Brzezinski: Air Strike on Iran Could ‘Merit the Impeachment of the President’
Brzezinski: Air Strike on Iran Could ‘Merit the Impeachment of the President’
In an op-ed titled “Do Not Attack Iran,” former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski today makes the case against launching an air strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. First on his list:
In the absence of an imminent threat (with the Iranians at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without formal Congressional declaration, it would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the President.
Most strikingly, Brzezinski wonders whether the Bush administration’s current strategy is actually designed to “deliberately encourag[e] greater Iranian intransigence” and undercut chances of reaching a diplomatic solution:
How else to explain the current U.S. “negotiating” stance: the United States is refusing to participate in the on-going negotiations with Iran but insists on dealing only through proxies. That stands in sharp contrast with the simultaneous negotiations with North Korea, in which the United States is actively engaged.
At the same time, the United States is allocating funds for the destabilization of the Iranian regime and is reportedly injecting Special Forces teams into Iran to stir up non-Iranian ethnic minorities in order to fragment the Iranian state (in the name of democratization!).
Brzezinski is the latest in a long line of national security experts and others advising against a military strike in Iran. (Read our full list HERE.) But Brzezinski also makes a strong proactive case on Iran, calling for the Bush administration to “sober up, to think strategically, with a historic perspective and with America’s national interest primarily in mind.” Read his full op-ed.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Sad that Brzezinski isn’t The Decider … look for airstrikes in October!
April 25th, 2006 at 2:03 pmand the rest of the story
First, in the absence of an imminent threat (and the Iranians are at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without a formal congressional declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).
http://www.latimes.com/ news/ opinion/ commentary/ la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
April 25th, 2006 at 2:04 pmCould? Not would?
I’m speechless.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:05 pmSecond, likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the United States in regional violence for a decade or more. Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.
Third, oil prices would climb steeply, especially if the Iranians were to cut their production or seek to disrupt the flow of oil from the nearby Saudi oil fields. The world economy would be severely affected, and the United States would be blamed for it. Note that oil prices have already shot above $70 per barrel, in part because of fears of a U.S.-Iran clash.
Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become an even more likely target of terrorism while reinforcing global suspicions that U.S. support for Israel is in itself a major cause of the rise of Islamic terrorism. The United States would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:05 pmThis is the kind of “in your face bitch” arguments we need to be making!
April 25th, 2006 at 2:06 pmany Nuclear strike would have the world up in arms against America when the images of charcoled women and children start to appear on tv - Using weapons of mass destruction to nuke a country with no proof of Iran seeking a bomb - — read the IAEA website for their opinion on Iran - very different to what you americans read on the net and in the papers
http://www.iaea.org/
April 25th, 2006 at 2:12 pmAnd who’s to say that N. Korea wouldn’t decide to join in? Let’s see…Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea. U.S. involvement on 4 fronts. Yep…we can handle it!
April 25th, 2006 at 2:15 pm#3 - Interesting you would say that, Salma, because here’s the direct quote from the article:
If undertaken without formal Congressional declaration, it would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the President. (Emphasis added)
April 25th, 2006 at 2:16 pmWasn’t Zbigniew Brzezinski President Carter’s national security advisor. I mean it sounds impressive when you title him a “former national security advisor”, but when you put the name Carter’s in front of it, doesn’t it kinda just fizzle out? What’s his record when it comes to Iran?
April 25th, 2006 at 2:18 pmChili Peppers Call for Impeachment
Posting on the bands official website Flea wrote: “George W Bush should definitely be impeached, he is a liar and his lies have bought misery to millions of people and bought no good to anyone except for the corporate oil billionaires who are making huge profits.â€
April 25th, 2006 at 2:19 pmIf undertaken without formal Congressional declaration, it would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the President. (Emphasis added)
Comment by Zookeeper — April 25, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
Doesn’t the bigger type trumph the smaller type? :)
Though, I don’t think it matters much either way.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:20 pmIs this more of that post-millennialist nonsense from Bush? If he stirs up a huge war in the Middle East, does he think Jesus will return?
April 25th, 2006 at 2:21 pmAmerican States Start Impeachment
Vermont Legislators to Introduce ‘603′ Impeachment Resolution This Week
State legislators in Illinois and California have introduced resolutions (details below) to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=taxonomy/term/17
April 25th, 2006 at 2:23 pmBut what about the short-term political gains: shoring up the Preznit’s “popularity” ratings and giving tough-talking Republicans a smokescreen to run on this November?
What’s more important, guys?!?!?!?!?
April 25th, 2006 at 2:23 pmCstorm Eunuch
“when you put the name Carter’s in front of it, doesn’t it kinda just fizzle out? “
Pathetic little boychild, we know GOP scripture eunuch! Grover 2:16 “when all else is failing, use Clinton first, then Carter, the Kennedy, then your mother.”
April 25th, 2006 at 2:24 pmBrzezinski will be SWIFTBOATED BY 6 PM Tonight…guaranteed
April 25th, 2006 at 2:24 pmCurb your murder of millions NOW allof you. STUNNING to read
DO NOT IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA you murderous freaks
April 25th, 2006 at 2:25 pmThis is the guy that wrote, “The Grand Chessboard”. If you think he is some kind of wussy democrat you are DEAD wrong. He’s all about taking over the world in a real life game of RISK. If he’s coming out and saying that a nuclear strike on Iran is a bigtime NO-NO, it must be REALLY bad!
April 25th, 2006 at 2:26 pmC-storms: When you say “President of the United States,” it sounds impressive. But, when you say “President of the United States George W. Bush,” it sort of fizzles out. What is George W. Bush’s approval rating again?
April 25th, 2006 at 2:27 pmWith this Congress, Bush will never be impeached. He could declare war on any
April 25th, 2006 at 2:28 pmcountry he wants, without oversite from the Congress. These snakes will not take
out the Bush boy, EVER.
What’s his record when it comes to Iran?
Comment by C Storms — April 25, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
I don’t know if you didn’t read the entry in the wikipedia, or if you are trying to portray him as someone who has always opposed military action against Iran -whatever the case, Brzezinski doesn’t sound like a dove to me. From the wikipedia:
On November 4th, 1978, Brzezinski called the Shah to tell him that the United States would “back him to the hilt.” At the same time, certain high-level officials in the State Department decided that the Shah had to go, regardless of who replaced him. Brzezinski, and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger (former Secretary of Defense under Ford), continued to advocate that the U.S. support the Shah militarily. Even in the final days of the revolution, when the Shah was considered doomed no matter what the outcome of the revolution came to be, Brzezinski still advocated a U.S. invasion to stabilize Iran. President Carter could not decide how to appropriately use force, opposed a U.S. coup, ordered the Constellation aircraft carrier to the Indian Ocean, but soon countermanded his order.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:28 pm#9 Nice try, but Zbigniew’s a heavy-hitter…despite the fact that Carter was unable to or uninterested in saving America’s heavy-handed dictator proxy in Iran.
