Got a hot tip?
Drop us a line!

Subscribe

Links:

Site search

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • Hanlon: "Understood! And you do make an excellent point. Blag’s within his authority to appoint the guy,..."
  • Dormilona: "P.S. My fury was aimed at the source article (the one on the link) NOT at your commentary, Hanlon!"
  • Dormilona: "My New Year’s Resolution: Shut up and get a life. Just something to “work towards.” *_*"
  • Dormilona: "What infuriates me is that the paragraph (”The dispute had taken on racial..."
  • Rechan: "I don’t have resolutions. I know they’re a bunch of bull. Not the desire to improve is useless,..."

 

January 2007
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Archives

Older Articles

Onward to Iran

by Hanlon on January 11, 2007 at 11:18 pm

The most remarkable thing about Bush’s speech last night, honestly, wasn’t the majority of his comments concerning the war itself, Al Qaeda, 9/11, sacrifice, etc. We’d heard all that before. No, what really struck me and a few in the media was his sudden decision that Iran and Syria are actual targets and will be dealt with. Obviously, though, that wasn’t anything other than tough-guy talk.

Or so I thought. Then I caught the story today of the Iranian Consulate in Iraq being stormed by US forces.

US forces have stormed an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six members of staff.

The troops raided the building at about 0300 (0001GMT), taking away computers and papers, according to Kurdish media and senior local officials.

Reports say the Iranian consulate there was set up last year under an agreement with the Kurdish regional government to facilitate cross-border visits.

So they were there with the Iraqis’ permission, for a non-military/militia/terrorist purpose. And the United States stormed in and took six captives. Basically a complete, utter, and unmistakable act of aggression towards a dangerous nation that Bush has absolutely no authority to make such at act towards at this point.

Apparently Joe Biden (and presumably much of the Senate) agrees, hence the declaration of a “constitutional confrontation” should any real aggression into Iran begin.

“That will generate a constitutional confrontation in the Senate, I predict to you,” Sen. Joseph Biden, D- Del., told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Thursday.

See? Told ya. Anyway, what does that mean? Constitutional confrontation sounds a little hazy, I’ll agree. I’ll say this much, though: President Bush has no authority to attack Iran in any way. Period. No arguments. As I’ve referred you so many times, let’s go there again: HJ Res 114, the Iraq War Resolution.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Okay? Read that. Internalize it. Memorize it. Congress authorized Bush to defend the US against threats post BY Iraq. Iraq does not pose a single threat to the United States at this point. Number 2 is a no-brainer, because obviously the UN resolutions are moot. All Bush was authorized to do was protect us from Iraq.

I’m going to repeat that. Protect US from IRAQ. Iraq is not a danger to me, you, or anyone else reading this unless you’re actually IN Iraq. “By Iraq” refers to the threat posed by the state of Iraq itself, not foreign bodies within its borders. Strictly speaking I’m not sure we have the authority to fight foreign terrorists on the Iraqis’ behalf.

This is a bad situation, folks. Check out DailyKos and TPMcafe for some more info.

Write a comment