Attacking Iran = Impeachment

[cali]

and conviction. I have no doubt whatsoever that if bushco attacks Iran without prior approval from Congress, he will be impeached so quickly, you'll head will spin. And what's more, enough repukes in the Senate would vote for removal to oust him from office.

That's one reason I don't think he'll do it- though there are several other reasons, as well.

[Taxloss]

1. Please keep talking sense!

Recommended.

[fooj]

2. Suddenly "time" won't be an issue, will it?

I'm in FULL agreement!

[Tom Joad]

3. You are much more optimistic than i am. I have no doubt that if Bush attacks Iran

there will be a line out the rose garden of congresspeople lining up in support...

I hope you are right and i am wrong, even much more, i hope we never find out.

[cali]

6. Tom, I have no doubt that I am right

about this. NONE. I think it's unlikely we'll ever find out, but if he does it, he's gone.

[Tom Joad]

12. Again, i think we both very much don't want this to be proven one way or another.

So as that goes, we are in agreement.

But after months of hearing "all options must remain on the table" from damn near every congrespeople in regard to Iran (Kucinich and several others notable exceptions) and the fact that it took a long time before more than a few called Bush's war in Iraq even "a mistake" (and how many call it a crime?)

Also the fact that Webb's bill, affirming that Congress must be consulted on any such attack is not speeding through this congress... gives me cause to doubt that they will get before microphones and "support the troops" and hope for a speedy and successful mission.

[cali]

25. I think it's more likely that

they're pretty damn sure that it won't happen. There's not more than 5 or 6 dems in the entire Congress that would be lining up before the mikes to support this- if that many.

[Toots]

27. Not to mention the argument "We are at War" can't question the pResident durng "War"

I'm sure that will be the first thing thrown at us...

[Dan]

59. Please share with me

...any signs of rational behavior by Bush that you might be aware of - where he has exhibited a sense of accountability or personal responsibility for his actions...... waiting...

[peacetalksforall]

51. It's dangerous to ignore the contempt PNAC holds for Congress.

An entire major portion of their PNAC and Baron plan is all about going around Congress. That means, they don't give a darn about Congress. They want to destory our Constitution. COngress is the center of the Constitution. Why would they be afraid of Congress. If necessary, they will stay in power their own way. There are Republicans and there is PNAC and the Barons.

I have a horrible feeling they won't mind reducing the population along the way.

The entire delusion about our having a vote, political parties representing us may just be a delusion - they have promised a change of reality.

They are vulnerable, but they may not be ready to fold, yet.

Stockholders have a big say. Congress can take a stronger stand, but most have their heads buried. All those contractors want to keep up the momentum.

How strong is Congress - can they stand up to PNAC and the Barons? How many want to?

I don't see any turning points yet. Hopefully, there will be.

[AndyTiedye]

4. We Must Make Sure Congress Knows This Too!

If, as the rumors say, they start the attack at 4AM on Good Friday, that gives Congress all day to impeach Bush** and Cheney and remove them from office.

OUT THE SAME DAY

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. They are on vacation and won't be in session next Friday

Hate to burst your bubble, though.

[solara]

32. Impeachment is a process, like a trial,

it would take much longer than a day..I don't know of another way to remove them from office though and I don't think there is a provision in the Constitution that provides for immediate removal from office. I could be wrong, though.


INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT INCARCERATE :patriot:

[AndyTiedye]

55. Congress Could Do It In a Day If They Were Pissed Off Enough

Getting back into session when they aren't might be an issue though.
They really need contingencies for that sort of thing.

The other way they could be removed from office is if they were found to be incapactiated and incapable of carrying out their duties (due to insanity?).

[theoldman]

5. What if Israel attacks Iran and starts a war?

I think we have an agreement to come to Israel's aid. That way Bush does not need an OK from congress.

[cali]

We may have an agreement

to come to Israel's aid if Israel is attacked, and historically, we've never even done that.

