I for one will go piss on the gates of the White House, and then on the gates guarding the cowardly Democratic leaders that have taken impeachment off the table.

These lunatics have no right to make the world a more dangerous place for us, and we as citizens have no duty to retreat in the face of it.

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

For one thing, we should note the position taken by every elected official. We should not wait for the attack to be commenced, if it will be, but start taking notes from the outset of the preparatory persuasion campaign. Those who don't speak out against a non-defensive attack on Iran should be graded as being at least tacitly approving of such an attack. There won't be any mass beheadings in the aftermath, but there will be the prospect of recalls, and there will be elections. We don't need any more expedient revising or parsing of what position an elected official took, long after the fact, as we have seen in regard to the most recent invasion of Iraq.

While we're taking notes, we should not leave out political candidates and news media.

When a newcomer jumps right in it is good to see that it is with a good idea that is well stated.

Welcome.

What we think or do is of no consequence, what the Very Serious People inside the beltway think or do is all that matters.

I am guessing that the designation of the Iranian revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization may have been intended to create a legal basis to attack Iran under existing anti-terrorism law rather than ask Congress for something they surely will not authorize. But that is a guess - I don't know much about national security law. I am saddened that no legislators have spoken out on this, which seems much more important than the stuff they are focusing on.

Notrol said:

I for one will go piss on the gates of the White House, and then on the gates guarding the cowardly Democratic leaders that have taken impeachment off the table.

Squeeze over, let me in there.

a nation-wide university strike is warranted...

I don't think it would happen. universities might convene "sessions" to talk about "different perspectives" about the war, but I hardly see an open rebellion.

i.e. in order for the university culture to react, the professors would have to sound "anti-american" and the university administrative would probably retaliate.

To boldly go...

What do we do if Bush goes to war with Iran?

Pray.

it's warranted but how do the dominos start cascading?

To boldly go...

Whatsa matter? You got that wide a stance that I have to make more room? :-)

Two things:

1. Take a futures position on Saudi sweet crude.

2. Call a demonstration in Washington. But this time do not go home at the usual 4:30 quitting time. Bring tents, sleeping bags, alert the street vendors, line up the porta-potties, etc. This worked in Bucharest, Kiev and Tbilisi, why can't it work here. Are there 25,000 people willing to make that commitment here in the US? I really do not know. It will take real courage. Such a demonstration will violate law and order and we can be sure that the current administration will be willing to unleash state violence to restore that law and order. And we can also count on sizable public support for any state sponsored violence against such a demonstration.

Yeah, that's just the problem. Any demonstration that isn't permitted and thus regulated will get a police response and everyone who isn't in the demonstration will support the police so long as they don't do anything truly outlandish on camera (like a Rodney King beating).

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

How do you know what Bush said privately?

I'm not convinced it's going to happen.  In fact, I think it's outlandish. Sure, it fits into the paranoiac scenario that comes naturally to blogging. It fits the idea that they're maniacs and the Democrats are too craven to care or help. But they're also ruthless politicians, and they know it's not a player for them.

First, they want a place like Iraq, where they could get topple statues, out on the aircraft carrier, and cry "mission accomplish."  (That's also one reason the bombing of the Balkans under Clinton was mere nation building to them. No fun at all, not like a Tom Cruise movie.) They know all they'll get here is embarrassing themselves by missing their targets. 

Second, they took months to invade Iraq, and it was months of building public clamor.  This is talk about secrecy and suddenness.

Third, they did so on a wave of public support. That's one reason they invaded after 9/11, not the week they took office, when the Neocons first put it into the plans. This time, they've got no support. Even their own party candidates are distancing themselves from war.  Ordinary Americans and even many true believers would think they'd lost their mind. 

Fourth, they went into Iraq on the pretense of American might. Now people would start asking them who's going to back up our brave airmen. We're stretched so thin we couldn't invade Granada.  

Fifth, they turn to mentioning threats of Iran for their game of the week, before returning to rumors of success of the surge, more troops, fewer troops.  I think Bush the other day was promising both at once. And this week's game plan is the surge.  They don't roll out new products in the midst of old product roll-outs.  

