Congress to Bush and Cheney: Do What You Want in Iran
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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It's tough to be stuck in limbo. The things Democrats believe in (social justice, tolerance, environment, peace, etc.) are completely overshadowed by their being worthless, feckless, timid and weak when it comes to standing up for those principles. On the other hand, Republicans, while they tout fiscal and personal responsibility (certainly not bad ideas) are rendered moot by their obsession with this utterly retarded and medieval fixation with the fanstasy demonstrated by religion along with a pornographic worship of wealth and corruption. Any other option other than these two polar worsts doesn't stand a chance in open competition.
"""""The things Democrats believe in (social justice, tolerance, environment, peace, etc.)"""""
I hope you meant 'past belifs'. The Dems are as complicit as the rethugs, TACK.
The Democrats will win in a landslide in November. They will conclude that they are brilliant and everybody loves them. Wrong. Everybody hates the Republicans and in this screwed up country there is only one alternative. When they don't have the Republicans to hide behind the loathsome Democrats will come under attack from every direction. We destroy the Republicans in November. Hurray! The Democrats are next.
There will be no American aggression against Iran as it can achieve nothing of benefit to American interests now or in the future. The Israelis will do as they wish and Americans cannot control them, this impotence has been demonstrated relentlessly, and especially with the settlements and the wall. The oil reserves of Iraq and Iran are not in the control of American companies, despite current attempts to sign contracts secretly with the Kurdish regional authority in Iraq, documents not recognised by the central Iraq government. The dependence of the US on cheap oil is going to destabilise the American economy and wreck reformist or progressive agendas. Reality dominates aspiration.
"Reality dominates aspiration
I like that.
And, I sure-as-hell hope that it is true.
"Ike" Eisenhower warned us all that war, if given a chance, would dominate and consume every other social priority of Government
What sort of an utter farce of a nation ... what such a worthy object of the world's fear and contempt ... has The United States of America so blithely allowed itself to become? And whose hands have done this?
I want my Country back, and I want it now.
I want those thousand-or-so criminals wearing bright orange jumpsuits, condemned to breaking great big rocks in the hot sun using nothing but a wad of toilet paper. I don't care if they used to call you "Mister President" or "Senator" or "Your Honor" or even "Mister Justice." You robbed my Country and murdered hundreds of thousands of ITS soldiers.
To them, the United States of America is nothing more than a bloodstained balance-sheet.
But not to me.
You forget this administration "creates its own reality."
Furthermore, having its many heads either buried in the sand, or up rear-ends, it is predisposed to ignoring reality.
To confidently state "there will be no aggression" is bluster. The people responsible for invading Iraq are capable of anything, especially grossly underestimating the consequences and costs of their illegal actions.
The warmongering neocons are not realists. The was against Iraq was of no benefit to American interests, yet it happened, and it continues. If the hawks want to attack Iran, and Hersh has shown over the last few years that without a doubt they do, then they will. The consequences to you, to me, to our economy, to our national security is not something they care about.
One more thought about "this means war."
"World War" has been called "The Interrupted War." Episode One was fought, circa 1910, with horses and wagons, in the old style, and as we know, reached the stalemate of that technology in trenches. When poison gas proved not to be the wonder-weapon that it was thought to be, everybody went home for about 30 years.
Episode Two picked-up where Episode One had left off. The French built their old-school Maginot Line and opened nice bottles of wine behind it, but "each episode is marked by a change in technology
And it was ... "to be continued.
Episode Three is about twenty years over-due now. Is this the time, appointed in the flaming bowels of Hell, for Episode Three to begin? So it would seem, and let us not forget the "technology" bit: even if it does not quite start out that way (and it might), Episode Three will be subtitled "The Return of the Nukes." Nuclear bombs come in all sizes; we're already threatening people with "bunker busters."
So... there is your Doom. "The next page of history, if you choose to accept it."
Do you?
IS the Constitution, and everything this country ostensibly stands for, "a blee-blee piece of paper?"
Or.. not?
"This means war."
Of course it does. It has ALWAYS meant war.
"Gentle plebe, did you learn nothing at all in History class? Did you really imagine that the United States of America would be 'exempt' from all this? That there would not be 'an enemy within the gates' that would not only plunder your house but employ you and your sons and your daughters and even your spouse ... rapaciously ... unendingly ... inexorably ... to plunder the houses of others?"
War is "worth" more than $1 million a minute. That's how bad the bleeding has been, all these years. And there lives and breathes not a single Senator, not a single Representative, not a Justice nor of-course a President/Veep ... that has not become thoroughly soiled by it.
You were warned. By a FIVE-Star General named Dwight D. Eisenhower, in the early 1960's, you were warned!
"Now that I finally have your attention, kids, listen up." It's going to get worse. MUCH worse. In fact, an awful lot of you soon are going to be dead. This "election" is a farce. "It's not the vote that matters, it's who (or rather, what...) counts the votes." Forget the election, if they have one. The only way to save this thing is if about 1,000 sociopaths hear round-the-clock from 300 million plaintiffs.
