Democrats back off on effort to limit Bush's Iran options

[Purveyor]

March 12, 2007

WASHINGTON – Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.

Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy.

The developments occurred as Democrats pointed toward an initial test vote in the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday on the overall bill, which would require the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008, if not earlier. The measure also provides nearly $100 billion to pay for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

---end of excerpt---

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070312-1603-us-iraq.html

[Sydnie]

1. Dems abandon war authority provision

WASHINGTON - Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.

Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy.

The developments occurred as Democrats pointed toward an initial test vote in the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday on the overall bill, which would require the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008, if not earlier. The measure provides nearly $100 billion to pay for fighting in two wars, and includes more money than the president requested for operations in Afghanistan and what Democrats called training and equipment shortages.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

[Dr Fate]

2. Conservative Democrats oppose a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress???

I thought that the constitution requires just that.

Why does Pelosi & the DLC oppose congressional oversight of Bush in matters of War?

WTF does Israel wanting us to go to war w/ Iran have to do with how our Constitution & approval for war is supposed to work?

I dont understand why Pelosi & the DLC are giving up power to Bush on purpose- isnt this what they did to us last time when they went along w/ Iraq?

[tnlefty]

3. Thank you for typing some of the many things that came into my

mind about this. I'd like to know exactly who these 'conservative democrats' are!

Democratic leadership: Apparently, you're ignoring the elections of this past November!

[w4rma]

11. Pelosi is trying to to work with DLCers and Progressives and moderates. The DLCers are sabotaging.nt

[ReadTomPaine]

18. Here we go again.

When will these Dems learn? What will it take?

[lyonn]

43. In other words, the bushies and neo-libs/DLC? and Israel

are running the Iran show. Sounds like our run-up to the Iraq war. And the Dems don't have enough true Democrats to make anything stick when it comes to bucking the present administration - in fear of what? Or is it they truly agree with the bushies and corporate America?

Since taking over the power on the Hill the Dems have not denied bushco anything. Well ain't that special.

[Taoschick]

45. Actually, it doesn't.

Thanks to the War Powers Resolution, the President has to notify Congress but doesn't require their permission. Basically, the President has 60 days before the Congress can cut him off. BTW, it's been that way since 1973.

[Dr Fate]

56. No, the Constitution does give Congress the power to declare war.

A bill requiring the President to gain approval from Congress before invading Iraq- that would contradict the war powers act- but not the U.S. Constitution.

[Taoschick]

59. I don't recall a prior SCOTUS test

But past Presidents have used US troops without the permission of Congress. It has actually been argued by several administrations that the WPA is unconstitutional because it limits the executive power (CIC). Several Presidents since Jefferson have deployed troops without a Congressional declaration of War. This is one of those very strange instances where Congressional and Executive powers seem to step on each others toes.

[Dr Fate]

60. Yes- SCOTUS has not said one way or the other- so we both speak in opinions.

Fair enough.

Either way, the Constitution says that Congress declares war- so a bill requiring Cong. approval for a particular war is closer to passing muster than something that leaves it in the sole hands of the Executive...

Also, why are we framing this as a mere "deploying troops"- Bush doesnt merely "deploy troops"- he starts multi-billion dollar wars. I believe we are allowed to account for current reality even in a constitutional debate...

[twiceshy]

85. I really wish they would rescind the WPA..

I think a full declaration of war in joint session of congress should be required. It has major advantages in that, everyone must step up to the plate and either agree or not - no running and hiding for our gutless congress critters. Plus, it gives the president full war powers with the full approval of the people. Can you imagine Roosevelt trying to fight WWII under the current conditions? He had a full congressional declaration of war and reshaped the entire country to prosecute it. In todays wars there is no sacrifice other than the troops. Bush just advises us to go shopping.

[ryanmuegge]

75. You can thank the Democrats for that one, too.

Unfortunately.

[RiverStone]

68. At times, it still feels like we are the minority party on The Hill

I don't understand why Pelosi & the DLC are giving up power to Bush on purpose- isn't this what they did to us last time when they went along w/ Iraq?

Many of us don't understand Nancy's timid approach. Changing direction on the damn war and limiting Shrub's use of executive power were mantra's for Ms. Pelosi leading up to the 06 election.

I don't get her roll over capitulation. It certainly does not represent the majority will of We The People.

[Dr Fate]

76. It certainly feels like it- apparently the GOP & the DLC make up the new majority,

At least when it comes to the really big stuff...

[JMDEM]

4. This is bad stuff

WTF are they thinking?

