If We Must Attack Iran...

[eyer]

...let us only do so Constitutionally:

Make Congress vote on war on Iran

by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted: December 22, 2011
5:08 pm Eastern

Returning from Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta dropped some jolting news.

Asked by CBS' Scott Pelley if Iran could have a nuclear weapon in 2012, Panetta replied: "It would probably be about a year before they could do it. Perhaps a little less. But one proviso, Scott, is that if they have a hidden facility somewhere in Iran that may be enriching fuel."

Panetta was saying the mullahs are a year or less away from an atom bomb, and if they have a hidden site for enriching uranium to weapons grade, they may be even closer.

"That is a red line for us," Panetta added. "If we get intelligence they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, then we will take whatever steps necessary to deal with it."

Panetta is raising the specter of pre-emptive war.

When Pelley's report hit, however, the Pentagon immediately began to walk the cat back.

"The secretary was clear that we have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon," said Pentagon press secretary George Little. "He (Panetta) didn't say that Iran would, in fact, have a nuclear weapon in 2012."

Little added that U.N. inspectors remain in Iran and have access to its uranium stockpile, and should Iran attempt a "breakout" by diverting low-enriched uranium to a hidden facility to convert it to weapons grade, U.N. inspectors would instantly detect the diversion.

"We would retain sufficient time under any such scenario to take appropriate action," said Little.

In short, the Pentagon does not believe Iran has made a decision to build atomic weapons, and the department is confident that, should it do so, the United States would have ample warning.

Little's definitive statement, "We have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon," coincides with the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, in December 2007.

In that report, the entire U.S. intelligence community stated unanimously, with "high confidence," that Iran had given up its drive for an atom bomb back in 2003.

Yet the Pentagon's categorical statement this week, and the 2007 declaration by the entire U.S. intelligence community that Iran abandoned its bomb program in 2003, raises a question.

How could the International Atomic Energy Agency conclude, as it did last month, that Iran "has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device"? Did the IAEA discover clandestine bomb-building that our own intelligence community failed to detect?

If Iran is doing experiments consistent with building an atomic bomb, as the IAEA reports, why does the U.S. intelligence community not revise and update its 2007 report? Why are CIA and DIA silent?

This is no minor matter. For not only have Panetta and Barack Obama talked about "all options on the table" regarding Iran – i.e., we do not rule out military strikes – so, too, have the GOP presidential candidates, save Rep. Ron Paul.

Sen. Rick Santorum says we are already at war:

"Iran is a country that has been at war with us since 1979. ... The Iranians are the existential threat to Israel."

In fierce rebuttal to Paul's suggestion that the real threat to America is being stampeded into a new war, Rep. Michele Bachmann retorted:

"We know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally Israel off the face of the map. ... The Iran Constitution ... states unequivocally that their mission is to extend jihad across the world and eventually to set up a worldwide caliphate."

But is all this consistent or credible?

If Iran is an "existential threat" to Israel and intends to use a bomb it is now building on Israel, why have the Israelis, with 200 to 300 nuclear weapons, who have bombed both Iraqi and Syrian nuclear sites, not removed that "existential threat" themselves?

Second, assume the Bachmann horror scenario that we know "beyond the shadow of a doubt" that Iran, as soon as it gets the bomb it is building, will use it on Israel. If that is so, who does Bachmann think will then be establishing that caliphate in an Iran that an Israeli retaliatory strike will have reduced to atomic ash?

Lest we forget, the Israelis are a "Never Again!" nation.

And there is another serious matter here. While Obamaites, neocons and Republicans are talking about "all options on the table," the war option, if we still have a Constitution, cannot be used against a nation that has not attacked us, unless Congress, which alone has the power to declare war, has authorized military action.

When did Congress tell Obama or any president he can bomb Iran as soon as he concludes Iran is building a nuclear weapon? If, after leaving Iraq, we are going into yet another war of choice, let the Congress debate and vote on this new war with Iran.

 

[bronzeage]

Why can't we fabricate evidence of weapons of mass destruction and then lie to the world about it?

It worked last time.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Why can't we fabricate evidence of weapons of mass destruction and then lie to the world about it?

It worked last time.

Could do, though, I was rather hoping for something a bit more imaginative.

And a nice new catchy title, Operation Iranian Freedom, would be a bit sad too.

Woof!

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

First, Iran is crazy but not stupid. They are very aware the moment they use a nuclear weapon against anybody the world will turn on them like rabid dogs and that includes Russia & China. The real fear is them supplying a "dirty bomb" to a terrorist organization.

 

[miles]

Why can't we fabricate evidence of weapons of mass destruction and then lie to the world about it?

It worked last time.

"We?"

 

[bronzeage]

"We?"

Wait,

You mean you didn't believe the WMD story when GW told us all about it?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Why can't we fabricate evidence of weapons of mass destruction and then lie to the world about it?

It worked last time.

Don't forget the time before that!

(http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=39455759&postcount=20)

 

[semen4her]

My boss is in Iran right now.

Perfect time for you Yankees to bomb the bastard.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Why can't we fabricate evidence of weapons of mass destruction and then lie to the world about it?

It worked last time.

We've already done that.

Obama is positioned perfectly to continue the Bush Doctrine.

