He replied pretty quickly that he’d have an answer for me. It didn’t happen overnight. That’s fair enough. It was the weekend. The answer came in on my birthday, Sunday, at 10:02 AM EST. Here’s what Wexler’s chief of staff had to say,
Here ya go Rob. I will get more info to you next week on what is happening with the resolution.
__________
Thanks for the phone time this morning. Much appreciated.
Here are the questions we discussed on the Rob Kall Radio Show last night that we'd like to have answered by congressman Wexler:
OpEdNews editor Cheryl-Brien Wright wrote:
1. The resolution states there is nothing that "shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran," but if Iran responds aggressively to the above actions such as US ships stopping Iran's and attempting to board for inspection (as I believe the US would respond aggressively if such a thing were imposed on us) would the President not then have reason to retaliate militarily?
2. Where does it state in the resolution the demand that the President work with an international coalition not an American unilateral act?
ANSWER TO QUESTIONS REGARDING H. Con. Res. 362
(A) H. Con. Res. 362 does not in any way "authorize the use of force":
* To reiterate your own point nothing in this resolution "shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran." ANSWER: 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.
* Following the disastrous Iraq war and the Bush Administration's criminal abuse of Executive powers, I am not willing -- along with the overwhelming majority of my colleagues -- to give President Bush congressional approval for the use of force in Iran. This resolution could not be clearer on this point and it is one of the main reasons I cosponsored this resolution.
* I do not believe that the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq provides President Bush the authority to preemptively strike Iran without the consent of Congress. The bottom line is that President Bush must get congressional authorization before any military strike against Iran. If he exceeds his authority it will be up to Congress to hold him accountable. As a member of Congress who openly supports impeachment proceedings against the President and Vice President, I am more than ready to use the full force of Congress and law to prevent the President from once again over stepping his legal authority.
* The goal of the resolution is to place additional economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran instead of giving this President any authority to use force. Given my distrust of the President I am also a sponsor of H. R. 3119, which if passed into law would prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran unless authorized by Congress. We have a responsibly in Congress to prevent this reckless President from unilaterally attacking Iran; and, this legislation (H.R. 3119) sends a clear message that Congress will not give Mr. Bush a blank check and that we support a policy of international diplomatic engagement rather than military force.
(B) H. Con. Res. 362 does not call for or enable the President to act unilaterally w/out international support:
* With respect to the arguments that this resolution gives carte blanche authority to the President to conduct unilateral acts against Iran – this is not the case. In the third resolved clause Congress "Demands" ("not ask or urge but demands") that the "President initiate an international effort." This language is specific clearly stating that Congress demands that the Mr. Bush engage in an international diplomatic effort to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. As a member of Congress who strongly supports American/European Union and United Nation diplomatic efforts to end Tehran's enrichment of Uranium - I oppose unilateral actions that would further isolate America. Instead I support direct American engagement with Iran alongside our European allies.
* Furthermore, as the authors of the resolution stated in a June 25 letter in response charges of unilateral American action, "These assertions are absolutely false and, frankly, utter nonsense," Ackerman and Pence wrote. "The resolution states plainly and distinctly that "nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran;" the economic sanctions the President is urged to seek are explicitly placed in an international context; and the methods contemplated for achieving these sanctions are no different than those currently being employed to implement existing UN Security Council sanctions on Iran, namely enforcement of export controls by UN member states within their own borders."
This was an experiment. The question: Can unanswered questions which arise on a live broadcast, with not enough time to ask them live, be answered?
The experiment worked. We got an answer. We’ve published it in an article by Cheryl Brien-Wright-- If Increased Sanction Resolution 362 Could Give Bush License for a Naval Blockade, Why Support It?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
