Pelosi's Disastrous Misstep on Iran

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies in the chamber's Democratic leadership initially accepted that spending legislation designed to outline an Iraq exit strategy should also include a provision barring the president from attacking Iran without congressional approval, they opened up a monumental discussion about presidential war powers.

As such, the decision by Pelosi and her allies to rewrite their Iraq legislation to exclude the statement regarding the need for congressional approval of any military assault on the neighboring country of Iran sends the worst possible signal to the White House.

It is not too much to suggest that Pelosi disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to come.

Here's how the Speaker messed up:

The Democratic proposal for a timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq included a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before using military force in Iran. It was an entirely appropriate piece of the Iraq proposal, as the past experiences of U.S. involvement in southeast Asia and Latin America has well illustrated that when wars bleed across borders it becomes significantly more difficult to end them. Thus, fears about the prospect that Bush might attack Iran are legitimately related to the debate about how and when to end the occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately, Pelosi is so desperate to advance her flawed spending legislation that she is willing to bargain with any Democrat about any part of the proposal.

Under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groupings that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC), Pelosi agreed on Monday to strip the Iran provision from the spending bill that has become the House leadership's primary vehicle for challenging the administration's policies in the region.

One of the chief advocates for eliminating the Iran provision, Nevada Democrat Shelley Berkley, said she wanted it out of the legislation because she wants to maintain the threat of U.S. military action as a tool in seeking to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. "It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," explained Berkley.

The problem with Berkley's "reasoning" -- if it can be called that -- is this: Nothing in the provision that had been included in the spending bill would have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. Nothing in the provision would have prevented war with Iran. It merely reminded the president that, before launching such an attack, he would need to obey the Constitutional requirement that he seek a declaration of war.

By first including the provision and then removing it, Pelosi and her aides have given Bush more of an opening to claim that he does not require Congressional approval.

Again and again, the Bush administration has seized any and every opening to claim powers that were never accorded the executive branch by the Constitution or the Congress. Remember that this administration has sought to justify a massive, unregulated domestic spying program by claiming authority under narrow legislation that was passed permitting the president to respond to the September 11, 2OO1, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Never mind that no mention of such spying was included in the 2OO1 legislation; the fact that it was not explicitly barred gave the administration all the room it required to claim the power to disregard the Constitution and the rule of law.

By stripping the Iran provision from the legislation that is now under consideration by Congress, Pelosi has handed Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney -- no believer he is the separation of powers -- exactly what they want. They can and will say that, when the question of whether Congress should require the administration to seek Congressional approval for an attack on Iran, Pelosi chose not to pursue the matter.

Anyone who thinks that Bush and Cheney will fail to exploit this profound misstep by Pelosi has not been paying attention for the past six years. The speaker has erred, dramatically and dangerously.

Pelosi should reverse her decision and restore the Iran provision to the legislation. It is the only way to check and balance an administration that stands ready to exploit every opening it is given by a naive and inept Congress.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (40)

1. what do pelosi actually do but assess whether the votes were there or not, for one proposal or another? how can all blame be place on pelosi, rather than the apparently large numbers of pro-israeli democrats in the house?

   Posted by darladoon at 03/13/2007 @ 12:54pm

2. Posted by DARLADOON 03/13/2007 @ 12:54pm

   Exactly, DD.

   Mr Nichols fails to realize that Speaker Nancy is a helpless cat-herder who has NO control over the agenda in the US House of Representatives, as other Speakers in the past have had.

   Trying to impose some kind of "leadership" on the Democrats in Congress is totally impossible...especially for Nancy. She can't be expected to push an agenda through; she's JUST ONE VOTE, for gosh's sakes and almost inconsequential in the widely-misnamed "Democratic leadership" which doesn't and CANNOT exist.

   So Mr Nichols you just back off and leave poor Nancy alone....She doesn't make any of the decisions in the US House.

   Posted by Mask at 03/13/2007 @ 1:03pm

3. It's unlikely that Iran is going to do anything to provoke an attack and if they don't attack first then bush will have no legitimate reason to attack them.All reports coming out of Iran are saying that the people are getting tired of the fanatics just as most Americans are tired of our fanatics.All experts are saying that they don't even know if they're building a bomb let alone close to having one.This president won't have time to clean up the messes he has already made and it would be most unkind for him to create new messes for the next president to clean up.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2007 @ 1:09pm

4. This is simply a pitiful sellout to the Israel lobby. Once again Congress cedes the authority granted it by the Constitution to an ever more imperial Presidency. They have no right to do so. They are as guilty of shredding our Constitution as the President who ignores it.

   Posted by fromredbird at 03/13/2007 @ 1:11pm

5. mask, pelosi doesn't vote.