Now, all he needs is Republican votes. Bush got Democrat votes...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

First, Iran is crazy but not stupid. They are very aware the moment they use a nuclear weapon against anybody the world will turn on them like rabid dogs and that includes Russia & China. The real fear is them supplying a "dirty bomb" to a terrorist organization.

I'm not so sure about that.

Especially Russia and China.



Iran is focused on Israel and its demise in order to lead the race to Caliphate.

Russia and China could give a shit about the Jews.

Hell, Russia has pogromed them a lot...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Why can't we fabricate evidence of weapons of mass destruction and then lie to the world about it?

It worked last time.

Makes perfect sense to wait till your ass is covered with running sores and your gums bleed before you get a shot to nip it in the bud.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It's always funny to observe that the WMD thing was just one of the reasons, the rest being forgotten along with the fact that it was the Clintons who first started the bleating about WMDs....



... just like they founded the Birther Movement.

The hilarious part was that it was supposed to spread Regional Democracy and as Democracy spreads, not one of them wants to give Bush a lick of credit even as they celebrate the great and wise Obama deposing the evil ol' "Shah" of [fill-in-the-blank].

It was also supposed to give UN directives some semblance of credibility, but hell, the UN even screwed that pooch...

 

[miles]

Wait,

You mean you didn't believe the WMD story when GW told us all about it?

What evidence to you have that he fabricated it?

 

[miles]

It's always funny to observe that the WMD thing was just one of the reasons, the rest being forgotten along with the fact that it was the Clintons who first started the bleating about WMDs....

As well as dozens of other Democrats, but our liberal friends don't talk about that, do they?

Maybe they just forgot.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

As well as dozens of other Democrats, but our liberal friends don't talk about that, do they?

Maybe they just forgot.

Yeah, it was an International "Expert" Consensus, a lot like Glow Ball Warning, and look at what Bush got for buying into it...

 

[miles]

Yeah, it was an International "Expert" Consensus, a lot like Glow Ball Warning, and look at what Bush got for buying into it...

Well, let's give them a break. Intellectual honesty isn't exactly their strong suit. They can't allow facts to get in the way of their childish rhetoric.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I have a saying for that:

A_J's corollary #3, “The New Age Liberal maintains contradictory positions comfortably compartmentalized. (This is because the New Age Liberal is a creature that believes in consensus as a short-cut to an examination of the facts and a reasoned judgment about said facts. Corollary #2.)”

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What’s so astonishing, though, is not that Obama has extended so many controversial Bush administration policies but the way in which his erstwhile supporters have responded. They face (at least) two options:

1. Barack Obama is a sellout, “just Bush with a tan,” subservient to the same malevolent political and economic forces that Bush was.

2. OR the Bush administration was actually pretty reasonable to adopt these policies in the first place, and the Obama administration has been reasonable enough to recognize the fact.

Both options require the liberal to admit a mistake: either he was wrong about Obama, or he was wrong about Bush. But the first option requires the liberal to sacrifice his love for Obama, while the second option requires him to sacrifice his hatred of Bush. Either Obama was dishonest in the campaign or overwhelmed by baleful influences once he came to the Oval Office — or Obama, once he came to the White House and had the same information and responsibility that Bush had, came to more or less the same conclusions as Bush had.

Unsurprisingly, Option #1 comes out the huge winner here. So powerful is the partisan mindset that I haven’t seen a single prominent liberal writer take Option #2. They puzzle through the “mystery” of “George W. Obama” and conclude that the contradictions between Obama’s ideals and actions compose “a subtle disaster for all those whose hopes once rested with him.” They would rather abandon their love of Obama than their hatred of Bush. To put it more sharply: they are so deeply committed to the nefariousness and malfeasance of the Bush administration that they would rather believe Barack Obama a failure, a liar or a dupe than believe that George W. Bush took reasonable actions in light of the circumstances.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2011/12/22/bush-hatred-prevails-over-obama-love/

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

I'm not so sure about that.

Especially Russia and China.



Iran is focused on Israel and its demise in order to lead the race to Caliphate.

Russia and China could give a shit about the Jews.

Hell, Russia has pogromed them a lot...

Neither Russia or China trusts Iran. They posture in their behalf because they get oil from Iran. Recently Russia intercepted radioactive material that was enroute to Iran though is was medical grade material.

One thing I know without a doubt. Any country uses a nuke against another the world will move against them with blinding speed. They will have no friends.

 

[eyer]

One thing I know without a doubt. Any country uses a nuke against another the world will move against them with blinding speed. They will have no friends.

Only one country has ever "use[d] a nuke against another"...

...you were saying?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm sorry, but that is not in the nature of the West any more.


They will talk and dither and give the Left a chance to say something about CHickens coming home to roost and proving who the real enemy will be if anyone reacts in "haste."

 

[bronzeage]

What evidence to you have that he fabricated it?

Are you going with the "he was stupid and fell for Saddam's bluff" defense?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

Only one country has ever "use[d] a nuke against another"...

...you were saying?

Correct and at the time we were the only one to have nukes and nobody really comprehended the devastation and fall out. Times have changed nations have changed.

 

[eyer]

One thing I know without a doubt. Any country uses a nuke against another the world will move against them with blinding speed. They will have no friends.

I'll try one more time...

...you actually believe - "without a doubt" - if Iran set-off a nuke inside the USSA today that they'd "have no friends"?