Sy Hersch: IWR allows Bush to go in Iran (or wherever he wants)

[The Count]

So for all of you who think sponsoring/voting for this is suddenly irrelevant - think again! Sy hersch said * has a 24h order situation on Iran (can start the war in 24h if he wants). he doesn't need Congress approval as IWR takes care of it.
So....OOPS!

[LisaM]

1. Can they revoke the IWR?

Because they should.

[The Count]

2. I remember some talk in the senate about limiting it. It's the preemptive clause

that creates all the trouble...

[rodeodance]

3. yes, some Dem sen. said he was going to introduce this bill.? who

[KoKo]

6. I seem to remember Senator Biden saying he would introduce that...but

I haven't seen it repeated by him or any other news about it after the AIPAC Conference. Biden said it before the conference...I think on Tim Russert's MTP.

[The Count]

8. Biden's ideas are like Joementum investigations - just rhetoric...I was hoping

it would be someone more reliable, like Feingold or Leahy.

[karynnj]

20. That was the Biden/Hagel/.Levin bill that Hagel voted against.

It failed - but Biden did as he said. No AIPAC

[Sal316]

4. I posted on this the other day...

'he decides'. Two words that changed America

From the AUMF (Public Law 107-40) itself:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

FindLaw Link

Did you see it?

No?

Read it again.

There are two words in there that make "The Decider" the ultimate arbiter of 'Murikan justice around the world.

"He determines".

[The Count]

7. Amazing! I wish I had seen it and recommended it

I remember Clark in the debate asking all candidates in Congress to eliminate that language...it was apparently important enough for WaPo to eliminate the remarks from their debate transcript - until alerted by the 'internets"

[bornskeptic]

17. This is not from the IWR.

It is from the Authorization for the Use of Military force passed shortly after 9/11/01 and preceding the attack on Afghanistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force

The authorization section in the IWR is

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.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

It seems clear to me that the latter applies only to Iraq.

[On the Road]

12. So Theoretically

Congress could just change those two words. I mean if it's the only way to get a resolution through. That might help. I agree this is very important.

[indepat]

18. That's why he is the decider: the freakin' Congress gave a blank check for the decider to do

whatever he wishes to do to anyone or any country at any time. On the surface, giving to any one person such fuc*ing power is unadulterated, undiluted sheer pure lunacy for what if the person given such broad power turned out to be a mad man?

[nealmhughes]

25. The operative little conjunction is "or" in the selected portion.

"Or" as a Boolean operator is the least limiting of set junctions.

"And" is the most limiting.

One little word in our Reichtag Fire Enabling Act. . . and I am sure that was no accident.

[LSK]

30. thats pretty selective, how about providing the whole section?

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(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.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

[peacetalksforall]

37. it says those who did 9-11 and to prevent - where is the proof

that Iran helped 9-11 and where is the proof that they they are going to perform 'future acts of international terrorism against the United States".

How can that be construed to say Iraq is the United States?

[The Count]

5. Other stuff Hersch said: he doesn't know if W wants to attack Iran - never knows

what W wants - he just makes the speeches. But he knows Cheney wants it - they don't want to leave with Iran as beneficiary of the Iraq war. Albright had said earlier in the show that the Nov elections might have stopped this war, but Hirsch ain't so sure.
he also commented about Irans actions: "it appears from where we stand that they act crazy, but in truth, they are reacting to our rhetoric"

[CGowen]

9. Hersh told us

Hersh: Cheney said Dem win won't stop U.S. plans for Iran

If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put “shorteners” on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way.

The White House’s concern was not that the Democrats would cut off funds for the war in Iraq but that future legislation would prohibit it from financing operations targeted at overthrowing or destabilizing the Iranian government, to keep it from getting the bomb. “They’re afraid that Congress is going to vote a binding resolution to stop a hit on Iran, à la Nicaragua in the Contra war,” a former senior intelligence official told me.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/11/19/144758/22


And he told us in 2005


We speak with investigative journalist Seymour Hersh who is reporting that the Pentagon has already secretly sent in forces to Iran to identify possible future military targets. According to Hersh, the president has authorized the Pentagon to send secret commando forces into as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia. The secret forces could potentially carry out combat operations or even terrorist acts.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/18/1447252

[Marie26]

10. Didn't they specifically

limit the IWR resolution to apply only to Iraq?

[pnwmom]

14. That's what Pelosi, Reid, and Clinton have said. Also, Hagel. n/t

[Marie26]

34. I remember Hagel

said that when the Bush Ad. sent over the first draft of the IWR, this draft would have allowed the US to attack the entire Mideast. But Hagel, Biden & others rejected that & redrafted the bill so that it could only apply to Iraq. Congress at least did that much.

