Is Obama's Iran Resolution the Antidote to Kyl-Lieberman?

Barack Obama escalated his criticism of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy in a speech this weekend, blasting Democrats who try to "look tough" by "talking and acting and voting like George Bush Republicans." Asked about that line on Sunday's Meet the Press, Obama seized on Clinton's vote for the Kyle-Lieberman amendment, a hawkish, non-binding Senate statement on Iran policy, saying it sent the "wrong message" on the region.

Instead, Obama is advocating legislation stating that Congress did not grant President Bush the authority to attack Iran, either through the Kyl-Lieberman amendment or "any resolution previously adopted." Putting the brakes on Bush would be good for foreign policy, of course, but this is a dicey legislative strategy.

Obama's Iran resolution aims to check the executive branch in two strokes. First, it purports to define the boundaries of past congressional action. Second, it reiterates the constitutional fact that the president cannot start a war without congressional approval. The first goal is likely to backfire and the second is irrelevant.

In this political climate, Obama's resolution is unlikely to garner support from the majority of Congress. (It currently has no cosponsors.) Earlier this month, Jim Webb wrote a similarly well-intentioned letter telling Bush that he did not have authority to attack Iran. It only drew 29 other senators. Summoning a minority of the Senate to say what the majority thinks is not very effective. Such a letter is not binding, of course, and even some senators who agreed with its position declined to sign it. Yet antiwar legislators, activists and liberal donors are still pushing ahead for a legislative showdown on Iran, as Brian Beutler reported last week.

Activists should be careful what they wish for. A failed floor vote on Obama's resolution would not help avert a war. It might even give hawks more ammunition. Some would surely argue that a failure to pass the resolution reveals that a majority of Congress believes the president already has the power to attack Iran.

Democrats regularly criticize the administration's distortions of congressional action to expand the president's power. Unfortunately, that dynamic cuts both ways. The administration stretches legislative language in defense of outrageous practices -- and then presents Congress' failure to override the conduct as evidence of tacit approval. It is a maddening strategy. But pushing doomed legislation on war powers won't help.

Obama's resolution also states that any attack on Iran "must be explicitly authorized by Congress." This is irrelevant because Article I of the Constitution already gives Congress the exclusive power to declare war. The Constitution trumps laws passed by Congress. Constitutional rules are not strengthened if Congress reiterates them, just as they are not canceled if Congress opposes them.

Yet like many concerned citizens, Obama says that the Kyl-Lieberman amendment may have "opened the door to an attack on Iran." This analysis has become something of conventional wisdom among Democratic activists and liberal bloggers. But based on recent history, the administration is actually unlikely to cite a nonbinding statement on Iran policy as the legal basis for a new war. Instead, the administration could repeat its tactic of citing the congressional authorization of force after 9/11.

Prior to the Iraq War vote, for example, White House attorneys said Bush could invade Iraq without congressional approval, based on the 2001 authorization. In 2005, Condoleezza Rice de the same legal claim for attacking Syria. That may be why she was so dismissive of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment this weekend, telling ABC News that it had "nothing to do with" any potential attack on Iran. After all, Rice added, the president already has the "authority to use whatever means he needs to use in order to secure the country."

So what should antiwar legislators and candidates do?

I explore that question in the rest of this American Prospect column.

Comments

[EspressoAtNoon]

First thing she should have done was NOT pander to AIPAC by signing the Kyle-Lieberman bill. That sends a clear message to the world that the U.S. defines Iran's military as a terrorist organization and therefore if we attack them it's because we are only attacking terrorists.

Hillary is too smart to not have known this. This was a calculated pander job to keep the Zionists on board and shovelling money into her coffers.

[armadillious2002]

If you want a President who has an understanding of foreign policy running through his veins then vote for Joe Biden - Joe gets it.

[nomobull]

will the next group of candidates please stand up

[altohone]

Senate resolutions are a two-edged sword.

Put into context though, roughly 75% of our current Senate voted for or supported the war in Iraq.

75% of the country opposes the war now.

There is a strong argument to be made that the Senate does not reflect the views of Americans. The same stands for continuing the war, Iran, torture, corporate welfare, SCHIP and on and on. The DC elites do not appear to be working for us, is it any wonder Obama's resolution won't get anywhere?

Obama's leadership will mean dragging Congress to support the will of the people, instead of the current situation where they work against it.

[NABNYC]

In March of this year Obama gave a speech to Aipac in which he all but declared ick bin ein Israeli, and committed the U.S. resources, the military, and the lifeblood of our people to doing Israel's bidding. On Iran as well as other subjects.

For example, he said he would remove most of our troops from Iraq but "redeploy" them to other countries in the middle east so we can "protect" our friends. Uh-huh. Why not just plant them in Tel Aviv. Make a present to Israel of our whole military.

I don't really think we need to worry that Obama is going to do anything, or propose anything on Iran, unless it's been approved by Aipac, or maybe by the treasurer of Aipac who is also head of Obama's finances.

This whole dancing on the head of a pin by Democrats is absurd. Most of them have adopted Israel's declaration of war on Iran. They have to, or Aipac will organize to get them thrown out of office. Our politicians have no principles, just large wallets and pocketbooks.

What has Iran done to deserve the war threats by the entire United States government? Why do I have to pay for yet another war against yet another country because Israel is in yet another pissing match with more of their cousins. If Israel can't get along, they should leave.

All our politicians take money from Aipac. Well, first they vote to give Israel another $30 billion, including an extra $41 million for "refugees" -- people from Brooklyn who moved to Tel Aviv - then Israel launders part of the money back into the U.S. and uses it to bribe our politicians. I'm so sick of this. Our people are losing their jobs, their wages are stagnant, they cannot afford healthcare, our schools, bridges, roads are falling apart, and our D.C. politicians are taking bribes and voting to use the U.S. military to fight Israel's wars, and sending billions to Israel.

U.S. Out of Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. Bring the troops home.

[whimsicalpig]

Every day I am more convinced that Obama is just too green and naive when it comes to foreign policy. He may have charismatic appeal to the home crowd, but most of our problems in the next 4 years are going to be directly tied to repairing our international reputation with regards to our monetary situation and our military.

These are 2 areas that Obama has little background. We are NOT in a postion to offer on-the-job training. Look what we got with Bush, he still isn't up to speed.

[Tellmethetruth]

Obama is the weakest of all the candidate - 46 years old with only 2 years national elected experience as a Senator - the Republican media is pushing him and pushing him strong - maybe in 8 years when he is 54 years old and has 10 years of experience but not now. No question he is running for someone's vice president - not Hillary's. He has made his name and now it's time for him to get off the stage and turn the microphone over to an experienced candidate like Joe Biden or Bill Richardson for the sake of American's future.

[ApolloSpeaks]

Ari Melber quoting Obama writes:

Obama seized on Clinton's vote for the Kyle-Lieberman amendment, a hawkish, non-binding Senate statement on Iran policy, saying it sent the "wrong message" on the region.

Apollo Speaks

Calling a terrorist organization a terrorist organization sends a wrong message to the region? And what kind of message does the bombing of Pakistan send? That must have warmed the hearts of all Pakistanis to our country, and made Obama a national hero. What an antidote to anti-Americanism! What a public relations coup! Let's enshrine it in a Senate Resolution! Way to go to make new friends.