So it's official: Bush is going to attack Iran. What are WE going to do?

[HamdenRice]

I was just showing my GF the article from the New Yorker, and she said it's hopeless, Bush always gets his way.

I read through the post and the replies and it's mostly composed of condemnations of Bush and hand wringing.

Can it be that the people cannot stop a president with the lowest approval ratings in decades -- whose disastrous approval ratings are based on his already screwing up one war -- from starting yet another war? A war that apparently the uniformed officers of the military oppose?

So Duers what do you think we can do?

[saddemocrat]

1. I feel the same way as...

your girlfreind.

Why does he get away with this crap?

[mdmc]

3. who can stop him?

Only his dad, methinks

[mdmc]

2. Just say no to Nuclear War

on Mission Accomplished Day, April 30, 2006

[kansasblue]

15. that seem so hyocritical...

to keep Iran from getting (they don't have them yet) those dangerous, never should be used nuclear WMD, we in order to protect the the world will use...... (wait for it....) nuclear weapons on you.

[mdmc]

22. catch 22

peace and low stress

[serryjw]

54. Maybe too late

I read he is bombing before the end of April.

quote.......
Does Bush need congressional authorization to bomb Iran?

The answer is contained in the Statement by the president of October 16 2002, in
signing into law the congressional authorization to use force against Iraq. It states

"... I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the president's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to US interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution."

In other words: "I appreciate Congress' authorization but didn't need it and will not need it next time with Iran".
end quote.....
http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2006/04/19782.php
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12593.htm

[acmavm]

4. It is imperative that we make our worthless DEMOCRATIC

representatives get off their asses and make it clear to the bush** administration that the IWR does not give them the right to declare war, or to attack any country, whenever they feel like it. This is the most important thing that these asinine clucks can do right now.

Tell Hillary to forget the video games and the flag burning. Tell John Kerry to refind his testicles and try to emulate that man he was right after he left the military. Tell the rest of them to try something new and do their jobs.

[HamdenRice]

18. I ordinarily don't think the answer is usually mass protest, but...

this time I think it's the only thing we have left. You are right, we have to mobilize the Democratic leadership, but they seem powerless and/or scared and/or trying to sound tough and patriotic (Hillary).

Even many Republicans won't go along with this, but it just seems that this administration doesn't care about anyone's opinion outside it's own circle.

This is one of the few times when mass demonstrations have to be part of the strategy. Even if it doesn't work to stop this, at least it informs the world that this is not being done with our consent.

[DanCa]

5. Assume crash positions?

I really don't know this answer to this . This is certainly not my America anymore.

[tatertop]

6. Prepare for the draft and a very high death count

and WWIII

[tularetom]

7. Actually your premise is not quite right

WE (or some of us anyway) are going to attack Iran. Bush, on the other hand is going to sit on his lazy ass, go on vacation at his pig farm, talk macho, lie about why we are going into Iran, wiretap us, fall off his bike, dress up like a fighter pilot, and take nappies.

[HamdenRice]

20. Correct. My GF's nephew is going to war; Shrub is going to the pig farm

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. My husband went to war, trust me

I know the feelign and if this madness continues they will recall him

[AlamoDemoc]

8. This is all about psychological war against Iran

..and as one retired CIA official puts it;

"In my opinion," Fuller wrote in an e-mail, "the proliferation of all these articles on war plans, attack strategies, U.S. generals visiting Turkey to talk of military 'preparations,' etc., increasingly shows the fine hand of U.S. (maybe U.K. too) disinformation and psychological warfare against Iran using a variety of newspapers to plant stories of rising threats, time running out, and the urgency of the need to use force to stop Iran. Indeed this campaign may now be intensified, perhaps out of frustration that the 'real thing' is not, in fact, on the table any more."


http://www.forward.com/articles/7616

[HamdenRice]

21. That's what I though till I read the New Yorker article nt

[radio4progressives]

47. I don't trust the Forward...

We can't possibly consider these threats as anything but "real" ... given the psychotics in this administration.

they need to be removed, immediately.

if we should as a country ever survive this administration who is hell bent in taking us all down the path of armagedon, we need to take immediate measures in our Constitution to give powers to Congress to immediately remove a sitting president who puts our country and the world in danger.

