English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Below is a yahoo news cut out .

Notice how Murtha is saying that he wants to do somthing to make Bush have to get Congrestional permision .

Did the law change somewhere - it certainly seems so if a Senetor needs to do somthing to make Bush get permision .

Are you sure the sealing of Iran's borders and the aircraft carriers and the proposed 21,000 extra soldiers don't mean looming war ?

Murtha, who has been among Congress's foremost opponents of Iraq war policy, also said he is considering attaching a provision to a looming war spending bill that would bar U.S. military action against Iran without congressional approval.

2007-02-15 07:14:49 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

In his April 17 article, Hersh reported that "one of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites." In his latest article, Hersh gets it right: "[T]he brass feel they were tricked into it – the nuclear planning – by being asked to provide all options in the planning papers." Indeed, as we wrote in our Nov. 1, 2005 column, "The strategic decision by the United States to nuke Iran was probably made long ago," by the civilian leadership, which fed it to military planners and now, according to Hersh, "feels extraordinarily betrayed by the brass." They may have taken the option out of discussion, but only formally.

According to the Nuclear Posture Review of 2001, nuclear weapons are envisioned in response to "surprising military developments," so they cannot have been ruled out unconditionally

2007-02-15 07:17:34 · update #1

Jorge Hirsh is a well respected world renowned professor of nuclear science in California

2007-02-15 07:19:00 · update #2

8 answers

Bush seems to do whatever the heck he likes..if he is going to invade Iran...he is making a BIG mistake...because they will not stand for it - and i dont blame them!!

i fear americans will no longer be safe anywhere they go...all because of him!! i just hope to hell that England do not go along with him this time...i am sure if we do - we will get rid of our Prime Minister at the first available election!! - i hope you do the same with your President - its only you people who can remove him when its time!!

2007-02-15 07:23:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

According to the Constitution, the President, as Commander and Chief, has the sole authority to wage war. Before the Vietnam War this was interpreted as the President having unlimited authority to use the military in any way he desired. It was during the Vietnam War that Congress passed and overturned Nixon's veto on the War Powers Act. This limited the President's war making ability to 90 days per action. What this means, essentially, is that the President has 90 days to do whatever he wants with the military before seeking Congressional approval. If he chooses to attack/invade Iran than he can do so.

What is currently being debated is whether this the War Powers Act should be modified to further limit the President's war making authority. This would require the President to get Congressional approval for ANY military action, whether offensive or defensive.

As to a looming war, don't get too caught up in media politics. There isn't currently an accumulation of carrier groups in the Persian Gulf as the norm has been one to three over the last 20 years. Also, the additional 21,000 troops are nominal compared to what's already there. Many of the military leaders have said we need five times as many just to handle the problems in Iraq, much less invade Iran. While we may eventually invade Iran, there would be a lot more happening than what's currently taking place and I believe such a war is still several years away.

(P.S. Let's not forget that the war in Iraq not only has Congressional approval, but was approved with a super majority of over 90%, to include nearly all the Democrats. Since the invasion of Iraq there has not been a single motion or bill submitted to Congress to withdraw funding or end the war. They talk about it a lot, but don't do anything about it.)

2007-02-15 07:37:59 · answer #2 · answered by yn_tennison 4 · 1 0

The law has not changed. The PRESIDENT is constitutionally empowered to CONDUCT FOREIGN AFFAIRS. Maybe all of the border sealing and troop build-up does mean war with Iran. The Bush agenda DOES advocate pre-emptive striking. GW HAS said that we can not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. Murtha can go fly a kite. Congress CAN control the funds but the president can launch military action against Iran if he wants, with or without congressional approval. Also, maybe the border sealing is one thing we should have done years ago. Maybe it is part of the change in direction plans GW has adapted along with the increase in troops.

2007-02-15 07:48:37 · answer #3 · answered by just the facts 5 · 1 0

Of course, Congress controls the purse strings, but the President has constitutional authority to defend the country and is commander in chief of the military.
Murtha is an unindicted co-conspirator in ABSCAM. He is just about the lowest form of scum on the earth.
Congress has NOT Executive powers what so ever. Period. All they can do is whine, George W. Bush is the MAN until his term expires in January 2009, or he is impeached and removed from office. And that won't happen.

2007-02-15 07:23:09 · answer #4 · answered by plezurgui 6 · 2 0

Bush can drag the country into war, but the Congress can cut funding on war expenses, just like the Vietnam War. As well they should, because war with Iran is very risky business, as well as expensive to operate. There are very grave consequences - such as escalation in terrorism, attack on energy resources, and involvement of countries like China and Russia, who have strategic interests with Iran. Things could get real ugly.

2007-02-15 07:27:11 · answer #5 · answered by Think Richly™ 5 · 2 1

The President cannot legally declare war by himself. The Senate has that power under the Constitution. President Bush, however, has never let Constitutional law stop him from doing anything he wanted to do...invade Iraq, spy on our own citizens, even become president. Will somebody in Congress please grow some cojones and impeach the man?

2007-02-15 07:25:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Congress can cut funding if it wants - it has the power.

I think it would be a disastrous course of action, to cut funding in the middle of a conflict.

But the American people voted the Democrats in, so they will have to live with the consequences.

2007-02-15 07:18:14 · answer #7 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 4 0

The bombing starts in an hour...

2007-02-15 07:25:45 · answer #8 · answered by Matt 5 · 0 1

dump bush--now..

2007-02-15 07:22:55 · answer #9 · answered by cork 7 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers