Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Has Congress Given Bush The "Green Light" To Attack Iran? Asks Pat Buchanan

lewrockwell.com — For he is surely behaving as though it is his call alone. And evidence is mounting that we are on a collision course for war. Whether one is pro-war or antiwar, ought we not – if we are going into another war – do it the right way, the constitutional way, with Congress declaring war?

Bury

promarket 1 year 84 days ago

166 diggs
digg it

Billhaynes, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Pat Buchanan offers an insightful look at the Bush administration's position on bombing Iran.
- YixilTesiphon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16I'm not quite sure when Pat Buchanan changed from Pat Buchanan to awesome, but I'm OK with it.
- jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4I'm thinking Israel will strike first... and if it spirals into all out war we'll jump in along with another "coalition of the willing". It would rather convenient if John Edwards, with his pro-draft agenda, were elected into office just in time for this. Does anyone really think the candidates are going to bring the troops home from Iraq like? We might see a token gesture but no one is stupid enough to just pack up and leave tomorrow... and if the Democratic candidate really seems serious about that then I'm telling you now that Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani will be our President in 2009 (I'm a Ron Paul fan, but I have to be realistic). This conflict is going to get bigger. I really don't see it going any way but escalating.
- MichaelBradley, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Sadly, i firmly believe America WILL eventually go to war with Iran. Maybe not tomorrow, next month, but it will. Why? Because the American government wants it to happen. America is the modern day Roman Empire. It is too powerful, too rich, and too arrogant for its own good.
  
  Such is life.
  
  History has shown that when a nation, or even a large corporation, becomes too powerful it falls apart from greed. Rome became so rich, so powerful, and so influential in the world that it felt it could do whatever it wanted, thus bringing about its own failure. The same happened in Russia in a different way. It became overcome with corruption from the leadership becoming too greedy. Nazi Germany thought it could take over Europe and they almost did. The world stood up and pushed them back.
  
  The same will happen to America. Either it will collapse from the inside, or it will get to aggressive and the world will stand up. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not 20 years from now, but it will happen. There is no turning back anymore, there is too much money being made by people in power to ever solve the problem.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I would not have thought in a million years that I'd ever say these words. Pat Buchanan is 100% correct.
  
  I guess Bush was right about being a "uniter" after all. He unites all sides against him. Well done.
beermotor, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5This crap is probably going to happen, sadly. But at least it will spell the end of the Empire, for certain... unfortunately at great cost of lives of military personnel...
stealthc, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11HE ALREADY HAS!

Read the freaking news. CIA ops to wreck the Iranian government and economy? If that's not an act of war, what the hell are you waiting to see? War has been declared on Iran by America's first emperor, George W. Bush.
- jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3Given that the Iranians have been supporting terrorists in Iraq, I'd say they struck first. The British hostage crisis is another example of Iranian aggression. Syria is rumored to be helping the Sunni insurgents, but I'm hearing little chatter of that on the news.
  
  America's first emperor? I'll believe that when he's still in office on January 21, 2009.
- kooft, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10"Given that the Iranians have been supporting terrorists in Iraq..."
  
  If the Iranians are supporting anyone, it's the Shia's (i.e., not al Queda). The Shia's are currently in power and are fighting a war with the Sunni's, who just happen to be the group most opposed to the US presence in Iraq. The groups responsible for these market based car bombings are certainly terrorists, but give me some proof that Iran is specifically supporting car bombs and I'll agree they're supporting terrorists, otherwise they're supporting legitimate militias (even if they're opposed to the US).
  
  "...I'd say they struck first"
  
  You say supporting militias in Iraq is a first strike against the US and warrants US retaliation? Then what about the CIA overthrowing Iran's prime minister in the 1950's? What about the CIA installing a dictator in Iran in the 1950's? What about the CIA setting up a brutal secret service in Iran in the 1950's? What about the Iran-Iraq war where the US provided Saddam with the materials to build WMD's and the satellite intelligence to better coordinate WMD attacks against Iran? What about the US support for the MEK (a State Department listed terrorist group) which are seeking regime change in Iran through terrorism? The MEK support was as recent as 2003/2004. According to your standards for retaliation, Iran is well justified in launching any attack they see fit against the US, yet they don't.
  
  "The British hostage crisis is another example of Iranian aggression."
  
  Two times Brits have been captured in that same stretch of water. It's a disputed territory, especially after Saddam broke an agreement on it during the late 70's and early 80's. Iran's continuing recognition of that agreement is above and beyond their legal requirements. Given the rhetoric about the West trying to destabilize Iran, these Iranian actions could be seen as vital to Iranian national security and we all know that preemption is valid when it comes to national security.
  
  The British weren't hostages and could never be considered so, unless you're willing to concede that the US is holding hundreds of hostages in Guantanamo Bay and thousands more in Iraq. The Iranian military capturing British soldiers is more accurately called a detainment. Keep in mind that they were all released unharmed. How did the prisoners of Abu Ghraib fair again?
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6"Given that the Iranians have been supporting terrorists in Iraq, I'd say they struck first."
  
  Oh, Jcm267, I'm searching for the words to tell you this. Iranian agents were in Iraq long before we ever got there. You see, there was this long, bloody war between Iran and Iraq, which we were very familiar with because we supplied the Iraqi side with WMD to fight it.
  
  Given that we showed up in _their_ back yard, without an invitation no less, I'd say the onus was on us to figure out what the hell we were doing there before we put our soldiers on the ground.
  
  If you wander into a well-marked shooting range and get a bullet in the ass, whose fault is that again?
  
