"Dems divided over Webb’s proposal requiring approval for attacking Iran"

[Tom Rinaldo]

How the hell can we be divided over this? Didn't the Democratic Party learn anything from the original IWR vote? The House Democratic Caucus forced Pelosi to remove language from the Iraq War funding legislation that would have forced Bush to come to Congress before war with Iran. Note this quote from this (linked below) story in "The Hill":

"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."

Rather than just getting steamed over McCain singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran" we need to be organizing against conflict with Iran now. Democrats are wavoring on this one. The leadership against rushing into another war, this time with Iran, is coming from America's veterans. Please visit and support:

http://www.stopiranwar.com/

Here is more from "The Hill":


"Dems divided over Webb’s proposal requiring approval for attacking Iran
By Elana Schor
April 18, 2007
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-divided-over-webbs-proposal-requiring-approval-for-attacking-iran-2007-04-17.html


"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...

...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 … certainly raises serious questions in our community,” Andrews said...


...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...

...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."



Think war with Iran isn't worth worrying about yet? Here is Noam Chompsky writing about the risk of, and likely consequences of, U.S. military action against Iran:


What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico?
Noam Chomsky
April 06, 2007


..."The Iran Effect"

The results of an attack on Iran could be horrendous. After all, according to a recent study of "the Iraq effect" by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, using government and Rand Corporation data, the Iraq invasion has already led to a seven-fold increase in terror. The "Iran effect" would probably be far more severe and long-lasting. British military historian Corelli Barnett speaks for many when he warns that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III."

What are the plans of the increasingly desperate clique that narrowly holds political power in the U.S.? We cannot know. Such state planning is, of course, kept secret in the interests of "security." Review of the declassified record reveals that there is considerable merit in that claim—though only if we understand "security" to mean the security of the Bush administration against their domestic enemy, the population in whose name they act.

Even if the White House clique is not planning war, naval deployments, support for secessionist movements and acts of terror within Iran, and other provocations could easily lead to an accidental war. Congressional resolutions would not provide much of a barrier. They invariably permit "national security" exemptions, opening holes wide enough for the several aircraft-carrier battle groups soon to be in the Persian Gulf to pass through—as long as an unscrupulous leadership issues proclamations of doom (as Condoleezza Rice did with those "mushroom clouds" over American cities back in 2002). And the concocting of the sorts of incidents that "justify" such attacks is a familiar practice. Even the worst monsters feel the need for such justification and adopt the device: Hitler's defense of innocent Germany from the "wild terror" of the Poles in 1939, after they had rejected his wise and generous proposals for peace, is but one example.

The most effective barrier to a White House decision to launch a war is the kind of organized popular opposition that frightened the political-military leadership enough in 1968 that they were reluctant to send more troops to Vietnam—fearing, we learned from the Pentagon Papers , that they might need them for civil-disorder control.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/04/06/what_if_iran_had_invaded_mexico.php



Think that Iran can't possibly take direct threats against it from the U.S. and our allies seriously with America bogged down in Iraq? How do you think talk like this is sitting in Tehran right about now?


ISRAEL: Former Mossad head says kill Ahmadinejad
http://www.jewish.com/main.asp?FromHome=1&TypeID=1&ArticleID=742&SectionID=2&SubSectionID=2


The Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)
4/18/2007 3:41:00 PM

Western countries must unite in an effort to assassinate Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, former Head of Mossad Meir Amit said on Wednesday night.

"Even though in the past I have been opposed to assassinating Arab leaders, this case if different because it alone is the center of the nuclear issue," Amit told the weekly "Kfar Chabad" magazine set be published on Thursday.

Amit said he did not perceive an existential danger to Israel following Iran's' nuclear development - "but that is only on condition that we do something about it."

[mike_c]

1. pretty incomprehensible, isn't it....

This is what happens when you let politicians run the country....

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. The ones who always look over their shoulder for donor approval? Yes.

I still support Wes Clark for President, but you don't have to support him in order to be concerned over the potential for a disaster involving Iran.

[nickinSTL]

2. If Dennis Kucinich isn't supporting it...

your view may be too narrow.

