Democrats seek to protect Iran's nukes against a Bush ordered strike

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Democratic leaders in Congress lobbed a warning shot Friday at the White House not to launch an attack against Iran without first seeking approval from lawmakers.

"The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the National Press Club.

The administration has accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs and contributing technology and bomb-making materials for insurgents to use against U.S. and Iraqi security forces.

President Bush said last week the U.S. will "seek out and destroy" networks providing that support. While top administration officials have said they have no plans to attack Iran itself, they have declined to rule it out.

This week, the administration sent another aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf _ the second to deploy in the region. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the buildup was intended to impress on Iran that the four-year war in Iraq has not made America vulnerable. The U.S. is also deploying anti-missile Patriot missiles in the region.

The U.S. has accused Tehran of trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday that Iran would not back down over its nuclear program, which Tehran says is being developed only to produce energy.

Reid made the comments as he and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., spoke to the National Press Club on Democrats' view of the state of the union four days before Bush addresses Congress and the nation. His remarks were the latest Democratic display of concern about the possibility of military action in Iran and Bush's power to launch it.

Last week, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., challenged the president's ability to make such a move. In a letter to Bush, Biden asked the president to explain whether the administration believes it could attack Iran or Syria "without the authorization of Congress, which does not now exist."

Meanwhile, Lee Hamilton, the Democratic co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Friday that the U.S. must try to engage Iran and Syria in a constructive dialogue on Iraq because of the countries' influence in the conflict.

The Bush administration, and several members of Congress, say they oppose talks with Iran and Syria because of their terrorist connections. Bringing the two countries into regional talks aimed at reducing violence in Iraq was one of the study group's recommendations.

"Do we have so little confidence in the diplomats of the United States that we're not willing to let them talk with somebody we disagree with?" Hamilton asked.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Grenada, Panama, Libya, Bay of Pigs...that's right, all those attacks were unconstitutional according to the new Congress.

Looks like this Congress is trying to outlaw the element of surprise from the US Military.

Is Hillary and Barack going to give the Democratic Response to Bush’s Presidential Address to the Nation on the night he orders the US Navy and Air Force to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability…followed by McCain speaking in front of the White House supporting the attack on Iran?

Talk about the Dems snatching political defeat from the mouth of victory.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

oh, BTW, this just in...

WASHINGTON — The United States has let its Gulf Arab allies know that an attack on Iran could take place in 2007. Diplomatic sources said U.S. Central Command and the U.S. intelligence community have conducted discussions with Gulf Cooperation Council states. "There has not been a U.S. commitment, but the discussions have been interpreted as an expression of intent," a ource said. So far, the U.S. Navy has sent two strike carrier groups to the Gulf. The source said the naval build-up would be completed by February as additional PAC-3 systems arrive in GCC states.

http://www.geostrategy-direct.com/geostrategy%2Ddirect/

---

i wonder if the F-22s will see action if Bush orders a strike

[bullmoose88]

Realistically, what can Harry Reid do?

Bush could (presumably would) order an air/tomahawk strike without even congressional approval.

I mean...if he takes out Iranian weapons...whats Reid/Pelosi gonna do/say? "You overstepped your authority and took out some WMDs...we're uhh...uhh gonna make you pay."

(This presumes of course that Bush's targets are uhh...actually real.)

[MasterJedi]

Bush can attack and make war on any country in the world for 90 days, after that he needs Congress to approve of it and continued funding.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Realistically, what can Harry Reid do?

(after the bombing)…

Pelosi: Well, I am telling you, Mr. President, I don't want any part of it.

Bush: Well, you are part of it!

Reid: It is a matter of the law!

Bush: The law?...The law?...What law?...Where's the law, Harry? 

McCain: You believe in democracy, don't you?

Reid: Yes, I do.

McCain: Well, then, we'll take a vote...I'II stand by the outcome of the vote...And so will you!

Bush: What do you say, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama?

Hillary:  Let’s bury it!  I don’t my commitment to anything binding getting around.  Okay?  Okay?
 
McCain: It's up to you, Barack. It's all up to you, Barack.

