Congress to Bush and Cheney: Do What You Want in Iran

Seymour Hersh's "Preparing the Battlefield," in the July 7 New Yorker, will be discussed in the coming weeks by everyone interested in our foreign policy and the future of the American constitution. The complete failure of congressional oversight, to which the article points, is a larger subject that will be with us until the election and beyond. For if the vice president and his neoconservative advisers have their way -- and they remain, in spite of setbacks, the most active, energetic, and ambitious faction within the Bush administration -- the U.S. will be at war with Iran or on the way to war by January 2009. And if that is so, it will matter less than we think who is elected in November. The momentum will be there; the country will be committed.

In late 2007, after winning an election whose central issue was a more prudent and rational policy in the Middle East, congressional Democrats, obedient to the wishes of a Presidential Finding, signed away $400 million for secret operations against Iran. A more craven act of submission would be hard to imagine; and they did this in the glow of victory, in direct contradiction of their mandate. What were they signing for? Sabotage, assassination, covert support for political clients and "destabilization" generally are predictable parts of such a design; but the Democrats, in the months between their capitulation and Hersh's article, made no mention of dissatisfactions at having been cut off from oversight. The truth seems to be that in this area, as in so many others, only the Office of the Vice President oversees the Office of the President.

"The process is broken," one of Seymour Hersh's informants told him, "and this is dangerous stuff we're authorizing." Yet the Democrats in the "Gang of Eight" whom the president consults on classified programs -- Reid, Pelosi, Rockefeller, Reyes -- may prefer to have things broken. What they don't know, can't hurt them at the polls, or so they seem to believe. It is the same passive obedience that led the Democrats to close the debate early for the authorization of the Iraq war in 2002, so they could clear the decks for the election; to banish all use of the words Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, in late 2004, so they could clear the decks for the election; and to confine themselves to flawless platitudes about Iraq in 2008, so they can clear the decks for the election. The desertion of principle is exceeded only by the evasion of responsibility.

Still, what were they risking when they let the administration go ahead in Iran without accountability? The answer was given by Secretary of Defense Gates when he met with a group of Democrats late last year. Gates told the Democrats that if the U.S. made a preemptive strike against Iran, "We'll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America." Now, what Democrat, in 2007 or 2008, has spoken as if he heard that warning from the Secretary of Defense?

To the extent that we have sidestepped a war with Iran, the notable resistance has been mounted so far by persons within the armed forces like Admiral Mullen and Admiral Fallon -- the latter of whom (according Hersh's informant) got along fine with President Bush but crossed Vice President Cheney by wanting to know about the secret operations officially under his command. Had Fallon consulted the Democrats, they might have shown him how to hold onto his job by following their pattern of uninformed consent.

The stifling of free discussion within Congress about the American provocations in Iran, is both a cause and a symptom of the one-sidedness of the treatment of the issue in the mainstream media. It is handled as if Iran's nuclear research were the sole danger in the case; and as if it were a foregone conclusion that in this matter, the fears of some Israelis are bound to be closer to the truth than the National Intelligence Estimate of 2007.

Why has House Concurrent Resolution 362 -- a device promoted by AIPAC that commits its supporters to press for a naval blockade of Iran, which would be an act of war -- received so little public attention and debate? AIPAC has denied that a blockade is intended, but the language of its resolution leaves no doubt; it goes for "imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program." Nothing except a blockade could possibly accomplish the enumerated tasks of interdiction and inspection.

The whole purpose of such a resolution is to herd the Democratic Congress into the Office of the Vice President until the two spaces are indistinguishable. A vote for the resolution amounts to a vow of silence regarding anything the U.S. chooses to do against Iran. The vice president believed that he had war within his grasp when an incident almost erupted in January 2007 between Iranian patrol boats and American ships in the Strait of Hormuz. There were no cheers of relief in the OVP when the navy stayed calm and the fever went down. A few weeks later, Hersh reports, the vice president held a meeting. "The subject," said a former official of the administration, "was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington."

