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.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
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
[...] link: Think Progress » Brzezinski: Air Strike on Iran Could ‘Merit the Impeachment of the President’ [...]
April 25th, 2006 at 8:57 pmSeixon you do not Churn out nukes unless you have an industrial base much larger than Irans, hell china only has about 400 nukes and they have been working at it for over 30 years, only the US and Soveits ever “churned “them out, both of us have made over 20,000 each.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:58 pmDeciphering the Bush administration’s mission is like asking what color is a chameleon. We have watched the Iraq war morph from one thing to another, and continue to ask why we went. Now it’s clear we are there to begin the military struggle PNAC prescribed for American global empire. A nuclear attack in heavily populated Iran, and fallout in the heavily populated surrounding area, will kill tens of millions, not just millions, and set off a nuclear exchange which will result in the extermination of most of the human race. It’s my contention this human extermination is an essential feature of the PNAC goal of American global empire, a feature which is understated and overlooked in the voluminous discussion taking place everywhere. This week I’m spreading the word. The upcoming and inevitable extermination is something everyone in the world needs to consider seriously. This is their plan. They don’t intend to fail. They aren’t going to discuss it. They don’t need anyone’s permission, and they don’t need you or me. The sooner the world comes to understand the ways and means, and ends, of these infinitely evil autocrats, the sooner things can change. We’re running out of time. There will be no aftermath of the nuclear exchange which begins with an attack on Iran. My friends, it’s all part of their plan.
April 25th, 2006 at 9:07 pmTruthout is showing a photo of a “mushroom cloud” expected in Nevada.
April 25th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
I thought it was a picture of Bill O’Reilly, before I read the article.
April 25th, 2006 at 9:45 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.
I just love watching a progolodyte mind at work. Let me count the ways:
1. We need “rock solid” treaties with Russia and China, right? They are only the two most duplicitous nations this side of Kim Jong Mentally Ill. They do business with Iran – OIL BUSINESS. Treaties with them will do about as much good as Oil-for-Food sanctions on Saddam.
2. We need to “stop spending billions on defense,” right? Yeah tat peace dividend thing really worked out in the early 1990s, didn’t it? Remember the recession, and the drop in real estate prices, the last time we crippled the defense industry in this country? Not to mention that the Democrats fell so much in love with their “pewace dividend that they kept on gutting the military for eight long years. Guess which eight years that was!
3. And we can be energy independent if only we will build 3,000,000 windmills, right? That’s not one windmill “every 5 miles or so” – its 1,000 windmills per mile from New York to Los Angeles! Cost aside (those things are expensive!), windmills are unreliable and they don’t produce enough energy. And the environmental progolodytes will never sit still for this idea. It would harm too many critters and too many views, and we all know that the Left always puts critters and views way ahead of mere humans.
April 25th, 2006 at 9:51 pmBush shows himself as a Christian, but trying to find what he really believes is almost like peeling an onion. At the first level of discernment, he appears to believe in “Dominion”- that the whole world must be Christian for Jesus to return. But then we learn he was a Skull and Bones member… add that to his torture/pointless war, and he clearly cannot be a Christian. He DOES pray to somebody, but it’s not God.
To the poster earlier on who mentioned the Vegas bomb test on 6/2/06, it’s called “Divine Strake”, and is supposedly enough conventional explosive to simulate a nuke. Maybe it will be detonated ON Vegas, to “prove” we were attacked? Since this test is not widely known yet, this is possible. Anybody who knew about it beforehand will be denounced again as a “crazy conspiracy theorist”. Shades of 9/11, the “new Pearl Harbor.”
April 25th, 2006 at 9:59 pmUranus is correct. PNAC laid it all out, and every single part is being unfolded according to plan. The best part, I’m imagining, is that after all the dust clears, they can laugh about how they told the world their plan before they enacted it.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:07 pmBrzezinski is correct that an attack on Iran would be an illegal act of aggression! It would be a war crime as well as an impeachable offense! The GOP controlled Congress has NO balls or any intelligence, so they would probably let Bush get away with it, but someday Dubya could be tried at the Hague for violating the Geneva Conventions!
April 25th, 2006 at 10:14 pm132
You are completely and anyone else is completely wrong in saying that the Iraq War is illegal. Congress gave the president a very BROAD resolution allowing to take “action as he sees fit” in october of 2002. so regardless of the fact he didn’t need this resolution to begin with, he got it. this is a legal war, to say otherwise is blatantly ignorant!
