I have a question about what happens if Bush goes too far...

[Memory Container]

The Joint Chiefs, four-star Generals, and however many other military personel (all of them, I think) took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

We know that Bush is planning to invade Iran despite the authorization of Congress.

So let's pretend for a moment (hope desperately) that the Joint Chiefs recognize the blatant violation of the Constitution Bush is committing and decide that it's time to 'do the right thing'. My question is "Who would undertake such a decision, how would it be carried out, and what would be the aftermath?"

I can dream.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. You missed the point. Regardless of what the Iran Act actually says

Bush can claim that he has congressional authority to invade.

What a screwed up situation - we are pinning our hopes on a MILITARY response to an out of control Administration. But, what you say makes sense.

[Memory Container]

2. From where does he get this 'authority'?

Is it a carry-over from the IWR?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. Karl Rove and ALberto Gonzales. And Condi Rice.

[ShortnFiery]

4. In his mind he's a fighting that evil-doer al Quaeda in Iran ...

Use of tactical nukes is just a part of "smoking them out." :eyes:

IMO we are being lead by Madmen (Cheney, Bush, Bolton, Negroponte). :scared:

[zanne]

8. Yes, we are being led by madmen.

We're all on a big bus with a drunk at the wheel.

[bdamomma]

23. we can change the driver

if we get our stuff together.

[Karmakaze]

5. I would think no...

Reading the Iraq War Resolution, it seems that all the authorisations pertain to Iraq specifically. So unless Bush could somehow claim that attacking Iran would protect the US from the "threat posed by Iraq", there is no way you could claim that the IWR authorises such an attack.

[Breeze54]

10. I agree with you, about Iraq but.... yikes!!

He'd have to get permission to act on Iran.

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

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait,
the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to
defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;...

... more at link... read it!!

Edited to ad--->
Except.....

Nevertheless, serious challenges remain:

* Iran has violated its Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards obligations and refuses
to provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.
* The DPRK continues to destabilize its region and defy the international community,
now boasting a small nuclear arsenal and an illicit nuclear program in violation of its international obligations.
* Terrorists, including those associated with the al-Qaida network, continue to pursue WMD.
* Some of the world’s supply of weapons-grade fissile material – the necessary ingredient
for making nuclear weapons – is not properly protected.
* Advances in biotechnology provide greater opportunities for state and non-state actors
to obtain dangerous pathogens and equipment.

C. The Way Ahead

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionV.html

4. The Need for Action

The new strategic environment requires new approaches to deterrence and defense.
Our deterrence strategy no longer rests primarily on the grim premise of inflicting
devastating consequences on potential foes. Both offenses and defenses are necessary
to deter state and non-state actors, through denial of the objectives of their attacks and,
if necessary, responding with overwhelming force.

Safe, credible, and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role.
We are strengthening deterrence by developing a New Triad composed of offensive strike systems
(both nuclear and improved conventional capabilities); active and passive defenses, including missile defenses; and a responsive infrastructure, all bound together by enhanced command and control, planning, and intelligence systems. These capabilities will better deter some of the
new threats we face, while also bolstering our security commitments to allies. Such security commitments have played a crucial role in convincing some countries to forgo their own nuclear weapons programs, thereby aiding our nonproliferation objectives.

Deterring potential foes and assuring friends and allies, however, is only part of a broader approach.
Meeting WMD proliferation challenges also requires effective international action
– and the international community is most engaged in such action when the United States leads.

Taking action need not involve military force.
Our strong preference and common practice is to address proliferation concerns through
international diplomacy, in concert with key allies and regional partners.

If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense,
we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, :wtf:
even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack.

When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating,
we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize.
This is the principle and logic of preemption.
The place of preemption in our national security strategy remains the same.
We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions.

The reasons for our actions will be clear, :wtf:

the force measured,

and the cause just. :wtf:

:wtf:

PNAC- PNAC- PNAC!!!!!!
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

IRAN
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20050802.htm

[Karmakaze]

12. Although the preamble IS important...

The exact wording of the authorisation is even more important:

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Its clear from those two lines that the authorisations specifically refer to Iraq. So even if they could somehow argue that some parts of the preamble refer to the threat of WMD and terrorism, the authorisations themselves only refer to the nation of Iraq, meaning that another authorisation would be needed for Iran, or any other nation.

I have heard arguments that the authorisation for the use of force against Al Qaeda might be somehow used, but I have not read the text of that authorisation so I am not sure.

[greekspeak]

16. Apparently you have not heard of his 750 signing statements?

He thinks all he has to do is cross out stuff he doesn't like or that is inconvenient and then he procedes. So, if he wants, he will just cross out "Iraq" and write in "Iran" (no doubt with a cute backwards "r") and go for it. Someone here says a drunk is driving the bus that is America. A drunk sociopath with some other drunk sociopaths operating the foot pedals for him.

[Breeze54]

17. yes.......

We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran. For almost 20 years, the Iranian regime hid many of its key nuclear efforts from the international community. Yet the regime continues to claim that it does not seek to develop nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime’s true intentions are clearly revealed by the regime’s refusal to negotiate in good faith; its refusal to come into compliance with its international obligations by providing the IAEA access to nuclear sites and resolving troubling questions; and the aggressive statements of its President calling for Israel to “be wiped off the face of the earth.” The United States has joined with our EU partners and Russia to pressure Iran to meet its international obligations and provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided.