[Warpy]

7. He thinks he's bulletproof and no peasant can stop him

Plus, he's convinced that picking enough fights in the Middle East will knock Jebus off his heavenly throne and force him to fill the promise of the Rapture.

Remember, he believes he'll be the first one sucked up to heaven, body and all.

[Forkboy]

8. The only rub in your theory is...

BUSH IS INSANE! :)

[cali]

9. Yeah, there is that, isn't there?

But I don't think all of his Cabinet is, or all of his advisors, and I know that all of the Generals aren't.

I don't even think kkkarl rove is crazy- just evil, and I'm sure he realizes that bushco would be impeached and convicted if he attacked Iran.

[tblue37]

46. But he has been stedaily replacing the sane ones, to make sure the

ones he has there are ones that will do his bidding.

[seemslikeadream]

10. Pelosi's Disastrous Misstep on Iran

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/?pid=174804
As such, the decision by Pelosi and her allies to rewrite their Iraq legislation to exclude the statement regarding the need for congressional approval of any military assault on the neighboring country of Iran sends the worst possible signal to the White House.

It is not too much to suggest that Pelosi disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to come.

Here's how the Speaker messed up:

The Democratic proposal for a timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq included a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before using military force in Iran. It was an entirely appropriate piece of the Iraq proposal, as the past experiences of U.S. involvement in southeast Asia and Latin America has well illustrated that when wars bleed across borders it becomes significantly more difficult to end them. Thus, fears about the prospect that Bush might attack Iran are legitimately related to the debate about how and when to end the occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately, Pelosi is so desperate to advance her flawed spending legislation that she is willing to bargain with any Democrat about any part of the proposal.

Under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groupings that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC), Pelosi agreed on Monday to strip the Iran provision from the spending bill that has become the House leadership's primary vehicle for challenging the administration's policies in the region.

One of the chief advocates for eliminating the Iran provision, Nevada Democrat Shelley Berkley, said she wanted it out of the legislation because she wants to maintain the threat of U.S. military action as a tool in seeking to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. "It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," explained Berkley.

[nancyr]

13. Spare me.

If Bush does attack Iran...the Republicans will line up behind him like always. Dreams of impeachment are just that. This will never happen. Nice to think that it could..but let's be realistic here.

[cali]

19. No, I don't think so. They're already peeling away

They're willing to give his obscene "surge" six months- and they've told him so. Senators like Hagel, Smith, Collins, Snowe, and even Sunnu have made their discomfort clear. Generals have said they'd quit before going along with an attack. There is ZERO appetite for war in this country at this time. In order to pull this off, bush would have gin up a fake attack by Iran of 9/11 proportions and sell it a dubious American public.

[MLFerrell]

29. "...bush would have gin up a fake attack by Iran of 9/11 proportions..."

He will. A carrier going down in the Gulf would make an Iran war an easy sell to a gullible, uninformed public. And the media will be beating the war drum the loudest.

According to Norman Mineta, Cheney deliberately stopped military intercept of the hijacked planes on 9-11.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050724164122860

I wouldn't doubt for a second that these evil sonsofbitches would murder thousands of Americans to get their precious war with Iran.

[seemslikeadream]

24. spare you what?

I don't think I was posting about impeachment

[cali]

15. Please see post #11.

I wish the provision had been left in, but even without, if he attacks Iran, the anger in Congress will be overwhelming, and they WILL impeach and convict.

