From the AP:
Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush’s authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.
Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.
Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy.
The developments occurred as Democrats pointed toward an initial test vote in the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday on the overall bill, which would require the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008, if not earlier. The measure provides nearly $100 billion to pay for fighting in two wars, and includes more money than the president requested for operations in Afghanistan and what Democrats called training and equipment shortages.
The White House has issued a veto threat against the bill, and Vice President Dick Cheney attacked its supporters in a speech, declaring they “are telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out.”
Two things I take away from this story: 1) liberal Democrats will do whatever they can to make sure we cannot win the war in Iraq—an ideological imperative given that they view the US as the cause of many of the world’s problems, resulting, from the perspective of transnational progressivism, in its pariah status; and 2) they are certain Bush has no intention of attacking Iran militarily, else they’d be dogged about keeping up appearances concerning their ongoing attempts to constrain him, even though (longterm) constraint is already built right in to the Constitution.*
Because, well, that’s what they do.
*****
update: More, from HotAir.
Maybe I’m a little rusty, but doesn’t Bush already have to get approval from Congress before moving against Iran? You know, like he did with Iraq and every president ever has done with every war (except for the ol’ “police action” in Korea)?
Actually, no, he doesn’t. A president can start a war, but after a very short period of time (I think 90 days) Congress gets to vote on whether to continue funding it.
So theoretically, Bush wouldn’t have to get approval.
Depends, mrgroves. Declarations of war come only from Congress, but “police actions” (take that as you will) or raids are at the discretion of the President. Grenada, for example, or Carter’s attempt to rescue the hostages in Tehran, are Presidential decisions. Although I’m sure Congress will squawk if Dubya decides to deal with Iran directly.
I’m not so sure about UN support (e.g., Kosovo), but I think that’s at the discretion of the President as well.
cranky-d is correct—I’d forgotten about that 90 day provision.
Also, if the provision for troop removal remains, I hope Bush vetoes the bill and then really hammers on the Dems for putting the provision in there. Then again, I’ve been waiting for him to do stuff like that for a long time.
I think it may be 60 days. I linked to a John Dean piece that, between the spin (for instance, he dismisses the war against Barbary pirates, for example, because, well, it was against Barbary pirates, and so evidently don’t count in setting precedent), spells things out wrt current war powers thinking and practice.
Jeff is correct about the 60 days, according to this wikipedia entry about the war powers act of 1973. Also, as was already said, only Congress can actually declare war, but a president could certainly legally start one on his own, and condsidering the destructive force available these days, finish one as well within the 60 day limit.
Seymour Hersh says the Pentagon has been tasked to come up with a strike plan against Iran that can be launched on 24 hours notice. I doubt Bush will bother notifying Congress beforehand. God help our soldiers in Iraq if he does.
He is known for making stuff up, just FYI.
Seymour Hersh says the Pentagon has been tasked to come up with a strike plan against Iran that can be launched on 24 hours notice.
“Making plans” in this context just means drawing up things on paper; the implication that they mean to carry them out is not included in this definition.
The Pentagon has made plans for just about every conceivable type of attack against just about every conceivable enemy. It’s their job.
Now go change those damp trousers, Mark, I can smell them from here.
Very little that anyone with any brains pays attention to. Hersh makes shit up, routinely. He also serves as a willing conduit for cranks and axe-grinders.
NB: that’s not the same as a whistle-blower. The guy who reported the Abu Ghraib abuses to (responsible) senior officers was a whistle-blower. The guy who leaked the photos to Hersh was an axe-grinder—one of the defense attorneys trying to “pound the table” because the facts and the law were against his client.
Oh, and as dicentra said, the Pentagon draws up plans for everything. The amount of detail depends on how likely it is; striking Iran probably has some pretty detailed plans, down to targets and maybe even target scheduling. Fighting a war against Britain? Probably just a couple of pages giving the broadest strokes.
