Background reporting: LA Times Maura Reynolds US cant prove Iran link to Iraq strife http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-iran3feb03,1,2524049.st ory <http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-iran3feb03,1,2524049.s tory> Vanity Fairs Craig Unger From the wonderful folks who brought you Iraq http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/whitehouse200703 <http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/whitehouse200703>
Fearful of being exposed in the same WMD charade it played invading Iraq, the Bush administration is painting Iran as the gangsta neighbor that justifies Bushs Surge, trillions in treasury and thousands more killed or injured, and the very real trigger for a Middle East regional war. While Iran is by no means a Cub Scout, overplaying the threat of nuclear weapons which the experts say is unlikely and not an immediate threat only serves to confirm to jihadists that an imperial USA will do anything to secure oil, permanently occupy giant bases in the lands of Mecca, and impose puppet governments as prematurely branded democracies. Accusing Iran of infiltrating Iraq to kill American troops distracts from previous lies exposed. Like the neoConservative pre-9/11 plans to topple Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with those attacks, invading Iran has been a special project of Bibi Netanyahu, who presented a paper, Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, advocating wars with Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and Syria, to influential neoCons Perle and Feith, as well as American-Israel policy experts Mr. & Mrs. David Wurmser, who now advises VP Cheney. Netanyahu subscribes to the theory that warfare is the best and most efficient means to an end. Why this matters: The White House ordered Stratcom, the command group that supervises nuclear weapons and missile defense, to devise tactical plans for a punishing air and naval strike on Iran. New bases in Bulgaria and Romania are already receiving additional missiles, planes and equipment and eventually, troops. The President and Vice President have said they can launch an attack without Congressional approval, and will do so, citing Commander in Chief authority. Here are a few recent OpEds about the runaway unilaterialism of the Current Occupant. Pat Buchanon Israels war will be sold as Americas War http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54008 <http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54008> Larry Diamond, who Sec. Rice selected in 2004 to advise the Coalition Provincial Authority, Congress Must Stop an attack on Iran When Bush signed the Iraq war resolution, he issued a statement challenging the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, indicating that he could take the nation to war without obeying its restrictions. Unfortunately, even if the president were to agree to the act's restrictions, he could still attack Iran and have up to 90 days before being required to get congressional authorization for the attack. What to do? Congress should not wait. It should hold hearings on Iran before the president orders a bombing attack on its nuclear facilities, or orders or supports a provocative act by the U.S. or an ally designed to get Iran to retaliate, and thus further raise war fever. ....The law should be attached to an appropriations bill, making it difficult for the president to veto. If he simply claims that he is not bound by the restriction even if he signs it into law, and then orders an attack on Iran without congressional authorization for it, Congress should file a lawsuit and begin impeachment proceedings. It is, of course, possible that the president's truculent language and actions toward Iran are a bluff, an attempt to rein in its irresponsible behavior. But the administration's mendacious and incompetent course of action in taking the nation to war with Iraq gives us no reason to provide the president with the benefit of any doubt. And stiffening economic sanctions at a time when Iran's economy is ailing and the regime is losing popular support offers a better and safer prospect of exerting leverage. Another war of choice would only pour fuel on the fires of the Middle East. And the history of this administration shows that if Congress does not constrain this president, he could well act recklessly again, in ways that would profoundly damage our national interest. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-weiss5feb05,0,4991100.story?coll=l a-opinion-rightrail <http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-weiss5feb05,0,4991100.story?coll= la-opinion-rightrail> The Atlantics James Fallows Where Congress Can Draw the Line: War with Iran would be a catastrophe that would make us look back fondly on the minor inconvenience of being bogged down in Iraq. If we could trust the Administrations ability to judge Americas rational self-interest, there would be no need to constrain its threatening gestures toward Iran. Everyone would understand that this was part of the negotiation process; no one would worry that the Administration would finally take a step as self-destructive as beginning or inviting a war. But no one can any longer trust the Administration to recognize and defend Americas rational self-interest not when the President says he will carry out a policy even if opposed by everyone except his wife and dog, not when the Vice President refuses to concede any mistake or misjudgment in the handling of Iraq. According to the constitutional chain of command, those two men literally have the power to order a strike that would be disastrous for their nation. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200702u/congress-iraq <http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200702u/congress-iraq>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
