(Rep) DeFazio (D-OR) tells Bush 'Pull back' on Iran

[0rganism]

DeFazio tells Bush 'Pull back' on Iran
War powers - The Oregon lawmaker sends a letter saying Congress has to authorize any wars
Monday, January 29, 2007
JEFF KOSSEFF

WASHINGTON -- Two months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., wrote President Bush to warn that if the president wanted to invade Iraq, he would need congressional approval.

A few months later, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales wrote back that Bush has "broad constitutional authority" to deploy the military.

The president received congressional approval to invade Iraq later that year. But now, more than five years later, DeFazio is making the same argument about Iran -- warning the president that if he wants to invade, he'll need Congress.

This time, with a Democratically controlled Congress and low public approval of the Iraq war, the president would have a harder time getting congressional authorization. Any military action against Iran could escalate a power struggle between the president and Congress that's as old as the nation: Who controls the military?
...
more: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1170041113154270.xml&coll=7

------

Imagine Congress actually exercising its options to proactively prevent war... :crazy:

[no_hypocrisy]

1. That's exactly why I don't believe * is going to Congress to ask for

anything. He'll start something by making Iran start something first (or at least claiming that allegation), and then tell Congress for the security of this nation, they have no choice but to join his commitment.

[Megahurtz]

3. He keeps trying to push Iran's buttons

hoping they'll start something. They're probably just laughing about it.

[mike_c]

2. this is why the War Powers Res. is a very bad idea....

It gives Bush the express authority to attack Iraq and conduct hostilities for up to sixty days before seeking Congressional approval. Unless he intends to invade and occupy, operations could be over in a week or two, depending on the objectives. Or at least the start of it would be over fast.

[0rganism]

9. Before that, what did congress have to prevent deployments? Nothing

Don't get me wrong tho -- no argument from me that the War Powers Act of 1973 is a lot weaker than it probably should be, but we have to put it into perspective.

In 1973, 60 days seemed like a lot shorter time than it does now. I don't think we've planned adequately for the scenarios we're likely to face in an time when a conventional war can be over in a month. Looking back to the 1800s, such an act wouldn't even have passed muster as is -- it could easily take 60 days just to deploy a force overseas, let alone position them for an engagement, and any report back to congress within that time frame wouldn't have been accurate with respect to the current situation.

Also, we have to consider what the courts, which generally prefer to stay clear of intervention one way or another, would consider as infringement of one branch's authority over another's. Congress gets to declare wars, but the president is "commander in chief", so what does that say about things like "Police Actions" and "Peacekeeping Forces", where war is never formally declared? Heck, look back at some of the undeclared wars the US engaged in during the westward expansion, did congress exercise any discretion whatsoever? Credit the War Powers Act with at least approaching a space where those terms are reduced to the semantic distractions they are, and the essence of Congressional intent for oversight clearly stated.

Perfect? Hell no, maybe not even satisfactory, but still better than nothing.

[pushycat]

4. That's my congressman. He is just terrific and a real patriot.

DeFazio is one of the few who is the real deal. I support him 100%!!

[Oreegone]

5. I love Peter DeFazio

He is the best Representative anyone could ever have protecting their constitutional rights. He is a man of honor and a statesman....WE are so very grateful to have him in the fray.

[anitar1]

6. I second everything you say. Peter is one of the very few

who has ethics. I have so much respect for him.He has had to take a back seat because of his unpopular beliefs. Such as voting against the "war". Now he finally has a bit of power !

[GregW]

8. He's my local congress critter...

... and we love him!

[elemming]

7. Edwards has been reported as also warning Iran

Most of the reports don't report that John Edwards also said at the Israeli conference: "For example, we need to support direct engagement with Iranians. We need to be tough but I think it is a mistake strategically to avoid engagement with Iran."

Talking is something Bush has rejected.

http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223