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. Well, he has been warned. Biden AND Pelosi have told him he MUST go before Congress for a

"Declaration of War" or we would have a Constitutional Crisis. I highly doubt those were idle threats. Pile an attack on Iran on top of Abramoff, Foley, USA firings, NSA illegal wiretaps, Plame, ect...even the repukes will be demanding his Impeachment. However, I disagree that he won't do it. He's much too arrogant NOT to attack Iran. If that's what he wants to do, that's what he WILL DO. Congress means NOTHING to him. He doesn't give a shit what they think/say.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

14. But I thought the war powers act from 2001 allows him to do it

Remember the language in the new bill that Pelosi et. al., redacted under pressure from AIPAC? That was to require Bush to get Congressional authorization to attack Iran. I'm under the impression that because of that, he CAN attack Iran - because of trumped up accusations of a nuke program or being a "state sponsor of terror" - and there's not much Congress can do about it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

[Tom Joad]

16. Support Sen. Webb's Bill. S. 759

A BILL

To prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS IN IRAN.

(a) Prohibition- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds appropriated or otherwise made available by any Act, including any Act enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act, may be obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or within the territorial waters of Iran, except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress enacted in a statute enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Exceptions- The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to military operations or activities as follows:

(1) Military operations or activities to directly repel an attack launched from within the territory of Iran.

(2) Military operations or activities to directly thwart an imminent attack to be launched from within the territory of Iran.

(3) Military operations or activities in hot pursuit of forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter enter into Iran.

(4) Military operations or activities connected with the intelligence or intelligence-related activities of the United States Government.

(c) Report- Not later than 24 hours after determining to utilize funds referred to in subsection (a) for purposes of a military operation described in subsection (b), the President shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the determination, including a justification for the determination.

(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined- In this section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--

(1) the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Relations and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and

(2) the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

Go to the link on my sig line... now dammit.

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. But can they pass this by Friday?

[Tom Joad]

21. Just do what you can to support this.. its never too late.

I don't think an attack is necessarily that imminent.

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. Oh yes I support it

And I thank you again for that link.

I am going to Crawford for Easter. I am very interested to hear what Cindy Sheehan and Ann Wright have to say about this supposed imminent attack on Iran.

[chknltl]

40. I signed dammit!!!

Thank You for providing info and link. If this is not already it's own thread, it should be and it belongs on greatest page. DO IT NOW please!
chknltl

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

18. There are several huge problems with attacking Iran.

As you said, there's the problem of the President's authority to conduct such an attack. Imagine the precedent that would be set if Bush were to attack Iran without Congressional authority. We are coming into the tail end of the Bush regime. The Republicans in Congress are starting to worry about how a Democratic President would use all of the authority they've granted to Bush, and I think they're nearing the end of their patience with the so-called "unitary executive" theory. There is no doubt in my mind that an attack on Iran by Bush, if not sanctioned by Congress, would lead to his immediate impeachment.

So there's the constitutional argument against an unsanctioned attack on Iran. There's also the practical side...

Unlike Iraq, Iran has the military ability to effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz, and it is likely that this ability would survive any US attack. Any attack on Iran could very well lead to a worldwide economic crisis due to the Iranians' ability to severely jeopardize shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. They have the ability to do it. They could do it today if they wanted to.

And in addition to the constitutional and practical arguments, there's also a political argument...

Any attack against Iran places the GOP in an extremely precarious position. Were any engagement with Iran to last longer than a week or so, there would be a general revolt against the GOP leadership, even within their own party. The fallout from any such attack would be swift and extremely damaging.

And then there's the military argument...

While the US might be able to execute air strikes against Iranian facilities, it is unlikely that we could muster the forces necessary for any sort of intervention on the ground... whereas the Iranians are quite capable of infiltrating the Iraqi political structure (especially in southern Iraq) and could cause unprecedented amounts of mayhem for US forces deployed in Iraq. In the event of an attack against the Iranian homeland, they'd have no qualms about doing this. I believe that any serious Iranian involvement in the Iraq conflict would lead to extremely serious consequences for US troops stationed there. It won't be a cakewalk, even if the air strikes do work.

So, the constitutional, practical, political, and military realities of today would seem to dictate that any attack on Iran would be suicide for Bush and the GOP. After four years of Iraq, I doubt the American public would have much patience for a war on Iran. They can beat the drum all they want, but that doesn't change the facts on the ground.

