Posted on 03/20/2007 11:30:37 PM PDT by freedomdefender
If George W. Bush launches a pre-emptive war on Iran, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will bear full moral responsibility for that war.
For it was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on Iran.
Pelosi's capitulation came in the Appropriations Committee. What went down, and why?
"Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy," wrote The Associated Press' David Espo and Matthew Lead.
"Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview there is a widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which ... has expressed unremitting hostility to the Jewish state.
"'It would take away perhaps the most important tool the U.S. has when it comes to Iran,' she said of the now-abandoned provision."
According to John Nichols of The Nation, Pelosi's decision to strip the provision barring Bush from attacking Iran without Congress' approval "sends the worst possible signal to the White House."
"The speaker has erred dangerously and dramatically," writes Nichols. Her "disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to come."
Nichols does not exaggerate.
Nothing in the provision would have prevented Bush, as commander in chief, from responding to an Iranian attack or engaging in hot pursuit of an enemy found in Iraq. Nor would the provision have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. It would simply have required him to come to Congress before launching all-out war.
Now Pelosi has, in effect, ceded Bush carte blanche to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. It's all up to him and Cheney.
For this the nation elected a Democrat Congress?
Why did Pelosi capitulate? Answer: She was "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)," writes Nichols.
The Washington Times agrees as to who bully-ragged Nancy into scuttling any requirement that Bush come to the Hill before unleashing the B-2s on Arak, Natanz and Bushehr:
"Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received a smattering of boos when she bad-mouthed the war effort during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the Democratic leadership, responding to concerns from pro-Israel lawmakers, was forced to strip from a military appropriations measure a provision meant to weaken President Bush's ability to respond to threats from Iran."
This episode speaks volumes about who has the whip hand on Capitol Hill when it comes to the Middle East. Pelosi gets booed by the Israeli lobby, then runs back to the Hill and gives Bush a blank check for war on Iran because that is what the lobby demands. A real candidate for Profiles in Courage.
As for the presidential candidates, it is hard to find a single one willing to stand up and say: If Bush plans to take us into another war in the Mideast, he must first come to Congress for authorization. And if he goes to war without authorization, that will be impeachable.
All retreat into the "all-options-are-on-the-table" mantra, which is another way of saying, "It's Bush's call."
The corruption of both parties is astonishing.
The Jewish community voted 88 percent for Democrats in November, and 77 percent oppose the war in Iraq. So says Gallup. Yet, just because the Israeli lobby jerked her chain, the leader of the People's House has decided she and her party will leave the next war up to Bush.
Sam Rayburn must be turning over in his grave.
If Buchanan strained every muscle in his body, he might rise to beneath contempt.
Geez, Mr. Buchanan, how would you have it? San Fran Nan had a moment of clarity, if not pragmatism.
Well, he's become somewhat predictable. It's hard to be original on more than isolated occasions, but still it is worth a try.
Gosh. Pat Buchanan blames the Jews. I am so amazingly stunned that I can scarcely bear to lawn.
Not that I really care, but I wonder what gave Pat such a hard-on for the Jews.
Um, yawn.
Pretty low and stupid for Pat who seems oblivious to Jihad and could care less about Muslim nations getting nukes
This episode speaks volumes about who has the whip hand on Capitol Hill when it comes to the Middle East. Pelosi gets booed by the Israeli lobby, then runs back to the Hill and gives Bush a blank check for war on Iran because that is what the lobby demands. A real candidate for Profiles in Courage.
Go Pat Go!
Pretty low and stupid for all members of Congress who are willing to toss away Congress's Constitution prerogative-duty to declare war. We don't live in a presidential monarchy - George Washington refused an offer to be king. That's why the Constitution gives the power to declare war to our elected representatives in Congress, not to a single individual in the executive office. All this provision did was insist that if we go to war against Iran, it will be Congress - as the Constitution decrees - that authorizes the war.
Go Pat, Go Away!
Somebody had to say it. On this issue - the constitutional power to declare war, which is lodged in Congress - Buchanan is the true conservative.
To a hot place, ASAP, with his soulmates from the thousand-year Reich.
When was Pelosi elected as the President's den-mother?
Go Pat Go!
...and take Helen Thomas with you!
Sometimes I like PB's commentaries, but I don't get why he thinks a nuke-armed Iran is no problem.
Nothing in the provision would have prevented Bush, as commander in chief, from responding to an Iranian attack or engaging in hot pursuit of an enemy found in Iraq. Nor would the provision have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. It would simply have required him to come to Congress before launching all-out war.
Ok, so we can threaten and respond, according to Pat. Does that include nukes? Should we wait until we receive a nuke on our troops over there, or on our homeland, before we respond, in case our threats don't work?
Not "according to Pat" - according to Madison and George Washington. The Constitution puts the power to declare war in the hands of Congress. The Founders explicitly decided not to create a monarchy in the United States. Conservatives used to believe that was a good thing. Conservatives used to be the ones who stood up for the Constitution. On this issue, Pat Buchanan is a true conservative.
Note to Pat: When are you gonna figure out our policy with regard to Israel is not because of "the joooos."
Having the war option on the table serves to pressure Iran. Just the other day Russia started withdrawing nuclear technicians from Iran. Russia is saying the nuclear reactor won't be completed.
If we need to attack Iran, you really think Congress will act in a timely fashion? When was the last time Congress declared war?
I don't believe in discarding the constitution. You're question - wouldn't it be more efficient to do things without constitutional checks and balances? - is what liberals used to be famous for. Conservative answered, no, our freedoms depend on following the constitution. I still say that. Yes, trains run on time when the executive has all the power - but that's not our way of government. Oh, and by the way, we fought Hitler and Japan very effectively without abandoning the constitutional mandate for a congressional declaration of war. There's no reason why, if we need to fight Iran, Congress can't make that decision too.
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.