I can easily see the administration attacking "insurgent-friendly Iranians" or strategic locations within Iran, then claiming that there wasn't any time to consult with Congress.

An equally, if not more important question to ask is, how will congressional members respond to that?

Dems will roll over on this.

And bombing Iran will make people like Al and Hawk feel so very manly.

Nixon did not get authorization to bomb Cambodia or Laos. Nor were either articles of impeachment.

Has the law changed since then?

WTF? Can't Bush just leave his dick in his pants?

I agree with you that the President needs constitutionally to get authorization from Congress if he wants to attack Iran, and this time I doubt if Democrats will give it to him, if there's one thing in this country less popular than the Iraq War it would be a war with Iran. But if Bush decides to attack Iran or he triggers an Iranian attack on US forces (or merely fakes one), it won't matter. It's like if your drunk buddy throws a punch in a redneck bar, you still may wind up getting sucked into the fight.

The question I have which no one seems to be asking is what happens to the Republicans if Bush launches an attack on Iran? Given the current climate I see little if any of the usual rallying around the flag sort of behavior if attack Iran, and any such rallying will be short-lived anyway. When you see what Iraq did to the GOP in 2006, what do you think a second quagmire would do to them in 2008?

I can easily see the administration attacking "insurgent-friendly Iranians" or strategic locations within Iran, then claiming that there wasn't any time to consult with Congress.

Or that it was authorized by the Iraq AUMF.

(As an aside, how on earth did you get an a-circumflex, euro-symbol, trademark-symbol sequence in the place of an apostrophe...and how did you not notice it?)

Let's hear how Gonzales words his argument that this power already belongs to the Prez.

Kevin wrote: "I think Democrats better be prepared to figure out how they're going to vote on such an authorization."

What's to "figure out"? They must vote "no". There is absolutely no basis for the USA to launch a war of unprovoked aggression against Iran, which is exactly what "air strikes" would be. It would be a criminal act. And any vote by any Senator or member of Congress to authorize such a thing is itself a criminal act.

Yeah, like Bush gives a flying fig what the Constitutional scholars say.

When is Condi going to reply to Senator Webb's twice-requested clarification of her understanding of what Bush can or can't do vis a vis Iran?

"Or that it was authorized by the Iraq AUMF."

I realize that the law is your ball of wax, cmdicely, but it's tough for me to imagine that the Iraq AUMF gives him that kind of latitude. I agree that he may CLAIM that it does, but that claim requires a boldness & level of stupidity beyond perhaps even this administration. I'd have to go back & look at the AUMF to see just how badly they would need to torture that thing to reason that it allows them to attack Iran.

Bruce Ackerman misses a key point regarding the request for authorization for war against Iraq.

Namely, Bush KNEW he'd get it. In fact, he knew he'd be able to punish his political enemies if they didn't back him.

The political equation today is entirely different.

Precisely BECAUSE Bush is desperate, he could very well NOT seek authorization. Indeed, it's the same political desperation that would drive him to attack Iran in the first place.

Succulent Animal,

If any U.S. troops are killed in a real/fake Iranian attack, Congress will likely approve the President's use of force in a heartbeat. The '08 Presidential election has already begun.

Ackerman is a whore, and every lawyer knows it. If what he said were true, then Bill Clinton acted illegally when fired cruise missiles at Sudan, Reagan acted illegally when he bombed Libya, etc. We didn't hear Ackerman speaking up back then (certainly not against Clinton), but now he wants to cloak his political judgments in the majesty of "The Law" as some sort of disinterested expert.

We aren't in a war against Iraq or Iran. We are in a war against Islamic terrorism, which has no national boundaries. So bombing Iran would just be a continuation of the current war in Iraq. Hence the president would not need Congress's approval.

If Ackerman were a real constitutional scholar, instead of a livberal shill, he would recognize that.

You think GW Bush or Dick Cheney really agrees with Ackerman's conclusions?

Democrats need to be prepared to act if and when Bush bombs Iran without Congressional approval.

The nugget:

"(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."

So, if the President determines that Iran is aiding people who authorized the September 11, 2001 attacks, he is permitted to attack that nation. Or so it reads to me.

I don't like it, but that's how it reads.

As an aside, how on earth did you get an a-circumflex, euro-symbol, trademark-symbol sequence in the place of an apostrophe...and how did you not notice it?

He didn't notice it because his char encoding is set correctly.

Al are you then saying he can drop a bomb anywhere in the world he pleases.I think there is another terrorist group in the making and Al-QBush is there leader.

