Not surprisingly, Scott Ritter, the man who was right on the Iraq war before almost anyone else, has the answer:
If I were to address [the Democrats in Congress], I would focus my effort on trying to impress them with the issue that will cost them political power down the road. This issue is Iran. While President Bush, a Republican, remains Commander in Chief, a Democrat-controlled Congress shares responsibility on war and peace from this point on. The conflict in Iraq, although ongoing, is a product of the Republican-controlled past. The looming conflict with Iran, however, will be assessed as a product of a Democrat-controlled present and future. If Iraq destroyed the Republican Party, Iran will destroy the Democrats.
I would strongly urge Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, to hold real hearings on Iran. Not the mealy-mouthed Joe Biden-led hearings we witnessed on Iraq in July-August 2002, where he and his colleagues rubber-stamped the President’s case for war, but genuine hearings that draw on all the lessons of Congressional failures when it came to Iraq. Summon all the President’s men (and women), and grill them on every phrase and word uttered about the Iranian “threat,” especially as it has been linked to nuclear weapons. Demand facts to back up the rhetoric.
Summon the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or any other lobby promoting confrontation with Iran, to the forefront, so that the warnings they offer in whispers from a back room can be articulated before the American public. Hold these conjurers of doom accountable for their positions by demanding they back them up with hard fact. See if the US intelligence community concurs with the dire warnings put forward by these pro-war lobbyists, and if it doesn’t, ask who, then, is driving US policy toward Iran? Those mandated by public law and subjected to the oversight of Congress? Or others, operating outside any framework representative of the will of the American people?
If a real case, based on facts as they pertain to the genuine national security interests of the United States, can be made for a confrontation with Iran that leads to military conflict, so be it. America should never shy away from defending that which legitimately needs defending. The sacrifice expected of our military forces, while tragic, will be defensible. But if the case for war with Iran is revealed to be as illusory as was the case for war with Iraq, then Congress must take action to stop this conflict from occurring. This is the Democrats’ issue now, the one that will make or break them in 2008 and beyond.
If hearings show no case for war with Iran, then Congress must act to insure that the United States cannot move toward conflict with that nation on the strength of executive dictate alone. As things currently stand, the Bush Administration, emboldened with a vision of the unitary executive unprecedented in our nation’s history, believes it has all of the legal authority it requires when it comes to engaging Iran militarily. The silence of Congress following the President’s decision to dispatch a second carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf has been deafening. The fact that a third carrier battle group (the USS Ronald Reagan) will probably join these two in the near future has also gone unnoticed by most, if not all, in Congress.
The time is now, right now, to call for these hearings before it is too late. Before Bush decides to pull the trigger, or allows Israel to pull the trigger for him. Before the initial strikes occur. Before whatever excuse for war can be concocted by Cheny’s fertile imagination and sold to the lapdog media by Karl Rove’s spin. Before we reap the whirlwind.
An what we absolutely, positively don’t need from Congressional Democrats is Senator and Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton giving the Bush administration cover for using military force against Iran:
(cont.)
Calling Iran a danger to the US and one of Israel’s greatest threats, US senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said “no option can be taken off the table” when dealing with that nation.
“US policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,” the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. “In dealing with this threat … no option can be taken off the table.”
Clinton spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the US, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Some 1,700 supporters applauded as she cited her efforts on behalf of the Jewish state and spoke scathingly of Iran’s decision to hold a conference last month that questioned whether the Holocaust took place.
This alone is reason enough never to support Hillary Clinton for President. When the Democrats should be doing all in their power to orevent a widening war in the Middle East that could result in a region wide conflagration, she is spouting the same rhetoric as President Bush? Absurd. Absurdly dangerous, too.
Please, Democrats, and especially the Chairpersons of any House or Senate Committee with any conceivable justification for calling hearings about the Iranian crisis, please schedule those hearings today. The time to head off a cataclysm of violence that would be worse than any we have known since World War III is shorter than you believe.
Also at Daily Kos
I posted this elsewhere, but it fits here as well!
I don’t think the administration will get away with it this time! On Lou Dobbs last night, he had an interview with Iran experts Ervand Abrahamian and Fawaz Gerges as well as General David Grange. Read the Transcript in the appropriate area toward the end!
Anyway General Grange sounded like he just wanted to mutter the Administration’s line that Iran is responsible for most American troop deaths. However, the Iranian experts both used logic to make his view seem a total hoax. They both said that sunni arabs were killing almost all the Americans, and the sunni arabs were also killing many shites in sectarian violence. They said Iran would possibly be supporting shite militias, but that thinking that Iran would be supporting their sunnis enemy was absurd. They said it was absurd as thinking that Bush planned 9-11.