Try reading Zbiggy’s “The Grand Chessboard” sometime. He was way ahead of the neo-cons and the PNAC wussies…plus he understood what those folks never quite grasped: No matter how much we want to dominate Central Asia, the rest of the world isn’t just going to stand on the sidelines and watch.
Oh, yeah — he also realized that just blundering in with your half-assed invasion plan isn’t always the best solution.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:29 pmc storms - you don’t know shit & you show it with your ill informed post. Brezinski was a hawk even then, along the lines of “Scoop” Jackson Senate Washington.
More though to point out your dumbness on this matter - It was Reagan who sold the Iranians spare parts & missles for their military jets during the Iran Contra incident. Who sold the “enemy” the spare parts and missles it needed so it could keep up an illegal war in Central America? Open a history book before you post youngun…..
April 25th, 2006 at 2:30 pmHey, as much as I would love an impeachment, I also like not being in constant fear of “terrorists.” There’s gotta be something else we can get him on.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:31 pmBut if we take this away from Georgie doesn’t this ruin Bolten’s 5-point strategy? All he’ll have left is bragging…..and well, what really can he brag about besides killing Americans in a war he lied us into, the total disregard of the people of NO, the bankrupting of the US? Unless of course that is what he set out to do…then he can brag!!
April 25th, 2006 at 2:31 pmZookeeper,
that president has authority to start military strikes etc without getting a say so from congress. The PotUS is allowed to determine military action for I think 180 before having to go to congress to ask permission, or for continued funding. The President cannot declare war however. A bit of fuzzy logic but it needs to be said.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:32 pm#21 Don’t mind C. Storms. He has a cute little wingnut blog…and the Carter association is how those folks try to neutralize Zbiggy’s credentials. Not smart.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:32 pmAnyone want to bet that Cstorm is the boychild IRI?
So typical of the GOP, send a boy to do a man’s job.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:33 pm2# Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).
Interesting I had my suspicians Bush is just not welcome in many countries But do any countries have an actuall arrest warrant out for him at the moment ~ As for a long while Rumfeld was going to be arrested in germany if he ever went there
April 25th, 2006 at 2:34 pm#23 Thanks for reminding me. Since this is a Republican administration, our obvious strategy should be to sell illegal arms to the Mullahs, launder the money through drug transactions managed by Oliver North, and then use the “clean” money to support an insurgency against Chavez.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:36 pmthe Carter association is how those folks try to neutralize Zbiggy’s credentials. Not smart.
Comment by RunningDogLackey — April 25, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
I agree. I was trying to point out (for the Nth time) the inability of some of these trolls to even read the links they post.
It would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:37 pmHey, as much as I would love an impeachment, I also like not being in constant fear of “terrorists.†There’s gotta be something else we can get him on.
Comment by chris — April 25, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
Chris - How about you grow a pair of balls and maybe then the big bad boogie terrorist will stop scaring you!
Bush war against terrorism (a tactic) are making all of us less safe not more!
April 25th, 2006 at 2:39 pmI suspect the provocation cuts both ways. The Iranians seem intent on pushing every button they can, so as if to provoke us (or Israel) to act rashly and against our best interests. I wager that their nuclear program is multiply redundant and would sail through our attacks. Nuclear fallout would doubtless follow, whether or not we employ nukes in the attack and the hue and cry that would result would seemingly justify any form of retribution. Brzezinski is one oif the sharpest geo-political thinkers around, and he would not be sounding the alarm if he was not genuinely concerned about our possible intentions in the present climate of hysteria. Our governement is truly pathetic, as they fall for every trick in the book, insult foreign nations and leaders, strike up postures from whuch they cannot easily stand down, and seem unable to imagine the intentions and mind games of their “antagonists”. Teddy Roosevelt once said, wisely, “speak softly and carry a big stick” Our moto seems to be “talk trash, bully everyone and don’t accept yes for an answer”
April 25th, 2006 at 2:43 pmSimilarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).
http://www.latimes.com/ news/ opinion/ commentary/ la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
Comment by Smidtzel —
Nonsense. The President has a mandate from the people of this country to strike terrorists where ever he finds them and the vast majority of the American people don’t give a damn about the UN. No matter if it be Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria…no blood sucking baby killing camel raping moon god worshiping raghead is safe from the long arm of American justice. For those of you in the UN who don’t like it allow me to paraphrase Belloc, “Whatever happens we have got the US Marines and you have not”. Now you know.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:48 pmIt’s a scary world indeed when ol’ Zeebig starts looking almost rational.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:50 pmwikipedia snippets
supporting non-antagonistic policies after the Cuban Missile Crisis.
warning against De Gaulle’s vision of a “Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals.”
Brzezinski’s criticisms of the right’s aggressive stance toward Eastern Europe.
advocacy of de-escalation.
Brzezinski called for a pan-European conference
And he worked on Carter
They guy has a history of going soft, why is it any suprise he wants to go soft now.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:51 pmBrzezinski is not a “dove” — he does not shrink from using power. Don’t think that because he gained prominence during the Carter administration that he is “soft.” The man plays hardball and he plays it to win.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:52 pm(Personally, I have not always agreed with his strategy or his methods, but I don’t profess to be an expert.)
When he says this is extremely serious; that Bush may be deliberately sabotaging diplomacy because he wants to justify another war/invasion; that were Bush to do so he would be impeached, we should understand that he is using his “public” words — imagine what he says in private. Brzezinski must be taken seriously; he is experienced, intelligent, and knowledgeable, like him or not.
What I’d like to know is where is Congress and who is objecting to the infilitration of military operations into Iran already underway?
Will we all wake up one day and realize it is too late to do anything - when impepaching Bush will be after irreversible damage has been done?
I understand those who say no impeachment now because it will be distracting, etc. etc. but I am not sure that delaying impeachment is a worthy alternative.
What are Bush/Rove/Cheney planning at this very moment: 1) bomb Iran (Nevada’s test is 6/2/06),
2) steal a win in November and secure the acquiescent Republican majority,
3) involve the US in another war we cannot win, guaranteed to alienate us from the world, all because he is a power-crazed madman.
What god does he pray to who, he believes, supports this insanity.
I served the United States government in Iraq. I served because I believed that, after Viet-Nam, I would have to stand up for an unpopular war or openly oppose it, going to jail if necessary.
I also learned from the Viet Nam era that persevering in a policy known to exert negative consequences and in the knowledge that such consequences will continue undermines the original justification of such a policy.
