It wouldn't be at all politically impossible for Bush to engineer an assault on Iran

[bigtree]

How many of our legislators will actually oppose such an act after it's occurred, given the very public condemnations of Iran that have come from both sides of the aisle in Congress?

Bush has made it more than clear that he'd like to see some strong action taken against Iran. All he was able to get out of the U.N. was a package of sanctions, but he wanted much more, including an actionable resolution which would ultimately allow the use of force if Iraq refused to comply with the wishes of the Security council. It's basically the same route Bush took in Iraq before he ditched the UN and unilaterally, preemptively attacked and invaded.

How DO we oppose his ambitions if we don't highlight his stated ambitions and assume that Bush is inclined to do the worst, no matter what the rest of us want? How do you oppose the aggression he wants to unleash on Iran with our military or by proxy by giving him the benefit of the doubt? Hasn't Bush forfeited his credibility? Hasn't he already demonstrated his willingness to flaunt the will of Americans, Congress, and the international community?

What purpose is served by those who oppose Bush to assume anything but the worst instincts and actions as he continues to feather his unapologetic fiasco in Iraq? Bush hasn't lost ANY of the false authority he has used to order assaults abroad in the past; as in Somalia the other day; and in Pakistan last year with the use of armed drones against civilian targets.

There has been no sign that Bush is surrendering any of his manufactured role as protector-in-chief just because he lost his legislative majority. Anyone who suggests otherwise is kidding themselves, and whoever is listening to them as well. Bush is no less dangerous because he has a Congress which will stand up to him. He hasn't shown any regard for existing laws, or for the ones Congress has passed during his term as he attaches his own interpretation to them as he signs them - well apart from the intentions of Congress. He has never operated with any regard at all for constitutional, historical, or moral restraints which would be the effect of Congress attempting to restrain him with floor speeches and non-binding resolutions.

Bush has asserted that Iran is supplying those individuals who are attacking our soldiers and others in Iraq. I just don't think that his escalation of the rhetoric and provocations against Iran will be completely rejected by this Congress whose members have already checked off on their opposition to the Iranian regime and have signaled approval for sanctions and UN action. It's hard for me to imagine the majority of these same members of Congress standing in the way of an assault that's already been initiated by Bush, if that's what he intends.

I just can't put anything past Bush and the congressional knee-jerks, who seem ready to give him cover with regard to his aggressive actions against his Iranian nemesis. And, you know . . . there really hasn't been much noise from them about his confrontational rhetoric toward Iran Wednesday and the raid on the consulate. I think Bush could look at that and assume he has room to move forward. He certainly doesn't have many other levers of power and influence that he can manipulate with the same effect of his actions as commander-in-chief. I fully expect him to use them before we retire him.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[illinoisprogressive]

1. I suspect Congress is plotting and that's why they are quiet.

They are not going to say much in public. On the talk shows tomorrow don't look for alot of big proclaimations from any of the dems. They are probably planning and plotting the most effective way to counter and upend Bush.
It may take a few weeks. They have to go about this like a chess game. Steady, quiet and well planned. Shouting and posturing does nothing. retoric does nothing. they are looking for effective ways to contain him and bring him down.
It's a political chess game. Patience

[Glorfindel]

3. I hope and pray you're right

I'd love to see B*shit and his evil gang caught in an unescapable trap, impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from office - and then face unending years of civil and criminal trials for their foul crimes and misdemeanors.

[bigtree]

15. whatever they do, it will take time.

there are many ways to exert pressure on Bush and his republicans. I can't imagine that Democrats aren't planning furiously to prevail.

[annabanana]

2. We don't have much of a "majority" in Congress. .

One sick Dem, one quisling, and a Neo-con in Democratic clothing (Schumer)..
(see: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm)

What we HAVE is the Chairs of the Committees. What we DON'T have is the votes.

[maine_raptor]

5. No, not yet.

The Dems have the committees, they control the tone of the debate. But it will be the R's that end this madness. It will be a bi-partisan stoppage, it has to be in order for it to work.

