(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

We now know there was no threat to the security of the United States and there never was one.

I think the UN did not sanction the invasion, and has not approved a US unilateral enforcing of UN Sec Cncl Resolutions.

Thus it would be perfectly easy for the House to withdraw its consent, thus requiring the President as C-in-C to withdraw our Armed Forces.

If there is insufficient stomach for that drastic action the House should at least, up-front, Before the Fact, specifically forbid the President from attacking Iran.  We have a goon who believes he is Guided, so he is not delaing from a full deck to start with.

that the 2002 Iraq AUMF could be Bush's rationale for striking Iran. That is why I say to stop a war with Iran, end the war in Iraq.

Thanks for being clear. I don't know why you did not say that in the first place, and I am not being snarky. Although I did kind of get that it was something along those lines.  

Let's be clear -- the chance of Congress authorizing military action against Iran is zero. Zilch. None.

Tonight on Hardball, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) said that during his time as Navy Secretary under President Reagan -- and "until very recently" -- the U.S. "never operated" aircraft carriers within the Gulf because it risked confrontation. "The chance of accidentally bumping into something that would start a diplomatic situation was pretty high," Webb explained. "With the tensions as high as they are, I'm very worried that we might accidentally set something off in there and we need, as a Congress, to get ahead of the ballgame here."

I guess what I am still a bit unclear about is whether or not you think that the WH tough talk about Iran is a red herring meant to distract efforts to end the Iraq war. Or is that an just irrelevant coincidence?

Is what bothers you about TPM, Yglesias et al, is that you think that they are diluting efforts to stop the Iraq war by going on about Iran? Must be.  
It has not swayed me from wanting to stop the Iraq war, I really wonder if it is swaying many others.

I also think that the WH has to be considered radical at this point. Cheney has come out with some BS that the VP is a special branch of government and all. Whether or not they are radicals or not is not even the question. They are liars and not to be trusted and they want war with Iran.

To wit, the Congress needs to "undeclare" the Iraq Debacle by repealing the Iraq War resolution. A new resolution can be approved authorizing the use of force in Iraq for a purpose the Congress wishes,

Now, let's say what that actually says:

Congress can tell the President what to do...

I don't believe that.

I think Congress can defund the war and thus have the troops returned home.

It will have to go through both Houses, survive a filibuster and then be vetoed, where it will be returned, and have to do the same thing again, only this time it will have to have a two thirds majority.

Really? Why not? As it seems just everyone keeps pointing out, the 2002 resolution gave Shrub a "blank check" to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." And if he declares that the source of that "continuing threat" lies in support coming from Iran, how do you say he has no authority to act, all you people insisting that Congress can't "micromanage" the war?

He does not have the authority to unilaterally invade Iran

Really? Why not? The War Powers Resolution says he can initiate military action in the event of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. (Emphasis of course added.) One bit of "proof" that some Iranian forces inside Iraq fired on US soldiers, one Gulf of Tonkin-type "incident" in the Persian Gulf, and bam! there's the authority.

And 60 days later we'd be hearing how oh, we just can't cut off funds for our brave troops in the field!

...the White House is wary that "the press will scrutinize the information intensely, that the intelligence 'dots' that the administration has assembled about Iran in Iraq can be connected multiple ways."
...
Rozen explains that while the White House sees "damning" evidence of Iran's engagement with the Shi'a side of Iraq's hostilities, "the intelligence community is quietly indicating that the case purporting to prove Iran's involvement in Iraq is murkier and less decisive than the thrust of recent administration statements suggests."
...
"The physical evidence we have -- weapons, ammunition, explosives -- have packaging material. When you look at it, it will be obvious ... that the stuff came from Iran," he tells her.

However, Rozen adds, "But that evidence, the official conceded, doesn't tell exactly why it was sent, or who sent it." The administration is therefore likely to try to prove that the materiel is the same as what has been used by Iran-supplied Hezbollah in Lebanon.

But it may not matter according to one former intelligence officer that Rozen quotes.

"None of this hinges [on the Iran dossier]. We are not going to call this off if we can't prove that Iran is furnishing munitions to Iraqi groups," he says.

"We are not going to call this off..."??? They are determined to launch against Iran, with or without  justification. The invasion of Iraq was just prelude. It has been war against Iran all along.

Big Tent is right, IMO: "The ONLY reason Bush can even contemplate action against Iran is - surprise - BECAUSE WE ARE IN IRAQ! You want to stop military action against Iran? Then work like hell to get us out of Iraq. This is too obvious. How could these smart people not see this? . . . It is the ONLY way Bush can get at Iran."

"If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, and I emphasize what I am about to say, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large,"
...
He set out as a plausible scenario for military collision: Iraq fails to meet benchmarks set by the administration, followed by accusations Iran is responsible for the failure, then a terrorist act or some provocation blamed on Iran, and culminating in so-called defensive U.S. military action against Iran.

That, Brzezinski said, would plunge the United States into a spreading quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

February 08, 2007
Iran Calls for "Grand Bargain" Dealmaking to Begin

Iran's Ambassador to the United Nations Javad Zarif far outclasses Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ambassador Zarif is a savvy, friendly, intellectually acute diplomat -- considered by other diplomats as "one of the best" in the business, according to one former US Ambassador I spoke to earlier today.

Zarif has a powerfully logical op-ed in the New York Times today, "How Not to Inflame Iraq."

This article takes a shot at the logic of occupation, and I largely agree with Zarif's view. However, I do believe that there are occupations that have gone right and that while I totally opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq, there was nonetheless still a path to getting things more right than they have gone.

But if Zarif reflects the approach of Iran's Supreme Leader, then there may be real opportunity for a convergence of some American and Iranian interests. But if Zarif, who is so obviously, framing policy in ways dissimilar from Iran's President is not indicative of the views of the state, then there seems little hope in avoiding a disastrous collision.

More...