Before we have a war with Iran, shouldn't the Senate and the House have at least one debate and vote on it? Isn't that what the Constitution demands? Isn't that what is demanded by the War Powers Resolution (which, despite its name, is binding law)?
If you agree to the principle that Congress should debate and vote on a war with Iran before any such war takes place (which also happens to be the Constitution and the law), when do you think a good time would be for the Senate and the House to start taking up the question? Should we wait until after there is further escalation? Should we wait until after some real or invented Persian Gulf of Tonkin incident, when Members of Congress can be steamrolled by cable news and right-wing talk radio? Or should we start having the debate now, when rational argument still has a chance, so that Members of Congress will be forced to choose sides between American generals, who oppose war with Iran, and the Israeli Prime Minister, who wants war with Iran?
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul thinks we should have the debate right now.
On Tuesday, Sen. Paul took to the Senate floor to oppose unanimous consent of a new Iran sanctions bill so he could introduce an amendment that would ensure that nothing in the act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran or Syria, and affirm that any use of military force must be authorized by Congress.
The latest Iran sanctions bill is being pushed at a very sensitive time: in the next few weeks, talks with Iran about its nuclear program are supposed to resume. Clearly, some people in Washington want to undercut President Obama ahead of those talks, restricting his ability to participate in an effective diplomatic process that would de-escalate tensions (and lower gas prices), and some of the Republican drive for new legislation on Iran is clearly motivated by this.
In particular, Senator Lieberman wants to add the Graham-Lieberman-AIPAC-Netanyahu so-called "resolution about containment being an unacceptable policy" as an amendment to the sanctions bill.
But the Graham-Lieberman-AIPAC-Netanyahu resolution is not about sanctions. The Graham-Lieberman-AIPAC-Netanyahu resolution is about lowering the bar for war.
To say the Graham-Lieberman-AIPAC-Netanyahu resolution is about saying that "containment is an unacceptable policy" is to engage in a deadly deceit. President Obama has clearly stated -- at AIPAC, no less -- that his policy is not to try to "contain" a nuclear-armed Iran, his policy is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
But that's not the policy that Graham, Lieberman, AIPAC, and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu want. They want it to be U.S. policy that it is a "red line" for the U.S. not to allow Iran to have a "nuclear weapons capability," whatever that is -- depending on how you define this term, Iran is already there. In other words, Lieberman et al want to lower the threshold for the United States to go to war, to a place indistinguishable from the status quo today.
If Graham, Lieberman, AIPAC, and Netanyahu get to determine U.S. policy, then there is no realistic chance of a diplomatic agreement. U.S. and European officials do not believe that there is any realistic chance that any combination of sanctions and diplomacy that will induce Iran to cease enriching uranium. They do believe that there is a chance that sanctions and diplomacy could induce Iran to sign a verifiable agreement that would address international concerns about its nuclear program.
But Graham, Lieberman, AIPAC, and Netanyahu don't want that. They want diplomacy to fail, so they can have a war with Iran.
Here's how the situation was recently described in the Jerusalem Post:
"Congressional offices reported they were impressed by the numbers and enthusiasm of AIPAC members lobbying them for tighter sanctions but privately complained that the lobby group was pushing too hard for another war when their ... increasingly war weary constituents were calling for accelerating the withdrawal from Afghanistan." [my emphasis - RN]
(The same piece in the Jerusalem Post states openly in its headline that "One of [Netanyahu's] objectives is to help defeat the incumbent because Obama in a 2nd term might not be so easily bullied.")
So, behind all this talk about "tightened sanctions" on Iran is really a drive for war (and a drive to elect Romney.)
If war is what is being talked about, shouldn't we have an open debate? Why should this just be a conversation between AIPAC lobbyists and Members of Congress? Shouldn't the broad American public have a say? Isn't that what the Constitution and the law demand?
When Sens. Graham and Lieberman brought forward their bill, Senate Democrats asked that it include language affirming that nothing in the bill authorized the use of military force. Graham refused.
Now Senator Rand Paul is coming forward with exactly the same idea. Shouldn't those same Senate Democrats support their own idea?
If you agree, ask your Senators to support Senator Rand Paul's amendment.
