Clinton Says Bush Has No Authority ‘To Do Anything With Respect to Iran.’ Too bad she is wrong.

In an interview with Think Progress, Senator Hillary Clinton said:

Well, I think that the President should not assume that he has any authority to do anything with respect to Iran. He needs to come to the Congress, and neither the resolution regarding Afghanistan or Iraq give him authority to take offensive action.

That's tough talk, but not founded in law. The section of the US Code that is known as the War Powers Resolution limits the President's ability to initiate hostilities thusly:

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

And in fact, the administration recently tried to make the case than Iran is attacking our troops:

The long-awaited Baghdad briefing had plenty of props. There were two tables stacked with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, a PowerPoint slide show and, perhaps most importantly, a particularly nasty weapon known as an EFP, or explosively formed penetrator.

A trio of American military officials led the show. Their mission: rolling out the administration’s case that Iran is supporting attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq.

While this didn't play well, and the administration backed off of its claims, the charge has been laid and can be repeated often enough to give the President cause to start bombing Iran. While each charge may be discredited later, the bombs will have already fallen. Besides, the Iranians are undeniably meddling in Iraq, lending plausibility to the allegations.

This highlights the problems Congress faces in preventing an attack on Iran. By design of the Framers, the Executive is able to act more quickly than the Legislature. Most of the time this is a good thing, but when a President wants a war, he tends to get it. As a rule, Congress can only react to his policies.

Which brings us back to Senator Clinton. More than any other member of Congress, she should understand this reality. After all, as First Lady, she was party to military interventions in Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Kosovo, none of which were authorized by Congress, all of which were deemed legal.

I bring this up not simply to bash Ms. Clinton for this contradiction, but to raise an important question about her as a Presidential candidate.

She puts forth a more hawkish countenance than her Democratic rivals, refusing to call her 1992 vote on the Iraq authorization of force a mistake, and not ruling out the use of force against Iran. As we should know by now, a President's view of Executive war making power is of vital importance to the nation's welfare.

So which is it for Hillary: the philosophy of Congressional participation she advocates now, or the unilateral interventionism of her husband's presidency?

How about the other Presidential candidates? What are their views?

Shouldn't we know this before we vote?