April 25th, 2006 at 10:22 pmHey 132, you conveniently forget the fact that Bush lied and schemed and manipulated intelligence to trick Congress into giving him the authority. You should pay attention to what Brzezinski wrote: “American policy should not be swayed by a contrived atmosphere of urgency ominously reminiscent of what preceded the intervention in Iraq.”
April 25th, 2006 at 10:33 pmAuthorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001
Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
107th CONGRESS
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force’.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Approved September 18, 2001.
#153 The AMUF was about 9-11 not Iraq or Iran………… BOZO
PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
Notice the WORD Iraq, not Iran,…so neither AUMF’s adress the situation in Iran silly boy please try again, but with some REAL facts next time……………………not Rush-Fox lies
April 25th, 2006 at 10:35 pmThe actual authorisation even states Iraq directally so unless you want us top believe that you do not know the difference between Iraq and Iran then this resolution ids not germaine to Iran but when has a simple thing like the law stopped a troll with no facts ….right
also notice the line about NOT supersedes the war powers act…simple the shrub has to follow the law as everyone else does………
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:43 pm(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.
You are completely and anyone else is completely wrong in saying that the Iraq War is illegal. Congress gave the president a very BROAD resolution allowing to take “action as he sees fit†in october of 2002. so regardless of the fact he didn’t need this resolution to begin with, he got it. this is a legal war, to say otherwise is blatantly ignorant!
Comment by Daniel K. —
=============================================================
Congress thought that Iraq had WMD’s (George W. Bush is after-all a Christian, he wouldn’t lie to Congress would he?). Not to mention the imminent threat to the United States that Iraq posed. Scare people enough, and they will usually give their permission for any form of protection to be taken on their behalf, with no questions asked, (9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11).
And of course let’s not forget that all-important ignorance is bliss attitude that usually follows, when the protector’s said actions start to be questioned by first a small minority, and then the vast majority, who finally find their voices. And then they’ve the courage of their convictions to question the validity of the actions carried out by their so-called protector.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:52 pmLike Bush/Cheney are listening to B or to anyone. I don’t think so. The only thing that will stop the madness of another war of choice, is perpetual peace rallies of gigantic proportions in Washington, D.C.
The immigrants have shown us the way. Now it’s up to us to take back our country!
April 25th, 2006 at 11:19 pmWe were attacked and the Republic destroyed on 9-11 by Saddam Hussein and his Iranian Mullah buddies. Congress authorized Bush to burn the Constitution, abolish the illegal courts system, and run this country using the emergency God given powers given His chosen one. He will soon conscript the Army of Righteosness to sweep the Satanic Moslems from the face of the earth and set up the Messiahs promised kingdom. George Bush is the annointed one of the Lord and all the Godless athiests will feel the wrath of his anger as the vile traitors to the beloved leader are destroyed and the land purged of their filth. When the fires have purified this land the God loving loyal followers will live in a thousand years of peace.
All this will be done through the mercy of a loving savior and lord.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:39 pm158-
April 25th, 2006 at 11:48 pmI cant stand it when people question the morality of the Iraq War! Does anyone remember the US encouraging the uprising of the Shiites and the Kurds in the north and south of iraq that were subsequently massacred by Saddam? Does anyone remember us doing nothing to help them when we easily could have marched right into baghdad? We were indebted to the iraqis after Gulf War I. The President asked for permission to go to war, he got it. This is something not all to common in recent decades (Panama 1989 Bush I, Kosovo Bosnia- Clinton, Grenada-Regan) HOWEVER, I will be the first one to say that we have MISERABLY FAILED THEM. The planning for the war, and the aftermath shortly after the invasion was crucial to success in Iraq. We have failed. And in turn failed ourselves by creating a problem that is worse than we arrived, the mission to bring democracy to Iraq was crucial to US security, and now it seems doomed. Nevertheless, what we need to do in Iraq is not politically plausible for Mr. Bush because of people who have accepted nothing other than defeat from the beginning.
Post 163 I hope that was sarcasm?! Because Bush is most likely the Anti-Christ or at least one of his henchmen! Those who support the Beast and take his mark on the hand or forehead are doomed to perdition > fire of Hell!