  And given that we're basically surrounding Iran and Dick the Cheney is threatening nukes every other afternoon, they're acting completely rational towards defending themselves. Each and every move Iran has made could be (was) predicted. And we should not seem "surprised" at anything they do. It's like a game of chess, where each side tries to out maneuver the other, seeing the board six moves in advance.
  
  Unfortunately for us, the game Bush/Cheney is playing is not chess, but 52 pickup.
Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4
Well, should the US do this, then all I can say is turn about is fair play. Should the US mess with Iran, on Iranian soil, then Iran/Russia/China should muck with the States on their soil.

=)
mach32, on 10/11/2007, -10/+1just nuke the ragheads already.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Back to the KKK meeting with you, sir.
wintermd, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Shape Up Democrats: and give us a plan to win in Iraq. You have been in power for how long?
- joybran, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Don't you mean give us a plan to get out? That's what they were elected for. They were also elected to impeach Bush and Clinton for their war crimes, but that hasn't happened either. When will Americans learn there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans? They are all a bunch of criminals, except for Ron Paul.
headcase, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Aren't China and Iran and Russia allies? We would be in a world of ***** if it were USA vs The World. Nukes would be inevitable. And before that bio-warfare. And before that Chem-warfare. Better to just EMP the entire world.
- Arkavus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Not in a military sense. Economically they do trade with each other a bit though.
  
  I doubt Russia and China would go to war with the USA over Iran.
- PongGod, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"We would be in a world of ***** if it were USA vs The World."
  
  Well, it sure seems like this is what the Neocons are angling for.
futureisours, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1What's with all the america-bashers. If you don't like this country and think it's falling like the Roman Empire, why don't you leave and go smoke pot in Belgium? Good riddance.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4The "If your not with us, you're against us" philosophy is so against what America is supposed to be it's almost laughable, except for the unfortunate fact that people really believe it.
Albionshores, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Its really not about America. Most Americans don't approve of the government, the war, the Halliburton and the like profiteering. The average American would struggle to find Iran on the map, fewer still with Afghanistan. Sad but true.

Its really about the powerbrokers. The Brit Rothschild didn't care in the 19th century who won the Napoleonic wars, he just cared about making the profit to be had. Same goes for US investors in Nazi Germany. What does matter is that these powerbrokers are on the cusp of seizing America from the American people and just as it should have been left to the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam, claiming back America can only be done by one group of people.

One thing that the Bush Administration has already shown is that whatever colour lightbulb Congress happens to be using, red or green, it doesn't make any difference when implementing PNAC policy.
yesandno, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5 Pat Buchanan has more common sense than all the politicians put together. He's right about the war, immigration, globalization, etc.
- joybran, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Now that he isn't running for political office, he can finally tell the truth. Who would have thought?
- obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Buchanan is interviewed by Richard Perle in Perle's segment of the PBS documentary "America at a Crossroads." Pat thinks Bush's foreign policy is a disaster. It amazes me that this this administration has gone so far from conservatism that I actually have a lot of opinions in common with Pat Buchanan! Will wonders never cease? FWIW, Pat still believes that America should be more Christian. They debated this point on the McLaughlin Group the other day. That's the only point I'd argue with Buchanan these days.
djvchris, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2So...uh...last I checked our armed forces were spread pretty thin; do we have enough troops left to go to attack Iran while stabilizing Iraq, Afghanistan, and our dozens of other military commitments around the world? If not us, then to whom do we outsource this righteous charge? Moreover, is Iran going to be invaded by the guy that helped me fix my Dell the other night?
- joybran, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"while stabilizing Iraq, Afghanistan, and our dozens of other military commitments"
  
  Don't you mean de-stabilizing? I don't see that any of those countries look more "stable" since our occupation. You must be referring to those other military commitments where our puppet governments are being nice and obedient.
  
  No problem about the lack of troops. We'll just nuke 'em. /sarcasm
Albionshores, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4And don't let anybody kid you that Iran's first attack would be a terrorist one either.

Iran could easily glut the oil economy and lauch the Iranian Oil Bourse in Euros. IF China wanted to keep some of that Iranian oil going its way it could cash in the American debt it holds, emptying every store in the US before dropping its US cash - of which it has a LOT. Between the two of them either one could implement an attack with nothing more terrifying than a ball point pen. An attack that would cripple the economy. The question you should be asking is why has America allowed itself to be caught with its pants around its ankles.

If a terrorist attack does happen that the Whitehouse then uses to justify attacking Iran ask yourself why Iran simply didn't go with the one knockout punch it has in its arsenal which would still leave it protected by the international community. Around about that time you should start to realise that Iran isn't responsible at all.

And yes, China, Russia and Iran do have an 'agreement' of sorts but they wouldn't need to put one soldier on the ground to introduce rioting in America. Why do you think the recent Presedential Directives in the event of an emergency were recently passed. Its not to protect you from the Ruskies. Its to protect them in power from you - Joe Average and the mother of all depressions.
mattc908, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Well consider the president can declare war without congress's approval, i'm not exaclty sure but isnt he can go for like 2 months before he has to report to congress.

In all reality he could just go attack like denmark, and after 2month say, he could be like well i want to take over the danish(donut) industry, and knowing congress they would be like well we can't cut war fund so booooo Mr.President, we dislike you! Than he would take it over and they would be like booo! We say we will stop the war, than again we've be saying that for awhile.
Bossy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Hell...we all know we will have to fight Iran very soon from all these stories. Many others things are just waiting to occur:

I'll have to admit that U.S. has held the world together so far, but the time is coming very soon. A war is the only way we will learn to love each other and prevent another war for the 50 years to come.
- PongGod, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Right. Nothing quite brings the love out like raining bombs.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Has Congress Given Bush The "Green Light" To Attack Iran? Asks Pat Buchanan

Login or register to add a comment