Hope someone can post a link.

here:

Approving military action in Iraq

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, a different perspective now, and it comes from Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia. He's the author of legislation prohibiting the Bush administration from funding military operations in Iran without congressional approval.

Senator Webb, thank you very much for joining us.

SEN. JAMES WEBB (D), Virginia: Good evening.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You just heard, I believe, Undersecretary Burns basically say that Iran has brought this on itself.

SEN. JAMES WEBB: Well, I think what we have right now is a lot of different rhetorical balls in the air here in the United States. And there is, I think, legitimate reasons to have some concerns about what other motivations might be in place with this move, not sanctions per se.

I mean, I'm not someone who is opposed to sanctions. I think that, by all reports earlier this year, some of the sanctions that we put into place before were having a good effect.

But when you start pushing the envelope as far as you have now into the military areas of Iran, you could well be setting up a situation, by blurring all of these lines and these definitions between terrorist organizations and sovereign nations, and these sorts of things, that it makes a lot of sense for the Congress to step forward clearly, with language such as I have in this bill that I put forward, to say that there are limitations to the power of the executive branch to move unilaterally in this situation, that they need to come to the Congress for a specific approval if they are going to go beyond the sorts of things that they're doing right now.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And I'll ask you about your proposal, but, again, back on the sanctions the administration announced today. I mean, essentially they're saying they've tried diplomacy, it hasn't worked, and they felt they needed to step up the pressure.

SEN. JAMES WEBB: Well, I don't think they have tried diplomacy in the sense that they're capable of using diplomacy. It's been the greatest regional failure since the invasion of Iraq.

There have been low-level attempts at diplomacy. I think, for instance, Ambassador Crocker attempting to bring Iran into the table and over in Iraq is evidence of some movement, but, as Zbigniew Brzezinski was saying last year, we've kept the bar so high for Iran moving into serious large-scale diplomacy that we can't really say that we've tried diplomacy.

And if we're not careful here, one of the things that we're going to be seeing in the regional diplomatic environment is a further strengthening of the relations between Russia, as you were pointing out in Iran, and also between China and Iran. China is actually increasing its trade with Iran right now, in spite of the fact that these sanctions have been in place, lower-level sanctions have been in place for some time.

And actually, right after 9/11, I was giving a speech to the Naval Institute conference down in Virginia Beach. And one of the things that I said then -- if you're going to watch long term the impact of what happened in 9/11 play out, you need to watch China, watch Iran, and watch China with Iran.

And the strategic errors that we have made by invading Iraq and in some of these other areas have actually strengthened China's hand. It's not good for us.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, again, on these sanctions, do you think they could damage? Is that what you're saying? You said the administration hasn't sufficiently tried diplomacy.

SEN. JAMES WEBB: I think this is a major change in policy. And, in fact, when Secretary Burns and his undersecretary were having the press conference earlier today, they made the point that this was the biggest change in relations between or in the situation between the United States and Iran in the last 28 or 29 years. And part of that is the notion that we are pushing toward the military elements in Iran.

The United States Senate passed an amendment, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, a couple of weeks ago which specifically stated that the -- it was the sense of the Congress that the Revolutionary Guards were a foreign terrorist organization, which gives the administration -- according to some interpretations -- the ability actually to take military action under the same rubric that we use to take military action against terrorists in other places.

This sanction today did not go that far; it went to the edge of it. It used the term "specially designated global terrorist entity." It's a one step back, but it's still enough of a concern that I think the way for us to really clear the air and take some of this skepticism off the table is to pass legislation that specifically says what my bill says, which is, the administration may not take unilateral action against Iran, other than in certain precise situations, such as repelling attack, without the explicit consent of the Congress.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So your legislation wouldn't interfere with what the administration has done today? You're moving in a different direction?

SEN. JAMES WEBB: No, it would not, but I think we need some clarity, because what the administration is saying today does not necessarily mean this is what it is intending to do in the near term or in the mid term. And we saw that, really, with all the rhetoric that came out in the invasion of Iraq.

We know now from history that the administration had decided to invade Iraq by September of '02. It got the authorization to invade Iraq in October of '02. And all the way up until March of '03, it was saying that it still wanted to use diplomacy. So let's clear the air here.

Learning from Sept. 11

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, what exactly -- I mean, what evidence do you have, Senator, that the administration has something else up its sleeve, which I gather that's what you're saying?

SEN. JAMES WEBB: Well, I think we can look at the pattern of behavior since 9/11 and how the rhetoric goes one way and so much of the action go another way. And what is the disadvantage of clearing the air on this and specifically stating the intent of the Congress?

Another concern, by the way, is if you look at the presidential signing statement, on the October '02 authorization from the Congress to take military action in Iraq, the president, when he signed that statement, didn't simply say, "All right, I accept this resolution as it regards Iraq."

He basically said in that signing statement that he was not giving up his authority to take action anywhere else as it related to his constitutional functions, international terrorism, et cetera. It's very broad, the presidential signing statement is. And unless we clear the air, it could be argued by the administration, if there were some provocation from Iran, deliberate or otherwise, that they had the justification to go into Iran.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Senator, your legislation is aimed at the administration. Is there anything else you would do to get the Iranians to do as the U.S. wants them to do, which is to give up their nuclear program, to scale that down, and to scale back the terrorist support?

SEN. JAMES WEBB: Well, again, as I said -- first of all, I don't think that it's appropriate, in terms of how you conduct foreign policy, to label a military of a foreign government as a terrorist organization.

I think it is appropriate to have concerns about any foreign government aiding terrorism, but that's different than labeling the military of a foreign government as a terrorist organization.

Terrorist organizations, organizations that conduct terrorism, are extra-state. They're outside the different state functions. They work along the seams of international law. So there is a real concern in that area.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And you're saying that's what they've done today?

SEN. JAMES WEBB: Well, they have been doing this over a period of months. The Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which the Congress, the Senate passed, made that definition, and so we need to get the air clear.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, Senator Jim Webb, we thank you very much for being with us. We appreciate it.

SEN. JAMES WEBB: Thank you. Nice to be with you.

Is there also a MSNBC one?

He's kickin butt!

here ("Paving the way for war with Iran").

Webb did fine. Woodruff is an embarrassment. Why does she have a job?

I think she's very good.

Jim Webb is one Democratic Senator who remembers THE ELECTION!

reining in the power of the out-of-control Executive Branch under George W. Bush.  Go Webb!

when they passed the Kyle-Lieberman amendment. It is assinine to designate as terrorist the army of an existing nation state--- terrorism is NOT state controlled, and is in fact outside government.  True, states can employ terror, usually against their own people, (just remember Soviet Russia) but from the first definition of terrorISM, it has meant that those using it are attacking the status quo, attacking existing social structures.

This is utterly ridiculous, and, now that all those Democratic Senators joined the republicans in enabling this blurring of, and extension of, the meaning of terrorism, there will be no holding Bush-Cheney back.

  Republicans have long twisted words and blurred their meaning, why is everyone so apathetic about this latest maneuver, straight out of 1984 (Peace is War, Freedom is Slavery, No Child Left Behind, Green Forests, blah blah).  I predict we WILL take military action on Iran, timed effectively to win elections for Republicans--- if we even have such quaint things as genuine elections.