IMPEACH BUSH If He Attacks Iran - By: Pat Buchanan

[kpete]

Of imperial presidents and congressional cowards
PatBuchanan
Posted: April 28, 2006
........
There is a reason the Founding Fathers separated the power to conduct war from the power to declare it. The reason is just such a ruler as George W. Bush, a man possessed of an ideology and sense of mission that are not necessarily coterminous with what is best for his country. Under our Constitution, it is Congress, not the president, who decides on war.

Many Democrats now concede they failed the nation when they took Bush at his word that Iraq was an intolerable threat that could be dealt with only by an invasion. Now, Bush and the War Party are telling us the same thing about Iran. And the Congress is conducting itself in the same contemptible and cowardly way.

It is time for Congress to tell President Bush directly that he has no authority to go to war on Iran and to launch such a war would be an impeachable offense. Or, if they so conclude, Congress should share full responsibility by granting him that authority after it has held hearings and told the people why we have no other choice than another Mideast war, with a nation four times as large as Iraq.

If Congress lacks the courage to do its constitutional duty, it should stop whining about imperial presidents. Because, like the Roman Senate of Caesar's time, it will have invited them and it will deserve them.

more at:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49959

[electropop]

1. Once in a while, he hits it square on the head.

If we survive the inevitable new-q-ler exchange with Iran, we'll need to impeach the bastard.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

4. It won't be a nuclear exchange with Iran....

...but it may very well end up in an exchange with Iran's allies, China, Russia, and India.

Herr Busch is going to keep pushing until somebody pushes back...and we're all going to pay for it, sooner or later.

[ramapo]

2. Amazing

Bush has managed to alienate people of all persuasions.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

3. Some of the best articles against going to war in Iraq were by Pat

Buchanan. Since then he seemed to change his tune and support the Shrub. It looks like he's back on track again.

No matter how much I detest Buchanan, he knows that this pResident is no Conservative.

[HereSince1628]

7. Buchanan is a pale-con. They hate the idea of foreign entanglements

This is the fraction of the republican party that is giving up on Bush. I hope that the pale0s remain a -big- fraction of the r's. Their disillusionment will be what drive Bush's poll numbers below 30% and also what motivates a few republican Congresscreeps to vote to start hearings toward impeachment.

[Canuckistanian]

15. The paleos are the ones that vote

Neocons and their supporters have a distinct record of not voting until about 10 years ago.

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

42. ...when electronic voting machines took over

[Junkdrawer]

33. Sometimes I wonder if the Washington Post went after Nixon...

because he wasn't in the "let's tilt towards the Oil Barrons on foreign policy" camp...

[npincus]

5. Distrubing NBC/WSJ poll results on attacking Iran:

Something like 48% supported military action if US were in a coalition, and slightly less if it were just the US alone. Pretty fucking high, and NOT what I would have expected! We really are a country of idiots.

[libhill]

8. You got that right -

military moral is down in the pits, even the top brass (retired ones anyway) are coming out and openly attacking Rumswell, and we barely have the military muscle to hold down Iraq - where in the hell do they expect to find the manpower to take on another war in Iran? These bastards are INSANE -

[raccoon]

20. Do these people not realize that as BushCo keeps attacking

more and more countries, the possibility of their darlin' kids/grandkids/selves getting drafted increases?

(I tend to distrust polls anyway...maybe this one's a crock. I hope.)

[Supersedeas]

27. Not what reasonable folks would expect, so apparently your 2d is so true

[Nickster]

6. How 'bout this Pat, in the spirit of our Dear Leader...Why wait?

I propose a stratergy of pre-emptive impeachment. That way we can spread Impeachment and fight them in Congress instead of over here?

[station agent]

10. Yeah, Should be Impeach the President before he can attack Iran

Buchanan had some interesting ideas about the political implications of attacking Iran on the November election.

Maybe Buchanan could sing this song.

[Poiuyt]

25. Pre-emptive impeachment. I like that!

[electron_blue]

31. pre-emptive impeachment, great sound to it

Almost made me spray my coffee on the keyboard. LOL.

[carpediem]

9. wrong post sorry. n/t

.

[WePurrsevere]

11. Funny I haven't seen any pigs flying overhead but then again even a broken

watch is correct twice a day. B-)

[Canuckistanian]

18. This is not that surprising to me

I've been watching him over the years (my user name is taken from a quote of his) and I know he's never been happy about the neocon takeover.

Pat is a hard-line Nixon man and even Reagan kept a lid on the wild-eyed, slobbering PNACers.

Pat even wrote a scathing article denouncing the neocons in which he proved he "got it".

It's just a shame that he's is such a racist and an irrational liberal basher.

[WePurrsevere]

23. The latter is why I've had a hard time listening to him seriously but I've

recently seen him on PBS a time or two (sorry brain fog... can't remember which show) and actually found myself nodding in agreement a time or two (surprised me I must admit but it was about BushCo's actions and he wasn't pleased). Before that most of what I could remember having come out of his mouth was stuff that made me PO'd.

edited to add... I had wondered where your unique user name had come from. B-)

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. Johnny come lately.

