Friday, January 19, 2007

Military action in Iran

As you know, for many months, I have advocated doing something about Iran. However, military action is not the answer. It will not be an answer as we still do not have stability within the region after several years of action already fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. I still say to this day that only Afghanistan was justified although Saddam Hussein had to leave power but in a diplomatic way.

While I don't see military action as a justifiable means of action, I do believe that something must be done but it certainly will not be diplomacy as we are dealing with someone who denies the existence of the Shoah and believes that Medinat Yisrael must be wiped off the map.

Here is an ABC News report on legislation that is currently in Congress.
bipartisan group of lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives pushed legislation on Thursday to prohibit a U.S. attack on Iran without congressional permission.[...]

"The resolution makes crystal clear that no previous resolution passed by Congress" authorizes a U.S. attack on Iran, Jones told reporters, referring to the 2002 vote by Congress authorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The joint resolution would have to be passed by the House and Senate and signed by President George W. Bush to acquire the force of law. It would waive the congressional authorization only if Iran attacked the United States or its armed forces, or if such an attack was "demonstrably" imminent.

So far, Jones' resolution has 11 co-sponsors in the 435-member House.

At the White House, Bush, asked whether there were any U.S. plans to take action against Iran, told Sinclair Broadcasting: "I have made it clear that if they're moving weapons inside Iraq that will hurt the cause of democracy and more particularly hurt our soldiers, we'll take care of business there.

We're not going to let them," he said on Thursday. "I made that abundantly clear the other day in my speech."

Bush's comment echoed remarks last week when he accused Iran and Syria of allowing the use of their territory for launching attacks inside Iraq.[...]

Rep. Martin Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat, said that while he did not trust Iran or its intentions in the Middle East, he also did not trust the White House.
I find myself in very strong agreement with Representative Meehan of Massachusetts and it worries me greatly.

Here is Congressman Walter Jones (D-NC) press release on the matter of the resolution (H. J. Res. 14) that he has authored.
One of the many lessons from our involvement in Iraq is that Congress needs to ask the right questions prior to exercising its Constitutional authority to approve the use of military force. Today, there is growing concern – justified or not - that Administration officials are contemplating military action against Iran. We are not na├»ve. We understand the serious threats posed by Iran, and we know that extreme elements in Iran’s leadership may even welcome military conflict with the United States. The question is how best to address those threats.

This resolution makes it crystal clear that no previous resolution passed by Congress authorizes such a use of force. And – absent a national emergency or an imminent attack by Iran upon the United States or its armed forces - the President must consult with Congress and receive specific authorization before initiating any use of military force against Iran. If the President is contemplating committing our blood and treasure in another war – then he and his administration must come to Congress and make their case. The Congress answers to the American people and must justify why it would be in our national security interests to engage militarily in Iran.

It is our Constitutional responsibility, for both chambers of Congress, to hold hearings, to ask questions, to evaluate the threats and to determine the best way to counter these threats. If military action against Iran is necessary, then we in Congress will meet our Constitutional responsibility and authorize it. If no military action is contemplated, then there should be no objection to this commonsense resolution.

No comments: