Posted on 02/22/2007 5:04:57 PM PST by shrinkermd
Tony Blair has declared himself at odds with hawks in the US Administration by saying publicly for the first time that it would be wrong to take military action against Iran. The Prime Minister’s comments came hours before the UN’s nuclear watchdog raised the stakes in the West’s showdown with Tehran.
Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, who has previously called for direct talks with Tehran, is said to be totally opposed to military action.
Although he has dispatched a second US aircraft carrier to the Gulf, he is understood to believe that airstrikes would inflame Iranian public opinion and hamper American efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. One senior adviser to Mr Gates has even stated privately that military action could lead to Congress impeaching Mr Bush.
Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, is also opposed to using force, while Steve Hadley, the president’s National Security Adviser, is said to be deeply sceptical.
The hawks are led by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, who is urging Mr Bush to keep the military option “on the table”. He is also pressing the Pentagon to examine specific war plans — including, it is rumoured, covert action.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
I warned about this on FR before election 2006, but most dismissed it, preferring to live inside the 'FR Bubble.'
The president is politically weak and doesn't have the moral authority to engage the US in another major military endeavor. Further, I think the American public doesn't trust him to wage a war, given the strong public perception that Iraq is a mess.
I said months ago that an impeachment proceeding against Dubya would be likely from a dem congress. I also said that if that were the case, the proceeding would be successful (they will impeach, but the Senate will not convict). I also said that if this was the case, the impeachment effort would be a popular one - that is, more Americans than not would support the move.
Dubya seems to have gone to great lengths to cultivate a very unenviable spot for himself.
Too bad for the House... Bush does NOT need Congressional authority to attack Iran. The President has the authority to strike Iran (or any other target for that matter) for 30 days. He only has to notify Congress. After 30 days Congress either authorizes him to continue the war, or they ask him to stop. There is no basis of impeaching him. 30 days are enough for an aerial/naval war against nuclear/military facilities.
Yes but, I don't think they will do it because it will block congress for almost two years and it will look like that is what the Democrats wanted in the first place. It will screw up their chances in 08 and they want to win very badly. Plus they won't have enough votes in the house for impeachment and that's where it starts.
I think almost every dem in the House would fall in line, especially if the impeachment is popular (which I expect it to be). Ma Pelsoi has the votes to impeach Dubya's arse.
God I hope not. This sucks!
It doesn't take a BASIS for impeachment.
They can impeach him for anything or nothing. They can make it up. They can use vague terms about "abusing the power of office".
There is no legal standard for what constitutes a valid article of impeachment.
Impeachment is a political process not a legal one.
If a simply majority of the House says that he's committed an impeachable offense and votes to impeach him, he's impeached. There's no APPEAL from that.
Then he just has to win in the Senate.
The House can impeach him again if they like.
They could use impeachment as a no-confidence vote.
Bush didn't pardon the Thanksgiving turkey right? Misdemeanor! Impeach! It's sort of like filibustering judges. I have heard the hand-wringing that it's illegal or unconstitutional or whatever. Of course it isn't. It's political, and Congress sets its own rules, which are not reviewable by the judiciary.
So, just to be clear, an impeachable offense is whatever a simple majority of the House of Representatives SAYS is an impeachable offense. There's nothing more to it than that.
They might have enough votes in the House for impeachment, but this means NOTHING. They need 67 votes in the Senate. And they will NEVER have 67 votes. So let 'em try to impeach him...
I hope not, too. It's just speculation, of course, The thing is, if Pelosi and crew didn't win in 2006, this wouldn't be an issue. It does suck, but things can change on a dime! Keep the faith in any event! ;-)
He ought to do it (minus the cocaine). Maybe a fireside chat like FDR with Chris Matthews as the host or victim...
Yes, I explicitly said that the Senate won't convict. But it doesn't matter - the impeachment part would be successful and popular, contrasted with the impeachment of Clinton which was successful and unpopular.
This scenario would make Dubya an even bigger albatross around the neck of the GOP going into 2008, unless it somehow backfired.
I hope it doesn't happen.
> "(British) Fears Grow Over Iran"
I wonder if this isn't one of the unspoken reasons the British recently announced their draw down... they don't want to be there if the war gets expanded?
I am. Thanks! :-)
I seriously doubt that an impeachment would be incredibly popular when done during a war with Iran. This would rather backfire for the Dems.
Dunno. Let's hope the best.
It's not a good idea to be all carrot and no stick when the carrot is you die.
And the Times UK comes to knows this how?
LOL!
Yeah, but it's odd that England isn't in the bullseye, Israel is. So what should we say when Israel takes out Iran's nukes?
More BS.
Dubya has very low approval ratings and too many people don't give him the benefit of the doubt with military adventures anymore. I think if he made a move against Iran, a majority of the American public would be against it.
Here's what I would do, were I him.
I'd surge a hell of a lot more troops into Iraq - the whole damned military. And I'd strike Iran and keep striking. I would also SHUT DOWN the press in Iraq and use airstrikes to level Shi'ite strongholds. I'd START the war with airstrikes directly on the Iranian high mullahs and the Syrian President at the same time. Then vomit airpower on them.
And when Congress screamed, I would press and throw the troops across the border, INTO Iran and Syria, committing the United States to a full fledged land war of conquest in BOTH nations.
I'd explain WHY, and throw ALL of the Top Secret intelligence on the table. All of it. Special methods, internal spies, etc. - NOW is the time we've built all those things for - compromise them to make the blunt case.
And I wouldn't argue about it, just state we're doing it.
And I would keep doing it.
And if the House purported to order it stopped, I'd ignore them. And if they purported to cut off the funds, I'd spend the money anyway.
And I'd break open the FBI and CIA files and out every opponent's affairs, tax violations, etc., and crank up the proscription lists, arresting enemies, but not allies, in Congress.
And I would have my 34 Senate allies lined up.
And I would pursue the war and ignore and destroy the opposition internally while gutting Iran and Syria...AND Sunni Iraq externally...laugh at the impeachment and the screams of imperialism and dictatorship, rely on 34 Senators to prevent me from being removed for what would in fact BE ruling two years as a dictator, have Hillary arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for her crimes, rig the elections using CIA manipulation of electronic voting, ensure Dick Cheney was drafted as the next President, have him pardon me, and retire victorious and loved or hated.
It'd be the end of the Roman Circus that is Washington, but the decay and stench there was overpowering anyway. Then Cheney could be the good cop who restored the Republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.