Action Alert on IRAN
By John Amato Tuesday Sep 11, 2007 3:16pm
Call the Capitol switchboard at 202-225-3121. We need to let our representatives know that Bush cannot attack Iran. GW will not go away quietly as his disastrous term comes to an end. I think most of us believe Iran is the next target on Bush and Cheney's to-do list. Kristol, the equally insane Ledeen (read this madness) and all his Neocon, warmongering pals are pushing the White House at every moment to make the attack happen.
Adam Doster has some new information on plans to attack. Here's the Timesonline piece.
Glenn Greenwald writes about the bomb Iran happy Washington Post's attacks on Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency whom Hiatt labels "the Rogue Regulator."
Go read Arthur Silber
Now the president is asking Congress for another $50 billion for the War in Iraq, which he will almost certainly be diverting to the attack on Iran....read on
Login or Register to post comments.
And I can imagine if this happens that China and Russia will simply sit back and let this all play out.
With all due respect to the owner of this blog and it's readers: Despite the 2006 election victory, Congress refuses to impeach. Could someone, in plain English, explain what, if anything, can be done to "stop" the President from expanding illegal warfare? I fail to see Congress checking this President. Anyone serious about prosecuting Members of Congress for complicity with expanding illegal warfare from Iraq into Iran? If you are, speak up now with some discussions with prosecutors. There's no statute of limitation for war crimes. There's no imminent threat from Iran. There is an imminent threat that, should the US invade Iran, the Russians-Chinese and others will have the legal foundation to unite the world to bring combat operations to the District of Columbia.
wow
Curious. With all due respect to this blog author and the C&L readers: What does anyone plan to do should the President wage illegal war in Iran? Congress refuses to impeach. There is no imminent threat from Iran; yet, if the US were to illegally expand unlawful warfare from Iraq into Iran, there is the real threat that China-Russia and others will have the legal foundation to conduct combat operations in the District of Columbia. If anyone is serious about checking this president, talk to the prosecutors now: There is no statute of limitations for war crimes against Iran.
Yep. Bush's swan song...a biggie...
Imagine that the United States is the second largest producer of food in the world. Much of South America gets its food trucked down through Mexico to S.A.
The S.A. Government doesn't really like the U.S. and sees us as an arrogant bully who overcharges and extorts them with price increases several times a year..
S.A. decides to invade America and does. They beat us and tell us to form a new government.
The Christians, thinking they are the biggest group, want an all christian government.
The Jew and Muslims, who have significant numbers also want to have their say in the country, but are afraid that the Fundamentalist will not show them proper respect. The different factions start fighting, meanwhile all our infrastructure is destroyed. We have no Electric, no phone service, no safe roads to drive on. Every day the christian fundies blow up a few hundred people.
Just something to think about while you consider writing to your representatives about a poosible war with Iran, while we still have a cluster-f*ck going on in Iraq. .
Will never happen bush doesnt have the power anymore. If Iran is attacked, U.S troops in Iraq are screwed. Bush knows alot of our troops will die if he was to do this. He isnt that dumb.
Several years ago, Russia announced that they had sold up to 20 sunburn missiles to Iran.
These missiles travel low over the water at supersonic speeds. They do S-Turns to avoid incoming fire.
The Russians designed these missiles to sink aircraft carriers like the Nimitz.
Pete @ 5:
Where is the downside for Bush?
Geee...I wonder if those live Nukes that, unbeknown to everyone, "magically" appeared on the wing pylons of a B-52 going to a weapons staging depot for the middle east were part of a clandestine buildup of resources in anticipation of an unsanctioned attack on Iran?
Sad thing is, the rotten bastard who is currently president can bomb whomever he wants and get away with it because the Dams are so spineless.
Re-Elect JIMMY CARTER 2008. The greatest American President of the post war era. This country has no idea how fortunate we were to have that man as President at that time in history. Had a man like Bush been President its likely we wouldn't even be here. Carter got the hostages home safe and avoided war. Hindsight is kind to this man, he could of gone in a very different direction but he was intelligent and longsighted enough to exercise restraint.
Do I feel a draft?
Patthemokey @ 10:
Only if you are not the son or daughter of an elected representative or a major contributor to the republican party.
Patthemokey @ 10:
I'm pretty sure you do. How would that fly in todays world?
I M P E A C H !!!!!!!!!
Please call your representatives NOW and urge them to sign onto HR 333 to impeach Dick Cheney (the rest will follow). We MUST do something to stop this madness!!
Kucinich : 2008
Ignominious_Bush @ 12:
If Bush winds up declaring martial law under his "wartie powers" it won't matter if a draft can "fly" or not.
Of course, the Bush twins will be exempt.
Now, you people are so superstitious, it's just this little chromium switch..
I realize Bush is insane enough to start a war with Iran, but is it even logistically possible? Without the ground troops, who are heavily committed to Iraq and Afghanistan, how could he even order an air strike without the preparation (available troops) for a retaliatory attack?