   Posted by darladoon at 03/13/2007 @ 1:14pm

6. i don't think nichols understands that in order to push through legislation that he (mr. nichols) and other progressives prefer, there needs to be a majority of progressive votes in that chamber of the house. evidently, there are not. and ms. pelosi is merely reflecting (yet not necessarily believing in) that outcome.

   so, indeed, mr nichols, back off pelosi in particular and widen your criticism to include the entire party.

   Posted by darladoon at 03/13/2007 @ 1:16pm

7. zero, she didn't capitulate to the israeli lobby either; in fact, she can't. she doesn't vote. she may try and strong arm votes, tabulate them, reason with people, etc, etc, but she doesn't vote.

   doesn't anyone understand this?

   Posted by darladoon at 03/13/2007 @ 1:18pm

8. yeah, it's all pelosi's fault: she (alone) opened up the door for bush to attack iran. nevermind all the half-witted, pro-israeli hawks in congress (there aren't any--snark, snark).

   Posted by darladoon at 03/13/2007 @ 1:19pm

9. christ, even russ feingold, the darling of progressives, is in support of the israeli lobby.

   Posted by darladoon at 03/13/2007 @ 1:20pm

10. And when the US attacks Iran later this year, do NOT blame George Bush.

    who would think of blaming george bush? (chuckle, chuckle) i would never, ever think of blaming george bush for anything. he's just a competent, restrained, reasonable, rational, foreign policy expert, with decades of hands-on experience, advanced degrees in international relations and law, and who knows how many books he's written on the middle east. the guy is just brilliant.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/13/2007 @ 1:25pm

11. i appreciate zero's passion, but man, is he living in the reality-denying community or what?

    Posted by darladoon at 03/13/2007 @ 1:31pm

12. mask, pelosi doesn't vote.

    Posted by DARLADOON 03/13/2007 @ 1:14pm

    No, but she can....

    "As a member of the House, the Speaker is entitled to participate in debate and to vote. By custom, however, he or she does so only in exceptional circumstances. Normally, the Speaker votes only when his or her vote would be decisive, and on matters of great importance (such as constitutional amendments)."

    Fortunately war with Iran isn't a "matter of great importance"...so Nancy can just sit back and herd her cats.

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2007 @ 1:38pm

13. What a bunch of bull..the Dems are in no more of a disarray than the GOP is...follow the money...its all about money..it always is..have Americans finally woke up enough to do research..or are you still voting for what politicians say...and not what they do or how they vote...stop watching their mouths..if their lips are moving they are lying...!! Look up their voting record on matters of importance...and just check out how many of them put corporation laws, their own comfort, Israels comfort...before your comfort.

    Posted by Chabuka at 03/13/2007 @ 1:38pm

14. nevermind all the half-witted, pro-israeli hawks in congress (there aren't any--snark, snark).

    Posted by DARLADOON 03/13/2007 @ 1:19pm

    Exactly...after all, THEY, not N. Pelosi of San Fran, are the REAL leaders of the US House. She's just the ..."figurehead" too strong?

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2007 @ 1:39pm

15. zero, we all agree that congress needs to tie bush's hands, but pelosi is not to blame for other people's views.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/13/2007 @ 1:43pm

16. US presidents have demonstrated time and again that there is no real need to get congressional approval for anything less than an all-out war. The fact is, the provision that was taken out was basically symbolic. It was a way to get a lot of press to the effect that the newly energized Democrats are showing Bush who's boss, and leave the rightwing pundits to parrot their soft-on-defense line. The Dems would have won that little battle for public opinion.

    P-Lo could have easily spun it as a restoration of the constitutional balance of powers. The thing about leaving all options on the table is bullshit. We wouldn't have turned any aircraft carriers around.

    She should take a tip from Hillary and never let them see you sweat. Or in the case of a major female politician, never let them see you change your mind.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 03/13/2007 @ 1:53pm

17. I doubt we'll see much difference between the old bosses and the new bosses.It will be politics as usual with no real change.When I say that I do have Democrats ask me if I don't think it will,at least,be better than before and I respond with,no.We will hear different rhetoric,but nothing will change.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2007 @ 1:55pm

18. Why didn't Mr. Nichols comment on the AIPAC and it's role in bitch-slapping Congress, again? I tell you, it's like AIPAC is a pimp and congressmen/women are its bitches.

