Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Will he or won't he? And why doesn't Congress have anything to say about it?

I’m amazed at how much time I and others speculate about whether or not Bush will attack Iran. It feels like we citizens have nothing to say about it, and even if we do, Congress lacks the will to stop Bush.

What makes it frightening is this:

Scott Ritter, who declared that Saddam Hussein had no WMD (and wasn't listened to) and wrote Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plan for Regime Change, is insisting that describing Iran as a threat is a big lie. His article, published yesterday at Common Dreams is well worth reading.

It opens with, “Iran has never manifested itself as a serious threat to the national security of the United States, or by extension as a security threat to global security. At the height of Iran’s “exportation of the Islamic Revolution” phase, in the mid-1980’s, the Islamic Republic demonstrated a less-than-impressive ability to project its power beyond the immediate borders of Iran, and even then this projection was limited to war-torn Lebanon.”

The final paragraph: “A careful fact-based assessment of Iran clearly demonstrates that it poses no threat to the legitimate national security interests of the United States. However, if the United States chooses to implement its own unilateral national security objectives concerning regime change in Iran, there will most likely be a reaction from Iran which produces an exceedingly detrimental impact on the national security interests of the United States, including military, political and economic...."

Pat Buchanan, co-founder and editor of The American Conservative, wrote Does "The Decider" Decide on War? on May 17th. He asks, “Has Congress given George Bush a green light to attack Iran?” He answers, “For he is surely behaving as though it is his call alone. And evidence is mounting that we are on a collision course for war.”

Buchanan asks, “If we are going to war, is it not imperative that, this time, we know exactly why we must go to war, what exactly the threat is from Iran, what are the likely consequences of a U.S. attack on a third Islamic country and what are the alternatives to war?”

Buchanan responds in part to his question, …[T]hough Iranians sound bellicose, Iran has not started a single war since the revolution of 1979. Indeed, Iran was the victim of a war launched by Saddam Hussein, whom we secretly supported. Not within living memory has Iran invaded or attacked another country. [emphasis mine]

"But in the last 110 years, peace-loving Americans have fought Spain, Germany twice, Austria-Hungary, Japan, Italy, North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq twice and Serbia. We have intervened militarily in the Philippines, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Lebanon and Grenada. We bombed Libya...."

Buchanan concludes, “Whether one is pro-war or antiwar, ought we not – if we are going into another war – do it the right way, the constitutional way, with Congress declaring war? Or does the Democratic Congress think that what is best for America is to let 'the decider' decide?

“Because that is what George Bush is doing right now.”

(video courtesy of RJ Eidelson)

No comments: