Good for him – but if the CinC decides to initiate hostilities, bomb Iran’s nuclear plants, whatever – is there anything Congress/the Dems can do to prevent it? And once the conflict starts (i.e., Iran retaliates against the nearest available U.S. target, which probably would be one of those aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf), how could they possibly stop it from escalating into a full-blown war?
Short of impeachment and removal from office, they can’t. But Bush isn’t going to invade Iran (my offer to bet on that is still open). If he initiates some air strikes, they’ll be on the order of what Clinton launched against Iraq and much smaller than what he launched against Serbia.
Democrats cannot, but if Bush launches preemptive strikes against Iran, a whole lot of GOP Senators and Representatives are going to hate him for ruining their reelection chances, among other things.
So where again are these checks and balances? Aren’t you horrified that this guy can essentially send your nation into conflict and nobody can prevent it?
This is a serious question, not intended to be an anti-Bush jibe:
Suppose the President orders a military strike against a nation which has not made public threats against the US, attacked US troops or possessions, etc., and without a Tonkin Gulf/AUMF resolution from Congress. Would the general/admiral to whom such orders would be conveyed be justified in deeming them an illegal order under UCMJ and the Constitution, and disregarding them? Granted that he himself would find himself in the midst of a shitstorm of epic proportions as a result, supposing he seriously believed that to be the case and had the ethical fiber to take that stance, are there arguments that would give him a chance of coming out as justified in a Court of Inquiry?
Well, Congress still has to vote the money but there’s ways and ways around that . . . TR only had enough money to send the Great White Fleet halfway around the world on a big naval dick-swinging showoff tour. So he did. Then said to Congress, in essence, “So, you want those ships coming home again, or what?”
I suppose Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader could go behind Bush’s back, making their own diplomatic visit to Iran and trying to broker a peace by assuring them that all war funding will be cut off. Of course, the chances of that happening are virtually nil. For all intents and purposes, the President of the United States has dictator like powers to wage war. I think we need some kind of Constitutional Amendment to make the President’s commander-in-chief powers less absolute.
Not immediately, but the hatred among Americans against the Republican party if we put more troops into harm’s way by starting a war with Iran will be political suicide for the GOP- Dems will take the White House, and increase their lead in the House/Senate in 2008. There’s no way Bush would do that to his own party.
Exactly. He’s failed in everything else. I fear his twisted little brain is still thinking he can win something so if not Iraq, then maybe bombing Iran will finally get him the ‘victory’ he’s aching for. We know it won’t work but he appears to be delusional and unstoppable. I really doubt he cares about the GOP. I think it’s all about him.
I wish I could think better of him but I’ve seen no reason to.
His legacy’s trashed already. Even Uncle Cecil believed history will judge Bush harshly, and that was before “Mission (Un)Accomplished” in May '03. A war with Iran would probably make Bush the most hated president since… well… uh… drawing a blank here.
'I will not withdraw even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me."
Barney is his dog.
He values personal loyalty from others, and an image of “resolve” in himself, above all else. No matter that those also can be described as yesmanism and pigheadedness.
Granted, they’re much more effective with officeholders with a better connection to the world of mere reality. The first one is in play now - the expressions of disapproval from individual lawmakers, culminating in a resolution stating the people’s chosen representative bodies’ opposition. That can even be passed as a law, with the President’s veto being overrideable. Next is Constitution’s assignment of the power to declare war to Congress, but that’s been so consistenly ignored over the last 66 years that it’s really irrelevant. Then comes the War Powers Act, which requires the President to request authorization for a war he may have already started. There’s Congress’ ability to refuse funding, at any time. Finally there’s the Nuclear Option of impeachment and removal from office, perhaps with his flouting the special law against his action as the official reason. And yes, Congress can act quickly if it must, for instance with the law to prevent “killing” the body of a long-brain-dead woman recently showed. There is also a check internal to the Executive Branch, the 25th Amendment, which gives the Cabinet the power to declare the President “incapacitated” and strip him of power - but that’s pretty unlikely despite its overuse by Hollywood, especially with a Cabinet composed of toadies, and irrelevant anyway with a VP who’s even more bloodyminded than the President.
In the case of “this guy”, yes indeed. For most Presidents, it’s possible to rely on their being political creatures, and on their general normal senses of responsibility.
Yes, you see, but he would have gotten us into the war he wanted – and then, after his term, the Dems would be stuck with fighting it! Now that’s a legacy! Nixon’s Revenge!
As others have said, yes he would. If anything typifies Bush, it’s utter selfishness and self absorption. I doubt it would even occur to him to worry about the consequences to his party, the country in general, or even himself, given his sublime conviction of his own personal inerrant invincibility.
Well, Barney’s way smarter.
Smilies aside, I would not be at all surprised if that is actually his plan, or the neocons; to draw us into a war with Iran, and get us in so deep the Democrats will be afraid of looking weak by leaving.
