How thoughtful of them.

The Wes Clark press release about “New York money people” practically writes itself:

Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy…

The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a series of closed-door sessions last week.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.

“It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran,” she said of the now-abandoned provision.

“I didn’t think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you’re trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way,” said Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York.

Yeah, except the provision didn’t take it off the table. It asked Bush to come to Congress and get a new AUMF. Granted, that makes things difficult when you’re talking about a preemptive attack and trying to preserve the element of surprise, but you go to war with the Constitution you have.

Ah well. If Madam Speaker was trying to endear herself to supporters of Israel, she might have to try harder.

Hopefully the economic measures will work and this will all be moot. Russia is peeved with Iran for having missed the last payment on the Bushehr reactor so they’re willing to go along with a “modest” increase on UN sanctions against the mullahs for failing to suspend their enrichment program. A U.S. divestment campaign is picking up speed, too: Bibi Netanyahu is in Washington lobbying various states’ governors to pull pension fund assets from corporations that do business with Iran. He’s already met with Obama about it. I suspect he’ll find him receptive. The public certainly seems to be.