I can't imagine that ANYONE could realistically believe that Kucinich believes that we should attack Iran, or that Bush should be able to go into Iran without Congressional approval.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Thanks Nick, I just edited the OP after reading your post

I apologize. That sentance was extremely sloppy on my part and I apologize. The Hill had this to say about other candidates:

"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...

...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."

No mention was made by "The Hill" of Kucinich's position on Webb's bill, or that taken by any other announced Democratic Candidates for President. I agree with you that I can not imagine Dennis not supporting Webb on this, though I don't know if he has commented on it yet.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Hard to believe, but true

Dems abandon Iran war authority provision
Test vote on Sept. 1, 2008 Iraq withdrawal scheduled for Thursday

Updated: 10:07 a.m. ET March 13, 2007
WASHINGTON - Democratic leaders are stripping from a military spending bill for the war in Iraq a requirement that President Bush gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other leaders agreed to remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats as well as other lawmakers worried about its possible impact on Israel, officials said Monday...

...Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview that there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.

"It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," she said of the now-abandoned provision.

"I didn't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y.

Democrats struggle for compromise

Several officials said there was widespread opposition to the proposal at a closed-door meeting last week of conservative and moderate Democrats, who said they feared tying the hands of the administration when dealing with an unpredictable and potentially hostile regime in Tehran."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17590680/


So we have Democrats defending letting Bush militarily attack Iran without needing Congressional approval, because giving Bush the authority to attack Iran without needing to return to Congress first "is the most important negotiating tool the U.S. has when it comes to Iran." Folks we've seen this film before, and none of us likes how it ends.

[Donna Zen]

8. Nucking futs

No one is taking any option off the table, and if these critters could read, they would note the qualifiers included in the language. All that Webb is proposing is that bush return to congress for the authority for any strike against Iran. Well, whaddya know....following the Constitution for a change. If a demand to return to congress for authority had been included in the IWR, we might not be in Iraq today and thousands of lives would have been saved.

My guess: this is about money: pure and simple.

[Canuckistanian]

9. I HATE this "take this off the table" crap.

The LAW is clear. To attack a country, you need to declare war. To declare war, you MUST have the approval of Congress.

Is this so hard to understand?

And why, in God's name, would ANYONE trust the Bush administration to manage ANOTHER attack on a country that doesn't threaten America?

Mind-boggling.

Take their names. EVERY ONE of the Dems that vote for giving up control.

I'm sick of this shit. They need to be exposed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. "This is a bill to empower Congress". Exactly right.

Nothing is being taken off the table other than Bush's ability to single handedly drag the United State's into another avoidable war. He's already done it once for God's sake! The whole nation has turned against trusting Bush on War and Peace, but the same Congress that let him get away with it the first time is afraid to tie his hands with their constitutional authority? We really can't let this stand.

I really like that Noam Chompsky quote that I put in the OP. It really is up to us to create poltical condidions inside the U.S. that makes an avoidable war with Iran unthinkable to those in now power, and that includes far too many Democrats. We can't sit back and expect Congress to do it for us.

I really like The StopIranWar.com approach. It is pure common sense, and sidesteps all the arguments about how evil Iran is that get thrown at those of us working for peace. It's great when groups like Move On talk about our policy toward Iran, but valuing peace is not only a progressive value, we can reach out to at least 3/4ths of the American people with this campaign to prevent a war with Iran.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. Obama, Clinton, Kucinich, Richardson, Dodd etc supporters...

Do you know if your candidate has taken a public position on Webb's proposed legislation yet?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. HRC apparently opposes it and Obama is taking no position on it...

...according to post 4. Edwards and Biden support Webb's effort.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. “The Senate is going to feel the pressure to pass this provision soon,”

Again, from "The Hill":

“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."

I sure as hell hope so.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. I am kicking this so others will see it. I see a lot of pro war sentiments...

...in the public when it comes to Iran. Lately I have tried entering discussing Iran on political forums that are not dominated by Democratic grassroots activists, and what I am finding is frightening. People have been conditioned to believe that Iran is run by fanatics who will likely blow up nukes in our cities if we do not act first against them.

Don't think for a second that we are out of the woods on this one. We dodged a bullet when Iran released the British sailors, it took some steam out of the drive to war build up that has been orchestrated against Iran for years now, but which is still building toward a climax. From what I am seeing the hawks are winning the propaganda war regarding Iran with the American public, which is a pre-condition for an American attack on Iran sometime during Bush's remaining time in office.