Vice President Cheney learned long ago that he can outplay the Democrats in the game of power, because he is willing to use power. The Democrats, by contrast, don't even want to be responsible for the power that they have. In early 2007, when most voters believed the result of the 2006 election signified a policy of withdrawal from Iraq, nobody was surer than Dick Cheney that a plan to withdraw would never be brought forward. If the Democrats were serious, Cheney said, they would vote against appropriations. He was right. They didn't have the nerve, and they did not mean to withdraw. Instead, they rewarded the administration, whose venality and recklessness were a matter of international embarrassment, with an exorbitant donation of public money to subsidize new acts of violence.

Thanks to Seymour Hersh's reporting, today they are under the glare of public exposure; and, unlike the vice president, they can hardly invoke a new-model interpretation of "inherent powers" or a "theory of the unitary executive" to screen them from public questioning. Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, Harry Reid, Sylvestre Reyes, John Murtha, David Obey and all the bewildered and negligent Democrats (to say nothing of the Republicans, who claim nothing for themselves but a perfect dependency on the president) -- all may fairly be asked if they are happy with the Cheney-Bush secret operations in Iran. Are they even interested in knowing what the operations are? They did not care much about oversight, but now we are watching them.

Comments

[argeec]

Iran almost certainly CANNOT produce weapons-grade material from the uranium found in their country. The chemistry of that material will not permit it.
If Iran wants a nuclear weapon, their best bet would be to buy the material from someone else.
Also, the IAEA monitors Iran via unannounced inspections and sees no liklihood of a weapon anytime in the foreseeable future. See http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/3354

This isn't about nuclear weapons in Iran, it's about the neocon's dream of "Greater Israel" and Israeli hegemony in the middle east.

[ApolloSpeaks]

What is rational about allowing the epicenter and powerhouse of international terrorism, 100 times more dangerous than al Qaida and the Taliban, from getting the bomb?

[syllepsis]

We are not at war with Iran.
And our attempts at nonproliferation are a joke. If we were serious about it, our foreign policy would be rational, and it is not.

[earthwealth]

Sounds like you are referring to Israel. I do not know where you have been if you don"t know that she already has it. Perhaps as many as 200 nuclear warheads! That is why a peace loving nation like Iran is threatened and may have to be forced to develop their own to counter balance Israeli threat. For your information, Israel developed these nuclear warheads with our financial and technical supports and spying on us at the same time!

[StephenJK]

heard something about 1930 and this economy. Something. I dunno what.

[ricchase]

I am not trying to sound naive, but what would be wrong with simply ignoring Iran? Watch to see if they are indeed building nuclear energy resources for energy needs, as they claim. They have proclaimed to the world that there intentions are peaceful and pose no threat. With the world watching it should be easy enough to determine if they are in fact building nuclear weapons. At which point the United States would be well within it's rights to then protect us, Israel and the rest of the middle east from this aggression, before they were actually able to use any weapons. We would have the backing and support of the entire world. No one would deny us military intervention if it turned out WMD'd were a FACT, a provable FACT, instead of another fantasy of Cheney and his mob of war hungry, treasury pilfering thugs. With this course of action we would be much less likely to infuriate the rest of the planet, again. We would be less likely to create another generation of jihadists and terrorist to contend with. And we would be justified in everyone's eyes. Now what would be wrong with this?

[Chillinout]

Because that doesn't fit in with the neo-cons agenda. They have wanted to take over the Middle East and gain access to all of that oil. If things had gone right in Iraq, we would have then gone into Syria and Iran.

It is called "The New American Century Project."

[StephenJK]

What would be wrong?! LOL Are you serious?!

[DakotaMinnesota]

What's wrong with this line of thought? I want to know directly what you're afraid of that you just can't sleep at night thinking "Iran Iran Iran."

[StephenJK]

Whether people want to believe or not WW3 is nigh. No matter WHO gets in office, we have WW3. It would SEEM.

[earthwealth]

Good idea for peace. But sorry bad idea for business!

[Jody2167]

I'm terriblly disappointed in Nancy Pelosi and crew. They have basically rolled over on everything. I wish they would show some guts.

[DakotaMinnesota]

Let's give them the votes in November to give them the math to do what both they and we want.

[BBackSoon]

I am all for giving some other Dems my votes but I would like to see the current Dem leadership stripped of it"s powers and sent home.

[Boobaloo]

David Bromwich: "Why has House Concurrent Resolution 362 -- a device promoted by AIPAC that commits its supporters to press for a naval blockade of Iran, which would be an act of war -- received so little public attention and debate?"