And, after all that, what do you bet the likely outcome is in fact immediate outcry for impeachment.  What seems to be impossible now would be at the top of a lot of agendas.  In sum, it's a total loser, and they're not willing to play loser.

So what's going on? The reporters picking up the rumor are in the Beltway remember, just like the reporters picking up word of WMD. It breeds certain distortions that rumor starters exploit. In this case, it could be the administration floating rumors that will appease its base to mobilize support in advance of the 9/15 report on the surge. Or it could be the base floating rumors of what it'd love to happen but can't expect to happen. In effect, it may be nuts like Kristol hoping to force the administration's hand.

But let's not play into the nutcases with our own wild fears. Calm down! If you want to take action, insist to Clinton that Obama's agenda of talking to other nations is right. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Destor-

The last group of (11) demonstrators victimized by an overprotective police force - at Kent State University, of all places! - just settled with the city for 65K.

DC cops have been dealt with the same way and have had to change their operating procedures. The police response is always going to be there, whether the demonstration is isolated to three blocks around Capitol Hill, or allowed in front of the WH.

This has always been my problem with these organized demos. They are predictable and are dismissed by the media outlets and the political heads. If the "conga line" were to vary by marching up to the Capitol building steps, however, I think the coverage would change.

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

How exactly do you define cohesive?

Bill Clinton's foreign policy (love him or hate him) was certainly more successful on every front than Bush's has been. And I mean EVERY SINGLE front. And you could even argue that Clinton's was more successful than Reagan's if you were so inclined.

I think that your view that this is Confusion versus Clarity is incorrect, at least in how you are framing those two words. The Republican foreign policy is simple - ignore reality and threaten everyone. You're correct in that it doesn't get much more clear than that. But it is clearly bad policy and has produced the epic list of monumental foreign policy disasters. From China to Korea to Africa to the Middle East (everyone there) this administration has set our country back a minimum of a decade, perhaps even more in terms of our relations. And this is compounded by the side effects this kind of failure has with our relationships with all other nations. Look at the recent implosion of the Indian Nuclear treaty. It was an awful treaty to begin with but the overwhelming resistance within the Indian government is largely fueled by an outright contempt with anything that so closely aligned the Indian government to Washington. And who could blame them?

The only confusion I see with Democratic foreign policy is my own personal confusion as to why so many people seem to ignore it's clear successes and how they could confuse Republican foreign policy as anything other than a complete and utter failure.

All the suggestions so far are for after an attack on Iran. Things that can be done ahead of time:

1)The suggestion that Bush intends to use the designation of the Iranian Guard as a terrorist organization as a cover for attacking Iran without further authorization from the Congress suggests a counter-measure of amending the provisions of AUMF to provide that no designation of an organization as terrorist shall be held to authorize an attack on another nation unless Congress declares war on the nation. Clinto or Obama or better yet, all of the Democratic candidates in Congress could get together and initiate it.

2) Stir up a fuss now: letters to the editor, petitions, marches, wikiplans to shut everything down if such an attack is carried out.

3) Impeach Addington whose legal work is encourages the President to believe that he is entitled to rule without Congressional input.

4) Impeach Cheney.

5) Expose in real time as is being done with the reports on Iraq WMD-type deceptions.

In May of this year, Georgie Anne Geyer of the Dallas Morning News reported that Bush had treated some visiting Texan locals with a long rant, which included the reference about America's "destiny". The performance was disturbing enough that someone called her about it.

The orignal article is here.

It wasn't a trip wire question. The Reps seem to have bought into a muscular foreign policy that frees people, trashes the UN, and says that America is the only relevant country in international affairs. I simply didn't say it was successful; I said it was coherent.

Since you want to say that Bill had one, then cough it up. The only consistency I've found has been globalization. The rest of his foreign policies seem ad hoc to me. Genocide bad in Balkans and okay in Rwanda--that's inconsistent. NATO-led intervention in Balkans is okay; UN was by-passed.

Now, these are inconsistencies and that's because the foreign policy is ad hoc--it is simply responding to the situation. What are the underlying policy positions. Seems uneven to me. Here it's one thing; there it's something else.

Right now, the Dem Party position seems to be nonexistent and we're going up against a consistent policy on the part of the Reps. Until that is addressed, we may find uneven election results in the future--after 2008 when I expect we will triumph.

