What is unrealized in this passage is the loud applause given by members of Congress

[rodeodance]

Very scary stuff is going on in DC and Congress needs to be accountable!!


http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/17697

Stop the Iran War Before It Starts


Thu, 2007-01-25 03:53.

By SCOTT RITTER, www.thenation.com

........> And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies and to protect the American people.
>
> What is unrealized in this passage is the loud applause given by members of Congress to the President's words.
>
> Democrats in Congress have the opportunity to nip this looming disaster in the bud. The fact that most of the Democratic members of Congress who enjoy tenure voted in favor of the resolutions giving the President such sweeping authority is moot. Democrats are all capable of pleading that they were acting under the influence of a Republican-controlled body and unable to adequately ascertain through effective oversight the genuine state of affairs. This is no longer the case. The Democrats in Congress are in firm control of their own destiny, and with it the destiny of America. A war with Iran will pale in comparison with the current conflict in Iraq. And if there is a war with Iran, this Congress will be held fully accountable.



> Democrats should seek immediate legislative injunctions to nullify the War Powers' authority granted to the President in September 2001 and October 2002 when it comes to Iran. Congress should pass a joint resolution requiring the President to fully consult with Congress about any national security threat that may be posed to the United States from Iran and demand that no military action be initiated by the United States against Iran without a full, constitutionally mandated declaration of war. Those who embrace the notion of a unitary executive will scoff at the concept of a Congressional declaration of war. They hold that the power to make war is not an enumerated power per se. While statutory authorization (i.e., a formal declaration of war) is enumerated in the Constitution, the reality (as reflected by the current War Powers Act) is that the powers of bringing America to a state of war are not so much separated as they are linked and sequenced, with Congress exercising its control over budgetary appropriations and the President through command.
>
> There may well be merit to this line of argument. But one thing is perfectly clear: Only Congress holds the power of the purse. While a President may commit American forces to combat without the consent of Congress (for periods of up to 180 days), he cannot spend money that has not been appropriated. There is, in the passing of any budget, inherent authority given to the President when it comes to national defense. However, Congress can, if it wants to, put specific restrictions on the President's ability to use the people's money. A recent example occurred in 1982, when Congress passed the Boland Amendment to restrict funding for executive-sponsored actions, covert and overt, in Nicaragua. While it is in the process of getting a handle on America's policy vis-à-vis Iran, Congress would do well to pass a resolution that serves as a new Boland Amendment for Iran. Such an amendment could read like this:
>
> ............

[necso]

1. A few points:

1) The clock's ticking on that 60-day deadline for Iran to suspend enrichment, which it seems unlikely that they'll meet. (They don't seem to take the threat of US military action very seriously (such action would be irrational; but when did that ever stop irrational people) -- and perhaps some Iranian players even wish for it, as it would strengthen the militarists -- and provide them with grounds for forceful retaliation (quite-possibly, popularly-demanded retaliation). Besides, changing policies can take time, and even if certain factions want policy changes, the time remaining before the deadline may not be adequate to bring these about.)

2) There are plenty of neocons who believe that air/missile-strikes (with some special-forces type operations) would be enough to accomplish "regime change" (whatever) in Iran (patent nonsense; this would likely strengthen the extremists' hold on the people, not weaken it). Of course, some of these believers probably believe this nonsense because there's no serious ground-forces option available -- and they have to believe something that "supports" their position.

3) w believes he has the authority to attack Iran without Congressional approval. And the UNSC resolution gives him another fig-leaf. (How much do you think the average American understands of these things.)

4) Unlike a ground invasion, the necessary build-up for an air assault is relatively small and low-profile (although still large in other terms). (It would likely involve a build-up of naval forces, and some advance positioning of aircraft and supplies. Sending additional forces to Iraq would also be supportive, as would other measures that improve defenses against Iranian retaliation.)

5) Between all the talk about Iran's involvement in Iraq (if Iran really wanted to hurt us in Iraq, they'd transfer many advanced antiaircraft and antitank missiles/weapons to the various factions fighting us there), the hype about Iran's nuclear program (where's the beef?), the hype about Iran's threat to Israel (which is mostly indirect, direct action would invite massive retaliation -- so why not cut a deal with Syria and distance it from Hezbollah and Iran), and the dreadful state of domestic politics -- the sort of opposition in Congress (and among the establishment-powerful generally) necessary to preempt any such attack will probably be difficult to develop. (Although politicking, posturing and ass-covering are probably in order.)

6) There are influential players who are pressing for "action on Iran". And there has been the same sort of a drumbeat-for-war/propaganda-fest relative to Iran as there was for Iraq.

7) Neocons generally don't give much useful thought to the unpleasant-consequences/failures of their actions. And should disaster obviously loom down some path they're determined to take, generally they'll take it anyway. Like with Hitler, it's a matter of "will" with them.

8) Many neocons salivate at the prospect of using nuclear weapons; which would be a neocon-tempting response (at least), if initial attacks fail of their grand objectives and/or Iran retaliates effectively (a near-certainly, methinks).

With all the previous episodes of concern about attacking Iran, and all the phony-deadlines (deadlines by which "Iran must be stopped") that have been talked-up feverishly -- then passed-by without anything happening -- it can be hard to accept that the neocons may eventually treat one of these deadlines (before 2009) like it's real.

And some looming deadline (the 60-days, some fueling event; plus some delta perhaps, like for troop/materials positioning) could be the one. (Or not.)

Everything acts according to its nature; be prepared for the neocons to again demonstrate their "will".