I clicked on and read each and every one of the blue highlighted articles in this
C&L thread. The most current article(blog) was dated September 5th, with
others(also blogs) being written on that same date or earlier(9/01 & 9/02).
IF this were such a critical and imperative (and new) attack plan, I find it
very, very difficult to believe that such exists..and even if it did, bush is
not quite that stupid...believing that w/o consent of Congress and the
approval of the American public (and rest of the World)he could initiate another preemptive war in the middle east..., so I am not buying into his/Pentagon/military
alleged plans to bomb Iran.
Ignominious_Bush @ 12:
We need a sisaster first. Blowback from attacking Iran would do it.
If we hit Iran and the Nimitz sinks along with a couple of destroyers and supertankers, then the draft will be back, lickety-split.
Thanks John. Called.
Imagine an enhanced programmed C&L ... where if every post
had an option to be included on the day's "Crooks and Liars" petition.
The Next Action Alert:
Demand An Attorney General Who Can Say No To President Bush
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/12/ag-just-say-no/
- One that Would say “no” to Bush’s warrantless wiretapping
- One that Would say “no” legalizing torture
- One that Would say “no” the partisan firings of U.S. attorneys
- One that Would say “no” the politicization of the Justice Department
- One that Would say “no” to Bush’s abuse of Presidential signing statements
I can see that we can bomb the iranian infrastructure, but do we have enough planes to keep 1 million iranians from invading iraq? What would stop them from killing a lot of our guys there?
I don't see this happening... Iran hasn't been bombed for 15 years. Taking them out wouldn't be a 3 day affair.
disaster even....
Pete @ 5:
It's not lack of intelligence; it's lack of mental health.
Wait, lack of intelligence AND lack of mental health.
The terrible truth is before Bush is done, hundreds more young soldiers will be killed, thousands wounded and 10's of thousands of family members forever traumatized.
All because Bush will never formally admit failure and there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
The man deserves to be remembered as the most revolting miserable failure in US history.
hadenuf @ 22:
It's lack of mental CAPACITY!!
The only way we would bomb Iran is if we were provoked... right?
So, naturally, we've got to look like we've been provoked.
What do you think it'll be?
he'll attack iran with what army? what he's got is broken and doing so would only annihilate what's left.
Has anyone else noticed how the White House is mentioning Al Qaida and Iran in the same sentence now? Now they're trying to blur THAT line. Christ.
This thread makes it worth mentioning the infamous "Ledeen Doctrine" to which many of the neo-cons subscribe. As attributed to Ledeen by fellow conservative and colleague, Jonah Goldberg:
"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."
Think about that the next time the political right tries to sell you on their humanitarian motives for going to war.
Those Nuke Warheads were NO accident. All the reporting has said it was, never read anything telling me WHERE THEY WENT FROM THERE!
COFFIN! COFFIN! COFFIN!
Cut Off Funding Instantaneously...
Cut Off Funding Instantaneously...
Cut Off Funding Instantaneously...
Oil hit $80/barrel today. Provocation enough?
The current head of Centcom, Admiral Fallon, once refused to deploy a carrier group to the gulf, and once said that there would be no attack on Iran "on his watch."
The drama now is whether or not the military will this time refuse the illegal and insane orders of of these madmen.
I think they will (refuse.)
The future of the world depends on the honor and sanity of Fallon, the Joint Chiefs and the rest of them. They have something to prove at this point, having gone along like sheep to the slaughter in Iraq, and I don't think they'll let Cheney and Chimpy get away with it.
Hawk @ 29:
Astro @ 28:
Unfortunately for the neo-nuts, Iran is not one of those crappy little countries they can throw against the wall. It's got about three times the population of the crappy little country we are currently mired in.
Why did Bush and Cheney feel it necessary to list on the Sept 11 news edition a
Fact Sheet: The Sixth Anniversary of 9/11 on their web site?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/
Action Alert to Congress:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?
* 551872 responses
--> 89% Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
Fallon's time will soon be up.
I take Ledeen's quote and raise it with Thomas Jefferson's:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
Sounds like Lie-berman took good lessons from the WWII Japanese Army: Incite illegal activity, and advocate unlawful warfare.
bush is fucking crazy.
i have said this for the last few months, bush will nuke someone, iran more than likely and maybe even our own country, but he will use those nuclear missiles that were recently discouvered mishandled. where are those missiles now? probably in iraq.....
we have to remove him and cheney before they completely destroy the world, it's time to impeach them both.
Interesting article on Iran. Just Why is Cheney's office gloating?
http://www.attytood.com/2007/09/gloating_1.html
And... Why did Bush and Cheney feel it necessary to list on their news section for sept 11 a
FACT SHEET: The Sixth Anniversary of 9/11: Remembering Lives Lost
on the white house news site?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/
* 551872 responses
89% Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
Eff Bu$h and his even uglier, more repulsive sidekick Darth Cheney. Impeach those ba$tards NOW!