The founders did not imagine nuclear war capabilities, lunatics or fixed elections.

I'm not sure we'll survive the next two/three years though with these freaks.

[WhiteTara]

50. oh I beg to disagree

we have seen this before and fore warned is fore armed. Our critters are home, let's bombard them. We have a couple of weeks, maybe we can get them fired up. But we have to supply the match or they will sit like little dummies,

[stepnw1f]

9. it's not official

[ClassWarrior]

10. Who is your girlfriend, that she can make "official" analyses of...

...U.S. foreign affairs based on "an article" that you haven't even bothered to link?

Condosleeza Rice? (The last name fits...)

NGU.

[HamdenRice]

16. I hope this is a joke!

By official, I mean when Sy Hersh reports it, it is true, because he has been right about everything in the past about this gang -- abu graib, fake intelligence, and the run up to war with Iraq.

BTW, I assume you know I'm talking about the New Yorker article that is all over DU's front page.

But you are right, Condi is my girlfriend.

[tnlefty]

38. How do you put up with her two-timing you with Bush**? Who she

obviously cares more about as she referred to him** as "my husband"! Really - kick her to the curb now! And how can you be so certain that she really gave Jack Straw her bed during their recent travels, hmm? (Wink, wink)

I think that you could obviously do much better.

[HamdenRice]

70. Oh the shame! My GF, Condi is such a slut! nt

[Taxloss]

11. I think he won't.

Because of the British presence in southern Iraq, British complicity in an attack on Iran would be vital - our forces are in the precise area that will be intensely contested. Although I don't doubt that Blair is enough of a zealot to be carried along with such a plan, he wouldn't dare without a concerted media effort building up the threat beforehand. There hasn't been the slightest hint of this "softening-up" of public opinion. Iraq has already almost fatally damaged him - Iran would topple him, without a doubt. If he was shrewd, and he knew America was set on this course, he would be either quietly withdrawing or loudly peacemaking.

Only one thing could possibly bring the UK public behind an attack on Iran - a massive, Iran-backed attack on our home territory. I don't think that's going to happen, and I don't believe in MIHOP either.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. You forget a seat at Carlyle is far more powerful

than public opinion. Need I mention John Major here?

[Taxloss]

45. Well, Major was doomed from the start.

He inherited a party that was already erupting into internal warfare of its own, and then presided over a Sterling crisis that destroyed what remained of its reputation. A brilliant man, a genius, a towering figure, could have salvaged the Tories at that point - Major was none of those things and less.

[HamdenRice]

26. I agree Iran and Iraq are linked, but I think it's this way...

The political/military disaster in Iraq has basically handed Iraq over to it's Shiite majority, and hence to Iran. Yesterday, Robert Fisk gave an interesting interview to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, and he confirmed that Iraq is being handed over to Iran.

I think the strategic thinkers in the civilian side of the Pentagon have concluded that handing Iraq over to Iran will be acceptable if there is an acceptable Iranian regime in Tehran.

In other words, the outcome in Iraq may dictate not restraint on Iran, but increasingly necessity in their minds for regime change. In the long run, in their minds, this might mean less of the threat from the Shiite south to the British presence.

And as for popular opinion in Britain, I don't think Bush cares about Blair's position. Blair has no choice but to go along with Bush, even if it means political suicide in Britain for him.

[Taxloss]

49. It would mean more than political suicide.

The public reaction to Iran would be ... I dread to think. Riots. Burning cities. Strikes. Chaos. The month before the Iraq war, one million people (including myself) marched against it - Britain's largest ever peacetime protest. And that was before we were proved right. Since then, public opinion has turned even more anti-war.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765549.stm

[MsMagnificent]

41. You'd be right if they were sane

and God Himself didn't talk to * telling him to go into ME countries and wage war...

[Taxloss]

46. There is that.

Applies to the Vicar of Albion as well.

[melody]

12. NeoConMen at work again

PNAC Project for the New American Catastrophe, um, Cataclysm, uh, Crash

These people were put in place to destroy the country. They have taken over control of our government. They are our enemy. They aren't answerable to us. We're not their bosses. There is very little we can do but raise our voices and keep them loud.

That said, this Iran talk may be just a gambit to get Iran back to the bargaining table.

