Dear Congresswoman Pelosi,
We recently read in Raw Story that you have set as your priority, unifying the party in preparation for the upcoming election. We are grateful that you directly appealed to us over the internet, because we agree with you that our real concerns and your actions to counter the Bush administration are no longer publicized through the mainstream television or news publications.
As you develop the issues that will unify our party for this fall's elections, we ask that you to consider the very real threat that the current president would use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike against Iran, while bypassing Congressional oversight that is not only mandated by statute, it is required by the Constitution.
Given the total annihilation and continuing destruction that results from a nuclear strike, all can agree that a first use of nuclear weapons would constitute a declaration of war, something the President is prohibited from doing without the approval of Congress under our Constitution and pursuant to the War Powers Act. However, the present administration seems unlikely to to observe these niceties. Congress, as a result, must act, pre-emptively, if you will, to reassert its powers and to block the president from unleashing such horror solely on his own initiative.
Congressman Peter DeFazio, Democrat from the Fourth Congressional District in Oregon, has introduced legislation requiring the President to seek Congressional authorization before mounting any attack on Iran. The resolution, H Con Res. 391, is supported by 26 other members of Congress. This bill contains the clear statement that the administration has been flouting the law and the Constitution, and reasserts that it is Congress which has the final authority to declare war, not the President.
Representative DeFazio's bill:
(1) strongly believes initiating military action without congressional approval in response to Iran's nuclear program does not fall within the President's `Commander-in-Chief' powers under the Constitution;
(2) rejects any suggestion that Public Law 107-40, the authorization of force resolution approved in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, explicitly or implicitly, extends to authorizing military action against Iran over its nuclear program;
(3) rejects any suggestion that Public Law 107-243, the authorization of force resolution approved by Congress to go to war with Iraq, explicitly or implicitly, extends to authorizing military action against Iran over its nuclear program; and
(4) strongly and unequivocally believes that seeking congressional authority prior to taking military action against Iran is not discretionary, but is a legal and constitutional requirement.
This sentiment is not unique to the House. On April 20, 2006, Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, in a speech in Nevada that actually was widely covered in the press, stood up to Bush and directly opposed the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. Reid asserted the Bush administration has created across-the-board failures in foreign policy, cannot be trusted on its own to implement an Iran policy and is engaging in specious reasoning when the President failed to take the nuclear option off the table. Reid stated that because our ongoing occupation in Iraq has monopolized our available military resources, the U.S. has no military option in Iran. Therefore, the premise of military action in Iran is illogical and unrealistic, and the outcome would only be disastrous for the region and for us.
There is one other point concerning this implied use of nuclear force against Iran that is worthy of your consideration. And that is that the US is a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. In the preamble to the treaty, signatory nations are directed not to threaten another country with the use of nuclear weapons. Bush's failure to take the nuclear option off the table in response to direct questions by the media, has shamefully put our country in violation of goals and ideals that form the underpinnings of this very significant treaty.
This issue should be front and center for Democrats as we seek to take back control of Congress and turn the country back on track to being a beacon of hope, freedom and democracy for the world. We think the electorate will resonate and respond to the issue, inasmuch as the pre-emptive use of nuclear force by this country would be a travesty of the principles upon which we were founded. These concerns and the proposals to address them are so basic and key to not only the organization but the ethos of our government, that the full spectrum of Democrats should gladly champion their inclusion and implementation into the party platform--from those who continue to support the war in Iraq to those who are working to withdraw US forces immediately.
We are cynical enough to believe that despite the non-partisan nature of this issue, many Republicans will fail to support this legislation. But we believe that by using it as a centerpiece for Democratic strategy, it will unify us as a party and demonstrate to all Americans and to the world that there are certain, core issues that go beyond mere partisanship, and that it is the Democrats who will defend and support these key issues. This gives the U.S. electorate a clear choice this fall as they go to the polls.
As you stated last week, the Democrats cannot craft an election strategy that consists solely of waiting for the Republicans to self destruct. Democrats stand for basic values which are fundamental to our country's belief in itself--and our support of these issues are a vivid illustration of this.
Finally, Congresswoman Pelosi, we would point out that support for these policies in no way signifies that Democrats are weak on national security. It is simply Congress reasserting that it is a partner, co-equal to the President, as envisioned by the Constitution, when decisions of war are made.
Please incorporate Representative DeFazio's bill into the Democrat's platform for the coming elections. Thank you for your attention to this vital matter.
Sincerely,
moe99
and how many more of you?
Comments are closed on this story.