Absolutely NO to $50Billion for the invasion, illegal war, and occupation of Iran.
Exclusive Speech Excerpt: Obama Warns Bush Over Iran War
would that the dems actually had spines!?
"...playing for October or November." "...prone to bouts of crying caused by the stress of his job..."
Hoo boy. Those are a couple of things this story puts in a scary light.
There he is again with that stupid look on his face.
Congress won't impeach the President. Not clear why Congress will shut down funding for this illegal activity. Should we contact state level officials to have Federal government officials and Members of Congress prosecuted?
They have their own w in Iran but he does not have the same power as our w.
Both are wingnuts , both are batshit crazy and both will be gone soon.
neil @ 41:
Stupid or crazy? I'm having a hard time telling them apart anymore.
Strawberry @ 27:
Very interesting. Wondering what motive Congress has to go along with this fiction. Are they complicit with other war crimes, and need a distraction of Iran?
Put aside the issue that Iran is lawfully allowed to oppose unlawful US military action in Iraq and Iran: How does the US propose to prevent Iran from working with Russia or China to expand warfare against the US? The US, after 9-11, united; Is the US proposing that Iran, once attacked, would not unite against the US?
It appears Congress and the President have jointly ignored the CIA analysis on what the likely response of Iran would be to a US attack. The White House and Members of Congress ignored the warnings on Iraq; they're most likely ignoring the warnings about Iran.
(Evidence Congress hasn't woken up to its oversight duties: Consider how Congress viewed Patreaus' remarks -- as if they "might" be true. His comments should have been flushed, and the funding cut, but Congress hasn't done that.)
I don't get these continuing neocon wet dreams of enforced regime change in the middle east... All morality aside, since a moral argument which itself is a logical means of looking at it, seems to fall on deaf ears where the Bill Kristols et al, of the world are concerned... That goes for the Bin Ladens of the world too!! Him and his 'we should all switch to Islam' message to stop this war....Fuck you too Bin Laden! Your shit sucks as much as any Dobson or Pat Roberts B.S.....
Do these neocons not get that the kind of manpower and equipment required to even attempt the sort of braindead war mongering land and resource grabbing dreams they hold dear doesn't exist now... They have frittered away a huge surplus of our military on this Iraq debacle. We, as a result of the Bush admins misuse, are spread razor thin thru that region as well as the rest of the world and we have no real available assets to make this stupidity work even if we had a ligitimate reason... Which we don't!!! No money, no troops, no gear... Not to mention no moral position to even argue from. One doesn't need a mensa I.Q. to see the fallacy of this goofy shit under any circumstances let alone these....
Hello, what the fuck do these people think they are going to conduct some war against Iran with!!????? A draft maybe???
Not fucking likely, and even if they decided to go that route...
After watching the last seven years, how long would it take in this devisive climate here in the U.S. before major social instability occurs because of the implimentation of some draft.... For that matter, how many draftees in this environment would actually report????? My guess, given Bush has completely compromised the credibility of the office he holds... Not many...Certainly not enough to make this crime fly....
Or maybe they think the U.S. Navy, with multiple carrier groups and attack squadrons launching non-stop air assaults, now on station in the Persian Gulf will make it happen... People I hate to rain on that parade, but look at a map please. The Persian Gulf? That is a big old bathtop with a bullseye on it...and potential bad guys on three of four sides of it. We couldn't do the Iranian military any bigger favors than to park several aircraft carrier battle groups and associated support vessels in that regional bathtop so they know exactly where to launch their non-stop air to surface missile strikes if we attack them.... I was in that bathtub for awhile way back in the stoneage of the 80s, so I know a little about just what the threat risk and probability of survival in a hot war amounts to for anyone on station there....Risk high, survival probability, low...
Everyone thinks 9/11 was bad, (and it was) we hate the drip drip drip of 5 to 10 U.S. foot soldiers maimed or killed everyday... We honor the attack on Pearl Harbor and believe it was one of the darkest days in U.S. Navy history... (and it was)... And none of that will hold a candle to the absolutely ruinous effect on our
national morale and practical ability to defend ourselves militarily with 5 to 15 maybe as many as 20,000 U.S. sailors and the tons of war vessels and hardware, worth millions, probably billions, which will go straight to the bottom of the Persian Gulf in that scenario...Many if not most with all hands on board.
There is no easy fight for the Navy in the Persian Gulf... This sort of war of aggression on our part will not be a Korea or Viet Nam for our navy where our ships safely sit offshore and launch attacks while shipboard life revolves around the usual at sea bullshit.... Nope, something like this will be damned bloody and we are not approching it from a position of strength.... And if anyone thinks that while stuck in a hole aready, (like this one)you can get out by digging some more... I got a bridge to sell you since you're obviously as big a moron as any other neocon cheerleader like Kristol with Chimpy's ear to influence...............
