If congressional Democrats vote for a war against Iran they are finished

[bluestateguy]

The Iraq war resolution was approved with the votes of about 30% of House Democrats and half of Senate Democrats.

I expect Bush to ask for a similar "authorization" with regard to Iran later this year, in preparation for a war sometime next year.

If more than 10% of congressional Democrats vote for it they will once again be slapping the party's base in the face. I hope most of the Democrats in Congress have learned their lesson now about trusting the Bush Administration. I don't think John Kerry will make that mistake again, but then you might have Democrats like Hillary Clinton who will want to show how "tough" they can be and would vote yes.

We'll see.

[Parche]

1. iran

if they vote for a "another illegal invasion" the US is through

Iran might have nukes, and they will use them

[Goldeneye]

2. You know what they say

fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, well you can't get fooled again.

I plan on writing to make sure they know that we're watching.

[Sparkly]

3. I don't think they'll go about it in the same way.

My hunch is they'll use Israel as the pawn this time.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

11. That does seem to be one angle they are exploring

However, if Israel doesn't think it will get US backing they won't make a move.

I honestly don't think Bush has the right climate in the US to pull it off. Despite what the little chimp might think.

The Dem's wont support him blindly this time and neither will the masses.

The more moderate of the republican party might just have to put a leash on him on this one. They are, after all, still working on their political careers while his is at it's end.

[Sparkly]

15. BushCo would claim we HAD to go in

to "do diplomacy and keep peace" (yeah, right).

It'd be, "Oops, sorry our crazy little brother Israel just went off on you. We had no control over that. But we feel really obligated to come in and HELP now."

Just the other day, Cheney said (paraphrasing): "Israel might go in without being asked, if they believed Iran had nukes, which they apparently do of course and Israel would just be defending itself; and then others would have to go in after that and clean up..."

Here, exact quote:
Asked hypothetically whether the United States would yield to Israel in a scenario in which an attack against Tehran was being considered, he said, "One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked, that if in fact the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had a significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of the state of Israel, that the Israelis might well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterward."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050121/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iran_4

[Lone_Star_Dem]

21. I agree that's what they are trying to work for.

I read that article and had the same realization.

I'm just holding out hope that this concept will be met with lackluster support and Israel will not gamble on the fact that we might not join in.

I think this was another toe in the water to try and feel out general opinion and open more doors to their insane plan.

Having said all of that, I no longer doubt the depth of stupidity (insanity?) of this administration, and I am still very concerned.

[Paleocon]

22. As opposed to them using us?

Well, that'd be a refreshing change!

:think:

[Trajan]

4. There has been NO beating drums for war in Iran ....

NO UN Sanctions ...

NO boundary excursions into Kuwait ....

NO reduction in military power ...

NO fascist dictatorship ....

NO no-fly-zone ...

NO mass graves ....

Honestly: I dont see a groundswell of support for this Neocon agenda, and I think Bush will be sunk if he tries this .....

By his own party ....

[IndianaGreen]

14. Senators Feinstein and Biden voted for an Iran WMD resolution

that follows the same path to war that we did we Iraq: Get the UN to pass an anti-Iran resolution, this is followed by US threats of war, the UN refuses to endorse an American attack on Iran, Bush gets the AIPAC sheep in Congress to give him an Iran War Resolution, America attacks Iran.

Check it out on the AIPAC website:

In the wake of Iran's nearly 20 years of secret development of nuclear weapons and ongoing efforts to undermine the work of U.N. arms inspectors, Congress has passed legislation aimed at halting Tehran's nuclear program. The Senate unanimously passed a resolution condemning Iran's failure to adhere to International Atomic Energy Agency agreements and continuing efforts to develop a nuclear capability. This resolution (S. Con. Res. 81), introduced by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Richard Lugar (R-IN), and Joseph Biden (D-DE), urges the U.N. Security Council "to address the threat to international peace and security posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program and take such action as may be necessary." Earlier this year, the House passed similar legislation calling upon signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the United States, to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Thank your Senators and House members for supporting these resolutions.

http://www.aipac.org/Action1.cfm

[Trajan]

17. Lugar ? ....

Internationalist ? ... rational consensus paleocon Lugar would support the invasion of Iran ? ....

Sighs .... I know it is naive to presume that even republicans would put a stop to this madness before it actually transpired ... But the Hegels, Roberts, McCain's of the GOP have shown some chutzpuh in the past ....

WHO has the stomach for war in Iran, knowing what we know, and knowing that success in Iraq has been EXTREMELY limited and fleeting, while knowing as well that Iran has NOT been hurt by sanctions, has NOT been plastered with US fighters overflying its territory, has NOT been a pariah of the world ... WHO could promote an outright invasion of Iran now ? ...

AIPAC makes my skin crawl .... I wont even give those assholes a website hit ....

The AIPAC/PNAC/AEI axis of hatred despises peace .... Yet will congress bow down to them again ? ...

I really doubt it ..... but I have been wrong-er ...

[GOPBasher]

5. I agree with you. :-)

[imenja]

6. they won't

Isn't it a little much to plot revenge against Democrats before a resolution is even proposed? How many times this month have you declared Democrats the enemy?

[Disturbed]

9. Iran attack, a bluff.

The U.S. will not attack Iran.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Israel will, with US logistical support

Israel will have to fly through airspace controlled by the US. I doubt that the US will do anything that will prevent Sharon from adding one more war crime to his criminal record.

