home

Not What Digby Said

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 06:44:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In my continuing campaign of disagreeing with Left bloggers and writers, I now turn to everybody's favorite (but my favorite first) blogger, Digby, who appears to endorse the very line of argument I find infuriating:

Deciding what to do next about Iraq is hard — on the merits, and in the politics. . . . By comparison, Iran is easy: on the merits, in the politics. . . . While the Congress flounders about what, exactly, it can do about Iraq, it can do something useful, while it still matters, in making clear that it will authorize no money and provide no endorsement for military action against Iran.

. . . It may be just this possibility that has the administration carrying on so about how Iranians are behind the killing of Americans even though it is an absurdity. They would like to create the conditions where they can say that anyone failing to back action in Iran is failing to protect the troops.

In a sane world, the congress would move very quickly on this before that notion jells. But it won't, because they believe they must allow the president to have all "options on the table," --- . . . Still, that seems to be where they are, at least with respect to Iran. Not only are they not prepared to stop it, they are either silent on the issue or actively supporting the premise upon which the president's argument is built.

First, Digby appears to implicitly endorse the Fallows "put Iraq on the back burner" proposal which is simply unacceptable. Second, Digby simply ignores the very strong statements Democrats have made against attacking Iran, including the most crucial argument - Bush has no authority to attack Iran:

"The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the National Press Club.
Last week, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., challenged the president's ability to make such a move. In a letter to Bush, Biden asked the president to explain whether the administration believes it could attack Iran or Syria "without the authorization of Congress, which does not now exist."

More importantly, Biden said:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about a constitutional question, Senator. Stephen Hadley was on “Meet The Press” this weekend and sort of dodged the question. Should the president be required to get the approval of Congress before he attacks Iran, should he decide to do so?

BIDEN: Absolutely, positively, unequivocally. . .

MATTHEWS: But you don‘t expect him to sign that bill [his draft bill], do you?

BIDEN: No, I don‘t, but I expect it to generate a constitutional crisis were he to ignore it and to, in fact, him—for then attack Iran.

What does Biden mean? He means impeachment. That's what he means.

Now Digby joins Fallows and Yglesias in wanting to put Iraq on the backburner because, as I understand it, a threat to impeach the President if he invades Iraq is not tough enough from Dems.

Well, Digby is absolutely wrong. As I said before, want to stop a war with Iran? Then end the war in Iraq.

< Dueling Libby Motive Briefs Filed | Cuba's Jewish Community >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Not What Digby Said | 9 comments (9 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Big Tent (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 07:50:28 PM EST
    I hope you are right that Biden means impeachment if Bush attacks Iran unprovoked.

    My concern is that Bush, Cheney, et all appear to be doing everything in their power to force Iran to provide that provocation.

    Congressional authorization would give him the power to attack of course, and he probably won't get it for an unprovoked attack on Iran, but he as president is also bound to retaliate in the event of an attack on for example a US ship in the gulf or on US assets in Iraq by Iran, correct?

    Gulf of Tonkin style or not......

    After all the lies to justify (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:06:50 PM EST
    the invasion of Iraq, I don't think a hypothetical scenario something like this would be too far of a stretch, or be beyond Bush and Cheney...

    "Oh, Dick? Would you call our good friends in Tel Aviv and remind them that I'm very concerned about an Iranian attack on one of our ships in the Persian Gulf, And ask them if they have one of their submarines in the area that could take care of this problem for us? And reassure them that America will stand by them and support them always - they can count on that."

    ...particularly in response to this:

    Republican Rep. Walter Jones (NC) introduced a resolution requiring the President "to receive congressional authorization to use military force against Iran,"


    Parent
    So I agree (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:19:31 PM EST
    want to stop a war with Iran? Then end the war in Iraq

    But I also think it's possible that Bush and Cheney may get even more desperate if they can't use situation in Iraq to somehow justify attacking Iran.

    Parent

    Suppose .... (none / 0) (#2)
    by greyhair on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 07:59:25 PM EST
    For a moment, suppose that Israel bombs Iran?  Then, in support of Israel and in defense of American troops, Bush instigates attacks in Iran?  How many votes do you think there would be in Congress for impeachment?

