Cross posted at VBDems
Now this is the kind of legislation we're looking for. Senator Webb has been expressing concern for some time that the Iraq War Resolution not only authorized force in Iraq, but may contain loopholes to allow a widening war into Iran. Today he has introduced legislation to put an end to any illusions Bush has that he can unilaterally attack Iran without Congressional approval.
Back in January, Senator Webb had some serious questions for Secretary Rice:
WEBB: The question that I have for you goes back to the presidential finding on the resolution that authorized force in '02.
And there is a sentence in here which basically says that this resolution does not constitute any change in the position of the executive branch with regard to its authority to use force to deter, prevent or respond to aggression or other threats to United States interests outside of Iraq.
This phrase went to situations outside of Iraq.
And this is a question that can be answered either very briefly or through written testimony, but my question is: Is it the position of this administration that it possesses the authority to take unilateral action against Iran in the absence of a direct threat without congressional approval?
Condi Rice would not answer the question, and said she'd give him something in written form. Last I heard, he had received nothing. So he has now taken action:
A Democratic senator on Monday introduced legislation that in some cases would deny funding for the Bush administration to take military action against Iran without first getting congressional approval.
Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., has long argued that Iran must be part of a regional solution to end the war in Iraq, and has repeatedly voiced concerns that the Bush administration deems the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing force in Iraq applicable to Iran.
Webb's amendment would prohibit Bush from spending any money on a "unilateral military action in Iran without the express consent of the Congress."
Webb told FOX News last week that some exceptions would be permitted, for instance it would allow to the continuation of the current effort to stop Iranians interfering in Iraq. Webb said his concern came about when he compared the 2002 authorization to go to war in Iraq with the presidential signing statement accompanying it clarifying prerogatives the administration deemed permissible under the authorization.
He said the ambiguity in the signing statement leaves room for the president to interpret the authorization as authorizing war with Iran. And, Webb said, according to the signing statement, the president retains the right to take military action "to respond to threats against American military interests."
Now I know everyone is restless about Iraq, but here's an interesting nugget of history that was written in the recent issue of The American Prospect:
On December 16, 1969, Congress finally used the power of the purse. In a closed floor session, Church and Cooper offered an amendment to a defense spending bill to prevent the further use of money in Laos or Thailand. The amendment received the support of 73 senators. Church called the amendment a "reassertion of congressional prerogatives" on foreign policy. It survived the House-Senate conference committee, and Nixon signed the legislation.
But in the spring of 1970, Church and Cooper became concerned that Nixon was planning to use military force to support General Lon Nol, who had recently taken over Cambodia in a coup. Following Nixon's televised speech on April 30, in which he revealed that he had authorized a bombing attack on Vietnamese forces in Cambodia, Church and Cooper offered a new amendment that extended the 1969 prohibition to include Cambodia.
You have to start somewhere, and the Congress during the Vietnam era started by preventing a widening of the war (unfortunately, there was a loophole on that Cambodian amendment which did not disallow an air attack, but I digress). The whole TAP article is worth a read watching how Congress inch by inch started exerting its authority. It took time. A great deal of time, and they had far more anti-war votes than we do now.
Still, this is a good sign, and the best part of it is that the Democratic leadership -- Harry Reid -- supports the amendment, and that it will be attached to the defense supplemental bill. In other words, this thing may have a chance of passing. A big kudos to Webb for this first step into stopping our out of control executive branch from creating an ever widening war. It's still early but this development fills me with hope.
Update 1: There is a press release and a video on Senator Webb's website. He had a press conference at 2:30 PM with members of the Democratic leadership. Thanks to Carl Nyberg in the comments for the link.
Update 2: TPM Muckraker has more. There was a response of sorts from Condi Rice:
Both Rice and one of Rice's deputies wrote Webb "lengthy letters" about whether the administration claimed the authority to invade Iran without Congress' say-so. But "neither could give me a clear response," Webb said today on the floor. Sen. Webb also had a private meeting with Rice two weeks ago, Webb's spokeswoman Jessica Smith told me, during which Iran was discussed. She wouldn't tell me its outcome, saying it was a "confidential meeting," but apparently Webb got all the answer he thought he was ever going to get.
There are extensive excerpts from his floor speech. I'll just show the first three paragraphs, but I suggest going over there to read the whole thing. I am even more impressed with Senator Webb's thinking on this.
"On the one hand, the Administration assures us that it has no intention of launching military operations against Iran. On the other, the Administration tells us that all options remain on the table, at a time when our military buildup in the region continues to grow rapidly. And while we see encouraging new diplomatic initiatives with respect to Iraq, it is important that we clarify, formally, the perimeter of our immediate military interests in the Middle East.
"It is time, Mr. President, that we move forward to end our military involvement in Iraq, and the path to doing so is not to widen the war into Iran. Proper, robust diplomacy will enable us to bring greater stability to the region, to remove the American military from Iraq, to increase our ability to defeat the forces of international terrorism, and, finally, to focus on the true strategic challenges that face us around the world.
"I believe the American people will welcome this legislation. This Administration has used force recklessly, choosing the military option again and again while never matching the quality of our military’s performance with robust, creative diplomacy. Furthermore, the President’s "signing statement" accompanying the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq indicates that this Administration believes it possesses the broadest imaginable authority to commence military action without the consent of the Congress.
Update 3: Watch Senator Webb on Hardball here.