And that shouldn't stop more Representatives and Senators from reminding Bush publicly that he doesn't have the authority to wage covert action inside Iran or move preemptively without congressional briefings and approvals.
"We have all the legal authority we need..." Dickless "chain gang" Cheney in response to a question about illegal spying on American citizens.
That kind of says it all, doesn't it. The insolence, the impudence, the unmitigated hubris is astonishing.
Posted by oppressmenot at April 18, 2006 01:29 PMBadges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don't need badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabron and ching' tu madre!
Posted by snark at April 18, 2006 01:36 PMHoliday.
Posted by Christopher at April 18, 2006 01:52 PMI might be a little naive, but perhaps the Dems. are a bit rightfully incredulous at this particular point. Perhaps they do believe that given Bush's debacle and dismal public support in Iraq, they may not have to do or say anything just yet. Perhaps they also feel that saying anything right now would merely slap a "reactionist" or "obstruction" label on them by the Right Wing Noise Machine, one that might stick a little more than if they do so later. Just idle speculation on my part, but personally I'm not exactly on the red flag boat just yet.
Not just yet. However, I do admit that Bush is on the threshold marker with his sabre rattling rhetoric, where the other side of the marker is foward progression thru action. Maybe that point is already reached, and I'll concede that if it is, however it just hasn't risen to the rotten fish stage in the public eye just yet. I do think that if and when this occurs, you'll see more Dems. jumping down his throat, and with good reason.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at April 18, 2006 01:52 PMYup, those Dems will just jump right down his throat. Just like they stopped his illegal wiretaps, the illegal war against Iraq, the illegal outing of Plame, the Katrina abomination, the illegal abrogation of treaties, the illegal ...
Posted by m at April 18, 2006 02:00 PMI agree that the Dems need to get out on front on this one. However I think that they are in the same position as the Iranians are at the moment. No "Smoking Gun" as Colonel Gardner has said.
My friends from across the political spectrum simply do not believe that the administration would drop nuclear bombs on Iran. It is simply too crazy. I am sure that our elected officials are concerned that coming out too soon against something this far out would tarnish whatever credibility they have left.
Mr. Hersch has done us a huge favor by shedding some light onto the advance preparation for the attack, but we need more before we can blow the lid off of this thing. We need details. We need nonanonymous quotes from people in the know. We need a lot of things that the Pentagon is not going to willingly give up.
Of course the Pentagon wants to prepare for this in secrecy and I agree that congress will find out about this along with the rest of us, after the fact. Significant digging and reporting by the media or some other party really is our only way of busting this thing into be mainstream and shaming the powers that be into putting the brakes on.
I am not holding my breath.
Posted by Growth Factor at April 18, 2006 02:05 PM
I agree. Instead of stepping to the fore, they're letting a panicked Republican Party lead us into disaster.
Posted by Joseph at April 18, 2006 02:10 PMMy friends from across the political spectrum simply do not believe that the administration would drop nuclear bombs on Iran.
Ahhhhhh! Of course not. And when Bush orders a wave of conventional bombing against Iranian nuclear research facilities he will seem like the model of moderation.
Posted by snark at April 18, 2006 02:15 PMLetter to George Bush
Perhaps I’m getting bigheaded, but I want to write to George Bush.
“ Open letter to George Bush.
I’m just a comic and you are a great president at the head of a great and powerful nation. Furthermore, you are also a great friend of our former President of the Council with whom you have many points in common: the Atlantic vision in place of the pacific one, great riches, the exportation of democracy with or without weapons, the personalisation of politics.
Allow me, very humbly, to ask you for an account of your behaviour in relation to Italy and the Italians.
Prodi has won the elections. Heads of State of many nations and the President of the European Community have sent their congratulations to him.
You are almost the only one who hasn’t done this.
And, in this situation, our former President of the Council does not recognise the election result thanks to your support.
You continue to not recognise Prodi as the legitimate winner, elected in free elections.
They were elections managed by the Minister of the Interior as a member of the Government in power.
They were elections in which voting went on according to a liberticida (liberty killing) election law guided through Parliament by your friend and in this case, your voice as a defender of democracy has not been heard.
You are not showing yourself to be a friend of our country and you are probably not even acting in the interests of your country.
If you don’t recognise Prodi, why should Italians recognise you? I believe and hope that your behaviour is simply a temporary institutional distraction. If this is not the case, Italians should ask themselves a few questions.
Why should we allow American Military Bases to be in our country?
Why should we tolerate the presence of American atomic weapons at Ghedi Torre, Brescia and at Aviano, Pordenone?
Why should we allow CIA agents to move around our country as though they were visiting your great ranch in Texas?
