When pressed by Rob that comments coming in to him were pointing to a Naval blockade, Rep. Wexler dismissed it by saying there is no language in the resolution that calls for a Naval blockade. Again, the word "blockade" is not used. But, any effort to prevent supplies from reaching a country - which this resolution calls for - is after all a blockade.
Ultimately, the congressman conceded that he understood the "concern that the mechanism of enforcement in theory might be a Naval blockade." "But," he explained, "that’s the use of a military confrontation act and that is not something that I would support unless there was prior congressional approval. I understand the concern particularly in that it’s President Bush that we are talking about, but I don’t think reasonably that there is any language in 362 that authorizes a Naval blockade. If there is, I would not have signed it."
I asked, "What then would imposing stringent inspection requirements on persons, vehicles, ships - what would that look like then?" Rep. Wexler replied, "It’s a good question." So pleased was I that I asked a "good question," I failed to recognize that the conversation drifted into a discussion over the concern of a "nuclearization" of the Middle East and the question was never addressed. Lesson learned.
Often times what is not written into legislation or little things that are inserted such as "inter alia" can be far more damaging than what is actually written.
What lessons have we learned from the Bush administration? 1. If the President and Vice President are given a blank check, for example the 2001 "Authorization for Use of Military Force," they will surely take full advantage of it. 2. If the President and Vice President are not given permission by Congress to wreak havoc - they will anyway.
Follow-Through
One attribute, among others, that separates Rep. Wexler from many of his colleagues on the Hill is his willingness to engage in dialogue beyond the perfunctory sound bite. One thing about Rob Kall, editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com is his drive to go the extra mile. Not a common practice these days in the corporate-owned mainstream media. Rob, looking to clarify some issues regarding 362, reached out the following day to Congressman Wexler who readily agreed to continue the conversation. Read Rob’s article about the media aspect of this here.
The dominant theme presented to Rep. Wexler in follow-up was the question of what really is going to keep President Bush, who already unilaterally and preemptively attacked a sovereign nation with no repercussions from a Democratic majority, from repeating the scenario with Iran.
Rep. Wexler, in his reply, held fast to his belief that H. Con. Res. 362 would not open the door to any military action by the U.S. against Iran. He explained, "First and foremost H. Con. Res. 362 is a non-binding resolution which is only a statement/expression of Congress without any force of law."
While it is true that the resolution is non-binding. It is ironic that a non-binding resolution would "demand" the President take a specific action. Even more ironic is the fact that what is being asked seems to be right up the Bush administration’s alley.
Mr. Wexler again reiterated that "nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran."
But, if the President takes the direction to, for example, prohibit export of refined petroleum products to Iran or restrict movement of Iranian officials who are not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s "pursuit of nuclear weapons," and it triggers a military conflict which in all likelihood Bush will not back away from, Congress can wash their hands and say, "Hey, we said there was nothing in our resolution that authorized that."
Congressman Wexler, in his follow-up with Rob Kall, emphasized again the call for all this to happen with the support of the international community.
The issue of an international context was reinforced in a dismissive reply on June 25 by Ackerman and Pence who claim criticism of the resolution is "utter nonsense."
The resolution does demand that the President "initiate an international effort." Is it enough for the President to place a few calls to "initiate" an international effort and then call it a day? I don’t know. The resolution doesn’t say. What it also doesn’t say is that the actions demanded within the resolution require UN approval.
Many believe the fact that the U.S. unilaterally attacked Iraq was not the overriding problem in 2003. Would support of the international community have made our venture into Iraq acceptable and legitimate? I think not.