April 25th, 2006 at 11:50 pm#153
Oh? Show me the resolution. Show me the relevant portions of International Law.
The logic of your argument means that if a President lies to Congress and gets approval to use military force to attack a sovereign country, then the attack and resulting war is legal.
Or, if Congress, knowing the facts were being fixed around the policy of invading a country for the purpose of regime change, authorized the President to violate International Law, then his actions are legal. In other words, Congress could authorize the President to torture prisoners, and torture would then become legal; Congress could authorize the President to bomb civilian population centers, and the bombings would be legal; Congress could authorize the President to commit genocide, and genocide would be legal.
And you still claim the President does not need any authority from Congress before starting a war? Have you studied Constitutional Law? If so, please enlighten us with the cases that support your point. You still haven’t squared that with Article 1, Section 8.
Ok, you’ve said I’m wrong. Now show me. If all you do is to merely keep repeating I am wrong, you begin to sound like my grandson when he throws a temper-tantrum.
If you can show me IRREFUTABLE facts, together with the Statutes and Cases, domestic and international that support your arguement, I will concede the point. However, right now, it seems like the facts are VERY MUCH IN DISPUTE. One side says the intelligence community got it wrong, the other side says the facts were being fixed around the policy of going to war.
If I am wrong, Daniel, prove it.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:57 pmBriseadh na Faire-
It is very simple. The president has certain forlam powers under the constitution thats give him the authority to:
1. Be commabder and chief of the US military UNDER THIS HE HAS THE ABILITY TO:
a. Have operational control over US forces (this can include tactical decisions, but most rely on military experts)
b. Presidential War Power- Which the precedent that ALL PRESIDENTS have followed (post wwII) that states he has the right to commit troops when and where he deems necessary. This can be done unilaterally without congressional approval.
I do agree that this is a controversial issue among scholars and students of constitutional law, however it is a precedent that every president in the post wwII world has followed and congress has failed to argue. The War Powers Resolution tried to stop this, however every president since 1973 (when it passed) has ignored it and congress has failed to force the president to comply.
Examples of Presidential War Power:
1. Panama 1989 Bush 1
2. 1983 Grenada Intervention -Regan
3. In the 1991 Operation Desert Storm Bush went to congress only at the last minute, however HE MADE IT CLEAR HE DIDNT HAVE ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION TO DO SO.
4. Hati, Bosnia, Kosovo -Clinton
5. 1998 airstrikes in Iraq – Clinton
these are just a few, but look. trust me every president has exercised what they believe to be their constitutional privilege as president
I acknowledge this is a controversial issue, however i believe it is a power the president should be, and has shown in history, to be able to use.
April 26th, 2006 at 12:20 amTo all those in this blog who have commented about alternative energy sources.
April 26th, 2006 at 12:23 amFirst, is there anybody here who, if given the choice of deriving ALL! of our energy
from renewable sources, would not jump to take it? Second, as I work in photovoltaics, I know for a fact that within two years technology will be available to
produce ALL! of the country’s electrical power from the newer flavor of PV technology,
and the IRR on such projects shows that, at anticipated materials and installation
costs, they will be a good investiment even for single-family dwellings. Despite
comments given here, it is possible to generate, during non-sun hours in places
where the wind blows at night, an equally large amount of electrical power from
wind machines. The newer ones, replacing older ones on Altamont Summit, have
greatly reduced the impact on birds, especially the raptors that are there abundant.
I submit to you the following propositions. (1) complete energy production from
renewable sources, excluding nuclear, is reachable within ten years, and (2) if we
were to get out of the middle east completely, there would be little reason for Iran
or any other Evil Axis to attack us with nukes or with anything else. Note: no
emerging third world country is ever going to produce many, many nukes, for no
purpose would be served by doing that. At most, countries like Iran and North
Korea will have the capability to build a few nukes. These would never be used,
because everybody knows that nukes have fingerprints that can be tracked without
ambiguity back to the source, and therefore the rogue nuker would face utter
and immediate annihilation from broadcasting a nuke or two to any place in the
world. Finally, for those of you who say we MUST attack Iran because they might
have nukes soon, please consider: how do you think the rest of the world would
react to such an attack? How would the Iranians respond? What if, in response to an attack on their nuclear facilities, using tactical nukes or conventional weaponry for example, the Iranians conspired to reduce the oil output of the Gulf by 3 million barrels of oil a day? Can you imagine the economic chaos that would result from such an action? Do you really believe this, somehow, could not happen under such an
attack? Do you think countries in the world who need that oil are going to sit around
while all this goes on? Think carefully and fully of such consequences, and you will
understand the terrible peril in such a course of action. The outstanding and fatal problem with the builders of empires is that they have more to lose than anybody else, which has always in history sown the seeds of destruction for those who would try to rule the world.
