If Bush attacks Iran soon, how will the new war affect the election?

[Kablooie]

Will people fall for the old, can't change an administration in a time of war?

If you remember before, they considered putting off the election because of the war.
The Bushies will probably try this ploy and the endangered Republicans would gladly go along with it.

This war may, according to reports, backfire and seriously endanger us here back home.
If people are scared for their safety they might lose their sense of justice once again and
let the monsters keep control of their lives. The devil you know, syndrome.

What thoughts do you folks have about the possible impending nuclear war and it's effect on our country and administration?

( I think it likely. Bush's whole focus has been to gain control of all the middle eastern oil countries and after the election his opportunity will
likely be gone with a new Congress. So his only chance is to engage an attack before the elections. Damn it. )

[enid602]

1. Iran

Are you new? There won't be one.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. There won't be anyone or anything to elect.........anywhere.

[Faygo Kid]

3. He won't attack before August.

Unless Things Collapse as badly as they have over the last month, threatening his power. They may decide to attack us now, and declare martial law. Maybe. I don't think so. I actually think Cheney will be thrown overboard before that.

[Kablooie]

4. You seem to be trusting of administration's sanity.

There should have been many people dumped in the past few years.
How many have been?

I reallly think they may be insane enough to try it. And Bush will declare
authority again to start the war at his own discretion.

They are backed into a corner and this could be a last ditch shot.

[Faygo Kid]

6. I said, "unless." I totally agree with everything you say.

"last ditch shot." It's just a matter of degrees and time as to whether this is "last ditch."

[MSgt213]

5. What's he going to attack with? If he uses a nuke he just kill us all.

We don't have the troops to do it. Don't buy the 2.4 million troop bullshit, because there aren't 2.4 million combat troops.

[Faygo Kid]

7. Pray for rationality. That may be all we have left.

You are completely right, and I agree unconditionally. But, given the Revelation, and his assignment from the Lord, it may not matter to W how many troops we have. This may be coming to a head sooner than I expected.
I am with you, my friend.

[dflprincess]

10. So, I've been wondering - and I never thought an idea like this would

cross my mind. When it comes to nuclear war, would we be better off with Cheney in the White House? I've never heard much about his religious views and, if he's not into bringing about the end of the world, he might actually think twice about using nukes (which is not to say we still wouldn't wind up at war in Iraq).

Perhaps it's time for what few rational minds might exist in this administration to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment and get Bush declared incompentent. I wonder if the Joint Chiefs could do it? Anyone know what other "bodies" Congress has decided can do this? Of course, it takes a 2/3 vote of both Houses to keep the president out of power.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.


Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

8. Whatever they tell him to do, he will do... why change now since

everything thus far has worked out so swimmingly???

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. I'm sure he is counting on the war propaganda machine to sell the whole

thing. I frankly don't know how that would play out. But don't be surprised if we once again see an obedient and compliant media spinning the White House story. And don't be surprised if we see some very prominent Democrats openly supporting it or remaining silent or noncommittal.
________________________

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state.

In fact, the Iranian regime has gone further, calling for the Middle East to be a nuclear-weapons-free zone. On Feb. 26, Ahmadinejad said:
“We too demand that the Middle East be free of nuclear weapons; not only the Middle East, but the whole world should be free of nuclear weapons.”
Only Israel among the states of the Middle East has the bomb, and its stockpile provoked the arms race with Iraq that in some ways led to the U.S. invasion of 2003. The U.S. has also moved nukes into the Middle East at some points, either on bases in Turkey or on submarines.

Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect and monitor its nuclear energy research program, as required by the treaty. It raised profound suspicions, however, with its one infraction against the treaty--which was to conduct some secret civilian research that it should have reported and did not, and which was discovered by inspectors. Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy. Ahmadinejad’s election is not relevant to the nuclear issue, and neither is the question of whether he is, as Liz Cheney is reported to have said, “a madman.” Iran has not behaved in a militarily aggressive way since its 1979 revolution, having invaded no other countries, unlike Iraq, Israel or the U.S. Washington has nevertheless succeeded in depicting Iran as a rogue state"


snip"Bush’s allegations about the Iranians providing improvised explosive devices to the Iraqi guerrilla insurgency are bizarre. The British military looked into charges of improvised explosive devices coming from Iran, and actually came out this past January and apologized to Tehran when no evidence pointed to Iranian government involvement. The guerrillas in Iraq are militant Sunnis who hate Shiites, and it is wholly implausible that the Iranian regime would supply bombs to the enemies of its Iraqi allies."

link to full article: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929
_______________

And be sure to watch/listen/or read transcript of Sy Hersh's interview on Democracy Now. He pretty much says that baring unforeseen events a major attack on Iran is almost certainly going to happen in the not too distant future:

link to listen/watch/or read transcript:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/12/1359254

snip: "Everybody I talk to, the hawks I talk to, the neoconservatives, the people who are very tough absolutely say there's no way the U.N. is going to work, and we're just going to have to assume it doesn’t in any way. Iran, by going along with the U.N., what they're really doing is rushing their nuclear program. And so, the skepticism -- there's no belief, faith here, ultimately, in this White House, in the extent of the talk, so you've got a parallel situation. The President could then say, ‘We've explored all options. We've done it.’ I could add, if you want to get even more scared, some of our closest allies in this process -- we deal with the Germans, the French and the Brits -- they're secretly very worried, not only what Bush wants to do, but they're also worried that -- for example, the British Foreign Officer, Jack Straw, is vehemently against any military action, of course also nuclear action, and so is the Foreign Office, as I said, but nobody knows what will happen if Bush calls Blair. Blair's the wild card in this. He and Bush both have this sense, this messianic sense, I believe, about what they've done and what's needed to be done in the Middle East. I think Bush is every bit as committed into this world of rapture, as is the president."

[KerryOn]

11. There won't be an election if he attacks Iran. n/t