[TwilightGardener]

41. I remember that too--from the GQ article. He said they had to strip that

language out and replace it with just "Iraq". Wouldn't you have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the oval office when Chimpy and the Dick got that draft back from Biden and Hagel? How pissed they must have been! But insanely, we are only recently finding out about it because of that article. These guys all know WAY more than they show to the public about the BushCo PNAC plan. Maybe that's why they're trying so hard to put on the brakes.

[karynnj]

21. yes

[Tom Joad]

11. We can support Sen. Webb's bill to demand Bush come to Congress

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/justforeignpolicy.org/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=361

The link is also in my sig line. Bush may end up ignoring anything congress says, but we should do all we can to put the brakes on this. I actually think it is unlikely that Bush will attack Iran, but given their game of chicken, their desire to escalate tensions, things may get out of hand.

[Tom Joad]

13. Bush administration game of Chicken with Iran... check out Bolton's words...

http://www.stopaipac.org/boltontape.htm

Chatting with aipac fans:

Former Ambassador Bolton: Let me turn now to the question of Iran and what I think the situation is there. The Security Council just passed a resolution. The resolution that the Security Council passed at the end of last month imposing certain limited sanctions on Iran, obviously the product of a long effort based on Iran’s refusal to comply with the earlier Security Council resolution that gave them until August 31st to cease their uranium enrichment activities. I’d have to say because I’m a private citizen and therefore a free man again, and these are my personal views, now, that this sanctions resolution is very disappointing. It is not as tough as I would have liked to have seen it. In many respects the Russians did an outstanding job from their point of view in protecting Iran, in narrowing the scope of the sanctions, in limiting the effectiveness, I think, of many of the things that we wanted to try and do to prevent the Iranians from continuing to make progress on their nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

I think the Iranian reaction to the sanctions resolution has been very telling in that respect, although they’ve passed a resolution in parliament to re-evaluate their relation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, they have not rejected the sanctions resolution, they have not done anything more dramatic, such as withdrawing from the nonproliferation treaty, or throwing out inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which I actually hoped they would do – that that kind of reaction would produce a counter-reaction that actually would be more beneficial to us.

[pnwmom]

15. Do you have a link for this?

[The Count]

16. As I described in my message - it's from AAR - Thom Hartman show

So....To paraphrase Hersch's words more closely for you; "he doesn't need to go to Congress for approval this time, he already has it in the IWR - you know, the same IWR that Kerry said he would vote for again if he knew the facts..." and then he spoke about the preemption provisions in it.

[karynnj]

22. Kerry has said repeatedly in more detail, more contritely

than anyone else that he profoundly regrets the vote - you know this - and you know that Kerry misheard the question at the Grand Canyon and was on record millions of times saying the war was wrong and not a war of last resort. Why target the one man who voted for it who spoke against going to war before it started. Will you ever get over your hatred? He is fighting as hard as anyone to get us out.

This thread was not about Kerry. The IWR is the Iraq War Resolution - not the Iraq (and any other place that you can temporarilly rename Iraq) War Resolution. One thing the Democrats got was confining it to Iraq. Hersh is right though that the war powers act itself allows the President to attack if he deems the US threathened.

[The Count]

24. I was asked for a link. Since it was a radio show, I reproduced what I heard

as closely as I could remember. Those were Sy's words, not mine. I don't have a beef whith anyone who's not running, but as for the candidates - oops don't cover it!

[karynnj]

38. Then why did you attack Kerry instead of

Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, and Biden.

-He has done more than any of them to work towards an exit strategy. (even in his 2004 plan). Clinton, Dodd, Obama, and Biden voted against Kerry/Feingold. I don't think Edwards backed it.

- He spoke against rushing to war before it started and they didn't. (For one, this means the vote was NOT political - because that would have been taken as against the war.)

So - giving weight both to what they did in 2004 and what they are doing now, there is more reason to blame the others. (In Obama's case it depends how you weight them.)

[tritsofme]

19. Are you sure he wasn't referring to the 9/11 resolution?

Because the IWR dealt exclusively to Iraq, while the 9/11 AUMF was basically a blank check to anywhere in the world.

