War Vote Redux .... how will it go *this* time?

[Stinky The Clown]

We all know how pissed off we were the last time our erstwhile reps and senators had to (hahahahaha) 'take a stand' and vote upperdown for a war.

With no evidence whatever that a war was necessary, they gave Ceaser Disgustus a blank check to get his war on.

In this go-round, where a stronger case can be made to go to war with Iran than ever existed for Iraq, how will they vote?**(see note below before you turn on your 'flame switch')

I'm guessing that at a minimum, the Dems would oppose it, and I can see more than a few Repubs opposing it, too.

So, with the case for war against Iran stronger than the case for war with Iraq ever was, how do they justify their votes for each?

They have no excuses left. None. They will all have to admit they simply caved in on Iraq. How do the prominent Dems who continue to avoid saying their vote for the Iraq War was a mistake justify that in the face of a (probable) 'no' vote for war with Iran?

Do we call this "The Game of Unintended Gotchas"? Maybe "The Game of Name the Spineless"? How about "Hide and Go Seek The Panderer"?

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

**I said, above, that there is a stronger case for war with Iran than there ever existed for war with Iraq. But know in no uncertain terms that I do NOT think there is sufficient evidence for the need for war with Iran. It is simply that Iran has **said** they want a bomb and they have **said** what they will do with it. But wishing and bluster are not cause for war. The simple fact is, however, that even this weak excuse for war is 1000 times stronger a case than was the 'case' to go to war with Iraq.

[Oversea Visitor]

1. Iran do not have nuke

So all this talk about them wanting nuke pure nonsense.
Go bully North Korea. They got nukes.... confirmed

[madeline_con]

2. ".. a stronger case can be made to go to war with Iran..."

I hope you have links for this. :wtf:

EDITED to add: I'm waiting for it to turn into a "humanitarian crisis", the way unpopular bullshit the powers that be are about to pull is always portrayed. "Shocking video of dogs being killed by Iranian nuclear power. Film at 11." :puke:

[Stinky The Clown]

3. Did you NOT see the lengthy disclaimer at the bottom of my post?

That would be the words below the funny line. The words that read:

I said, above, that there is a stronger case for war with Iran than there ever existed for war with Iraq. But know in no uncertain terms that I do NOT think there is sufficient evidence for the need for war with Iran. It is simply that Iran has **said** they want a bomb and they have **said** what they will do with it. But wishing and bluster are not cause for war. The simple fact is, however, that even this weak excuse for war is 1000 times stronger a case than was the 'case' to go to war with Iraq.

The words that imply that the case for war with Iran is incredibly weak but even at that is more than was the case for war with Iraq? Those words? The ones now also in the box, above?

[Donna Zen]

4. This is going to be tricky:

First and foremost, the U.S. has a standing policy against Iran having nukes. Personally, I don't think george bush should have nukes, and my adversion extends to Iran. Nevertheless, this is going to mean long standing policy.

Next, Iran is in violation of a resolution that prohibits their enriching of uranium. Iran is in a tricky place here: if they don't get nukes will bomb them, if they try to get nukes will bomb.

The answer is of course diplomacy which puts us in a tricky place: we have bush and his many useless minions in office.

It is good that the Dems have finally begun to call for diplomacy*, because it puts them in a much better position to object to this cowboy armagendon, but eventually, they'll have to vote.

*note: some Democrats have been calling for diplomacy, but they have not all been on the same page. They still aren't. I could say more...but I won't.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. "I could say more...but I won't."

So could I, Donna. So could I.

The ones calling for diplomacy - as they have since forever - are the ones who know the real way forward. Our side has a near-shitload of posturers, sadly, who can't bear the thought of not appearing 'tough' and therefor adopt the RW/Neocon view on such issues ..... as if that view will raise their bona fides somehow .... or get them votes from people any rational person will tell you will NEVER vote for them.

Its just more of the tired old RW-lite.

The third way is sorta like the three dollar bill ...... worthless.

[Donna Zen]

6. I love code talking

If a flamer shows up, all you have to write is "I didn't say that." :evilgrin:


Anyway, I just read an interesting Billmon that adds a new wrinkle to your OP question.

Bombs That Would Backfire
By RICHARD CLARKE and STEVEN SIMON

The president assures us he will seek a diplomatic solution to the Iranian crisis. And there is a role for threats of force to back up diplomacy and help concentrate the minds of our allies. But the current level of activity in the Pentagon suggests more than just standard contingency planning or tactical saber-rattling...

The problem, which I'm sure Clarke and Simon fully understand, is that there isn't going to be a congressional resolution this time – in fact I'd be very surprised if the administration gives the leadership of either party more than 24 hours notice before the bombing begins. No marketing campaigns, no debates, no arms twisted in the Oval Office. Just a fait accompli. (That's French for: "Choke on it, suckers."

It's already obvious: This one's going to be a unitary executive special – right down the line. The administration's vanished political capital leaves it no other way. When you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose.

The whole article is interesting. Of course Billmon is correct, bush doesn't need a resolution to bomb the fuck out of someone. Right now the articles this-way and that, are flying so fast it is hard to keep up. It would be simple if the policos would tell the truth, just don't wait for that special moment with baited breath.

All I can say is thank god for a few brave generals who are willing to take a pounding in the press because they simply love their country. Funny, who would have thought that the left may find themselves appreciating the brass.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Two points ......

First ... I love flamers ... they're fun to spar with. Keeps my dotty old brain exercised.

Second ..... appreciating the brass ...... I can only wish. Sadly, there are many on our side who simply will not trust anyone in uniform, no matter what. I can say from direct, first hand, personal experience that the people in our military look just like people in .... I dunno .... our schoolteacher corps or our librarian corps .... or our nursing corps. They range from rightwing nutters to ..... okay, I never met a hard, hard commie type lefty. But to the right of that? Yup.

Isn't it funny, too, how so many on the right refused to serve while so many on the left have? What does THAT say about the military? We tend to be hyperfocused on the military right now because we're :::cough::: 'at war'. I didn't hear anyone talking up (or down) the military in Clinton's years.

[Donna Zen]

8. Flamers

On occasion I get in the mood, but mostly, it is frustrating knowing that there are people who can use a keyboard, but can't seem to read.

Anyway, without even daring to take his case to the U.N. (without Powell who even click the slides...Bolton? Rice? :rofl: ) bush may indeed forego any resolution. They can wobble the Democrats just as easily with an aftermath of "with us or 'gin us" drivel. Besides, if timed close to the election all will part of the fog of whores.

As General Clark warned us many months ago: the Democrats had better figure out how they are going to handle this. Calling loudly and constantly for diplomacy NOW would be start.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Its funny, isn't it .....

Those who are IN office seem unsure .... or even go so far as to beat a war drum (to be part of the kool kids?) Those who are are NOT in office tend to be the ones calling for diplomacy.

[saltpoint]

10. I hope cooler, wiser brows will prevail.

A prediction I can't make right now, but my hope is for good people to speak deeply in their objection to this and that their voice prevail.