Oh, sure, now he gets it. Where was Pat in 2000 and 2004?

[tlsmith1963]

13. I'm Not a Fan of Buchanan...

because he is usually such a bigot, but this time he is 100% correct.

Tammy

[Minnesota Libra]

14. This from Pat as in Patrick Buchanan??? Wow, he gets it!!! It must.......

...be bad for the neocons/fundies :bounce: it Patrick Buchanan gets it!! :rofl:

[Critters2]

39. He has always opposed this war. And the neo-con agenda

in general. This isn't new, but it is important.

[Frustratedlady]

16. Never having cared for Pat...

I am amazed that I find times when I do agree with him. This is one of those times. I'm just afraid he has lost his influence within the Repub Party, though.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. He won't do it - He will get Israel to do it ! Read Pravda.ru

http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/20-04-2006/79382-israel-0

Israel may diffuse the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program by striking Iranian nuclear facilities before the year’s end. Lately the Western and Israeli military and analysts have been talking more and more about this option of last resort. A lack of progress in diplomatic efforts and Tehran’s fresh defying statements can not but make the tensions grow.

Will Israel strike Iran?

Speaking at a conference in Tehran last Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called Israel a “rotten, withered tree” that would be knocked down with a “single gust of wind.” The president then used less flowery language so that anyone could see the meaning of his metaphorical statement. In particular, he said that the “Zionist regime is bound for destruction.”

Israel took that statement as yet another confirmation of Iran’s aggressive intentions. Therefore, diplomatic actions could no longer keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power, say the Israelis. Former Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres made clear that “Ahmadinejad may end up like Saddam Hussein.” Meanwhile, The Jerusalem Post published an interview with a nigh-ranking officer of the Israeli military intelligence. The officer was confident that the efforts of the international community ended in failure. “The world does nothing but eats humble pie as Iran keeps spitting in its face,” he was quoted as saying. Iran says it has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent using 164 centrifuges. Iran also says that within months it will get hold of necessary technology and a thousand of centrifuges, which could make enough material for a warhead. Subsequently, Iran will reach a point of no return in terms of the nuclear program development, concluded the Israeli military intelligence officer.

In view of the above, preemptive measures are required to save the State of Israel from an Iranian nuclear attack, according to Israeli analysts. “It is inevitable that Israel will regard Iran as a country that is poised to destroy Israel unless the Iranian leadership retracts Ahmadinejad’s call for the annihilation of the State of Israel. In order to avert an armed conflict breaking out between the two nuclear powers, the Iranian nuclear threat is likely to be dealt with by a military action. It is too early to say whether the Americans and Israelis will join arms in launching a strike against or an operation will be conducted single-handedly by the Israelis. A military solution to the problem is most likely to take place before the end of the year no matter what the politicians say with respect to the situation,” said Evgeni Satanovsky, president of the Institute of the Middle East Studies in Moscow, in an interview to NG.

[IndyOp]

19. * has ALREADY committed impeachable offenses --

Why wait until he kills again and decide THEN we should take action...

Sorry D- essay at best... making an effort is not the same as producing an acceptable product.

:grr:

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

30. Agreed! Bombing Baghdad with shock and awe WAS A HIGH CRIME

We all saw it, it was on TV...It was against the law...what are we waiting for? And Bill Kristol thinks a Dem run house will be good for the GOP in '09. OK, sure. (watch that Colbert report interview, for a laugh)

[gasperc]

21. fuck an OCT surprise

If our democratic leaders won't stand up now or if there is some slimy attack Iran vote in October because they fear a no vote will make them look weak then all hope is lost.

It will take far far more courage to vote no on Iran than a sucker punch yes vote.

DEMS will have plenty of ammunition to use to justify a no vote on Iran

Bush will try EVERYTHING TO PROVOKE IRAN, If we all can't see this coming a mile away then there is little hope for us.

We need to stick to our guns and get our voters to the polls in November, win back the house and start impeachment proceedings against Rumsfeld

[NNN0LHI]

22. Wouldn't it be smarter to impeach the lunatic before he attacks Iran Pat?

After all that would make more sense.

Don

[iconoclastNYC]

24. Bushists reject him as "isolationist"

[grasswire]

26. A Republic, Not An Empire

That's the name of a book he wrote a few years ago. He's been ahead of the game on this.

[Pacifist Patriot]

28. Pat is sooooo wrong!

Impeach Bush Now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! After launching against a war with Iran is TOO LATE!!!!

[mopinko]

29. IMPEACH HIM NOW!!

impeachment legislation is percolating through a couple of states, and imho, if this train got going, it would cripple the move to attack iran. even if it is not successful, if it was big enough, and visible enough, it would undermine bush enough. his ship would be taking on too much water. the rats would truly flee.
online petition for illinois will be up soon.
read the bill here
visit us in the illinois forum to see what is up. we are working hard.