[The Count]

23. Had to be - because he said: "the one that Kerry said he'd vote for even knowing

there was no WMD" and then mentioned the preemptive action thinghie - which I am pretty sure is part of the IWR, not 9.11

[RestoreGore]

26. Yes, it's in there alright

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(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.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

~~~~~~

Hitler had the Enabling Act, we have this and the Patriot Act. They handed the world to him on a silver platter... the fools.

[Marie26]

27. That's limited to IRAQ.

Either Hersh misspoke, or the OP misquoted, but the IWR doesn't extend that authorization to attack Iran.

[RestoreGore]

28. They still have blood on their hands

They are still all murderers. They all gave him the poweer to use military force in a preemptive war. And as the bolded section shows, they still gave him power to conduct hia "war on terror" where ever he so chooses.

[Marie26]

33. Yeah, but not in Iran

They did give him the right to attack Iraq & that was a preemptive, immoral war. But the IWR in no way gives Bush the right to attack Iran. You're quoting subsection (c), but that subsection is just an explanatory text - subsection (a) & (b) actually delineate the limits of the war authorization - and both sections clearly limit the authorization to attacking IRAQ, and only Iraq. I think maybe you're confusing this w/the Afganistan war authorization - which did have that blanket language allowing attacks on any country involved in 9/11.

[LSK]

29. does anyone bother to READ the whole thing??????

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(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.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Follow the links from here (my thomas links never seem to work)

Sorry, Hersch is partially wrong on this. Bush would TRY to use this as justification, but it will not fly in the Congress and would go to the Supreme Court.

[Toucano]

31. And to take that further, he can bomb Iran without relying on any

resolution.

[RestoreGore]

32. The IWR is unconstitutional

Only Congress can declare war. This resolution has Congress actually voting to give BUSH that sole power. HOW could they do that?

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

The situation with Iraq absolutely fell under the The War Powers Resolution of 1973, yet in there it has a section where Congress can end the war. The IWR does not. So by signing this was the Constitution and this act superceded as well as Congress's power to end this occupation? Again, how could they do that? Frankly, I don't care whether Iran is covered in this or not, because these sociopaths don't need no stinkin piece of paper to do what they want. Why can't people see that by now?

[Jcrowley]

35. K&R

Because it gives President Bush another $100 billion to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And it doesn't end the occupation or prevent expansion of the war to Iran.

WHAT IT DOES:
It calls for pulling out some troops from Iraq by August 2008.

BUT:
It exempts whole categories of troops from the withdrawal ...

Troops "training the Iraqi military" can stay -- currently 6,000, perhaps as many as 20,000 (no limit in the supplemental).

Troops engaged in "special operations" can stay -- the Marines say they want 20,000 for Anbar Province alone, perhaps as many as 40,000 for the whole country (no limit in the supplemental).

Troops "protecting diplomatic enclaves" like the huge Green Zone and the US Embassy, the largest in the world, and maybe including the numerous US bases established in Iraq, can stay -- 20,000 is a conservative number (no limit in the supplemental).

That means Bush could keep unlimited numbers, perhaps 60,000-80,000 troops, permanently in Iraq -- and still be in compliance with the bill.

And the bill does not require that the troops withdrawn from Iraq be sent home; they can be immediately deployed to Afghanistan, or to bases in surrounding Arab countries, or to ships in the Persian Gulf -- or be used to attack Iran.

WHAT IT DOES:
It imposes restrictions on Pentagon deployments, prohibiting the deployment of troops not fully trained, not adequately equipped, and not adequately rested between deployments.

BUT:
It includes a waiver for President Bush to simply state his intention to override those restrictions, allowing him to send in as many untrained, badly equipped and exhausted troops as he wishes.

WHAT IT DOES:
Prohibit construction of new permanent bases in Iraq.

BUT:
It does nothing to close the existing permanent bases the U.S. has built across Iraq and includes billions for "military construction" presumably for those existing bases.

WHAT IT DOES:
Require Iraq's government to pass a new oil law.

BUT:
The law being debated in the parliament abandons Iraq's long history of maintaining control of its oil resources in favor of allowing international (especially U.S.) oil companies to take control of large sectors of the vital oil industry.

WHAT IT DOES:
Cut 10% of the funding for private military contractors.

BUT:
It allows 90% of the 100,000 or so mercenaries who fight alongside the U.S. military to remain in Iraq.

WHAT IT DOESN'T DO:

The supplemental does not prohibit an unprovoked attack on Iran.

The supplemental does not end the occupation of Iraq.

[peacetalksforall]

36. Talk Talk Talk - where's the action? Where is the desire to stop

any bombing of Iran? Anyone want to move up from a snail pace? Do we have all the time in the world?

[lovuian]

39. This is confirmation what we all have been saying Congress

is at this point just a rubber stamper for Bush
Deep down all these senators who voted to renew the Patriot act for 6 months will be forever known in history as part of the Bush cohorts... theres no hiding it

Bush knew all along he was going to war with Iran and its coming soon

Right now we are witnesses to a time in the world that will major changes on this Earth

:nuke:

[Rex]

40. How long has the War Powers act of 1973 been around?

Oh wait. Maybe the IWR is now the new standard. They get 90 days and then...do whatever they want. Congress can just sit on the bench, not like the executive will care.