Iran next?

[delldude]

Winds of War

The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

 

[Garfield1966]

The balance of power in the white house is becoming more and more irrelevant as the days pass.

Let Cheney try and put a troop on the ground or drop a bomb. If he wants to see Congress go Ape Sh!t and just shut them down so that he could not pass gas with out permission go for it. I realize the current folks in Iran and the US are not the brightest bulbs in the pack but I hope they can figure how this plays out without having to have it drawn out for them.

 

[delldude]

I bet at this very moment we have boots on the ground in Iran.

 

[777 fixer]

Winds of War

I've also heard that if the order comes down there are a number of high ranking officers who will turn in their resignations. Because in the end it's the military that get's left holding the bag.

 

[Garfield1966]

I bet at this very moment we have boots on the ground in Iran.

Covert ops are quite different than sending in the Marines or USAF.

 

[delldude]

All part of the big dance......

 

[Garfield1966]

All part of the big dance......

but ery different partners. Beside, we have spooks on the ground in countries that we are friendly with. Spying on someone does not equate going to war with them.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

If I'm correct....El CHIMPO would have to get authorizaion from congress for Iran. FORGET the Democrats, He could'nt get 50% from his own party !!!!!!

As far as (DIRTY) Dick,.........."FUUK" Cheney !!!!!

He's ALWAYS been the #1 problem since El Chimpo got into office. The ONLY reason, that "DD" has been able to do the things that he's done, is because he has an ABSOLUTE MORON(above him), rubber stamping whatever "DD" wants.

NOBODY knows that better than Colin Powell !

I repeat.............."FUUK" (DIRTY) DICK Cheney !!

NH/BB's

 

[Gilding the Lily]

If I'm correct....El CHIMPO would have to get authorizaion from congress for Iran. FORGET the Democrats, He could'nt get 50% from his own party !!!!!!

Any US citizen with a 5th grade reading level who has perused the Constitution would immediately recognize that you are correct (i.e. Congress the power "to declare war," to lay and collect taxes to "provide for the common defense" and general welfare of the United States, to "raise and support armies)

However, despite the clear language in the Constitution, the Bush Administration has argued that the “Commander-in-Chiefâ€￾ clause grants the President wide latitude to engage U.S. military forces abroad without prior authorization from Congress.

Bush further argues that previous unilateral actions by presidents of both political parties add credence to his interpretation of the U.S. Constitution (Bush does have a point there).

 

[Garfield1966]

I agree but give the political landscape, do you not agree that Congress would blow a gasket if that happened? As Bear in a round about way pointed out, never mind the Dems, any Republican who wants to be in office when 2009 hits, would turn on Cheney so fast his head would spin right off his shoulders. That and the fact that we can not maintain the troop levels we have right not with out extending tours and reducing the leaves. Ground armor is sorely lacking, munitions I am sure are quite low. Besides, does anyone really believe they actually have a plan for Iran? As side from lets go in and drop some bombs. They don't give a rip what happens after they leave office, that is for someone else to deal with.

Seems like a no-go from my point of view. Cheneny can bluster all he wants right now. As it stands he and W do not have any capital to spend anymore. They are like the boy who cried wolf. No one will believe a word they say, right or wrong.

 

[KCFlyer]

That and the fact that we can not maintain the troop levels we have right not with out extending tours and reducing the leaves.

Or bring back the draft. Which would fall on Bush's successor.

 

[Ch. 12]

Any US citizen with a 5th grade reading level who has perused the Constitution would immediately recognize that you are correct (i.e. Congress the power "to declare war," to lay and collect taxes to "provide for the common defense" and general welfare of the United States, to "raise and support armies)

However, despite the clear language in the Constitution, the Bush Administration has argued that the “Commander-in-Chiefâ€￾ clause grants the President wide latitude to engage U.S. military forces abroad without prior authorization from Congress.

Bush further argues that previous unilateral actions by presidents of both political parties add credence to his interpretation of the U.S. Constitution (Bush does have a point there).

Bush was given authorization by Congress to take military actions related to the "war on terruh" hence the "I voted for it before I voted against it". I'm not so sure that it is still pertinant or if it was sole related to Iraq - but when did constitutionality or legality ever slow down this administration??

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Bush was given authorization by Congress to take military actions related to the "war on terruh" hence the "I voted for it before I voted against it". I'm not so sure that it is still pertinant or if it was sole related to Iraq - but when did constitutionality or legality ever slow down this administration??

According to the Dems, the two authorizations given by congress were to be used solely for the purpose of attacking "those responsible for the 9/11 attack" and to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." (See the well-publicized DeFazio letter).

Thus, according to most dems -- and likely a significant number of repubs -- the previous two authorizations would not encompass military action in Iran.

But like you said, would that necessarily stop Bush? If history is a lesson, it is unlikely that the courts would get involved with an "illegal war," so it would have to be dealt with in the political arena if such action was taken.

 

[delldude]

I agree but give the political landscape, do you not agree that Congress would blow a gasket if that happened? As it stands he and W do not have any capital to spend anymore. They are like the boy who cried wolf. No one will believe a word they say, right or wrong.

But ,alas...nothing to lose either......congress can blow all the gaskets they need...but to a Prez exiting and a party faltering....WTF's the consequence?

Besides...Nancy looks like the school yard girl with her knickers above her waist......Dem's have no clear mandate either...so who's really in trouble .

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Dell,
Should El Chimpo, and DIRTY DICK ever Bomb Iran, given the most current situation that exists between both Country(s), I feel confident, that you would say that NO MATTER WHO ran for POTUS, from the GOP, that 08' would be a "walk in the park" for the WH, and congress as well for the Democrats.
A "clean sweep" if you will !

NH/BB's