There is another way.. But it begins with fixing our own house first... It begins with Impeachment of this administration first.... but that takes a political willpower not in evidence these says... As we all know, Impeachment??? THAT ain't on the table. Not enough votes, would be a distraction and all the rest of it. Apparently it is more logical to some politicians who should know better to just let Chimpy and his band of criminals just finish us off as a viable nation instead. Like I said, I don't get it, makes no sense to me on any level.......JD
This scary war on Iran scenario is just so wrong on so many levels it makes absolutley no sense on any reasonable level.. In fact, so nonsensicle as to beg the question of the promoters sanity..............JD
When will we not be afraid of seeing that Israel's right-wing Zionists (in the U.S and around the world) are behind this? They want us to fight their perceived enemies because they fear a nuclear power in a Muslim country in their backyard. No more American blood for Israel. Lieberman, Kristol, Goldberg, Kissinger, Bolten, and many more are everywhere pulling the strings in this administration. It "ain't" that hard to see it.
So Iran will be the next stop for all these troops Bush now says he'll be pulling out of Iraq?
Does the proposed nominee for AG have any view on whether he will block or support a war crimes indictment against the President and Members of Congress for illegal warfare in Iran?
Reid and Pelosi do not have to bring a bill to the floor for that 50 billion but they will choose to do it.
They could grow a spine and say they can't bring it to the floor because it will be used to bomb Iran.
If George the Insane wants this to happen it will happen. There is no number of calls to our elected invertebrates that will alter this fact. We are screwed.
ProgressiveTexan @ 53:
Didn't you read the fine print about Do It Yourself Ice Pick Lobotomies?
Basis for estimates questionable. Congress appears to have recklessly ignored the lessons of Iraq, and accepted fantasy numbers related to the full funding required to stabilize Iran.
right on! @ 43:
There is no basis for this $10B: We've spent $1/3T in Iraq, which was decimated and defeated by 10 years of being under sanctions. Iran is a different country and has not been decimated by sanctions. There is no reason, in light of the substantial underestimate of the Iraq occupation, should anyone believe that $10B is going to be enough to clean up Iran.
Look at the claims now: "Oh, we can't leave Iraq a mess, we have Geneva obligations." Those Geneva obligations were ignored during the planning to justify entry with little cost; now those requirements are used to justify staying with considerable cost.
getalife @ 56:
Help...IF funding bill is brought to the floor, someone help me as to what it takes to
disapprove/scrap.. Funding initiates in the House..
U.S. House has 435 Reps...231 Dems and 204 Repigs. What number of votes in the House
would it take to disapprove? Just a simple majority or 2/3rd or 3/4th??
U.S. Senate has 100 members...49 Dems, 48 Repigs and 2 "independents"(including LIE-berman). If funding disapproved in House, how many votes in the Senate would it take
to uphold such "disapproval"?..i.e, simple majority or some percentage.
Seems rather simple and/or elementary to me that since Dems control both Houses,
and assuming "simple majority" is all that is required, that bush's request for an additional
$50 Billion could/should be throw back in his face w/a "Nay" vote.
Am I missing something?
There are other thigns than can be done besides "waiting" for Congress to admit it is usless.
We can call the State Atty Disciplinary Boards, and encourage them to start invetigations to disbar State AGs who refuse to prosecute Members of Congress and the President for war crimes planned in Iran. Also, State legislators who refuse to remove their state resources from illegal warfare can be prosecuted as well. And States have standing to bring suit: The US government no longer provides an enforcement mechansim, and we no longer have a functioning republic. All State resources in Iraq and Iran are not available, as required, to provide for state level priorities. We learned that with Katrina.
The Israelis have made it plain that if we don't attack Iran they will. Whether this bellicosity is merely cover for our ambitions or extortion for theirs, it is not problematic.
There is a way for the DNC, without GOP cooperation, to shut down funding for illegal warfare in Iran.
Doggiebobo @ 60:
Am I missing something?
A bill doesn't have to be "brought" to the floor to "kill" the funding. The committee chairs have the power to zero-out funding. Murtha did this when he was upset at the DoD Liaision; GOP was then forced to pass an Amendment to add money back.
Today, with Iran invasion funding, the committee Chairs in the HASC and SASC could zero-out funding; and require the GOP to pass an Amendment to add money back.
Also, what can be done is the House and Senate -- before the bill is introduced to either chamber -- ensure the bills match; this would make it meaningless to require a conference committee. Thus, the GOP could not "block" a conference Committee. This would by pass the 2/3 vote required in the Senate.
To answer your questions: There is no "vote" required to 'kill" a bill if the chairs agree to zero-out funding. A "threat" of a Presidential veto -- of a bill that has no money -- still leaves him with no money.
This is not an issue of who "approves" the funding; but whether, despite the power to zero-out funding, the Speaker and DNC put the burden on the GOP to pass Amendments to add money back. The DNC and Speaker in the House appear to not realize the power they have.