Lou Dobbs made a good point that since the intelligence before the Iraq war was either twisted or just wrong, the American people will set the bar much higher for this Iran saga to lead to war. I think he is correct, and I also think the logic behind the Administration claims has holes in it big enough to let the tide run through! So it does not really matter what the Neocon’s wish list is because the real logic for all to plainly see is working against them. I believe with MSM forces like Dobbs on the warpath against the Administration, the stupidity of the American electorate cannot be taken for granted anymore.
That’s why they are moving faster this time. That’s why the media blitz of stories about Iran everywhere (they’re helping terrorists in Iraq kill our troops, they’re working with NKorea to get a bomb in 12 months, they killed 5 Americans in Karbala, they’re aiding Hamas, etc). They aren’t going to wait to make a presentation to the UN or get congresional authorization. They will just act to create their “new reality.” We don’t have much time to ward this off, maybe only 6 to 8 weeks. Congress must act now before Bush just does it.
“Congress must act now before Bush just does it.”
————–
You call for hearings. These would be a step toward action by Congress, but what could Congress do?
I’d like to see a clear consensus on this, stated repeatedly and pushed hard.
What action should we advocate?
I’d love to be able to agree, but I think it’s too late. Iran is on the fast track now and I don’t believe there’s anything the Dems (or the GOP) can do to stop it. I suspect both parties are basically slackjawed at the sight of an administration that really doesn’t give a damn about the politics. Politics is the way the Congress does business and the administration isn’t playing. They’re not sure how to react so they just keep playing the same political game when the administration is playing by different rules altogether. Feingold seems to be the only one who understands that.
The military brass and the intelligence agency brass are getting screwed by dealing with this administration. In fact every living thing that deals in any way (voluntarily or not) with George Bush can count on one thing–Getting screwed. I mean the man is incompetent! Therefore since these top brass folks have careers and lives to worry about and did not get to their positions by being stupid, I fell that a behind the scenes (non-violent) coup (if you will) will prevent what you all fear.
I agree we should do everything we can besides to put the brakes on this, but if I were a betting man, I would bet against Bush being able to strike Iran militarily without overwhelming Congressional and public support!
When the idea of using tactical nukes on Iran was first floated there were stories about the top brass rebelling. Bush has been replacing generals almost as fast as he’s been replacing judges. I wouldn’t be too sure that he doesn’t have his “team” in place at this point.
Well if we can impeach a president for a blow job with one person, why the hell can’t we impeach one who is screwing everybody?!!!!
why can’t we??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
This assumes that Bush/Cheney et al. care one whit about congressional and public support. I would argue that they are operating from a position of such weakness that their only remaining concerns are their original goal of control over Middle East resources coupled with their belief that the end result of a conflict with Iran will save their legacy in the eyes of history.
I’m afraid that a Sir, No Sir! attitude within the military at the highest levels is the only hope we have left.
Richard Nixon won a landslide victory in 1972, and in less than 3 years was forced to resign in disgrace with one of the lowest approval ratings ever. The Repub party suffered from that somewhat, but if the dishonesty and selfishness could have been pinned onto the repubs as part of their DNA (so to speak), it well could have marked the permanent end to the party.
That is the danger to Repubs if they allow Bush to act recklessly anymore, as you imply above. They (the rest of the repub party) will all go down to defeat in the near future. Before this was allowed to happen, I have to predict a political coup, an impeachment, would happen supported by repubs in the name of removing a mentally ill president from office. That would save face, and possibly prevent the permanent end of the repub party!
“I don’t believe there’s anything the Dems (or the GOP) can do to stop it.”
———-
If orders to attack were clearly illegal, officers would have a duty to refuse them.
NG, your naivete is touching. But 1) the American people have set no bar at all and 2) no one has held anyone accountable for the travesty of Iraq.
Had Democrats stormed the White House with their own surge, immediately conducting hearings on the war in Iraq, if they had immediately cut funding to the military establishment in general, maybe there’d have been a chance.
You and others I’ve read keep thinking the system works, that someone can keep Bush from doing this. But he’s a dictator running wild, and the military is on his side. Congress is powerless without a massive offensive they are unwilling to conduct against Bush and Cheney.
You and others I’ve read keep thinking the system works, that someone can keep Bush from doing this. But he’s a dictator running wild, and the military is on his side.
