this case) authority.
Just about all of the evidence lends validity to your statement, lamentably enough.
:(

The first one is the one that seems more familiar to me. I think the second is what Bush would like it to be, and is how he's interpreting the now infamous post 9/11 AUMF. That's why there's an effort underway in the Senate to revoke that authority.

You are right about the second one, I think. No doubt what it means can be tossed about for either side. But given I don't like the first one it's a bit of a moot point for me.

I would like to think, that in an honest world, it would be limited to the extent that the CIC would act only to defend the nation then explain his actions later. In other words a very high bar before committing the armed forces.

Heh, I suppose in some respects all of us are strict constructionists at heart, eh? (Not that you are of course, it's just something that you could argue that way just because it matches common sense ;) )

You are right about the second one, I think. No doubt what it means can be tossed about for either side. But given I don't like the first one it's a bit of a moot point for me.

I would like to think, that in an honest world, it would be limited to the extent that the CIC would act only to defend the nation then explain his actions later. In other words a very high bar before committing the armed forces.

Heh, I suppose in some respects all of us are strict constructionists at heart, eh? (Not that you are of course, it's just something that you could argue that way just because it matches common sense ;) )

Well, I certainly believe Congress has been remiss in its duties as far as declaring war is concerned. They've ceded too much power to the executive, and I wouldn't mind if they snatched a little of it back--unlikely to happen, since power ceded is power lost, but I can dream, can't I?

Well, I certainly believe Congress has been remiss in its duties as far as declaring war is concerned. They've ceded too much power to the executive, and I wouldn't mind if they snatched a little of it back--unlikely to happen, since power ceded is power lost, but I can dream, can't I?

Well, I am an optimist about democracy, so no.

I disagree with you, I don't think a power ceded is a power lost. In fact I think it can be returned in a heartbeat if people choose to fight the right battles. The only problem is that most people are so tied up in partisan battles that they lose sight of end results.

(But if you are unsure here you go, for future reference if you will: I hate the republican party. They do not represent me, and I want no part of them. In fact, until they change their name I will never support them again.. but nor do the democrats either.)

if people choose to fight the right battles. The only problem is that most people are so tied up in partisan battles that they lose sight of end results.

Word.
*bows*

Well, I certainly believe Congress has been remiss in its duties as far as declaring war is concerned. They've ceded too much power to the executive, and I wouldn't mind if they snatched a little of it back--unlikely to happen, since power ceded is power lost, but I can dream, can't I?

I completely agree. I don't think Congress should ever have let the executive take over that, it's dangerous. At least in my opinion.

defacto feate accompi, he's BEEN "starting" one for the past year at least!

that sacking of an iranian embassy in iraq was none other, then is the attacking of any nation's embassy anywhere, a deliberate and calculated act of violent provication.

american 'insurgents' have been opperating almost completely openly in iran for much of a year. so when iran attempts to defend itself agains this sort of activity bush can go to congress and say "we've already got a war going on there, we're under attack, appropriate us money to fight it".

the age of presidents having to "DECALRE" wars is ancient history. this dodge has become and been standard practice for decades.

a more interesting question might be that of why does he, which is to say the forces which actualy do his "thinking", WANT war with iran.

i have a wild, off the wall sounding, but it does make sense in a kind of perverted way, guess. i belive the intent IS to wreck the u.s. economy, so that martial law can be imposed nationaly throughout the entire us, suspending the 2008 election and virtualy making bush a hitler like u.s. dictator.

there are many many indications of this, that is, in addition to the bid of conscousless economic interests, represented in a sense by the bulk of the american republican party, to defacto if not dejure, become a planet wide dictatorship. (which is what persuit of stratigic control of the entire planet's
known, existing oil reserves is as much about, as lining chaney's pockets every time another retard who'se never had it off the pavement, fills the fuel tank on their suv)

=^^=
.../\..

So Bush can attack first. Get the war started. Then challenge congress to deny the permission of a war that is already going.No. Starting the War with Iran would be illegal..

the president could go to war first and ask permission later. he could.. but it would be illegal.

During the "cold war" congress passed the War Powers Act so that if there were a nuclear attack the president could go to war..of Course..:rolleyes: if Russia or China attack US with nukes.. the President can go to War on the spot.

So the president can go to war for a few months (I don't remember the exact time) before going to Congress. ..if they nuke our homeland .. the Pres can go to War with Iran for years, decades, centuries..