Bump and recommend. Let's get this out there. This sucks.

[KT2000]

5. Shoot self in foot

They are backing down from requiring bush to obey the Constitution of the US???

What are they thinking?

[ends_dont_justify]

6. I think we ought to write to our senators and tell them what we think

It's ludicrous that they move from 'impeachment if bush seeks war with iran' to 'let him do whatever'

[AzDar]

7. I am seriously trying to curb my usage of profanities....this AIN'T

helpin'.:wtf:

[Purveyor]

8. Mission Accomplished: AIPAC Pushes to Eliminate Anti-Iran-War Language from Pelosi Iraq Bill

March 10, 2007

---

However, the authoritative Congressional Quarterly daily report reveals today that some Democrats are fighting Speaker Pelosi's language which would prevent the President from going to war on Iran without the approval of Congress. Simply put, Pelosi wants to avoid a repeat of the Iraq experience in Iran.

For the Dems, this is a no-brainer, or so one would think. But, according to the CQ some of the same Democrats most vehement about ending the Iraq debacle are resisting denying the President unilateral authority to go to war on Iran.

The hypocrisy is astounding. It is worth noting that the AIPAC conference begins in Washington this weekend with thousands of citizen lobbyists are being deployed to Capitol Hill to deliver the message that Iran must be dealt with, one way or another. This battle over the Pelosi language is part of the overall Iran effort. And you thought it couldn't happen again!

---end of excerpt---

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROS20070310&articleId=5043

[anotherdrew]

19. well, personally I welcome our new AIPAC masters. how far over do we need to bend again?

this shit needs to stop happening

[rodeodance]

63. of course!!

[Akoto]

9. Congress: The Toothless Lion

They protest and they roar, but in the end? Nothing. They give in, again and again. I wish they'd stop trying to save face before Republicans who don't give a damn about them.

[agincourt]

10. And when a military attack on Iran is a failure,

the sheeple will believe that congress is just as much to blame as Bush. When will they learn that they have nothing to lose by opposing vigorously the Chimperor?

[Warren Stupidity]

14. When the occupation of the middle east enters its second decade

will congress finally be willing to cut the funding? Or will they still be worried sick about being accused of not supporting the troops?

When the dead are counted in the millions, will we figure it out?

[baldguy]

12. WHAT THE FUCK ARE THESE PEOPLE DOING?!?!?!?

Rescind the IWR! Cut off the money! And bring the troops home already!

[bearfan454]

77. I'm with you. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Had enough yet?

Our wonderful party, swept back into power over the disastrous Iraqi Blunder, is unwilling and unable to do anything effective to stop this war or prevent the criminal cabal in the white house from starting the next one.

Now what?

[Sonicmedusa]

15. Now what???

Our party abandoned us.....

Turnabout?

[w4rma]

64. Just the DLC part.

But those guys had abandoned us long ago. The DLCers do a good job of hiding their agenda, though.

[Miss Chybil]

16. When will we start pledging allegiance to the Israeli flag? nt

[Countdown_3_2_1]

17. Viet Nam continued for 25 years before Congress did anything.

Congress has a track record...Are we really surprised?

[yurbud]

20. Dems strip Iran War ban from bill

Israel has 200-400 nukes.

They don't need air strikes on Iran.

We don't need to start a world war, but to please Israel, we left that door open.

At some point, Democrats might consider whether pleasing AIPAC might result in a backlash from the rest of us.

Dems abandon war authority provision

By DAVID ESPO and MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writers 51 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against
Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.

Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

[sam sarrha]

21. we need to keep our dumb F'n stupid pResident and W form doing it.. NOW, Let Israel do what they may

[muntrv]

22. If we wanted a rubber stamp Congress, we would have re-elected the repukes

in 2006. :mad:

[Nihil]

70. Guess what? You did.

Some were wearing red, some were wearing blue but it's a single-party
majority across the board: the Mammon party who whore to the highest bidder.

:shrug:

[lastknowngood]

23. Dems surrender all power the the little dictator and abdicate their

political futures, should be the headline. When will these wimps learn they don't have to win every vote, they need to put those bluedogs on the record as Shrub cheerleaders so we can knock them off the next time around. If we had one real leader I would be happy but no all we have are ineffectual whiners and shrub apologist.

[IndianaGreen]

34. Pelosi won't impeach, won't end the war in Iraq, and won't stop the war in Iran

What's the difference between her and Dennis Hastert?

