What I expect Bush is up to.

[Kablooie]

He is preparing for a big attack on Iran.
He's setting the stage and it sounds like he's in a hurry to get the war started.

Why?

Because he figures that once we are engaged in a major war, Congress and the American people will have no choice but to fall in line behind him.

The real kicker is that he may be right.

Once a major war has started, it will be easy to slander any Congressman who objects.
Sure us people will be horrified but he can easily convince most of the idiots over here that there is no way out without destroying our whole country. And he may manage things so he would be right.

And what will our wonderful Democratic Congress do? Threaten to impeach and then reluctantly fall in line because impeachment won't solve the problem and "might even make it worse". (You'll hear that a lot.)

If impeachment isn't on the table ready to go very, very soon, it's gone forever and we will start living the nightmare of being forced to support another unjust war.

Who knows, he may even be able to cancel the next presidential election because of "Homeland Security" issues.

I really believe that if something serious isn't done soon. Very soon! We will lose everything.

[Art_from_Ark]

1. It's easier to ask for forgiveness

than to ask for permission.

Or so they say...

[Tellurian]

28. Congress has 2 choices

Either STOP the War or find a way to remove Bush, (if) the Constitution is protecting him from Impeachment.
Before we ALL become POWs!

[0007]

30. We're alrady POWS......Big time!

[Tellurian]

31. Not this citizen... fatalism is the kiss of death if you feel that way..

Reread the Constitution and The Bill of Rights to refresh your memory of "who" you are.
I hope our Democrats aren't foolish enough to think this will all go away when a new President is elected.
I doubt very much if we will have an election in 08'. They have to challenge the system NOW!
Every day they wait, it makes it that much harder to undo the damage Bush has done to the Constitution.


I'm hoping Congress (our senators and reps) have Constitutional Scholars searching for a remedy to get us out of Box Canyon. The Founder's created The Bill of Rights to forever secure citizens rights to prevent a government takeover. I hope they are working day and night building a case against the current administration. We are living in historical times. The unheard of new Executive Power is in itself anti democracy. I believe the new terminology is Unitary Executive Theory. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

[illinoisprogressive]

2. I've thought of this myself. But, I believe if he does this it won't be rah rah

I think the people will cry and shout. they will not get behind him. they know what kind of person he is now and won't stand for this. I do think calls for his and Cheney's heads will follow.
This is probably Cheney's idea.
He is the one running the show according to Senator Schumer

[Kablooie]

7. Sure there will be lots of calls for their heads.

But national security will take precedent and they won't risk it until the war is a managable size.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

3. Don't Be So Sure...

He sets up a Constitutional Crisis if he goes to war without the support of Congress or the American people.

I somehow don't think it's a slam dunk he'll get away with it, or survive it's course. Something like that could put some Senators or Congressmen over the edge, and force them to take down the Fuhrer and his Chancellors.

[Kablooie]

5. I wish I believed that.

But I don't anymore.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

10. Where Have You Been?

Things changed in November when the Democratic party won both houses of Congress.

I'm not saying anything is certain or easy, but there is more oversight now than there was before. Perhaps with a repub congress, King george could get away with Anything, but that's not a sure thing at the moment.

It could start a Constitutional Crisis, the likes this country has never seen. It could happen.

[Kablooie]

15. I know. Of course.

But I have a feeling that Cheney and co. have been doodling a lot behind the scenes to make sure that if serious oversight took place, things would not turn out like people want.

Bush is an imbecile but I believe Cheney has a mind.

[TankLV]

22. Indeed. Remember Russia, circa 1917.

Get enought people angry at a pointless act, and they WILL push back...

Of course, there were plenty of other issues involved in Russia back then, not the least was the abject poverty of the country...

but that's not to say that no matter what a leader does, sometimes it has BIG unintended consequences...

but in a last analyis, the only thing likely to rile the amerikkkan sheeple is if they suddenly canceled "survivor" or tripled cable rates suddenly...

[tbyg52]

29. The country as a whole is not in "abject poverty"

But it sure is over its head in debt, and insecure regarding jobs and medical care.

