Hullabaloo

Friday, March 16, 2007

 

Tacit Approval To Let The Decider Decide On Iran

by poputonian

Around blogland there has been some backslapping and high-fiving by establishment Democrats who are proud of the House's Iraq spending legislation. Apparently, these high-fivers believe the Cheney-Bush administration is trustworthy, that they will voluntarily handcuff themselves by virtue of their consummate sensibilities on matters of war and peace. Others don't quite see it that way. Here's John Nichols writing in The Nation:

... the decision by Pelosi and her allies to rewrite their Iraq legislation to exclude the statement regarding the need for congressional approval of any military assault on the neighboring country of Iran sends the worst possible signal to the White House.
...
It is not too much to suggest that Pelosi's disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to come.

Here's how the Speaker messed up:

The Democratic proposal for a timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq included a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before using military force in Iran. It was an entirely appropriate piece of the Iraq proposal, as the past experiences of U.S. involvement in southeast Asia and Latin America has well illustrated that when wars bleed across borders it becomes significantly more difficult to end them. Thus, fears about the prospect that Bush might attack Iran are legitimately related to the debate about how and when to end the occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately, Pelosi is so desperate to advance her flawed spending legislation that she is willing to bargain with any Democrat about any part of the proposal.

Under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groupings that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC), Pelosi agreed on Monday to strip the Iran provision from the spending bill that has become the House leadership's primary vehicle for challenging the administration's policies in the region.

One of the chief advocates for eliminating the Iran provision, Nevada Democrat Shelley Berkley, said she wanted it out of the legislation because she wants to maintain the threat of U.S. military action as a tool in seeking to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. "It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," explained Berkley.

The problem with Berkley's "reasoning" -- if it can be called that -- is this: Nothing in the provision that had been included in the spending bill would have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. Nothing in the provision would have prevented war with Iran. It merely reminded the president that, before launching such an attack, he would need to obey the Constitutional requirement that he seek a declaration of war.

I think Nichols has it right. There is greater likelihood the war-makers will interpret the change in language as tacit agreement that it is the Decider who decides:

By first including the provision and then removing it, Pelosi and her aides have given Bush more of an opening to claim that he does not require Congressional approval.

Again and again, the Bush administration has seized any and every opening to claim powers that were never accorded the executive branch by the Constitution or the Congress. Remember that this administration has sought to justify a massive, unregulated domestic spying program by claiming authority under narrow legislation that was passed permitting the president to respond to the September 11, 2OO1, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Never mind that no mention of such spying was included in the 2OO1 legislation; the fact that it was not explicitly barred gave the administration all the room it required to claim the power to disregard the Constitution and the rule of law.

By stripping the Iran provision from the legislation that is now under consideration by Congress, Pelosi has handed Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney -- no believer he is [in] the separation of powers -- exactly what they want. They can and will say that, when the question of whether Congress should require the administration to seek Congressional approval for an attack on Iran, Pelosi chose not to pursue the matter.

Anyone who thinks that Bush and Cheney will fail to exploit this profound misstep by Pelosi has not been paying attention for the past six years. The speaker has erred, dramatically and dangerously.

Dennis Kucinich apparently agrees with this; he made these remarks on the House floor yesterday:

This week the House Appropriations committee removed language from the Iraq war funding bill requiring the Administration, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, to seek permission before it launched an attack against Iran.
...
This House cannot avoid its Constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the abuse of Executive power.
...
The Administration has been preparing for an aggressive war against Iran. There is no solid, direct evidence that Iran has the intention of attacking the United States or its allies.

Kucinich then added this very important sentiment, hopefully edging us closer to an impeachment reality:

Since war with Iran is an option of this Administration and since such war is patently illegal, then impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran.

Kucinich made other important remarks yesterday, which I've partially transcribed:

Congress is on the threshold of a momentous decision. If Congress continues to fund the war, the President will have enough money not only to carry the war to the end of his term, but he will also have money that could be used to attack Iran. This is something that I know has united everyone here. I have long been in contact with people from all over the region -- ambassadors, people at the level of national leaders, their cabinets and secretaries, people at the UN -- and it's across the board, that people of the world agree that an attack on Iran has the potential to precipitate not just a catastrophe but a cataclysm.

Today, I had the opportunity to speak with a friend of mine who is a high ranking official with the Israeli government and this is what he told me, he said, "We really don't have an interest in attacking Iran." But I told him that you have to understand that your supporters here in this country are sending cues to members of Congress and to people in the administration which indicate that you favor such an attack.

In his comments, Kucinich follows the above remarks with a thumbnail sketch of administration maneuverings with regard to Iran. He goes back to the Hersh articles and forward to the Administration's claims about the IEDs. He then talks of the grave danger that results from removing the important and constraining language, as noted above, from the Iraq spending bill. In response, Kucinich is trying to force an opening up of the language in the provision, to restore its teeth and to eliminate the ambiguity that might result from its removal.

Kudos to Kucinich, both for the nudge toward impeachment, but also for his dedication and desire to put the brakes on the Administration's latitude to make war with Iran.

http://www.kucinich.us/

poputonian 3/16/2007 04:41:00 AM |