Doesent the President have to have approval from the senate to Attack iran in any way?

Question

Im pretty sure i know the answer to this but im not 100 percent posative.

Answer 1

We better unite.


THE WAR

Please take the time to read the essay below by Dr. Chong. It is without a doubt the most


This WAR is for REAL!
Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
Tuesday, July 12, 2005.

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most
serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine
(which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who
think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is
1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the
administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault
either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents
or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian
population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was
also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or
you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political
reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm...

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million
holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the
Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy
about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world
- German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way --
their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the
peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many
peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim
leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements --
killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the
choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists.
Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There
is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting. So with
that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose
this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many
of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads,
bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far
from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but
rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just
wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us,
over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorists to attack us, until we were
neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for
the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier
for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong
for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed
their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be
done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and
realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists
without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and
fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know
it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we
can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed
to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the
costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning.
And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves
by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full
support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to
be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death
seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the
terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary
Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously?
This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we
have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights
temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII,
and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and
all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of
those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost
seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they
are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless,
that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It
concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the
treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We
have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war,
by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few
months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands,
cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing
with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own
people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters, who recently
were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all
news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought
and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not
burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading
them, but "humiliating" them.
Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense.
If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the
seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the
disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look
like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the
real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say,
this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply
means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in, and
into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL
non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.'
That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so
good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us,
and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country
in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech,
freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone --
let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in
one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated
in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders
will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in
the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and
continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be
fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to
weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force.
Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide that they
abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.
They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing
each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing
from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way
that we can lose. I hope the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation
we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about!
Do whatever you can to preserve it.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our
grandchildren, our country and the world.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians
and media of our country and the free world!

Answer 2

Only Congress can declare a war. Iran was not included in the Act that was passed for military force "as a last resort" in Iraq. I think Bush and Congress will tread very slowly when it comes to wanting an expanded war in the region. First, we don't have the forces in place for a prolonged or wider engagement. We also may have to institute the draft because our National Guard reservists are stretched to the breaking point at home because they are being used overseas. Local and state authorities, especially in the southwest US, are complaining that they don't even have enough men and women in case of emergencies & to stop illegal immigration. We also don't have sufficient armaments in place for an offensive attack, except for 2 or 3 aircraft carriers in the Gulf area. It will take much more than that to sustain a fight vs Iran. Bush will have to go to Congress to request additional funding for an expanded fight there, and I don't think he would get it, unless something much more major happens to us via an Iranian attack on our forces. I don't think it will happen. But, Bush needs Congressional support and authority.

Answer 3

A President has 60-90 days on an attack before having to consult Congress. So yes Bush could attack Iran. Full-scale war lasting over the time period would require Congressional consent. In any case it would be politically infeasible for any President to start a third war without popular support and Congress onboard.

Congress can also refuse funding to a war or ongoing wars, which would make it rather difficult to wage a war. In the case of Iraq, Congress gave Bush the authority to go to war without declaring war on Iraq themselves. Basically they said "hey you figure it out" and gave him a blank check at that time.

Answer 4

He can attack Iran, but he needs Congress to do everything else! That is one: to actually declare war, and two: to give funding to support the war itself. Under this Congress tho, a war with Iran is highly improbable, as Pelosi said that the Senate will not support (fund) any aggression towards Iran.

Answer 5

Yes and no. Congress did give him the authority to invade Iraq when they passed public law 107-243 in october of 2002. Clinton bombed some countries without congress approval.

Answer 6

Nope, he's the commander in Chief he can attack anyone he wants for any reason. However, he needs Congress' approval to offically declare war.

Answer 7

No. But to get a declaration of war, yes.
I note the lengthy piece above by EZMZ, who is correct in every detail.

Answer 8

Attack NO...sanctions such as Jimmy Carter's boycott of Olympics which broke our athletes hearts...to non trade.

Answer 9

one word EXECUTIVE PRIVILEDGE.
Bush and his boys pretty much do what they want. Congress can challenge him or even move to impeach him but for some strange reason, they are scared.

Answer 10

No. Congress has to vote to keep military elements somewhere, not to send them.

Answer 11

no, he is the executive. for an actual declaration of war, he does, however.