But Iran is never going to strike first.

one never knows I suppose. Yeah the US is the powerhouse of the globe for the moment in time but honestly if someone hates a country so much, in my opinion, I think that they would strike first if the oppritune moment presented itself at the right moment.

one never knows I suppose. Yeah the US is the powerhouse of the globe for the moment in time but honestly if someone hates a country so much, in my opinion, I think that they would strike first if the oppritune moment presented itself at the right moment.

You should familiarize yourself with the effects nuclear weapons have on international relations. Read the realist Waltz for example on the spread of Nuclear Weapons to find a more balanced approach to nuclear proliferation.

Kenneth Waltz (1981) “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better,” (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm)

Fortunately, attacking Iran is not in the front of anyone's playbook.

my2cents: Bush would need to ask Congress permission.. to attack Iran.
makes sense to me.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256693,00.html
WASHINGTON -Monday, March 05, 2007— A Democratic senator on Monday introduced legislation that in some cases would deny funding for the Bush administration to take military action against Iran without first getting congressional approval.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., has long argued that Iran must be part of a regional solution to end the war in Iraq, and has repeatedly voiced concerns over the fact that the Bush administration deems the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing force in Iraq applicable to Iran.

"This presidency has shot from the hip too many times for us to be able to trust it to act on its own," Webb told reporters Monday. "It's not the way the Constitution was designed. We need Congress to be involved in any decision to commence military activities absent an attack from the other side or a direct threat."

"What I'm saying today is, clearly, that we should not give up any of our positions diplomatically, with respect to Iran, but I believe it is not in the power of the president himself to decide to take unilateral military action there," he added.

Webb's bill would ensure that "no funds ... may be obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or within the territorial waters of Iran, except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress."

All he has to do is call the SecDef into the room with him, take the case from the Secret Service agent next to him, open it, and give a few orders.

All without EVER consulting Congress - an organization that is not in the National Command Authority chain for the use of nuclear weapons.

Tell me, is that starting a war, or what?

my2cents: Bush would need to ask Congress permission.. to attack Iran.
makes sense to me.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256693,00.html
WASHINGTON -Monday, March 05, 2007— A Democratic senator on Monday introduced legislation that in some cases would deny funding for the Bush administration to take military action against Iran without first getting congressional approval.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., has long argued that Iran must be part of a regional solution to end the war in Iraq, and has repeatedly voiced concerns over the fact that the Bush administration deems the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing force in Iraq applicable to Iran.

"This presidency has shot from the hip too many times for us to be able to trust it to act on its own," Webb told reporters Monday. "It's not the way the Constitution was designed. We need Congress to be involved in any decision to commence military activities absent an attack from the other side or a direct threat."

"What I'm saying today is, clearly, that we should not give up any of our positions diplomatically, with respect to Iran, but I believe it is not in the power of the president himself to decide to take unilateral military action there," he added.

Webb's bill would ensure that "no funds ... may be obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or within the territorial waters of Iran, except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress."


The president is I believe permitted to use the military for a certain length of time without congressional approval for war. Not entire certain.

All he has to do is call the SecDef into the room with him, take the case from the Secret Service agent next to him, open it, and give a few orders.

All without EVER consulting Congress - an organization that is not in the National Command Authority chain for the use of nuclear weapons.

Tell me, is that starting a war, or what?

It is, but it is also necessary given the speed at which nuclear war occurs. The Nation could quite literally be entirely destroyed in the time it took for Congress to get involved.

But as far as conventional war goes, I just have to say go Senator Webb. The President was only ever supposed to be able to use his command authority to respond to emergencies - he should NOT have the power to make war.

No. Starting the War with Iran would be illegal..

he could.. but it would be illegal.

of Course..:rolleyes: if Russia or China attack US with nukes.. the President can go to War on the spot.

if they nuke our homeland .. the Pres can go to War with Iran for years, decades, centuries..

But Iran is never going to strike first.

The problem is the War Powers Act was passed with an eye toward nuclear war but it does not specify nuclear war. At the time Congress never envisioned a president that was so blood thirsty that he would go to war just so he could call himself a war president. It was never envisioned when Congress voted for Bushnam that a president would want to go to war to revenge daddy or whatever else was going through the president's mind. Congress assumed that a president would have a reason to go to war. But we now know that those assumptions were wrong. The problem is the War Powers Act is still on the books and actually a good idea when there is a normal president. Under that act, the president can take any military action he feels is necessary for a given time, then ask permission to continue the war later. Once the country is engaged in a war, what Congress is going to deny the continuation of the war? That was/is the problem in Bushnam. There are maybe 30% of the people that still think there was a reason to go into Bushnam. The rest realize that once you jump into a tar pit there is no easy way out.

