In Case You Haven't Heard Before, I Think They Think We're Going to War.

I just got out of a House of Representatives press conference led by Republican Rep. Walter Jones, featuring Democratic and Republican co-sponsors of his binding resolution to demand congressional approval before any military action in Iran. The money bit:

Absent a national emergency created by attack by Iran, or a demonstrably imminent attack by Iran, upon the United States, its territories, possessions or its armed forces, the president shall consult with Congress, and receive specific authorization pursuant to law from Congress, prior to initiating any use of force on Iran.

Confession: I didn't come out of the presser with the sense this was going to be rushed to the floor. For one, Ron Paul is supporting it, and I'm way too used to Paul supporting good ideas that don't work. He sounded almost as heartsick about Jones at the possibility of war. "What we're doing here is constitutionally redundant, but very necessary," he said. "Let's consider the possibility of a Gulf of Tonkin incident." And he pointed to the free-flowing "rumors" always trickling out from the Middle East about Iran's meddling in an attack on Americans or its readiness for war.

Another reason I'm pessimistic: the men behind the Jones Resolution talk much more diplomatically about Iran than the leaders of either party. Hawaii Democrat Neil Abercrombie thundered against the Bush administration for refusing to dialogue with Iran and Syria, and said the government of Iraq would be perfectly justified in talking with them: "They have issues with their neighbors just as we have issues with Canada over the lumber trade." A great message, but if the Jones Resolution breaks through the lobbyists' spiderweb and moves ahead, they'll probably hone it.

On the way out, after getting buttonholed by a LaRouchie, Abercrombie got asked if he'd heard Tony Snow's dismissals of congressional resolutions on the war.

"I haven't talked to the ASPCA today," Abercrombie said. "I don't know what's going on with the lapdogs."

Comments

Warren | January 18, 2007, 2:19pm | #

"I haven't talked to the ASPCA today," Abercrombie said. "I don't know what's going on with the lapdogs."

HA!
I'd buy that man a drink if I didn't envy him for living in Hawaii.

Excellent post top to bottom.

dave b. | January 18, 2007, 3:05pm | #

Do you mean to tell me that Congress is so stupid that they drafted a resolution to give themselves powers that are already granted to them by Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution? So the Executive already ignores the Constitution at will, but somehow this one resolution will be different? Someone please tell me I'm reading this incorrectly. The only bright spot is that the more time they spend coming up with this is less time spent stealing the crumbs of freedom they still allow us to have.

Jon Bristow | January 18, 2007, 3:56pm | #

They got guns
We got guns
All God's chillun got guns
We gonna walk all o'er the batterfield
'Cause all God's chillun got guns

ed | January 18, 2007, 4:32pm | #

Not to worry.
The War Powers Act will take care of this.
Won't it?

TrickyVic | January 18, 2007, 4:48pm | #

Dave b.

Some in Congress are aware that Bush may use an expansion of the Iraq war as a means to enter Iran. The President has sole authority, after Congressional go ahead, to dictate how the approved war will be conducted. Bush does not need to go back to Congress to get approval if the current war moves to a different country. So they are trying to "head him off at the past", so to speak, on a war with Iran.

With regards to Constitutional respect from the Executive branch, your right to assume none.

Crumbs of freedom huh? Sounds like a good name for a book

matt | January 18, 2007, 5:46pm | #

Some in the rumor mill say that U.S. troops have already crossed the Iranian border. I'm not saying this is true, but you don't expect the ASPCA-friendly embedded journalists to come out and tell us, do you?

de stijl | January 18, 2007, 6:04pm | #

matt,

Is your rumor "the spec ops are already in Indian Country scoping out nuclear program sites" (vintage November or so), or a different one?

matt | January 18, 2007, 10:31pm | #

I've been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Your rumor is newer than mine. My rumor is from last April. Still, it's not like they're opposed to invasion on principle or anything.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Retired_colonel_claims_U.S._Military_operations_0415.html

parryisle | January 20, 2007, 1:19pm | #

The Founding Fathers purposely structured war making powers to congress while also designatingthe president to be Commander-in-Chief. Apparently they understood there could be a problem with this but may have believed the person elected to lead this country would be a law-abiding gentleman rather than an usurping tyrant. In recent years no provisions of The Constitution have been either more ignored or diverted that those pertaining to making war. Because of this though we have engaged in many wars most were emarked upon as if congress simply did not exist.

Dan Stewart | January 22, 2007, 10:03am | #

War with appears Iran inevitable.

Nothing we can do but...well, make money on it! It always take the edge off the ensuing depression.

I recommend buying crude oil on the NYMEX.

Buy 5 April $80 oil call options @ ~$20 each.

(One option conveys the right, but not the obligation, to buy 1,000 barrels of oil at $80 per barrel until the expiration date, March 16.)

If the U.S. (or Israel) attacks Iran crude oil goes conservatively to $120 per barrel, probably much higher.

The math works like this:

$120 per barrel
Less: $80 option right to buy crude oil.
Equals: $40 profit per barrel
x 1,000 barrels
Equals: $40,000 per option.
x 5 options.
Equals: $1,000,000 total profit on 5 profit!

Use the money to get Bush impeached.

Begreadone | January 22, 2007, 11:57am | #

Oh Fredonia!

I don't you cry for me

I'se gone to Louisiana

With a banjo on my knee.