Since Israeli bombs are certain to kill Iranian Shias on the ground, it will be American troops in Iraq that will pay with their lives for Sharon's folly.

On the other hand, perhaps it will be Bush that will do the bombing...

[inslee08]

7. The American public

would not support a war in Iran.

More than half now believe that Iraq was a mistake, and I couldn't see people suddenly supporting a new war.

I think this is a moot point, because the Dems in congress would now have support behind their votes against a war, inlike in Iraq.

[ailsagirl]

19. I hope you're right but I don't have much faith in

"The American public"

They've put up with an awful lot of crap up up to now-- I would be surprised, frankly, if they DID put up a fight.

[ElectroPrincess]

24. Guess when they begin to run out of "cannon fodder" ...

like real soon ... just maybe somebody will rethink our foreign policy.

No, Iran would be a formidable enemy. My father was on a US assignment there (Tehran, Iran) with the Corps of Engineers during the late 50s. We (the USA) were "best buddies" with that brutal Shah.

You know - the one who's Son is now trying to be "the Chalabi for Iran" to spur an invasion. That ba*tard was a vicious dictator like Saddam but was our buddy (placed by the CIA). Don't let anyone tell you the Shah was a benevolent leader ... nope just another cruel and nasty monarch.

[imenja]

23. I doubt Bush could get a majority of Republican votes on a resolution

on Iran, let alone Democrats. If he decides to bomb or enter Iran to an extent greater than the special forces Hersh describes, Bush will not seek a congressional vote.

[IndianaGreen]

8. They have already voted to lay the path for war in Iran and Syria

Democrats carrying water for the Israel lobby voted for the Iraq War Resolution. They also voted to lay the path for war in Iran and Syria. Find out who voted for the Syria Accountability Act of 2003 and for the Iran Nuclear Senate Resolution and you will find a who's who of Democratic establishment politicians.

As our AIPAC friends said:

In the wake of Iran's nearly 20 years of secret development of nuclear weapons and ongoing efforts to undermine the work of U.N. arms inspectors, Congress has passed legislation aimed at halting Tehran's nuclear program. The Senate unanimously passed a resolution condemning Iran's failure to adhere to International Atomic Energy Agency agreements and continuing efforts to develop a nuclear capability. This resolution (S. Con. Res. 81), introduced by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Richard Lugar (R-IN), and Joseph Biden (D-DE), urges the U.N. Security Council "to address the threat to international peace and security posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program and take such action as may be necessary." Earlier this year, the House passed similar legislation calling upon signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the United States, to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Thank your Senators and House members for supporting these resolutions.

http://www.aipac.org/Action1.cfm

[pscot]

10. What makes you think

he's going to ask for a vote? The accountability moment, so to speak, has come and gone. They think they have carte blanche to act in the name of the War on Terrah. He's said he has the right to strike pre-emptively. The voters approved it. I don't think we yet know what these assholes are capable of.

[atre]

16. War Powers Act

The President can't engage in extended military conflicts without the approval of Congress. Unless he just brazenly ignores well-settled law, thereby tearing up the Constitution's separation of powers, he must get the approval of Congress.

[Paleocon]

25. Please....

A. How many times has congress declared was since WW2?

B. Now how many times have we attacked other countries in that same amount of time.

If you divide A by B you don't come up with 1, which is what you would need if our Constitution meant a thing to politicians these days.

:think:

[bluestateguy]

28. War Powers Act

The thing is, that law has never been tested. Bush could ignore it, send the troops in and it would then be up to Congress to do something about it, and we know what that means. Congress could vote to cutoff funding for the war, but that would be vetoed by Bush. Congress could impeach Bush, but, well, that's DOA. I suppose some group could take the matter to the Supreme Court, but I cannot iimagine any Supreme Court, especially this one, ordering the president to halt a war. The War Powers Act is probably unconstitutional, but that still leaves the problem of what is to be done if a president commits the nation to an extended war without a congressional authorization and Congress isn't willing to do anything about it.

[IndianaGreen]

29. We must repeal the "Commander-in-Chief" Clause from the Constitution

and in one swift stroke we have pulled from the Presidency their usurpation of war powers that used to belong to Congress, and Congress alone.

[SheilaT]

12. If Bushco wants to invade Iran

or Syria or North Korea or any other country, they'll just do it. No need for a silly vote. Besides, they got the War Powers Resolution a couple of years ago. I doubt there was any sunset provision to it.

Kerry should us his courage when he refused to concede the election until all the votes were counted, and then later when he bravely stood up in the Senate and protested the massive voter fraud in Ohio. Wait. He didn't do either of those things. Guess we can't really count on him for much, can we?

[imenja]

27. The resolution specifies Iraq only

It does not extent to Iran. Bush may decide to ignore the War Powers Act and invade anyway, but he does not have a legal basis for doing so under existing US law.
Test of the Iraq resolution here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

[Laurab]

13. They won't

They're growing spines, and day by day that mandate-that-never-was is shrinking. I can't really even see the entire rethug party voting for it. I see a little distancing from bushit already. He's nuts, and they're learning...just way too slowly.

[Guaranteed]

18. Yes, they are.

You are absolutely correct.

Every single one of them should be voting against it.

[LoZoccolo]

26. Not with me.

It depends on the circumstances.