PELOSI: If It Appears BUSH Wants War With IRAN-We Will Deny Him The Authority

[kpete]

Moreover, Pelosi told her colleagues that if it appears likely that Bush wants to take the country to war against Iran, the House would take up a bill to deny him the authority to do so, according to Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/03/AR2007020300701.html

[Jacobin]

1. If they were serious, they'd do it RIGHT NOW

By the time they get around to it, there will be some manufactured excuse and Cheney will already start the ball rolling.

congress isn't serious about stopping smirk from attacking Iran. And that's the sad truth

[faithnotgreed]

3. they have clearly shown they arent serious about stopping anything

and thats the sad truth

well said jacobin

[ClassWarrior]

6. What's sad is DUers who whine about others' inaction, while doing...

...nothing themselves. How many times did you call Pelosi's office last week, faith? How many visits did you pay to your Congresspeople's offices? How many LTTEs did you write?

NGU.

[faithnotgreed]

30. cw - there is a lot i could respond with but i would like to thank you

for the part of your post that says nothing is impossible - i always agree with that

on edit: grammar

[yurbud]

42. How many times should we have to tell them to do their job?

they can read opinion polls and remember what people tell them in public forums. I write them anyway, but Democrats at least shouldn't have to be told to do what is write. We just have to shout loud to be heard over the cash registers ringing up donations.

[ClassWarrior]

60. As often as it takes. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

NGU.

[Flabbergasted]

71. This doesn't change the fact that it is already obvious what he wants....

But your reply speaks truth as well.

[krispos42]

10. Oh dear god, it's only been a month!

Give the system time to work! It didn't get where it is overnight, and it's not going to be fixed in the first month of a Democratic Congress!

I understand your fustrations, I really do. For me, having a double impeachment is exactly what this country needs to wake up from the Republican-induced apathy, and it is vitally necessary for the long-term future of our governmental system, especially in regard to keeping this from happening again. But... there's a shitload of stuff to do, and the same people that supported this idiot are working to keep him in power. They whine things like "the country doesn't need another scandal", or "this is because we impeached Clinton".

Give it time. Watch them like a hawk, and make sure THEY know they're being watched like a hawk! This is a long-term campaign. We have to fight back 30 years of Republican idiocy and greed. No single election can fix that.

[badgerpup]

47. I realize this is very simplistic, and I'm probably overlooking a lot of stuff...

...but I want Bush and Cheney OUT. NOW.

Before they find some convenient trumped-up excuse to bring Iran into this clusterfuck of a vanity war. Iran will 'pacify' right back, and there goes the planet. We've got enough trouble with global warming without adding nukes to the mix, ya think?

OUT. NOW. Before they can do any more damage...and THEN can deal with the other stuff like pulling our troops out of Iraq, global warming, health care, and the other stuff the Democratic Congress has promised to do.
Removing these megalomaniac humanoid walking cancers that are 'leading' :sarcasm: the country should have A #1, super-duper yesterday-if-not-sooner ultra top priority.

We have a war going in Afghanistan, one going down the tubes in Iraq...the last thing we need is for Chimperor George and Snarling Dick to start yet another war in Iran.

"...only a madman tries to fight a war on three fronts."
David Eddings

[krispos42]

48. Oh, so do I, believe me

But this is a political process, and it only works two ways: fast and slow. If it goes fast, it's horribly done, woefully incomplete, and full of pork. If it's slow, it's mind-numbingly boring and still pork-laden.

If we rush this, BushCo will get off and keep smirking in office until January 20th, 2009, then die of old age breathing fresh, free air in Texas. Or Paraguay.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

49. It took 'em less than 100 hours to pass 6 bills.

They're the ones who set the standard. Why not hold them to it for the long haul? Do they want us to compare them to Newt's "Contract With America"? That's how it will be unless they keep their foot on the gas pedal.

[EstimatedProphet]

62. 6 bills are nowhere near as complicated as impeachment.

This has to be done the right way - solid, watertight, perfect - or else it will only be used to make Republicans stronger. Then Bush doesn't get impeached, and Cheney runs and 'wins' the presidency in 2008. That is what will happen if this is even remotely seen as a partisan attack.

[krispos42]

85. All of those bills had bipartisan support, and had already been debated

on the floor of the House and the Senate. I don't believe there was anything new in those bills that hadn't be exhaustively discussed while the Republicans were in charge. They just resurrected those failed bills and re-voted on them.

A trial, if you want it to be successful, needs to be thorough. All the ducks in a row, i's and j's dotted, t's crossed. You have to be able to explain and prove where everybody was, what they said and why they said it, what they did and why they did it, and it has to be airtight.