Again, what are our foreign policy positions other than be nice to others? Is globalization still part of it--simply a kinder version? What about free trade agreements?

It really is a serious question on my part.

If Bill's foreign policy was so successful, why did Hillary vote For W's?

Pssst...United Nations...WAKE UP!

Holy crap. The US is a country, a country in which the UN headquarters is based mind you, that's threatening ANOTHER war on top of the two it's already engaged in. Of those two, one is flagrantly illegal and the other is questionable given it's initial stated goals and where it's progressed since. Just dust off some of those speeches Bush and Powell made to you all and replace Sadaam's & bin Laden's names with Bush's and Cheney's. It's not really that hard, the speeches are already written. Only this time they actually apply to the targeted "bad guys"!

Why is the UN so quiet about all of this and why won't we lock these nuts up? These people are dangerous. We seriously need to stop messing around here. No more politics, it's time to take action and prevent any further damage to our country and the world. This goes beyond common sense. I'm saying arrest all these guys today and then work out what exactly to charge them with. I've seen it done on Law & Order so it must be possible! Just do whatever it takes to prevent another disaster...

Please.

Maybe Abbie Hoffman was onto something. The sad thing is that even a remarkable demonstration might not get coverage from the corporate media. They haven't paid a lot of attention to previous anti-war protests, especially against Iraq. While a protest is against WH actions, whose attention is more crucial, that of the media or the W.H.?

While I'm no Clinton fan (either of them) let's be fair and honest here. I meant no personal attack but rather to address that particular point because it really appears to me that there is a chronic case of shortsightedness in terms of Democratic foreign policy over the years and a complete blindness to the mountain of Republican disasters.

There was negotiation with North Korea and Bush came into power and literally pissed on them. There was an inclusive process ongoing in the Middle East with representatives from all sides involved, again Bush pissed on that. There were efforts being made to deal with the ongoing tragedies in Africa, what did Bush do? Nothing, he walked away from all of it. You can't say that because Clinton didn't solve all the world's problems or that because there were some inconsistencies that he had no policy or that it was terrible (on the new GWB scale of OMGWTFBBQPONIES scale of complete disasters). That's simply not fair or accurate.

I never suggested that all of Clinton's policies were successful or even good but I do suggest that trying is better than pissing on or doing nothing at all. Clinton was engaged with the world where Bush has told it to screw off and done whatever he's pleased in his own little Christian wonderland. Bush collapsed our foreign policy into a tiny singularity he called the GWOT and the gravity from this black hole has sucked in all light, compassion, thought, reason and apparently accountability. And the new cadre of Republican's vying for power plan to pick up that same baton and run with it. This prospect is horrifying to say the least.

Foreign policy is action. And until we can get another Democrat in the White House we won't see any Democratic foreign policy. None. Talk is talk and of little value other than giving Republicans more opportunities to build straw men in effigy and burn them down. This is easy because this new hypothetical policy isn't in place to defend itself and also because Republicans are masters of calling BS fact and running with it. And Americans seem unable to tell the difference. But I'll tell you this, doing the exact opposite of what Bush has done would certainly be a move in the right direction. So if you want some Democratic clarity of position how about these few points -

1. Stop bombing everyone
2. Start talking...(to someone at least)
3. Get involved (not invade, involved)

These cover the be nice to others category. The other issues - Globalization, Trade, Global Warming, Immigration, Energy independence - all of these issues are much more domestic problems then they are foreign diplomacy problems. When we can kick big business out of Washington DC the solutions to those other issues will become much more clear and attainable. And at that point we'll find an entire planet, that's been sitting at the table for a while now, saying "Hey, we're glad you could finally make it." We're being run by robber baron's proxies and until we stop this then we're arguing semantics that will have zero likelihood of ever being proven one way or the other.

We might appeal to the rest of the world to help us take out our current US regime and restore our Constitution if we can't manage to do so ourselves very soon.

Our Constitution doesn't take Impeachment off the table ... we need devoted public servants who uphold our laws and serve our true needs, such as safeguarding humanity ...

