Hard News: Mr Brown
54 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
I'm not persuaded by arguments that people like Bolton or even Cheney are out of the loop now. Bush is far to wilfully stupid not to be influenced by these nutters or anyone else in earshot who wants to tell him what he thinks about Iran.It seems that negative public opinion is lost on Bush in the fag end of his administration as he's shown with his surge strategy in Iraq. The only hope with Iran is a significant revolt against the president by the US military. Simon like I said earlier there is a difference between editorial content and hard news. Coughlan's pieces have rightly been reportedthe rather toothless PCC who I bet are quite reluctantly investigating his indescretions. That Bolton piece is hidden away from the main web page so maybe its yesterday's news already
-
The only hope with Iran is a significant revolt against the president by the US military
Ouch. Watch out what you hope for!
While Bushco may have a go at engineering a "Maine" or "Tonkin" (or Pearl Harbour, pick your conspiracy) type incident, Congress (and Senate) get to "declare war". It was a specific vote to give Bush war powers that allowed him to invade Iraq- a vote Hilary clinton and John Kerry have and will spend some time regretting. -
So why are we worried about an invasion of Iran then? It would take a miracle to get the go ahead from congress in the current climate. I suppose getting the Israelis to do it by proxy like in lebanon last year would be the obvious answer.
-
It was a specific vote to give Bush war powers that allowed him to invade Iraq
Agreed, but there is some question in the US as what constitutes " a declaration of war" pursuant to The 73 War Powers act.
This post comes to the conclusion that:The WPR is ambiguous enough that the Bush administration could carry out a preemptive military attack against Iran without prior congressional approval and then come back after the fact and justify the attack, likely by claiming that Iran presented some sort of “national emergency” through its nuclear program or some other provocative behavior
I don't think Bush (or Cheney, whom I regard as very much still in the loop) would, for a moment bother going to Congress, and there are those in the US who would argue that in times like these the executive sits above the law
One should not believe that a strong executive is needed only for quick action in emergencies, though that is the function mentioned first. A strong executive is requisite to oppose majority faction produced by temporary delusions in the people
and
In quiet times the rule of law will come to the fore, and the executive can be weak. In stormy times, the rule of law may seem to require the prudence and force that law, or present law, cannot supply, and the executive must be strong.
I doubt Bush or Cheney, under advice, and a belief in their own self destiny, would ask first. The Military saying no may be the only way the brakes could be put on.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.