Pelosi: Now just think what you're doin', Barack. For God's sake. You got a wife. You got a child. You're not involved in this. Think about your family, Barack. This may be the most important decision of your whole political life, Barack.

Obama: Yes!

Pelosi: There's no way we can change this.  There's no way we can change what happened to Iran. We gotta do the right thing. We must live with it for the rest of our political lives.

Obama: Right!...I'm with Bush.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I see a mass insurrection taking out the right in this naiton if bush is stupid enough to do an attack or do conscription.

[Padfoot]

If the US were to invade or attack Iran it would likely cause full scale war to errupt throughout the entire Middle East region.  Even if Iran does pose a seriously threat to national sevurity do you people really think that the US military can fight THREE wars at the same time and come out victorious?  Any talk of any US agression against Iran would have to come after Afghanistan and Iraq are stable enough to handle themselves.  Trying to invade and occupy three countries at thre same time is just ridiculous.  Unless you plan on somehow getting the Chinese to help us, there is no way we could handle all of this.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If the US were to invade or attack Iran it would likely cause full scale war to errupt throughout the entire Middle East region.  Even if Iran does pose a seriously threat to national sevurity do you people really think that the US military can fight THREE wars at the same time and come out victorious?  Any talk of any US agression against Iran would have to come after Afghanistan and Iraq are stable enough to handle themselves.  Trying to invade and occupy three countries at thre same time is just ridiculous.  Unless you plan on somehow getting the Chinese to help us, there is no way we could handle all of this.

whose talking about invading and occupying?  an attack on Iran would be largely a Navy and Air Force operation.

[JSojourner]

If the US were to invade or attack Iran it would likely cause full scale war to errupt throughout the entire Middle East region.  Even if Iran does pose a seriously threat to national sevurity do you people really think that the US military can fight THREE wars at the same time and come out victorious?  Any talk of any US agression against Iran would have to come after Afghanistan and Iraq are stable enough to handle themselves.  Trying to invade and occupy three countries at thre same time is just ridiculous.  Unless you plan on somehow getting the Chinese to help us, there is no way we could handle all of this.

whose talking about invading and occupying?  an attack on Iran would be largely a Navy and Air Force operation.

Yielding the same results as air strikes on Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan during the Clinton administration.

[Angel of Death]

Bush can attack and make war on any country in the world for 90 days, after that he needs Congress to approve of it and continued funding.

Did anyone bother to think this one through? Of course in the current climate after one invades a country it would become political suicide (i.e. not possible) to stop the war based on the whole support-the-troops claptrap BS.

[© tweed]

Attack on Iran = President Al Gore

[Smash255]

If the US were to invade or attack Iran it would likely cause full scale war to errupt throughout the entire Middle East region.  Even if Iran does pose a seriously threat to national sevurity do you people really think that the US military can fight THREE wars at the same time and come out victorious?  Any talk of any US agression against Iran would have to come after Afghanistan and Iraq are stable enough to handle themselves.  Trying to invade and occupy three countries at thre same time is just ridiculous.  Unless you plan on somehow getting the Chinese to help us, there is no way we could handle all of this.

whose talking about invading and occupying?  an attack on Iran would be largely a Navy and Air Force operation.

and if that were to happen you don't think lets say Iran would invade Iraq to try and kill as many Americans as they can or try to launch anything over here now would you......

[Padfoot]

If the US were to invade or attack Iran it would likely cause full scale war to errupt throughout the entire Middle East region.  Even if Iran does pose a seriously threat to national sevurity do you people really think that the US military can fight THREE wars at the same time and come out victorious?  Any talk of any US agression against Iran would have to come after Afghanistan and Iraq are stable enough to handle themselves.  Trying to invade and occupy three countries at thre same time is just ridiculous.  Unless you plan on somehow getting the Chinese to help us, there is no way we could handle all of this.

whose talking about invading and occupying?  an attack on Iran would be largely a Navy and Air Force operation.

And you think that Iran is just going to sit back and take that?  How naive.  After our little strike they wouldn't just be covertly killing us in Iraq.  It would be a full scale invasion into that country in order to attack us directly.  They might even send some missles into Israel while they're at it and convinve their little lapdogs Syria and Hezbollah to stir up some sh**t there.