While I was in the U.S. Embassy, a joke I frequently heard (from civilians, not military officers) was: “We all will be learning Pharsee by Christmas.” Such jokes I took as jokes or, at worst, the isolated views of a few wet-brained ideologues. Now I am not so sure.
We need to get Iraq right. What is motivating the hawks on Iran is the growing realization that Iran is winning the war in Iraq. Extremism of Iranian theocarps, acting through militias affiliated with nominally Iraqi political groups, has insinuated itself into the very organism of the Iraqi people. Iran is eviscerating a great nation:
This constitution permits the Kurdish provinces and the Southern provinces to unite into mini states with no resource-sharing with the impoverished center, which is sunni. Specifically, the southern provinces will remain nominally Iraqi but be allowed to hoard their oil wealth, impose backward polcies of religious fascism and become an uindisclosed satellite state of Iran.
That is a catstrophe for Arab shi’ites and sunnis alike, not to mention for U.S. interests. But there is no military short-cut here. iraq was smaller and far weaker than Iran; imagine the costs of a failure in Iran. The military knows this fact of life-and-death well; that’s why the joke never seemed to come from military officers.
We need to get Iraq right, with a democracy in place accepted by the Iraqis, not imposed by the Americans. Once that endeavor is successful, Iran will take care of itself. The current rhetoric from Teheran resembles that of any tyranny on its last legs; it also represents covert opportunism by Iran to destroy Iraq and guarantee Persian ascendancy in a troubled region.
If Iraq succeeds, we will be far more likely to see the popular repudiation of theocracy in Iran. A military strike will only push the wave of democratization further away from us.
While I am proud of my service and doubly proud of the U.S. military, we need to find less expensive and less bloody policies of effecting social change — ways that empower average people living under tyranny to take extraordinary actions for the benfit of themselves and, more importantly, their children.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:53 pmAh yes. We can always expect the openly racist and hate-baiting zenophobes from the Limbaugh-Coulter wing to opine with the clear-eye compassionate consersvatism and advocate genocide.
Heckuva job Hitler.
-GSD
April 25th, 2006 at 2:53 pmHey IRI, if you hate the ayrabs so bad, why don’t you sign your pathetic ass up and get over there in the sands to kill them?
Looks to me like your lying sack of shit’s “mandate” has quickly done & gone according to the polls (but of course you guys don’t do polls unless they bolster your preconceived notions).
April 25th, 2006 at 2:53 pm#24, you shouldn’t live in constant fear of terrorists. You’re better off living in fear of Bush. This administration’s bad policies have more affect on our everyday lives than any terrorist group. I live in New York State, about 50 miles north of NYC, and way too close to Indian Point Nuclear Facility, and we go about our normal lives without even thinking about terrorism.
Of course, once Bush pisses off enough countries who have nukes, we’re all scrod anyway, so why worry? ;-)
April 25th, 2006 at 2:55 pmSmidtzel:(Bu$helzebubba War-Pharisee (aka: gas in the belly of the Beast) HOW DARE YOU JEOPARDIZE THE MISSION BY BLOWING YOUR COVER!ASSume the Position / Prepare for Floggin’
Sincerely,
Dr Lou ($iffur) GOP “DEO”
April 25th, 2006 at 2:56 pmSmidtzel:(Bu$helzebubba War-Pharisee (aka: gas in the belly of the Beast) HOW DARE YOU JEOPARDIZE THE MISSION BY BLOWING YOUR COVER!ASSume the Position / Prepare for Floggin’
Sincerely,
Dr Lou ($iffur) GOP “DEO”
April 25th, 2006 at 2:56 pmI suspect the provocation cuts both ways. The Iranians seem intent on pushing every button they can, so as if to provoke us (or Israel) to act rashly and against our best interests. I wager that their nuclear program is multiply redundant and would sail through our attacks.
Comment by soar
I’ll take that bet.
Brzezinski is one oif the sharpest geo-political thinkers around, and he would not be sounding the alarm if he was not genuinely concerned about our possible intentions in the present climate of hysteria.
He’s an international communist and wouldn’t be sounding the alarm if it were not the right thing to do to protect ‘America.
Our governement is truly pathetic, as they fall for every trick in the book, insult foreign nations and leaders, strike up postures from whuch they cannot easily stand down, and seem unable to imagine the intentions and mind games of their “antagonistsâ€.
How ’bout you stand there while your head chopping “antagonist” tells you he’s going to kill you and shows you the weapon he intends to use. Call me if you figure a way to put your head back on your shoulders and we’ll talk about mind games. Dumbass.
Teddy Roosevelt once said, wisely, “speak softly and carry a big stick†Our moto seems to be “talk trash, bully everyone and don’t accept yes for an answerâ€
Comment by soar
George did it exactly like Teddy did. He told the camel boys in Iraq that if they didn’t open up their weapons factories, stop killing dissidents and make of themselves a decent civilized citizen of the world he was going take them apart. Two years later that’s what he did. Iran is now thumbing its nose at the same offer. Their blood is on their own heads and the UN can’t save them any more than they could save Iraq.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:00 pm#24, you shouldn’t live in constant fear of terrorists. You’re better off living in fear of Bush.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider
The words of a true idiot if I ever heard them. Thank you Jane, you’re as big a putz as your husband. OMFG! You both probable teach school too.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:03 pmYou both probable teach school too.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — April 25, 2006 @ 3:03
Looking for a tutor?
April 25th, 2006 at 3:06 pmShouldn’t impeachment be happening now!?, given that the people in charge are certifiably INSANE!? Isn’t there any way to stop this?
April 25th, 2006 at 3:07 pmThe idea posed by Brzezinski that the president should be impeached if he decides to approve air-strikes against Iranian targets without Congressional Approval is ludicrous. As commander in chief and under the presidential war power (article 2 sec 2 US constitution) he has the explicit right to do so without congressional or UN approval. May I remind you that EVERY US PRESIDENT SINCE TRUMAN (Korea) HAS EXERCISED THIS RIGHT. Nevertheless, President Bush is too politically weak at home to pursue such necessary air strikes.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:07 pmThe idea posed by Brzezinski that the president should be impeached if he decides to approve air-strikes against Iranian targets without Congressional Approval is ludicrous.
But blowjobs? You freaking hypocrite.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:09 pmC’mon - let’s go with what we can all agree on & what we can’t.
Agreed topics & points:
1) Iran is currently refining Uranium from ore to a higher level for fuel for it’s nuclear reactors.
2) Iran will continue it’s refining process, and build nuclear weapons from it.
see, even we liberals see that.
topics we don’t agree on:
1) bombing Iran’s above ground facilities will stop their progress in uranium refining.
We liberals think it will slow them, not stop them, so what’s your point in doing it then?