IF funding bill is brought to the floor, someone help me as to what it takes to
disapprove/scrap.. Funding initiates in the House..: It can be killed in Committee: The Chair can refuse to let the funding bill come to a vote; or they can zero-out the funding to force the GOP to add money back.
U.S. House has 435 Reps…231 Dems and 204 Repigs.
This question incorrectly assumes that funding will always start flowing, and can only be stopped. This is not true: Funds can only start flowing if the DNC Chairs agree to fund illegal warfare in Iran: "What number of votes in the House would it take to disapprove?" A simple majority.
This assumes that the Chairs, despite "opposition" to illegal warfare, refuse to zero-out funds, and still approve funding and let the bill leave committee. Yet, if the Chairs release the bill for a full floor vote, they're complicit with illegal warfare funding. That is actionable under Geneva; and legislative immunity can be stripped when it is abused, as is the case here.
This question pre-supposes the Chairs do not block illegal funding for unlawful warfare in Iran: "If funding disapproved in House, how many votes in the Senate would it take
to uphold such “disapproval”?..i.e, simple majority or some percentage."
If the Senate falls into the trap of "believing" that it needs a "conference committee," then the "only" way to "kill" the bill is to have 2/3: Until the Senate "blocks a conference committee" the bill will get funded. It only takes a majority to pass a bill. However, based on the above discussion, recall that the 2/3 vote to "kill" a bill is meaningless if the House and Senate Chairs agree to refuse to let the bill out of committee.
sulphurdunn @ 62:
After they were defated by Hezbollah. . . .?
Anonther empty Israeli threat.
Help @ 64:
correction: after Isreal was defeated by Hamas. . .those people who had no air force.
There can be no boots on the ground in Iran. They are stretched too thin already with the surge. The only conceivable method is to employ massively sustained air strikes. Think Israeli air strikes against Iraq's nuclear facilities and the intro to the Gulf War of the '90s. All air and only air on military and nuclear targets. Nukes are not a offensive option. Will Russia or China step in with a preemptive warning. Will they retaliate if a strike were made? Will the cost of oil will double or triple again? One thing for sure, al Quida recruitment will explode exponentially.
Brakes are important. Congress must rescind the war powers given the President immediately and restore their Constitutional rights and responsibilities.
The way forward on this illegal Iran invasion stuff isn't to paly Congress' game, but to put proecutions on the table: Directly targeting Members of Congress for being complicit with known war crimes planning in Iran.
Votes are irrelevant to the Congress. Jail time might awaken them. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. Go ahead an call Congress: Tell them you're calling your State AGs to pass indictments against US Govt officials for wagingn illegal warfare and committing war crimes. The next step is to go after the legal counsel for Members of Congress, have them put under investigation, and also prosecuted for not removing themselves from illegal war crimes planning in the Congress.
Court action, grand jury reviews, and war crimes trials is the only thing that appears to be something that mike awaken this Congress to its Geneva obligations in re Iran. Lets get the Grand Juries going.
Why not just go ahead and attack Iran, W, you ignorant fool. Just wait and see what they will as a retaliatory attack...oh, let's see, perhaps launch missile strikes at Baghdad and mainly the Green zone. Yeah pretty much any place where American soldiers will be...and those 'pesky' Iraqi civilians you really dont care about, W, theyll just get maybe 'hurt' or something...but you and those war criminal neocons dont care about collateral damage...just attack Iran and who cares about the consequences...such wonderful human beings...sickening...
Help @ 63:
A bill doesn't have to be "brought" to the floor to "kill" the funding. The committee chairs have the power to zero-out funding. Murtha did this when he was upset at the DoD Liaision; GOP was then forced to pass an Amendment to add money back.
Today, with Iran invasion funding, the committee Chairs in the HASC and SASC could zero-out funding; and require the GOP to pass an Amendment to add money back.
Also, what can be done is the House and Senate -- before the bill is introduced to either chamber -- ensure the bills match; this would make it meaningless to require a conference committee. Thus, the GOP could not "block" a conference Committee. This would by pass the 2/3 vote required in the Senate.
To answer your questions: There is no "vote" required to 'kill" a bill if the chairs agree to zero-out funding. A "threat" of a Presidential veto -- of a bill that has no money -- still leaves him with no money.
This is not an issue of who "approves" the funding; but whether, despite the power to zero-out funding, the Speaker and DNC put the burden on the GOP to pass Amendments to add money back. The DNC and Speaker in the House appear to not realize the power they have.
IF funding bill is brought to the floor, someone help me as to what it takes to
disapprove/scrap.. Funding initiates in the House..: It can be killed in Committee: The Chair can refuse to let the funding bill come to a vote; or they can zero-out the funding to force the GOP to add money back.
U.S. House has 435 Reps…231 Dems and 204 Repigs.
