If W wants to attack Iran, can the Dems stop him?

[John_Mace]

@spoke-

I’d say launching an undeclared, unconstitutional war against Iran would meet that criterion. That’s what we’re discussing, isn’t it?

See Elvis’s post. He’s talking about other things, too. But as for an attack on Iran, it would depend on the nature of that attack. The idea that Bush is going to launch a war against Iran is laughable. If he had troops to send into Iran, they’d be in Iraq right now. And that wouldn’t have anything to do with Cheney, which is what **Elvis **and I are talking about.

@ElvisL1ves

The charge can be anything Congress wants it to be, as you well know.

Yes, and that’s why the answer to whether he’d be impeached or voted out of office depends on what that charge is.

Manipulating intelligence to lead us into a war of aggression would fit the bill.

If that were the charge then you wouldn’t get the 2/3 vote in the Senate.

Probably an attack on Iran, but his escalation in Iraq would suffice as well.

Again, it would depend on the kind of attack we’re talking about. Escalation in Iraq? No way. And what does any of that have to do with Cheney, which is who we had been discussion in those last few posts?

[ElvisL1ves]

@elucidator

If Clinton can be reasonably impeached on a charge of lying about sex (and we have abundant testimony to that effect, which need not, repeat need* not*!, be reviewed again

[Monty Python voice]Oh, you’re no fun anymore![/MPv]

[elucidator]

I’m pining for the fjords.

As to the legal aracana of impeachment, they are for naught. If GeeDub’s unpopularity reaches a high enough point, he can be chucked out based on the same sort of legalistic sleight of mind so frequently displayed here to justify Clinton Agonistes. And it will matter just about as much. For myself, if a thread should emerge “Was Bush’s Impeachment Really Legal?”, I shall be unable to contribute, as spasms of giggling fits render typing impossible.

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

The idea that Bush is going to launch a war against Iran is laughable.

No . . . it is an idea that inspires a lot of emotional responses, but laughter is not one of them.

[Der_Trihs]

@John Mace

The idea that Bush is going to launch a war against Iran is laughable. If he had troops to send into Iran, they’d be in Iraq right now.

He has troops in Iraq. Sure, sending many or most of them into Iran would be disasterous and stupid - but this is Bush.

[mrklutz]

@ElvisL1ves

Next is Constitution’s assignment of the power to declare war to Congress, but that’s been so consistenly ignored over the last 66 years that it’s really irrelevant.

I think this is the crux of the whole problem. During the Cold War, when the biggest military worry on people’s minds was a nuclear attack with only minutes’ warning before a response was required, having the decision-making power in the hands of the executive seemed to make sense. Personally, I’d have rather seen a stipulation that the president could order military reaction only in response to a direct attack on the U.S. or its allies – preferably even limiting it to short-notice situations. Any other military action should still have required a declaration of war. But with 6 decades of undeclared wars behind us, I don’t see how Congress could reassert its constitutional prerogative in this regard.

[BrainGlutton]

Here’s what Scott Ritter thinks they can/should do, at any rate:

Democrats should seek immediate legislative injunctions to nullify the War Powers’ authority granted to the President in September 2001 and October 2002 when it comes to Iran. Congress should pass a joint resolution requiring the President to fully consult with Congress about any national security threat that may be posed to the United States from Iran and demand that no military action be initiated by the United States against Iran without a full, constitutionally mandated declaration of war. Those who embrace the notion of a unitary executive will scoff at the concept of a Congressional declaration of war. They hold that the power to make war is not an enumerated power per se. While statutory authorization (i.e., a formal declaration of war) is enumerated in the Constitution, the reality (as reflected by the current War Powers Act) is that the powers of bringing America to a state of war are not so much separated as they are linked and sequenced, with Congress exercising its control over budgetary appropriations and the President through command.

There may well be merit to this line of argument. But one thing is perfectly clear: Only Congress holds the power of the purse. While a President may commit American forces to combat without the consent of Congress (for periods of up to 180 days), he cannot spend money that has not been appropriated. There is, in the passing of any budget, inherent authority given to the President when it comes to national defense. However, Congress can, if it wants to, put specific restrictions on the President’s ability to use the people’s money. A recent example occurred in 1982, when Congress passed the Boland Amendment to restrict funding for executive-sponsored actions, covert and overt, in Nicaragua. While it is in the process of getting a handle on America’s policy vis-à-vis Iran, Congress would do well to pass a resolution that serves as a new Boland Amendment for Iran. Such an amendment could read like this:

An amendment to prohibit offensive military operations, covert or overt, being commenced by the United States of America against the Islamic Republic of Iran, without the expressed consent of the Congress of the United States. This amendment reserves the right of the President, commensurate with the War Powers Act, to carry out actions appropriate for the defense of the United States if attacked by Iran. However, any funds currently appropriated by Congress for use in support of ongoing operations by the United States Armed Forces are hereby prohibited from being allocated for any pre-emptive military action, whether overt or covert in nature, without the expressed prior consent by the Congress of the United States of America.

However it is worded, the impact of such an amendment would be immediate and could forestall any military moves planned by the Bush Administration against Iran until Congress can fully familiarize itself with the true nature of any threat posed to the United States. President Bush seems to be hellbent on making war with Iran. The passage of time is, in effect, the enemy of his Administration’s goals and objectives. By buying the time required to fully study the issues pertaining to Iran, and by forestalling the possibility of immediate pre-emptive action through budgetary restrictions, Congress may very well spare America, and the world, another tragedy like Iraq.