New '08 Iran Rift: Obama Refuses To Sign Dem Letter To White House

Thirty senators sent a letter to the White House on Thursday warning President Bush not to take offensive military action against Iran without the consent of Congress. Noticeably absent from the list of signatories is presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL.

According to its authors, the letter was designed to clarify the ambiguity of the recent Kyl-Lieberman amendment designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Obama has been critical of that amendment as well as the Bush administration's aggressive rhetoric towards Tehran. Yet the senator from Illinois turned down a request to sign on to the White House letter.

"I was surprised and disappointed," John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World and one of the catalysts behind the letter, told the Huffington Post. "I contacted virtually every office and to me it was a no-brainer that Obama and [Sen.] Biden [whose name was also not on the list] would both sign on. Neither did."

The letter, which was spearheaded by Sen. Jim Webb, D-VA, was signed by presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, who voted for the Kyl-Lieberman provision, and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CT, who opposed it. It reads:

"We are writing to express serious concerns with the provocative statements and actions stemming from your administration with respect to possible U.S. military action in Iran. These comments are counterproductive and undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy."

Sources knowledgeable with the crafting of the letter said there were two general arguments offered by those who did not sign on in support: that Congress already has the power to declare war, and that the text was too vague about defensive and/or covert action against Iran. Notably, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) also declined to attach his name.

UPDATE: Responses from Obama and Biden campaigns:

"Senator Obama admires Senator Webb and his sincere and tireless efforts on this issue. But it will take more than a letter to prevent this administration from using the language contained within the Kyl-Lieberman resolution to justify military action in Iran. This requires a legislative answer and Senator Obama intends to propose one."

+++

"Sen. Biden voted against the amendment urging the designation of the Iranian Rev. Guard as a terrorist group. He strongly opposed it because he believed it could be used by this President to justify military action against Iran. He has also made clear many times his view that the President lacks the authority to use force against Iran absent authorization from Congress. He didn't need to clarify that position - he's been clear from the start," said Biden spokesperson Elizabeth Alexander.

A list of the signatories is below.

Dear President Bush:

We are writing to express serious concerns with the provocative statements and actions stemming from your administration with respect to possible U.S. military action in Iran. These comments are counterproductive and undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy.

We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran. This includes the Senate vote on September 26, 2007 on an amendment to the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment, expressing the sense of the Senate on Iran, and the recent designation of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, should in no way be interpreted as a predicate for the use of military force in Iran.

We stand ready to work with your administration to address the challenges presented by Iran in a manner that safeguards our security interests and promotes a regional diplomatic solution, but we wish to emphasize that offensive military action should not be taken against Iran without the express consent of Congress.

Sincerely,

Story continues below

advertisement

1. Webb

2. Akaka

3. Baucus

4. Boxer

5. Brown

6. Byrd

7. Cantwell

8. Carper

9. Casey

10. Clinton

11. Dodd

12. Dorgan

13. Durbin

14. Feinstein

15. Harkin

16. Johnson

17. Kerry

18. Klobuchar

19. Kohl

20. Leahy

21. McCaskill

22. Mikulski

23. Murray

24. Reed

25. Rockefeller

26. Sanders

27. Stabenow

28. Tester

29. Whitehouse

30. Wyden

Comments

[NeoStar9]

Okay lets try this again since my first post didn't show up.

Writing a letter is clearly meaningless. It's the same thing as a non-binding resolution. Both are worthless. These people weren't elected for this. They were elected to pass law, be apart of the process of checks and balances, and to represent the people. If they aren't going to represent the people at least they could do is attempt to do the job they are being payed to do.

Bush has shown time and time again he will do what he wants unless he is forced not to or there is a roadblock in his way. Obama has the right idea here I feel. An actual and legally binding law is needed to reenforce the understanding that Bush needs the approval of Congress to attack a country. That has always been the case and he needs to be reminded of it and if they ignores that then he should be held accountable.

At first I thought that Obama should have at least signed but now it doesn't even matter. The letter is a weak jesture that will be ignored. Bush doesn't care one bit, it's quite possible it won't even make it to him. There is no force behind it at all. So what is the point in even signing it?

Let them write their letter. Who looks stronger in the end?

The person writing a letter (another worthless non-binding jesture) asking if not begging Bush not to do something?

Or the person proposing a actual bill that says that Bush is required (telling him he's not allowed not asking him) to get an okay from Congress or else?

[paixa3]

This clearly shows that OBAMA would never be a good president.

I wish he would just go away....I wish the same for Billary and many others, including MOST of congress.

Geezuzz, what a sham the USA Government has become. I have to pay taxes to keep these bums in a job?

[PADDYWHACK]

Bush doesn't read and he certainly doesn't think.It's scary that an incurious dolt should be in charge of the greatest military power on earth.With no diplomatic tendencies he is what you see,a person who thinks all can be accomplished by slaughter and bombs.Amer­ica's power was based on balance and it's ability to persuade it's democratic allies because they agreed with it's beliefs.Th­e mindset of Cheney and Bush is a dark departure from our democratic past.Jim Webb is a breath of fresh air and I hope he breaks out from the tar pit of accomodation that is the senate.