This question incorrectly assumes that funding will always start flowing, and can only be stopped. This is not true: Funds can only start flowing if the DNC Chairs agree to fund illegal warfare in Iran: "What number of votes in the House would it take to disapprove?" A simple majority.
This assumes that the Chairs, despite "opposition" to illegal warfare, refuse to zero-out funds, and still approve funding and let the bill leave committee. Yet, if the Chairs release the bill for a full floor vote, they're complicit with illegal warfare funding. That is actionable under Geneva; and legislative immunity can be stripped when it is abused, as is the case here.
This question pre-supposes the Chairs do not block illegal funding for unlawful warfare in Iran: "If funding disapproved in House, how many votes in the Senate would it take
to uphold such “disapproval”?..i.e, simple majority or some percentage."
If the Senate falls into the trap of "believing" that it needs a "conference committee," then the "only" way to "kill" the bill is to have 2/3: Until the Senate "blocks a conference committee" the bill will get funded. It only takes a majority to pass a bill. However, based on the above discussion, recall that the 2/3 vote to "kill" a bill is meaningless if the House and Senate Chairs agree to refuse to let the bill out of committee.
Many thanks for your input...really appreciate. Seems simple enough to me...House
and Senate Chairs should agree to refuse to let the $50Billion funding bill out of
Committee...but wanna bet they have the balls to do so?
short sharp shock @ 66:
It makes sense that "there are not enough troops to conduct land operations", but that isn't stopping this crew of war criminals in EOP. Special forces have penetrated Iranian territory. Again, you're making sense; but those who are "planning" this are reckless. It is foreseeable that ground troops are required to stabilize Iran: But this assumes that Iran implodes. Not likely.
short sharp shock @ 66:
Just because something is "only possible" by air doesn't mean that it will succeed. Iraq only had one facility when Israel attacked. Again, Iran is lawfully allowed to do what is it doing in Iraq and at home: Use military force to defend itself. The US is in the error.
The problem the US has: If it claims that the targets it is hitting in Iran are "imminent threats," why hasn't this "list' been provided to the IAEA for inspection? Because these targets are not imminent threats, and the IAEA cannot find evidence of Iranians doing things that are illegal.
short sharp shock @ 66:
Baloney. Nukes are offensive.
short sharp shock @ 66:
No, Russia and China have well communicated they are not happy with the US illegal war crimes. No "warning" is required: They may lawfully interdict US Naval Forces off the coast of Taiwan, Cuba, and worldwide.
short sharp shock @ 66:
Possible. Their strategy may be to dilute US Naval power by bogging down relief convoys in the Caribbean, Pacific, and Atlantic.
short sharp shock @ 66:
The costs have been underestimated. Congress has no basis to "review" the non-sense data it has been provided. The cost estimates are wishful thinking, designed to fit into neat boxes, not reality.
short sharp shock @ 66:
You said it, not me.
short sharp shock @ 66:
What Congress "must" do and what it does is not intersecting. They've refused to bring perjury charges against Miers/Bolton; little prospect they'll do anything about war crimes. The President should be impeached, but they're not doing that. Congress is complicit with war crimes planning and funding. They need to be prosecuted.
What else can we do to spread the word and get people to call? John Please do move this post to the top it is important and the comments has a lot of good info...please keep us update...thanks...
Congress has more than power, it has a duty to block funding used for illegal things. All notes related to approrpiations for this illegal Iran invasion are admissable for a war crimes trial: against individual Members of Congress for refusing to shut down funding for illegal war crimes against Iran.
Doggiebobo @ 69:
Yes, the House and Senate Chairs on the respective committee have the power to block all funding. They could also attack any funding to riders which would "correct" the problems of this President: Linking funding with restoration of Habeas, etc. But this Congress refuses to link "things the President wants" with "amendments to make the President comply with the law."
Congress could also shut down funding for the programs used to implement illegal warfare. Congress refuses. Thus, Members of Congress -- individually -- are complicit with war crimes.
We have more of the same 'failure of imagination' that was the excuse of the day in re 9-11; now, it's a problem with the Congressional oversight of a war criminal in the Oval Office. No excuses. They have an oath. Their job is to not have any "mental reservation": But by funding this illegal warfare in Iran, they show they do have a mental reservation: They are refusing to confront the President for Geneva violations; and still rubber stamping legislation/nominations despite their supposed "concern" with the "rule of law." They're reckless and need to be investigated by grand juries and prosecuted for war crimes. All 535 of them.
Time for the legal and financial leadership in the US to wakeup: There is no statute of limitations for war crimes.
enigma4ever @ 71:
You asked "what else can be done": Let people know there are other options on the table which Congress has no power to stop: State level action to defend the Constitution, assert the rule of law, and enforce the Geneva conventions. Encourage your friends to organize to support the following action, and remind Members of Congress these options are on the table, being worked, and not constrained by any statute of limitations.
1. Grand Juries At State Level Can Be Empaneled
Contact the citizens of NM and OK -- they have the power today to sign petitions calling for grand juries in their states to be empaneled to review these issues.
