Dems divided over Webb's proposal requiring approval for attacking Iran

Their division is getting really tiresome... Make the dissenters explain why.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/21444

Dems divided over Webb's proposal requiring approval for attacking Iran
Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2007-04-18 16:25. Congress | Iran

By Elana Schor, The Hill

Supporters of requiring President Bush to secure congressional approval for any preemptive strike on Iran are regrouping for a new push, presaging a difficult vote for Democratic leaders and presidential hopefuls alike.

Democrats hailed the Iraq withdrawal language attached to the emergency supplemental as a signal of a newly assertive Congress, even though the House removed a mandate for authorization of attacks on Iran from early drafts of the bill. The reversal quieted some Democrats' concerns that reining in Bush on Iran could endanger Israel's security in the Middle East.

Iran is likely to reappear on the agenda this spring, however, as Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) considers adding his language on the issue to the defense authorization bill and House Democrats hold their leadership to a promise for a roll-call vote.

"There is no hand-tying here. We're not taking options off the table," Webb spokeswoman Jessica Smith said. "He offered this piece of legislation to restore the proper balance between the executive and legislative branch. This is a bill to empower Congress."

For many Democratic base voters, Webb's Iran language is also a litmus test for presidential candidates. White House assertions that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is tied to Iraqi insurgent groups makes opposition to a possible war with Iran as crucial as opposition to the Iraq war for Democrats running in 2008.
Tom Andrews, the former Democratic lawmaker now leading the anti-war group Win Without War, said the party's White House hopefuls should see Webb's plan as a no-brainer.

"The idea that you could not support prohibiting a military strike, given the conditions that are on … certainly raises serious questions in our community," Andrews said.

more...

because his military credentials are unimpeachable. I can't understand why so many Dems have a problem with it.

The original authorization was not limited to Iraq. It has to be corrected. If Iran does commit and act of war, Congress needs to be part of the decision.

Relations Committee changed it before it was passed.

was the version voted on by the Senate specific to Iraq or did it have the broader language that's been bandied about?

Working towards good relations between the US and Israel is one thing, lobbying to get America into another war in the Middle East is something else altogether. AIPAC was one of the megaphones calling for the invasion of Iraq, and they are now doing the same in opposing any attempt by Congress to reassert its Constitutional authority to declare war by putting limits on Bush.

We need to hold our Democratic Presidential candidates accountable on Iran, as we did on Iraq. Whose side are they on, AIPAC or the American people?

encourage them, then they do not know how strongly we support any particular legislation. The dems are standing tall; give them support and get your allies to do the same.

to win, even against Allen. So, no, he should stay where he is. I also am not sure he has the political chops for a national race.

If Bush needs Senate confirmation to retaliate in the event Iran nukes Tel Aviv then it will take us half a day or so before we can nuke Iran in response.

As it is now they know we will nuke them within an hour or two. If they get to live six to ten hours instead of only one then they just might figure, "why not?".

:sarcasm:


You know, it is really, really difficult writing something this incredibly stupid. How do Freepers do this day in and day out?