Bush to start bombing IRAN...call congress NOW!

Unless we all get on the phone and tell our congressman NO!

They are touting that they have the right to invade WITHOUT congressional authority and tell them within 60 days....due to the war powers act of 1973. I believe this is ONLY if we are under attack...and IEDs beind shipped from IRAN do not constitute an ATTACK (this is the horseshit they are trying to shovel).

I called mine, call yours.

DO IT NOW, CALL THEM!!!!

what kind of world will this be in the next year? How long before the world retiliates?

Sometimes I feel like a partyless child.

www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

requires truthful circumstances and situations prior to any Congressional authorizations of use of military force; in the case of the 9-11 AUMF this is justifiable if a country is doing the attacking, i.e. Afganistan's Taliban harboring and promoting OBL's terrorists. In the case of the Iraq War AUMF, the fact that WMDs were a fantasy pretext is all too "telling"

Sept 2001 AUMF
www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html

Oct 2002 AUMF Iraq
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

In both AUMFs the Congress illegally delegates its own powers to Bush ("at his determination").

Congress should demand no preemptive attacks on Iran as that goes against the Constitution AND Bush's oath of office, not to mention such an action would require a 'pretext', which all too often proves to be a fabrication. Which brings me to Complan 8022-22 brought to the public's attention by William Arkin, a former Army intelligence insider

http://www.sqlspace.com/-vp53434.html?sid=f01d5e33525a7c4d2df0e3bd2bf5b78a

regarding potential nuclear 'first strikes'. This Dr. Strangelovian strategy is guaranteed Armageddon and it is time a sleeping public awaken to what is going on here !

is trying to stress in his latest roadshow, ie, Our military is being attacked, in Iraq, by IEDs, and therefore we can introduce the military into hostilities without a dec of war?

Congress MUST reassert itself quickly or we may end up having Boy Wonder starting WWIII. What is needed NOW is for Rep Murtha's and Rep Mike Thompson's resolutions of redeployment be enacted. Instead Congress is being steamrollered into another fiasco, with all the fanstasy-land faith in their own prior planning.

Nixon's 1973 plans to seize Saudi oil fields were the basis for the Iraq invasion. We only found out about those plans in Jan. 2004 by the British publishing them

Document reveals Nixon plan to seize Arab oil fields
'70s embargo sparked 'last resort' measure, says British memo
Lizette Alvarez, New York Times

Friday, January 2, 2004

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/02/MNG8G427D61.DTL

Bush will invade, his buddies will make money,
Israel will rejoice, and in the end no one will
offer any shade of an apology. Bush will snicker
at me, however.

in hell.

Looks like we are powerless once again.
The world held hostage by the bushgang -
bent on bringing hell to earth.
Shouldn't be too much longer now.

Same as last time: Get your war on and sell it later

get a set and stop his ass

And I will stomp in the street with the best of them.

to immediately raise the level of noise on this.

an effect of stopping this. Imagine if the country is NOT behind this fool attacking yet another country. This doesn't have to be a march to war without any protest.

I see the disconnect between Bush and the country as complete
at this time. Some republican bastard sitting in plain view of Feingold (during his request to censure) proffered
the middle-finger-salute the whole while. The camera angle
was such that the TV station was obviously complicit in the deed.
Did anyone complain? What insult and injury is next?

the spin is they are chasing insurgents in Iran that are crossing the border.

Or where the specific wording you have used has been written? This would be helpful for us to send to our individual mailing lists.
I agree that this is the direction they are heading- but without factual quotes, it's difficult to get people to respond. Most when I tell them this very thing, say I am crazy and that we'd "never do something like that- not without approval anyway".
Then again, those same people think I'm nuts about our elections being rigged...

Thanks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x674738

Both a video of Rice before Congress late last year telling them that Bush doesn't need further authorization to invade other countries.

AND my comment after I called Kay Bailey Hutchison's office and was TOLD by the guy who answered the phone that the War Powers Act of 1973 allowed Bush to go attack other countries AS LONG AS he gets a war declaration from Congress within 60-90 days. However, since Bush doesn't believe in the FIRST PLACE that he needs the auth, this means we are being set up for ENDLESS WAR (not to mention I don't think the War Powers act is compatible with the Bush doctrine)

CALL NOW! DO NOT DELAY.

and we screw with China's oil supply...then we are in DEEP shit

If your crystal ball tells you that in the future some country will be a threat to the USA, you can just go out and bomb it back to the stone age.

All you on DU are sooooooo pre 9/11!

-85% Jimmy

If you're REALLY GOOD, you can take out land forms before they even become countries - like the South Pole will be a threat to the USA in the year 2345. Note how valuable and powerful this reality is!

to "promote democracy in Iran". Anyone heard/seen anything reported on it?

Bush believes he alone can decide when to put the US in war.

He's nuts.

That's always been true. Is there something special that makes you think they're attacking Iran now?

pleases without having to go to Congress first. Rice advanced the idea that the AUMF in the case of Afghanistan covered the more general "War on Terror". If you AGREE with this, then you are promoting an endless war scenario, where Bush can just invade countries at will. Today, Hadley is pushing Bush's Pre-emptive Strike baloney and it isn't coincidental at all-the Bush Doctrine has been around for the last few years, but it's only NOW that the war drums are beating for an Iran invasion.

Again, why it's important. IMO, if you don't speak up, it will be conceding that Bush has the right to attack countries that haven't attacked us. And I believe that Congress needs to TELL us whether they agree with this or not and go on the record. Or what's a constitution for?

