[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

what is the difference between bombing nuclear facilities to prevent Amadin. from using them, or products from them against a population and bombing tanks, troops and shooting down jets to prevent their use by Gad. against a population? neither being ours

The situation in Iran is a hypothetical. While Iranian nukes shift the balance of power, the odds that they would be employed against Iran's neighbors or given to terrorists is probably quite remote.

The situation in Libya is real. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians was occurring. The situation was deteriorating and heading towards a likely genocide. The destabilizing impact of this would most certainly harm US interests, especially those of our Arab allies.

What's remarkable is how the Administration united Western and Middle Eastern interests under International Law. I'm not sure this has ever been done before and could set a very positive precedent.

Useless random quote snipped.

I'm not suggesting that he does not have the authority to go in to Libya or that we should not intervene, only that he is, as Piscator stated, an utter hypocrit based on his past comments, which should surprise noone at this point just as your dutiful, twisted spin of all things Obama should surprise noone...

Full Text...

(Boston Globe) In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an 'Imminent' threat?)

(Candidate Obama) The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Clearly Obama is responding to a question specifically about how a President Obama would deal with Iran, not every conceivable action that might involve military activity.

With Libya, Congress was informed as is required under the War Powers Act and has legal recourse to halt the military involvement if they so wish.

I'd also note that on March 1st the Senate voted UNANIMOUSLY in support of a no fly zone, so the idea that Obama is going off alone here just isn't reality.

-spence