Daniel,
Again, you’re not citing the relevant case law. Yes, the President has the right to commit troops when and where he deems necessary. The War Powers Act delineated this right and restricted it to short-term emergencies. After committing troops, the President has a limited amount of time to go before Congress and seek approval.
As you note:
Now, assuming arguendo, that you are correct in asserting that every president has ignored the War Powers Resolution, does that mean that it is LEGAL for a President to ignore a law, merely because Congress does not impeach him?
Is it legal for a President to ignore any law, including International Laws we are bound to uphold by treaties?
Remember, you’re trying to make the case that this war, by this President is legal. so far, all you have given me is other conflicts by other Presidents whose actions may or may not have been legal.
At least with your last post you responded civilly, without calling me “blatantly ignorant.” I appreciate a reasoned debate, as I have studied Constitutional Law and International Law for two years now.
April 26th, 2006 at 12:54 amAs someone once said, “we will have peace in our time”. Iran will never do anything bad with their nuclear program, do not intend to share their technology with any other nations and have nothing but good things to say about Israel.
April 26th, 2006 at 12:54 am[...] Brzezinski: Air Strike on Iran Could Merit the Impeachment of …Think Progress, DC - 12 hours agoIn an op-ed titled Do Not Attack Iran, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski today makes the case against launching an air strike on … [...]
April 26th, 2006 at 2:04 amI am done with President Bush~~
~~In the year 2001 before 9-11 ~~ he deeply embarrassed me personally by profusely apologizing to the Chinese ~~ it was REALLY EMBARRASSING to see the two week ~~ rewriting of an apology to the damn Chinese ~~ but after 9-11 I realized President Bush had a good idea to go into Afghanistan with worldwide support ~~ continue our Iraq Policy ~~albeit without world support ~~ but since mid-2004 ~~I started to notice odd quirks and pathetic missteps ~~ Then right now I have serious problems ~~ our foreign policy mirrors that of Israel exactly ~~ North Korea is appeased (maybe because they are not threatening Israel) ~~ so all in all the below poll will give you an idea of what I think of President Bush at this moment:
Judging from his stances and actions, President Bush is actually: (pick 1)
April 26th, 2006 at 5:01 amPresident of Israel
President of Iraq
President of Mexico
President of Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait
President of Spending
Vice President of the USA
[...] Brzezinski: Air Strike on Iran Could Merit the Impeachment of …Think Progress, DC - 15 hours agoIn an op-ed titled Do Not Attack Iran, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski today makes the case against launching an air strike on … [...]
April 26th, 2006 at 5:39 amImpeachment? That’s hilarious! He will never be held accountable for anything and his entire murderous cabal know it. Why do you think they chose this incompetent fool as their puppet? Precisely because this bunch knew the power the Bush’s possess and how that would insulate them from trouble as well.
If invading a sovereign nation on a pack of lies doesn’t so much as get anyone in this administration fired, let alone impeached then a strike on Iran will only, sadly, boost his poll numbers.
Folks, the United States as we once knew it, ceased to exist when the Supreme Court handed the presidency to The incompetent Decider in 2000.
April 26th, 2006 at 7:37 amI don’t think that the Brzezinski/Carter Middle East solution is fast acting enough, being that it hasn’t worked in 30 years. Why should we try it again?
Nukes are a BIG GUN. It is not who holds a big gun, but the intentions of the person holding the gun which determines the danger. We cannot let our mortal enemies get nukes.
April 26th, 2006 at 8:30 am#132 Briseadh na Faire,
Thank you for the support and the intelligent, coherent argument. Anyone who believes in the Unitary Executive theory should be, I don’t know, sent to a “re-education camp” or something. These fools are buying the president’s arguments lock, stock and barrel based on nothing more than the misguided belief that he doesn’t tell lies.