And you don't get that without investigations, which, of course, also takes time. It can be fustratingly slow, but it needs to be complete.

[deepthought42]

58. I have to agree with you, these things take time...

As impatient as I feel sometimes... And of course we must let them know that we expect them to do their jobs.

[EstimatedProphet]

61. THANK YOU!

For God's sake, the process takes time! There is nothing that can be done about that, because anything less than a 100% watertight case (which we DO NOT HAVE RIGHT NOW, regardless of how well we all do know how guilty Bush is) will be instantly spun to 'prove' that Pelosi just wants to take over the country.

I want impeachment. More importantly, I WANT IT TO WORK.

[Richard Steele]

29. Agreed. There's little room to doubt his intentions at this point. nm

[orleans]

53. jonathan turley said something to that effect today on one of the shows

about by the time congress gets around to it....

turley said that war powers is pretty much up to the fuckhead if he believes a country is attacking us or our national interests.

great. hold on to your hats (meanwhile congress is still screwing around with a nonbinding resolution.)

[mmonk]

56. That's what I say. Why wait?

[npincus]

88. exactly.

the propaganda shit has already hit the MSM fan.

[babylonsister]

2. Take up a bill NOW, Ms. Pelosi! Don't wait! nt

[Turbineguy]

4. Well yeah,

but he'll lie.

[The Magistrate]

5. She Certainly Must Do That, Ma'am

War with Iran is not in the interests of the country now.

"One war at a time is about all I can handle."

[DearAbby]

7. :::tapping monitor:::: What is wrong with RIGHT NOW?

Do it NOW! Everyone knows what they are doing, pick up PNAC. It's all in there. DO IT NOW!

[neoblues]

8. Better yet, put "Impeachment" back on the table...

and take that up!

[ClassWarrior]

11. How many times did you contact her office last week, neoblues...

...and demand that she put IMPEACHMENT back on the table? How many paper plates did you send to her office? (Link here.) How many LTTEs did you write?

NGU.

[neoblues]

25. Your point? ClassWarrior...

And to what do I owe such a personally specific reply?

[ClassWarrior]

35. Nothing. Just hoping more DUers will do more acting...

...and less complaining.

B-)

NGU.

[habitual]

55. just hoping wouldn't be questioning people who speak out

i tend to think that i should be able to write a post about my feelings without having another user who doesn't know me or my background writing back asking me how many letters i wrote and plates i sent in. I wasn't under the understanding that one had to prove their activist background before they were allowed to participate in this forum.

[jpak]

9. They better do it PDQ - by the end of the month, all the surged forces will be in place

ChimpCo will not ask for authority to do this - they will not tip their hands.

There will be a unscheduled presidential address the night of the attacks - that's it...

:nuke:

[Eurobabe]

12. Nancy, you better be denying this MOFO right now

cause this stinks of Iraq redux!!

[HuffleClaw]

13. and WHEN bush DOES she'll simply say, 'ooops!'

'i guess we were too late.' if the dems were SERIOUS about their anti-war stance vis a vis iraq & iran they'd act NOW, and not some bullshit 'non-binding' resolution.

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. Good Lord, I should hope so.

[libnnc]

15. Madame Speaker, what happens when he says

"Congressional authority? I don't need no stinkin' congressional authority. Take your congressional authority and shove it, honey. I'm the Decider!"

and strikes Iran anyway?

What then? Duck and cover?

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. And fully constitution crisis

that is what we are walking into

[blues90]

16. Did'nt we vote these fools in ?

It seems to me that if pelosi and the others did not get the message and do not know what the people want and what's in our best interests then perhaps we voted in the wrong people . I know they heard us , I heard pelosi say it a few times now .

Why on earth should we have to keep their feet to the fire and keep contacting them . This is insane at best , who else keeps job if they have to be reminded each day how to do it ?

We have voted , we had protests in DC on the 27th and all over the country and a few reps attended the on in DC .

This shows how much interest they have in the will of the people . Right out in front of were they work and they could not be bothered .

I did my calls and letters and I have heard nothing back , the protests even though done are now part of history in their minds .

If they don;t know what we want then they need more help than anyone out here has to offer . Let them play their political games as they will no matter what with their 100 hour hoopla .

[nolabels]

52. Our congress is very carefully selected from only what money could buy.

Didn't you get the memo, they work for the contributors, no citizen voters allowed :shrug:

Feb. 4, 2007, 10:42PM
Bush's budget request seeks billions more for war in Iraq
$2.9 trillion plan also aims to curb growth in federal health spending
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4525782.html

[blues90]

70. Sure looks like this is the case

It's a joke and a sick one at that .

