You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Dems Seek to Bar U.S. Attacks on Iran
2007-01-19
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic leaders in Congress lobbed a warning shot Friday at the White House not to launch an attack against Iran without first seeking approval from lawmakers.
"The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the National Press Club.
Dubya came to Congress before we went into Afghanistan. Dubya came to Congress before we went into Iraq. What makes you think he'd go into Iran without coming to you?
The administration has accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs and contributing technology and bomb-making materials for insurgents to use against U.S. and Iraqi security forces. President Bush said last week the U.S. will "seek out and destroy" networks providing that support. While top administration officials have said they have no plans to attack Iran itself, they have declined to rule it out.
And now Reid has undercut the usefulness of the implied threat. Thanks Harry.
Reid made the comments as he and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., spoke to the National Press Club on Democrats' view of the state of the union four days before Bush addresses Congress and the nation. His remarks were the latest Democratic display of concern about the possibility of military action in Iran and Bush's power to launch it.

Last week, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., challenged the president's ability to make such a move. In a letter to Bush, Biden asked the president to explain whether the administration believes it could attack Iran or Syria "without the authorization of Congress, which does not now exist."

Meanwhile, Lee Hamilton, the Democratic co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Friday that the U.S. must try to engage Iran and Syria in a constructive dialogue on Iraq because of the countries' influence in the conflict. "Do we have so little confidence in the diplomats of the United States that we're not willing to let them talk with somebody we disagree with?" Hamilton asked.

The Bush administration, and several members of Congress, say they oppose talks with Iran and Syria because of their terrorist connections. Bringing the two countries into regional talks aimed at reducing violence in Iraq was one of the study group's recommendations.
Hamilton is an idiot. We don't talk with them because talks work in our disfavor. Talking means that the Iranians continue building centrifuges and purifying uranium. Talk is exactly what the Iranians want because it allows them to stall. Look at what they've done with the EU-3, the IAEA and the UN. They'd love to talk with us, then talk, then talk some more. They'd score points off us in the Third World and with their Muslim brethen by 'speaking truth to power' and all that nonsense. Ahmadinejad would be happy to prance around the next couple of years blustering and bellowing at us at various 'conferences' and 'negotiations'.

And if we ever threatened to walk away from talking with them, why, guess who would be blamed as the bad guys? Us of course, and Mr. Hamilton would help lead the charge.

Talking with Iran gets us nowhere. The EU has proven that. Iran either will or won't stop their efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and it's clear that 'talking' has no influence whatsoever in their decision making.
Posted by:Steve White

#14  For all their bluster, if Bush ever had sufficient reason to ask Congress for authority, the donks would not for a moment hesitate to grant it. Could you imagine the reaction of the country in '08 if they did? The American people don't mind a fight, they do mind a loss. The donks should keep the distinction in mind.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-01-19 21:51  

#13  Any large-scale, casualty-heavy Iran-caused/advised/supplied WMD Terror attack agz Israel, andor IRBM missle strike, will be akin to a UNO Member-State de facto attacking another UNO Member-State. Moud by repeatedly threatening the existence of Israel, + stringly inferring the destruction or non-existence of same, has already PRE-QUALIFIED RADICAL IRAN for immediate UNSC mil action.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-01-19 21:39  

#12  "Without first seeking Congresional authorization" > HHHHHMMMM, HHHHHHMMMM, okay so how the Congress reat to WND.com > Joe Farah's G2 BULLETIN > Terrorists are ready for war = to strike, BUT INSIDE USA. MAY NOT WAIT FOR USA TO ATTACK IRAN OR VICE VERSA AGZ ISRAEL-USA, + RUSSIA TO SHIP NUCLEAR FUEL TO IRAN - believes will be used only for peaceful/energy purposes; or NEWSMAX > EGYPTIAN WEEKLY SAYS "KILL PRESIDENT BUSH"; or IRNA > Iran Officio = IF USA INVADES, ANY IRANIAN CITY CAN BE USED FOR DEFENSE, + MOUD = NO UNO RESOLUTION, MIL THREAT WILL BE EFFECTIVE TO STOP IRAN.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-01-19 21:34  

#11  
.. I was for surrendering, uh before I was for it??

break out the white flags and wave 'em like ya just don't care...


Posted by: macofromoc   2007-01-19 21:24  

#10  I wonder wonder what Kerry was doing in Damascus?

The same thing he was doing in Paris the early 70's.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2007-01-19 19:15  

#9  What a maroon. Harry and the rest of the Donks really need to pull their heads out of their collective asses. If Bush wanted to order Air Stikes or COIN or SpeOps against Iraq there is little power they have to stop it. Man these Donks are trying hard to make Iraq turn out exactly like Vietnam:
Condemn Offensives ops: Check
Restrict Bombing: Check (sure)
Coozy up to the LLL Fifth Column: Check
Buddy up to other Socialists: Check
Defund Freindly Forces: In Progress
Fly to the Region and negotiate Separately: I wonder wonder what Kerry was doing in Damascus?
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2007-01-19 19:01  

#8  Or the Iranians could be stupid enough to cross the border in Iraq, chasing the Iranian Peshmerga in to Kurdistan, and provoking a joint US/Iraq response.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2007-01-19 18:20  

#7  It's unlikely that Bush will unilaterally, or even with Israel, attack Iran without provocation. But provocation could come easy.

For example, if Israel attacks Iran, other than ADA, what would Iran do about it, especially if the US takes down every missile they fire at Israel? And since the Iranians realize this, too, they would have to take on the US forces in the region or just sit there and take it.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2007-01-19 18:17  

#6  They want to talk talk talk, just like they did in Viet-Nam. How long did it take them to agree to the shape of the table and the seating arrangement??? Oh ya I think the war was over by then. Silly Dems, foolish games.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2007-01-19 16:01  

#5  No, they read the sources of enlightenment and knowledge; NYT, WaPo, and LAT. /sarcasm off

They really really should be reading Livy cause they're making the same fatal errors. However, they demonstrate as with the Constitution, they're not into reading classics.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-01-19 15:50  

#4  Do senators even READ the constitution anymore?
Posted by: DarthVader   2007-01-19 15:34  

#3   The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization,"

With all due disrespect Senator. That's bullshit.
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-01-19 15:15  

#2  Harry should do the country a favor and stick to shady Nevada real estate deals.
Posted by: tu3031   2007-01-19 14:52  

#1  "Do we have so little confidence in the diplomats of the United States that we're not willing to let them talk with somebody we disagree with?" Hamilton asked.

In a word: yes.
Posted by: xbalanke   2007-01-19 14:49  

00:00