Democrats better be prepared to figure out how they're going to vote on such an authorization.

How about...

"Hell No!!"

Once again, someone makes the mistake of thinking about Bush as if he thinks like a normal human being. He doens't. Bush is far closer to an animal, he's said many times that he acts on his gut. In other words, on pure instinct.

If you corner a wounded animal they get desperate and lash out no matter what. Bush will not do anything reasonable about Iran, he will lash out.

That's why you need to pass something BEFORE that happens so that when he violates the law you begin impeachment proceedings immediately as a reaction to an attack (not a response) on Iran.

Did the Prez get authorization from Congress to bomb Somalia one month ago?

Did Reagan in Libya? Reagan in Granada? Bush Senior in Panama? Nixon in Cambodia?

The question is not how Dems should vote on an authorization to bomb Iran. (The answer should be "no" but Bush doesn't think he needs permission.) The question is not on what to do after Bush bombs Iran without authorization. (By then it's too late.)

The question is what Dems should do now, before the damage is done.

The Weiss/Diamond proposal may be the best idea I've read so far.

Unfortunately I don't see Congress doing what's necessary. It's sad and frustrating. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion and no one wants to confront the mad engineer until the locomotive is completely off the tracks.

I'd like to the Democrats just try and enforce Ackerman's opinion that Bush can't order airstrikes. How many divisions do they have?

Kevin writes: It's not as if they aren't getting plenty of warning that it's likely to cross their desks sometime in the near future.

Really? They are? I cerainly hope you're wrong. If we have to go in, I'd much rather our forces possess the element of surprise. Bush should just go on national TV and announce that "As I speak, US forces are engaged in a defensive, limited campaign of surgical airstrikes on Iran's nuclear-weapons facilities yada yada yada." If the Demapussies think Bush has violated the constitution they're perfectly free to draft articles of impeachment.

Now that Waxman’s hearings are underway we are reminded that the war (and its expansion into Iran) is not just about Israel and oil but for billions and billons of dollars in contract money. This money is corruptly placed into the hands of Bush and Cheney allies, who then recycle it into political campaigns to get them elected. Just what Eisenhower warned us about way back when in the Golden Age.

If you want to scare yourself read about Iraq, Erik Prince, Blackwater, the Family Research Council and Christian fascism.

If Bush DIDN'T get Congressional authorization, what would happen to him? People imagine Democrats in the Senate and House sanctioning him?

That's like rooting AGAINST the home team - no suck-up pandering cowardly Democrat will do it. "America is at WAR!" is what the Repubs will say, after some trumped up charges or faked actions. And the Dems will whine about oversight, or planning, or competence, etc. Maybe schedule hearings to look into the President's assertions, disputed intelligence, etc. No, they won't even do that.

I realize that the law is your ball of wax, cmdicely, but it's tough for me to imagine that the Iraq AUMF gives him that kind of latitude.

When I suggest that Bush may be inclined to claim something, it is not meant to imply that such a claim would be remotely justified.

Remember that, in addition to claiming that the attack on Iraq required no Congressional authorization to start with, Bush also claimed on top of that that, if it did, it was already within the scope of the AUMF passed immediately after 9/11 under which action was taken against Afghanistan. Given that he's made as much or more connection between Iran and the ongoing war in Iraq than he did between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, making similar claims and, given a less pliant Congress, acting without a new AUMF.

Which is one reason why anticipatory, clarifying express prohibition (while, generally something I would oppose as excessively limiting on the discretion of the President) may be appropriate.

Of course, its also why impeaching and removing the President for his past acts of bad faith and disregard for the law in the conduct of his duties is even a better idea.

I can see Bush now.

"My fellow Americans, as I speak our blessed Archangel missiles are raining retribution down on Iran. Expect the price of gasoline to double and to stay there forever. Expect nightly reports on the middle East. Expect a zillion know-nothing shills to insult you and to belittle you. Life sucks, bad, and thanks to me it will stay that way. God bless America."

Nixon invading Cambodia is the parallel. It was illegal, and he was (getting) unpopular, but there was no congressional authorization.

Seems like the Imperial Presidency was born in 1970.

I think that's wrong. When Bush & Co. are shoved into a corner they act with even more hubris and unilateralism. They will only seek the authorization of Congress if they know they can get it. Otherwise, he will say I'm Commander in Chief, the previous authorization of force allows me to extend this conflict, oh, and if you don't like it, try and stop me.

What the Democrats need to figure out is what do to in THAT situation.

I am glad a person with credentials concurs with my thinking about the constitution and war making.