If you think for one second that an attack on Iran comes without some serious retaliatory consequences you are sorely mistaken.  Given our current situation that kind of attack would plunge the entire region into choas and create WWIII in the Middle East.  Attacking Iran is the worst idea ever. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And you think that Iran is just going to sit back and take that?  How naive.  After our little strike they wouldn't just be covertly killing us in Iraq.  It would be a full scale invasion into that country in order to attack us directly.  They might even send some missles into Israel while they're at it and convinve their little lapdogs Syria and Hezbollah to stir up some sh**t there.

If you think for one second that an attack on Iran comes without some serious retaliatory consequences you are sorely mistaken.  Given our current situation that kind of attack would plunge the entire region into choas and create WWIII in the Middle East.  Attacking Iran is the worst idea ever. 

1) I never advocated a "little strike" on Iran.
2) With Iran defanged, there is really little need for US troops in Iraq except in isolated bases.  Split Iraq into three countries after destroying the Iranian nuclear production, the Iranian air force, and the Iranian navy, and Iranian silkworm missiles.
3) I never stated an attack on Iran would be consequence free, I simply stated it is better to face them now than face them later
4) Iran can not move their ground troops into Iraq with Americans having established air superiority.  They would be sitting ducks.
5) The surest way to promote regional chaos and WWIII is to allow Iran to continue on its present course.
6) Israel can deal with Syria and Hezbollah.  Syria is an easy target situated in open space.  Hezbollah would be harder to deal with but still very doable without resupply from Iran and Syria.
7)  Your attitude demonstrates that you are already defeated. 

[Gabu]

Yeah, I'm sure that the Democrats are saying this because they want to protect Iran.  They think that the United States is such a meanhead and is picking on poor Iran.  It's not as if there's any other reason to oppose attacking Iran right now.

[Michael Z]

3) I never stated an attack on Iran would be consequence free, I simply stated it is better to face them now than face them later

Curtis LeMay said EXACTLY the same thing about the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We were still able to avoid war.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

3) I never stated an attack on Iran would be consequence free, I simply stated it is better to face them now than face them later

Curtis LeMay said EXACTLY the same thing about the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We were still able to avoid war.

London (BBC) - The British Prime Minister has been hailed as bringing "peace to Europe" after signing a non-aggression pact with Germany.

PM Neville Chamberlain arrived back in the UK today, holding an agreement signed by Adolf Hitler which stated the German leader's desire never to go to war with Britain again.

The two men met at the Munich conference between Britain, Germany, Italy and France yesterday, convened to decide the future of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland.

Mr Chamberlain declared the accord with the Germans signalled "peace for our time", after he had read it to a jubilant crowd gathered at Heston airport in west London.

The German leader stated in the agreement: "We are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Report: Gulf states would prefer U.S. strike to a nuclear Iran

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

ABU DHABI — The Persian Gulf states would support a U.S. strike to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program.

A report by the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center asserted that the six Arab states would not tolerate a nuclear Iran. The report said the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) sees a coming conflict between the U.S. and Iran as a "castrophe".
 
"Teheran has to finally realize that if push comes to shove, if the choice is between an Iranian nuclear bomb and a U.S. military strike, then the Arab Gulf states have no choice but to quietly support the U.S.," the report, authored by international studies director Christian Koch, said.
Iran and the United States are moving rapidly toward a conflict, the report said. GRC cited the deployment of two aircraft carrier groups as well as PAC-3 missile defense batteries in the Gulf.

GRC, which on Tuesday held a roundtable that included U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, said Iran has rejected negotiations with the Gulf Arab states. The report cited Iran's military buildup in the Gulf and its refusal to negotiate the seizure of two islets from the United Arab Emirates.

"Living under the shadow of Iranian nuclear bomb is unacceptable," the report said. "If Iran wants to limit U.S. influence, it should begin to engage with its GCC neighbors as true partners and provide them with necessary assurances."

Entitled "Abdicating Responsibility: Iran and U.S. Driving Gulf Region to Another Conflict," the report said GCC states have been unhappy over the U.S. deployment in the Gulf. GRC warned of a military conflict and insurgency similar to that in Iraq.

