Secretary Rice has responded to Sen. Webb’s twice-asked question — does the White House believe that they need congressional authority to go to war with Iran? — but she failed to answer the question. So Webb is asking for a third time. Why is this so hard?
Comments are closed.
When the junior senator from Virginia huffs and puffs, it is very appropriate that an Assistant Secretary of State responds to his inquiry.
If Iran is on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon and the threat imminent, the Commander in Chief does not need Congressional authority to take appropriate action.
I might add that numerous military actions have been taken by previous Commanders in Chief without Congressional authority. I’ll reference you to the 1983 Grenda Invasion and the 1989 “Operation Just Cause” — in which we ousted the Noriega regime.
If we launch any strike against Iran, it will be limited in nature. Israel might handle the job herself.
Don’t forget the Clinton administration and General Clark in Bosnia. No threat to the US. No UN or congressional approval.
Webb should quit grandstanding. It’s boring.
And the cool thing about the Bosnia intervention? Not a single American life lost.
I just don’t understand why Secretary Rice won’t answer the question.
That’s right, not a single American life lost. That’s what you can do with limited objectives and no ground forces. Of course, there is the odd faux pas like, oh, bombing the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, but I guess it would be churlish to quibble.
Rowhey:
numerous military actions have been taken by previous Commanders in Chief without Congressional authority
Smails:
Don’t forget the Clinton administration and General Clark in Bosnia […] Webb should quit grandstanding. It’s boring.
That’s right! No politician should ever be held accountable for their actions because… um… a Democrat did a bad thing once! Twice, even! Justifying military actions is boring!
I’m glad you guys are here to keep us straightened out.
Has Rice’s response been reprinted anywhere? Can’t seem to find it amongst these links….
The vary nature of Webb’s question is loaded. The question should be whether the Commander-in-Chief has authority to launch military action generally without Congressional approval.
The weight of legal authority and precedent strongly indicates that the President has plenary powers to wage war. The Framers noted that there is a vast difference between the power to “wage war” and “declaring war.”
I’ll go into this more later.
@James: No, Webb’s office has not made it public, which is disappointing. He was asked by a delegation of twenty supporters that met with his legislative director on Jan. 29 to make whatever answer he received public.
A call to his office to ask that that be done would be helpful…
The question needs to be flipped around on Senator Webb. He should be asked the question of whether Ronald Reagan had Constitutional authority to launch a military strike against Grenada in 1983, Libya in 1986, and whether President G.H.W. Bush had authority to launch the Kosovo operation.
This is a constitutional and legal issue. The weight of authority is against Webb’s position.
There is no doubt that any President has plenary power to launch military operations within certain parameters. The concept of a formal declaration of war was as obsolete at the time of the drafting of the Constitution as it is today. Alexander Hamilton said as much.
Webb knows this. Really, he is using this constitutional approach as a backdoor way to ask the question “does the Bush Administration plan to launch an offensive strike against Iran?”
Frankly, I think that it is a waste of time and energy to address this long-resolved issue.
At some point, I am going to elaborate on this extensively — if Webb continues down this asinine path.
There was an equivalent faux pas during the 1986 Libyan strikes when the French Embassy in Tripoli was hit.
It would indeed be churlish to quibble…and try to make a partisan political issue out of relatively minor collateral damage resulting from very limited-scope air operations. Bombs never fall quite where you want them–regardless of which party controls the White House.
[Note also that two American lives were lost in the strike mission when a USAF FB-111 went down.]
I recall the French refused us the right to overfly their territory when the planes left from England enroute to Libya. It doubled-or-so the flying distance and necessitated midair refueling.
You say bombing their embassy was an accident. I say it was classic Reagan. ;)
Agreed that the whole thing was classic Reagan. (I was a participant; it was my first deployment, aboard the aircraft carrier USS Coral Sea [CV-43].)
However, France wasn’t unique in its refusal of overflight permission: Spain likewise refused, hence the FB-111s’ routing through the Straits of Gibraltar.
Ironically, our ship was in port in Spain (Malaga), preparing to OUTCHOP the Mediterranean and return to Norfolk, the day the Berlin disco bombing occurred. So…rather than return home, we cut our port call short, turned around, returned to the Gulf of Sidra area (where we’d been involved in various naval and air engagements with the Libyans for much of the previous month), and positioned ourselves to launch the strikes.
P.S. You’ll note I didn’t actually say it was an “accident”; I referred to it as “collateral damage.”