[Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-iran] News: "Dems divided over Webb's proposal requiring approval for attacking Iran"

Wed Apr 18 15:24:28 CDT 2007

the Iran working group gets regular reports from the UFPJ listserv as
well as others in the Illinois Coalition for Peace and Justice.
Occasionally we want to pass them on, so you can all be updated. In
fervent hopes of prevention, Barbara Kessel

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Lynn <mlynn226 at gmail.com>
Date: Apr 18, 2007 3:11 PM
Subject: Fwd: [ufpj-iran] News: "Dems divided over Webb's proposal
requiring approval for attacking Iran"

Forwarded from the UFPJ Iran listserv.

Mike

"Dems divided over Webb's proposal requiring approval for attacking
Iran"
<http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-divided-over-webbs-proposal-requiring-approval-for-attacking-iran-2007-04-17.html
>

The Hill, 18 April 2007
By Elana Schor

Supporters of requiring President Bush to secure congressional approval
for any preemptive strike on Iran are regrouping for a new push,
presaging a difficult vote for Democratic leaders and presidential
hopefuls alike.

Democrats hailed the Iraq withdrawal language attached to the emergency
supplemental as a signal of a newly assertive Congress, even though the
House removed a mandate for authorization of attacks on Iran from early
drafts of the bill. The reversal quieted some Democrats' concerns that
reining in Bush on Iran could endanger Israel's security in the Middle East.

Iran is likely to reappear on the agenda this spring, however, as Sen.
Jim Webb (D-Va.) considers adding his language on the issue to the
defense authorization bill and House Democrats hold their leadership to
a promise for a roll-call vote.

"There is no hand-tying here. We're not taking options off the table,"
Webb spokeswoman Jessica Smith said. "He offered this piece of
legislation to restore the proper balance between the executive and
legislative branch. This is a bill to empower Congress."

For many Democratic base voters, Webb's Iran language is also a litmus
test for presidential candidates. White House assertions that Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is tied to Iraqi insurgent groups makes
opposition to a possible war with Iran as crucial as opposition to the
 Iraq war for Democrats running in 2008.
Tom Andrews, the former Democratic lawmaker now leading the anti-war
group Win Without War, said the party's White House hopefuls should see
Webb's plan as a no-brainer.

"The idea that you could not support prohibiting a military strike,
given the conditions that are on [Webb's measure] … certainly raises
serious questions in our community," Andrews said.

 Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) are the
only 2008 Democrats on record as backing Webb's effort. Sen. Hillary
Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) took the Bush administration to task on Iran in
a Feb. 14 floor speech, supporting the spirit of Webb's effort, if not
his specific language.

"It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration
thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a
blank check for the use of force against Iran without further
congressional authorization," Clinton said.

When asked whether Clinton would vote for Webb's language, a spokesman
for the New Yorker took a wait-and-see approach, saying it depends on
the format in which it reaches the floor.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has also kept mum on Webb's language, which
includes multiple exceptions in case of an attack on Iran or Iranian
hostility in Iraq. But Obama took an interest in Webb's push during a
Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last month with
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns.
Obama asked whether Bush believes he has presumptive authority to attack
Iran, to which Burns responded: "It's the position of our government
that the president obviously has the constitutional duty to protect the
American people … and as commander in chief has to be able to exercise
that authority as he sees fit."
"I think you meant, `it's the position of our administration' as opposed
to `our government,'" Obama replied.
Iran's recent saber-rattling detention of a British naval crew, which
ended in the soldiers' safe release, appears to have sparked less
escalation than expected between Bush and Ahmadinejad. But pro-Israel
stalwarts such as Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) see any curb on U.S.
action against Iran as a potential handcuff in Iraq.
"What if the president decides, at the request of General Petraeus, that
we have to take action to take out [an Iranian] base?" Lieberman said
yesterday. "I wouldn't want to have to go through a month-long debate in
Congress before you could do that."

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Washington's most
influential pro-Israel lobbying group, held its capital policy
conference just after the House removed Iran authorization language from
its version of the supplemental. AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr
told members there that any legislative attempt to limit U.S. options in
Iran would be harmful and signal weakness.

In addition to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) support,
Webb has the public backing of Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd
(D-W.Va.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). In the House, Rep. Jim
McDermott (D-Wash.) said through a spokesman that he would hold Speaker
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to her vow for a recorded vote on Iran
authorization language.

"I think it will pass because there isn't a thinking person in the world
that believes the President when he says won't launch a military strike
against Iran," McDermott said. "Even conservative Republicans are
worried about the president's lack of credibility."

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) echoed McDermott's intentions.
"The Bush administration has already misled our nation into one
unnecessary preemptive war under false pretenses, and Congress needs to
 make it perfectly clear that he does not have the authority to take us
down the same road with Iran," Lee said in an e-mail.

The multilateralist group Just Foreign Policy marshaled supporters of
the Webb amendment during the supplemental debate last month. Antiwar
groups including Peace Action and United for Peace and Justice joined in
by organizing grassroots call-ins to Senate offices urging a vote on the
Webb language.

"The Senate is going to feel the pressure to pass this provision soon,"
Robert Naiman, national coordinator of Just Foreign Policy, wrote on the
group's website. Among its board members are Julian Bond, chairman of
the NAACP, and Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for
 America's Future.

--
Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
 http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

_______________________________________________
ufpj-iran mailing list

Post: ufpj-iran at lists.mayfirst.org
List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-iran

To Unsubscribe
       Send email to:  ufpj-iran-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org
       Or visit:
https://lists.mayfirst.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ufpj-iran/mlynn226%40gmail.com

You are subscribed as: mlynn226 at gmail.com