Article

2007-11-03 Home Front: Politix

Dhimmicratic Senators warn Bush has no authority on Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 2007-11-03 00:22|| || Front Page|| [11137 views ] Top

#1 No authority? Iran's tyrant has threatened the USA. The President is US Commander in Chief. While Congress has war making powers, standing National Security orders give the President the authority to act on same.

Posted by McZoid 2007-11-03 02:13|| 2007-11-03 02:13|| Front Page Top

#2 Only 30 donk senators would sign this in the absence of any administration presentations to the public that we ought to take specific action against Iran? Looks like Bush could push an AUMF through Congress if he made the case. I know, big if.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-11-03 02:52|| 2007-11-03 02:52|| Front Page Top

#3 Democrats and one independent, urged the resolution of disputes with the Islamic republic through diplomacy.

There is only one man skilled enough for this level of diplomacy. We must send former president Jimmy Carter to Tehran at once!

Posted by Besoeker 2007-11-03 04:36|| 2007-11-03 04:36|| Front Page Top

#4 I seem to recall that a President can act without congressional authorization if there is a "clear and present danger" to national security. If Iran and its nuclear weapons program doesn't represent such a danger then nothing does.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-11-03 06:16|| 2007-11-03 06:16|| Front Page Top

#5 Weasels are actually very fierce little creatures. If you trap on, make sure it is dead before getting in reach of its teeth.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-11-03 06:50|| 2007-11-03 06:50|| Front Page Top

#6 The President can run a Normandy sized assault if he want's, long as he wins before the War Powers Act kicks in... what is that 30 days? 90?

Ummm.... from Wiki (who knows?)

It requires the President to consult with Congress before and during 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)). It grants an additional 30 days upon a formal request by the President, presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal.

Sounds like 90 days to me.

Posted by Thomas Woof 2007-11-03 07:50|| 2007-11-03 07:50|| Front Page Top

#7 Maybe if Bush were to send cruise missiles into Sudan the Democrats would be more in agreement?

Posted by BrerRabbit 2007-11-03 08:31|| 2007-11-03 08:31|| Front Page Top

#8 Congress has no authority to tell the President what he can do with the military either. All they can do is fund it.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-11-03 09:16|| 2007-11-03 09:16|| Front Page Top

#9 Quislings!

Posted by JohnQC 2007-11-03 09:35|| 2007-11-03 09:35|| Front Page Top

#10 This goes to a basic requirement that somebody has to initiate overt hostilities against either the US military or the US itself to respond. It has formally been that convenience long before the Ems Dispatch.

It is too problematic to hope that the Iranians will both do this, and do this in an ineffectual manner. Therefore, we should create the circumstances in which they do it.

Ideally, we should arrange for several of their missiles to be fired at the thickest part of our missile defenses, right after we have been drilling our missile defense crews to defend against such an attack.

Our immediate response would be to obliterate their missile launch sites. This would leave no puzzling evidence behind, yet all the major powers would have seen the attack ballistic warnings light up their radar and satellite networks, and would have tracked both the Iranian attacks and the US defense and counterattack.

Problem solved. Carte blanche.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-11-03 10:03|| 2007-11-03 10:03|| Front Page Top

#11 There is only one man skilled enough for this level of diplomacy. We must send former president Jimmy Carter to Tehran at once!

How bout Al Sharpton instead?

Posted by Slappy 2007-11-03 11:36|| 2007-11-03 11:36|| Front Page Top

#12 Hell, go for the twofer and send 'em both!

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-11-03 11:53|| 2007-11-03 11:53|| Front Page Top

#13 Send Jesse as the third, and get a congressional delgation to go with them. Baghdad Jim McDermott and ~~Moron~~ Moran from VA are my leading nominess to escort them to Teheran, the day before we strike.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-11-03 12:36|| 2007-11-03 12:36|| Front Page Top

#14 Anonymoose, okay, you're on. Tell me how to get mullahs' hands twitching to inadvertently push the button before they have nuke warheads mounted on their missiles.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-11-03 20:38|| http://www.twobyfour.nfo/]">[http://www.twobyfour.nfo/] 2007-11-03 20:38|| Front Page Top

23:41 SteveS
22:44 trailing wife
22:40 trailing wife
22:29 trailing wife
21:48 HammerHead
21:43 trailing wife
21:22 trailing wife
21:21 Leonard Plynth Garnell
21:05 Zenster
20:43 OldSpook
20:41 mhw
20:38 twobyfour
20:28 lotp
20:25 twobyfour
20:21 Ol Dirty American
20:10 twobyfour
19:54 Nimble Spemble
19:52 Abdominal Snowman
19:41 Nimble Spemble
19:36 phil_b
19:31 Scooter McGruder
19:27 no mo uro
19:22 no mo uro
19:16 Frank G