McClatchy: Bush, Congress could collide on Iran

[babylonsister]

Bush, Congress could collide on Iran
By Matt Stearns | McClatchy Newspapers


WASHINGTON — Taking military action against Iran could put President Bush on a collision course with Congress, leading Democrats and a Republican lawmaker cautioned Friday following Bush's threat of unspecified consequences for alleged Iranian meddling in Iraq.

It's been the consensus for months among the Democrats who hold the majority that Bush must get congressional authorization before any military strike.

But the authorization would be no easy sell. Two knowledgeable U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because intelligence on Iran is highly classified, said that the administration so far doesn't have "smoking-gun" evidence that could be used publicly to justify an air attack.

The presumed target of an attack would be camps in Iran where officials believe the Iranians are teaching Iraqi Shiite fighters how to fashion bombs that can destroy American armored vehicles.

The U.S. officials refused to discuss whether such evidence exists but can't be made public because doing so would betray intelligence sources and methods, or whether it hasn't been uncovered. Even with such evidence, however, the Democratic-controlled Congress could be hard to convince five years to the month after Vice President Dick Cheney kicked off the administration's public relations campaign against Saddam Hussein with a speech in Cincinnati.

Given the hindsight about the intelligence that led to the invasion of Iraq, "I think you'll find a lot of skeptical Republicans, no less Democrats, on the Hill," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

more...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/18852.html

[TwilightGardener]

1. Reading over at Freeperville, someone re-posted a Norman Podhoretz article

on the case for bombing Iran (I think he's the one advising Rudy on Middle East affairs--kinda like Michael Brown advising someone on disaster response). You should see the tent they're pitching in their pants over the prospect of not just war with Iran, but getting Russia and China stirred up too--BRING 'EM ON!!! If the next Prez is a Repub, there will be WW3, with nukes. I am getting more and more convinced of that. End Times is near.

[babylonsister]

2. I really wonder where all these people get their blood lust from. It's

beyond my comprehension.

[NanceGreggs]

4. And I am, of course, assuming ...

... that part of the tent-pitching includes multiple threads about Freepers enlisting if all of this happens, right?

:sarcasm:

[TwilightGardener]

6. Funny you should mention that--

News of the War Czar (Lute) bringing up discussion of the draft has sent most of them into chickenhawk conniptions. They're rhapsodizing about the glories of an all-volunteer force, and how the draft would be akin to slavery. Nothing could be more of a threat to their comfortable arm-chair warrior plans.

[LeftyMom]

8. That's the End Times Scenario this week

Oddly enough, the Buy-bull account always seems to be fitted neatly to the current geopolitical situation as interpreted by the reader. Funny how that works. :shrug:

[scarletwoman]

3. Yeah, bush & Congress will "collide" all right -- like a spoon "collides" with jello.

"I think you'll find a lot of skeptical Republicans, no less Democrats, on the Hill."

Way to just stand right up there and declare, "No way, no how!" :eyes:

I'm quite sure that whatever Congressional "skepticism" there may be, it will be of no hinderence whatsoever to an attack on Iran should bushco choose to do so.

sw

[blogslut]

5. They damn well better collide...

...if that bastard brings a resolution against Iran to the Congress.

The American people do not want another war. I suppose I could go and find statistics to back up my assumption but I just don't see how Bush can expect to gather any measurable amount of public support for another damned treasury-sucking, soldier-killing, genocidal mess. When he did it with Iraq he had the general support of the public and respect in the International arena. Today, he has neither.

[msongs]

7. "congress could cave" is more likely nt

[AndyTiedye]

9. Congress Already Caved On Iran

It has happened again, and in the open. The American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) which heads a network of pro-Israeli lobbies, persuaded Congress to drop a provision which would have required President Bush to ask for Congressional approval prior to attacking Iran.

As reported in the May 16, 2007 issue of The Hill:

"The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an influential group that advocates strong U.S. ties with Israel, lobbied heavily to remove the Iran provision in the supplemental, arguing that the measure would weaken President Bush's attempts to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons."

This intervention by AIPAC to permit President Bush to act without Congressional debate was widely reported, as was AIPAC's earlier intervention with a supplemental budget bill.

In other words, a Democratic Congress elected to end the Iraq war has willingly given up its right (and responsibility) to engage in public debate prior to a new act of war against Iran, a sovereign nation. By voting to look the other way, Congress has left this war decision to the discretion of an unpopular president, who has already failed once.

Why on earth would the Democrats, empowered to change the administration's current foreign policy regime, ignore popular will? One reason, of course, is AIPAC.

http://www.counterpunch.org/khan05262007.html

AIPAC, Iran, & Presidential War-Making

On March 12, the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives voted to take out of the war spending bill a provision that would, with some exceptions, require the president to seek congressional approval before using military force in Iran.

According to Congressman David Obey, the provision was dropped because it was drawing enough opposition to endanger the whole effort for Congress to set a date for ending the Iraq War.

But why were so many Congressmembers ready to oppose an effort to uphold their own Constitutional powers against a runaway President?

On March 8, CQ Today reported that "Hawkish pro-Israel lawmakers are pushing . The influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee also is working to keep the language out, said an aide to a pro- Israel lawmaker."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-arthur-waskow/aipac-iran-presidenti_b_43814.html