If Bush wants to attack Iran, does he need Congress...

[skooooo]

...to grant permission? Or did Congress already cede that check to Chimpy???

[mzmolly]

1. NO. That was one of the issues with the first resolution ... the approval

of endless "unilateral/pre-emptive" wars.

[2Design]

2. they gave him carte blanche within weeks of 911 - that was what

apalled me - they gave away all the power

[skooooo]

4. Oh for crying out loud....

Well, maybe they can take that back. It should be unconstitutional, maybe the SC would rule against it.

[napi21]

3. He needs Congress to approve. Last OK was for Iraq.

I suspect THIS TIME he will have a much more difficult time getting it too! Lots of people sorry they gave it to him last time.

[skooooo]

5. ..are you sure?

Because other people indicate otherwise?

:shrug:

[Catt03]

6. Are you sure

anything that is connected to terrorism is connected to the power given Bush to attack...at least that's how I understand it

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. No he still needs to go back to congress

he pretty much got carte blanche for Afghanistan (by the way it was justified and fucked up), and Iraq he got permision TO go to the UN. In theory he had to go back to COngress to get final authorization.

This is why many folks (including Kerry) who have reaad the IWR, understand that Bush was also in violation of the IWR...

Problem is there is no political coin in DC to impeach his sorry ass....

Try that one wiht Delay

[DoYouEverWonder]

15. Why will he even bother to ask next time

He doesn't care about rules? From here on W will be doing whatever he feels like, when he feels like it. Who will be able to stop him?

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. He needs congres

folks read the IWR... please do...

[skooooo]

8. IWR??

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. the war resolution that Kerry voted for

[Andy_Stephenson]

11. No he does not need Congress per this section.

All he need do is link them to 9/11.

"(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."

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

[skooooo]

12. That means he would have to tie IRan...

...to 9/11 like he (untruthfully) did with Saddam Hussein.

[mreh]

13. WRONG --- The title of the resolution is specific to IRAQ

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

============================================
How repuke to take things out of context and state it as law!

The resolution is specific to Iraq - * would have to go to Congress for permissision.

On Edit: Now if *&co. made up some crap that Iran was helping the insurgents and interferring with our efforts in Iraq, then this resolution would be sufficient.

[LisaL]

14. And if so, don't you think they will give it to him?

All he has to do is ask.
:mad:

[napi21]

16. I dunno about that. There are several Pubs unhappy with the

way Shrub threw the inspectors out and rushed into Iraq, how he's mishandled operations there, and many of their constituents are hammering them pretty hard on any expansions of any kind. I doubt he'd get any Dem votes, and if he lost just a few Pubs, he wouldn't get auth!