Let's inform our 'leaders' and candidates about our real requirements and insist they be met ...

otherwise I can't help believing it's time for another revolution here in America ... or, really,

who can actually expect the whole world to roll over and play dead? not bloody likely ...

war is too important to be left to either the generals or the politicians. Why don't we just leave it to the people, honestly and fully informed.

I'm sorry, but I am just too busy to take on that responsibility. Maybe if you lower the standards a bit someone else will be willing to do it.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Oh, well. We can still follow every nuanced event between Sanjaya and Phil (or whoever) on American Idol. Remember, don't vote in haste!

"...a non-defensive attack..."

But this attack will be defensive because Iran is attacking us in Iraq...

That is going to be the reasoning, count on it.

Well, I think until we can get Cheney's meds changed he's liable to do anything.Tom

as if Cheney were sane, you mean?

and he's already stirring it, stirring it up *BIG*!

If Bush attacks Iran, change your registration to Republican and vote for the candidate who will not let his hand be forced - Ron Paul.  If we are in the middle of a war with Iran and he thinks it is wrong, he's the candidate who I have confidence will say "I don't care if we are in the middle of a war with them.  This is a stupid war and I'm pulling out."

"You say I'm a dreamer.  We're two of a kind.  Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"

I'd say it's a 5 percent chance that we'd go to war with Iran, not 50.

The neocons have no political capital left. Our budget is in dire straights. And our economic outlook is shaky.

Although I would agree that there is a 50% chance that the *original* Iraq War strategy was to setup a staging ground / military base for getting Iran to piss their pants and back off of their nuclear program. If that was the original strategy, that strategy is now AWOL.

The neocons have no political capital left

The neocon crowd cares not one bit if they have any political capital, or not. What they have in Bush and Cheney, are two war mongers who believe that any power, is complete power. In this case, he who has the keys to the White House liquor cabinet, has the power. Who's going to stop them?

I haven't read all the posts but, as usual, there's a US centric tenor where "just wait" "no US resistance" "get behind it" "high support" believe that the nation would condone this action.

ReallY!

And all the reps and sens, too?

US action of this type, an unprovoked attack against a non-threat country, on Iran will stir up the anti-war anti-US-admin majority of all major western European nations against their so far pro-US governments to the extent that some major figures would topple and Europe as a whole would find it hard not to condemn the US in the harshest terms, perhaps to the level of more countries seeking to prosecute more US actors, including Bush and Cheney, for war crimes.

Good luck, I say to them, but not great for the US or the world.

And any strike against Iran would be to the detriment of us all.

We can't control our own idiots so we look to the world to help us?

Common, everyone! Get motivated! E-mail anyone. But most of all every senator/representative from state level on up.

Please!!!! Get off your arse! Don't be an ass!

Do our idiots act as if we control them? I'll take help from wherever it comes at this point, sweetheart.

As I said, I'm sure it'll be forthcoming too, in one form or another! But then I even meant wrecking our economy might be worth it at the rate we're going -- wasting our wealth to destroy the world! Wasted economy either way, but at least no more devastations like vaporizing innocent civilians visited on the world by us in the process ...

lots of us have tried to enlist the aid of our reps etc, and many now apparently feel this isn't working out so well for us these days, so ... we may need to rely on whatever help the rest of the world can bestow on us ...

liberate us from our mad dictators! help! help!

we can still try to make things right, but since we just keep failing ... let the help come ... from all the world!

We are by no means helpless unless we choose to be.

If the millions who object to illegal and immoral use of our military against the people of Iran hit the streets and stay there it would likely avert the attack on Iran Bush so fervently wants to launch.

We can start by getting off our asses and showing up in Washington on September 15 to demonstrate to our "elected" "representatives" that we want this war to end and don't approve of still another. We must demand that the usurpers be impeached and the Constitution restored. And, above all, we have demonstrate we care enough to "sue" the malignant and negligent ex for permanent custody of our government.

http://impeachbush.org

September 15. Washington, DC. Be there.

Here's the reality. If Bushco can get the attck underway before opposition comes together, then anyone who objects after the fact will be labeled a traitor in a time of war. Dissent will be stifled, just as it was in Iraq at the outset. Or worse, a state of emergency will ensue and martial law declared. By the time the military decides whether to back Bushco or the public, we'll already be royally screwed.

