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

[Purple Girl]

Did he sustain a head injury recently??? I really thought he was going somewhere the others feared- Common sense land.
Too bad, but not surprising - decided about 10 debates ago- not who I thought he was, same for Hill and the rest of the Dem contestants

[vippy]

Vote Kucinich and be done with it. He said he saw an unidentified flying object, that could have been anything but the stupid people took it
as this far out alien thingy!!!
America wake up - you are being played and you are too stupid to see it.

[laxman]

This is pretty much the same thing as Obama not wearing the flag pin. Sure, it wouldn't cost him anything to sign the letter or wear a pin. But actually signing it accomplishes nothing, just like wearing the pin means nothing.

We can sign as many letters or petitions we want, but nothing's going to change unless someone takes real action. I'm eager to see what Obama's proposal will be.

[savertime]

This is either down right scary or just plain laughable. How easily we, the gullible masses, jump on a carefully worded headline or a thirty-second soundbite.

Bush has stomped on the Constitution (just a damn piece of paper); called the Geneva Convention "quaint"; ignored congressional subpoenas (nuisances), and now thirty senators think that he will be swayed by a "strongly worded letter."

That'll get him to sit up and pay attention.

[slobone]

Maybe Biden & Obama are smart enough to know this letter is a complete waste of time. It doesn't have any legal effect or any practical effect on Bush.

[GLOBALISATIONisBARBARISM]

A hen house is a well ordered convention compared to how these clowns are saving the world from the worst.

[zull2]

A letter is laughable. Will Bush even read it? Will he even see it? It's a publicity stunt by a Congress that wants to appear strongly against the possibility of an Iran war, but is afraid to propose legislation in order to prevent it. Instead, they vote for Kyl-Lieberman and then send a "strongly worded letter" afterward. This president vetoed health care for children, even when it had a considerable amount of bipartisan support. What makes anyone think that a letter is suddenly going to make Bush sit down, sigh, and come to his senses? Nothing. The only thing that will make Bush stop is legislation, and if the Republicans want to stay on that sinking ship, then Impeachment.

[Hrotea]

U.S. DESIGNATION OF IRAN MILITARY AS GLOBAL
TERRORIST IS TANTAMOUNT TO AN ACT OF WAR

By Hermie Rotea

It is reckless for the Bush Administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, which is a strong signal that the United States under our war czar in the White House plans to attack Iran.

Taunting and provoking Iran into a conflict is the opposite of diplomacy, and nothing good can possibly come out of it. Which is why 30 senators have signed a letter sent to President Bush telling him not to take military action against Iran.

They reminded him: 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 2008 National Defense Authorization Act.

The problem is Bush as usual is in self-denial. He considers it as an enabling act that authorizes him to bypass Congress if he decides to go ahead and bomb Iran for planning to produce nuclear weapons and for arming anti-U.S. insurgents with missiles that kill American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We are at war, the President even reminded the ruling (but weak) Democrats in Congress, and chided them for not learning a lesson from Adolf Hitler and Nazism. That is ironic and hypocritcal considering that his grandfather Prescott Walker Bush had helped bankroll the dictator rise to power.

Bush said this is no time for Congress to hold back vital funding for American troops as they fight al-Qaeda terrorists and radicals in Afghanistan and Iraq. He stated that the Democrats are behaving as if America is not at war — correction: Bush War.

It is puzzling that Senators Obama and Biden did not sign the letter to Bush. What are they up to? Obama said he would rather talk directly to Iran. There he goes again — further exposing his inexperience in foreign policy. Why can the Democrats be united against the war?

[MAX1]

.

"This requires a legislative answer and Senator Obama intends to propose one."

WTF???

What is this Legislative proposition Obama intends to offer as his answer to what...?

The justification of military action against Iran?

Re-reading the response his office sent out clearly implies as much.

Obama = More war

.

[tpagy]

As a gay man I can no longer consider voteing for him after mclurkin and if you would like to see my reason why i have a video for you of the verbal abuse i endured from a so called black christian that they pander too in fact most of the canidates do its pretty ugly and this was from my neighbor and all i did was try planting plants on that side of my yard. I know theres other issues but when you are treated worse than what fred phelps would say and see these canidates pandering to them its no different than republicans and evangelicals

[Steamboater]

Obama should have signed. It wouldn't have cost himm anything and nowit's cost him his credibilty. First Mcclurkin, now that lettter to Bush. I can see why his campaign is in the dumps.

[Transit]

It's heartening that 30 senators have signed onto a letter that advises the president to think twice before attacking Iran. I mean, every little bit helps, right?. For whatever reasons the fact that 70 other senators' signatures are missing from the letter unfortunately also says quite a lot. Regarding the letter itself I have to say though the tone is a bit wishy-washy.
First, let's look at it from the top with "Dear President Bush,". This sets a friendly tone to a letter that concerns war and all its human consequences. That's like saying "We like you but...". Remember those letters in the mail that started with, "Greetings from the President of the United States". They were serious.
"We wish to emphasis..­." is another phrase used twice in this letter. Wishing is done when you blow out the candles on a birthday cake. Either you mean to say it or you don't.
And finally. "should in no way" and "should not be taken" is not the same as you can't.
We have a case where the president feels he has the right to interpret the law as he sees fit. A letter like this one, while soothing to a politician's soul, is not going to have much effect on how President Bush makes his decisions. We can only hope that the rule of law will prevail ( remember the blind lady!) and somehow Bush and his cronies are called to answer for what they have unleashed.

[Chuckbutcher]

All this lather about Iran and nukes is just that, lather. Nobody has done a thing about nukes other than "probably" Israel. Bush fearmongering followed closely by Democratic whining. There are a number of solutions for George II's actions but the Democrats are so fearful for their new found narrow majority that they may as well not have it.

[duboisist]

I blame "Schoolhouse Rock" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

I don't understand how a NONBINDING "Sense of the Senate" give the President the authority to start a war, but it takes a BILL to take that authority back.

What happens if Obama's bill IS PASSED by the Senate AND the House, but Bush Vetoes it? Does he then have the right to go to war? What ever happened to following the CONSTITUION?
I guess the Constitution doesn't matter to people willing to ignore it for political advantage.

I don't want another President who is so willing to win at all costs that he distorts the truth. These guys are either doing this or the don't understand the Constitution, AND THAT'S EVEN WORSE.

[peterg76]

The Constitution *requires* impeachment and all they can do is write a letter reinforcing their own self-destructive cowardice? There's no guarantee Bush will even be willing (or able) to read it. Obama is right not to waste his time with this.