Karl: Congressional support for Bush

CNN Political Correspondent Jonathan Karl: Congress "authorized the use of force against all those involved in the September 11 attacks."

(CNN) -- CNN political correspondent Jonathan Karl is on Capitol Hill in Washington. Several hours after the United States' and Great Britain's military action in Afghanistan had begun, Karl spoke with CNN's Judy Woodruff about what congressional support is in place for the operation.

JONATHAN KARL: On September 14, the Congress came in and drafted and passed -- virtually unanimously -- an authorization for the use of force in this case.

MORE STORIES Congress praises Bush, military action

It was passed by the United States Senate 100-to-0 and by the House of Representatives 420-to-1.

That resolution was a very short resolution, and a very specific one. It authorized the use of force against all those involved in the September 11 attacks. It's important to get the exact language to see what precisely the Congress has authorized the president to do.

CNN.COM SPECIAL REPORT  CNN NewsPass Video  Agencies reportedly got hijack tips in 1998  MORE STORIES Intelligence intercept led to Buffalo suspects Report cites warnings before 9/11  EXTRA INFORMATION Timeline: Who Knew What and When? Interactive: Terror Investigation Terror Warnings System Most wanted terrorists What looks suspicious? In-Depth: America Remembers In-Depth: Terror on Tape In-Depth: How prepared is your city?  RESOURCES On the Scene: Barbara Starr: Al Qaeda hunt expands? On the Scene: Peter Bergen: Getting al Qaeda to talk

It authorizes him to take -- quote -- "action against those nations, organizations or persons" that he determines "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, and also against those "who harbored such organizations or persons."

So, clearly in this case, the Congress was talking very specifically about the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and also about the al Qaeda network -- possibly authorizing action far beyond just Afghanistan. But very clearly the way this has been interpreted by Congressional leaders, it's been an authorization of precisely the kind of force that we've seen now taking place in Afghanistan.

This is why it might not be surprising that we've seen a unified statement come out from all four congressional leaders (of both houses and both political parties), expressing strong support for the military action.

Also, just a few minutes ago, we got a statement from Joe Biden (of Delaware), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a Democrat, a very short statement saying, "I join all Americans in supporting President Bush." At the time the congressional resolution was passed on September 14, Joe Biden said on CNN that he believed it was the equivalent of a declaration of war. He said that, constitutionally, there is no difference between what the Congress did then and a declaration of war.

And that's basically what we're looking at here. And we're expecting to see many more statements in the next hours and days from key congressional leaders expressing virtually unconditional support for this action in Afghanistan.

The Congress was very specific, though, in saying that action being authorized for the president had to be dealing with that September 11 attack -- those who were involved in the attacks or harbored those involved. The force must be used against those who can be tied in some way to the September 11 attacks.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What would Congress need to do if the administration were to escalate (the military action), to somehow go to the next step? Or is it felt that the administration can pursue pretty much whatever it needs in this campaign?

KARL: The resolution also makes reference to the War Powers Resolution, which says that the president must keep the Congress notified and must continue to get approval from Congress as he goes about executing force around the globe.

This resolution -- many said at the time, and we're seeing in the statements coming out now -- would not necessarily be limited to just Afghanistan. It refers to anybody who was in any way tied to the organization that did these attacks or harboring those who did the attacks.

So let's say the president wanted to take further action against other nations that he deemed had something to do with the attacks -- say, Iraq. Under this resolution, it was said at the time, that would be authorized, as long as it could be clearly established for the Congress that the nations the president was taking action against had something to do with the September 11 attacks.

This is not a blank check to go after any terrorist organization anywhere in the world. To do that, congressional leaders would say the president needs to get further authorization. But as long as the actions are brought against somebody or nations that were directly tied in some way to the September 11 attacks, this resolution authorizes that force.