[seemslikeadream]

13. Every single one of us could use some mercy now

My father could use a little mercy now
The fruits of his labor
Fall and rot slowly on the ground
His work is almost over
It won't be long and he won't be around
I love my father, and he could use some mercy now

My brother could use a little mercy now
He's a stranger to freedom
He's shackled to his fears and doubts
The pain that he lives in is
Almost more than living will allow
I love my bother, and he could use some mercy now

My church and my country could use a little mercy now
As they sink into a poisoned pit
That's going to take forever to climb out
They carry the weight of the faithful
Who follow them down
I love my church and country, and they could use some mercy now

Every living thing could use a little mercy now
Only the hand of grace can end the race
Towards another mushroom cloud
People in power, well
They'll do anything to keep their crown
I love life, and life itself could use some mercy now

Yeah, we all could use a little mercy now
I know we don't deserve it
But we need it anyhow
We hang in the balance
Dangle 'tween hell and hallowed ground
Every single one of us could use some mercy now
Every single one of us could use some mercy now

Mary Gauthier

[suffragette]

36. That is powerful and so apt

After reading the lyrics, I searched and found her site. I'd never heard of her.
Can listen to the full song and others on her site.
I am blown away by thes and by the relevance.
She also has the video for it there.
Absolutely stunning. Everyone needs to see this, especially now.
http://www.marygauthier.com/music.html

[seemslikeadream]

37. Thanks suffragette!

:hi:

[suffragette]

40. Thanks to you

If not for you, I wouldn't know about her.
I just went to itunes and purchased the cd.
This is so powerful.

Thank you again.

:hug:

[stray cat]

14. I think it is an empty threat

I don't but that its official.

[Rocknrule]

17. This is how the people on the 9/11 flights must've felt

We are them, Bush is Mohammed Atta, and he is flying us at full speed at the WTC of nuclear war. Who is going to stand up and say "Let's Roll?"

[nadinbrzezinski]

We must take to the streets

the time is now

[Neil Lisst]

19. Iran is who we should have attacked in 02, not Iraq in 03

Unlike Iraq, Iran has been actively supporting terrorism all over the globe for two decades, including the 9/11 hijackers. If the US had bombed selected installations, maybe mined the ports a while, in 2002 or 2003 as clear retribution for Iran's involvement in terror activities, I would not have opposed it.

But now we're three years into an Iraq invasion, and the lapse of time and the negatives of the occupation have made attacking Iran more of a problem, less of a solution.

I think Bush sees Iran as a threat to HIS peace plan for the mideast, which is his fantasy of Afghanistan and Iraq was mini-Americas.

This is where Bush paying attention the first 40 years really would have paid some dividends.

[AlamoDemoc]

25. where did you copy and paste from this shit?

"Iran has been actively supporting terrorism all over the globe for two decades, including the 9/11 hijackers."

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Agreed the 9.11 hijackers came from

Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt... we went after the wrong target, but the right target coudl have possibly started WW III... not that gearge is too concerned about it... (Saudi Arabia)

Now Iran has been supporting ME groups... but that is another kettle of fish.

[Neil Lisst]

32. Certainly Saudi Arabia was culpable, too, but that doesn't absolve

Iran for its role in helping the hijackers make their way safely to America.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Yeah well they will use this as a talking point

even though all the evidence DOES NOT point to Iran, but okie dockie.. yes read all I can get my paws on... and there is far more evidence linking PAKISTAN to 9.11 than Iran.

[Neil Lisst]

35. Yes, it's probably true that there's more connection to Pakistan

But Pakistan is our ally, as is Saudi Arabia, as is UAE, as is Jordan.

So who is culpable after them? Iran and Syria. Syria has little oil, and it's not really a threat to the US anyway, more focused on Israel as its threat.

But Iran? Guy's been talking too much shit lately, and talking shit about Israel, and talking shit about nuclear. So Iran gets it.

Iraq was no threat at all to the US until the US invaded and occupied.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Guy GOT ELECTED well after 9.11

last year to be specific... and I am almost betting as a reaction to all our saber rattling.

By the way, the Saudis still refuse to stop laundering money for Al Qaida.. with them friends who needs enemies.