Why should we provide finance to a country that at this moment is hostile to us by buying American products, eating in American chains, supporting American companies in Italy?
I’m sure the Italians will know how to find the answers.” grillobeppe
Vik (guerrilla radio)
italian blogger from Milan
If the Dems can't figure out how to position themselves as the peace party, why bother?
Posted by janinsanfran at April 18, 2006 02:28 PMVik of guerilla radio, what can we, as Americans, say about such outrageous behavior by our government?
First of all, failure to recognize is not an oversight, or caused by a distraction.
Our president is an extremist, irresponsible partisan clown. And our Secretary of State is a cowering lick-spittle, afraid to tell our Emperor what she thinks.
Not recognizing Prodi, and fueling irritation and justifiable anger among the new government and among progressive Italians at the very start of the new president's term, well that's just standard operating idiot procedure for this clueless administration.
Sorry, nothing we on the left can do about it.
Posted by euzoius at April 18, 2006 02:34 PMSteve, please keep pushing this. I am revolted by the congressional Dems. The only one speaking out in congress on this is ultra conservative Ron Paul. Crooks and Liars has a good link to his speech here:http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/18.html#a7953
Posted by Alan S. at April 18, 2006 02:37 PM"Criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government…. The maintenance of the right of criticism
in the long run will do the country… more good than it will do the enemy [who might draw comfort from it], and it will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur."
Senator Robert A. Taft, two weeks after Pearl Harbor,
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
- Theodore Roosevelt
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
GEORGE ORWELL
"Politics and the English Language"
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
James Madison “Federalist No. 47"
"Naturally, the common people don't want war. But, after all it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Herman Goering atNuremberg, 1946
Before the current crop of monsters in the White House were born, their ancestors were busy getting in on the gravy train of profits from the U.S. entry into WW1. There was a progressive Republican Senator from Wisconsin that fought against them with all he had. His name was Robert La Follette Sr. All of his quotes are still very applicable.
"Every nation has its war party. It is not the party of democracy. It is the party of autocracy. It seeks to dominate absolutely."
"In times of peace, the war party insists on making preparation for war. As soon as prepared for, it insists on making war."
"If there is no sufficient reason for war, the war party will make war on one pretext, then invent another…after the war is on."
"Before the war is ended, the war party assumes the divine right to denounce and silence all opposition to war as unpatriotic and cowardly."
"Let no man think we can deny civil liberty to others and retain it for ourselves. When zealous agents of the Government arrest suspected "radicals" without warrant, hold them without prompt trial, deny them access to counsel and admission of bail….we have shorn the Bill of Rights of its sanctity…"
Robert M. La Follette, Sr.
(1855-1925) U.S. Senator (R-Wis) 1906-1925
Thanks to Tom Cleaver and Jim B., posters on the Carpetbagger Report
Posted by oppressmenot at April 18, 2006 02:49 PMI heard somebody say that the Democrat strategy is to stay out of the limelight. They don't need to have any plans for anything. The public isn't happy with Bush, and the Democrats don't want to step in the spotlight and give the GOP something to hammer them with.
I doubt we'll hear any plans or strategies from the Democrats about anything between now and November.
Just look at the one Democrat who is bucking the trend, Phil Angelides. He's out there talking about hiking taxes, and giving the GOP something to whack him with.
Posted by muckdog at April 18, 2006 03:56 PMIf Dennis Kucinich looked more like George Clooney,
We might not be dealing with Bush,(who is loony).
DiFi has spoken out against any attack on Iran.
Posted by kaleidescope at April 18, 2006 04:31 PMFrankly, I have trouble blaming them. If they come out and start ruling out an attack on Iran—an attack for which there are no plans "on Bush's desk," mind you—they come across as pacifists, which does nobody any good.
The strongest line anyone can viably take right now is "I haven't seen anything yet that would warrant starting another war, particularly under this Commander-in-Chief."
Posted by dj moonbat at April 18, 2006 04:40 PMInteresting question: How should the nation, Congress, and Dems respond if Bush launches a pre-emptive bombing strike against Iran, including nukes, without requesting authorization from Congress?
I think this is what they intend to do. 'Existing authority', 'protecting the country from terror' and all that.
Posted by JimPortlandOR at April 18, 2006 04:47 PMWhere's The Democratic Leadership On Iran?
The same place it has been on any other major issue-there has not been any.
No, muck there is one but it won't be released until after Labor Day.
Muck, I guess you will be voting to continue the incompetence. Haven't had enough yet have you?
Posted by Ga6thDem at April 18, 2006 05:26 PMAnyone notice that the Chinese caused the dollar to take a big hit in the Asian markets the other day? I suspect they are just getting warmed up! If the Democrats don't get busy soon, there won't be a country left for them to represent. It will be sold at the foreclosure and the Great Experiment will be ended.