===

Am I the only who read that part of the article?

[Americafirstalways]

AIPAC owns the Democrats as well.. See the following:

AIPAC pushing for war with Iran for Israel:

http://tinyurl.com/22br9u

Ron Paul: Nancy Pelosi pulled Iran bill on orders of Israel (via AIPAC):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=90905


Ron Paul Speaks Out against war with Iran:



http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=91790

Stop the Iran War Resolution:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=91563

US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming months:


http://forum.kucinich.us/index.php?topic=127.0


Scott McClellan Questioned about Neocon Push for Iraq War

http://tinyurl.com/6gzo4o

[TLP]

Twenty five years ago, an acquaintance of mine, told me his father worked for the CIA before he died.
Before he died, he told his son, "if this country knew what is going on in Washington DC, there would be a revolution". That was over twenty five years ago. We now know more of all the *#&#shit and nothing is being done. We elect people to fix things and they make it worse.
Just like George Carlin said, "It's all $#*@SHIT, and it's bad for you". Obviously, what Nixon said is ringing true.When you have them by their ba--s, their hearts and minds will follow.

[StephenJK]

I don't doubt that. And I intend to do something about that and so does my girlfriend. We are planning an event and the coming out party of two seperate organizations. One (nation wide) which is a sort of oversight of law enforcement with the help of legal professionals. The other is a sort of political oversight organization. However, these organizations operate within a maximum of MLK's tenets of peaceful and meaningful organization. We'll kick it off with a helluva party. One in which EVERYONE is welcome. However, any participants will be subject, unless they choose not to partake, to our ideas about ultimate oversight. If we had these type of organizations in play now we would not find ourselves in the situation we find ourselves in today. It doesn't have to end with politics and law enforcement. That should only be the beginning. Citizen organizations which have oversight of many things among those which we started. Maybe someone else will start something now that I've mentioned it. However, it MUST be meaningful and effective. I have ideas to IGNITE thought and insight. And I will realize that within two years.

[RamonBackwards]

My rep was serious. Carol Shea-Porter votes to cut off funding for the war. If yours doesn't, LOL at you because you're being played.

[rkrenke]

The halls of Congress are no longer filled with public servants but with professional politicians instead. The prohibitive costs of campaigning today limits the field of potential candidates, especially those who would put principles before money.

The Democratic Party is a sham and one of the most worthless organizations in this country. When you have a two party system, the term "opposition party" tends to mean something. We can continue to justify their behavior and work towards electing "good" Dems through primaries and general elections, but the Democrats will just continue to work behind our backs to ensure that their ranks are stacked with "Blue Dogs", i.e., Obama cutting an ad in Georgia for John Barrow who's being challenged in a primary by a progressive female candidate. The Republicans don't smear the "left" half as much as the Democrats.

I agree with others posting today - we either need to clean house big time or pursue term limits for our federal legislators (and Supreme Court). A democracy is only as good as the People who support. It's time to take our country back by eliminating the pervasive cancer that envelopes our nation's capitol.

[4peace]

We are a one party system that represents 4% of the population.

[Mogamboguru]

Umm -

perhaps, just like Washington and the founding fathers intended it - giving all the power of the vote to wealthy, land-possessling, white anglican males?

Perhaps, the actual political situation in the USA is exacltly, what the US-constitution intended to create and was tailormade for - and is only MISUNDERSTOOD as a warrant for universal rights and democracy?

Perhaps, The Constitution ITSELF is the problem - and has to be abolished first, before something better, more suited to the today's needs could replace it?

I am just thinking...

[StephenJK]

I agree 100% with your assertions about the one party system. The money system. We, as a people, need to assert ourselves. And assert ourselves in a fashion which has our forefathers core ideals in mind. We, as a people, cannot afford to let our elected officials to continue in the ways they have for decades to diminish US as a people. We need to have the intestinal fortitude to STEP UP and CALL our government entities OUT! We cannot let this "MSM" to continue to feed us garbage in whatever way, shape or form THEY choose. We, and I've seen hints of it in this presidential primary, need to step up and call out the people we put into power. We cannot continue to write them blank meaningless checks! Checks in which we become the victim. I, and my loved ones and all of you (if you choose to join us.....ultimately), we hold our elected officials and our law enforcement officials accountable. FOR REAL!! No talk. Just action. Words don't work anymore. They think they have sufficiently placated us and have ultimate control OVER US! No. They have false beliefs and comforts. WE, are the ultimate "deciders". IF WE SO CHOOSE.

