Posted on 01/11/2007 5:13:27 PM PST by Flavius
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic and Republican senators voiced strong concern on Thursday that the Iraq war could spread to neighboring Iran and Syria if the U.S. military were to chase militants across the border.
President Bush, who accuses Iran and Syria of fomenting the violence in Iraq, on Wednesday proposed sending 21,500 more U.S. troops to try to restore security nearly four years after the U.S.-led invasion.
Bush sparked worries that the conflict may widen by his comment that "we'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
U.S. officials said their plan was to disrupt such networks while staying inside Iraq, but their comments did not appear to mollify senior U.S. lawmakers.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden bluntly told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice he did not think Bush had the authority to launch attacks to stamp out militant networks in Iran and Syria.
"If the president concluded he had to invade Iran ... or Syria in pursuit of these networks, I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that and he does need congressional authority to do that," said Biden.
"I just want to set that marker," added the Delaware Democrat, who later wrote Bush a letter asking for an "authoritative answer" on whether he believed U.S. forces could cross into Iran or Syria without congressional authorization.
In a testy hearing about Bush's new plan for Iraq, Rice said she did not want to speculate on the president's constitutional authority for such action.
NOTHING RULED OUT
"Obviously, the president isn't going to rule anything out to protect our troops, but the plan is to take down these networks in Iraq," she said.
Earlier on Thursday, U.S. forces stormed an Iranian government representative's office in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil and arrested five people, including diplomats.
We will continue to work with the Iraqis and use all of our power to limit and counter the activities of Iranian agents who are attacking our people and innocent civilians in Iraq," Rice said in a prepared statement given to the committee.
Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska also expressed concern about potential future U.S. action in Iran or Syria.
"You cannot sit here today -- not because you're dishonest or you don't understand -- but no one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won't engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border," said Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and possible 2008 presidential candidate.
Several Republican and Democratic senators pressured the Bush administration to talk directly to Iran, but Rice repeated the administration's reluctance to do so unless Iran abandons sensitive atomic work, a step Tehran has so far rejected.
Rice suggested Iran might use a dialogue about Iraq to extort U.S. concessions on its nuclear program, a trade-off U.S. officials have rejected. The United States believes the program is aimed at building weapons, while Tehran says it is for generating electricity.
The United States has sought to pressure Iran over its nuclear program through a unanimous U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution that passed in December, but the top U.S. intelligence official suggested Iran's economy was resilient.
"Record oil revenues and manageable debt suggest that Iran is capable, for now, of weathering shocks to the economy," U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte said in written testimony submitted to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Separately, key lawmakers warned they would insist that the Bush administration impose sanctions on China if Beijing pursues an agreement to develop Iranian gas fields.
The two countries in December announced a preliminary deal, believed worth $16 billion, for China to invest in Iran's north Pars gas field and to construct plants to produce liquefied natural gas.
(Additional reporting Sue Pleming)
© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved
Well, Iran's not the only problem out there. Plenty of countries support Jihadism, either directly or indirectly.
It won't be over when Iran is gone, either.
It can't all be blamed on Carter. You've got to blame it on Mohammad.
There are no foreign terrorists in Iraq, they are just 'local Iraqi insurgents" but we when these 'insurgents' cross the border going out of Iraq we cannot chase them? What? You know, I once thought our Congress couldn't look any more foolish than they already did, but I have been shown to be wrong....way wrong.
I would put it right to Biden. Ask him straight up, if we are on the tails of those that attacked and killed American soldiers, would you approve the measure that we chase them down regardless of wether they enter Syria or Iran? What is he going to say? No? Yeah Right.
Further, I would put Syria and Iran to task an ask them publicly for their position on us chasing these terrorists. Oh and while we are at it Pakistan as well. What are they going to say? No. OK then we know where they stand publicly and no appoligies can be made for them as non terrorist supporting nations.
W did say it's time to put the cards on the table right? I realize that was many many months ago, but he was being diplomatic waitin fo proper amount of time so that the words "rushed into this" cannot be used honestly.
As long as the other countries are Iran and Syria, the plan sounds okay to me.
Probably me. I have posted Iraqi security force casualties numerous times. They have been increasing over the past three years as they take on more of the burden of fighting. Conversely, US casualties [dead and wounded] in Iraq have declined for the second straight year. 2005 was less than 2004 and 2006 was less than 2005. The MSM uses casualty figures to attack the war effort and never puts them in context.
'Nuclear' Iran and Assad's Syria are about to discover the full implications of over due reciprocity. That's the Bush plan, not the continued public displays of blatant appeasement coming from Capital Hill.
... Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40);
...
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate ...
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001....
Notice lil' Dick Durbin carefully specified the Iraq war resolution and not the sept 18 2001 "GWOT" resolution. The jerks still want to pretend that Iraq is independent of the GWOT and not they want to pretend Iran and Syria are as well... which is amusing in that in the Iraq debate all we heard from the dims is "What about Iran? What about N Korea?"
The internationalist wing - anyone who was on Saddam's and Kofi Annan's payroll. Hagel, oil for food and Scott Ritter's sugardaddy al khafaji seem connected at the hip.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Only a few? I'm sure they'd be lined up around the block. I know my wife would be in that line.
I think I have not been paying enough attention to Hagel's associates. Any good links?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.