Oh and this is what is wrong with the country... it seems many folks fixate on the current enemy of the hour... instead of doing some readying as to what is truly going on. The Saudis present a FAR LARGER strategic threat to the US at this moment and long term. I don't mention Israel since Israel will nuke the Saudis back to the stone age if they are ever capable of destroying Israel... but I am sure you knew that.

[oblivious]

56. "Iran helped the hijackers make their way safely to America"

You're really cranking out the anti-Iran propaganda now. Must be a war coming up.

Last time I looked it was the US embassies that helped the alleged hijackers to America, and it was American institutions, including the military, that trained them.

[Neil Lisst]

58. good name

[oblivious]

60. Please tell us how Iran helped the alleged hijackers come to America.

[Neil Lisst]

63. Here's one source, and there are many ...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html

A senior U.S. official told TIME that the Commission has uncovered evidence suggesting that between eight and ten of the 14 "muscle" hijackers—that is, those involved in gaining control of the four 9/11 aircraft and subduing the crew and passengers—passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001. Sources also tell TIME that Commission investigators found that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border. This practice dated back to October 2000, with Iranian officials issuing specific instructions to their border guards—in some cases not to put stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda personnel—and otherwise not harass them and to facilitate their travel across the frontier. The report does not, however, offer evidence that Iran was aware of the plans for the 9/11 attacks.

[oblivious]

64. Damn, that's the flimsiest evidence for war I've ever seen.

No evidence whatsoever that Iran facilitated their move to the US. The US visa offices, on the other hand, clearly facilitated their entry as a quick google search shows below.

I suppose the warmongers will be able to use this 'evidence' for future wars on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and whomever else they feel like attacking then? And of course a number of them passed through Germany as well.

Visas that Should Have Been Denied
If the U.S. State Department had followed the law, at least 15 of the 19 "dots" should have been denied visas — and they likely wouldn't have been in the United States on September 11, 2001.
http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray100902.asp

The easy path to the United States for three of the 9/11 hijackers
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/terror/articles/visa011212.htm

15 Hijackers Obtained Visas in Saudi Arabia
Most Citizens of That Country Seeking to Visit U.S. Are Approved Without Interviews

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks obtained U.S. visas in Saudi Arabia, where most citizens seeking to visit the United States are quickly approved without interviews, American officials said yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A14788-2001Oct30¬Found=true

[Neil Lisst]

66. you're free to believe what you wish

You want to argue about it. I don't.

I'm comfortable with my position and feel no need to offer proof.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[TheWatcher]

68. I'm comfortable with my position and feel no need to offer proof.

That's what got us into this mess to begin with.

I've respected you in the past Neil, but you sound like someone from another Board.

You've lost it.

And I say that with all due respect.

[Neil Lisst]

69. it means I've read enough on the topic that I'm satisfied

and I see no point in engaging in the kind of argument the other poster wants to engage in.
There is no purpose served in my trying to convince someone of something they don't believe. I simply don't care if the other poster disagrees with me, and I don't care if my refusal to debate ad nauseam offends anyone.

It's not new intel that the Iranians have supported terrorists broadly for the past 25 years. If others don't want to believe that, I don't care. I don't form my opinions based upon what others think I should think, or what others expect, or what others may believe. I make up my own mind, and having done so, am content with my conclusions.

I believe Iran has been involved in terror against western targets for decades, and that they helped the 9/11 terror group get to the US by helping them get through Iran, at least those who went through Iran.

I favored action against Iran in 2002, not 2006. The opportunity has been lost because the administration foolishly decided to attack Iraq, which wasn't threat. I've never favored invasion of Iraq, but would have favored aerial attacks on military targets in 2002.

[Rocknrule]

28. Iraq did 9/11, Iran did 9/11, France did 9/11

according to Bush, apparently every nation in the world had a hand in 9/11. It was a big practical joke the whole world decided to play on the US. Kinda does fit with his desire to wage war against the whole world.

[Neil Lisst]

31. I didn't copy and paste anything.

Sorry, I use what we call "knowledge."

[CJCRANE]

55. Iran had nothing to do with 9/11.

That's why they'll be attacked.

9/11 was a joint venture with Bushco's "allies". They all get rewarded one way or another.