[lvx35]

4. Only congress can authorize war...

So if Bush did that EVERY soldier who swore an oath to uphold the constitution would have to become a traitor to their country, and start following a dictator.

[Kablooie]

6. But he has already said that Congress has authorized him.

Until it was decided in the Supreme Court, anyone who disobeyed him could be charged with treason.

[lvx35]

8. please explain?

I haven't heard that.

[Kablooie]

12. He is making the case that Iran is involving itself in the Iraq war...

so moving into Iran would just be an extension of the current war, not a new one.
He says he has authority to do this.

[lvx35]

14. Interesting, thanks. nt

[frogcycle]

9. he has 60 days to do whatever he wants

in response to a provocation. if congress does not then authorize a longer-term war he needs to pull back. thats plenty of time to get fully ensnarled.

and as CiC he CAN give an order and they ARE supposed to obey - or go to prison

[lvx35]

13. Thanks. Where did he get that power?

was it this congress or the last? Can this congress undo it if its the last?

also, all troops do swear an oath to uphold the constituion. A CiC cannot give an order to violate the constitution.

[frogcycle]

16. War Powers Act of 1973

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

was intended to limit the presidents ability to wage combat without a formal declaration of war. But in setting the limits, it also granted power within those limits.

[lvx35]

17. Ah, interesting stuff. A great quote from it.

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

consult regularly George!!! :)

[Kablooie]

18. Consult. Not listen to or take orders from.

Just let them talk.
Then do whatever you want.

[lvx35]

20. That's terrible.

the act itself is unconstitutional.

[frogcycle]

23. well, that's a decision the SCOTUS has to make

and it has to be brought before them for them to consider it.

The basic issue is the Constitution says the Congress has to declare war, but the last time that happened was WWII. Ever since then we have engaged in "police actions" (Korea) or "limited engagements" or such euphemisms. For VN, Johnson got an authorization after Tonkin Gulf to expand our involvement - but we'd been engaged for years.

I don't recall if Reagan bothered to get authorization for Panama - it was quick. Also don't recall what Clinton got for the Balkan deals. Bush the First got an authorization for Gulf War I - it was a response to an invasion and occupation of an ally, and Bush actually stopped it after strafing 100,000 or so Iraqi soldiers trying to flee, so it was, in fact, "limited." I guess Congress got lulled by that and Clinton's restraint into thinking giving the Pres the ok to do some housekeeping was a routine matter...

Anyway, there has not been an old-fashioned "declaration of war" in a long time. Gee, 61 years of peace! Ain't it grand?

[lvx35]

25. Wow, just goes to show the founding fathers were smarter about events

200 years in their future then the people living in said times. Sad.

[rman]

24. Officially yes,

But it would not be the first time when certain admin members and certain members of the intel community bypass congress. Cambodia, Iran/Contra, Iraq war.

[caligirl]

11. from bases in bulgaria and one other mentioned in this foreign news paper:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x259665



from the Sunday Herald (Scotland), via CommonDreams:


Published on Sunday, January 28, 2007 by the Sunday Herald / Scotland
America ‘Poised to Strike at Iran’s Nuclear Sites’ from Bases in Bulgaria and Romania
Report suggest that ‘US defensive ring’ may be new front in war on terror.

by Gabriel Ronay

President Bush is preparing to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of April and the US Air Force's new bases in Bulgaria and Romania would be used as back-up in the onslaught, according to an official report from Sofia.

"American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April," the Bulgarian news agency Novinite said.

The American build-up along the Black Sea, coupled with the recent positioning of two US aircraft carrier battle groups off the Straits of Hormuz, appears to indicate president Bush has run out of patience with Tehran's nuclear misrepresentation and non-compliance with the UN Security Council's resolution. President Ahmeninejad of Iran has further ratcheted up tension in the region by putting on show his newly purchased state of the art Russian TOR-Ml anti-missile defence system.