[wuushew]

74. about 150lbs

n/t

[lyonn]

49. I'm really sick of the excuse that we don't have enough votes

Take the issues to the floor and let the speeches begin and the votes fall where they may. This excuse of not pushing an issue because we don't have the votes is getting old. We are seeing some true colors here folks and it's not good.

[Dr Fate]

57. It's the old "Can't win, so just give up" excuse- I don't like it either.

I'm glad Pat Fitzgerald didn't have that Mentality.

[C_U_L8R]

24. Geez why are our Dems so limp ?

We voted em in to fight for us.. not to roll over... like this.
How downright pathetic.

[yurbud]

25. In fairness, there is a real schism in Dems between progressives and corporate whores

and those whores don't care if some of their clients are countries.

[msongs]

26. blue dog dems = republicans lite nt

[MannyGoldstein]

30. The Brave Sir Robin Democrats

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge...

(with thanks to Monty Pyton)

[C_U_L8R]

42. Someone needs to read THAT into the congressional record

it's perfect .. hahahahahahah

[Skip Intro]

27. Does the US House seek to represent the US, or Israel?

Its stuff like this that makes me question some of the differences between the parties. Decisions about US policy should reflect what's best for the US, not what's best for Israel. And we know, that is the reason the requirement to seek Congressional approval before attacking Iran was struck down. That's pretty damn clear.

This kinda thing bugs me, it really does.

[lyonn]

47. We are hearing the real voices of America, Israel and corporations

Which one of our Dear Democrats running for president has listened to the ones that put them in power, at least at the polling booths. We are learning that it is the ones who give them gillions of dollars and big parties and meet and greets with important people, and that is not us, the ones that bothered to go vote for them.

Hell, they keep this up and I'll vote for Nader! What difference does it make? I was once a staunch, "vote for a Dem No Matter. I'm pissed.

[Nihil]

71. The US government no more represents the US people ...

... than the UK government represents the UK people.

Q: How do you know a politician is lying?
A: Their lips are moving.

[classysassy]

28. Where did they go?

Did the K street boys hand out enough $$$$$$$$$$ to silence the angry dems?get some balls or get out of town.

[yurbud]

29. COPY AND PASTE TO: your rep, pelosi, your senators (LINKS)

Pelosi:

http://speaker.house.gov/contact/

House:

http://www.house.gov/

Senate:

http://senate.gov/

[yurbud]

37. my emails to senators, Pelosi, & rep:

I was deeply disturbed to read in the AP that House Democrats stripped the requirement for Bush to get congressional approval before attacking Iran because of opposition from Israel. The Senate should not make the same mistake in any war related legislation.

Israel has 200-400 nukes.

They don't need our air strikes on Iran.

We don't need to start a world war, but to please Israel, we left that door open.

If Israel settled their business with the Palestinians in a just manner, they wouldn't have to worry about their neighbors. Maybe it's time to give them the "tough love" we so willingly give other countries.

At some point, Democrats might consider whether pleasing AIPAC might result in a backlash from the rest of us.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. Awww... No Non-Binding Impeachment?

Golly.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Please explain why Pelosi & Co. have given Bush the green light to attack Iran

Instead of sucking up to the Israel Lobby, like we did in the case of Iraq with disastrous consequences, Democrats should read the latest report from Chatham House, a British think tank, about what could happen if US/Israel were to attack Iran.

Published on Monday, March 12, 2007 by lndependent/UK

Military Action Against Iran Would Backfire on Israel, Report Warns

by Anne Penketh

Military action against Iran would backfire against Israel, which in turn would face "dire and far-reaching" consequences, a leading British foreign policy think-tank believes.

Chatham House says in a report that it is "widely assumed" that preparations are "well under way" in both America and Israel for military action against targets related to Iran's nuclear program. The report by Yossi Mekelberg examines the possible responses by Iran, which may retaliate with massive ballistic missile attacks on Israeli cities such as Tel Aviv or Haifa, resulting in "substantial loss of life".

Israel's relations with moderate Arab states would also be harmed, as any military attack would be seen as an offensive against the Muslim world and would fuel Islamic extremism.

"An Israeli military operation against Iran would hurt Israel's long-term interests. It would be detrimental to Israel's overall security and the political and economic consequences would be dire and far-reaching," the report warns.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0312-02.htm

[yurbud]

33. this is why we need Feingold or Wes Clark in the White House: only someone Jewish can stand up to

the Israel lobby.