[HamdenRice]

29. DUers -- so again what are WE going to DO?

I started this thread to focus on a different issue from the threads on substance of the New Yorker article. The question is what can we do?

Several posters say basically, bend over and kiss our asses goodbye, or there isn't much.

Surely there must be someway we can stop this madness. So far the two concrete suggestions are contact your congressperson and mass demonstrations.

Is that the consensus?

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Demonstration, mass strikes

we may even need some violence to make the point... in other words, when you can wake Mr and Mrs America call me over... for what we need to do is to take over the goernment of the people, by the people and for the people... you surely have read that prologue to the Declaration of Independence... THAT is what I fear we need to do.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SKKY]

42. Well of course he's going to attack Iran...He's about to be in some...

...serious-ass trouble. He's gotta do something.

[radio4progressives]

43. Well i posted something to the effect yesterday...

I say we call a General Strike and a Mass March in every state capitol or major city in the country - just as massive (if not much more)as the latina/o communities did on the immigration distraction action.

The BushCo is about to destroy the world and we're letting him do it..!

[Nailzberg]

48. Okay, but can we please stay off the freeways this time?

You want the working man to support your cause, don't make him sit in traffic for two extra hours on his way home from work.

[radio4progressives]

52. No.

you think demonstrators aren't working people too?

[Nailzberg]

57. Um, no, not the immigration walkouts in LA recently.

Those were high school kids that chose to walk onto the freeways and effectivly shut them down mid-afternoon. So no, I do not consider them working people.

Stay off the freeway, that's all I ask.

[radio4progressives]

53. "My Cause" is the Working Man's Cause ! It's anyone sane person's cause!

[Hubert Flottz]

44. The terrorists won in November of 2004 in Ohio.

They beat us with crooked voting machines and a traitor named Blackwell!

[McCamy Taylor]

51. Will the US Military allow it? Might see the first US military coup.

Which in itself would be a very scary thing.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

59. Emigrate?

A buddy of mine raised this possibility only half-facetiously in reference to the prospective Iran war (while an old economist friend of mine was not facetious at all in suggesting the emigration option-- he thinks economic disaster is looming). He called it "voting with your feet--" better sign up to take some language courses and brush up on your French or German, I guess.

At the very least, we apparently can still vote in US elections for a decade or so after emigrating. I know this may sound extreme, but if Bush actually goes and *nukes* Iran, I'd hesitate to call myself an American anymore if "being an American" means supporting unprovoked nuclear strikes on a non-nuclear nation.

[progressivebydesign]

61. Expose the PNAC as though our lives depended on it.

Mention the PNAC roadmap everywhere you can. LEt everyone know that PNAC is driving policy, and that Iran was preselected years ago... Point out the deadly irony that Bush wants to use nukes to bomb a country that is supposedly considering a nuclear program. Point out everywhere that we are in debt, historical debt, to a COMMUNIST fucking country, and cannot afford to continue this pattern of pre-emptive wars. Spread the word that Bush's biggest ambition is to not be a dickwad failure like his father, and will bomb any country if he thinks it will make him look sucessful.

March.. March.. March... we have to do that again. We have to be like Europe who can gather millions of people on the streets.

[Imagevision]

62. The lower Bush & GOP numbers go? - nuking Iran plans grow...!

and I thought rigging an election was bad??!!

[burrowowl]

65. Write Congress Critters, take to the streets,

general strikes, write the Generals, etc.
and if that doesn't work, we are in deep doo-doo.

[wiggs]

67. WH already has message from congress and public re: Iran

The message from us and from congress to the White House is: "Go ahead and do anything you want".

From WH standpoint there really hasn't been serious push back on just about anything. Grumblings from a few dem leaders and some low approvals are easily dismissed as temporary and inconsequential.

I don't need to repeat here on DU all that's wrong, immoral, illegal, and insane about Iraq, Abu Ghraib, white phosporous, Fallujia, armor, lack of rebuilding, etc. My point is that this administration has committed unimaginable crimes and misdeeds with very little push back. They are still in office. They still get standing ovations at ballpark appearances. Their propagandists are on the Sunday shows every week. Their congressional GOP counterparts support nearly every whim. Their congressional opposition even goes along with what they want half the time.

What reason do they have to think they can't do it again?