[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

so you are saying that the president's constitutional authority varies depending on which country in the middle east we are talking about?

OBAMA clearly describes what HE believes the president may or may not do regarding military action, his own words.... and he was specifically referring, in this "hypothetical", to what HE believed should be the bounds of presidential authority regarding miilitary action, and he made very clear any exceptions ...geographic location in the middle east has absolutely nothing to do with it...

Obama- “any offensive military action taken by the United States against (Iran) must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

why should this vary from one country to the next?...oh, I forgot, we are talking about Obama "you do as I say and I'll do as I please"


is this "Iran specific" "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. "-Obama

First off, let me congratulate you on actually composing yourself enough to pen a thoughtful and well constructed post. This may be precedent setting and I'm sure it didn't come easily. Hard work should be recognized and appreciated.

Or the meds finally kicked in at the right time.

To answer your question, no, I don't believe the country matters.

The Constitution certainly does appear to give the President the ability to use military force without Congressional approval as Obama says in his quote...And there's also a lot of subjectivity as to what constitutes a "threat" to the US. This has been used to justify all manners of military action without Congressional approval throughout the years...and often with controversy given the situation.

In the case of Libya the UN resolution has a very limited objective but also legal legitimacy and sponsorship from a number of nations. This is the UN acting as much or more than the US acting. There also is a pretty clear threat to US interests.

While certainly not free, the US involvement in enforcing the UN Resolution isn't likely to change the funding or mission of the armed forces...assuming the action is kept within the expected scope.

I don't think you can say the same about any attack on Iran which would likely have stiff opposition from Russia and China and almost certainly escalate rapidly into a much larger conflict. So to even entertain such thoughts one would think Congressional approval would be a requirement.

So I think Obama is correct in asserting that to attack Iran would require Congressional approval. But this isn't a blanket statement on the use of US force.

And you say...

I'm not suggesting that he does not have the authority to go in to Libya or that we should not intervene

Which leads me to believe you actually agree on both points.

-spence