Did you see General Casey getting screwed yesterday at the senatorial hearing?? Don’t you think many other career leaders see this catch 22 and are wondering what to do about Bush. You just must have some faith in people’s ability to learn and act appropriately eventually, but at the same time, do everything you can to legally help them see your views.!
Generals are always the fall guys for the screw-ups of the civilian commanders. This time, however, I think they’ve got it coming. They aren’t responsible for the policy and in this case, may not even be responsible for the execution, but they lent their credibility to the lies of this administration from they day Shinseki got himself effectively “sacked” for testifying as he did before congress. They stood behind Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush with their chests full of medals for service to the country while the civilians flat out lied about how things were proceeding in Iraq. I understand that policy must be set by civilians but when those civilians are misleading the country in the way these people were and are, then their responsibility to their country requires something more than “Yes Sir! Whatever you say, Sir!”
“US policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,” the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters.
I’m getting really tired of this. Last time I checked, Senator Clinton was elected to represent New York, not Jerusalem. Is there any other foreign country that even comes close to having as much direct involvement in the US electoral process as Israel? Why do we even permit foreign countries to operate PACs? The proper mode of representation for a foreign country is an embassy, not a US Senator.
She’s playing the standard DLC playbook to becoming a viable presidential contender.
And for that reason, we should shun her.
.
Before AIPAC audience: Clinton said, criticizing what she called the Iranian administration’s “pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric.”
Just about sums up Hillary’s stance on foreign policy and Iran.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Other than that dimwit Amadinejad whose been misquoted mostly I’d like to see Hillary or any other rethug or dem actually put together a list of so called anti-Israeli rhetoric…or a list of threats-legitimate threats against the US.
I went to bed while some inanity about a feud between Kos posters was on the home page. I’m glad to see something of worldwide import back on top.
War, Global Warming, and the threat electronic voting STILL poses to our Democracy are, to me, the utmost issues of our time.
If the Democrats in Congress had come in with the goal of impeaching the Vice President, we might have forestalled this. But since they took that off the table – President Cheney continues to press the offensive. As usual – this is a twofer. Maybe a threefer. The neocons get to wreak havoc in Iran, AND they create a distraction that slows the Democrats progress on other issues. The threefer comes if the public then perceives the Iran war as a Democratic issue.
Someone should revoke Hillary’s standing as a Democrat. I’m so sick of her “centrism” which is really just a willingness to shill for big money interests, i.e. the oil people who use Israel as a launching pad for their activities.
I’ve never been a big meta person.
hey i couldn’t track down your email, so i’m thanking you publicly for front=paging my mooninite diary!
thanks, steven!
Btw – the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing yesterday in which Zbigniew Brzezinski had this to say:
Former CIA director and our new Defense Secretary Robert Gates counters, saying:
Given Gates’ background in the Iran-Contra affair, among other activities, I give no weight whatsoever to his protestations.
Brzezenski is more forthcoming:
P.S. One author took offense to any characterization of Bush’s policies as “Manichean,” arguing we’d be so lucky if they actually were:
I love America. I want our country to be safe from attack. I’ll tell you it is because of my children and grandchildren and the future, and all that, but it is also about me. I want and peace and safety for myself.
But I’m really confused about the “under no circumstance may Iran have a nuclear wapon” attitude.
I wish every country would destroy theire nukes. But as long as some countries have them, others are going to want them. It is all a pointeless waste, unless somebody uses one. Countries aren’t likely to use one because they know they will be nuked back. Maybe this is the issue. Perhaps Iran would be willing to nuke us back, if we acted first. Maybe that is the problem. The U.S., in its hubris, believes only it has the right to use nuclear weapons.
I supect the real issue is that we are trying to placate both Israel and the Sunni leaders in Saudi Arabia — an admittedly odd alliance.
If I do nothing else in the political realm for the remainder of my life I will work to repudiate and defeat any and all politicians and media organizations who are now either openly supporting or giving tacit cover to the Bush regime’s insane agenda for attacking Iran.
I regard H. Clinton’s remarks to AIPAC as a travesty which now compels me to regard her as being every bit as toxic and disgusting as Lieberman. As for the rest of the Democratic party leadership, they are useless as tits on a boar, a disgrace to the country. And, in addition, they are fools, because the war against Iran will be their war, with the corporate media cheering them on.
If the Bush regime manages to attack Iran, the recent Democratic electoral victory in congress will be regarded by history as a catastrophe in and of itself, a calamitous circumstance that only served to emasculate the last chance for the “opposition party” to stand up and do what was right.
just when it was exactly that Israel became our 51st state? Really.