April 26th, 2006 at 9:27 amDaniel K, Impeachment of your leader is imminent. If you feel, as you probably do, that impeachment of President Clinton for lying about consentual sex with a woman who wasn’t his wife was appropriate, by your principles, you MUST support impeachemt of bush43 for knowingly lying to the people of the United States so as to invade and occupy a soverign nation that didn’t attack us, didn’t threaten us, and had nothing to do with 9/11.
Lying Daniel, lying. That’s what he will be impeached for. Get used to it.
April 26th, 2006 at 10:03 amSadly, CONGRESS and we the people of the US, what AMerica use to be…
April 26th, 2006 at 11:03 amDO NOT HAVE THE BALLS to IMPEACH!!!!!
Too LITTLE!!!! TOO LATE!!!!
Thank you #139…..Work well Done!
The infiltration of Iraq has/had been in the making since 1992…That’s part of the reason the Generals are upset…..They have been saying that the plan has been discussed for 10-12 years. 9/11 had little to do with it!
We already have enough on Bush/Cheney to impeach them both! Of course the more we get, the better.
All Clinton did was get a blowjob! ….and we’ve all been F****ed since then!
April 26th, 2006 at 11:25 amKINDNESS-
To assume that I support the Iraq War and therefore support the impeachment of president clinton for his incident is ridiculous, i DIDNT, i thought it was a waste of valuable time. I was a staunch supporter of the clinton administration. I am also a staunch supporter of our current war effort in Iraq because I believe it is a moral and just cause to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. We left them out to dry in 1991, and Iraq was an indirect threat to national security.
April 26th, 2006 at 11:42 amLOL post 185 Iraq is NOT getting any real democracy > it was always about the OIL, and Iraq was never a threat to the United States > PERIOD. Killing for OIL is NOT moral!!!
April 26th, 2006 at 12:11 pmIf George Bush wanted to stop terrorism, he’d commit suicide. That is, he’d commit suicide after killing Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and pretty much his entire family.
But it seems painfully clear to me that George Bush isn’t concerned about terrorism, so I won’t expect to see that happen anytime soon.
April 26th, 2006 at 12:23 pmI keep hoping it isn`t to late Keep them away from the red button .Why wont people see what is right before thier eyes.
April 26th, 2006 at 12:28 pmLook at the people who planned the war, The neoconservatives who planned the war from the beginning truly believed in Democracy in Iraq. Those who believe in the Liberal Democratic Theory of Peace believe that democracies dont attack each other and remain allies. Despite what Mr Bush’s intentions are, THERE ARE LOTS OF DIFFERENT FACTIONS SUPPORTING THE WAR. NOT JUST REPUBLICANS. But the majority of the people on this site are too biased to see that, and respect that. It really is sad. Ive said it before, and I’ll say it again. I am very disappointed on the handling of the war. It has become a dire situation. Which is also sad.
April 26th, 2006 at 1:08 pmThe UK has already stated — as tehy did with Iran — that the military action would be illegal. Here we are in 2006, three years after the 2003 “year of supporting war criminals” and nothing has been done.
Tell the world, “What is going to suddenly change to convince the RNC that they in 2006, unlike 2003, are going to be held to account?” You can’t be serious. This Congress enjoys funding war criminals.
April 26th, 2006 at 1:13 pmIt might be worth considering the idea that USA regime might like the Iran war to take place under cover of the world cup. Then because we in Europe will be so turned on by the cup, we will be so turned off the war, that (if the war begins then), there will be a general mass psychological feeling of complicity that could maximise the guilt/ denial psychology in Europe; thus minimising any immediate potential reaction in Britain/ Europe to the war (which `Henry Jackson Society’ identify as their chosen key levers of imperial control control). I dare say the same option will have occurred to `Strategic Communications Laboratories’.
UNTIL the moment the Iran war starts, the USA (petrodollar based, speculative/ credit expansionary) regime has control of the geo political economic agenda because of its operational insanity.
But because (to prop up petrodollar hegemony) USA cannot stop without immediately destroying their legitimising narrative (triggering crash of petrodollar & with it the entire global political economy) they must carry on bombing (presumably including nukes)
The options are stark. Accept global slavery under an ever more rapacious & annihilatory USA nuclear fascist tyranny…
OR bring USA empire crashing down; not just by resistance in states afflicted/ threatened with occupation, but most effectively, by dumping the worthless enslaving dollar & going for gold (especially for oil trading).
