US Sen. Reid favors bill restricting attack on Iran (Reuters)

[Eugene]

US Sen. Reid favors bill restricting attack on Iran
01 Mar 2007 20:35:23 GMT
Source: Reuters

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, March 1 (Reuters) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday said
he likely would support legislation barring a U.S. attack on Iran unless Congress explicitly
gave President George W. Bush the green light to do so.

The Nevada Democrat was responding to reporters' questions about an amendment to an
upcoming war-funding bill, which could come to the Senate floor later this month. The
amendment is being drafted by Sen. James Webb, the Virginia Democrat who won his
seat in November largely on a vow to work to end the war in Iraq.

"I would be very, very confident, I have not read this (amendment), but I'm confident,
in real generality ... that I can support him," Reid told reporters.

Webb's amendment would prohibit Bush from spending any money on a "unilateral military
action in Iran without the express consent of the Congress," the Virginia senator told
reporters on Wednesday. He said there would be some exceptions, but did not detail them.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N01376466.htm

[youngdem]

1. Holy Joe won't go for this ...Are we gonna get enough Repukes on this to prevent a filibuster?

[fooj]

3. Holy Joe doesn't matter. See post below.

[BayCityProgressive]

4. Devil is in the details

"no unilateral strikes". "some exceptions"....hopefully the exceptions don't include airstrikes..

[The Magistrate]

5. Certainly, Sir, Something Along These Lines Would Be Wise

And it should be strictly and clearly drawn.

Attacking Iran in the present situation would be folly our country cannot afford.

[fooj]

2. I have a question for Harry.

When will he strip LIEberman of his chairmanship?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702240001

Why hasn't Harry CORRECTED the fallacy that the Dems could lose MAJORITY unless they court LIEberman? Don't we deserve a response to this important piece of info? I certainly think that we do.

[necso]

6. A pressing and important matter,

one guesses.

Consistent with the Constitution, the only permissible exceptions would be: "unless (any of the several states is) actually invaded (or otherwise attacked on such a scale that it is comparable to a military invasion), or in such imminent Danger (of any of the several states being actually invaded or otherwise attacked on such a scale that it is comparable to a military invasion) as will not admit of delay.

Neither of these acts (invading; a comparable attack) appears to be within Iranian power. And how long could it take to bring Congress into session and pass an appropriate authorizing act... 24 hours? (even if not already in session).

Of course, the military may defend itself against attacks, but authorizing any escalation/retaliation that might lead to a (declared; undeclared; de facto) state-of-war (as none exists) is a Congressional power and prerogative.