[warren pease]

56. A very rational analysis, however...

You forget the critical element: These people are stark raving mad and will continue to act as madmen who are absolutely unconcerned about consequences. And I'm not being flip; there's ample anecdotal evidence, along with a ton of observable characteristics, that indicate an extremely twisted personality. So if bush is absolutely out of his mind, maybe Cheney can save the world.

Well, no. Cheney, while holding a somewhat tighter grip on reality, is so committed to the acquisition and exercise of raw power, along with his complete acceptance of the PNAC world view, that his actions in support of PNAC would present as indicative of madness.

And there's the little religious nut problem: Either bush is faking his jesus lust, in which case he's a better actor than he's shown elsewhere, or he's a believer, which for us translates into a delusional lunatic with visions of the rapture dancing in his head, and with dictatorial powers and access to the proverbial button that can heat this planet up a hell of a lot faster than CO2 emissions -- followed by nukulur winter, which will kill anything that hasn't already been blown to bits or poisoned by radiation.

As to their concern over precipitating a constitutional crisis; what constitution? When has bushco ever given even a token acknowledgment to the rule of law?

So, to sum up, constitutional, practical, political and military realities don't matter. The howls of the people don't matter. The possibility of actual resistance by Iran doesn't matter. Destroying the global economy doesn't matter, nor does committing ecocide. An adversarial congress (if even this outrage would wake them up) doesn't matter. The threat of impeachment doesn't matter because congress will be too busy lining up in front of microphones to show off their new flag lapel pins and blather on about how much they support the troops.

The media *does* matter, and they can be counted upon to do their usual cheerleading act and tell us again and again how the "war president" has responded to the latest crisis with stunning initiative and the focus of a born leader. And there's always some general somewhere bush can drag out of his coffin and give him the power he's lusted over his entire career, but never had the right skills to exercise. No matter; he'll do. All he has to say is "we begin the attack at dawn" or some such drivel.

And I'm an optimist by nature. I'm just all too used to bushco to be naive about their willingness to obliterate much of the planet if the PNAC wants it that way. And if they're willing to risk nukulur war, what's a little constitutional crisis in comparison.

wp

[BlooInBloo]

22. Not if Congress hasn't told him he can't - fucking spineless Congress.

[scarletwoman]

23. It's a nice thought, but I see no evidence for it -- especially when the Dems

couldn't even keep the "no attack on Iran without Congressional approval" provision in the Iraq appropriations bill.

Unless they pass this as a separate resolution (and do it mighty damn QUICKLY) and/or get serious about repealing both the IRW and the AUMF resolutions, they've got no grounds to stand on to call for impeachment over Bush attacking Iran.

He'll claim he already has the authority, and will easily parse both of those older resolutions to prove it.

And we're talking about a Congress that could barely come up with a time limit for Iraq without a bunch of pork bribes for recalcitrant caucus members -- much LESS actually defunding the war to end it straight out. And they're going to suddenly rise up for impeachment?

Sorry, that just sounds like fantasy to me.

sw

[MLFerrell]

28. I have no doubt that Congress will sit by and take it in the anus yet again.

Keep that head in the clouds, cali. If impeacment was going to happen, it would have happened already.

Never underestimate the "rally round the flag" effect, or the "war president" precedent. And you just know that the "liberal" media will climb over one another trying to paint Iran as a "threat to the very survival of the nation."

Bush WILL attack Iran. It's only a question of when...

[cali]

30. Yeah, yeah.

I've only been seeing that posted for over a year and a half. It hasn't happened yet, and it's always imminent. Strikes me that you're the one not dealing with reality.

[MLFerrell]

31. I'll bet you a dollar it happens before August.

Deal?

[cali]

33. Can't we find something more interesting

to wager? I'd put up a quart of Vermont Dark Amber maple syrup. What have you got?