[TheIndependenceParty]

As we approach the general election in November, it may be that the decision is between a party that leads us into calamity by their every action, and a party that acquiesces to the party that leads us into calamity. The dilemma is "Which is worse?" Is it the party that is "evil" or the party that is "See no evil?"

Our political system is in a pathetic state, and growing worse by the day.

[rollingdivision]

What is coming out of congress is what the Democrats support!!
Acquiesces, acquiesces wow that's all wrong. The Democrats may have been able to be accused of acquiescing to Republican policies in congress when the Republicans controlled both the house and senate but no more. Since 2006 Democrats have had complete control over writing the bills, what bills go to committee, what bills are allowed to be introduced and voted on in both the house and senate and can force through votes. When you have this much power you aren't passively acquiescing, the Democrats are full willing participant in everything that comes out of congress for the last year and a half. What is coming out of congress is what the Democrats support!!

[dctackett]

the leaders in congress are owned, the rest are dependent on them and most are ignorant...
the major media is owned... what the government does doesn't matter when the people have no idea what they are really doing... it's the 4th branch that's unaccountable.
the you-know-what will hit the fan and the people will be too confused to know what to do, they'll just go along to make-it-through the "tough times"...
if people with guts, intelligence and ethics were willing to run for office across the country, things could change, otherwise it won't

[earthwealth]

Thanks to our controlled media. The most press free country has the most uninformed people! People with guts and courage have run for office and not many cared to pay attention. Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader are some examples.

[4peace]

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich really have a lot of good things to say and a lot of good ideas, its that "free press" (thats not so free anymore) that wouldn't let them have a voice. Lets face it, the media does what the neocons tell them to do, and that means keeping the honest ones quiet. The media chooses our candidates, its as simple as that. I seriously want to barf at the thought of that creepy mccain as a candidate for anything, this is the best and brightest the country has to offer for half of our one party system?? wtf

[Estreet1964]

You know what's amazing? The people of South Korea are in the streets
protesting right now. Been there for several weeks I think. Why?
Because their government agreed to import US beef. That's right, in
South Korea they take to the streets en mass because of BEEF IMPORTS!
And yet here, in the bastion of democracy, we can't even bother to get
off our asses as we're lied to and our constitution is systematically
dismantled.

Ah, who cares.....we got great TV and low prices at Wal Mart.

[earthwealth]

People are acting like members of Mafia Family. They know what kind of dirty works the leaders are involved and pretend everything is cool.

[fairwitness]

You cannot ocnclude other than that the Democrats are as venal and cravenly bloodthirsty as Cheney and the Republican sociopaths that run the government. And the people are too afraid and too incompetent and too uninformed to be involved at all. This country is screwed royally, with no end in sight, Obama (of the recent surrender to spying, war-funding and iranian adventures) notwithstanding.

Nader was, unfortunately, right in saying that there is no difference between the parties but in rhetoric--theyspin difference narratives, but are the same in function.

[StephenJK]

"Nader was, unfortunately, right in saying that there is no difference between the parties but in rhetoric--theyspin difference narratives, but are the same in function."

Maybe you can tell us when that was different. Maybe Ralph can. It's NEVER been any different.

[Crowhaul]

As always, David, excellent work. The Bush/Cheney crimes are legion.

For those who still harbor doubt that America is first among Evil Empires, I suggest grabbing a copy of Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine, and begin the long, hard path toward understanding really how nefarious our foreign policies are....

[Arleang]

There will not be much of a response to Seymour Hersh's article or this blog because the American people are on overload and the issues are much too large.

The "people" will wake up too late.

Even if you are fortunate enough to live in a congressional district where your congressman wants to impeach Bush for all the right reasons, you may be saddled with a senator like Dianne Feinstein who we already know was informed of the enhanced interrogation techniques, in matters of war supports Bush/Israel, and is counting the days until retirement when she escapes all responsibility for looking the other way while crimes against the nation were committed.

So complain to Congress knowing it is probably a useless effort, but also do what you can to protect yourself and your family against the disruptions that are just over the horizon.