2. Member of Congress Staff Counsel Can Be Prosecuted
Legal counsel with EOP and Congress can be put under investigation and disbarred for being complicit with this illegal war crimes planning. Find the names of all Members of Congress who are attorneys; then contact their state attorney disciplinary boards; and call for the State officials in those states to conduct ethics reviews in re war crimes, and illegal use of government services and personnel to implement war crimes. The gaol will be to disbar Members of Congress for failing to fully assert their oath and defend the Constitution/Geneva.
3. Contracting Officials Can Be Prosecuted
Contracting officers have an oath to the US Constitution; and may not use their signature to approve illegal contracts. You can call the contracting associations in your states to identify which corporations are providing illegal support to the President; and illegally transferring state assets to implement war crimes. These people can be prosecuted at the state level.
4. State AGs Can Be Prosecuted
State attorney generals, who have a duty to enforce the law and US Constitution, can be prosecuted if they refuse to indict US government officials who are denying your State its guarantee to an enforcement mechanism. The goal is to make the State AGs choose: Between illegal warfare and doing nothing; or taking action to enforce Geneva against Members of Congress and the President. If they refuse, they too can be prosecuted. Grand Juries at the state level can lead the way.
5. Boards of Directors Can Be Prosecuted
State AGs can revoke the power and authority of corporations to do business when they support illegal warfare. The citizens of the state, through grand juries, can indict corporate officers who support illegal warfare.
No one is able or willing to stop him.
Reid/Pelosi will issue a harsh statement. And that will be all.
abarts @ 74:
If no one will stop them, then admit it: the us is no longer soverign and incapable of acting like a civilized nation.
Is this what you are saying? If it is, then we have a larger problem on our hands: What else will be done to create a smokescreen from war crimes; and what else will be done to destroy evidence related to Geneva violations?
[...] crooks and liars- action alert on IRAN!!!!! [...]
There is a solution which can compel Congress to pay attention right now to your concerns on Iran.
abarts @ 74:
If the States are interested in defending the constitution and ending illegal warfare, there is something they can do. They are permitted under the House rules to do something, which will force the Speaker to pay attention, and stop everything else.
Is this what you want? If you want all discussions and funding for Iran to be put on hold, you have to ask whether you want this to happen. If you want this, you have to ask. If you ask, and you get an answer, you have to then put that solution into effect to its logical conclusion.
There is a simple way to do this. Do you want to know how? If you do, then you have to be willing to take this all the way, and lawfully punish all those who get in the way of this. There is a legal way to do this.
Are you asking how to do this right now? It can be done. You're going to have to decide if you're serious, and really willing to do what is required. Do you want to know what can be done?
Sign up at stopiranwar.com NOW.
John-
In reference to your National Review link (read this madness).
It's not completely mad. At least Leeder is advocating popular revolution, not war.
Also, he points out that the Saudis are funding terrorists, and seems to be quite pro-union.
Although, he does take credit for overthrowing the Soviet Empire, and makes absurd statements like “Most people…do not realize that, for nearly thirty years, the Iranians continuously attacked us, and, aside from some harsh rhetoric from time to time, we never responded.”
Mad? Maybe. Deluded? Certainly.
Patthemokey @ 58:
Not sure what you mean by that comment, but if you think AIPAC, the Israeli lobby, one of the strongest on the Hill, isn't putting major pressure on our government to support their proxy war with Iraq and hopefully Iran, maybe YOU need a lobotomy as do all those who are afraid they'll be accused of being biggots or anti-semetic. I am half Jewish by birth and many progressive Jews are not in support of Israel's stranglehold on U.S. foreign policy (if there is one) in the middle-east. Jesus, (no pun intended), wake up.
Help @ 77:
Ok, you're certainly a lot of Help ;) and giving a lot of it...what's your sources/background? (not being snarky)
enigma4ever @ 71:
I will not let up on this....
bob @ 79:
I could have picked many of his writings. If you need more proof, just dig into the NRO. Or google his name...I've read so much of his garbage that it all seems delusional to me...
He won't be stopped. I'm beginning to believe that even if impeachment proceedings are implemented that it would only speed the process of his starting a war with Iran. He just doesn't think like a normal person.
Pete @ 7:
UHHHH
As Kucinich says: Not another dime for this illegal war!!!
I think at this point any politician who wants to justify giving Bush more money is high as a kite
one thing that is certain
If the House moves to impeach Bush, he will attack Iran the next day, count on it.
This is - by far - the sleaziest administration since Nixon.
war gives the mouth-breathers lives meaning. They chant "national greatness" as GIs families browse for limbs and caskets
dadams @ 41:
Yes. All of this talk about whether he is "dumb enough" to bomb Iran is irrelevant. He is CRAZY enough. Crazy trumps smart everytime, and he's not even smart.