I think you are sadly correct. The American interest in a war with Iran will be all tied up in the military industrial complex. Isn't it a basic principle of neo-cons that war is the solution to a sluggish economy? It's good for LOTS of big American corporatio
I have long suspected a war with Iran that would escalate to the point of needing to call off the elections and declare Martial Law (thus a continuation of the ACTUAL Bush/Cheney regime). For our own "safety," you know?
The Dems went into shock after the 1994 midterms, and have never recovered. The strategy of the moment is buy time. The fantasy is that with a Dem in the White House and Congress in Dem hands, redistricting can be done to gerrymander the GOP into permanent minority status. The cruel truth is that was tried by Tom DeLay. Dems should take not of his current status before they count on this strategy working for them.
I agree with your statement that the Dems went into shock after the 1994 midterms.
Unfortunately. For all of us.
The citizens of America will not be free again until the oppressive yoke of Zionism is thrown off.
There is little chance of this happening, as the members of the US Congress cringe in fear, shock, and awe before the AIPAC rulers of America.
Professor Bromwich had an excellent article about the Mearsheimer/Walt book www.israel
http://tin
Write to/call Congress!! Tell them we will NOT sacrifice our country for Israel--tell them no attack on Iran, and no more aid!
Seymour Hersh is a real reporter. He and the guys at Counterpuch are about the only ones who report hard news.
Charlie Black "another terrorist attack in the United States would "be a big advantage" for McCain in the coming election."
The point is that Bush/Cheney have opened themselves to serious prosecution and need McCain as president to protect them. This is not about oil, not about Iraq, not about nuclear, this is about provoking Iran.
Just don't look to the Democrats for some 'serious prosecutio
TJO LeftLibertarian: PRAY TELL, WHERE CAN WE TURN TO GET JUSTICE?
Searching foreign ships at gunpoint and sending special ops into Iran are in itself acts of war and justify istant retaliatory measures against all means of the USA without prior warning, according to the Geneva Convention, anyway. Yet, if the USA are going to take this measure, they are also subject to the following:
Quote:
Wars without international legality (e.g. not out of self-defense, not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, and not sanctioned by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations) can be considered wars of aggression.
The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression
Article 39 of the United Nations Charter provides that the Security Council shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and "shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the "most serious crimes of concern to the international community", and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Unquote.
The ICC is waiting, George, Dick and Condi.
...or any place else. Or for that matter, any THING you want.
What is wrong with this picture??
"We'll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America."
The last thing the Military Industrial Complex wants is an end to military conflict.
As if.... a war in Iraq and Afghanistan are not enough to keep the wheels of war spinning,
these lunatics want to start WWIII !
The Gang Of Eight have shown us where their loyalty lies and it will not be forgotten.
Dragging us into war with Iraq got Bush re-elected; obviously, war is the GOP's political "trump card" .
Between their evil machinations and the hyperventilating media, war with Iran by 11/08 would be "made to order" for the old soldier McCain.
Brilliant reporting - shining light on these cockroaches is the only way to scatter them and scuttle their treasonous, nefarious plans. And the comparison is unfair to the roaches.
The Dems are not turning a blind eye to Bush. They know exactly what he's going to do. They will support him in this passive-aggressive way because they have all been bought by AIPAC. This is an AIPAC bill--that organization is running America's Mideast "policy." Until the Dems can vote against AIPAC, this Congress will always put the Israeli hawks policies ahead of the interests of the American people. Get on the phone and tell your congressperson to vote American, not Israeli.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile--hoping it will eat him last"--Winston Churchill
-thanks for the new war nancy, heckofajob!
This line of reasoning is long overdue in the press. It is clear that the Congressional Democrats, my party affiliation, are now as much to blame for the Iraq/n disaster as Bushco. The level of Democratic submission, compliance, what ever you want to call it, with Bush-Cheney is equally criminal. I am find myself more angered at the 'nadless Demos on the Hill than the White House. I have come to expect the worst draconian acts from 1600, but I held higher hopes for the Dems elected in 06. What a fool I was.
At 57, I thought that I would NEVER see an armed revolution, or worst anarchy, in the United States during my life time, but I believed my twenty something children could long after my departure. I'm am not so certain any more. I sense that the gap between the super rich and middle class is becoming so wide and will continue to widen, and that the conspiracy between the haves and governing Washington politicians is becoming so blatant, that it's only a matter of time before the masses welfare and livelihood degrade to the breaking point.
You use anarchy in a harsh way - actually classic anarchy is society without rulers - not a bad thing considering what we have now - forced taxes to pay for wars we don't need.
I don't think any society has NO rulers, just not a centralized rule. Even a neighborhood or small town has guys people will follow, who do the police, fire, and rescue work in the area. Whether they are official capacity or not, if they say do something, people usually figure they know what they're talking about and they go along with it. Society can't function with nothing but individuals each seeking their own personal interests at the peril of others. I think the very definition of a society excludes chaos, and implies structure of some magnitude.
They just don't have to be as corrupt and destructive as the US seems to be adopting, or has already adopted. When you lose your drivers license for 6 months because you had one once of marijuana or grew a few pants for personal use, somethings wrong. What damage has marijuana actually done, other than be against the religious views of some? To link pot with cocaine, crack, and heroin is just stupid and a lie.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