[brentspeak]

40. Clark is Baptist, not Jewish

[yurbud]

53. he has Jewish ancestry that he talks about. Better than nothing on this issue.

[Leilani]

61. No, he's Catholic

Raised as a Baptist; his father was Jewish.

[Dinger]

73. I Thought He Converted To Catholicism In The 60's

I'll try and find a link.

[Greeby]

35. We have some pretty useless people at the top of the food chain

:(

[TheBaldyMan]

36. that was fucking insane, Chimpy needs it spelled out in 10' high letters

NO WAR IN IRAN!

I'm assuming that the shaved ape in the Whitehouse can read.

The Democrats that kow-towed at the AIPAC conference should know better. What will it take to persuade these triangulating invertebrates to say no to the looney tunes in Israel ? There is still hope that one day a sane member of Homo Sapiens Sapiensis will enter the Oval Office and use America's influence to get everyone round the negotiating table.

[lyonn]

51. When the Dems line up at the AIPAC Conference we need to

take names. Some of us know the usual suspects. Yet they balk at going on Fox for a debate in Nevada?? They do have their priorities and it is not we the people "'cause we just don't understand what the real issues are".

[TheBaldyMan]

58. take names? how about every dem in the house damn near

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae5t_55OWbo">AIPAC 2007 promotional video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axQtKUi51h0">AIPAC 2006 promotional video

I haven't posted the name of every politician that spoke there, republican and democrat, let's just say you'ld get killed in the stampede to the podium.

In a word - sickenng.

[lyonn]

78. Ugh! If only our politicians would get this emotional over our troops

in Iraq and this worthless mission. They have no problem standing behind another country with all our might and military forces.

Talk about PACs and their influence, this is awsome. I had no idea.

[liberal N proud]

38. What was the election about?

Same old shit just different gang of idiots

I for one am sick of this spineless bunch of weasels that we call Democrats. What the fuck?

Are they in this with the regime?

[dbt]

39. Tell me again how we're supposed to support "our party," no

matter what. I need to be reminded how our Democrats are so much to be preferred over real Republicans. Our Democrats, who are so afraid of being laughed at on Television.

You know. The ones Harry Truman was talking about when he said, Given a choice between a real Republican and a Democract who acts like a Republican, voters will choose the real thing every time.

And we're not supposed to abandon "our" party exactly why?

:argh:

[IndianaGreen]

41. Cheney said we are in Iraq to protect Israel, perhaps Cheney will say the same about Iran

and since far too many Democrats are in the backpocket of the Israel Lobby, they will support an attack on Iran with the same enthusiasm they supported the attack on Iraq.

LBN thread on Cheney's Israel remarks:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2764837&mesg_id=2764837

[yava]

44. from Iraq to Iran in the name of Jews

The possible terrible impression that US soldiers and Iraqi
civilians are dieing for the security of Israel is not only
false but dangerous for the jewish community all over the
world. It is special interests that are making money in Iraq
and all jews dont follow AIPAC or Netanyahu or the current
Israeli government for that matter. Previous persecution of
jews should keep them alert not to seek alliance with
extremes. Normal jews especially US citizens should speak out
against AIPAC and write to their Congress persons now. AIPAC
is constituted of a bunch of rich folks who can move to
another country if push comes to shove.

Attacking Iran is only envisaged by AIPAC, a small minority of Israeli hawks many of Russian origin or with US dual citizenships. No true middle-eastern wants to initiate actions to destroy homes on speculation or provocations. Other jews should speak out NOW, just like other good people. Or else their kids will blame them.

[IndianaGreen]

46. Funny that Bibi Netanyahu is now talking about diplomacy while Cheney talks war

Bibi was on CNN last week and despite the efforts of the anchor to get him to speak of war against Iran, Bibi spoke of diplomacy.

[yava]

48. what do they think?

If Republicans talk of God and Good and pocket the money at cost of blood, if Democrat talk of stopping the war to get elected then bow to the media, who can be sure that AIPAC has the interest of Jews at heart?

[yurbud]

55. 2 possible explanations: 1. good cop/bad cop 2. Israel is the excuse not the reason

[grassfed]

69. time to accept the obvious

The possible terrible impression that US soldiers and Iraqi
civilians are dying for the security of Israel is UNDENIABLE.

Only I would substitute "expansion and empowerment" for "security"

[donkeyotay]

80. And protect the entanglement of Israeli/US bidness, defense contractors

intelligence, spying, hedgefunding and otherwise looting the planet. Keeping the world safe for those with enough money to control congress and the airwaves. Bunch of war profiteers who don't want peace and sure as heck don't want our freedom.