The consequent catastrophic geo pol/econ fallout from collapse of apocalyptic credit expansionary system, triggered via re-establishment of gold standard (which is inherently deflationary).
April 26th, 2006 at 1:30 pmIn turn creates both imperatives & potential to re-engineer the entire global political economy through establishment of a (global reserve Bank of Jerusalem &) single global energy based (instead of gold or fiat) currency.
Which entails literally pumping liquidity (oil/gas before the means to pay for them have been developed) into the market to buy time to effect (with a WARTIME will) the global transition to solar power microgeneration.
In exchange for which USA/ Europe etc agree to accept the constraints of a new global security architecture/ constitution.
The price of consolidating the globally pivotal Medina (oil) superstate will be Jewish admin of Mecca (asmuslims do with Christian Sepulchre, to prevent general war among Christian factions) to prevent warring Sunni/Shia factions razing Mecca (again) or entire region, when Israel has woken up to threat of USA Rapture psychology as per `Revelations7:4’.
185 – Daniel, please accept my apology. Yes i did assume things that you say are not the case. Sorry ’bout that, my mistake.
April 26th, 2006 at 3:23 pm#87, before you insult John Kerry, may I remind you that this veteran put himself in harm’s way in Vietnam not once, but TWICE, while your cowardly wimp of a president was hiding in the Texas Air Guard, and while there, didn’t even have what it took to complete his duty assignment. Instead, he went AWOL, simply because, with his connections, he knew he could!
April 26th, 2006 at 3:47 pm192- Youre right I probably should clarify. I support the bringing of democracy to Iraq,I support helping the iraqis build a nation. However I do not support the manner in which it has been carried out by this administration. I am deeply saddened that they have ruined out big chance to create a democracy in Iraq, and that our situation there is likely to only worsen. To put it frankly, I am frustrated. I am frustrated that this Administration cheated Iraq, and the Iraqis. This could have been done correctly, we could have won, the Iraqis could have won their true freedom from oppression and terror. however I do not believe it it prudent to pull out. We need to revamp out approach to this war, starting with firing Rumsfeld, and make a full commitment to winning this war. But there is no public support. We have seen out window of opportunity close, and I am frustrated and lost, with nowhere to turn.
April 26th, 2006 at 4:01 pmI wonder how many agents of the system contribute to these forums. How many of them say incindiary things just to distort debate. This reply chain is a mess. Maybe it’s not a conspiracy that people are idiots.
April 26th, 2006 at 4:21 pmUpholding the Constitution is paramount. Attacking Iran violates the United Nations Charter, which is a treaty and part of the supreme law of the United States under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. signed the UN Charter and we are obligated to uphold the law according to our own Constitution. A treaty that we sign becomes the “law of the land” according to our Constitution.
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” No nation has a right under the UN Charter to take pre-emptive action.
I notice Brzezinski isn’t mentioning this fact.
April 26th, 2006 at 4:28 pmI sometimes think I am the only person who continues to believe that Carter was a great President. Does no one remember that he nudged Congress into great energy-saving plans. During his regime–at the suggestion of many Republicans–he allowed the Shah to enter the United States. As a result, members of the American diplomatic post were held hostage for a long time. A longer time than necessary, owing to the Reaganites “October Surprise”, later quietly paid for with American arms since Iran was at the time at war with Iraq. The point is, even rather mild-mannered Americans were angry and saying things like, “Why don’t we drop an Atom bomb on Teheran?” etc. But we didn’t. Peace prevailed. The hostages were returned. Thus Carter, an all-time GREAT PRESIDENT, saved us from war. I had sons of draft age at the time and I honor any man who saves us from war. And whose energy ideas, so ruthlessly savaged by Reagan, would have us in a good spot if they’d been followed.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:15 pm201-
April 26th, 2006 at 6:43 pmyou arent alone. Jimmy Carter was a great president, contrary to popular belief. Also contrary to popular belief, he was a very very smart man (he had a degree in engineering from The US Naval Academy) and made some very important decisions and pursued the right path even if it was against popular desire like the Iranian situation (also the Panama Canal treaties were very unpopular but were the right thing to do after out history with that area)
#165 -
Daniel, we have some common ground vis a vis your post #195. War is so horrible I question the morality of all war. Granted, with the current social development of man-unkind, war is sometimes necessary and justified. But the threshold for justifying war must be extremely high; the cost in human life demands it.