"Allowing events to run their present course in the Gulf will have devastating consequences not only for the region but for the international community as a whole," the report said.

"Current developments are not encouraging, and time short to prevent what is bound to be a catastrophe," the report said. "Current attempts at trying to woo the Gulf Cooperation Council states to support either of the causes are nothing more than self-serving mechanisms."
 
In late 2006, the GCC approved a plan to study the feasibility of a nuclear program. GCC representatives plan to begin talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency over the next few weeks.

"There are preparations underway for meetings in the coming weeks with officials from the IAEA about the GCC nuclear program," GCC secretary-general Abdul Rahman Al Attiya said.

For its part, GRC said Iran has refused to provide GCC states with assurances regarding its role in the region. The report said Iran has sought to intimidate its Gulf Arab neighbors by threatening to send suicide bombers and block the Straits of Hormuz.

"It is little wonder then that the Arab Gulf states continue to request and depend on U.S. protection given that 'export of the revolution' represents a real threat to their existence," the report said.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/07/front2454124.073611111.html

[Serenity Now]

3) I never stated an attack on Iran would be consequence free, I simply stated it is better to face them now than face them later

Curtis LeMay said EXACTLY the same thing about the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We were still able to avoid war.

London (BBC) - The British Prime Minister has been hailed as bringing "peace to Europe" after signing a non-aggression pact with Germany.

PM Neville Chamberlain arrived back in the UK today, holding an agreement signed by Adolf Hitler which stated the German leader's desire never to go to war with Britain again.

The two men met at the Munich conference between Britain, Germany, Italy and France yesterday, convened to decide the future of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland.

Mr Chamberlain declared the accord with the Germans signalled "peace for our time", after he had read it to a jubilant crowd gathered at Heston airport in west London.

The German leader stated in the agreement: "We are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."

It's not comparable, it might be if Iran had already annexed a couple of other countries and gotten away with it..

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's not comparable, it might be if Iran had already annexed a couple of other countries and gotten away with it..

So, absolute direct comparisons are required?  in that case, there are no lessons to be learned from history since the same circumstances rarely if ever occur twice.

He is trying to usher in a new world order and has stated his intention to destroy both Israel and the US within two years and is well on his way in acquiring the weapons to do so.  And with attitudes such as yours, he has a very good chance of succeeding.

[Citizen James]

Ah, of course.  Just like we sat back and did nothing after 9/11, Iran would simply ignore a major attack and go on about their buisness.

But, as the some book says, we should beat our plowshares into swords, and our pruning hooks into spears - or something like that.  Fanatics like Bin Laden want a war of peoples.  He wants the middle east placed in a position where their only options are to turn to him or roll over and die.  What person in their right mind would want to help bin laden like that?

Progress was being made.  The moderates were winning out for social control.  But the nimrods in charge had to go about saber rattling and drive the people into the hands of the extremist - extremists and hate mongers thrive on fear and doubt.

After all, aren't the warmakers called 'sons of God' or somesuch?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But, as the some book says, we should beat our plowshares into swords, and our pruning hooks into spears - or something like that.

I have 2 questions about your religion which I feel are legitimate, in light of the fact you brought your religion into this discussion:

1) Would you yourself use deadly force to protect your family?

2) Why does your book have Jesus instructing his disciples to carry swords along for their personal protection?

[Michael Z]

3) I never stated an attack on Iran would be consequence free, I simply stated it is better to face them now than face them later

Curtis LeMay said EXACTLY the same thing about the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We were still able to avoid war.

London (BBC) - The British Prime Minister has been hailed as bringing "peace to Europe" after signing a non-aggression pact with Germany.

PM Neville Chamberlain arrived back in the UK today, holding an agreement signed by Adolf Hitler which stated the German leader's desire never to go to war with Britain again.

The two men met at the Munich conference between Britain, Germany, Italy and France yesterday, convened to decide the future of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland.

Mr Chamberlain declared the accord with the Germans signalled "peace for our time", after he had read it to a jubilant crowd gathered at Heston airport in west London.

The German leader stated in the agreement: "We are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."

Oh please dude, not that comparison again. Conservatives pulled the same stunt when we attacked Iraq and it turned out to be a load of baloney.