The time to fight this is right now, not after it starts. But we need leadership, and I don't see any immediately rising to the surface.

At what point do we all sit down and agree he's completely out of his mind?

Uh- yesterday? I don't have the time right now to find the articles but they're out there. The dude is nuts.

Rosenberg said:

"In this supposed democracy, have we now reached the point where all of us are -- like citizens in dictatorships -- reduced to utter impotence?
The answer is almost surely yes. And Bush and Cheney know it."

This sort of view is exactly what some would like the public to think so the voters do not step up to the plate and change what they don't like. I think many underestimate the American spirit. It is the American voters who have reduced themselves to being impotent and they've got what it takes to undo the damage.

If Bush goes to Iran despite public opposition for this, it is our fault. We live in a democracy BY the people. If we don't participate and run our government, somebody else will run it (say, for example, special interests)

If we want a more responsive government, we need to be more responsive by participating more, keeping a closer watch on our democracy and voting out all those in office who have proven they can't deliver Results--other than wars and earmarks--until we get people in office who do deliver results.

We can use our votes to get the money out of elections by simply not voting for those who take donations and only voting for those who participate in public-funded eletions in which each candidate has an equal amount of money. This way, no losers can buy a seat in our Congress or the Oval Office.

We can ensure our votes are counted by going back to paper ballots w/out chads that are counted by people in local communities---a method that has worked for a very long time.

"By the time the military decides whether to back Bushco or the public, we'll already be royally screwed."

Optimist. Do you think that the military will be allowed a decision?

There's one point that I don't think I've seen addressed yet. There may be very good reason for that, of course - it's an extreme conspiracy theory, if I do say so myself. But still, let's speculate: If Bush attacks Iran, then the predictable result is increased Iranian activity in Iraq. To combat this, Bush will have to order most of the combat-trained military back to the Middle East, no matter that they're overextended and exhausted. (It'll be on an emergency basis, of course, because it'll turn out that "no one could have predicted" such an Iranian response.) So most of the ground forces (including National Guard and reserves, I'm sure) will be overseas. Much of the Air Force will be there conducting air operations, and much of the Navy will be needed for support as well.

Here's the point that I haven't seen discussed. This situation neatly puts most of the people currently under arms, who have sworn to defend the Constitution, far away from the U.S. The new war can be adjusted until this meets needed levels. At that point, decisions by the military leadership about domestic affairs are meaningless, because they can't be implemented.

At this point, all we need is a severe enough attack in the U.S. (that famous "one more bomb") to justify a state of emergency. Privately contracted security (Blackwater and their clones) could be brought in to enforce the emergency orders. They're privately owned, so we probably don't know how many people they have on the payroll, or how many they're adding.

If anything like this happens, then it's all up to the public. If they (well, we) display Democratic levels of courage and commitment to Constitutional ideals, THEN we're royally screwed. The endgame will be complete.

Note that this is only speculation on the tactics of how a takeover might happen. Whether or not things work out this way remains to be seen. Frankly, I think it's unlikely.

But I used to think it was impossible.

Kofi Anan was the only one who stood up to the USA and this administration..he was the only one with the courage and conviction to state that America was in an illegal war.

Look what happened to him after that.

The best answer isn't availible to us between now and the end of the Bush admin. (That is, assuming they will step down at terms end.) And that is, wherever possible, elect members to both houses of congress who have guts and principles, and who believe the constitution is something more than a quaint museum piece.

Over-concern with electability is a big obsticle to getting people like this into office.

M.J.'s got us thinking with this piece. But, the people that need to be considering this "what to do" are the ones in congress. To most of them, this question won't even come up, even if only to be lightly dismissed.

Let me tell you, it's no fun asking your congressman a question, in person, that prompts him to think of you as some kind of crazy. (And, if not asked in person, the question will be put into a grid by some aid, and classified as a comment speaking to some problem it does not in fact address.) Nevertheless -

This actual question is one that needs to be raised in front of the people who vote in our places in between elections. Maybe the right phrasing would be: Would you work to impeach this president if he bombed Iran without congessional ascent?

Kevin Russell Cook