Author: Jonathan Schwarz

William Greider explains how the Citibank catastrophe comes to us courtesy of our beloved former president. We must elect Hillary so we can experience even more massive financial disasters.

The Bush administration recently sent Congress a request for $196 billion in “emergency” funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. Last week ABC reported that it includes one line asking for $88 million to upgrade stealth bombers to carry the 30,000-pound “massive ordnance penetrator”:

So where would the military use a stealth bomber armed with a 30,000-pound bomb like this? Defense analysts say the most likely target for this bomb would be Iran’s flagship nuclear facility in Natanz, which is both heavily fortified and deeply buried.

“You’d use it on Natanz,” said John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org. “And you’d use it on a stealth bomber because you want it to be a surprise. And you put in an emergency funding request because you want to bomb quickly.”

Today David Obey, the Democratic Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, appeared at the National Press Club. You can see the footage via C-Span.

At 42:10, Obey is asked whether he plans to fund the bunker busters. He speaks for over three minutes, beginning by saying “Our Iran policy has been spectacularly stupid for 50 years,” and asks, “Wouldn’t we have been better off if we left Mossadegh in place?” Yet he never answers the question.

When Obey finally winds down, at 45:30, the moderator asks again: “Will you fund the bunker busters?” Obey replies:

Well, I don’t have the power to determine whether we will or will not do anything. I certainly think that the bunker busters raise very serious questions about what the Administration’s intentions are and I’m very skeptical that we ought to proceed but that’s going to have to be a collective decision.

What does this mean? Probably that he, Pelosi, etc. haven’t even discussed this, and are hoping they won’t be asked about it again. Obey most certainly has the power to stop it if he wants to badly enough. But given the behavior of the Democratic Congress to date, it seems unlikely they’ll refuse to fund it. Some of them want to bomb Iran. And the ones who don’t will be scared to cut the funding. If they do it and the bombing goes ahead anyway with non-Stealth bombers that got shot down, you can imagine the ensuing weeks-long cable TV screamfest.

(Thanks to Just Foreign Policy for pointing this out.)

James Webb sent his letter stating “We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran” to the White House today. 30 senators total signed on; none were Republicans. Charles Davis has the full text and the list of signatories, noting:

…neither Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) nor Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) signed on, despite their criticism of Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) for voting for the provocative Kyl-Lieberman resolution calling for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to be listed as a “terrorist organization.” In contrast to both Biden and Obama, and in a sign that she has felt the heat over her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, Clinton signed on to the letter.

I took a look yesterday at the significance of the letter.

James Webb has started circulating a sign-on letter, currently endorsed by 22 Senators total, stating “We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran.” I’ve examined the significance of this at the Mother Jones blog.

I’m fascinated by the way there’s nothing new in politics–it works essentially the same way in every country in every period. If you want proof of this, check out my post about how 18th century British politician Edmund Burke was talking about the importance of blogs 240 years ago.