If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. This is the principle and logic of preemption. The place of preemption in our national security strategy remains the same. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionV.html

[izzie]

19. And it is his Congress stuff he does not go by.

That is the odd part. He just does as Bush wants.He must think he is really a King with all power.

[bdamomma]

21. and bush thinks

he is protecting the american people, I wish he would stop including us in his sick plan.

[Karmakaze]

27. That may be so, but that was NOT the question...

The question was, does the IWR provide any authority to attack Iran, and the answer is clearly no.

[greekspeak]

28. I know it doesn't. You know it doesn't. ShrubCo knows it doesn't

But it does not matter a feather, a fig, an iota, a tin shit in a gold mine, or any other hackneyed shorthand for an utterly worthless thing. ShrubCo has given itself the power to mark up the laws of the land as it sees fit. This situation will be no different. So yes, we all know that the IWR does not give power, and that is blindingly clear. Who is going to do anything to force a back-down? Congress? Not the Rubber Stamp division of ShrubCo. I doubt the SCOTUS, aka the legal team of ShrubCo, will have much sunshine to offer. However, this dictatorship of signing statements renders moot the issue of what the IWR actually says.

[paparush]

22. I STILL can't believe how many Representative signed off on this crap!

[LiberalEsto]

24. Watch this shiny coin swinging back and forth

back and forth... back and forth....
You are getting sleepy, congresspersons. Very sleepy....
Soon you will vote on this nice resolution...

very sleeeeeepy....

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. He and his cabal say the IWR gives them the right to do anything they want

in the name of terrorism and he can attack ANY country they wants to. Next up, Iran then Syria.

[izzie]

18. I have thought about that also. Will he just tie it in?

Bush seems to get more wild as time goes on. Nothing seems to reach this man. It is like he is right and that is it.

[Memory Container]

6. I would think that the joint chiefs would recognize

that he does not have the authority.

Judging by responses, it seems that he really doesn't. His simply claiming he does will not make it so.

[Hubert Flottz]

9. They make up the truth as they go along!

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. 'His simply claiming it does will not make it true.' and THAT is the

CRUX OF THE PROBLEM and goes to the OP's question.....WHO will stop them? They, so far, haven't been stopped from doing ANYTHING. Torture, NSA illegal wiretapping, leaking CIA agent name to get her out of the Iranian nuke investigation, the DSM , taking $$$$ bribes for legislative favors, etc.. They should have been impeached when it was admitted they LIED about the illegal invasion of Iraq, but they have been left to wreak havoc on our country. Who will stop it? They've also stacked the SCOTUS. If any of these "issues" go to the SC, we know how the Federalists will rule.:(

[charlie]

15. He can do what he wants

He's the Commander in Chief. It's an old constitutional tussle over the division of powers and it's never been definitively resolved. The War Powers Resolution was created to put the brakes on a reckless president, but no president has recognized its constitutionality. They've abided by it, as a matter of observing protocol, but always taken care to note that it doesn't have binding authority. In this situation, it's basically toothless anyway. The requirement before the start of military action is that he must inform the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate his intentions in writing no less than 48 hours ahead of time. In other words, even if he obeys the resolution, it's up to a pair of Republican stooges to rein him in when he runs off the leash. Think that'll happen?

[izzie]

20. NO

--

[grasswire]

13. find the March Harpers magazine

In it you will find the transcript of a forum they conducted considering the possibility of a military coup. Participants included one high-ranking active duty person and several author-experts. It's very enlightening.

[Triana]

14. IF he goes too far?

He's already done that a multitude of times on a multitude of issues. This will be just another. WWIII hasn't started yet. But this whacked out madman is bent on starting though -- and has as much as said so.

Will ANYONE stop him? I hope so...

[havocmom]

25. I believe a President can commit troops, just not declare it is a war.

That has been done many times. Problem is, he hasn't got many troops left to play with. Seems likely he would bomb Iran. Whether HE calls it a war or not is moot. The rest of the world WILL call it war, particularly China & Russia. So, our nation would be involved in a BIG war, whether Congress is involved or not.

He can send in military without Congressional approval. They have the choice of funding those already in action or not. Rock, meet hard place. Do they leave the troops stranded and refuse to write the checks as a way of exerting their oversight on the executive branch? Not bloody likely. That is what the war profiteers counted on in Iraq.

Iraq sold as a 2-3 week adventure. Then, the troops are there, getting shot at and basically held hostage while the corporations that bring them food, water, and fuel raid the US Treasury. We pay the ransom on our own people or the corporations leave them without reasources. And they pick the amount of ransom. There was a time when the military did most of their own catering. It is more secure that way.

What really worries me about the brass is the fact that the Air Force, which would most likely be the tool used against Iran initially, has a shit-load of fundy xian bots in the top ranks. And they have been turning out officers from an academy which has been shown to put pressure on its cadets in matters of religion. THAT is a scary thought. The other services may balk at going into Iran but the Air Force has many officers in high places who are a bit too much like the cast of the movie Dr. Strangelove to suit me.

A President can commit troops to battle without asking Congress to declare war, as all Vietnam Era Vets know too well. THIS pResident seems pretty intent on doing what his masters want. And, folks, though our Constitution says We The People are in charge, we all know who his real masters are...

[Chimichurri]

26. He already has gone too far and nothing's happened. Nothing

will happen. He's doing the bidding for the very powerful top 1%.