Dan Froomkin: Could Congress Prevent Bush From Attacking Iran?
Posted at 12:56 pm, November 9th, 2007
Depending on whom you believe, Vice President Cheney may have already persuaded President Bush that the only effective way to check Iran’s political and nuclear ambitions is to launch a military attack sometime before the end of his term – maybe even very soon.
Could members of Congress prevent that from happening? Not if all they do is send letters and pass resolutions full of empty bluster. But a majority of both houses vowing specific consequences if Bush attacks? That might work.
Last week, some 30 senators signed a letter to Bush, declaring that “we wish to emphasize that offensive military action should not be taken against Iran without the express consent of Congress.” Also last week, Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama proposed a joint resolution to make it clear that the Senate had in no way authorized the use of force when it passed a previous, hawkish resolution about Iran in September. A few days earlier, Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin had proposed his own resolution, which simply states “that any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly approved by Congress before such action may be initiated.”
The obvious question, however, is: Or what?
What will Congress do if Bush attacks Iran without permission? Hold its breath? Thus far, Congress has never once exacted any toll from Bush for defying its will. Without a majority of Congress vowing to take specific steps if Bush acts, their talk about Iran is just that.
Most members of Congress believe that Bush would have to get congressional authority ahead of time before launching military strikes. But it’s pretty clear that Bush and Cheney don’t think so – especially if there’s some sort of provocation which they can say required an urgent response.
The control of money is the strongest power Congress has. So what precisely will it defund if Bush attacks Iran? That’s the question we need answered.
November 9th, 2007 at 3:58 pm |
In practice, Congress does not have good options.
The funding leverage is weak. The Pentagon has enough “emergency use” funding to carry out a sustained air attack for quite some time.
The management leverage is weak. Carrying out impeachment proceedings against members of the administration would be slow and run into ferocious opposition.
It could provide some sort of immunity to senior officers who wished to testify publicly about the dangers of attacking Iran. But the administration could troop out supporters to claim otherwise, and the media would play it “he said she said”.
Bottom line, if Bush wants to, he can.
November 9th, 2007 at 5:34 pm |
The Constitution allows for the removal from office of a President who is either physically or mentally incapacitated. If Bush and VP Cheney were both to be declared mentally unfit – based upon their ‘Commander In Chief’ commands to the military to attack Iran, and removed from office, then the next in line is Speaker of The House. In that case, Nancy Pelosi would become President and could stop the insanity of another war front.
So, who gets to ‘bell the cat’, i.e., threaten to declare both Prez and Veep mentally incapacitated in that situation?
November 9th, 2007 at 8:53 pm |
“So, who gets to ‘bell the cat’, i.e., threaten to declare both Prez and Veep mentally incapacitated in that situation?”
I think that if pollsters were to ask that question, a majority of all Americans would agree right now that Bush and Cheney would be considered mentally unfit.
Unfortunately the Congress does not seem to be listening to us, STILL, and they are the ones who would ‘bell the cat’, as it were, by initiating impeachment proceedings in the House and proceeding to the Senate for trial if necessary.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:32 pm |
What can Congress do to stop President Cheney and the Dauphin from nuking Iran? IMPEACH THE B@STARDS! It’s that simple.
But they can’t get more than 30 senators to sign onto a resolution stating “You should do what the U.S. Constitution says and get the approval of Congress before you start a war.” So if less than 1/3 of the Senate is willing to put its name onto a resolution saying “obey the Constitution,” you have a kingdom.
And the future of the United States, probably the entire pattern of world civilisation, depends on the king not doing something absolutely insane. While past performance is no predictor of future returns, the indicators are not good. I’m so glad I moved out of America when the money was still worth something. When the U.S. goes down, it’s going to take Oz with it. But I’ll have the luxury of watching it unfold.
Time to go to the video store and re-rent a copy of “On the Beach” (the original 1959 version, filmed here in Melbourne.) Prophetic, mate, prophetic…
November 9th, 2007 at 10:12 pm |
Unfortunately, given the political climate of right-wing jingoism and pseudo-patriotism, Congress can do NOTHING to stop the Bush juggernaut from attacking Iran next year. If Paul Wellstone hadn’t been killed a few years ago, he might have forged an alliance during these years of the Bush Nightmare to slow down the Bush train wreck, but, Wellstone is dead and Bush will have his way.
November 11th, 2007 at 2:51 am |
Isn’t this Year 3 for Dan Froomkin’s Great Cheney Attack on Iran? At some point doesn’t Froomkin lose credibility with the American people?
It’s pretty clear people are talking about the Bush administration’s supposed urge to go to war without a Congressional authorization to suggest that there’s some pattern of behavior. But there isn’t: Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, voted for the wars we’re presently engaged in. Some of the fine folks who voted for the wars presently oppose them. Dan doesn’t see why that would be a credibility issue.
Dan’s a partisan hack.
November 11th, 2007 at 11:08 am |
I am flabergasted that George W. Bush gets to play president, while “Unka Dicky” is going to militarily attack another sovereign nation. DW is right; they need to be removed per the 25th ammendment. But unfortunately, there are not enough “balls” in either legislative house for that to happen. I’m sure glad I don’t have kids.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:06 pm |
Great question. The real issue is the accountability for Senators and Representatives. Right now, there is none. They can vote for Bush’s interests at will.
So I would start in the Senate with selectively forcing Republicans to publicly filibuster popular issues. Make their lives miserable on a few key issues to make it clear they do not represent public opinion and let the public know exactly who is holding up their legislation.
Having created an environment where Republicans have to choose between Bush or public opinion, I would then try to pass legislation along the lines of the Webb amendment that limit troop time at home to time in theater. And if the Republicans want to filibuster, let them. Basically push legislation that makes attacking Iran difficult if not impossible.
Whether Reid and Pelosi realize it or not, being overly kind (timid?) to the Republicans pushes Bush’s agenda. You don’t want to upset the minority party at every turn. Only enough to get their attention, to push the legislative goals of the majority, and make the minority accountable to the public.
If time were no object, beyond that I would push Kucinich’s impeachment bit after forcing Republican Senators to be accountable and pushing the Webb amendment. But it would be an impeachment proceeding to educate the public. The outcome, throwing Cheney out, would be a nice to have, not a must have.
Finally, I tend to agree with Frank Rich that Iran bashing is at least a Republican ploy to soften up voters, keep them afraid, and set up the Republicans if they win the Presidency or not next year. Shutting them down from attacking Iran might upset Cheney and the rest but it also would not hurt their interests.
P.S. I wonder what happened, or will happen, to the budget line item to retrofit B-1 bombers to handle bunker buster bombs? That outcome could speak volumes about what will happen