I traveled throughout Europe the summer after the U.S. invaded Iraq. As an American, I was continually asked my opinion about the war. I responded that we may have done the right thing, for the wrong reasons. Even in the summer of 2003 the case was weak. The IAEA issued its report a week after Bush invaded saying that all nuclear materials were accounted for, that there was no active program to reconstitute Iraq’s nuclear program. The proffered reason for going to war was to prevent an imminent attack by Iraq; Weapons of Mass Destruction. We are learning more and more that the information used to support that allegation was, at best, weak; at worst, a knowing lie.
Yet there was abundant evidence that Saddam gassed, tortured, authorized rape and murder of his own citizens. I posited that had we, and the world, gone into Iraq to take out Saddam for those reasons, it would have made all the difference.
Indeed, the best window of opportunity for the world to have acted, and been consistent with Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter would have been when the Shi’ites and Kurds rose up in ‘91. It is permissible, consistent with international law, for outside countries aid in an uprising to throw out a despot. Yet we did not, and unknown thousands died.
Can we pull out at any time? Yes. We can do a Vietnam, declare victory, pull out the troops and leave the country to determine its future for itself.
Or we could go to the U.N. and tell that body that we are going to pull out on such-and-such a date and they are welcome to send in peacekeepers if they wish.
Neither option is good, but either is better than a protracted civil war where we are the target of all sides.
April 26th, 2006 at 8:08 pmZbigniew Brzezinski was the ONLY person of prominence in the 1980s who predicted the de-communisation and breakup of the Soviet Union, which occurred in the early 1990s. Bush should listen to him.
April 26th, 2006 at 9:22 pmBut he won’t. I can assure you that the ONLY 5 questions the Bush gang agonizes about when planning the attack on Iran are [1] what facade or pretext can we come up with to justify it?; [2] will the press lay back again and parrot our pretext for war naively, or will they actually tell the truth and sink us?; [3] is our credibility so shot (Mr. 32%) that the public will instinctively KNOW we’re lying?; [4] will the Congress develop a backbone and try to cut off funding for the attack?; [5] will it help or hurt us in November?
Notice that the substantive questions are not on their list. Such as: Why should we attack when Iran won’t have atomic bombs until NEXT DECADE? Why don’t we negotiate with Iran? How would attacking help when it would just make the Iranians hate us, and then be more determined than ever to attain nuclear club status? How would further destabilization of the Middle East caused by bombing Iran help ANYBODY but China, who just sits back and laughs and watches the United States destroy itself while they build up their factories and their military? And, finally, oil is $75 a barrel. How would driving it to $150 a barrel, and gasoline to $5.50 a gallon, help us when we (the Bush administration ) have already accumulated $1.35 trillion in debt in the last 30 months alone? How can we keep up payments on that debt if our economy collapses due to truckers gas costs exploding?
I don’t understand how a third rate burglary or an affair with an intern are considered worthy of impeachment, but having an absolute band of lunatics running the country is considered OK.
Bush will do just what he wants before the changing of the guards, (House and Senate), in November.
April 26th, 2006 at 11:03 pmI concur with what you say that, “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!).”
It has been reported that the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), are already in Iran doing our dirty work along with Special Forces.
Remember, when Bush and his Administration said that there were terrorist in Iraq, well guess what? There were, and they were and are the MEK, who Bush now has in Iran. So America, it turns out we knew (MEK), was in Iraq and that they had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. Even though our President and his Administration forgot to tell us this.
This shows just how for this President will go to confuse America with all sorts of lies.
So yes, this former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski is right, and this President should have already been impeached and should be impeached if Air strikes on Iran is conducted.
God only knows what type of trouble this would cause for Israel by the other Countries there. I think that this would be a reason to start World War III.
Did someone just say Antichrist!
I want to point out to Briseadh na Faire, who said Bush invading Iraq was “the right thing for the wrong reason” that it was the wrong thing for no reason. No TRUE reason, anyway.
April 27th, 2006 at 12:17 amSaying it was justified because, “there was abundant evidence that Saddam gassed, tortured, authorized rape and murder of his own citizens” makes no sense at all. Then we could also go to war against most of the 50 countries in Africa, as well as China. The majority of African countries have a policy of either authorizing, or allowing others to, rape and murder their citizens.
