According to McClatchy Newspapers, "Senate Democrats are drafting legislation that would require the White House to seek congressional approval before" undertaking any military action against Iran, and Jim Webb is "leading the effort." According to McClatchy:
Webb said that under his proposal, the U.S. military "would still be able to repel an immediate attack if it began on Iranian soil or (undertake) hot pursuit if there were Iranian activity where they were to cross the border. I want to be very reasonable about this.""What we would be going after would be any notion of beginning unilateral military action inside Iran without provocation and without the consent of the Congress. I'm not saying, `Don't do it,'" Webb said. "I'm saying if they want to begin that sort of new military activity, they should come to the Congress and discuss it."
Of course, Republicans will likely oppose this perfectly reasonable resolution. In addition, Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) worries that "the amendment could backfire on Democrats if Republicans block it or the president vetoes it...that Bush might then argue anew that he doesn't need congressional approval to attack."
Theoretically, of course, the U.S. Constitution already makes it crystal clear that the U.S. Congress "shall have power to declare war." In reality, however, U.S. Presidents have frequently sidestepped this clause, with numerous "military actions" undertaken without a formal declaration of war by Congress. In this case, I see no reason why the Bush Administration wouldn't sidestep Congress once again. In fact, I would be greatly surprised - given the Administration's unilateralist behavior the first 6+ years - if it didn't do just that with regards to Iran. Frankly, I believe the only EFFECTIVE way to rein in this Administration - on Iraq, Iran, or anything else - is to replace it, and that won't come until January 2009. In the meantime, though, I see no reason not to try.
Why should we defer any ramifications for failure until the next Presidential election? Why should Democrats refuse to use any, and all weapons in their possession to rein in this President? Political expediency. It is safer politically to let Bush prove beyond a shadow that he is the worst president in history. But that is not in the best interest of our country. Better to have the confrontation now, than after the start of yet another war. In fact, more hostilities will only make the calls for "bipartisanship" louder. Enough!
It is time for us to put Impeachment back on the table. That means that the many and numerous failures, and crimes of this administration will be exposed, examined, and debated. The War in Iraq has been lost. The War in Afghanistan is months away from a similar outcome. Senator Webb has delivered your warning.
Mayor Rocky Anderson (Olympia, Washington) delivers the charges against the Bush Administration.
Thanks.
Impeachment is a very important Constitutional responsibility of Congress. Impeaching an out of control executive is totally a positive thing. So when we talk of derailing Congress' positive role, let's not exclude this crucial authority the framers gave Congress.
The other dynamic is the nature of this Administration - they are designed from the ground up to be non-negotiating, partisan, uncompromising. So far that has paid off, and it sustains his support amongst a core following. We have to stop that or risk our military, our economy, and our standing amongst nations. There will be no progress on any of the other issues because, well...because they guess Congress will buckle.
And a glance at our deficit, and our foreign debt indicate that this Administration has managed us into an economic corner. There is a well laid plan to expend our wealth on defense, and resource security to the exclusion of building a more equitable society. Corporations are betting that their support will yield dividends in energy policy, environmental regulation, labor law, and healthcare. I think they have a safe bet.
Congress will have to bloody this Administration or Congress will never be anything more than a derided subordinate to the power that the Executive has claimed. Bush is a born bully. Many people want to believe that a confrontation can be avoided, or that some accommodation can be reached with this Administration. My experience, my instincts tell me that this is wishful thinking.
Your instinct that Bush will veto the Dem agenda is right on. The legislative voting margins are not large enough, and there is insufficient public support. Human nature dictates distrust for weakness - it smells like failure. But 70% of Americans believe that Iraq was a mistake and we need to leave. That is a supported cause. Impeachment would diminish Bush's bully pulpit, and the evidence would move us closer to settlement with his Party's sensible center. Fatten his lip and your agenda has a chance.
Sorry to be so excessively polite about the worst President I could conjure up in my worst drunken nightmares. If I said what I really feel in my heart, the Bush-Cheney Orwellian thought police would be at my door to take me away for rendition.
Bottom line: The most urgent task facing us is to stop this man and his insanity and incompetence at the earliest possible time. No other peoples' business can be accomplished until this emergency action is placed on the fastest of fast tracks.
Thanks for reawakening my extreme passion on this subject.
This is one time in the history of our country that extremism in defense of liberty IS a virtue. The killer is still on the prowl, and still has a callous disregard for the lives of so many.
T.C.
Honored to be a Jim Webb Democrat and a True Patriot