From Faux News:
WASHINGTON - A Democratic senator on Monday introduced legislation that in some cases would deny funding for the Bush administration to take military action against Iran without first getting congressional approval.Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., has long argued that Iran must be part of a regional solution to end the war in Iraq, and has repeatedly voiced concerns over the fact that the Bush administration deems the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing force in Iraq applicable to Iran.
Exceptions:
The bill has a number of exceptions, however. The proposal would allow military action under the following scenarios without prior congressional authorization:- When the action is aimed at repelling an attack launched or about to be launched from inside Iran;
- When military forces are in "hot pursuit" of enemy forces fleeing into Iran; and
- When the military is supporting intelligence gathering.
The bill would require the president to submit a report to Congress within 24 hours justifying any spending that would support any of the exceptions.
If enacted, Webb's bill would ensure that "no funds ... may be obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or within the territorial waters of Iran, except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress."
Fox appears to have interviewed Webb extensively:
Webb told FOX News last week that his concern came about when he compared the 2002 authorization to go to war in Iraq with the presidential signing statement accompanying it clarifying prerogatives the administration deemed permissible under the authorization.He said the ambiguity in the signing statement leaves room for the president to interpret the authorization as authorizing war with Iran. And, Webb said, according to the signing statement, the president retains the right to take military action "to respond to threats against American military interests."
Webb appears to have support from Democratic lawmakers. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said last week that he had not read the amendment, that would be attached to a supplemental war spending bill, but is "very, very confident ... in real generality ... that I can support" Webb.
Webb said he believed his amendment would have a good chance of passing if it is added to the spending bill because it would be tied to the must-pass appropriations measure. Its future, however, will depend a lot on work to be done later this month by the Appropriations Committee.
Following complaints by congressional Democrats over the past few months, Webb told "FOX News Sunday" early last month that the administration is not doing enough to engage Iran diplomatically to prevent its interference in Iraq.
"What the administration is doing right now is playing up Iranian participation in order to try to drive the stakes up to the extent that we don't deal with Iran. Now, yes, Iran's definitely, from everything that I can see, playing in some way inside Iraq. And tactically, as a former Marine, in the places where Iran is definitely playing, they should be dealt with," he said.
But, Webb continued, "the situation that we have right now where we continue to talk only about the military side - again, it's half a strategy."
According to Paul Kiel at TPM Muckraker:
Both Rice and one of Rice's deputies wrote Webb "lengthy letters" about whether the administration claimed the authority to invade Iran without Congress' say-so. But "neither could give me a clear response," Webb said today on the floor. Sen. Webb also had a private meeting with Rice two weeks ago, Webb's spokeswoman Jessica Smith told me, during which Iran was discussed. She wouldn't tell me its outcome, saying it was a "confidential meeting," but apparently Webb got all the answer he thought he was ever going to get.
from Webb's floor speech today:
"On the one hand, the Administration assures us that it has no intention of launching military operations against Iran. On the other, the Administration tells us that all options remain on the table, at a time when our military buildup in the region continues to grow rapidly. And while we see encouraging new diplomatic initiatives with respect to Iraq, it is important that we clarify, formally, the perimeter of our immediate military interests in the Middle East."It is time, Mr. President, that we move forward to end our military involvement in Iraq, and the path to doing so is not to widen the war into Iran. Proper, robust diplomacy will enable us to bring greater stability to the region, to remove the American military from Iraq, to increase our ability to defeat the forces of international terrorism, and, finally, to focus on the true strategic challenges that face us around the world.
"I believe the American people will welcome this legislation. This Administration has used force recklessly, choosing the military option again and again while never matching the quality of our military's performance with robust, creative diplomacy. Furthermore, the President's "signing statement" accompanying the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq indicates that this Administration believes it possesses the broadest imaginable authority to commence military action without the consent of the Congress.
"In signing the 2002 Iraq resolution, the President denied that the Congress has the power to affect his decisions when it comes to the use of our military. He shrugged off this resolution, stating that on the question of the threat posed by Iraq, his views and those of the Congress merely happened to be the same. He characterized the resolution as simply a gesture of additional support, rather than as having any legitimate authority. He stated, "my signing this resolution does not constitute any change in ? the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests?"
"This is a sweeping assertion of powers that leaves out virtually nothing. It is a far different matter than repelling an immediate attack, or conducting a war that has been authorized by the Congress. Let's just match up a couple of these words. The President is saying, for instance, that he possesses the authority to use force to "deter ? threats to U.S. interests." How do you use force to "deter" a threat, rather than preventing or responding to it? And what kind of "U.S. interest" is worthy of the use of force? And, most importantly, how do these vague terms fit into the historically accepted notions of a Commander in Chief's power to repel attacks, or to conduct military operations once they have been approved by the Congress?
"Mr. President, during our recent hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I asked both the Secretary of State and the Deputy Secretary of State for clarification of this paragraph in the President's signing statement. My question was whether this Administration believes it has the authority to conduct unilateral military operations against Iran in the absence of a direct attack or a compelling, immediate threat without the consent of the Congress. Both wrote me lengthy letters in reply, but neither could give me a clear responses. The situation that we now face is that the Administration repeatedly states that it seeks no war with Iran, at the same time it claims the authority to begin one, and at the same time it continues a military buildup in the region.
"The legislation I introduce today is intended to clarify this ambiguity. In so doing, the Congress will be properly restating its constitutional relationship with the executive branch. The Congress will be reinstituting its historical role as it relates to the conduct of foreign policy. And the Congress will be reassuring the American people that there will be no more shooting from the hip when it comes to the gravely serious question of when we send our military people into harm's way.
"Mr. President I would like to emphasize that this bill will not take any military options off of the table. Nor will it tie the hands of the Administration if our military forces are actually attacked from Iranian soil or territorial waters, or by forces that retreat into Iranian territory. Nor does this legislation let Iran off the hook in terms of our insistence that Iran become a more responsible nation, including our positions regarding Iran's nuclear program and Iran's recognition of Israel's right to exist.
"I was one of the early voices warning that in terms of national security, Iran was a far greater threat than Iraq. This was one of the reasons I opposed the invasion of Iraq in the first place. Again, all of the options regarding Iran remain on the table. The question is in what context these options should be debated, alongside other options designed to eventually open up Iran and bring it responsibly into the world community. In my view, and in terms of the constitutional process, absent a direct attack or a clearly imminent threat, the place for that debate is here in the open forum of the Congress, not in some closed-door meeting at the White House."
TPM Muckraker is a great site, by the way.
Just two months on the job - amazing.
Yet another home run, Jim...
Thanks, PM!
Steve
If we had a President we could trust, this bill would not be required. It is sad that our President has such little trust that the Senate must babysit him.