2) Using any tactical nuclear weapons in Iran may be feasable.
We libs think you’ve drunk too much KoolAide. ANY nuclear weapons used will unite the world against the user. You want to give the Islamic extremists a better reason to use US ports as their first nuclear jihad strike, this is it. And not one muslem would disagree with the choice. Hell, most Europeans would think it would be fair. Look at the history books of the pictures of Nagasaki & Hiroshima. NONE of us should EVER want to use nuclear weapons again. This isn’t Doom, this is real life. They are & should be treated differently.
3) the religious extremism in Saudi Arabia is the biggest danger to the US.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:09 pmWho do you think is funding Osama bin Laden? It isn’t Afganistan or Pakistan.
#9
Brzezinzki is easily one of the most lucid and brilliant geopolitical analysts around. Whether right on specifics or not, having followed his comments for a couple of decades one learns not to ignore his views.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:10 pm“The words of a true idiot if I ever heard them. Thank you Jane, you’re as big a putz as your husband. OMFG! You both probable teach school too.”
Oh boychild, can’t someone at your school knock some sense into you? One must have matured at least to puberty to be taken seriously here son. Go back to pokeman trading cards and leave the conversation to the adults.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:11 pmYou both probable teach school too.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — April 25, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
I can’t believe you used that as an insult. What is your problem with teachers.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:13 pmThe idea posed by Brzezinski that the president should be impeached if he decides to approve air-strikes against Iranian targets without Congressional Approval is ludicrous.
Comment by Daniel K. — April 25, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
Not if you consider what he is actually saying: “In the absence of an imminent threat (with the Iranians at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. ”
Launching an unprovoked attack on Iran would make the US the aggressor, much like Japan was in WWII when they attacked Pearl Harbor.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:14 pm“I can’t believe you used that as an insult. What is your problem with teachers.”
Unbelievable, he is a snotty teen. As such he has a problem with those in power above him.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:16 pmBrzezinski is unqualified to comment on either constitutional law or foreign policy. He knows nothing about the arcane subject of impeachment and he knows no more about the constitution than you or me. He was a failure as Carter’s NSA advisor, and he participated in the most failed foreign policy of the late 20th century. The only miltary operation he ever helped launch (the aborted hostage rescue operation) had one of the highest casualty rates of any operation since the Vietnam war.
I hope the Left quotes this guy all day long. It will only help remind people why the Democrats are dangerously unqualified to be “left” in charge of this country’s defense and national security apparatus.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:16 pmRead THIS
April 25th, 2006 at 3:16 pmHe’s already figured out how to spell all the various arab and persian slurs and throw them about quite liberally, so why bother knowing how to spell anything else?
April 25th, 2006 at 3:17 pm#50 Kindness
1) bombing Iran’s above ground facilities will stop their progress in uranium refining.
We liberals think it will slow them, not stop them, so what’s your point in doing it then?
And anything we start doing to combat global warming will only slow it, not stop it, so whats the point in doing anything about that?
April 25th, 2006 at 3:17 pmA preemptive attack against Iran would not be the first time we went unilaterally into a war, without congressional approval:
Grenada 1983 Regan
April 25th, 2006 at 3:18 pmPanama 1989 Bush I
Hati, Bosnia, Kosovo -Clinton
Unbelievable, he is a snotty teen. As such he has a problem with those in power above him.
Comment by Citizen80203 — April 25, 2006 @ 3:16 pm
Unfortunately, he is an adult… But he does remind me of some of my students.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:20 pmjust to mention a few
April 25th, 2006 at 3:21 pmIRI/BluestateRed/Analhead/all in one boychild
I hope you know we laugh at your childish attempts at switching names to seem like an army. We were all teens at one time, your hormonal stupidity will pass along with your acne. But your antics here only re-enforce your current teen imbalance and provide us with mocking fun.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pmScooter, Shooter & Nuker.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:26 pmGod, we’re lucky to be living
in the USA…with minds like
these who needs brains?
unbelievable
No he is not an adult. He admitted being a teen about a year ago.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:27 pm1) bombing Iran’s above ground facilities will stop their progress in uranium refining.
We liberals think it will slow them, not stop them, so what’s your point in doing it then?
If it does in fact slow them down that will help until a better solution can be found. The weapons will be a threat to the US and not attacking them will not change that. Some other solution must be found.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:30 pmHey Zbig Spender.
-GSD
Come on, we can all use a few showtunes.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:31 pmDaniel K - the War powers Act only applies if we have a declared War. Vietnam & Korea were covered under “a police action” but in both cases, the president went befor congress and requested the authority. So, you mis-state the facts of this case and you mis-state the law. Who filled out your income taxes?
April 25th, 2006 at 3:32 pmNo he is not an adult. He admitted being a teen about a year ago.
Comment by Citizen80203 — April 25, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
He might have the maturity level of one sometimes, but considering I spend all day around teens, his vocabulary, interests, and paramoia isn’t consisent with 16 year old boys.
But I’m curious as to what he admitted to (always up for building my arsenal of things to hold over his head when necessary :).
April 25th, 2006 at 3:35 pmIRI, just what in my comment warrants your calling both myself and Wayne putzes?
April 25th, 2006 at 3:38 pm66- slowing them still get’s them the bomb and gives them a target to use it. You don’t like America very much do you? You seem to be aching to have it attacked using nuclear weapons. You are advocating an act which would do just that. Is that your point?
If that’s the case, maybe it’s us liberals who should start trying to have some of you reichtwingnutz exiled. Please don’t make us go there, that’s the right wings specialty.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:41 pmIRI, just what in my comment warrants your calling both myself and Wayne putzes?
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — April 25, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
Nothing. He didn’t like it once when Wayne advocated a woman’r right to terminate a pregnancy, and I think you’re just considered guilty by association. His normal illogic.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:44 pmKindness-
I am not citing the war powers act, i am citing the CONSTITUTION, at which the Presidential war Power clause explicitly states that the president has the power to wage war. In the case of Korea, Truman stated that he had the right to go to war even if congress and the UN denied him the authority to do so. And troops were introdeced into the trheatre of war before congress approved the war in korea. Every president has made it clear that they have the authority to act so.
Say what you want, it is a precedent that has been followed by EVERY PRESIDENT since truman. The war powers resolution tried to undercut this constitutional right, but it has been ignored by every president since it passed in the wake of Vietnam in 1973, and law makers (presidential hopefuls and loyalists) have been reluatcnt to make it work to stop the president from doing his job.