In the first place, if you believe Seymour Hersch about anything to do with the military you’re deluded.
In the second place, that’s the military form of solitaire. They have plans for every country on Earth, and Antarctica, and update them regularly. It is also a form of punishment in the Staff Officer line. A junior who’s screwed up is apt to be told to go produce an invasion plan for, Hell, I dunno, Norway perhaps, and look up all the documentation. It keeps him out of their hair for hours to months… and who knows, we might need to invade Norway some fine morning.
As to the War Powers Act… it was originally set up as a way to “rein in” Richard Nixon. The only time it’s actually been used for anything was as cover for Jimmy Carter’s fine peanutty ass; he was too chickenshit to do anything about the Iranian hostage-takers and needed an excuse for inaction. Every President that I know of other than Carter (and he may be included) has said that the Act is an unConstitutional restriction on the President’s powers to act, but that they will obey it as a courtesy to Congress. AFAIK it hasn’t been tested before the Supreme Court, which is the only venue that could possibly hear such a question.
If the President, in his capacity as Commander in Chief, tells the military to go there and do that, the military will go there and do that with a will, wherever “there” is and whatever “that” may be. If a President gave orders to, e.g., nuke Paris, I reckon there’d be any number of military officers advising him it’s a bad idea—but, if he persisted in issuing the order, au revoir, Monsieur. If Congress doesn’t pay the bill, the President shrugs.
Regards,
Ric
Including Canada and Liechtenstein.
I’m sure the families of the members of the U.S. military who died trying to rescue the Iran hostages will be glad to hear you consider them chickeshits, Ric.
I’m sure the families of the members of the U.S. military who…
Goodness, I normally skip over the spewings of alphie, but I did accidentally to read this one. This child really has no reading comprehension skills whatsoever. It’s very sad.
Y’know, you really do try to be an offensive asshole, don’t you, alphie? Jimmy Carter was and is a chickeshit of the very highest, most peanut-fed grade. The military people who made the hostage rescue attempt were doing just as I said above: the President told them to go there and do that, and they went there and tried to do that… with no cover, no backup, insufficient equipment, no realistic training time. Many of them died, and the attempt didn’t work. That’s because chickenshit Carter was trying to do what your favorite psychotic preached the entire time—remote-control war with as little involvement as possible.
Invasion of an embassy is an act of WAR, alphie, precisely the same thing as if the mullahs had rolled across the Potomac and taken you hostage. (The Ransom of Red Chief comes to mind.) Carter, like the chickenshit he was and is, flinched from the necessity—and it is entirely plausible to argue that every single reverse and act of violence the United States has suffered since then derives ultimately from that inaction based on cowardice, because it taught the mullahs—and all interested observers, including Osama—that the United States was too risk-averse to protect its own vital interests.
Regards,
Ric
[who considers Jimmah a chickenshit who belongs at the very bottom of the list of Prsidents]
I was thinking Weekend at Bernies.
he was too chickenshit to do anything about the Iranian hostage-takers
He sent in the troops, Ric.
Some of them died.
Thank you for calling their efforts “nothing.”
To take up your rather nonsensical claim, how much longer are we gonna have to maintain our show of force in the Middle East before, magically, everyone realizes America is no longer run by chickenshits and peace breaks out?
Can you round it up to the nearest decade at least?
I feel no need to engage you in a dialogue on this topic.
Alphie: WILLFULLY IGNORANT.
Up until now, alphie has been dodgy, interested in rhetorical shell games and sophistry more than any actual debate. (Well, to be honest, he was never interested in debate. Not even on his spectrum.) Purely passive stuff.
Now, he’s being willfully, purposefully, offensively implying bad faith. He’s finally being offensive, and I think a banning should be put back into consideration at this juncture. Not ACTUAL banning just yet, but I recommend he be put on notice.
Or, we can just play the same game.
Alphie, it says a lot you about the troops in Iraq, the way you call them incompetent all the time.