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
Ned Lamont: Spring Fever, War Fever
Paul Heroux: An Iranian's View on a Nuclear Iran
Amb. Marc Ginsberg: Syria Is Obama's Srebrenica
Daniel Dicker: Oil Market Itself Proves Gas Prices Are All Speculation-Driven
www.raceforiran.com
www.ifamericansknew.org
The issue is tyranny. Can/should a single person have the authority to take a nation into war? That's very Caeser-ish. The founding fathers were concerned about national defense (and the War of 1812 proved them right, I think), so while the President has strong powers, the Congress clearly *does* have the power of declaring war. If Bar is right in his analysis, what good is that Congressional power? Which is why I think the War Powers Resolution (passed by Congress, signed by the President) is a very good comprimise.
Where the War Powers Resolution fails is when time is NOT of the essence - eg Persian Gulf War and the Iraq War. I don't think that completely occurred to the War Powers authors: an invasion by America, and how the UN Security Council would play into it. The Persian Gulf War *was* approved by Congress, and the UN, and W (let's be real: it was Cheney) twisted laws and statements to make the Iraq War legal. But Congressional perrogatives should be revisited again, in my opinion.
I see the War Powers Act as more of a comprimise between the branches, not simply a "limit," giving the President essentially carte blanche for 30 days, but requiring (in the democratic spirit) Congressional approval for thereafter. It was in fact passed by Congress AND signed by the sitting president, and is reasonable given the accelleration of communications and emergencies as they arise. (Missing from your argument, too, is a definition of "situations of emergencies" - does an American invasion count as an exclusively Presidential perrogative?)
1. There's money to be made from war
2. There's money to be made from either capturing or eliminating an oil supply
3. There's money to be made by getting taxpayers to pay all of your costs to achieve the above and no obligation to share the bounty
True, there's the odd end-of-times believer in the mix, and the odd idealistically driven soul who still believes it's about protecting the US, spreading democracy (although how they can say that with a straight face and continue to support Saudi Arabia is a genuinely impressive display of cognitive dissonance) or nation-building, but those reasons are so far away from the real ones as to be a tiny speck in the distance.
It's all about the money, and the beneficiaries of all that public largesse must shake their heads in wonder at how the sheep so willingly present themselves at the slaughterhouse on demand: just tell them that a wolf might get them instead, or that one of the sheep might be getting free grass, and they'll even operate the slaughterhouse machinery for you while they're at it. The last one 'processed' can turn out the lights.
I mean, you haven't gone all Libertarian and stuff, right?
You're still a good liberal, aren't you?
He's crazy, but he *did* get that one right. This one, too, probably.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edwin-black/obama-national-defense-resources-preparedness_b_1359715.html
Kudos to Rand Paul for bringing this to the floor! Let's see who supports "dialogue" over going to war! Lieberman and Graham are mongering for war with the MIC...war is their racket! If Americans need to speak up and let their elected officials in Washington they are against these endless wars and supporting coups to overthrow one dictator to put another in power. It's not about "spreading democracy!" Look at Afghanistan and Iraq a war based on lies! Now these war mongers want to start another one with Iran...Syria! We're broke, deficit in the trillions and still borrowing, unemployment still high, still high unemployment and these "jokers" who are elected by the MIC/Corporation who make the trillions of dollars off of endless wars..HAS GOT TO STOP
For all his many other fuzzy headed follies, Paul is raising a timely issue for debate, ... BEFORE we have taken irreversible actions to entangle us in yet another interminable war.
As an ofttime critic of the Senator, I believe we must have the debate he requests. This would not be a war we would not survive intact as a nation in any meaningful sense.
Goes to show you, good ideas can come from the most unexpected sources.
Close. The US and Israel have already agreed to a strike. So they're not engaging in diplomacy at this point in time. They're conducting a PR campaign.
There's one option that isn't on the table: diplomacy.
And why? Because corporate lobbyists run the United States of America, and the Big Corporations they represent are going to make a lot of money from a war with Iran. The PR campaign is designed to manipulate you into paying for it without too much complaint.
The UAW who makes these WMD helicopters for Lieberman's Israeli foreign nation occupiers get there funds from the American public.