    Posted by k330k at 03/13/2007 @ 2:00pm

19. You mean, mean guys....DARLA already explain how poor Speaker Nancy isn't to blame for this....after all she's just a weak, impotent, inconsequential, helpless (let me check the thesaurus)...ahh, yes...

    anemic, debilitated, decrepit, delicate, effete, enervated, exhausted, faint, feeble, flaccid, flimsy, forceless, fragile, frail, hesitant, impotent, impuissant, infirm, insubstantial, irresolute, lackadaisical*, languid, languorous, limp, makeshift, powerless, prostrate, puny, rickety, rocky*, rotten, senile, shaky, sickly, sluggish, spent, spindly, supine, tender, torpid, uncertain, undependable, unsound, unsteady, unsubstantial, wasted, wavering, weakened, weakly, wobbly....."cat herder"!

    "I ran outta gas! I had a flat tire! I didn't have enough money for cab fare! My tux didn't come back from the cleaners! An old friend came in from outta town! Someone stole my car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts!! It wasn't my fault I swear to God!!!"----Joliet Nancy Blues

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2007 @ 2:14pm

20. mask, not funny. never had any sympathy for her on this issue, just pointing out the obvious:

    *she doesn't have the votes *she doesn't vote herself

    Posted by darladoon at 03/13/2007 @ 2:23pm

21. That does it. I am moving to Israel. They clearly got Uncle Sap figured out and I want to enjoy some of that largesse of American taxpayer money going to Israel like clock work. This is a sad day in America. Where is Pat Paulsen when you need him? We badly need "Just a common, ordinary, simple savior of America's destiny."

    Posted by OneVote at 03/13/2007 @ 2:30pm

22. *she doesn't have the votes *she doesn't vote herself

    Posted by DARLADOON 03/13/2007 @ 2:23pm

    Exactly....like I said...

    anemic, debilitated, decrepit, delicate, effete, enervated, exhausted, faint, feeble, flaccid, flimsy, forceless, fragile, frail, hesitant, impotent, impuissant, infirm, insubstantial, irresolute, lackadaisical*, languid, languorous, limp, makeshift, powerless, prostrate, puny, rickety, rocky*, rotten, senile, shaky, sickly, sluggish, spent, spindly, supine, tender, torpid, uncertain, undependable, unsound, unsteady, unsubstantial, wasted, wavering, weakened, weakly, and....wobbly!

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2007 @ 2:41pm

23. We Americans like to delude ourselves into thinking we have a two party system that's answerable to the people.We have a one party system and they don't answer to the people as anyone who has been alive since the 2006 elections should have figured out.The individual politician may have to be elected,but the party entity itself doesn't care who that individual is as long as they pretty much vote as told.The GOP doesn't care about the abortion issue or the gay rights issue and the Democrats will do nothing to get us out of Iraq.This party is owned,but not by the people.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2007 @ 2:42pm

24. Posted by ONEVOTE 03/13/2007 @ 2:30pm

    I'd go with the Caymans (indirect taxation) or maybe Antigua (s'where Clapton lives!)

    OH, but get a place slightly up in the hills....for the global warming sea levels!

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2007 @ 2:45pm

25. I'd go with the Caymans (indirect taxation) or maybe Antigua (s'where Clapton lives!)

    OH, but get a place slightly up in the hills....for the global warming sea levels!

    Posted by MASK 03/13/2007 @ 2:45pm | ignore this person

    I'll save ya a spot under a nice palm tree Mask. God, I have had it with this place.

    Posted by OneVote at 03/13/2007 @ 2:54pm

26. >

    That's a bit thick, isn't it? Doing Iran after Iraq is like another country, after having barely pacified Canada, thinking of having a go at the U.S.

    Posted by chimpunk at 03/13/2007 @ 3:20pm

27. "All reports coming out of Iran are saying that the people are getting tired of the fanatics...." Posted by I'M NOBODY

    If the US launches air strikes I'm afraid that will change real fast.

    Another act of unprovoked aggression against a Muslim nation will supply the radical Islamists will incontrovertible evidence of whatever theories they provide to recruit more warriors in their holy war against the US.

    And such an attack will further separate the US from its allies in Europe. I doubt the use of force will go unnoticed by Russia and China, too.

    It's a lose, lose, lose scenario.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/13/2007 @ 4:37pm

28. US presidents have demonstrated time and again that there is no real need to get congressional approval for anything less than an all-out war. The fact is, the provision that was taken out was basically symbolic.

    Posted by MYPARADIGM 03/13/2007 @ 1:53pm

    If that were true the Democrats wouldn't have had to remove it to please the Israel lobby.