[Jawja]

9. Yes.

If he is going to be stopped, it will be the Republicans that stop him.

[Az]

4. Carries within range of Iran's missiles

Do we really need to say anything else?

[Toots]

8. We have so many of our Carrier Groups over there now that it would be

very hard to miss a ship with an "Iranian" missile..Which ship will they sacrifice do you think? If one of our ships were to be hit with an "Iranian" missile there would be no resistance to War with Iran....The blood lust would be unimaginable....

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. You mean Bush would put US troops in harm's way

for political gain?

[leftchick]

6. "Qui tacet consentire videtur"

"He that is silent is thought to consent"


The fact that there was not a huge uproar over the provocative raid and grab of Iranians in Ibril scares the shit out of me. I believe you are correct. Between agreeing with him about the BOGUS Iran threat, not questioning the notion of "Iranian influence" in Iraq, and staying silent about the US aggression towards Iran in Iraq the Democrats do not appear to be willing to try and form a united front to stop this mad man.

:(

[bigtree]

10. Democrats still don't have the power they need to put Bush on his ass

that'll take time and pressure. But, you are correct about their tepid, almost agreeing response to his saber rattling. An inch of support has always been as good as a yard for Bush to move forward with his militarism. I just don't see enough pressure right now from Congress to restrain him on Iran. He's getting breathing room, perhaps, because of the noise over Iraq. But, he looks like he's not even been nicked by anyone for the latest provocation. What do we expect him to do? Change his entire nature? Not likely.

[seemslikeadream]

16. A time comes when silence is betrayal

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3115016&mesg_id=3115016



http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobrea...

And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak.


Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.

So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.


Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism.


The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality...and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing "clergy and laymen concerned" committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy.


Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.



A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

[stillcool]

7. At this point....nothing is out of the realm..

While I hear Congress-critters bemoan any attack on Iran...no one denies Iran is a threat, which to me provides cover for some future action. Israel's part in this drama can not be over-looked either. The good (?) thing about all that's happened is that many of us have crashed into the wall of reality, and realize how much like sitting ducks we are. It's like we're in a movie theatre chained to the seat, and are forced to sit and watch till the bitter end. Next is anybody's guess, but I hope public discourse will be re-framed to reflect the misconception regarding our 'democracy'.

[scarletwoman]

11. I think there's a typo in your 2nd paragraph:

Bush has made it more than clear that he'd like to see some strong action taken against Iran. All he was able to get out of the U.N. was a package of sanctions, but he wanted much more, including an actionable resolution which would ultimately allow the use of force if Iraq refused to comply with the wishes of the Security council...

Don't you mean IRAN?

Anyway, in response to your post; there's little hope that Congress will put the brakes on his plans to attack Iran. They obviously don't have the stomach for a full-on Constitutional crisis -- which is what they SHOULD be doing! But even worse, Israel wants to go after Iran -- and what Israel wants, Israel gets. AIPAC has our Congress by the balls.

sw

[bigtree]

14. yeah, I meant Iran

I caught it too late to edit. Thanks. It's always a challenge to keep from doing that when you write about either or both.

I won't discuss Israel here, but, they could certainly act as a proxy for Bush and attack Iran.

[bemildred]

12. They need to get Iran to commit an overt act of war.

So far, Iran has shown no sign of taking the bait, nor is there any sign that internal pressures in Iran might pressure the government to do something stupid, nor is there any reason to think that Iran is unhappy with its external situation, or likely to be any time soon.

[MiniMe]

13. You beat me to it. If * can provoke Iran into attacking us, we would defend ourselves

* is doing whatever he can to provoke them.

[DoYouEverWonder]

18. Iran knows what war is like

The Iranians lived through hell during the Iraq/Iran conflict. They don't have a major desire to do that again.

[bigtree]

19. The government leadership seems more reckless than all of that

not careful enough to avoid being drawn into a conflict by Bush's provocation. After that, the bets are off. The military will defend themselves with the same overreach they employ in Iraq.