Democrats send warning to administration not to attack Iran

D

Desiderius Erasmus

Guest
#1
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer Fri Jan 19, 3:27 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Democratic leaders in Congress lobbed a warning shot Friday at the White House not to launch an attack against Iran without first seeking approval from lawmakers.

"The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the National Press Club.

The administration has accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs and contributing technology and bomb-making materials for insurgents to use against U.S. and Iraqi security forces.

President Bush said last week the U.S. will "seek out and destroy" networks providing that support. While top administration officials have said they have no plans to attack Iran itself, they have declined to rule it out.

This week, the administration sent another aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf — the second to deploy in the region. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the buildup was intended to impress on Iran that the four-year war in Iraq has not made America vulnerable. The U.S. is also deploying anti-missile Patriot missiles in the region.

The U.S. has accused Tehran of trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday that Iran would not back down over its nuclear program, which Tehran says is being developed only to produce energy.

Reid made the comments as he and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., spoke to the National Press Club on Democrats' view of the state of the union four days before Bush addresses Congress and the nation. His remarks were the latest Democratic display of concern about the possibility of military action in Iran and Bush's power to launch it.

Last week,Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., challenged the president's ability to make such a move. In a letter to Bush, Biden asked the president to explain whether the administration believes it could attack Iran or Syria "without the authorization of Congress, which does not now exist."

Meanwhile, Lee Hamilton, the Democratic co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Friday that the U.S. must try to engage Iran and Syria in a constructive dialogue on Iraq because of the countries' influence in the conflict.

The Bush administration, and several members of Congress, say they oppose talks with Iran and Syria because of their terrorist connections. Bringing the two countries into regional talks aimed at reducing violence in Iraq was one of the study group's recommendations.

"Do we have so little confidence in the diplomats of the United States that we're not willing to let them talk with somebody we disagree with?" Hamilton asked.


____________________________


The question here seems to be whether or not a conflict with Iran is inevitable, given the fact that the two major conterweights to Iranian influence have been toppled; Saddam and the Taliban. And of course taking in the possible actions of the Isrealis, justified or not, into account

And from this line of logic we have a new interesting look at the reasons for invading Iraq i nthe first place, a vulnerable Ba-ath regime which could no longer effectively keep Shia Iranian/Syrian/Hezbolah interests at bay.

I mean, does anyone else notice a pattern in established US bases in the Middle East?
 
A

Abraxas

Guest
#2
What angers me is that the Democrats are the only ones getting huffy over this. If the president makes any violent attack on Iran he would be SERIOUSLY violating his authority to run this war, stepping on the feet of everyone in Congress (Republicans too), yet it amazes me that they aren't all up in arms about this.

This is a serious breach of the checks and balances... and Republican Congressmen sit idly on their hands? No. This would truely be the final straw. Without authority from Congress he cannot proceed. End of story. He knows he won't get it (cause I bet some of those Republicans will get off their hands if it comes to this)... so he is going to try and bait us again.

I see a serious battle between the Legislative and Executive branches over this for a while. Who knows, maybe the Supreme Court will see some serious action for a change... though unlikely. I mean, the rules are in the Constitution.

I always have the utmost faith in Cingress and respect their overall decision more than I respect the singular opinion of the President... no matter which political branch controls each branch. No, this is gonna get worse before it gets better...
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#3
Given the mountainous terrain of Iran, as well as their much better developed military, a direct conflict with them would be much more casuality-ridden and an even longer conflict than the Iraq War. I think there needs to be more international pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program, and that they should be incorporated into helping stabalize Iraq, as per the Iraq Study Group's suggestion.