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/13/2007 @ 6:20pm

29. And Pelosi was booed at AIPAC anyway. (Thanks of a grateful nation, which shall remain nameless.)

    Posted by w_m_bear at 03/13/2007 @ 8:57pm

30. Posted by DARLADOON 03/13/2007 @ 2:23pm | ignore this person

    I respectfully disagree here. Pelosi is the leader and while it is certainly true that it's the institutional pressures that inhibit her fellow Democrats from voting in the interests of its citizens, if we're ever going to break away from bondage of big money politics it will take leadership to begin the necessary dialogue for change. Yes, she lacks the votes and AIPAC is too powerful, nevertheless, Pelosi still has significant influence and the potential to direct attention to these impediments to democratic reform; most Americans are against war with Iran, so who exactly is pushing congress in the opposite direction? Pelosi could open up that debate. Shine some light on that dirt. It would be less suicidal than calling for fair and objective negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians because the Iraq war is so unfavorable, most are horrified to think of another Mid East war. There should be sufficient political cover on this one. I think it's time she showed some toughness. Look how she was disrespected by AIPAC anyway.

    Posted by Oustbush at 03/13/2007 @ 9:44pm

31. So the American citizen is way ahead 80% knowing the hsuB/heney admin are either lying or not telling us everything. Wouldn't take much for us citizens to tell hsuB/heney to f themselves as soon as anything comes out about made up hsuB/heney intel BS concerning Iran. Don't think there's anything holding the dems back from exposing every hsuB/heney sham. After all some exposer to the light is healthy. Well except for blood sucking vampires...

    CBS News/New York Times Poll. March 7-11, 2007. N=1,362 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "As you may know, members of the Bush Administration have accused Iran of supporting Iraqi insurgents by supplying them with weapons to use against American forces. When members of the Bush Administration talk about Iran's involvement in Iraq, do you think they are telling the entire truth, mostly telling the truth but hiding something, OR are they mostly lying?"

    Date_________Entire Truth___Hiding Something___Mostly Lying___Unsure

    3/7-11/07_______14______________56_____________24_________6

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/14/2007 @ 01:51am

32. Early today I received an email from a friend who's a progressive whose first words were, "The bastards!" She of course was referring to the caving in by Pelosi et al on the Iran provision in the funding bill. My friend will not forget that. I will not forget that. I sincerely hope that millions of other Democrats and Progressives do not forget that. It's expected that we as Americans will be betrayed by Bush Co. But when you're betrayed by one of your own, it's sickening. The only candidate I continue to trust is Dennis Kucinich. The other Democratic candidates and "leaders" (like Harry Reid) are spineless, to use my friend's word, bastards.

    Posted by billheasf at 03/14/2007 @ 02:10am

33. AIPAC wins again .

    Posted by proudleftists at 03/14/2007 @ 07:22am

34. Date_________Entire Truth___Hiding Something___Mostly Lying___Unsure

    3/7-11/07_______14______________56_____________24_________6

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/14/2007 @ 01:51am

    In the neo-con lexicon this is the definition of good government except for the part where everyone knows you're lying.

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/14/2007 @ 10:55am

35. Posted by BILLHEASF 03/14/2007 @ 02:10am

    The shrinkage is accellerating. It may be the foundation for the future.

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/14/2007 @ 10:56am

36. accelerating -

    I was always better at doing it than spelling it.

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/14/2007 @ 10:58am

37. Darla, are you saying that as a member of the House, being speaker means she doesn't get to vote?

    Posted by brantl at 03/14/2007 @ 12:10pm

38. House Democratic leaders hunted for votes Tuesday for a war spending bill that would demand troops leave Iraq before September 2008 and expressed optimism that they would garner the support needed for passage.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_44

    OK, Bush, this is the Democratic Party speaking- this is your last chance. We'll give you a year and a half to come out with your hands up.

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/14/2007 @ 12:54pm

39. Posted by BRANTL 03/14/2007 @ 12:10pm

    "As a member of the House, the Speaker is entitled to participate in debate and to vote. By custom, however, he or she does so only in exceptional circumstances. Normally, the Speaker votes only when his or her vote would be decisive, and on matters of great importance (such as constitutional amendments)."

    Tradition, nothing set in stone.

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2007 @ 2:10pm

40. Your argument, Mr. Nichols, is persuasive but slightly off the mark. It would have been more convincing if you had presented evidence that Ms. Pelosi miscounted the prospective votes on the war appropriations bill. Ms. Pelosi is a vote-counter - that's her job, at least as she perceives it. Thus, if she had counted incorrectly, she would have "mistepped," as you put it. Assuming she counted correctly, however, Ms. Pelosi then faced a judgment question. She had to decided whether it was in the best interests of the nation to get an appropriations bill out of the House without the Iran provision or, alternatively, to leave it in as a matter of principle and watch it go down to defeat. She chose the former. I, too, disagree with her decision, but it wasn't a misstep (unless, as I said, she miscounted); it was a matter of political and moral judgment.

    Posted by smorse at 03/19/2007 @ 9:02pm