Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

the next war: "Who Approved the Start of Operations (in Iran) Already" -- Democracy Now (2006)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 12:01 PM
Original message
the next war: "Who Approved the Start of Operations (in Iran) Already" -- Democracy Now (2006)
one wonders if the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment isn't meant as a CYA operation (like the new FISA bill):

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.


We've been planning (what can only be called) the Iranian front of the War for the Middle East since 2002, says Ret. Colonel Sam Gardiner.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/17/143241

Monday, April 17th, 2006

Retired Colonel Sam Gardiner on Iran War Plans: "The Issue is Not Whether the Military Option Would Be Used But Who Approved the Start of Operations Already"

...Both the New Yorker and the Washington Post have reported the US has drawn up plans for launching tactical nuclear strikes against Iran. President Bush dismissed the reports as "wild speculation." But evidence continues to emerge the US is preparing for a possible attack. On his online column for the Washington Post, defense analyst Wiliam Arkin said the Pentagon has been working on contingency studies for an Iran invasion since at least 2003. Arkin said the studies were conducted under directives from Donald Rumsfeld and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chair General Richard Myers. British military planners have reportedly taken part in one Pentagon "war game" that included an invasion of Iran.

(snip)


COL. SAM GARDINER: ...the evidence is beginning to accumulate that a decision has already been made to use military force in Iran. Now, let me do a historical thing, and then I'll tell you what the current evidence is. We now know that the decision and the actual actions to bomb Iraq occurred in July of 2002, before we ever had a U.N. resolution or before the Congress ever authorized it. It was an operation called Southern Focus, and the only guidance that the military -- or the guidance that the military had from Rumsfeld was keep it below the CNN line. His specific words. The evidence that we've already -- (...) let me give you two or three evidences. First of all, the Iranians in their press have been writing now for almost a year that the United States is involved inside Iran conducting and supporting those who conduct military operations, attacks on military convoys. They've even accused the United States of shooting down a couple airplanes inside Iran. Okay, so there's that evidence from their side. I was in Berlin three weeks ago, sat next to the Iranian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and I asked him a question. I read these stories about Americans being involved in there, and how do you react to that? And he said, oh, we know they are. We've captured people who are working with them, and they've confessed. So, another piece of evidence.

Let me give you a couple more. Seymour Hersh, in his New Yorker article, said that there are Americans in three locations operating inside Iran. Another point. We know that there is a group in Iraq, a Kurdish group called the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, that crosses the border from Iraq into Iran, and they have taken credit for killing numbers of revolutionary guard military people. And the interesting part about that is, you know, we tell the Syrians, ‘Don't let that happen. Don't let people come across the border and stir things up in Iraq,’ but we don't seem to be putting any brakes on on this unit. So, you know, the evidence is pretty strong that the pattern is being followed.

Now, the question that really follows from that is “Who authorized that?” See, there is no congressional authorization to conduct combat operations against Iran. There are a couple of possibilities. One of them is that it's being justified under the terrorism authorization that occurred in 2001. The problem with that is that you would have to prove a connection to 9/11. I don't think you can do that with Iran. The second possibility is that it's being done under the War Powers Act. I don't want to get too technical, but the War Powers Act would require the President to notify the Congress 60 days after the use of military force or invasion or putting military forces in a new country under that legislation, and the President hasn't notified the Congress that American troops are operating inside Iran. So it's a very serious question about the constitutional framework under which we are now conducting military operations in Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. We. Are. Fucked!!! Watch out Iran, here we come!!! Congress just gave the pass,...
Edited on Wed Sep-26-07 12:45 PM by sicksicksick_N_tired
,...the smirkfaces sought!!!

:cry:

OMG! I am so depressed, right now! I have to take a walk!

:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. Technically speaking, if true, Iran could assert the US gov't has committed an act of war.
If the Soviet Union had been arming communist guerrillas in the US to destabilize the country further during the 1930s, the US could easily argue that it is an act of war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. assert to who? the UN Security Council? we have veto power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. If not to them, then to the General Assembly, to get everything on record.
It would force the US into a diplomatic defensive. At the same time, it would make the US government look like an even bigger bully than the world thinks it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. Am I alone in feeling betrayed by my own party again? (think election fraud + silence, IWR, patriot
act etc)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I don't feel betrayed. I expected such a performance from a dysfunctional Dem party.
The party is split in half between pro and anti-war factions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. and the fucking media is pushing the pro-war candidate.
:mad:

DUMP THE DLC! AND THEIR TIES TO PNAC!