Parlez vous Mandarinski?
Posted by pessimist at April 18, 2006 05:51 PMQuestion for Vik: aren't there also atomic weapons at La Maddalena?
Posted by Brian Boru at April 18, 2006 08:39 PMmight the democrats in the congress have decided that it makes perfect sense to let the republicans make their positions clear to the voters
without democatic translation?
that is precisely what i would be doing if i were a congressional leader.
any democratic comment is
a republican opportunity
to draw attention away from republican misconduct and failure to govern.
Posted by orionATL at April 18, 2006 09:03 PMWhere's the Democratic leadership? Well, the first mistake in that statement is assuming that there is leadership when there is not.
Posted by Judith at April 19, 2006 06:19 AM"Perhaps they do believe that given Bush's debacle and dismal public support in Iraq, they may not have to do or say anything just yet."
MisterOpus1, I would like to believe that. However, just when are they going to say something? When the Decider-in-Chief decides to bomb Iran? When the elections are called off and martial law is declared? When the fascists start knocking on our doors? When it is too late? Just when do they plan to become the opposition party and speak out? Good question.
Do the Democrats have a policy on Iran other than a desire that Congress approve any military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities?
That seems kind of pointless because President Bush sought and recieved Congressional authority for both Afghanistan and Iraq. Where has he used military force without Congressional authority? Answer: nowhere.
So the question is: What is the Democratic policy on Iran's drive to develop nuclear weapons? For the most part it seems to be, "What me worry?" If it's something else, let's hear it.
Posted by DBL at April 19, 2006 08:35 AMDo the Democrats have a policy on Iran other than a desire that Congress approve any military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities?
That seems kind of pointless because President Bush sought and recieved Congressional authority for both Afghanistan and Iraq. Where has he used military force without Congressional authority? Answer: nowhere.
So the question is: What is the Democratic policy on Iran's drive to develop nuclear weapons? For the most part it seems to be, "What me worry?" If it's something else, let's hear it.
Posted by DBL at April 19, 2006 08:35 AM
Dude, The Dems are not the party in power, in case you forgot. The Republican'ts are the one's now threatening thermonuclear war, after The Leaker-in -Chief refused to even fucking talk to the Iranians when they approached him about it after 9/11. Now, the Dipshit in the WH tells the Iranians to stop developing nuclear energy, which is their right and in accordance with the non-proliferation treaty, or else he will attack them with nuclear bombs. What choice does this leave Tehran? "Yes,sir Mr Bush, anything you say." Right! No way. He pushes them into a corner, then complains that they push back. What the hell do you expect the Dems to do, except look at the fool and conclude that he is insane. If the Dems had any power, they might do something really crazy, like talk, agree, negotiate, monitor, etc., but they don't. Your drunken, deranged, school boy has it all, hence his immature, pretentious displays and verbal in-your-face whining in which he declares, "I'm the decider, I get to decide". He forgot to say "I know you are, but what am I?" Wuss.
BTW, also, in case you forgot, when your pal Bush came into office, N. Korea had no nukes, now they have them. Yes, the party that knows how to handle homeland security. And where is Osama? Bush, Rumsfeld and Co. let hom get away at Tora Bora. And where is the port security? Oh yea, Shrub wanted to sell it to a UAE company, when the UAE can be directly linked through the hijacking murderers of 9/11. How about ship cargo inspection? Or plane cargo inspection? Nope, no real changes in policy or procedure there under the Bushit Admin. Sounds to me like your boy Bushit is the "What me worry" guy. In fact, he even looks like Alfred E. Newman incarnate, which ought to give you a clue.
Posted by oppressmenot at April 19, 2006 09:47 AMoppressmenot: I guess the answer is that the Democrats don't have an Iran policy.
That's too bad, because a strong two-party system is in the country's best interest. But how are you ever going to convince anyone to vote for you - aside from self-identified Democrats - if you don't offer them an alternative?
Posted by DBL at April 19, 2006 12:56 PMDbl,
If you sincerely want to see what the Dems have to offer, go to Democrats.com., just for starters. You will find plenty. The policy is a strange concept to most Rethuglickers, it's called 'diplomacy'.
Or stick with your party and keep blowing up countries with white phosphorous and depleted uranium and napalm, killing and maiming thousands of innocent people and causing horrific birth defects for generations, bankrupting our nation, bilking our seniors out of millions to subsidise the pharm industry, illegally spying on American citizens, torturing, and pissing all over the Constitution by your Leaker-in-Chief.
Posted by oppressmenot at April 19, 2006 02:02 PM