During the "cold war" congress passed the War Powers Act so that if there were a nuclear attack the president could go to war first and ask permission later. So the president can go to war for a few months (I don't remember the exact time) before going to Congress. So Bush can attack first. Get the war started. Then challenge congress to deny the permission of a war that is already going.

90 days I believe

Bushnam.

What exactly does this turn of phrase mean?

What exactly does this turn of phrase mean?

Iraq is Bush's Vietnam hence Bushnam. Stupid name really as this is nowhere near vietnam. Fucking media.

Iraq is Bush's Vietnam hence Bushnam. Stupid name really as this is nowhere near vietnam. Fucking media.

Absolutely. Iraq is in the Middle East. Vietnam is in the Far East. Big difference.

And besides Bush's Vietnam was in Texas and Alabama, when he bothered to show up at all.

Iraq is Bush's Vietnam hence Bushnam. Stupid name really as this is nowhere near vietnam. Fucking media.

Of course it's nowhere near Vietnam. Vietnam is THOUSANDS of miles away from Iraq. Iraq is almost as far away from Vietnam as Bush was.

However from a policy fuckup perspective they are remarkably similar.

Bush needs congressional permission to do what he wants now?

In a Constitutional Republic, Bush would need permission, but ever since we entered "signing statement land," Bush says he doesn't need permission to do anything, because permission is for pussies, and he's the Decider.

I'll be so happy when he's back in Crawford, drinking himself to death.

Bush needs congressional permission to do what he wants now?

Bush needs congressional permission to do what he wants now?

Bush would need permission to commit an act for which the constitution has granted the power to commit that act to another entity...yes.

Oh noes, a resolution requiring the president to not violate the Constitution, call the whine police.

Sorry, they're busy, but we can send out the Waaaah-mbulance.

Bush would need permission to commit an act for which the constitution has granted the power to commit that act to another entity...yes.

Considering the U.S. hasn't declared war since WWII, yet been involved in quite a few military actions, then given that it is Bush we are talking about, I am suspicious about him ever going through Congress for any military act he may contemplate.

Considering the U.S. hasn't declared war since WWII, yet been involved in quite a few military actions, then given that it is Bush we are talking about, I am suspicious about him ever going through Congress for any military act he may contemplate.

All of which, with the exception of Korea, either fell within the 90 days as authorized by the war powers act (an authorization that can be removed at any time as congress wishes) or done persuant to specific congressional authorization.

What exactly does this turn of phrase mean?

BUSHNAM isn't a geographic phrase, it's a policy summery. Jump into a tar pit and it's hard to get out. The more you struggle the deeper and dirtier you get. Vietnam and Bushnam are wars that are very comparable outside of geography.

Yeah, the Constitution says that Congress must declare war first before the military can move. Vietnam and Iraq are the results of when this does not happen.

Note that the US action against Saddam in '91 followed a declaration of war, as did Korea.

Technically the president can rage a 60 day war on his own, yet after that Congress must officially declare it.

Oh noes, a resolution requiring the president to not violate the Constitution, call the whine police.
Actually, the President can unilaterally send forces to fight overseas without Congressional approval so long as he informs them within 60 days.

Actually, the President can unilaterally send forces to fight overseas without Congressional approval so long as he informs them within 60 days.

only due to a law that congress passed and can, at their leisure, withdraw. There is nothing in the constitution that allows this. It's a law, yes, but one that can be eliminated should congress decide.

But that was before the War Powers Act, which Johnson and Nixon abused so mightily with Vietnam. Now there's some leeway for a President to act--think back to what Clinton did in the Balkans. When he started, I don't know if he had Congressional approval or not.Clinton never had Congressional approval. He did of course inform Congress of his actions as required by law.

only due to a law that congress passed and can, at their leisure, withdraw. There is nothing in the constitution that allows this. It's a law, yes, but one that can be eliminated should congress decide.

Yeah, but let's be realistic here. No president is going to sign that kind of bill, especially if it's put on his desk by the opposition party, and no party that controls Congress is going to cut the legs out from under their president, so for all intents and purposes, that law is permanent, barring some really freaky situation where a hostile Congress has enough votes to override a veto.