[scarletwoman]

17. If she means it, then it needs to happen NOW!

The first bombing runs over Iran may take place as soon as mid-February, when the moon is dark (new moon).

If not in two weeks, then by mid-March (next new moon).

There's no time left for political dithering and posturing, the war on Iran WILL happen unless a concerted effort is made to stop it NOW.

sw

[npincus]

18. If? Could it be any clearer?

What's she waiting for? More toothless anti-surge resolutions?

[Atman]

19. Blah blah blah. Less talk. IMPEACH THE FUCKER.

"Wants" is the key word they'll use to get themselves off the hook. BushCo swore up and down they didn't WANT war with Irag, but they just HAD to because of the WMD/liberty/democracy/oil (fill in excuse-of-the-day). They'll pull the same shit this time.

.

[Luckyduck]

32. I with you

:applause:
Impeachment is the only way

[progressivebydesign]

20. My fear is a Northwoods type operations to FORCE a war. n/t

[CrazyOrangeCat]

24. yes.

[windbreeze]

50. don't you mean another NW type operation?

same thing should work again...
wb

[Individualist]

21. How? With another non-binding resolution?

:mad:

[Atman]

22. Howard Zinn in on CSPAN now, asking "why NON-BINDING resolutions?"

Why not BINDING resolutions? Why aren't there impeachment hearings going on NOW?

.

[Decruiter]

23. TUNE IN!! n/t

[timtom]

26. Why the bizarre use of the conjunction, "if"?

Does Speaker Pelosi have doubts as to *'s intentions/desires?

[Peace Patriot]

27. Okay, I've done a little bit of analysis of the article. First thing to remember,

it's a WaPo article. So look for the things that appear between the lines of type--gargoyles peering out at you, with the blood of Iraqi children dripping from their faces.

Sorry. Dollar bills stuffed in their mouths.

Sorry.

After many paragraphs of gooey cotton candy about sweetums Bush and the representatives of the American people, we get down to the nub. WaPo thinks that the Iran adventure is pushing things too far. They're making boffo profits from the "build-up." But an actual strike will cost them too dearly in angry, pitchfork-carrying citizens (84% of whom oppose any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast war--poll here at DU last summer--84%!) going after the military budget, and denying future presidents any more wars of choice.

So that's why they slip in this tidbit from a Pelosi aide--way at the bottom of this tub of warm butter--that, IF Bush appears to want war with Iran, Congress will deny him that authority.

Now, people here have jumped in and said: But Cheney will do a sneak attack--on some trumped up excuse--and Bush will announce it in the middle of the night, while Congress is sleeping.

Could be. They ARE the world's major terrorists and the greediest, most conscienceless SOB's on God's earth. And Cheney must be feeling a bit cornered, with what-all is coming out in the Libby trial. But consider this. The U.S. military really, really, really does not want a war with Iran. They are under orders to add troops to Iraq and to put battleships in place, but I would bet money that Pelosi and other leaders have a pipeline to any decisions to use force against Iran, and will get a heads up, convene Congress, slap a "no authority" on them (Bush, Cheney), and immediately start impeachment proceedings if they give orders for the use of force anyway. And then the U.S. military is going to have to decide whether to obey orders that Congress--in ITS rightful authority under the Constitution--has forbidden. And you know what? I think U.S. military leaders have a lot more respect for the Constitution--and I mean a lot more--than Bush or Cheney do.

Also, meanwhile, all this sweetums goo may help to give Bush something of a "comfort zone" and separate him a bit from his puppetmaster Cheney. And here's where I think y'all may be wrong about the goo-goo Democrats cradle-rocking Bush. Consider how you would feel if you have a mass killer before you, who has a gun pointed at the head of a hostage. What would you say to him? Would you provoke him? Make him feel insecure? Call him names? Pick a fight with him? Brandish weapons at him? I think that's the position that the Democratic leaders are in. So they are walking softly.

I would, in any case, give them the benefit of the doubt at this point. Keep the pressure on, so that they don't lapse in their duty to deal with this unprecedented crisis, and so they know that they are supported. But I would not indict them for not having put these two away yet. I think the situation is very much a tinderbox.