Whether the Bulgarian news report is a tactical feint or a strategic event is hard to gauge at this stage. But, in conjunction with the beefing up of America's Italian bases and the acquisition of anti-missile defence bases in the Czech Republic and Poland, the Balkan developments seem to indicate a new phase in Bush's global war on terror.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0128-05.htm

[frogcycle]

19. what they are up to

is establishing "Fort Apache" - the so-called "green zone" as a long-term hq for Halliburton/Blackwater et al. That palatial embassy is a corporate hq. the 14 bases are outposts strategically placed to have cavalry ready to fight off the indians if they try to mess with Halliburton's oil fields. They want to provoke just enough of a skirmish with Iran that they can justify another round of "shock and awe" to just knock Iran back a decade or two in its development. That will secure the beachhead for the occupying mercenary army when the US withdraws its uniformed troops. Basically we have been doing the dirty work for the CEO of Halliburton, who is taking a leave of absence but will be back on the job sometime in the next two years.

The whole "surge" to "clear baghdad" is a metaphor for the entire operation. The United States of America is working for Halliburton. have been from the outset. They and their cronies needed the oil fields; they worked with poppa bush to come up with a strategy to take them, hit a bit of a snag so it didn't go as fast as planned. The election was just a wake-up call to hurry up and get it done.

They don't give a rats ass for the US' image in the world, nor for junior's "legacy"...

Nor for democracy, nor Iraqi civilians. They are a modern-day Attilla the Hun, Ghengis Khan, Alexander the Great...

They are Ernst Stavros Blofeld. They are Goldfinger. They are every evil villian in every James Bond novel.

And they are WINNING!

They will buy just enough time to get themselves secure, then tell the US to go pound sand. We pull out our troops - fine! They'll sell oil to China and India, and we become a third world backwater.


All the posturing, all the resolutions, all the screaming and protesting means NOTHING> You heard Chenney: "They can't stop us." "I'm the Vice President and they're not"

He IS Blofeld.

[loudsue]

26. That is the most observant post I've seen on DU in quite a while.

There are HUGE corporations, with more money than most countries at their disposal, who are actually running things. Halliburton is one of those. It is truly frightening how much power some of these corporations have over governments.

THAT is what has to stop. The entire military industrial complex has ballooned beyond the boundaries of imagination.

Until/unless the newly elected Dem congress takes on some of these behemoths, it's only going to get worse. Unfortunately, the Dems have already caved to the drug companies about negotiating for lower medicare drug prices for seniors, so I'm not sure they're going to stand up to the likes of Haliburton... at least, not for long.

Thanks for the great post. It's the big picture that people often miss.


:kick::kick::kick:

[Tellurian]

36. Thanks for filling in the blanks of what is going on in the ME..

But there are two fronts to this War going on simultaneously.
The alternate stealth war here at home in our own country.

Bush continues to alter our Constitution in line with the ME War.
With Democrats nary aware of the ramifications to US citizens in allowing this to happen.

Or are they?

[Imagevision]

21. If Bush attacks Iran he will get the US. presence in the middle east accomplished

However, I'm sure many attacks within the US. will be the result this attack.
Bush didn't build 14 US. bases around Iraq to give to the Iraqi's.

Bush could then perform regime change in Iran, after he's nuked them into oblivion...

[fuzzyball]

27. Correct, after Iran is subdued, no one left in the middle-east

with petro dollars to threaten the United States.
Regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, etc. are
all friends of the Bush syndicate. Pakistan has the bomb
but no money, Musharraf is at the mercy of US aid to
survive. Syria has no oil, and therefore a minor player.
Syria will kiss the emporer'e ring once Iran has fallen in abyss.

So, I tend to agree with the hypothesis that Bush will build
enough evidence of Iran meddling in Iraq to justify the attack.

[Kablooie]

32. He will attack and impeachment proceedings will start ...

but the pressures of the new war, which will be considerable, will prevent it from ever finishing.

The problem is there is very little chance that Iran will ever be subdued.