To take up your rather nonsensical claim, how much longer are we gonna have to maintain our show of force in the Middle East before, magically, everyone realizes America is no longer run by chickenshits and peace breaks out?
Can you round it up to the nearest decade at least?
Egad, stupidity or nastiness? I can’t believe you people actually respond to this shit. Are you that hard up for interaction w/ a leftist asshole?
I like Jeff’s analyses – I pay for them, I better. I like some of the faux Jeff’s analyses. But the comments. From the trolls. They used to be different, but now they’re just the same.
alphie, it’s good that you know that one fact because it’s the indispensible fact that explains —better than any other fact ever dreamed of explaining— why Democrats are not to be trusted with our national security interests. Operation Eagle Claw is emblematic of dhimmicratic indecision, inconstancy, and their essential weakness. More than a quarter-century later it is the nadir of America’s military power in my lifetime.
That’s Jimmy Carter’s legacy, you wad of rancid smegma. So, enjoy.
D’oh! left the last two paragraph of Alphie’s post in mine at the end!
Well, that, the Bay of Pigs, Somalia, and whatever name was slapped on bombing the factory that was dangerous because it was a joint effort of al’Qaeda and Saddam’s Iraq.
But Eagle Claw is probably the stand-out.
How about WWII, Toby?
That was a Democratic show from start to finish.
Failure?
Alphie!
The results of uour recent googling of the Iran hostage rescue attempt intrigues me. What are the take aways you have from your research?
Was the President’s decision to send the troops a legal one? Was it moral?
Was it appropriate?
Was it proportional?
Were the chances of success ‘favorable’?
Was it adequately planned for?
Trained for?
Did Carter go ‘with the rescue effort he had, not the one he wanted?’?
Was Congress appropriately notified?
Both parties?
The funding for war material was determined by teh Democrats for the preceding 24+ years – did that play any role in the failure?
Why wasn’t a second mission sent?
What efforts were made for the remaining 400 days that the hostages were held?
What symbol was used to signify the hostages?
Or did you just sort of google-chimp the result, glance at the first line and then decide to post?
.
Different Democrats.
THAT IS A FUCKING LIE, YOU JACKFACED ILLITERATE
Clear enough for you?
Carter did not send in the troops. He sent in an undersupplied, underequipped, insufficient force who went, obedient to orders, despite knowing they didn’t have the wherewithal to accomplish their goal. But they went where they were told, and did everything they could to accomplish what they were told.
And died.
For nothing but to salve Jimmah’s “peace-loving” conscience.
They belong in whatever comfortable corner of Valhallah is reserved for soldiers who obey their oaths and orders in the face of impossible odds.
JIMMY CARTER THREW AMERICAN TROOPS IN THE SHITCAN BECAUSE HE WAS TOO CHICKENSHIT TO DO WHAT WAS NECESSARY. I don’t hate anybody that I know of. But I despise that cowardly peanut to the depths of my soul.
And no, I can’t estimate how long it will take to mend the damage. I can tell you that it’s ten times longer than it would have been if a cowardly chickenshit redneck had had the moral courage to do what every law and rule of War since Og the caveman swung his club said was right and necessary. And you can multiply it by another ten times if a cowardly chickenshit Valley Girl is permitted to repeat the sin.
Regards,
Ric
Because he sent them in ill-equiped and undermanned, he sent brave troops on a suicide mission because he was an indecisive, ignorant coward. A fucking CHICKENSHIT!
Fuck you, you dishonest piece of shit. How dare someone who sits her every damn day like a retarded fucking typing parrot, pissing and moaning about all the money being wasted in Iraq and demanding we immediately surrender try to resurrect the corpses of brave soldiers used as political pawns so you can shit on them again.
Fuck you.
What’s the dividing line between old Democrats and new Democrats, Robert?
Did the change take place somewhere between the Democrats who got us into Vietnam and when a Republican president pulled our troops out of Vietnam?