[Jack Rabbit]

32. My, hasn't Buchanan come a long ways from when he defended Nixon?

Of course, Buchanan is still fundamentally a yuppie fascist, but he is on our side of the barricades for the moment. How politics makes strange bedfellows!

The problems with hearings prior to going to war with Iran is that it would accomplish little. Bush will send his people to Capital Hill armed with the reasons why the US should strike Iran now. The next question will be whether what they are telling us is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If past is prologue, they won't be.

So what good will it do to hold hearings if all any reasonable person can expect from Bush regime witnesses is lies and distortions? The better argument is that we should not wait for Bush to nuke Iran before impeaching him, Cheney and three of the four top cabinet officers (the fourth top cabinet officer is expected to resign soon, but that's another story). These people have already committed impeachable offenses by waging war against Iraq on false pretenses. They should be removed from office now.

[davsand]

34. Is it really illegal, however?

This is the argument I got on the subject of invading Iran:

As per the Constitution, only the Congress can declare war, the President in his role as Commander in Chief is not restricted in his use of military forces...

Is Pat wrong on this, Would it be impeachable to go into Iran?


Laura

[charlie]

35. If it means that much to you, Pat

you could've voted for Kerry. You've known, I've known, and Dubya's known for years that he was gonna pull this shit. So why'd you vote for the imbecile? Social Security, taxes, and pornography are more important to you than the fiscal, moral, military ruin of this country? I appreciate the gesture, but don't forget you put us in this pickle, you miserable fuckwad.

[necso]

36. Why wait until afterwards?

Then the damage will be done -- and can no longer be prevented.

Impeach both comandante cero and ol' deadwood dick now.

[dogday]

37. Every once in a while Pat gets the truth bug

up his ass and just has to say the truth.. Most time he is an apologist for the right, but there are times, he calls them as he sees them and this is one of those times...

Would it not be more prudent, to impeach before invasion instead of killing so many people??? Just asking????:crazy:

[Critters2]

38. It's true what they say...

even a broken clock is right twice a day!

[anarch]

40. I would think any real conservative would be 100% against Bush

and his aspirations to empire.

[Douglas Carpenter]

41. I'm afraid I have to agree that we won't hear a whole lot of opposition

in Congress

_____________________________

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."

(Note: Grand Ayatollah Khamenei is the Chief of State and He ALONE has the final say in matters of the Iranian state and the final religious authority over the vast overwhelming majority of Iranian Shiites. Here is an official website that explains the Iranian government:link: http://www.parstimes.com/gov_iran.html
This is the statement regarding Ayatollah Khamanei's fatwa which comes from the website of the Islamic Republic of Iran – link:
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508104135124631.htm )


snip:"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"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."
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."
_____________________

Former Sen. Sam Nunn suspects that the Bush Administration's real goal is regime change.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/18/ywt.01.html

snip : "NUNN: But the administration is torn between conversation about regime change in Iran and diplomacy. And that means that the allies and the people you need to help you don't get a clear message about where we are on Iran. If we're really for regime change and if that's being actively pursued, then it's very hard to sit down with someone and talk with them if you're actually trying to kick them out of office."

Scott Ritter goes a bit farther:

Scott Ritter's interview at at San Diego CityBeat:

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4281

snip:"The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-à-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change. If we had a policy of disarmament, we would have engaged in unilateral or bilateral discussions with the Iranians a long time ago. But we put that off the table because we have no desire to resolve the situation we use to facilitate the military intervention necessary to achieve regime change. It’s the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn’t care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam. With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change."
____________________________

US refuses to discuss Iran's nuclear plans in face-to-face talks on Iraq

Jonathan Steele in Baghdad and Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday April 18, 2006
The Guardian

link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1755750,00.html

_______________



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[SlavesandBulldozers]

43. every once in a while Patty boy comes along and makes it look

like the Republicans have dissent in their midst, and make it appear that this dissent is acceptable and commonplace. that's sort of his role, he likes to frame himself as a maverick. like that one guy tweety wants to bend over.

[Tanyah]

44. Impeach him NOW dammit!

Impeach him now for illegal wiretapping! He admitted it on national TV.

It only takes one ONE representative to introduce articles of impeachment in the House of Reps. No investigation is needed. The evidence is clear and We the People know what we want!

[Generator]

45. HA!

Impeach him if he attacks Iran? Ha, ha, ha. That will just give the weasels that "represent" us an excuse to lockstep behind him because afterall we have to be patriotic and support the troops. What if there are no more troops? Don't worry-Iran will declare WAR on us and it will be too late. I have ZERO faith in almost anyone in this government. They are twiddling their thumbs while Nero laughs and Rome burns. The time to stop a war with Iran is NOW not after it happens. Look how easy it has been to stop that one with Iraq EVEN after it's been proven a lie, a sham, and it's purpose is for naught. We are there and not going anywhere. Let them impeach him for that or a few hundred other things-like heh-he signed a law that didn't pass both houses. (SEE LBN) Our government is a joke. I'm just not pretending that Democrats or one Republican can save me anymore. I don't live in that fantasy. I tend to pray for China or Russia to stop us. You know someone with more power than Bush.