An air strike is needed in Iran, but it will not happen due to the presidents current political situation.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:46 pm#71
April 25th, 2006 at 3:47 pmNo, I think another solution to the whole situation needs to be thought of. However, America will not become a target because of military action in Iran. America is already a target because we have allied ourselves with Israel and we are the opressor, the existense of nuclear weapons in Iran jepordizes national security for all Americans, whether it be Iran or another organization that gets the weapons from Iran.
Unbelievable, then I guess that I should be glad that he didn’t call me a filthy left-wing whore! (Not yet, anyway.)
April 25th, 2006 at 3:47 pmI wouldn’t worry about GWB and the End Times folks…
See, GWB is the AntiChrist and this IS the Tribulation…
The Rapture already took place…
Only there were so few people on Earth who actually understood Christ,
that when they disappeared…nobody noticed…
RGJ
April 25th, 2006 at 3:48 pmUnbelievable, then I guess that I should be glad that he didn’t call me a filthy left-wing whore! (Not yet, anyway.)
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — April 25, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
I think that was what he called Wayne at the time… : )
Oh, give him time. I don’t think there’s anyone here who hasn’t been christened with that label. Or worse…
April 25th, 2006 at 3:52 pmAs the pro-Bu$hCo numbers keep dropping down, down, down,
the remaining troll-wingnuts get progressively more pitiful in terms of sentence structure, spelling and cognitive skills. The bottom of the barrel is getting closer every day.
This clearly illustrates the low caliber of people still supporting the Bu$hCo horror show–Really trending sharply downward now in education levels and literacy skills. We are getting down to the bunch who would really enjoy stuff like NASCAR and dog-fighting—If they could only understand such deep and complicated things.
I would think the methamphetamine use would also be prodigious with this demographic. What a sad bunch!
April 25th, 2006 at 3:55 pmThe constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:57 pm-George Washington
the merit of impeachment was warranted before the iranian blitz…it is called the “illegal war on iraq”
April 25th, 2006 at 3:58 pm#78 “the remaining troll-wingnuts get progressively more pitiful in terms of sentence structure, spelling and cognitive skills.”
Our sentence structure and spelling are bad because we went into engineering related majors for college, as opposed to throwing away our futures with liberal arts degrees.
Spell check fixes spelling (I don’t bother using it on websites)
April 25th, 2006 at 4:01 pmFriends with liberal arts degress fix grammer/sentence structure, they have nothing else to do with their time(I don’t bother using them on websites)
As for cognitive skills, when it comes to politics, different people interpret fact sets different ways. If we all followed your views blindly then we would just be sheep.
then we would just be sheep.
Comment by squegeeboo
You are. The past 6 years has proven it.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:06 pmIt has been estimated that a nuclear strike on Iran, even using the smaller “tactical” nukes, would result on at least one million civilian deaths. How do you spell War Criminals? If we don’t stop the maniacs in the White House, we will be regarded by the rest of the world in the same light a the German people after WWII. Who can stop the madness?
April 25th, 2006 at 4:06 pm#82 If I followed Bush blindly, but I’d just rather follow him then what the Democrats have offered in his place the past 6 years. The curse of a 2 party system, 3 would be perfect, 4+ is just to many.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:08 pm53, Unbeleivable,
I think IRI is afraid of what “teachers” are telling our children. My response has always been…. Republicans are welcome to go be teachers too. Obviously they don’t really care about what teachers are telling our children, or more Republicans would teach. But no, Republicans would rather complain about a job they are not willing to do, because the pay isn’t that great and it would involve helping children. And yes, I believe most teachers are liberal types. So the Republican greed is only coming back to bite them, as liberals take teaching jobs and shape the minds of the future.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:13 pm#84 - yeah - cause “stay the course” is such an effective policy. As is give tax breaks to my wealthy friends and screw the middle class. As is give Haliburton no bid contracts so Cheny can increase his vast fortune. As is let’s lie our way into war and needlessly scare the shit out of millions of American people so they will think we are the only ones who can defend them.
Good plans all!!!
April 25th, 2006 at 4:14 pm#83 How do you spell War Criminals
J-o-h-n- -k-e-r-r-y
April 25th, 2006 at 4:15 pmfrom randi rhodes website:
“A little know parliamentary procedure established by Thomas Jefferson allows for the States to trigger impeachment proceedings in the US House.
Lawmakers in Illinois, California and Vermont are employing this procedure to provide the oversight of Bush/Cheney that the GOP Congress has refused to give the American People.”
GO TO RANDI’S SITE FOR LINKS
WE GOTTA HELP ‘EM OUT!!!
April 25th, 2006 at 4:16 pmOn that thought, come to think of it, I don’t know any Republican social workers, counselors, public school teachers, etc. I work as a counselor for a social service agency, and guess what, everyone who works at the agency is liberal or at least not a Republican. I don’t think a Republican would be caught dead working for average pay helping other people. So forget it when these pompous jerks complain about who is a teacher, when they wouldn’t be caught dead doing it.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:19 pmInteresting how so many people here measure Brzezinski’s qualification by how many wars he started, attacks they made etc.
Fact is Brzezinski having been wrong footed once, knew how to manage Iran! Yes sure the rescue operation was a disaster, but that was not Brzezinski’s personal responsibility. What he did and did not do, ultimately resulted in all the hostages coming home alive! Not a single one of them was harmed! The only thing that was hurt was American Ego!
I would rather have our ego hurt any day as a price for saving one innocent life!
Bush and his gang have been caught red-handed at everything they have done! yet, their greatest crime is yet to come!
Lets see if we are still as macho and hard, once all Iranians, Muslims, Asians, Lat-Americans and other minorities begin retaliating against us! remember, the retaliation of the indignant will not take place over two days or two weeks, RETALLIATION WILL CONTINUE FOR AT LEAST A GENERATION!
Welcome to the nightmare scenario! That will create a new middle east conflict just like the Arab Israeli conflict, except that this time it will be between Americans and every conceivable disenfranchised individual in the world!
April 25th, 2006 at 4:20 pmSquegeeboo, I used to work for a civil engineer whose literary skills were nearly completely absent. So I had to clean up and re-write every report, submission, letter, etc., in order to make them understandable to planning boards, County Health Departments, etal. While I managed to learn a shitload about engineering, he never managed to learn anything about how to communicate.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:20 pmNow, just how well do you think the engineer’s business would have done if he didn’t have someone with good communication skills to translate for him? No one would have hired him if he had presented a report in his own words.
So don’t put down liberal arts skills–one cannot communicate without them.
#91 Jane, the part that was slamming lib arts majors was ment as a joke, after all teachers are lib arts majors, and 1/3 of my family would kill me if I insulted them.
I know my english skills suck, and when it matters I work on my grammer/sentence structure to make it gooder, but like i said yesterday, when it comes to argueing on the internet, just by doing it I’m already retarded, so why raise my writing above that level.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:26 pmAlso, Jane, note who worked for who in that situation. The person with the tech degree, or the person with the lib arts degree, proves my point no?