And, start, why don’t you research all that and report back to us?
And a bonus question for you: Was Jimmy Carter’s failed rescue attempt of the Iranian hostages more or less chickenshit than Reagan’s pulling the Marines out of Lebanon after their barracks was attacked in 1983?
Two things; by now, obvious:
Congress really cannot prevent Bush from acting against Iran, if he so chooses.
Congress can, however, send pre-notification that whatever Bush does, it’ll have to be over after 90 days. Yes, there’s a 60-day clause, but there’s somewhere a 30-day buffer for withdrawal, IIRC.
I’m not a big fan of getting into it with Iran, BTW. I think if we do that, we’re absolutely going to have to have a draft, along with some solid prewar planning. And I don’t think either one of those things is going to fly.
Roughly the same, alphie. That made the situation worse, there’s no doubt about it.
The difference is that Reagan was actually trying to engage our primary enemy of the time—the Soviet Union—where Mr. Peanut spent his entire term wringing his hands because he was too chickenshit to do that, preferring instead to whimper defeatism that was the inspiration for the Iranian attack on the embassy in the first place.
Beirut is an indelible stain on Reagan’s soul and record. He could, at least, claim the reason—not “excuse” or “justification”, but reason—was Jimmah’s precedent and other things on his mind. You’ve forgotten, or never knew, how wonderfully having nukes pointed at you can divert your attention.
Ric
Can we please agree to ignore this lying sack of shit? I am really tired of him fucking up every damn thread with his nonsense.
Alphie’s entire purpose is to throw wrenches in the works to see if he can break them. If you allow his nonsensical ramblings to get to you, then you have given him exactly what he wants.
By all means continue to address his insanity with logic and facts, because he will not be the only one to read them, but under no circumstance should you allow him to get you angry.
Just saying.
As for the Democrats, I am as I have been for the last 4 years or so, embarrassed to ever have considered myself one of them. Their blatantly political moves in regards to this war can and will have real lasting effect on those serving in our armed forces and those that will serve in the future. They should be ashamed of the actions they are taking, but then I think they are currently incapable of feeling shame.
Ric, that was most excellent. Some day I’m going to work that into a repartee and I’ll send off a mental salute to you when I do. Hell, I doubt the moron has the slightest idea how throughly that dissected him.
A major difference is that Reagan was straightforward about admitting later on that he’d made a huge blunder pulling them out. Heartsick over it. Stand up kinda guy. Whereas to my knowledge, both Carter and Clinton (Mogadishu) publicly regretted having sent men in, but never the decision not to back up their play. Not stand up kinda guys. The military knows the difference too.
Sadly, No!
Alphie himself is the next best thing to a robot, and maddening for that very reason. But Jeff tolerates him, and I occasionally allow myself to respond to him, because what he is spouting is the Talking Points™ of the appeasenik pseudopacifists. Pay attention to alphie, not because he’s alphie, but because the “points” he imagines himself making are exactly the ones you’re going to have to address against those opponents who actually think. He’s stupid, repetitive, and inane, but he’s practice.
Regards,
Ric
Probably late to the party, but:
5(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
— War Powers Act (1973)
That’s a clause I would call constitutionally questionable, but on it’s face it purports to give Congress the power to order the President to withdraw troops, provided they have not authorized their use. Intended for the circumstance of a sneak attack on the US mostly, I think.
There was a mildly insane idea. A few C-130s were modified with solid rockets on their sides to allow them to land vertically, then take off vertically. The idea was to land in the soccer stadium, go to the embassy, get the hostages, go back, and leave, killing anyone along the way who objected. It had not been fully developed when the hostages were released. I’m guessing it was inspired by Entebbe; having a few vehicles would make the process a lot easier.
By the way, that embassy, in theory, is STILL American territory. If we bomb it, we’re just inagurating a new bombing range.