[MLFerrell]

36. I'm not really into syrup, but...

I'll tell you what. You have the Cabot dairy, right? How about a pound of this cheddar:

https://www.shopcabot.com/pages/products/waxed/Vintage-Choice-Cheddar.php

Wagered against a comparably priced bottle of this wine:

http://www.wvwines.com/wines/index.html

You game?

[cali]

37. Wine from WV, who knew?

Sure I'm game. As a matter of fact I live just down the road from the Cabot Creamery. And that's an excellent choice.

[Leopolds Ghost]

50. What's the spread, guys? (And I don't mean the Cabot cheese)

Of course, since this is the Bush Administration, the
"DU gourmet food pool" on this matter should really be
done as an WOT Tournament Tree:

Afghanistan
------------

Iraq ............... Iraq
------------ -----------

Iran
------------

Waziristan
------------ -----------

Al Qaeda
------------

Taliban ..................... USA (woo hoo!)
------------ ----------- --------------

France
------------

Canada
------------ ------------

Total Thermonuclear War **

-----------------------

Global Economic Collapse**

-----------------------

** Wild Card

:evilfrown:

[MLFerrell]

57. The Forks of Cheat winery is FANTASTIC.

Especially the Blueberry. It's my favorite.

If you win, it'll be the first time that I'll be overjoyed to lose a bet.

I hope you're right on this one, cali, but I fear that you're wrong.

Anyway, let's discuss terms. I propose that any military action conducted by the United States against Iran (including airstrikes) before August 31st, 2007 shall constitute me winning the bet. Absence of the same shall result in victory for you. Agreed?

EDIT: It's eerily cathartic to wager on such dire potentialities, wouldn't you agree?

[pat_k]

34. Does Pelosi really want to wait that long, and have the blame heaped. . .

. . .on her -- and by extension the entire Democratic caucus -- for enabling Bush's new war by refusing to impeach and defend against Bush and Cheney's http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/22">intentionally open attacks on the Constituiton?

Does she really want to be the one who refused to use her power to prevent a war that can only spread the inhumanity and chaos we are seeing in Iraq across the entire Middle Eas? A war that has the potential explode into WWII?

Does she really want to go down in history as the leader who "cracked the whip" to silence every member who dared to utter the word impeachment? As a woman so deluded that she thought it was more important to pass a minimum wage increase than to stop the blatant, willful criminality, subversion, and international devastation being wrought by the Bush/Cheney WH?

The minute the bombs drop on Iran, the echo chamber will be ringing with some variation of the following:

"The Democratic leadership knew this was coming, but decided minimum wage -- zero risk -- was more important than stopping WWIII. The jellyfish Dems complain, but do nothing. Can Pelosi survive this incredible failure of leadership?"

They're already setting the stage. Just search for "coward" in Jan 30 transcript of Tucker's show:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16904772 /

Anything short of impeachment is hot air and empty words. Their attempts to Bush and Cheney with their purse are incapable of stopping "the decider" -- and they've known it all along. Anything short of impeachment does nothing but confirm the "weak Dem" image.

[Lerkfish]

35. And when he does (god forbid) attack Iran, all the blather to the contrary won't mean

diddly, unfortunately.

I sincerely hope you're right, but I also sincerely don't think you will be. The attack on Iran WILL go forward, regardless of the consequences, especially now as the neocons see the end of the tunnel coming and they have to get their agenda through posthaste.

btw: not saying what you're saying is blather, necessarily, but that you're operating on the assumption that logical and reasonable men would never attack Iran, and that's not what we have in the administration at the moment. Would that we did, but we don't.

[MLFerrell]

38. Well said, Lerkfish.

"...you're operating on the assumption that logical and reasonable men would never attack Iran, and that's not what we have in the administration at the moment."

Indeed.