Sorry, couldnt resist. :)
April 25th, 2006 at 4:28 pm#24, you shouldn’t live in constant fear of terrorists. You’re better off living in fear of Bush.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider
The words of a true idiot if I ever heard them. Thank you Jane, you’re as big a putz as your husband. OMFG! You both probable teach school too.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — April 25, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
Yeah, big man with a keyboard, what did she say to make you conclude that we were both “putzes”. And, for the record, while we both have nothing but accolade for teachers, neither of us is one.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:30 pmWhy would anyone hate teacheres as much as IRI does? Is he having difficulty at his high schol? Are the bullies picking on him and the teachers won’t help him out?
When it comes right down to it every, that is EVERY, profession began with a teacher. Other than a child prodigy, I cannot hink of an endeavor thst does not require study.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:36 pm“Other than a child prodigy, I cannot hink of an endeavor thst does not require study.”
Hobo
I believe thats checkmate.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:42 pm#80 are are implying that the war in iraq is illegal? If you are you have proven your own ignorance and i should contunie no futher, however just to clear it up
1. Not only did Bush explain a legitamete threat in Iraq, and a noble cause (spreading democracy, which by the way is not new rhetoric for presidents, we’ve seen this since wilson and even before that), he acted within the requirements of law, and even WENT OUT OF HIS WAY to seek congressional approval of the war in october 2002, which he didn’t necessarily need to do given, again, that presidents have the constitutional authority to wage war. (art2 sec2). The Iraq War was not and isnt illegal, it has been grossly mismanaged. Nevertheless it was waged within the parameters or legality.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:43 pm#96 - I am a little confused by the checkmate. Do you also believe there is not a need for teachers? That it is somehow a less noble profession?
April 25th, 2006 at 4:47 pmSquege, sorry, but I don’t have any kind of degree. I actually majored in Art, even more useless than Liberal Arts :-D. And regardless of who was employed by whom, were we not both equally important to the job? (Which I quit, by the way, when I realized that my boss would do his utmost to NOT give me a raise for any reason, even when he gave the male employees raises. VERY much a male-chauvinist pig!)
April 25th, 2006 at 4:52 pm#98
I am a little confused by the checkmate.
Checkmate is when one side beats the other. Being a hobo dosn’t require study(at least I don’t think it does, it very well might) so your statement has been beaten(shown to be incorrect).
So CheckMate.
Teachers? Very Noble profession, still a lib arts degree though :)
April 25th, 2006 at 4:55 pm#97 WOW! Talk about displaying one’s ignorance. Article 1, Sec 8, Clause 11 gives the Congress, and ONLY the Congress, the power to declare war. Those Art 2, Sec 2 powers that you’re desperately hanging onto apply once Congress has declared war.
He did NOT explain the “legitimate” threat in Iraq because, if you’ve been paying any attention to reality lately you would know this, there wasn’t any!
Many in Congress in supported the authorization for the use of force against Iraq did so with the understanding that the president would go to the UN one more time. Instead, he eavesdropped on the Security Council’s phone calls and figured out he wasn’t going to get what he wanted, so he went ahead anyway. Not, I repeat, NOT because Iraq posed any threat to us (and he knew that) but because his Vice President and the gang at PNAC wanted war with Iraq.
No, my friend, you are seriously mistaken if you believe that our invasion of Iraq was either justified or justifiable.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:56 pmI think the whole stupid mess is high lunacy. We should have a rock-solid treaty with both russia and china on iran, and finish with iraq as soon as we could. Then, stop spending hundreds of billions on ‘defense’ and start putting in a windmill about every 5 miles or so, go from one coast to the other, then turn right around and go back the other way, until there’s 1 windmill for every 100 people or so. Get the wind-power thing fully functioning, and to hell with 3rd world oil-bearing countries. Keep their idiots out of OUR country, we get our energy act together, sing kum-ba-ya, whole trip etc etc etc….beats 10000 degrees, and cloudy…high winds…
April 25th, 2006 at 4:56 pmRepublicans in low paying jobs… certainly… that would be the right-wing-religon-nutz who “think” that JC was a war mongering, gay hater who rode to Israel on a dinosaur.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:59 pmThen you have the red-neck NASCAR crowd ,who complain that the Mexicans are stealing all their good jobs. The GOP could not exist without wedge-issuing these groups onto their voting machine.
On the sad side, GWB can only see the headlines “New Numbers Lowest In History” 32 more times.
I think we need to find at least 10 things that GWB has accomplished during his tenure in office…something that Letterman could read… and I would like to offer up the first one: He has helped to educate the children of America, when Clinton was in office only 10% of the students were smarter than the president, now 100% of them are…No Child Left Behind works!!!
#100 - my undergrad degree is accounting and I have a law degree. I am licensed to practice in two states. I choose to teach as I have a family and the law profession does not provide a lot of family time. In addition, I have never held a position where I have received greater satisfaction. I cannot imagine any greater compliment than one of my students telling me they would never have suceeded in geomwtry without me. Of course, I know they would have, but you will never get them to believe that.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:59 pmI TRUST over 1800 Scientists (excerpt from ltr to bush)- over Bu$hCo policies - ANY DAY. Our lives are at stake.
We must stand up and CLEAN HOUSE before we murder any more! 90% of casualties in modern warfare are CIVILLIAN. You and I could be next.
————-
…It is gravely irresponsible for the U.S. as the greatest superpower to consider courses of action that could eventually lead to the widespread destruction of life on the planet.
We urge you to announce publicly that the U.S. is taking the nuclear option off the table in the case of all non nuclear adversaries, present or future, and we urge the American people to make their voices heard on this matter.
http://www.physorg.com/news64505715.html
April 25th, 2006 at 5:01 pm#104 “geomwtry” Aww, the student even had a cute little lisp.
If its what you love doing, then congrats.
I personally, would hurt them after a short period of time, lack of patience etc, doesn’t help me out much when it comes to teaching others.
Also, at this point in my life, I’m more interested in finicial satisfaction from a job then personal satisfaction, work is called work for a reason, and then I can use it to pay for hobbies. That said, I do enjoy my job, but it the coffee that gets me up in the mornings.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:03 pmTeachers? Very Noble profession, still a lib arts degree though :)
Comment by squegeeboo — April 25, 2006 @ 4:55 pm
No, not in high school - you have to major in a subject to teach that subject. A Biology teacher must have a Biology degree. English - English, etc.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:04 pm101-
April 25th, 2006 at 5:04 pmThe power of the president, and solely the president, to wage war does NOT REQUIRE congressional approval. Presidents have committed without congressional approval, in fact every president since Truman has. The constitution clearly states, yes, that congress can declare war, and also states that the president can as commander in chief to wage war. However as president and commander in chief he doesn’t need this congressional approval! READ YOUR HISTORY BOOKS, every president has recognized this, and even when they do receive cong. approval, they explicitly state before hand they dont need it.