1) liberal Democrats will do whatever they can to make sure we cannot win the war in Iraqâ€â€an ideological imperative given that they view the US as the cause of many of the world’s problems, resulting, from the perspective of transnational progressivism
Are you copying me?!?!?!?!??!?
a**hole.
touch me /. let’s get together
Alphie, in fact by your moronic standards of military efforts, the actions of the FDR administration in WWII were far more incompetent on literally scores of issues with the conduct of WWII than President Bush’s actions in Iraq. This is why your utter ignorance of history is so annoying.
BTW, a good friend of mine served under Charlie Beckwith in the Iranian hostage rescue operation. I’ve heard him call President Carter names that would make Ric’s look positively endearing. And I’ll do your own person a favor and not point out your remarks to him.
Ah, I suddenly better understand their scratching and grunting motive to attempt a repeal of their own 2002 authorization. “He made us do it then, we’re taking it back now, and by the way his war is now illegal, impeach, impeach, impeach.” Morons.
I know I should contol my temper,I know it doesn’t help to get angry, I know that. And I can do it, too, right up until some shitheel goes and does something stupid and fucking pisses me off.
It’s not my fault.
Reagan couldn’t have regretted not staying in Lebanon to hunt down the people who bombed the Marines barracks that much, JPT.
Just a few years after the bombing, Reagan’s boys were back in Lebanon selling our finest anti-tank missiles to our new best pals Hezbollah (the alleged bombers) to raise cash for their Central American, er, Peace Ambassadors.
A transaction that IDF tank crews were regretting last summer, I’m sure.
B Moe,
LIBERAL DERANGEMENT SYNDROME!!!!
I got dibs on that diagnosis!
B Moe
I know what you are saying, and I would never presume to tell others what to do. My only purpose is to remind folks of what they probably already know, that he is only interested in making you angry. He’s very good at it.
I’ve had to step back from commenting as of late, because the blatant lies and willful misrepresentation which occur on such a regular basis have finally gotten to me.
I’m sure the families of the members of the U.S. military who died trying to rescue the Iran hostages will be glad to hear you consider them chickeshits, Ric.
Ric didn’t say that. But, of course, you knew that.
Actually, I can usually deal with him pretty well, it is just ocassionally when he seems to be abusing the dead I get a little crossed up. I was joking in my response to you, by the way, I was already over him.
And this is what bothers me, with utmost respect to Ric Locke, I wonder if he isn’t doing more harm than good.
I closed my last missive to him in another thread with: End.Permanent. I meant it, as it will be my last reply to him (well, hopefully anyway!).
But I can surely understand the need for others to continue to place kick him, depending on the audacity of his slop.
If you really want to know how much he cared, and what his reasoning was, try this link and see if you learn anything. http://www.ronaldreagan.com/leb.html
TW: Way younger than25, I know…
Resolved: Jimmy Carter was, is, and shall remain a chickenshit.
Additional Resolution reached after careful consideration: I insulted poodles when I referred to a-twerp as a “poodle brain.” I retract that statement and will henceforth refer to him as “amoeba rectum.”
Interesting read, BR, but it doesn’t explain why Reagan’s guy sold weapons to the people who supposedly blew up our Marines.
And how do you square these rules Reagan laid out in it with the Iraq fiasco:
1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.
2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.
3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We all felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)
4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available
Looks like Bush is oh fer four in Iraq according to St. Ronnie.
What you got against amoeba rectums?
4 for 4, amoeba rectum.
Esteemed amoeba rectum,
I’d say your analysis is lacking.
Oh for four. Go visit the congressional record or newspaper archives before you engage in rewriting history like so many are doing these days.
The running total is something like 0-for-a-kajillion, but I do give you points for the purity of your stupidity. Do you run it through some kind of still?
I guess he should have put some sort of caveat in here about being careful that have the country doesn’t try to ass-rape you for political gain while you are trying to fight the enemy, huh alphie. But even ole Dutch couldn’t foresee political vermin such as you burrowing in his stool.