And I am no pollyanna, when it comes to criticizing Congress, or being enraged at War Democrats. I'm trying to think this through, from the point of view of the people who are THERE, and who carry the burden of keeping us all safe--and keeping innocent people in other countries safe--in this dangerous situation, and I think that Pelosi is very much there for us. She is no coward. She is one smart lady. And there are some awfully good people that she is working with in Congress. Also, it may well be that her feminine understanding--which most of us women are born with, as to dealing with aggressive males--is exactly what is needed at this time, rather than noisy confrontation (re Bush). A Murtha, or a Kerry, or a Waxman, or any number of others, might "go for the gun"--go for heroics--try to overtalk or overpower the mass killer with his gun to the hostage's head, when what is needed is patience and quiet and close observation and comforting talk. The skills of a diplomat, not those of a "knight on a white horse" with his crowd-pleasing flourishes.

And, really, I don't care if Bush and Cheney are taken down dramatically in public, or quietly at a tea party--so long as that mission is accomplished.

[orleans]

54. nicely said. i'm not sure i agree that waiting is the best tactic but

i hope they are on top of it, ready to jump in on a dime if necessary.

[Imagevision]

28. Bush needs no approval from congress to do Iran, CNN- MSNBC yakked about it this week

[cassiepriam]

31. It looks like the Dems are wimping out over and over. WHY???

[MzNov]

69. They are still too timid to take the chance that they will be called

soft on terror. It's pure politics and concern for their own jobs. It's nauseatingly simple.

Still, no spines. Still, stalling. Still, no impeaching these criminals who have broken more laws than all 42 presidents before them combined...

If not now, when? I'm afraid you won't see removal of this cabal by this Congress. We still don't have our country back.

[cassiepriam]

76. Time for Profiles in Courage: Time to forget about politics and just do the right thing.

Tell the truth, make the right choices and let the chips fall where they may.

[TexasLawyer]

33. We're going to wake up some morning

and find out that Bush has already bombed Iran. We need preemptive legislation NOW, Nancy.

And not just some non-binding resolution.

[AX10]

34. Deny him the authority, NOW!

[Miss Chybil]

36. YES! Now we're talking! nt

[BadGimp]

37. I think it's already too late

All Chenny (and Bush) need is one good (real or faked) incident. End of story, we gots us another War.

I for one think it's a foregone conclusion.

[moodforaday]

38. Cheney already said how much it will concern him

Bush Is About To Attack Iran

Both Bush and Cheney have made it clear in public statements that they will ignore any congressional opposition to their war plans. For example, CBS News reported (Jan. 25) that Cheney said that a congressional resolution against escalating the war in Iraq “won’t stop us.” According to the Associated Press and Yahoo News, Bush dismissed congressional disapproval with his statement, “I’m the decision-maker.”

http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/132/2/

Admittedly, these statements are about the Iraq "surge", but they're telling. And I guess Nancy Pelosi will have to take it up with Hillary first, won't she?

[Adelante]

39. Outlaw preemptive war

Right now.

[in_cog_ni_to]

40. Why do they think he will give a rats ass what they do? Have they not been paying attention?

Honestly. Why would he start following the law now? He's the DECIDER! Remember?

[yurbud]

41. when exactly is she going to consider it "likely"? After Bush starts launching cruise missiles?

[Bucky]

43. Patience, patience, my friends. These wheels must grind slowly.

Pelosi is a smart politician. Tactically she can't rush things along or too many swing votes in Congress will be cornered into supporting "whatever the commander in chief thinks is necessary." She's trying to build as broad a base of support as possible; an anti-escalation majority of 50% plus one is not enough. It's painful to watch all the killing and dying in Iraq and all the posturing in DC. But Pelosi is trying to build a Democratic barn, not just burn down a Republican one.

[MzNov]

68. We just don't have all that much time. A bill to stop this nut case?

the Blue Dog Dems would just filibuster it.

[goforit]

44. Now , this gal is TALKING!!!!... Stay hard as nails Nancy, don't budge!

[Just-plain-Kathy]

45. I'm losing faith...

First we're told there'll be accountability...then "Impeachment's off the table".

Then we're told, "We hold the purse strings...No surge"...Our troops are already there and no one's bringing them home.

Now this...Will the hawkish DLC allow Pelosi to stop a war with Iran?

[Kablooie]

46. What the fuck kind of sissy move is THIS? a BILL? He just adds a signing statement

and ignores it.

THE ONLY SOLUTION IS IMMEDIATE IMPEACHMENT.

ANY POLITICIAN WHO DOESN'T PURSUE THIS IS COMPLYING WITH BUSH POLICIES AND SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE!!

[Skittles]

51. I agree

Democrats are still acting like this "president", who stole a presidential election (possibly two), thumbs his nose at the rule of law and wipes his ass with the Constitution will be stopped by any roadblock the Dems throw at him

[KharmaTrain]

57. Force The National Guard Home...

If asshat wants to launch war for profit...let him recruit the 50,000 volunteers from those who really want to go there and fight. That's not the place for our National Guard. We're teetering here...with insufficient guardsmen who are poorly equipped due to all the resources being sent and squandered on Iraq. That's not what the Guard was intended for and there's a great post on DKOS about how Democrats can use protecting the Guard as a way to put the brakes on this warmongering regime.