But they've been saying the have the right to expand the war w/o authorization for years. The OP seemed to suggest there's something new here, or that Bush is promoting this right now. Where is Hadley speaking, what's he saying? I guess I'm just looking for a little more info about what's prompting this thread - that way, callers can give more details.

and the idea about expanding the war without authorization, it was CHALLENGED in the Senate by some Senators when Rice said it late last year. IF it's true that any president has gotten away with this, it has not been to the extremes that Bush is pushing it.

I can't speak for the OP, but I can speak for myself- Bush should not be allowed to go invade another country on the basis of the War on Terror without express Congressional authorization AGAIN. Period.

the war powers act of 1973...why the hell would they already have that if it wasn't coming up?


WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

:nuke:

I contacted my reps. thankyou for the message

I live in Virginia, the torture-supporting, CIA-outing, spy-on-American fascists won't listen to a GD thing I say.

What I will do is spread the word as best I can and support everyone who does.

Coryn and Hutchison... and I called them anyway. Why let them get away with thinking that they serve ONLY Republicans in their state.

I voted and helped elect Kaine, had a Kerry sign in my front yard, constantly talk to people in person about politics, contribute money when I can, sign numerous petitions, go to vigils and other moveon events and try to stay informed.

Pure fascists like Warner and Allen are paid-off whores, I'd rather work to get them out of office than waste my time talking to the neo-Nazi warpigs.

that things are going to change unless we do something do you?

I don't think the US can support another war. I don't believe we have it in us to do it.

hmmmmmm but I do have to wonder... I mean if you play the scenario out in your head...

What will happen when Iran gets a nuclear bomb? What will they do?

Do you really think they'll use it on Israel like they've threatened?
I sure hope not. I mean they aren't really serious about that are they?

-Winter

they WANT us demotivated, uninvolved. They want us NOT to call and bother them. They want us NOT to have the heart to challenge and confront them. THey WANT you to think your voice doesn't count and they won't pay attention.

If there are enough people calling, they WILL pay attention. Pretend to be a Republican. There are plenty of Republicans against this too, as they've come to be against the Iraq war (and a few were against it beforehand).

I rather think the Republicans listen better than the Dems do -- witness the quick action/reaction on the Ports deal. They LISTENED thoroughly on that.

When was "The War Powers Act of 1973" recently introduced to the red carpet?

Jeebus H. Cripes, no! Not another war!?

and was told that Bush, by virtue of the War Powers Act of 1973, can go invade countries as much as he wants as long as he gets a Dec of War from Congress within 60-90 days.

I was under the impression that they were currently using this on Faux...

am repeating what I was told by my Republican Senator's office. I don't ever watch Fox, it's trash, so if they are using that as a talking point, I don't know.

fascist bastards they are

Remember the Iraq war? He doesn't care about you.

it DOES matter whether we speak up and exercise our democratic principles. Maybe ultimately it will do no good, but it does zero good if you say .... nothing.

It seems the more VOCAL we are about something the faster they vote in the OPPOSITE direction...

Where has this been said?

I agree they seem to be amping up the rhetoric on Iran's threat, but I don't want to distract my congressman from other important issues - like Censure.

And I'm afraid they'll consider me a whack job (and no, that's not what I think) unless I have some evidence beyond a statement made by Rice months ago regarding the war powers act.

Reb

But read between *what* lines?

See, I think my senators are going to think I'm a whack job if all I have to refer to is just the sound bites I've heard recently in the news.

Or perhaps you have a suggestion on how to frame this with my senators?

I'm going to do some closer reading of those Iran articles, but frankly I think they are pushing the Iran threat to distract us from the Economy, the motion on censure, etc etc etc.

They seem to trot it out when they need to distract us from something that's embarrassing... like say, Bush's approval numbers. Not that I put it past this administration to start bombing because they want to manipulate us.

I just don't want to play into their hands.

Reb

Edited to add- again, please site specific examples- articles, links, quotes from reputable sources. I read a lot of news, but I can't read everything and I've obviously missed this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060316/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_national_security_9

or http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Bush_Administration

This clears things up for me.

An' a hidy hiddy hiddy an' a hiddy hiddy ho!

This should refer to recent info according to the impression the OP leaves. It implies that urgent new info demands urgent action.

If there is an attack on Iran, it will be spotted in the regrouping of the troops in Iraq. And I don't think you could keep such a build up a secret.
On the other hand, a diversion, like the attack on Samarra, could obscure that build up.

All in all, I'll go for the view they've got their hands full in Iraq at the moment.

"US launches major Iraq air attack
(...)
The operation coincides with the US announcement of a new national security strategy - in which it restates a policy of pre-emptive strikes first issued in 2002 and criticised since the Iraq war - and the first session of Iraq's new parliament."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4814094.stm

with China and Russia it appears successfully putting this back into the hands of the IAEA with the FULL council

They wouldn't want to look unpatriotic!

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

NOW the question is WILL * LISTEN!
quote......

Iran said Thursday it was prepared to talk directly with the United States about Iraq, a major shift for a country that has long avoided negotiations with what it calls the "Great Satan."

The offer appears to reflect the desire of at least some top Iranian officials to relieve Western pressure over Tehran's nuclear program in return for help on Iraq, which is sliding ominously toward civil war.
end quote.......
http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/03/16/ap2600480.html

it's like an appetizer.

Didn't Iran watch what happened to Saddam? He was in a no-win situation; so is Iran. NOTHING could have stopped the Iraq war. I'm not at all sure we're not seeing the same thing with this Iran thing.