[Sparkly]

14. Thanks, Tom!

I missed your post before.

What are they thinking?

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. That they don't want to be seen as soft on terrorism?

Haven't we been down this road before?

Meanwhile the neocons will not give up on their plans to "take out Iran". Iran is on their short list of hate fixations, and some Democrats who side with very hawkish elements inside Israel are joining them on this.

The Republican Right still insists on embargos against Cuba. How many years has that been going on? How productive has that been? But they never let go, do they?

I think too many Democratic activists underestimate how effective the Right has been at utterly demonizing Iran to the point where far too many Americans are convinced that you just can't talk to them, and they will likely blow up our cities if they get nukes, so we have to bomb them first and skip right past the talking stage. The right is just waiting for the right pretense to act, just like they did with Iraq. It doesn't have to be a real pretense, just like 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Yes Iran seized our embassy and held our diplomats hostage almost 30 years ago, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor about twice as long ago as that, and England burned down most of Washington DC almost 300 years ago. Most Iranians who are now alive were literally not alive during the Embassy hostage crisis. It is mostly a nation of young people, but Bush seems determined to turn those young people into die hard enemies of America for life, playing right into the hand of the extremist elements in Iran while he does so.

Meanwhile I noticed your thread also, and posted parts of an amazing article there that I found at Free Republic while doing a Google search. Thanks for your thread also. Folks should definately read it. As a public serice, lol, here's the direct link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3233592&mesg_id=3233592

[mmonk]

13. The answer to your question is no, the democratic party hasn't

learned anything. They seek the same money power structure the republicans are.

[nealmhughes]

16. Iran is completely surrounded by the ___stans and the Arabs.

What is there to understand? To be fair to the old men in black turbans and rabble rouser politicians who will play footsie with anyone who isn't a royalist Sunni, Iran is between a rock and a hard place: all 77 million of them. A country as large as the entire Western Continental US. Full of mountains. Tiny outlet to the sea. US and UK fleet right at their back door. US bases in Arabia and Iraq and the Stans.
The smartest thing Iran could do is get rid of the old men in black turbans and the rabble rousing politicians.
Think of US involvement and prior to that the UK and USSR in Iran. That gave them the return of the Shah. SAVAK. Jet fighters to "protect" the poverty of the rank and file that could at the most go to the discos and not wear headscarves. That was about it.
Iranians were remarkable in their restraint in the midst of their Revolution. Too bad it was led by an old man in a black turban. . . whose favorite passtime was to imprison Bahais and torture Kurds and democrats.
If any state has gotten a raw deal in the past century, it is Iran. From wartime pawn to monarchy to religious fanatic-run state. With an entire Peninsula of Sunni Wahhabi and fanatic monarchists to be the enemy across the Straits, aided and abetted by the West.
With friends like the US, UK and Saudi Arabia. . .
The devastation of the Iranian civilian population and infrastructure was on WWII levels in the Iran/Iraq War -- with missiles raining down on downtown Teheran and the military reduced to "human wave" tactics like some nightmare out of the Battle of Stalingrad to repulse the Rumsfeld handshaker Saddam.
Le Monde Diplomatique has an entire series on the spot Iran is in, and this is real reporting and analysis, from Ignacio Ramolet, not cursory MSM crap that is good for sound bites from the politicians who need a new hereditary enemy. Google is our friend, and most of the series is in French with English translation for those of us whose moi/toi/vous is a bit rusty.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Nice recap of some little known facts

The majority of Iranians alive today were born AFTER the Revolution that brought "the old man in a black turban" into power. To the extent that they are being conditioned to hate Americans now it is mostly the result of the U.S. government, under Bush in particular, playing right into the hands of an older generation of hard liners, giving them all the ammunition create nationalist anti-American feelings.

It is interesting that when a much more moderate President was in office in Iran, immediately before the current one, Bush did nothing to respond to feelers seeking better relations. Rather the Iranina Presidency was dismissed as mostly a figure head position without real power. Suddenly when there is an Iranian President who is easier to paint as a villian, he is now called the radical leader of Iran. Very few comment on that disconnect. Hard liners actually lost a lot of seats in the last Iranian parlimentary elections.