And you neglected to say that the gassing of Iraqis, including Iraqi Kurds, occurred in the 1980s when Bush’s father was president and that the Reagan-Bush government allowed equipment to be sold with which Iraq could make the gas. So did France, the Soviet Union and Germany. Plus, when Hussein’s Iraq invaded Iran, and started a war which ended up killing 900,000 people on bothe sides the Reagan-Bush administration WAS ON SADDAM HUSSEIN’S SIDE. In fact, the Reagan-Bush regime gave satellite photos and other military assistance to Saddam Hussein. So how is Bush the son on moral high ground to change Iraq’s government and imprison the man his dad (Bush’s dad) helped commit these crimes?
Aston, I’m on your side. Did you read my above posts where I make the case for the illegality of Bush’s War?
I think you missed a critical point in my argument. “I posited that had we, and the world, gone into Iraq to take out Saddam for those reasons, it would have made all the difference.”
Eventually the world community needs to stand up and collectively say to petty despots everywhere that we are no longer going to sit and allow you to commit genocide and atrocities on your own people.
I know the gassing of the Kurds occured when Bush I was on the throne. And, to think, he was able to gather perhaps the greatest multinational force in history. I know of no other conflict where so many nations were gathered together under one banner. That would have been the time for the whole world to say, “It’s time for you to step down, Saddam.” But that didn’t happen.
Bush II is not on any moral high ground as far as I am concerned. And, unfortunately, neither is the United States, thanks to His leadership.
April 27th, 2006 at 12:53 amRead THIS
April 27th, 2006 at 8:52 amAt what point do you stop saying to an out of control maniac “if you do one more crazed supid thing we’re going to ‘get you’ for it” After all the Constitution is “just another piece of paper” and we know how much respect he has for paper.
We passed Impeachable before he even took office, He managed to pass “crimes against humanity” before the second election theft. The only threat left is the men in white coats, and there is not a big enough army of them to clean up all who need attention.
April 27th, 2006 at 10:58 amTo get back to basics, invading Iraq was done to control the flow of oil for the oil cartels. Invading Iran is the same reasoning. They make more money by restricting the flow of oil. It is shameful and quite evil what they are doing.These pre-emptive strikes are war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The oil cartels are as responsible as anyone for the carnage.
BTW, it is about time for the use of global renewable energy for all of mankind, and let’s leave the oil cartels in the dust where they came from.
The Bush administration is culpable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. They shall be held accountable, as well as the oil cartels.
April 28th, 2006 at 12:47 amI’m afraid if there is any type of “terrorist activity itwill be used to justify a retalitory attack on IRAN NO MATTER WHO REALLY DOES THE ATTACKING
April 30th, 2006 at 6:37 amImpeach Bush yourself! This is much more than just a petition.
There’s a little known and rarely used clause of the in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.
That’s where we come in. In addition to the State-byState method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.
You can initiate the impeachment process yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information in the blanks (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in.
http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html
More information on the precedent for submitting an impeachment
memorial, and the House Rules on this procedure, can also be found at
the above address.
If you have any doubts that Bush has committed crimes warranting
impeachment, read this page: http://ImpeachForPeace.org/evidence/
If you’re concerned that impeachment might not be the best strategy
at this point, read the
bottom of this page: http://ImpeachForPeace.org/
It just takes a minute to save our democracy.
May 29th, 2006 at 1:19 pmI have to admit, if 68 million Iranian were to immediately die a horrible nuclear death… 300 million Americans as well as countless hundreds of millions of others around the would would not shed a single tear for the filthy swine. I’m just saying…
August 28th, 2006 at 5:41 pmHOODIA…
nice choice of colors.adding to my bookmark …
December 8th, 2006 at 3:50 amALESSE…
informative post, keep it up.nice choice of colors. …
December 8th, 2006 at 6:16 amFioricet
great site, nice design.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:22 am[...] url will expire after 23:59:59 today. 30. 9???. Q1 What is nifty future? …http://www.xngbbs.com/Think Progress ” Blog Archive ” Brzezinski: Air Strike on Iran Could Merit the Impeachment of the Pr…Brzezinski: Air Strike on Iran Could Merit the Impeachment of the President’ … Your address: [...]
April 9th, 2008 at 6:03 am