From what I understand, Pelosi and the democrats gave Bush the green light when they deliberately removed provisions from a bill requiring Congressional approval for an attack on Iran.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=174804
Report: Israel spots nuclear installations in Syria
Washington official says Israeli surveillance shows possible Syrian nuclear installation stocked by North Korea, Israeli Arab newspaper claims target of alleged raid last week was Syrian missile base financed by Iran
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3448829,00.html
[...] Sep 12th, 2007 by keithwerner Arthur says you should just do it, before we massively bomb Iran. The number for the Capital switchboard is (202) 225-3121. (via Crooks and Liars) [...]
I hope they wait until after hurricane season to attack Iran. We may need the gasoline for evacuations.
All the determined efforts to keep our troops in Iraq makes sense when you consider a possible eminent attack in the making against Iran. I do not doubt for one minute that this administration has had this as a plan for years. Our military is stretched very thin, and there surely would be reprisals against us in Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout the region. I believe our military has done more than should have been asked of them, and to further inflame the region is completely asinine. Perhaps some of the hawks should suit up in military gear and fight alongside our troops on the ground for an extended stay of duty...oh, wait...our troops would not want that; they would be too dangerous to have in the killing fields as they would be running backwards.
Money @ 4:
looks like no one's biting... what are you proposing?
i'll forward the notion that such an action may actually push individuals to act in ways that may not necessarily be construed as either positive or legal simply out of fear and/or anger and/or a need to do what congress or the public at large seems unwilling to do...
these blogs are wonderful forums for expression but they are "relatively invisible" when contrasted against highly visible actions such as protests and marches or even actions like the "General Betray Us" ad... imho... more of these are needed to incite visible public action.... people need to voice their opinions with sound, visuals, and the solidarity of a massive physical presence beyond the silent venting which occurs online...
for example, if the democratic party is being viewed as spineless, then it is because they are fearing the wrong people... if enough constituents parked themselves at their doorstep shouting in anger, they would learn greater fear from the right people... and hopefully enough to spur them into action against those they currently respond to with enabling behavior... currently, they are no different than the battered wife who fears leaving her alcoholic husband because she fears being alone when she should instead fear for her life...
venting online serves its purpose, but those in leadership positions are clearly not as up to date or as comfortable with these technologies and so they don't respond as viscerally as they would and as politicians have in the past with demonstrations... the "mainstream" still relies on "older paradigms" to form "a public opinion"... and "it has learned to fear" the consequences of online activities only after highly visible events such as the "macaca moment" has real world impact... these online activities may be enough to ultimately change the outcome of an election, they are not enough to stop a government in its tracks...
without visibly massive public demonstration, impeachment will never make its rightful way onto any table... (and so i think many posters should simply chalk up war crimes trials as wishful thinking that will never become reality) and the next government will inherit the same destructive precedents set by this corrupt administration... and if anyone thinks the next government will act swiftly to correct these wrongs, then they know not the meaning of "power corrupts"...
We all know that the neo-cons want to invade Iran. John Amato (and all at C&L), it would be a great service for your loyal readers if you could start to help us understand the WHY behind their desires.
Even if it is something that is so obvious that even a moron should be able to "connect the dots" (sorry about using a bushism), it would be a great help to hear their true motivations articulated.
Thanks for your reporting!
[...] Aside from that, serious experts in the field of international diplomacy have no mention of the Iraqis opinions on the U.S. occupation of Iraq. After all, Iraqis can’t even keep the electricity running, so why should their opinion count? Plus, there’s an occupation of Iran to plan. [...]
The wire tap wand will provide all the necessary funding to continue the war. Great tool indeed.
Contacting Capital Hill is not going to do any good if there is not national media attention focused upon this impending disaster. Congress is either too complicit or too gutless/ lost in moral cowardice to do the right thing. I would suggest first contacting Keith Olberman to speak about it and call it as he sees it. Congress will not act unless they are shamed into acting. He's about the only public resource available for providing the shame.
Call your representative today at the Capitol switchboard: (202) 225-3121.
Say it with a NO! IRAN WAR t-shirt
Yes American troops will get hit in the Gulf and in Iraq but the main targets for Iran will be:
Abquaiq 6 million barrels a day processed here
Ras Tanura 3 million barrels transported through here
Straight of Harmouz 17 million barrels pass through a day
Ghawar a large field producing 4-6 million barrels a day
If any one of these sights is hit it will triple the price of oil. This will cripple the world economy.
Bush knows this and Cheney knew this in the eighties.
This is their end game. They want terrorist attacks to happen in the U.S. They want a massive panic. They know that the Stock Market will drop and that millions of people will lose their jobs. They want to declare marshall law and shut down the internet. THEY ARE NOT CRAZY! They are just evil men who are willing to make the big gamble for the big pay off: ABSOLUTE POWER. People need to stop being naive and ask themselves: What would Hitler do? And that is what these neoconservatives are planning to do.
Login or Register to post comments.