I think the problem Democrats and Republicans must contend with is what will they do after Bush launches attacks against Iran without Congressional authorization. I should also ask what will the Pentagon do if Bush orders attacks against Iran without Congressional approval.

Hmmm, we are already getting our asses handed to us in Iraq due in part to a failed and misled strategy. Now you want to take on a bigger monster? Damm, whatever happened to common sense?

Guess it is time for the DEMS to walk the talk and grow a pair. I would say bring back the spirit of 76 and revolt, but most Americans are more concerned about who will make it through the next round of American Idol vice the future of their country.

Iran is already assisting in killing American troops in Iraq.

Prove it.

We do know that Hillary will be cheering Bush on. What we hadn't suspected is that so many Democratic Senators are so worried about getting labelled as disloyal to the troops that they would be tempted to vote for the Republican resolution guaranteeing funding forever for Bush's adventurism. Republicans, as advertised, are shits, always; Democrats, as advertised, are gutless, always. The likelihood that these enablers will do anything meaningful to block Bush's invade Iran plans is very small.

Kevin:

The problem is they're getting a lot of warnings from the Israelis, as at Herzliya and AIPAC. Stop being such a sucker. Count the Democrats in, with the usual apostates as exceptions.

I disagree with the assumption that Bush will pre-authorization from Congress to "invade" Iran. This president and his legal (ie., consitituional) advisors don't believe their wartime president needs anyone's approval. These guys assume unilateral action, whether on torture, wiretapping, signing statements, etc., and they know it takes time (weeks to months) to stop them. Bombing missions on Iran only need a week, tops. For many future dead Iranians, the president will only need minutes to change the course of history in the region. All this debate about what Congress or the Courts can do is falling on dead ears. Air strikes come down from the White House, not Capitol Hill. Pelosi, et al. will learn about Iran on CNN before the Oval Office or Pentagon informs them that iran has been attacked.

owenz on February 7, 2007 at 2:16 PM:

..if and when Bush bombs Iran without Congressional approval.

When. Attacking/provoking Iran is a way to limit the available foreign policy options to those the neoconservatives and their financial backers are pushing. It's a diabolical way to ensure that negotiations with Iran don't happen unless they are at the tip of a nuke...and to justify a continued elevated US military presence in that region.

chaunceyatrest on February 7, 2007 at 2:08 PM:

..but that claim requires a boldness & level of stupidity beyond perhaps even this administration.

This is the Enron Presidency, remember? They'd spitshine a turd and sell it as gold if they thought they could get away with it.

I'd have to go back & look at the AUMF to see just how badly they would need to torture that thing to reason that it allows them to attack Iran.

Here ya go.

But I'm thinking that the focus would be on Section 3, para b (presidential determination), subsection 2:

(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

Which explains the frantic attempts to show Iran as supporting Al-Qaeda in Iraq, or just the insurgency in general. Short of sending a AUMF against Iran request to Congress, that's all I can see that allows Dubya to order any long-term military action regarding Iran. I think - correct me if I'm wrong - that the War Powers Act does allow for a 60-day(?) term of military engagement in the case of imminent hostilities and such...Which is more than enough time for Dubya to limit the available options I wrote of earlier in this post.

Frequently Kenneth (Who are you at other times, Al?)

If we had been illegally, --- or legally, even ---invaded by another country, would you be trying to kill the invaders, and would you be delighted if your allies, political or religious offered you some support? BTW, GDubya aint threatening Sa'udi Arabia, is he, about their folk coming in and fighting US soldiers, and suiciding....... I wonder why.

Poor wee Al. 'War on Terror' ---- now what part of warfare is that? Is it the same as 'War on the Machine Gun' and 'War on the Tank'? It is a meaningless phrase, Al. Are we going to get your answer about where it is acceptable to make 'War on Terrorists' by bombing them........ Texas? Canada? England? Holland?

The posters above are absolutely right: these two, Cheney and Bush, are whack jobs, and Congress --- and the House will have to stop them, --- must pre-emptively vote a ban on shooting at Iran.

Oh, Al, I forgot. We invaded and took Saddam, so we won, so that Congress-approved adventure was over. I am not sure Congress approved an unwelcome and defended-against Occupation, one so unwelcome that a second struggle, one of counter-insurgency has been required. I seem to remember your pals of PNAC/The Lobby sold the Bushbaby that rose petals would be strewn in front of our tanks.......

