Bush Veto Threat on Iran
13 July 2007 7:00 am by Taylor Marsh
Yesterday the Senate overwhelmingly approved (97-0) the Joe Lieberman amendment
(S 2011) to the defense spending bill, focusing on Iran . Sean-Paul posted the
amendment in full. There were insertions, which Reid’s office sent out via
email:
(3) It is imperative for the executive and legislative branches of the federal
government to have accurate intelligence on Iran and therefore the intelligence
community should produce the NIE on Iran without further delay;(4) Congress supports U.S. diplomacy with the representatives of the government
of the Islamic Republic of Iran in order to stop any actions by the Iranian
government or its agents against U.S. service members in Iraq;(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise
speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran.
All this sounds terribly benign. Demand “accurate intelligence on Iran”
and an NEI immediately. Trumpet diplomacy with Iran to demand U.S. troop attacks
end. Make it a point to write into the amendment that none of the language construes
military force being used against Iran. Perfunctory prescriptions put in to
make sure Democrats send a message on hitting Iran militarily, which had the
added benefit of giving them enough cover that they could actually vote for
the Lieberman amendment. After all, you can’t be seen as being against something
that rhetorically takes on Iran’s alleged targeting of U.S. troops,
even if the proof has spanned from hyperbole to who really knows the truth?
It’s preemption against the post 9/11 bomb Iraq coward charge, Iran style.
Iran called it a “censure,”
but that hardly matters.
However, what does matter is what the White House laid out in a letter, via
Spencer Ackerman, with regard to the threat of a veto if Congress dares
to stop the escalation in Iraq, which extends to Iran as well. The underlined
section below appears in the letter the White House sent to Senator Carl
Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The Administration strongly opposes amendments to the bill that to restrict
the ability of the United States to deal effectively with the threats to regional
security posed by the conduct of Iran, including Iran’s efforts to develop
nuclear weapons. The Administration also notes that provisions of law that
purport to direct or prohibit international negotiations, covert action, or
the use of the armed forces are inconsistent with the Constitution’s commitment
exclusively to the presidency of the executive power, the function of Commander-in-Chief,
and the authority to conduct the Nation’s foreign policy. If the bill were
presented to the President with provisions that would prevent the President
from protecting America and allied and cooperating nations from threats posed
by Iran, the President’s senior advisers would recommend he vetoed the bill.
We all know what “allied and cooperating nations” means and it’s
not good for anyone. Just take a look at how Bush’s foreign policy has played
out so far in the Middle East.
Adding to this mix we have some real confusion. Take your pick on which you
want to believe.
The Pentagon will reduce its naval presence in the Gulf to one aircraft carrier
group by August, defense officials said on Thursday.
Or maybe this one is more believable?
The U.S. navy has sent a third aircraft carrier to its Fifth Fleet area of
operations, which includes Gulf waters close to Iran, the navy said in a statement
on Tuesday.“Enterprise (aircraft carrier) provides navy power to counter the assertive,
disruptive and coercive behaviour of some countries, as well as support our
soldiers and marines in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the statement said. …
..
Roll the dice.