Dewclaw, that isn’t good enough. You have not yet figured out the phenomenon that is alphie.
He doesn’t think. He has a disk file full of Solid Neutronium Talking Points™, indexed by keyword. When the keyword pops up, out comes the Talking Point™
If you respond with nothing but insults, he counts coup—you have not refuted his Talking Point™. If you don’t respond, same thing. In either case he goes back to his home environment and giggles at the futility of the “wingnuts” trying to counter the Received Wisdom of Leftie Land©.
If you successfully refute his Talking Point™, he changes the subject based on another keyword. He will never admit that his Talking Point™ has been refuted. The code to do that isn’t on his hard disk. Note that he isn’t trying to convince us of anything except the superiority of the Talking Points™. If he were, he would admit being refuted once in a while.
Hard choices. Nobody said life was fair.
Regards,
Ric
Are you still sticking with your story that Jimmy Carter did nothing to try to free the hostages in Iran, Ric?
Careful, an entire neocon fairy tale cold collapse due to your answer.
A.R.–there is a clear difference between total inaction and incompetent action.
Much like your attempts at making a point.
Get it?
And as for your warnings, I’d be careful or we’ll talk about why the hostages were there in the first place. And Ronnie definitely had nothing to do with that, now did he?
Are you talking about the CIA backing the coup that put the Shah on the throne of Iran, then training SAVAK, his secret service, how do get rid of any political opposition Saddam-style, wish?
Why would the people of Iran harbor a grudge against America for that?
Carter did nothing effective to free the hostages, alphie.
He did worse than nothing.
He surrendered the sovereignty of the United States and threw away the lives of American troops in a futile gesture. In so doing he inspired and encouraged people who wish to harm us that they could do so with impunity.
Ric
Ric,
Feh. Alphoid Mary isn’t worth the effort to type a couple of insults to.
I do get a chuckle when he talks about his “spending plan” for Irag (heheh Cynn) or his revisionist history about that piece of crap Carter, or when he tries to figure ANYTHING out about the military.
It is to snicker.
Lousy try, A.R. I missed the entire episode of “The Shah Was Just Like Saddam.” I really don’t remember shredders or gassing or any of that stuff. And leaving a Soviet puppet in place in Iran in the 1950s would have been so much better.
No, A.R., let’s talk about walking out when the choice is between the Shah and, oh let’s see, the freak show in place there now. Or is REALISM not so appealing now?
More importantly, let’s ask Iranian women what they think about Jimmah’s great political courage in sticking a knife in one of our friends.
Try again.
I would say that Jimmy actually managed to pull off a negative performance, in that not only did he NOT carry out any kind of successful mission, he actually harmed America’s national interests while doing so.
Accordingly, it is now time for you to change the subject.
Sure, alphie.
And Jimmy Carter conspired to remove the Shah and install the Ayatolla Ruhollah Khomeini. Do you suppose there might be a teensy bit of resentment over that lingering in Iran?
Oh, and since you obviously approve—the Current Regime not being a CIA puppet, and all—how many homosexuals have you stoned lately? Oh, not in person—you’re way too fastidious for that—but by proxy through the people you support and love.
Regards,
Ric
Let’s step back into the wayback machine, wish.
It was Jimmy Carter’s decision to allow the Shah to be treated for cancer here in America that sparked the hostage crisis.
The people of Iran wanted their own necktie party.
If yuo think the CIA-trained SAVAK weren’t as bad as Saddam’s goons, I’d have to ask what you’re using to measure it by.
Or Bhai’s, Ric.
Or people who dance.
Or Marines asleep in barracks…to come full circle to yet another of A.R.’s non-points.
Why was the Shah seeking medical treatment in the U.S. instead of ruling in Iran, A.R.?
Think carefully….
