Letter to Bush from 30 U.S. Senators on Iran

By: Lowell
Published On: 11/1/2007 4:56:53 PM

From Sen. Webb's office...

Along with 29 co-signers, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia sent a letter to the White House today warning the President not to take offensive military action against Iran without the express consent of Congress. Designed to clarify any ambiguity as a result of a recent Senate amendment urging designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the Senators also expressed concern that the administration's increasingly provocative rhetoric has undermined diplomatic efforts with Iran.

November 1, 2007

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush:

We are writing to express serious concerns with the provocative statements and actions stemming from your administration with respect to possible U.S. military action in Iran.  These comments are counterproductive and undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy.

We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran.  This includes the Senate vote on September 26, 2007 on an amendment to the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act.  This amendment, expressing the sense of the Senate on Iran, and the recent designation of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, should in no way be interpreted as a predicate for the use of military force in Iran.


We stand ready to work with your administration to address the challenges presented by Iran in a manner that safeguards our security interests and promotes a regional diplomatic solution, but we wish to emphasize that offensive military action should not be taken against Iran without the express consent of Congress.

Sincerely,

1.  Webb
2.  Akaka
3.  Baucus
4.  Boxer
5.  Brown
6.  Byrd
7.  Cantwell
8.  Carper
9.  Casey
10.  Clinton
11.  Dodd
12.  Dorgan
13.  Durbin
14.  Feinstein
15.  Harkin
16.  Johnson
17.  Kerry
18.  Klobuchar
19.  Kohl
20.  Leahy
21.  McCaskill
22.  Mikulski
23.  Murray
24.  Reed
25.  Rockefeller
26.  Sanders
27.  Stabenow
28.  Tester
29.  Whitehouse
30.  Wyden

P.S.  I find it VERY interesting who signed this letter and who didn't.  No Republicans of course.  Also, no Joe Lieberman (of course).  But also no Barack Obama.  What's up with that?!?

Comments



Webb's leading the way on this one (Catzmaw - 11/1/2007 5:25:29 PM)
just as he promised in his response to the State of the Union.  Don't know if Dubya's listening, but maybe the rest of the world will see that we're not all a bunch war-mongering ideologues. 


Webb is a leader (PM - 11/1/2007 5:26:11 PM)
I'm assuming with his name on top Webb wrote the letter?  The letter shows what his fellow Dems think of him.  I think he'll be the VP candidate.


Apparently he did, if you read the intro (Lowell - 11/1/2007 5:32:29 PM)
n/t


The letter (KCinDC - 11/1/2007 5:57:31 PM)
Jonathan Schwarz has an analysis of the letter. Not sure if anything in it explains Obama's absence from the signers.


Interesting analysis (Lowell - 11/1/2007 9:34:29 PM)
here: "One can see the dilemma for Obama, of course: his entire attack on Clinton on this issue is based on the premise that the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was a predicate for war, so he can't very well sign this without undermining that argument, can he?"


Agree, Lowell (vadem - 11/1/2007 10:10:25 PM)
I believe this is Obama's reasoning, and perhaps even Biden's.  They will use this against Clinton and the only way to do so is by not signing on.  Foolish move, IMO.  Webb's The Man on this issue.


No Obama, no Biden (vadem - 11/1/2007 10:05:33 PM)
Obama says he likes Webb and all that, but he's going to come up with his own plan.  Biden?  What's the deal with him?


Obama's New Resolution Introduced Today.... (Flipper - 11/1/2007 10:36:23 PM)
Obama did not sign the letter because he introduced a resolution late today that says President Bush does not have authority to use military force against Iran, in an effort to nullify the vote the Senate took on the Kyl-Lieberman Ammendment, to give the president the benefit of the doubt on Iran.

Obama's resolution states that any offensive military action against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress, and seeks to clarify that nothing approved so far provides that authority, including the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. 

And of course, Senator Clinton not only voted to give Bush authorization to go to war in Iraq, she has now done the same regarding Iran, by voting for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment.

Senator Biden also chose not to sign the letter, stating through a spokesperson that the amendment could be used to justify military action.

Read the article:

http://news.yahoo.co...



What I'm confused about is (Lowell - 11/2/2007 9:51:36 AM)
why Obama couldn't sign Webb's letter AND introduce a resolution.  Why are they mutually exclusive, I don't get it.


Sad that not one Republican signed it (Chris Guy - 11/1/2007 10:38:40 PM)
You'd think Hagel at least would.

Carper's a surprise though. He's very centrist.

Bayh probably didn't help his chances of becoming Clinton's runningmate by going against her here.

I think everyone of Webb's fellow freshman Democrats signed it! Cool.



Risk and probability (tx2vadem - 11/1/2007 11:29:34 PM)
There is only a remote possibility that the U.S. will attack Iran.  With oil already past $90, the economy teetering on the edge of a recession and the U.S. occupying a majority Shia country, there is nothing but risk and very little reward.

I think that on this one that they are just using economic measures to apply pressure.  Each side could stand to tone down the rhetoric a bit though.  Because really is there a dire geopolitical consequence to Iran having nuclear capabilities?  Afterall, Pakistan, a real basket-case, has nukes and as far as I could tell the sun still rose this morning.



We're not going to invade Iran, obviously (Lowell - 11/2/2007 9:56:21 AM)
but I could certainly see an air attack on Iran's nuclear facilities anytime, really, in coming months. 

As to your other point, I'd much rather have a world without nuclear weapons, certainly without an unstable country like Pakistan having them.  Would there be "dire geopolitical consequences to Iran having nuclear capabilities?"  That comes down to whether or not you believe that Iran is led by rational actors who would be subject to the logic of deterrence.  If they're not rational, then it's a completely different story.  Also, Iranian nukes WOULD change the balance of power in the Gulf region, which freaks out the Sunni states like Saudi Arabia.  That's something we should take into account, although honestly I don't have too much sympathy for the country from which 15 of 19 hijackers on 9/11 originated (and which, more broadly, exports its brand of ultra-fundamentalist, Wahhabi Islam around the world).



Bush's reaction is telling (dsvabeachdems - 11/2/2007 6:02:14 AM)
As is the weak posturing of both Clinton and Obama.

Their failures from the beginning of this episode marginalize their moral position. Obama is late and Clinton is MIA.