a letter has even less meaning than a bill..

so I think he can accuse Hillary of wanting it both ways

Well, Biden seems to have missed it too.  What seasoning does he require, more sauce for the goose?

Obama has a COMPREHENSIVE plan to deal with Iran.......He is not interested in Hillary's letter to the president.  Bush probably wont read it and throw it in the garbage.  Is that the best she can do?  Look I wrote the president a letter.

Obama now has his own resolution saying that Bush has no right to attack Iran.  But I do agree with you Obama seems to think he should act alone.

However, whether its Kyl/Lieberman or Clinton/Dodd or even the Obama resolution Bush will attack Iran before the election to help Republicans because this is all they have -- more war, more misery and more death, what a legacy. I found it interesting that the Democrats have surpassed Republicans on the Security issue as well as every other issue people care about.  But it was really upsetting that Bush has come out the last two days spewing terror terror terror so he can stay relevant.

Part of the reason that Hillary is doing so well is because Bill Clinton was such a successful President and only 7 years ago this country was respected around the world and domestically we were in great shape.  Americans want those policies that brought us peace and prosperity. The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton focused on the economy and middle class Americans and Bush doesn't give a damn about anyone but the rich.  

Clinton was there on the Senate floor in FEBRUARY saying Bush NEEDS approval from the Congress to attack Iran. Where was Obama? No where.

I agree--we are going to have to dial down the rhetoric because as Democrats we want one thing, to change the course of this nation and we need to stick together to do that.

It was good to see that some in the media agree with that. The Democrats should attack Republicans and not each other.  I hope they remember that at the next debate.

Very few people realize this, but this exact same proposal - that Bush can't attack Iran without Congressional approval, unless of course they attack us first or something - has been proposed time and time again over the last couple years, in both the House and Senate.

Rep. DeFazio actually managed to get it to a vote on the floor of the House, maybe a year ago.  It got absolutely pummeled.  I really can't tell you why, but hey, best of luck to Sen. Webb.  This is not a Congress that stands up for itself very often.

I do think Congress should try to assert itself.  Atleast voice it's authority here.

Careful, though.  One potential issue with the Webb Amendment is in the detail, it actually expressly authorises a number of military actions which I have reservations about providing to the Bush administration:

Specifically, the amendment requires that the President seek congressional authorization prior to commencing any broad military action in Iran and it allows the following exceptions: First, military operations or activities that would directly repel an attack launched from within the territory of Iran. Second, those activities that would directly thwart an imminent attack that would be launched from Iran. Third, military operations or activities that would be in hot pursuit of forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter would enter Iran. And finally, those intelligence collection activities that have been properly noticed to the appropriate committees of Congress.

James Webb - Press Release 27 Mar 2007

I get the impression that Obama had some reluctance, at least initially, with the text:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has also kept mum on Webb's language, which includes multiple exceptions in case of an attack on Iran or Iranian hostility in Iraq. But Obama took an interest in Webb's push during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last month with Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns.

Obama asked whether Bush believes he has presumptive authority to attack Iran, to which Burns responded: "It's the position of our government that the president obviously has the constitutional duty to protect the American people ... and as commander in chief has to be able to exercise that authority as he sees fit."

"I think you meant, `it's the position of our administration' as opposed to `our government,'" Obama replied.

Elana Schor - The Hill 17 Apr 07

It may require a second look in the wake of Kyl/Lieberman, however.

"This letter will not stop Bush if he wants to use the Kyl/Lieberman ammendment to attack Iran. "

What the fuck?

Clinton/Webb sounds good to me.  Webb has certainly distinguished himself and is a great Senator.

No sale and while you are correct in principle you are neglecting the international, one might say diplomatic, context in which this vote took place.  Merely acquiescing in unilateral diplomatic aggression against a sovereign power is bad enough but insisting on it is straight out of the neo-conservative playbook.  I would have thought that the consequences of this action worldwide would have proved the point of the critics who correctly perceived it as an act which escalated hostilities with Iran.

Show me one piece of evidence that it brought Iran a jot closer to the bargaining table and I'll show you ten or more that it didn't.  It's not like we haven't been reading about it in the European and Middle Eastern press for a month.  Your exegesis is framed within the very insular domestic political context in which this vote was largely taken.  And that is the whole problem with it.

Obama doesn't care about any of that. It's an issue that he can use to attack Clinton. It could be a debate about peach pits as long as it's fodder for campaign attacks.

That's fair. I mean, he's got to attack her, he's 20+ points down in the polls. Two more months of circular firing squads and maybe Democrats can start focussing on trying to beat the Republicans in 2008.

You got that right.  Bush has decided to ignore Congress altogether.  He says he will run the Govt by Executive Order.  No resolution or law will change his mind if he wants to attack Iran.  The Kyl/Lieberman resolution was a strawman in the Democratic Debate.  

If Obama was interested in legislating he would cosponsor Webb's Amendment. Instead he is introducing a new bill to provide political gain and cover. Its a way for him to say hey, "I sponsored Bill A, therefore B."

well if he was actually there for the kyl lieberman vote, his credibility wouldnt be questioned

the Webb resolution.