Because 98% of the Iranian people voted in a fairly open election to convert Iran into an Islamic Republic run by the mullahs, wish?
The Shah sooned died from his cancer anyway, but stil.
That’s pretty easy–the Shah’s guys, like most authoritarian heavies, targeted individuals.
Not entire swaths of his country.
And–before you change topics on a dime, who would have better served U.S. interests and the interests of the people of Iran over the past 30 years? The Shah or the Planter’s party mix now in charge? For a thinking person–it’s not even close to being close.
Here’s an excellent review of the Desert One debacle.
Notice the micromanagement—typical of a President who took the time to manage the schedule for the White House tennis courts.
Try again.
Think…rug.
As in “pulled from under.”
No pun intended since we are discussing Iran.
Oh, and Saddam got 99% of the vote in Iraq his last go ‘round, too, A.R.
Next week they’re going to pass a non-binding resolution against Bush’s socks.
Just because they can. And dissent is patriotic.
In other words, offering medical treatment to a sick old man is justification for killing the doctor’s neighbors?
Nice friends you’ve got there, alphie. Generous. Tolerant. Just like you. No wonder you get along so well.
And even according to your Talking Points™ Carter fucked up, right?
Ric
FASHION QUAGMIRE!!!
So elections are only valid in the Middle East if they result in some pliant U.S. toady winning, wish?
The Iranians chose their form of government, that was their call. Besides, if the were pining for the U.S.-backed Shah’s style of rule, they could just move next door to Iraq.
As far as U.S. interests, none of the hostages were killed, were they?
And as I said, the Shah soon died. Who do you think would have replaced him? His idiot son who runs around America spreading propaganda these days?
Scratch a neocon, wound a monarchist?
Wow, the sheer level of dishonesty that alphie is now plumbing.
alphie writes:
Because 98% of the Iranian people voted in a fairly open election to convert Iran into an Islamic Republic run by the mullahs, wish?
What did the Iranian people vote on?
In March 1979, a referendum took place where people were asked to answer the following question: “Islamic Republic, Yes or No?”
Where’d the mullah part come in?
Was it “fairly open”? Guess that depends on your definitions. From the same site: The majority of political organizations objected to this question on the ground that it did not provide any opportunity for people to express their ideas about the government’s form.
Oh, and that vote? At least one site reports that it was not with secret ballots. Which, judging from the numbers, would be consistent with other 99% votes.
TW: data73, as in: The data suggests that alphie is now truly desperate to make it appear intelligent. Sadly, it’s far too late for that. Better get in on that supplying the troops thang in Baghdad, alphie!
That’s a mighty narrow lens you’ve got there.
I’ve met Reza. He’s far from being an idiot. And I’d certainly say he would have been better than President Green glow any day.
And if you really think any election that comes out 98% of anything is valid, well…you’d ahve made a fine Soviet.
Of course, that comes as no shock.
That you don’t think he’s an idiot is hardly a negation, wish.
If you and he are so sure the Shah was popular, why don’t you guys head over to Iran and have him run in the next election, instead of trying to get the U.S. to install him on his throne like we did his daddy?
I’m sure his millions of supporters will keep him safe.
The Democrats were fine until Carter… do the math.
I think John Wooden used to like to say “never mistake activity for accomplishment”
Carter managed a feeble “activity” whose only accomplishments were wasted lives and humiliation. Other than that the operation was flawless by current party standards…. Okinawa was held secure for future intervention.
Are you sure American anti tank rockets really hurt Israel in the last scuffle? Most of the complaints I heard were about new stuff diverted from Russia’s sales to Syria and Iran.
I mean last time I saw Eugene Hasenfuss was on TV being led out of the jungle on a leash in Nicaraugua back in the 80’s.
Unjacking this thread…
Once again, we have proof that the Democrats are prepared to do everything to end the War in Iraq…
…except anything.
SO, the people of Iran are to be given a choice in the nature of their government, and if they choose a throwback to the 16th Century, they are to be applauded?
