Hopefully, whoever holds the copyright on the song Barbara Ann. 
And yes I do remember the single from 1980.
yea, I was going for the predicted thing - :smack: I can’t believe I fucked up the quote. dammit.
slunks off in shame this may effect my charter membership in the “Liberal but not a fucking lunatic” society.
That’s irony, right?
IIRC, to the extent that the AUMF was discussed on the SDMB, in terms of being a blank check, almost everybody forsaw that.
Sorry, wring, I shoulda previewed. Didn’t intend to pile on.
no problem. Had I not fucked up the quote, it may have been more obvious. But then, no one could have predicted that I’d fuck up the quote. 
Actually, all of the above (including the potential bombing of Iran, as long as it lasted less than 90 days) are legal as church on Sunday, which is to say they’re consistent with the 1973 War Powers Resolution, as long as the President reports to Congress on what he’s doing. Which they all have.
Assuming arguendo the Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, the President needs a declaration of war, or a AUMF, for any engagement in hostilities longer than 90 days. But it seems that Bush can bomb the crap out of Iran on a whim.
Wonder what Congress would do if Bush had the USAF bomb the crap out of Iran for 90 days, then had them relax on their aircraft carriers for a week, then sent them back in again, claiming that the War Powers clock had reset to zero? Probably nothing.
Well, I believe Iraq was a special case of designated punching-bag. But John is right that there have been plenty of military operations that most of Congress learned about by turning on CNN in the morning. Grenada, Panama, Haiti, that sort of thing.
So Bush could decide to up and bomb Iran tomorrow, and all Congress can do is complain about it. But to commit ground troops? Sure, he COULD argue that as commander in chief he’s got the authority to do whatever he likes. But in reality…it’s not going to happen. And why? Because when you maneuver congress into approving your war you shut them up for a long time.
Look at the example of the Iraq war. No one wanted to be seen to vote the “wrong way”. Look at how votes against the first Gulf War were used against various members of Congress. So lots of the people who thought the war was a mistake were afraid to vote against it. And once they’d voted for the war then it was a heck of a lot harder to use the war against Bush. You voted for the war, so stop complaining Senator.
Of course, the war turned out to be pretty unpopular. How embarrassing for the congresscritters who voted for the war because they were afraid to vote against the war! Who could have thought Bush would screw up the war! He tricked us!
But it was a very smart move on Bush/Rove’s part, look how much immunity from congressional criticism that vote has bought him, and look at how much energy the democratic grassroots is expending against pro-war democrats. And for any invasion or sustained bombing or Iran Bush is going to need to spread the blame around in case things go south. If it’s all executive privilege, the President is the Commander-in-Chief, then he takes all of the blame and the Democrats start the criticism from minute one. Of course, this assumes that he can ram through a resolution supporting war on Iran. And given the current climate that would be impossible. So there wouldn’t be any hostages to ensure good behavior.
Just in case anyone in forgetting the gist of my OP
Then
Blix source above
transformed into
That was then, this is now
<5% enrichment = fuel for nuclear power station
becomes (page 9)
weapons grade = 90% enrichment
So the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (NB 12 Republicans, 9 Democrats) has some explaining to do.
My understanding (and I could be in error), is that as CiC, he could commit the troops to the ground, but that Congressional approval would be necessary in order to pay for the troops on the ground.
John - my bad was in suggesting that Bush would need to make a claim that he was acting under his authority as unitary executive.
I read the War Powers Resolution as a universal go-ahead to the CinC to send troops for up to 90 days, and Congress can figure out later how to pay for it. (Borrow. :))
The other thing to keep in mind when you’re talking about surgical strikes is that secrecy is an important ingredient. If the president (any president) had to seek a vote in Congress for an air strike, that might very well defeat the whole purpose.
The War Powers Resolution (aka War Powers Act of 1973) allows the president to use military force for 60 days w/o approval from Congress and allows for him to get a 30 day extension beyond that if he requests one from Congress. As to its constitutionality… well, it’s the law of the land until the SCOTUS says otherwise. That’s the way we do business in this country.
It’s certainly debatable whether the president should have that power or not. I have reservations about it myself, and would prefer there were much tighter limits on it. But the presidents does need some sort of authority to act quickly when necessary. Still, Congress can act pretty fast when it needs to. The AUMF to invade Afghanistan was enacted on Sept 14, 2001.
The Air Force has aircraft carriers?
Dang. No wonder the Navy thinks nobody respects their perquisites.
The Wikipedia article was sketchy, but my understanding is that it’s the President (all of them, actually, from Nixon to Bush - OK, that’s a short distance, but you know what I mean :)) who thinks the War Powers Resolution’s restrictions on Executive power are unconstitutional.
My understanding is that the Constitutionality of Congress’ authority to delegate bits and pieces of its authority to the Executive branch is a settled matter. Whether it’s wise or not is another story.
Yeah, they would. Clearly the Constitution places some limits on presidential authority in military matters otherwise Congress’s authority to “declare war” would be meaningless. Did the founders mean that Congress gets to the name the war after the fact? 
Iran 4 times the size of Iraq. Population 70 mill Iraq pop 25 mill. Our army bogged down in Iraq .The only way he could go after Iran is huge bombing raids. They have plans for nukes. Would they really go that route.? God I hopre not,but his saber rattling is putting himself in a nasty corner.
The thing is, wrt Iran Bush is doing all the things that he got called to task for not doing wrt Iraq. At least so far. He is working with the Europeans and the UN. He is saying that the military option, while still on the table, is not currently being considered. The world is pretty much with us on the idea of Iran not getting nukes. Some people just can’t be satisfied, though.
If we didn’t have the recent and distasteful memory of the Iraq debacle, I might be a little more thrilled with Bush’s newfound diplomatic streak. As it is, I can understand why people are almost apocalyptically wary of anything the executive branch says right now. Context is everything.
So, because you don’t like what he did in Iraq you’re going to get pissed at him even when he does something right. Yeah, that makes sense.
No, because we don’t like what he did in Iraq and because he has a track record of being less than completely honest wrt his actions and motivations, we’re not going to start cheering him on unless and until the other shoe (bomb) has dropped.