Webb & Condi on Iran and Preemptive Attacks

[orleans]

Foreign relations committee January 11 2007
Webb & Condi on iran and preemptive attacks

(all of the following is a quote from the hearing)

Webb:
The question I have for you goes back to the presidential finding on the resolution of authorized force in ‘02 and there’s a sentence in here which basically says that: “this resolution does not constitute any change in the position of the executive branch with regard to its authority to use force to deter, prevent or respond to aggression or other threats to united states interests outside of Iraq--this phrase went to situations outside of Iraq. And this is a question that can be answered either very briefly or through written testimony. But my question is: is it the position of this administration that it possesses the authority to take unilateral action against iran in the absence of a direct threat without congressional approval?

Condi: senator, I’m really loathe to get into questions of the president’s authorities without a rather more clear understanding of what we are actually talking about. Let me answer you in writing; I think that would be the best thing to do.

Webb: I would appreciate that.

Condi: But let me just say how we view the situation currently. We continue to believe that our struggle with iran is a long one, it’s a strategic one, it has elements of the fight on the war on terror, it has elements of trying to stabilize the middle east which iran is a tremendously destabilizing force, it has, of course, an Iraq dimension and it also has an important nuclear dimension and I think we believe we have the right policy for dealing with those matters through diplomacy. Now what the president was very much referring to is of course that every american president, and that goes back a very very long way, has made very clear that we will defend our interests and those of our allies in the pursian gulf region. So there’s nothing new in that statement that the president has made. The one important new fact here is that for force protection purposes we have to worry about what iran is doing--we all know their activities for these enhanced ieds and so forth and we are going to go after the networks that do that. I believe that when you talk to the military advisors they believe that is something that can be done in Iraq, that it is something that is done by good intelligence and by quickness of action. And in fact we’ve had a couple of those occasions recently where we’ve gone after these networks.

Webb:
I think we both ought to know what the elephant in the bedroom is here. I’ve got a long history of experience in dealing with defense issues and there is one pretty profound change since I was in the pentagon in the reagan administration and that is the notion that the executive branch has the power to conduct a preemptive war as opposed to a preemptive attack. And the situations that you’re talking about really go to preemptive attack against a specific threat where people on the other side are being threatened. And the concern that I and a number of people have is that this would be interpreted as something broader. So I would appreciate it if you could give us something in writing.

[Lasher]

1. I feel better having Webb in the Senate

He's just getting started and I like what I see.

[orleans]

2. . i was impressed

with the way he spoke at this hearing.

[autorank]

3. I can't tell you how glad I am to say, THAT'S MY US SENATOR

He's the brightest, most capable, and most literate politician we've got...and he's not bashful.

You don't notice him bowing and scraping as thought he's a "freshman." He's out there when he
needs to be. Give him a couple more months and watch out.

And he's not too shaby at understatement: "So I would appreciate it if you could give us something in writing." She had better get something or she'll get a reminder call.

Thanks for this post. I saw part of her testimony. She's an empty shirt, nothing there upstairs.

Name one accomplishment of Rice's; (silence). That's right.

She should do an internship with Bill Richardson, who goes off and gets a ceasefire in not time.

Great post. RECOMMENDED.

[leveymg]

4. Pace and the JCS also oppose preemptive war with Iran, and have

threatened to resign rather than see the US attack Iran first. See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/10/121241/862

Here's the bottom line: we are not going to bomb Iran. Nevertheless, both the U.S. and Israeli governments want Iran to think we can and we will. If one appears to lose its nerve, the other steps in. It's good cop-bad cop or bad Mexican wrestling.

Why do I think they're bluffing? The Iran preemptive strike plan is opposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Some of the Chiefs have threatened to resign if it goes ahead, but they haven't. Instead, Rummy's gone along with most of the neocons, and Cheney's a material witness to multiple felonies. These obvious facts overshadow the frequently reported threats of nuclear attack on Iran. See, http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/08/hersh-joint-chiefs-opposed-to-iran-nuke-attack-members-of-congress-gung-ho/
; http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

MORE below the fold.

[mucifer]

5. I saw Webb on PBS after the president's speech. He was much more

articulate than Durbin. I think he should have given the dem response.