Joseph Wilson: A Reality Check on Iran Policy and U.S. Campaign Politics

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20071105/cm_huffpost/070973

On November 1, 30 Democratic senators, led by Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, delivered a strong letter to President Bush in response to his increasingly bellicose language on Iran. The letter informs the president that he does not have the authority to take military action against Iran without prior, specific authorization from the Congress. This message follows up on the bill proposed by Senator Webb and co-sponsored by Senator Hillary Clinton requiring congressional authorization for the use of military force on Iran. Senator Clinton, in fact, first proposed that the administration could not act without a wholly new authorization in a floor speech on February 14.

ADVERTISEMENT

The November 1 letter directly addresses the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution, which declares a sense of the Senate that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, an autonomous force within the Iranian military structure, is a terrorist organization. The resolution also makes explicit that it is a diplomatic sanction, not in any way to be interpreted as a basis for military action. During the debate, Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois deleted reference to "military instrumentalities" and added: "Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the president the authority to use military force against Iran."

Durbin explained, "I am opposed to military action in Iran. To say we need to pressure the Iranians to change their course in the Middle East and I want to do it by nonmilitary means, that's what my vote was all about.''

As those who voted for its final Durbin version, including Senator Clinton, have made clear, the resolution is an attempt to inject a diplomatic element into a situation fraught with potential danger. This measure is just one of the appropriate tools at our disposal, and there should be other diplomatic initiatives, as Senator Clinton has proposed: strengthening multilateral negotiations and opening direct bilateral relations with Iran. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has not adopted the comprehensive diplomatic approach proposed by Senator Clinton.

<edit>

As one who practiced diplomacy on behalf of our country for decades, including as the acting ambassador in Iraq during Desert Shield, where I personally confronted Saddam Hussein and his henchmen, Senator Obama's approach seems to me to misunderstand diplomacy. Needless to say, profound distrust of Bush and the administration is more than merited. I yield to nobody in my own efforts to bring their lies to public attention. But the Durbin version of Kyl-Lieberman and the November 1 letter are clear in drawing lines in not granting the Bush administration authority it does not have.

more...

GWB already has the authority to attack, go after any Terrorist
Group.

By naming Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization,
some believe (knowing GWB) this gives Bush the target. He
was early on after 9/11 to go after terrorists groups.

It can all be semantics. This is what I have heard some say.

The intent of Kyl-Lieberman has been severely distorted. I've thought all along that it is the height of disingenuous and distortion for the sake of politics for Obama to criticize anyone that voted for Kyl-Lieberman especially when he wasn't even there to speak for or against it, much less vote on it.

Kyl-Lieberman was explicitly worded to say it was not an authorization for war against Iran. still, some people have played on others' ignorance to slam candidates they don't like.

" The resolution also makes explicit that it is a diplomatic sanction, not in any way to be interpreted as a basis for military action."

Where's the beef?

jeepers creepers, if the busheviks flaunt the law and the Constitution itself, you really want us to believe in "letters" of dissuation?

get to think or talk for themselves.