[fuzzyball]

34. Iran will never be subdued completely, but the clock can be set back 25

years in Iran by bombing strategic targets. I am hoping
it does not come to that, but am afraid there is no other
solution for peace in Iraq.

Bush is repeating the mistakes of Viet-Nam by trying to run
a PC war. He should either let the military do their job without
tying their hands or bring the boys and girls home. As Sen Gordon
has said, I am sick of our boys patrolling the same streets and
getting killed by the same IED's.

All the IED's and guns used by the insurgency are not being made
in some factory in Iraq. They are all coming in from the porous
borders. If Bush had any brains, he would redeploy our troops at the
border of Iraq and control the flow of weapons.

[ShortnFiery]

40. We can NOT install another Shah of Iran because the HATRED runs deeper

and far too many natives have been killed by the American Empire or it's proxy. They will fight like there's no tomorrow because the Iranians, like the Iraqis are fiercely Nationalistic.

It won't work! :grr:

[fuzzyball]

41. Correct, we can't install a SHAH, but we have the power to destroy

Iran's infrastructure and push them into a huge
money crunch. Without money they can't be effective
in Iraq or anywhere else. There are other islamic
countries which hate us but they lack petro-dollars
and therefore can not pursue nuclear weapons programs
and missile systems to deliver them.

Like I said, it is possible to set the clock back in
Iran by many decades and thus make them ineffective.

[ShortnFiery]

42. If we do, may God have mercy on our souls ...

For killing all those innocent Iranian people who get in the way, is just, IMO, pure EVIL. :cry: :thumbsdown:

Like Churchill said, "Jaw Jaw is always better than War War."

I'm so sick of Dear Leader's reign of Fear, Death and Destruction. :(

[fuzzyball]

43. If there is an attack on Iran, it should be directed only at

infrastructure related to nuclear development and oil.
My understanding is that the nuclear targets are located away
from population centers. If I have to chose between an Iranian
nuke killing Israeli's and Americans -or- the people working at
night in Iranian nuclear facilities, I would prefer the latter.

[ShortnFiery]

47. You honestly believe that we will ONLY bomb the infrastructure?

If yes, you poor soul. If we bomb, we'll bomb the living shit out of population as well as any old wild assed guesses of where their nukes MAY BE. :cry:

[ShortnFiery]

39. They'll have to learn again that you can't bomb them ALL back to

The Stone Age. They'll fight and die to the last citizen and we won't get there. Did we not learn anything from Vietnam or the Failure of the Israeli policy against the Palestinians for low these 50+ years? :(

[fuzzyball]

44. We lost Viet-Nam not due to military defeat, but because

the war was run from Washington. There were numerous
restrictions placed on the military such as sanctuaries
in Cambodia.

Again I am not advocating bombing Iran into stone age.
Re-read my post please. I am discussing the possibility of
damaging Iran's INFRASTRUCTURE which will set them back
financially. These attacks would have to be carried out at
night using stealth bombers, when very few personnel are
working. The attack would be limited to destroying nuclear
facilities which are NOT in populated areas. The only other
targets would be oil shipping terminals, again at night.

[Kablooie]

33. I wonder if radioactive oil is still useable?

[fuzzyball]

35. Oil is well protected being a mile deep below surface.

[ShortnFiery]

38. But who is going to go drill for oil when it will make you glow in the dark,

become ill and then soon die of radiation poison? Did the geniuses in the White House follow the logic that far? I doubt it. :eyes:

[fuzzyball]

45. I worked near a nuclear reactor for 12 years and still don't glow in the dark...

They used robotics, shielding (lead & concrete), detection
equipment, and extensive training to protect all personnel
working near radioactivity.

[ShortnFiery]

37. This is all about our Corporate Conglomerates in the Military Industrial Complex NOT wanting

to share any of the "spoils" (energy and reconstruction contracting) with any other country, ESPECIALLY Iran.

It's all about corporate profit margins, not about the American People's Safety. :(

[hijinx87]

46. this new rule of engagement

that allows american troops to fire on iranians in iraq may
be intended to do just that; create conflict with iran, while
creating the delusion that they started it.