Democrats should regularly force votes in both Houses on funding and other war-relation resolutions...ALL BINDING...and put the Repugnicans on record to how far they support this invasion. Let booosh veto...let the Repugnicans attempt to fillibuster...the more they go against the will of the majority of the American people, the closer they come to the ends of their political careers.

[truedelphi]

59. Big Problem is, the media is in the Pres.'s pocket AND

it would take only one Gulf of Tonkin type action or one more 9/11 insider job on an American city, to give the President the reason to get his little war.

Plus Israel wants this war, and its lobbyists control far too many on The Hill.

[rman]

63. So then the question becomes

Who are the generals going to listen to?

president says "go"
house majority says "stay put"

Or am i missing something here?

[magellan]

64. If it appears likely?

If it appears any more likely missiles will be flying...and I rather doubt a bill will bring them back.

[Vidar]

65. If ???? The time is now!

[cui bono]

66. Um, hello... it not only appears so, it's pretty damn clear.

Come on Nancy, wake up already.

[Douglas Carpenter]

67. this is very incouraging

from the Center For American Progress:

link: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=252022&ct=3523439

"ISOLATED BUSH: Responding to the administration's provocations towards Iran, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, "The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization." Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, agreed that "the president would need authority." Encouraging more resistance to the administration's current course, "three former high-ranking U.S. military officers have called for Britain to help defuse the crisis over Iran's nuclear program, saying military action against Tehran would be a disaster for the region." A coalition of U.K. unions, faith groups, and think tanks warn in a new report that an attack on Iran could further destabilize neighboring Iraq, undermine hopes for Israeli-Palestinian peace, and embolden hard-liners in Ahmadinejad's government. It said an attack on oil-rich Iran could also drive up fuel prices, harming economies around the world. "The possible consequences of military action could be so serious that governments have a responsibility to ensure that all diplomatic options have been exhausted," the report said. "At present, this is not the case." "

link: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=252022&ct=3523439

[EndElectoral]

72. So what...he'll do it anyway.

[blues90]

73. Exactly !

Like bush will give them any warning at all , once they find their excuse the bombs will begin to be launched and it will be too damn late .

[pinniped]

74. We have a Caligula wannabe running around and they don't do shit.

Impeach the pieces of shit already.

[sellitman]

75. You can't even get a NON-binding Resolution through Congress.

What makes you think you can stop "The Decider"?


Fucking Spineless asswipe whimps!

IMPEACH THESE War Criminals now or fuck off.

[nolabels]

78. The lull in the storm

Suspecting that it all bubbles up from the bottom it is also easy to notice the heat often gets much more intense once it gets to the top.

[mmonk]

77. What exactly has our democratic party done

to even so much as slow this administration down? I'll believe it when I see it.

[Morgana LaFey]

79. I wish she could understand how unbelievably STUPID she looks

uttering a remark like this.

First, it's already happening -- and she can't stop it. Second, a false flag operation is a goddamned SNAP to these people. They've probably got a gazillion plans already all laid out and half done as we speak. Third, they don't need (or want) HER approval. They'll just do as they damn well please, knowing full well from deep inside their bellies that it's easier to get forgiveness than permission.

What a pathetic paper tiger she must look like to them. What'll she say to them, "You better watch it next time"????

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. kik

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. Procedure 101

the Congress has the authority to declare war, but they cannot declare war until the executive aproaches them with it and the reasons for it

ergo, until Bush and Chenney aproach them, they cannot just willy nilly pass legistlation.

MOroever, if bush wants to start a war... he can... it is called the War Powers Act, and then he has 90 days to get the authority.

Geeze louis you need to learn how the system works, and it is akin ot watching sausage being made...

[B Calm]

83. Hello Pelosi... he don't give a shit about your authority... wake up!

[Douglas Carpenter]

84. .

[redqueen]

86. I'm calling to thank her NOW!

Thanks for posting this. :)

[hopein08]

87. "If"? This is an "if"? What exactly will tell her that he DOES want war with Iran?

[JackRiddler]

89. Unfortunately you should have capitalized the word APPEARS

Because the hostilities will not be announced in advance. It won't APPEAR to be a war until you wake up and hear that we're already in the middle of it. Then Pelosi and Co. will show if they have courage.

[Douglas Carpenter]

90. kick