What next? Does Bush know just how much bigger than Iraq Iran is? Does he have any idea how narrow the Gulf is and how vulnerable the Kuwaiti, Sa'udi, Abu Dhabi and Omani oil installations are, and the Qatari gas ones? I am sure his Lobby pals think it would be wonderful if they all went up in smoke, but it would not be in the US economic interest for oil supplies to be so largley in Russia's`control for an appreciable time. Who will have won the Cold War then?

WTF? Can't Bush just leave his dick in his pants?
Posted by: rusrus on February 7, 2007 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

The emperor has no dick. Only a cod-piece.

Point taken on the Enron presidency, grape_ crush.

And thanks for the link, but (to the best of my knowledge) there hasn't been even the slightest attempt to connect Iran to September 11. Nobody's made a plausible connection between Sunni Al Qaeda & Shiite Iran. Similarly, it's Al Qaeda in Iraq's continued attacks against Iranian backed Iraqi Shia & their mosques that's largely responsible for the roiling Civil War right now.

Clearly, the president is trying to make a connection between Iran & our difficulties in Iraq, but any suggestion of an Al Qaeda/Iran connection is a nonstarter.

But I share your concern that Bush will strike first & worry about evidence later.

ZERO: Number of times Kevin Drum has blogged about Iran killing American troops.

Coincidentally, also the number of deaths of American troops for which those pushing the line that Iran is "killing American troops" have provided evidence tending to support Iranian responsibility.

ZERO: Number of times Kevin Drum has blogged about Iran killing American troops.

That's twice now you've asserted that Iran is killing American troops. Prove it. Put up or shut up.

ZERO: Number of times Kevin Drum has blogged about Iran killing American troops.

Um, because it there's no evidence that it's true, ya think?

I know arguing with bush Cultists sock puppet F.K. is a mug's game, but: That's twice now you've asserted that Iran is killing American troops. Prove it. Put up or shut up.

How wierd. It seems to have posted when I was previewing...

G Spot1: "I think that's wrong. When Bush & Co. are shoved into a corner they act with even more hubris and unilateralism. They will only seek the authorization of Congress if they know they can get it. Otherwise, he will say I'm Commander in Chief, the previous authorization of force allows me to extend this conflict, oh, and if you don't like it, try and stop me. What the Democrats need to figure out is what do to in THAT situation."

"Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinking badges!" -- Gold Hat (Alfonso Bedoya), The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)

Sr. Bedoya's character had to be the cinematic muse for Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez's more inspired legal machinations on behalf of his boss.

Frequency Kenneth: "ZERO: Number of times Kevin Drum has blogged about Iran killing American troops."

I see that your straw man collection is really coming along quite nicely.

chaunceyatrest on February 7, 2007 at 4:22 PM:

Nobody's made a plausible connection between Sunni Al Qaeda & Shiite Iran.

Actually, you can google "Iran support Al Qaeda" and return quite a few nobodies making a connection. Whether or not the connection is plausible is unfortunately open to interpretation.

Clearly, the president is trying to make a connection between Iran & our difficulties in Iraq, but any suggestion of an Al Qaeda/Iran connection is a nonstarter.

Since when has the term 'terrorist organization' been exclusively applied to Al Qaeda?

I think that's right.

With Bush you can't tell. I think there is at least a small chance that he'll launch an attack without prior Congressional authorization. I think there is at least a small chance that there are already American military teams active in Iran. Congress needs to act now to forestall any such action prior to debate and authorization.

I think there is at least a small chance that there are already American military teams active in Iran.

Nothing small about it -- we already have special ops operating in Iran.

I think there is at least a small chance that he'll launch an attack without prior Congressional authorization.

Small chance? You've got to be fucking kidding me! There's an 100% chance this will be the case.

Bush will quite rightly conclude that any attack on the Iranian nuclear weapons program will stand a better chance of success with the element of surprise. That's kind of hard to do when you preface your attack with a request for legislation that's reported on the front page of the New York Times.

The model will be Osirak (sp?), only hugely greater in scope. For the sake of the brave Americans piloting the bombers, I hope I'm correct and quackerman is ignored.

Result of an attack on Iran: destruction of the US economy.

Yep, all you war-bleaters--have fun living in a 3rd world country, because when oil goes to $200/bbl, that's what your economy will turn into.

With oil at $200/bbl...the entire global economy is on equal footing (except maybe Brazil). It is not like China, Germany, etc., get an advantage. Besides, the way the Bush Administration likes to spend money, they can continue to subsidize our consumption until we have overthrown Iran and installed a new, Paul Bremmer-led interim government...prices returning to $80/bbl and Exxon reports new record earnings...