And Carter is to be cheered for giving them the chance to choose?
But the people of Iraq, they are not to be given a choice in the nature of their government, and are to remain mired under a Shah-like dictator?
And Bush is to be condemned for giving them the chance to choose?
And the Shah’s son is an idiot, so things turned out fine. But Saddam’s psychopathic sons Uday and Qusay, who were being groomed as successors, never get to take the throne, and that’s bad?
Thanks, alphie, I think what you are is quite understandable. It was better, though, when you merely appeared stupid, rather than actually being repugnant.
Ric Locke, describing alphie’s antics:
A pity. Need to add code for alphie to initiate a self destruct when that happens. Perhaps while screeching “STERILIZE!” or similar like Nomad did on that Star Trek episode.
That’s a rather odd formulation, LO.
The countries of the Middle East need the permission of the U.S. before they choose their form of government.
So Iran’s crime was they didn’t ask us before they chucked out our rather brutal puppet?
Man, its like you guys have forgotten everything you know about housebreaking a puppy. Rubbing his nose in it only confuses the puppy and grinds the stain deeper into Jeff’s carpet. He needs to be put outside. Please remember to praise him in the unlikely event he manages to not shit on himself while out there.
IV. DEATH BY WATER
PHLEBAS the Phoenician, a fortnight dead,
Forgot the cry of gulls, and the deep seas swell
And the profit and loss.
A current under sea
Picked his bones in whispers. As he rose and fell
He passed the stages of his age and youth
Entering the whirlpool.
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
— T.S. Eliot, “The Wasteland”
Get thee hence, thou art sent41!
Palamino!
Why has there not been a vote on PW to determine alphie’s fate? According to alphie, if 98% voted to ban him/her, it would be a fair justification for silencing his/her tripe.
Jeff – I know I’ve said this before, but is alphie really necessary here? Lord knows I’m not, but I don’t go out of my way to slander people like Ric. alphie does. It is one thing to have a different interpretation of events, it is one thing to have your own opinion, it is another thing to lie about what another has written and it is beyond the pale.
Just a suggestion.
And his mother needs to be spayed before she whelps again.
So, to summarize:
American territory was invaded and captured, and still has not been returned. Americans were taken hostage, and some of them tortured.
Jimmah responded with whining defeatism and an altogether insufficient quasimilitary action. The result was that the hostages were not freed, people around the world were assured that they could harm Americans with impunity, and a current-day leader of opposition to American interests got his political start. Opponents of the United States have cited the incident as encouraging action against Americans for over thirty years. But no hostages were actually killed, so American interests were not harmed and Jimmah is a hero.
Today, political opposition to the rule of the mullahs has the same character as political opposition to the Democrats—it is done only by “idiots” who are beyond the Pale of right or rationality. There is no middle ground between “puppets installed by American imperialism” and “violent opposition to anything American”, alphie is firmly aligned with the latter as a matter of reasonable discourse, and failing to vigorously oppose American interests in any matter whatever is prima facie evidence of “puppet” status.
That about summarize it, alph?
What would be amusing about all that if it weren’t infuriating is that alphie is assuming that his support and encouragement of the mullahs will translate into peaceful coexistence at worst when George Bush and the Neocon Conspiracy are booted out of office. But it was known at the time that the mullahs Americans, were contemptuous of Jimmah and Democrats, and were milking the situation for all it was worth—which, with Jimmah at the helm on our side, was quite a lot. As soon as Reagan, who as a Republican might have been expected to introduce some effectual measures, took office the hostages were released, almost on the instance.
It therefore follows that when a Democrat takes office on a platform requiring weak and ineffectual responses to provocation the mullahs will cuddle up in intercultural chumship and sing kumbayah, right, alphie?
Regards,
Ric
alpo, did I ever point out that you are an ignoranus?
An ignoranus is a person who’s both stupid and an asshole.