[C_U_L8R]

39. forget impeachment

off to the Hague with them

[pat_k]

47. Remove to rescue the Constitution, and then off to the Hague.

Like squatters, Bush and Cheney are laying claim to unconstitutional power through openly hostile possession. (With the emphasis on "open."). Fighting to "evict" is of absolute necessity to reclaim our national "house." Although retribution/justice for the War Crimes committed by specific individuals is necessary, it is not the most urgent priority -- and is for the courts (here and at the Hague) not Congress.

[chknltl]

41. So what would happen to the Stock Exchanges if we hit Iran?

Would we see those in the know, those who control bushcos strings do a massive sell-off the day before the attack? Will they be buying up Gold on the cheap knowing that they will be able to sell a week later for an obscene proffit...how exactly will this affect the stock exchanges world wide????

[mmonk]

42. Too late

[Initech]

43. That's why I think Bush keeps trying to outsource the attack

This whole incident with the British Navy is just one of many incidents that I keep thinking that Bush is trying to get another country to attack Iran so that way when war comes, he's off the hook.

[WorldResident]

44. If Bush attacks Iran with a politically powerful reason, impeachment would be a non-starter

Hell, even the Republicans impeaching Clinton the day he was bombing Iraq caused Clinton's approval to go up by 10 points.

[Tom Joad]

45. Nixon, Attacking Cambodia... meant... a few protests.

It actually became part of the impeachment process. But an unpopular president, widening a very unpopular war, clearly lying to the American people, facing an overwhelmingly more liberal congress than we have now, would not have been impeached on that. If it weren't for the watergate break-in & cover-up, Nixon would have served a full second term. I think if the impeachment process went forward, they would not have even tried Nixon on the charge.

So while i would like to dream that congress would do all it can to rid this nation, this world, of Bush/cheney and his minions, and i think we can look back at history to see what Congress is likely to do in the situation. From Congress we can expect puny opposition. On good days.

The only way congress would move to impeachment is if there continues to be a people's movement for this. It should happen now.

[mudesi]

48. I hope to GOD you're right

Right, that is, in assuming that if Bush even tries to attack Iran, that congress will impeach him, and also that he wouldn't dare attempt to attack Iran.

[tbyg52]

49. Unfortunately, I don't think you're right (darn it)

I don't think the thought of impeachment will deter him, and I don't think he would be impeached if he did. Look at what he's already gotten away with. (I hope I am wrong on both counts.)

[Palladin]

52. Congress aside from a few stalwarts

like Sen. Webb , Sen. Byrd, Sen. Hagel, Rep. Kucinich, and Rep. Paul, does not have the stones to stand against AIPAC and impeach Cheney. Too bad. The next
bad move the incompetent Cheney/Bush machine makes will be answered by the Constitutionally loyal US military itself. Cheney/PNAC only has a few nutjob generals in the Air
Force with him on this one. The Army, Marine Corps, and the Navy are against it. They won't just resign. They will be doing the dying - for the neocons - when the Air Force proves yet once again that it can start a war - from 15000 feet or higher - but cannot end it. Cheney/Bush cannot imagine that
the three senior services would ever disobey them, but those two never had any sense of military honor or a lick o' sense nohow. They cannot imagine the world of hurt they are going to make for themselves- and the neocons....Bring it on....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Erect bogeyman, wave flag, send in the bombers. Works every time.

Don't forget the "Support Our Troops", "Vital National Interests", and a rousing chorus of "God Bless America".

The politicians will cave just like they did on the IWR vote.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

54. But, they've been so goshdamned successful at waging fear.

I still believe they are prepared to go all the way because,...they have NOTHING to lose (eg they are financially good to go).

I hope I AM WRONG. However, I sincerely believe the neocons are going to ultimately get the world war they want,...no matter what it takes.

I regret that belief.

[lovuian]

58. he's had it planned for all along he's going to do it

and there will be no impeachment
the Congress will go along with him

Tale of two cities
It was the best of times It was the worst of times