    In this instance it would be the other way around ... 90-10 supporting a resolution for war with Iran.

    I don't see it (none / 0) (#5)
    by LarryE on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 12:26:12 AM EST
    I read Digby's post and frankly I don't see where he's urging Iraq to be "put on the back burner."

    Rather, it seems to me that he's not saying that too much attention is being paid to Iraq but that too little is being paid to Iran. Which is true so long as the occasional tough talk is not matched by any legislative effort.

    And the notion that if Bush attacked Iran that Joe Biden of all people would respond with a bill of impeachment is - well, let's just say I'd rather place my bets on Santa Claus being real.

    Generals against attack on Iran (none / 0) (#6)
    by bernarda on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 09:59:38 AM EST
    This was reported in the British press, but I didn't see it in our wonderful American free press.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6328801.stm

    "Three former high-ranking American military officers have warned against any military attack on Iran.

    They said such action would have "disastrous consequences" for security in the Middle East and also for coalition forces in Iraq.

    They said the crisis over Tehran's nuclear programme must be resolved through diplomacy, urging Washington to start direct talks with Iran.

    The letter was published in Britain's Sunday Times newspaper.

    It was signed by:

        * Lt Gen Robert Gard, a former military assistant to the US defence secretary

        * Gen Joseph Hoar, a former commander-in-chief, US Central Command

        * Vice Adm Jack Shanahan, a former director of the Center for Defense Information"

    Why listen to (none / 0) (#7)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 11:26:36 AM EST
    those peace whores when you've got this guy?

    Although the Tehran terror masters have been at it far longer, this war has been brewing for more than three years. In that time, evidence has steadily accumulated that the Iranians are aggressively pursuing a nuclear weapons program and any measures short of force offer little chance of stopping them.

    Sometimes, the best counterinsurgency operations are those mounted to gain critical battlefield intelligence. Few have been more useful than those now confirming the pervasive Iranian involvement aimed at inciting civil war among the Iraqi factions.

    Understanding the challenge posed by Hezbollah missiles in Lebanon, they are now concerned the Iranians are starting to apply the same tactics against American helicopters in Iraq.

    This guy lies more than Glenn Beck! It's like Deja vu all over again.

    As if we're not already in a Constitutional Crisis (none / 0) (#8)
    by GDAEman on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 12:28:36 PM EST
    Bush is slippery, and Biden is daft. Bush believes he has authority under the resolution passed after 9/11 to conduct the war on terrorism. That would include going after Iran. He thinks he has legal authority, exemplified his arguments supporting the warrantless surveillance.

    You present a clever argument, but Biden hinted that his support of the 2002 Iraq Resolution included a similar hidden trap for Bush; we're still waiting Joseph.

    If the Democrats want to draw a line in the sand on Iran, they need to learn from the Supreme Court's Campbell Vs Clinton. And I don't necessarily agree with Digby all the time.

    Froomkin (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 01:47:15 PM EST
    As I said before, want to stop a war with Iran? Then end the war in Iraq.

    That being said, seems it is time for some homework:

    Lessons we thought had been learned from Vietnam were forgotten in the rush to invade Iraq. And now, as we cover President Bush's ratcheting up of the rhetoric against Iran, it's looking like the lessons we should have learned from Iraq may not have been learned at all. So at the risk of stating the obvious, here are some thoughts about what those lessons were.

    You Can't Be Too Skeptical of Authority
        *     Don't assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.
        *     Demand proof for their every assertion. Assume the proof is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate.
        *     Just because they say it, doesn't mean it should be make the headlines. The absence of supporting evidence for their assertion -- or a preponderance of evidence that contradicts the assertion -- may be more newsworthy than the assertion itself.
        *     Don't print anonymous assertions. Demand that sources make themselves accountable for what they insist is true.

    Provocation Alone Does Not Justify War
        *      War is so serious that even proving the existence of a casus belli isn't enough. Make officials prove to the public that going to war will make things better.
        *     Demand to know what happens if the war (or tactical strike) doesn't go as planned?
        *     Demand to know what happens if it does? What happens after "victory"?
        *     Ask them: Isn't it possible this will make things worse, rather than better?

    There's more.....  via firedoglake

    Not What Digby Said | 9 comments (9 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment