Senator Clinton:

"Direct negotiations are not a sign of weakness, they're a sign of leadership."

This is exactly how the Democratic Party approached the National debate on Iraq in 2002. Exactly. These words shouting out at us from "The Hill":

"Democrats may not stand united behind a series of bills that speak out against a military attack on Iran, concerned that such bills would make the party prone to attacks regarding foreign policy, according to a senior House staffer. In spite of the party's overwhelming unity behind similar resolutions regarding Iraq, it seems clear that the party's next challenge will be to craft a position on Iran that is distinct from the White House's and also insulates it from criticism of being weak in the global arena.

The potential divide also indicates that not all Democrats are convinced that the party has seized control of the national security issue, in spite of their electoral triumphs in November, which were largely due to the unpopularity of the Iraq war."

There is not a dimes worth of difference between this waffling and the waffling that led to the IWR passing in 2002.

The best possible binding resolution or bill to pass would be one requiring the President to get congressional authorization before launching military operations in Iran. This would get the widest support possible and would show the true position of the administration, which is that they can do whatever they want whenever they want. If Bush doesn't veto it and bombs Iran anyways then we have full blown constitutional crisis. If Bush vetoes than his chips are on the table and we yet again have a constitutional crisis. Plus nobody looks "weak" on defense, they are enforcing the will of the people by ensuring that an unpopular and untrusted President does not make decisions without consulting the legislative branch.

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has told her Democratic colleagues that if it appears likely that Bush wants to take the country to war against Iran, the House would take up a bill to deny him the authority to do so.

Not to mention that, while passing the House might be a question of wham, bam, thank you Madam Speaker, the Senate will be in no hurry.

Plus - there's no chance of a binding bill or res, because Bush would veto it on the ground that it is unconstitutional.

There's prospective defunding of an Iran war without Congressional authorization: but I suspect the Senate would stymie that.

Plus - the possibility (slight) that the Dems might eventually bust through these roadblocks and get Congress to pass something effective on Iran is a damned good incentive for Bush to cry tally ho! sooner rather than later!

If the US takes military action against Iran it would be expected that Natanz, the centerfuge facility, would be destroyed and the nuclear weapons program halted or derailed.  I believe that military planners would advise that this could only be reliably accomplished by using a nuclear bunker-busting device, excluding the unlikely development of some conventional 'wonder weapon' of which the world is unaware.

To my mind that scenario raises the ante on such a strike considerably and might make even the Bush administration balk at such an undertaking.

As for the authorisation for such an action, the current OPLAN nuclear policy permits such a tactical preemptive attack on receipt of a strategic warning and, as part this pre-approved plan, would not require specific Congressional assent.

I would also suggest we consider a scenario where hostilities against Iran commenced as a response to a perceived Iranian attack and how this might affect public opinion and Congressional action.  

Frankly, I think cooler heads have already prevailed on this issue and I wonder how Congress will react, if at all.

An attack on Iran might begin with Israel with the US stepping in to help their allies. Ultimately Bush is trying to manuever Iran into a Tomkin style incident where he can claim a direct attack on US forces.

An attack on Iran won't be sold as an act of necessary preemption Iraq style was it will be sold as an act of necessary retaliation Vietnam style. I suspect political insiders must know this which is why they're being cagey.

I don't know if Bush is really angling for an attack on Iran or not. I suspect he may be sabre rattling as a strategy for evading blame.

The only problem for Bush and the Neocons in Iraq is that he's getting blamed for it by the american people. The only quagmire they are concerned with is their declining popularity. One solution to that quagmire is scapegoating. Scapegoating doesn't require military intervention. And I suspect there's a tremendous amount of resistance in the Pentagon to throwing out 40 years of strategic doctrine with respect to nuclear warfare.

Although you know you're in trouble when you're hoping that the military bureacracy can curtail the wrong headedness of your elected officials.

from a reply to my correspondence on 2/5:

"Using military force should always be the last option, and I do not believe we have reached that point with regard to Iran. I support the Bush Administration's decision to abandon its hands-off approach to Iran and become more actively involved in efforts by European leaders to explore possible solutions to this difficult problem. In addition, U.S. decision makers must keep in mind that our Constitution requires Congressional approval of offensive military action. If the President reaches the conclusion that we should go to war with Iran or any other nation, he must seek and gain Congressional authorization before doing so."

is the problems.

All the Democrats interviewed were talking about Bush Jr coming to Congress for another war resolution.

That's not how Bush Jr is going to start the Iran war.

He's simply going to mfg. some "attack on US forces" and bomb Iran in "retaliation" to "protect the troops".

At that point, Republicans might find enough scared Democrats to pass an Iran war authorization.

The Democrats proved to the public that they were very strong and serious about foreign policy in September of 2002, when they handed Bush a blank check for Iraq.

They were rewarded with resounding victories in November of that year.

Why not repeat a formula proven to be a winner?

You say that voters rejected Republican foreign policy in '06.  I would say, and I think this is a distinction we need to make often and loudly, that voters rejected a hawkish foreign policy.  We need to constantly remind our Congress and our newsmedia that it is the subsance and not the branding of the policy that matters, not because they are a simple folk and easily distracted, but because the relative unimportance of labeling is a new phenomenon.

My position on Iran has always been rather Hawkish; i believe they represent a serious threat to any chance of a long lasting middle east peace, not to mention a threat to our interests in the region, and I continue to believe that their possession of a nuclear weapon could lead to a covert attack against Israel or other western interests using such a weapon.

I do agree however, that military action against Iran right now is a bad idea; it would be foolish to think that Iran does not know the location of every major troop base of ours in Iraq, and so long as those troops are there, any attack against Iran would undoubtably lead to Iran retaliating against our troops in Iraq in mass. Not to mention, the though of allowing team bush to screw up another military engagement is almost enough to turn anyone into a pacifist.

I do wonder whether this saber rattling is a bluff being done to a.) soften up Iran when and if negoitations actually take place and b.) scare China/Russia, et.al., into taking a harder line on sanctions, which I do believe have a good chance at working, based on the economic reality on the ground presently in Iran.

I find Tom Engelhardt's arguments in "Over the Cliff with George and Dick?" that the U.S. is going to attack Iraq within the year difficult to refute.

See: http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?e mx=x&pid=164164

He buttresses former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinki's warning on NPR last week that plans to attack Iran not only appear to be underway but that a "terrorist" attack in the U.S. may be used to justify the attack.

With Congress incapacited by its internal divisions, and the reported consensus that there is nothing that Congress could or would do to prevent an attack, I am increasingly persuaded by the argument that only the impeachment of Cheney could prevent such a scenario.

the Democrats on the Hill say
they will not support such an invasion
(except for perhaps Hillary)
but what are they doing about it now?

after he invades there is little they can do,
and what if he does not land any troops
but merely bombs the place to smithereens?

then what will they do?

scold him?

Foreign policy is always a big issue, and as long as Bush doesn't focus on anything else, it will be the issue.  So, what can we do to help counter Bush and what can we do to help develop a sensible liberal foreign policy?  

I realize that foreign policy is something that is often left to experts to figure out, and arguably that the American public does not vote based on foreign policy issues, but there has to be something we can do.  I would love to see the internet used effectively in developing a new foreign policy for the post-Bush United States.

Any ideas?