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
I would like to say UNBELIEVABLE ! But unfortunately is IS quit believable; the democrats in congress are an invertebret species. The leadership may think they are being clever by avoiding the soft on terrorisim issue, but if they don't have balls now they never will
I just wish they'd get it over with. If our one-party system is hell-bent on destroying the U.S., the one bright spot would be that it will be impossible to fund our giant military state. A collapsed economy might finally bring the long nightmare of the Military-I
I agree. We are not going to see progress from the progressives, so let's bomb Iran and get it over with once and for all. Our troops can come home and fight terrorism right here, while the congress can debate about why the Second American Revolution started.
I can tell them. Taxation without representation.
Which is why Congress is more unpopular than Bush if that is even possible. People may hate villains, but they absolutely despise quisling collaborat
What is the point of voting democratic? Obama- where is he on this?
Nader is right to expose both sides. We have been b*&%# slapped for 8 years by both sides.
We let it happen.
The last thing we need is Bush and Cheney with another blank check.
And who is endorsing those blank checks???
The War Party is bipartisan.
No Balls:
This is and has been the Democrats' problem. But laying low to avoid rocking the boat in advance of the 2008 election will not work well. Our president can easily manipulate the media and the national mood for a week or two whenever he chooses. He can announce a capture of a high Al Quaeda operative, someone who as been in our hands for 8 months (sound familiar?). He can precipitate a crisis in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, or Pakistan with a simple troop movement. All the "It's the economy, stupid," will go right out the window for a week or more. And if it's the first week in November, it matters.
Has anybody but he Iranians noticed that we have them flanked, that we have the nations on both sides of them occupied? Our troops and the bulk of our military might are right on their borders. If we go to war with Iran, the middle east will look like the Third Word War. The three nations side by side, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, comprise an area near the size of Western Europe. And John McCain has stated, as discussed here and elsewhere in the past few days, that it would take a third world war to bring back the draft.
Remember the political backdrop to 1984? It was poverty at home and constant war abroad. Sound familiar?
Don
I don't know how many share my view, but I've decided to vote none of the above this year. I'm just sick of this lesser evil garbage each time I vote and never being able to really celebrate my choice as a positive move for the citizens.
Even for Democrats, I think the problem why they support the Bush Administration on such issues is the fear of another 911 in the minds and voices of the most vocal citizens that contact them. Too many Americans still want revenge against Iran for the 1979-81 US Embassy hostage crises and Iran's support with money and spirit enemies of the USA and Israel.
Until more speak out and tell them NOT to support the President on this then not enough Congressmembers will do the right thing.
I find this hard to believe. Every time there has been a major civil liberties/war issue, I have called my Sens. and Rep. only to find that the lines were flooded with callers doing the same. It is the constituitionally minded folks who get fired up about FISA, and not the ones who think that Saddam Hussein was the mastermind behind 9/11.
No, the Democrats, as Mr. Bromwich notes, are trying to engineer a win/win situation for themselves- Bush has a 20 percent approval rating, so why not give him more rope to hang himself with? A couple of hundred dead and thousands maimed between now and Election Day is a small price to pay. And the danger of Armageddon- well, these guys don't have the imagination to think beyond the Promised Land of the 'veto-proof majority.'
There are plenty of people who have been watching the Dem's on this issue. I believe that the key to why the Dem's have not responded appropriately has to do with the fact that they are afraid that the Repub's will expose them. They call it blackmail. Apparently it works very well. The Dem's are basically a bunch of pussies.
Implicit in the Dino DLC Blue dog half of the dems acquiescence to attacking Iran covertly and overtly waging war by blockade, is that these DINOs trust Bush and Cheney and agree with everything BushCo has done: War crimes, torture, surveillan
Fascism.
The Kucinch democrats were our last chance, and we let the MSM laugh them off the stage.
Shame America, Shame USA.
Kucinich is the best, but had no chance this time, unfortunately. He did at least widen the discussion in a positive way.
So, the best available alternative is Obama, without doubt.
And PLEASE, NEW SPEAKER AND ML!!!!!
The tragedy is WHY Kucinich had no chance: Because the Corporatist fascists MSM doesn't' want him.
In part at least we’re involved in a giant game of chicken. We can’t survive if Iranian oil is taken from the world market, and Iran’s current government can’t survive without oil revenue. This reality creates all of the potential in the world for creative approaches to resolving this problem, but the Bush administration has brought a giant hammer to the region and is largely blind to anything other than pounding nails.
It seems to me that the same diplomatic coalition that was brought to bear against North Korea could be assembled to begin very similar negotiations with the Ayatollahs. The presence of China would bring to the table a voice which is more trusted than ours, but is at least as knowledgeable with respect to the damage that the largest disruption of oil supply in recent times (with the exception of course of the discretionary BUSHCO invasion of Iraq) would send spiraling out in all directions. The presence of Russia would bring to the table a nation with as mush to gain as any from skyrocketing oil prices and one that is undoubtedly sophisticated enough to have studied the damage it would suffer if Iran and/or BUSHCO ever were stupid enough to try to use the oil weapon to bring the world to our knees.
there is some news: OPEC and Iran as part of OPEC will have PLENTY of alternate revenue in China and India. They don't need us. OPEC won't need us ever again as long as there is oil in the ground.
I'm glad to see someone taking the democrats to task, even though I'm a registered dem. They have proven themselves spineless as far as I'm concerned.
Spineless is too good a word for them. And if Obama thinks he can play the current scoreboard and simply run out the clock to win in November, he's as wrong as the Lakers were. If he and the Democratic congressional leaders don't put the pedal to the metal NOW and act as if they were already governing, they will never govern in fact.
Nuclear weapons? If Russia, China, or both assured Iran that they would take the entire population out with neutron bombs if it ever made the mistake of a first strike, it wouldn’t bother me if Iran had as many warheads as, say, England, or even China or Russia.
Why do we need to even think first strike when others can and would neutralize the problem far more effectively than any wild assed plan circulating within any part of BUSHCO will ever be able to guarantee?
When Pelosi walked away from impeachment, I knew she was failing the American people. It is too late for Impeachment to force Bush and Cheney to the table with the time left.... IMPEACHMENT forces them to tell the American people what is going on.... ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT?
Now we have Bush's people pushing us to another war....and still the American people will not stand up... I don't care if they are Democrats or Republican
`
its all about the OIL, my dear friend
and our politicians
have the attitude
that as long as our finest men & women volunteer for the military
it's their tough luck to get killed or maimed
just look how the Congress funds the VA
to "support our troops"
our government betrays the people & our troops
in the name of OIL as being in our ''national interests''
when Bush took office i was paying $1.41 per gallon
now, $4.50 per gallon
so who's national interest ??
`
Impeachment wouldn't actually force the Bushie lot to tell us anything. It is in fact a labor tribunal. The legislature is deciding whether the president, vice president etc. should be fired. That is all it does. I certainly am in favor of firing them but let's not fool ourselves they wouldn't talk. Now criminal prosecutions that might get them to talk. More likely Bushie than Cheney Bushie is such a wimp.
Actually I doubt they would talk there either there is the nasty old fifth amendment. They would just sit there mum.
But I would love to see them in prison.
Yessssssss!!!!!!!
What baffles me is the utter spinelessness of Jay Rockefeller.
Don't his billions insulate him from corruption? and isn't his state tolerant of politicians who defy Bush? (Sen. Byrd has been one of the most vocal opponents of the Iraq war).
Maybe I am very naive, but I don't understand him.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