[opie]

The gist of Obama's position is right in my view. I view the letter as a sign of having made bad judgement and/or losing the initial vote on the Senate Resolution in the first place. 30 Senators do not a majority make. I agree with the sentiment, but I do not think it confronts Bush in any way at all. These 30 Senators still think there are rules when you fight Bush. They ought to know better by now.

And the cynical side of me thinks the letter is designed as political cover for Hillary in a time of need.

[bethinCary]

I think it's TPM that has an article about Obama introducing a bill requiring the Pres. to go through Congress (sad that that's actually the way the Constitution is set up anyhow)-rather tha a "strongly-worded letter", which has no teeth.

[Zhonni]

If they don't think the President has the power to invade Iran, why write him a letter?

If there is an opening to invade, why not close it legislatively???

Go Biden and Obama!!!

Ofcourse Edwards,and Dodd as well.

[Vajara]

For sure the Congress should do *everything* in their power to bring our troops home. This letter isn't going to do it, but that is no reason not to sign it.

Is this going to be used as an excuse to continue to fund the war while signing a letter to stop war mongering? Come on, impeach Bush and Cheney so that you can get their attention and stop the Iran war talk!!!

[rwe]

You are all missing the obvious...­.Obama is showing incredible judgement and integrity here.. Look at the list of those 30 above .. It is a rogues gallery of despicability . To be associated with such a heinous group is against any litmus test of morality

[TLV]

Six years ago a cry of alarm went out that the Bush administration would direct aggression toward Iraq. "Ridiculous!," critics of that prediction said. "We have a crisis of enormous proportions on our hands. Osama bin Laden has not been caught. Pakistanis are bleeding over the border with Afghanistan and blowing people up. We don't even know who distributed anthrax in this country and you accuse Bush of this?"

Iraq's major cities were bombed.

Two years ago, Scott Ritter announced that the drumbeats to war against Iran had begun. "Ridiculous!," critics of that prediction said. "Iraq is a complete mess and getting worse! Why would they stretch the military any more than they have? The Middle East will explode in violence!"

Iran's nuclear power facilities are about to be bombed.

Is there anyone left in the world stupid enough to trust George Bush? God - I hope not.

[WilliamWallace]

No letters, IMPEACH

[prscnt1]

Sometimes, it pays to look at other perspective:

Blackwater, other contractors and even our special forces, that go in a country and do a mission, CIA with its torture and hidden prisions, could be considered terrorist organization of the US, and funded by the US.

Obama is right, we need to engage diplomatically. All turncoat liberman wants is more war, which will ultimately destroy Israel. For all the faithful, when Jesus does not show up, the bible thumper would reinterpret and say that the real Israel is yet to come. Enjoy.

[thepathforward]

What political BS! Sen. Clinton votes for the Iran resolution originally, which most experts claim was giving the administration an open door for military action against Iran, and then turns around later and signs another letter against it-of course after the chastisement in the last Dem debate after having voting for it in the first place.
And, I don’t buy the assertion from the Clinton campaign claiming her vote regarding Iran was primarily for pushing the current administration towards diplomatic measures and sanctions with Iran. Now really! Since when does Presidential international diplomacy need a Congressional vote or Congressional urging? Wouldn’t it be interesting to be able to ask Pres. Nixon, Reagan, Carter, Kennedy, et. al., whom had great diplomatic successes with many of our adversaries (at the time), whether they thought Congress should have given them the approval or a political nudge via a vote to exercise diplomacy. IMO this reason that is being touted by the Clinton campaign regarding her Iran vote makes no political sense considering international diplomatic initiatives that most past Presidents and their Secretaries of State implemented freely and without the intervention of Congress. Call it past presidents precedents.
IMO Sen Obama and Biden are correct, and they are smart enough to know these continuing letters and non-binding resolutions are worthless, and instead they would propose actual legislation. If these other Democrts were so concerned about this resolution in the first place, they should have voted against it originally, and then not jumped on this current bandwagon when that vote became controversial and unpopular-and especially Sen. Clinton, a Presidential candidate-IMO waffling again on yet another issue. This whole letter thing reeks with the perception that these Democrats didn’t figure out or discern the seriousness of the original vote before they forged ahead and vored originally, and now that Biden and Obama and others described for them the potential serious consequences of that vote, they run to draft a hurry- up and reactive letter of concern-totally contradicting their original vote of approval. IMO pitiful!

[realitytrumpsbull]

I think that letter isn't worth the paper it's printed on. If our democratic Congress wants
to prove themselves worthy of their pay, then
they'd do something like move to end the Iraq
war, or impeachment, or at the very minimum,
censure. But, my prediction is that we won't
see any of that, instead they'll rubber-stamp
more war spending, most likely. Pelosi's
a HUGE disappointment, but the fault may not
entirely be hers, because the way all the
paperwork has shaped up, I kind of don't
really believe that they really have that much
authority or power anymore. If they did,
they would have used it. Instead, it's word
games and political badminton. The War Party
is on the march...

[bythePeopleforthePeople]

Bushco has been allowed to wipe his jack boots on the Constituti­on.......a strongly worded letter is worth nothing...­...how about impeachment and a cell....my children will never know the country I new....whe­re are the strong leaders who would get us back on the right path...Oh right,they are lining up at the K street trough.

[Earl]

I wonder how much this letter will bring on ebay?