[The Stranger]

50. I simply cannot believe I am fucking reading this.

The Democrats are complicit in these war crimes. Worse than the GOP, they posture and announce imminent action and repeatedly -- repeatedly -- retreat from it at the last minute.

[yava]

52. sad

hope kids will do it different as grown ups

[yurbud]

54. CONTACT DEMOCRATIC PARTY:

http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues

Call them too. Can they do anything? No. But if you give them a headache, they will share the love with Congress people who come looking for money.

202-863-8000

[radfringe]

62. If the Dems keep backing off

they will back themselves out of a job next year. We voted for change, a new direction, not more of the same.

[majorjohn]

65. Fuck Pelosi!

[Javaman]

66. Pathetic. nt

[Javaman]

67. My letter I just sent...

At first I was disappointed. Then I was saddened. but now I have come to realize that the Democrats that I help elect last November are nothing but pathetic political lap dogs.

"Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran."

I know there are all sorts of currents to swim and sharks to fight in washington, but you know what? as an American citizen who voted straight Democratic party since I first voted, you have embarrassed me.

The party I supported to end this travesty of a war, just rolled over and asked this failed president and the republican MINORITY to rub you belly.

Pathetic. Pathetic. Pathetic.

You are now seriously straining my want to support you. You were the ones that willfully stripped this provision from the bill, not the republicans, but the democrats.

What in the name of God are you thinking? Are you just as equally disconnected from reality as the republicans are? Have you forgotten the soldiers over in Iraq that are fighting this lie of a war and dying day after day, while you twiddle your thumbs? How many of you have family members over there fighting? How many of the new Democrats that were elected in November had fought over there and now seem to have forgotten their brothers and sisters in Iraq?

The republican controlled congress may have been liars and crooks, but the Democratic lead congress are pathetic lap dogs.

Do me a favor, lead or get out of the way, because you are obviously only following now.

Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic.

[VegasWolf]

72. Hey Pelosi! There's another ELECTION in a year! If all you clowns can do is fail at passing

even NON-BINDING resolutions, who the hell needs you?

[ShortnFiery]

79. Yes, remember the organization "Vote Out Incumbents Democracy" or VOID

http://voidnow.org/

snip

VOID seeks to achieve better political reform and governance by organizing voters dissatisfied with our politics and government results, to vote out incumbents in sufficient numbers to change how politicians conduct themselves and our government. As of the 2004 elections, incumbents had enjoyed a 90+ percent reelection rate no matter how badly government or politicians performed. Which means there is no incentive for politicians to change their ways.

By organizing voters to lower that incumbency rate significantly, we can demand better governance and politics in return for our vote. This is the power granted to voters by our Constitution over politicians and government, if only voters will exercise that power. That is our mission, to educate and organize voters around this Constitutional power of the vote to demand better politics and government from our elected officials in the U.S. Congress. VOID advocates the anti-incumbent vote only in regard to U.S. Congressional races, and takes no position on presidential election, or state and local politics.

/snip

[yurbud]

82. it would be nice if we could make BOTH parties the whigs next time.

[The Stranger]

81. RALPH NADER WAS RIGHT.

[yurbud]

83. Related thread in EDITORIALS by Cenk Uygur of Young Turks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=268695&mesg_id=268695

[fbahrami]

84. I don't think y'all realize

that Dems and Repugs are all part of the same ruling/"upper" class,

whereas we the people - even if we voted clearly in Nov 06 - are the working class.

Marxism may have died, but Marx's economic theory of classes lives on.

Dems and Repugs are just distractions for us to feel as if we have some power.

[Tiberius]

86. I am believing this more and more every day

Maybe there was a time when the two parties were truly adversarial, but now it seems like they both represent the same interests (more or less).

My hope is that the Democrats prove me wrong when they re-take the Oval Office and control both houses of Congress in January 2009. Unfortunately, it may be too late by then, as the neocon cabal has much planned for the next 22 months.

[Strelnikov_]

87. When did Marxism die?

I think it is simply on hiatus as we have the last big blowout unconstrained by resource limitations.

Once we become become constrained by resources, which is fast approaching, some form of socialism will be the only economic model that will ensure some measure of economic parity.

The other extreme in a resource limited world is a feudal/warlord system, as observed in failed states such as Afghanistan, Somalia, etc.

We can decide to equitably share, or fight for, the resources remaining. Both paths involve some degree of top down management/centralized planning.