If were talking Nukes America is not the greatest superpower actually russia is
Russia have 22,000 warheads 5500 for quicke launch
America have 21,000 warheads 6000 for Quick launch
China has 300 Warheads all ready for quick launch
you seem to have 22,300 pointed at America and Americas 21,000 pointed at the rest of the planet
YOU WILL LOSE
April 25th, 2006 at 5:19 pm#108 Sorry, but the copy of the Constitution that I’m looking at simply says, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…”
It does not give him the constitutional authority to declare war all on his own. And, as I recall from my history, Congress passed something called (I think) The War Powers Act to set the parameters of when the President can use the military without prior Congressional approval. It’s a limited duration and, at some point, he has to ask Congress if he can keep using the military. So I do not believe that you are correct in your belief that President Bush has the right to start a war anywhere he wants anytime he wants.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:21 pmI hate Bush think he should be impeached and I agree with Bzrezinsnki”s op ed on Iran but If Bush is a war criminal (and he surely is ) then so is Bzerzinski. He is the one who started the whole mess in Afghanistan by causing strikes and rebellion which led the Soviets to invade to restore order. It was the same thing we have done for years in Central and South America. When asked if he had any regrets he merely said Hell no we gave the Soviets their Vietnam. Real nice guy eh? Carter was a good man but he was poorly advised.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:26 pmyou are correct, the War Powers act of 1973 tried to limit the presidents power to wage war, however it has been ignored by every president since its inception. And since its inception there has been no political will to make it effective (Bush I invasion of Panama 1989 just for ex violated this act) Congress has acquiesced to the president the burden of making tough decisions, and also congressmen (many of which have presidential ambitions of their own) have been reluctant to undermine the president. Congress has simply failed to make the WPR work.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:27 pmI believe IRI’s apparent disdain for teachers comes from the Right-wing assumption that there is a Liberal conspiracy to warp young adult and children’s minds with their leftist views, both in high schools and colleges. Having addressed that, I may be showing my youth here, but wasn’t there an issue during Viet Nam with American troops crossing into Cambodia and Laos to fight, when in fact they shouldn’t have? So how would it be legal for Bush to proclaim the theatre of war expanded into Iran?
April 25th, 2006 at 5:40 pmThe only thing that was hurt was American Ego!
I would rather have our ego hurt any day as a price for saving one innocent life!
Comment by James
Wrong. What was hurt was America’s credibility. The Islamoheadchoppers said the USA was a paper lion and attacked us to prove it. Two hundred innocent lives in Lebanon and more than I can count elsewhere not to mention the paltry three thousand in the Twin Towers. You’re a dumbass but now you know.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:41 pm#114. You’re really a fool. Do you think our blundering in Iraq has enhanced our credibility. Have you listened to Iran’s rhetoric lately? They have certainly not been cowed by our military “prowess” in Iraq.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:59 pm#113 CIS
April 25th, 2006 at 6:10 pmEven in your “youth” as you say, you exhibit more intelligence than some of the Rightwingers who post here. Yes, there was an illegal expansion of the war in Viet Nam as you describe.
Jane and Wayne
I-R-I has an obvious problem with smart and compassionate people. His disdain for teachers is likely to have originated as #113 CIS describes.
I-R-I is an obnoxious, ignorant, loud-mouth cretin whose remarks have been so mean-spirited, so hateful to others here, so unfounded in truth that I suspect he is a plant from the RNC - perhaps even an Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham or Michael Savage — pathetic souls all.
insert wannabe after the names Coulter,Ingraham and Savage, because that’s all I-R-I is — a wannabe. A pathetic loser.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:12 pm#116 Marie,
First of all, thank you for the kind words.
Second, I will not dispute or repeat what you said about you-know-who (who thinks my wife and I are putzes). I prefer to debate the merits of the arguments he makes, if and when his arguments have any merit. Otherwise I usually ignore his, oh let’s say, “no-so-pleasant” side.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:16 pmWhen it comes to exposing Chimpy and his handlers as crackpot, end-times warmongers, every little helps, Ziggy. Tenkew veddy much.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:20 pmEveryone knows that dumbya is planning and has been planning a nuke strike on Iran. Just as everyone (with a brain) knew he was hell bent on getting into Iraq.
He made the statement in an interview (prior to being selected p-Resident) that when he gets the chance to invade Iraq….and then changed it to if…. very telling isn’t it.
It is truly astonishing at the in your face illegal activity the WH is involved in, and no one but the people is willing to call for chimpeachment.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:24 pmYou’re right, Marie, IRI certainly seems to be modeling himself after those obnoxious talking heads. And I know that ‘putz’ is probably one of the kindest things he’s called either of us (me or Wayne.) Maybe he thinks that, if he’s mean and nasty enough, he’ll catch Ann Coulter’s attention? Wait, wasn’t NeD a big Coulter fan? Hmm….
April 25th, 2006 at 6:26 pmJane how could anyone be an Ann Coulter fan? Even a troll. The woman looks like she just ate a lemon or smelled something really bad. It was probably this administrations policies.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:28 pmLet me get this straight — The National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter during the Islamist Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis, in which innocent Americans were kept prisoner by Islamic militants and the United States was humiliated, is giving advice to Geoge W. Bush on how to handle Iran?????? Wow….If it wasn’t so pathetic, it would be funny.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:32 pmJules, not to mention the eye patch that Keith Olbermann always pictures Coulter wearing!
If you had seen NeD’s (screen name NortheastDilemma) website, you’d understand that he was definitely the type of troll who deserved to be an Ann Coulter fan! LOL!
April 25th, 2006 at 6:36 pm#123 But they owe him a debt of gratitude. As much as it pains me to think about it, it was Dr Brzezinski who first came up with the idea of giving the Soviet Union their own Vietnam. After the USSR invaded Afghanistan, Brzezinski convinced President Carter to authorize training, funding, and arming the resistance fighters (call them what you want) in their quest to oust the Soviets. When the Reagan Administration came in, they thought this was the greatest thing since sliced bread (on account of they hated communists so much) that they pumped even more money into the program. This is where Osama bin Laden got his training (thank you CIA). And after the Soviets left, what was left became the Northern Alliance (the ones who so graciously accepted our bribe to go get Osama in Tora Bora, then accepted his bribe to let him go.)
So, if it wasn’t for Dr. Brzezinski, the Bush-Cheney Administration would not have been able to let things play out so they could invade Iraq and remove Saddam (on account of they’re assholes.)
