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.
Follow Ari Melber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriMelber
Loading comments… 
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.
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.
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 declaratio
What has Iran done to deserve the war threats by the entire United States government
All our politician
U.S. Out of Israel, Iraq, Afghanista
These are 2 areas that Obama has little background
Obama seized on Clinton's vote for the Kyle-Liebe
Apollo Speaks
Calling a terrorist organizati