Al From is founder and chief executive officer of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a dynamic idea action center of the "Third Way" governing philosophy that is reshaping progressive politics in the United States and around the globe. He is also chairman of the Third Way Foundation and publisher of the DLC's flagship bi-monthly magazine, Blueprint: Ideas for a New Century.

As a founder of the DLC -- birthplace of the New Democrat movement and the Third Way in America -- and its companion think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), From leads a national movement that since the mid-1980s has provided both the action agenda and the ideas for New Democrats to successfully challenge the conventional political wisdom in America and, in the process, redefine the center of the Democratic Party.

-snip

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=191&contentid=1131



Will Marshall, the head of PPI signed PNAC letters.
(Called "Bill Clinton's idea mill," the Progressive Policy Institute was responsible for many of the Clinton administration's initiatives...)
Starting right after 9/11.
***************************
Along with such neocon stalwarts as Robert Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, a half-dozen Democrats were among the 23 individuals who signed PNAC's first letter on post-war Iraq. Among the Democrats were Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and a member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council; Dennis Ross, Clinton's top adviser on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations; and James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser and head of foreign policy studies at Brookings.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0522-10.htm

More about Will Marshall
Note the PNAC link to the left.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. That's right...hillary's pro war
corporatemediawhores pro war, bushits pro war..people are fucked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. wonder if those PNAC'ers have been promised seats at the next Clinton White House
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Dems are (understandably) shaken by Rove's successful campaign portraying them as war-wimps
Dems faithfully pledged unwavering support for (any) military action taken to address the 911 attacks (going so far as to sing "God Bless America) on the Capital Steps.

here was their reward as delivered by Rove addressing the New York State Conservative Party in 2002:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war, liberals saw the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and wanted to offer therapy and understanding for the attackers."

this became the meme:

"Moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the Twin Towers crumble to the earth...it was a moment to summoon our national will -- and to brandish steel. MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did."

So, we gave our best -- extended/wasting every bit of political capital we had -- and were bent over for the effort. Dems remain TERRIFIED of the prospect of being tagged as military weaklings. So, we continue to make the same mistakes again and again, hoping for different outcomes.

The Dems playing this stupid game aren't so much weak as they are insane.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
6. The Senate vote isn't exactly as if those idiots
gave him a loaded gun, more like handing him an extra magazine. And actually The War Powers Resolution, does require the president to "consult" with Congress prior to an attack. Unfortuately that is not defined in the Resolution, and could mean something as little as bushco picking up the phone and telling Reid, "we're bombing Tehran in 15 minutes". And of course, the president's chief authority to bomb Iran or anyplace else, isn't derived from the War Powers Resolution, which was actually intended to curb the power of the president to wage war without Congressional approval, but from Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TornadoTN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. In my view, this resolution is all the consulting Bush will do
I can hear it now: "Look, the Senate said they would support me when they passed this resolution!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. it's their Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
Edited on Wed Sep-26-07 01:27 PM by nashville_brook
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TornadoTN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. And "our" party and our two leading candidates abandonded us again
Edited on Wed Sep-26-07 01:36 PM by TornadoTN
I'm normally pretty upbeat but today I'm more fearful about the course of our nation than ever before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. when you start "doing the math," it takes your breath away...
what our Dems just don't understand is that the repubs are going to smear their patriotism no matter what -- it doesn't matter if they support these enabling amendments or not.

that is, of course, assuming "our Dems" have any interest in seeing a stop to total war in the middle east. i'm beginning to wonder if that is the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TornadoTN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Why stop when there's plenty of money yet to be made
For the top 1% that is. To hell with bankrupting the nation and killing our people.

There has to be a point where the people of this country (70% that is) unite behind a common cause and clean house together. I now see why so many people feel there is just so little real difference between the parties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." -- James Madison
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
18. Kyl-Lieberman kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
19. evening kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Nov 13th 2024, 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC