Does Bush have legal authority to attack Syria or Iran...?

[kentuck]

...without Congressional approval? Can he claim it is a "continuation" of the war on terror, which the Congress gave him authority to fight? Will he ignore Congress again and does it really matter because Congress would rubberstamp his request anyway?

[Drum]

1. Does an addict simply walk away? nt

[RufusEarl]

2. According to Condie he does, for the reasons you posted.

[AndyA]

3. Legal authority? What legal authority? Bush don't need no stinkin'

legal authority, he is The Decider. If he decides, that is the authority. Just ask him or any member of his staff. They will tell you it is true.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. I Fail To See The Relevance.

Let's be honest here, if he wants to attack them, our 'yes master' congress would allow him to anyway.

[Norquist Nemesis]

10. The Lords would just write a law making it okay after the fact

for King George. You're correct!

[bluethruandthru]

5. Correct me if I'm wrong...

but was there ever an official declaration of war on "terror"?
Isn't that akin to declaring war on drugs? or war on illiteracy?

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. There has been no declaration of war

Congress authorized the use of military force (AUMF), but never declared war for the current actions being waged in Iraq.

Frustrating, isn't it?

[kentuck]

6. Should some Democrat question this authority now before it is too late?

We know that his his plan, right?

[no_hypocrisy]

7. Hell, he didn't have authority to attack Iraq . . . n/t

[The Cleaner]

9. I distinctly remember Biden on CBS Face the Nation

where he adamantly said, "The President now has the ability to go to war with Iran without the approval of Congress, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF CONGRESS!" He said it many times. This was a few months ago.

Bush has made himself king, no joking, and dictator. This is dangerous for our democracy, as Bush has basically ignored not only the will of the people, but the will of Congress.

He feels above the law and damn, I have NO IDEA how the man is not impeached.

[Norquist Nemesis]

11. It's amazing! The party above all has been destroying this country.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. Of course he does - it's called "Commander in Chief"

He can practically do whatever the hell he wants with the military. Congress can not-fund the military, however, if they wanted to object, but do you see THAT happening?

[xultar]

13. Sure. He'll use the same bullshit excuse he used to attack Iraq.

They are using the same playbook. Nothing has changed. Media drumb beat the same. Same talking points. Same phuckin thing.

[11 Bravo]

14. The jug-eared little prick doesn't recognize a need for "legal authority".

A cretin with a messianic complex can be frightening to behold.

[kentuck]

15. If the Democrats win and they do not rein him in...

they will lose my support. Period.

[11 Bravo]

16. I'm with you, kentuck.

At this point, to my way of thinking, it's all about subpoena power. If we acquire it, and then fail to employ it in the cause of bringing these criminals to justice, then it's time to turn the Democratic party upside-down and shake it out.