Here's something from the "issue I should have been following" file -- it seems there's a measure working its way through the congress, House Concurrent Resolution 362, that, though non-binding, could be construed as expressing the sense of the congress that the president ought to use military force against Iran. Specifically, force to impose a blockade on Iran -- an act of war. The folks pushing the resolution deny that this is their intent, but they also seem disinclined to modify the language. Now Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) who was originally one of the cosponsors of the bill has a HuffPo item urging that the resolution by altered or rejected.

This all comes to me via Justin Logan who sensibly asks why Wexler was cosponsoring it in the first place (answer: because the decision to sign on to non-binding resolutions is often made thoughtlessly and at a relatively low level of a legislative operation), which is of course a good point, but still it's good work on Wexler's part to turn around here and draw some attention to the problem.