April 25th, 2006 at 6:40 pmOur government is hypocritcal on nuclear issues (among many other positions) when you consider how India has been granted provisional license for “civilian” nuclear help from the US while India’s Mr. Kahn (sp?) sold nuclear secrets to anyone and everyone….are the stories of Bush (all)/Cheney/Baker connection to Carlyle Group true to the extent that business concerns outweigh our nations (citizens) best interests ? I believe we’re digging our own graves unless someone (many someone’s) speak up……the US is not alone in the world and should not act unilaterally on any issue. We should use our influence (if there’s any left) to “support and guide, nurture and lead by positive examples.”
April 25th, 2006 at 6:51 pmi firmly believe if bush presses the button to attack iran, the military will out right resist. the miitary will be a no show.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:59 pmBush’s stance on Iraq is really quite simple. Another war to boost his numbers. These people don’t care how many people have to die in order to push their agenda of war and war profiteering. When will the American people wake up, frog march them out of power, and hog-tie them till their trials for treason.
April 25th, 2006 at 7:04 pm#123. You’re another fool. Unless you’re the same fool that wrote 114. How many of those innocent hostages were killed in Teheran? Something about Carter’s policy must have been responsible for keeping them alive. How many hostages were killed during Carter’s administration? Certainly many were killed during Reagan’s, Bush41’s and Bush43’s administrations. Which should we have? Presidents like Carter who refuse to negotiate with terrorists and get hostages home alive, or Presidents like Reagan who reward hostages and get hostages killed?
April 25th, 2006 at 7:13 pmWe cannot tolerate 2 more years of the Bush administration if we give a damn about our country and the world. I have been pressuring my Congressman and Senators to convince their fellow representatives of the immediate need to not just impeach but remove these people from office. We should all start pressuring our state legislatures, city councils, whatever, to start backing articles of impeachment and removal from office. What we need is noise and a lot of it. If we can’t get response at the top, we have to start making a ruckus at the bottom and build from there.
April 25th, 2006 at 7:29 pmwhats it take, anyway to quote the october surprise decider. ITS TIME TO SAY WHENEVER 43 FLAPS HIS GUMS “THERE HE GOES AGAIN”
April 25th, 2006 at 7:58 pmvt. il. ca. got a good ball rolling on impeachment. lets hope it works.
hey HEY . 18-30 YEAR OLDS REGISTER TO VOTE!!!!
#97
Daniel, please cite the language in Article 2, Sction 2 that grants the President the authority to wage war. Reconcile that language with Article 1, Section 8. Also please reconcile the language “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” with your acknowledgement that “[T]he War Powers act of 1973 tried to limit the presidents power to wage war, however it has been ignored by every president since its inception.”
The President is the Commander in Chief. He has the authority to conduct military affairs in a war once Congress has made a declaration of war. The Commander in Chief has limited authority under the War Powers Act to commit troops to military action in the event of an emergency. To exceed that authority is to go beyond the bounds of the Constitution.
Granted, Bush explained a “legitimate threat” in Iraq. But there is now a dispute over his factual underpinnings for that “legitimate threat.” For example:
This war is arguably ILLEGAL under the United States Constitution. Further, this war is arguably ILLEGAL under International Law:
Charter of the United Nations
…
Article 2
…
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
I submit that as a member State of the United Nations we are bound by its Charter.
(United States Constitution, Article VI. … This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land)
I submit that to initiate a war of aggression for regime change violates Article 2, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter.
In the past, I have asked Mighty Aphrodite (who claims to be an attorney) and I-Right-I to make their case justifying Bush’s war, citing relevant international treaties, charters and conventions. So far, they have refused to do so. I present the above documents to demonstrate why I think Bush’s war constitutes an international war crime.
Can you or anyone else present a reasoned counter-argument?
April 25th, 2006 at 8:07 pmGosh, impeachment, what a sweet word today. There are so many reasons for such a scenario. Please stop them before war on Iran.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:25 pmI tend to agree with this assessment, at least as far as the United States not being the one who does the bombing. Clearly someone will have to do something about Iran’s nuclear program, or they will be churning out nuclear weapons in the not too distant future - guaranteed. Brzezinski has a bit of a conflicted past regarding Iran, which I think everyone should keep in mind when reading his opinions, though.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:45 pm#132 — Well done.
My only comment is that you left out the Nuremberg Principles which are also part of international law and to which the US is subject. Note particularly:
Principle Vl
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
1. Crimes against peace:
April 25th, 2006 at 8:47 pm1. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
#38 - Thank you Mr. McDonnell, first for your service to our country, and second for your insightful post.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:50 pmPoetic justice!
The Burning Bush (a tribute to father and son)
Prepare to meet thy maker
Troublesome Christian faker
You don’t seem to understand respect for your fellow man
Don’t think that you can disguise the hate that’s burning from your eyes
Your evil actions we despise, too late to hide from all your lies
We’ve come together across this land, to take back our future from your hands
From first to last word, you lying bastard
Grand wizard of deceit and disaster
A tainted victor, carbon based hell raiser
The empire falls on this comical Kaiser
You stole the election, now you spread your infection
You show no affection, you’re a lethal injection
You can’t stand rejection, and you have no reflection
A distorted collection of negative projections
Do you get an erection projecting dysfunction?
Need a circumcision from your manly projections?
Taste apprehension, feel mass rebellion
There’ll be no resurrection, just your crucifixion!
(And do I need to mention your total corruption?)
Are you paying attention, or do you lack intellection?
Fear’s your protection; hate’s your prescription
So what are our options, but to perform a dissection?
To your confused conceptions, and your evil perceptions.
You should be safe in your mansion, as they flatten Manhattan
While you fatten your pension with your war tax collection.
If you were Tibetan, you’d be less than a heathen
May your karma be true, to the power of centillion (10 600)
You will rot in eternity for the murder of millions
Stole the world’s prosperity, to profit a billion
One thing is certain, as we pull back the curtains
The truth has been written, you will not be forgotten!
We will soon enlighten, this ship’s course will righten
The seas will soon settle, the skies will soon lighten
And the people will love, and stop all this fighting
A gift from above, it will be so delighting!
So be prepared to meet thy maker
In the clear light, we all ascend
We will learn to forgive, and not to forget
And attain our collective enlightenment!
Michael Michael December 21st, 2002
April 25th, 2006 at 8:56 pmThank God..! Somebody in The Democratic Party who has a set of balls. Too bad Zbig isn’t a American by birth….He’d make a great president..!!! To Zbig: keep givin’ the sons’ of a bitiches hell…!!!
Gene Campbell
April 25th, 2006 at 8:56 pmCentral Florida