Actually, Lemur866, we won the war. What we’re doing now is keeping a lid on the pressure cooker of anarchy that will break out as the various factions try to claw their way to the top (which is why I think an “exit strategy” is pointless; what will happen will happen, no matter when we pull out; might as well bug out now and let the civil war begin).
Though I dearly hope I am wrong, I have this wretched gut feeling that about December, 2008, a lame-duck Bush administration will invade Iran, giving the neocons their long-desired buttkicking of Iran without having to slog through the messy details of the aftermath.
I shouldn’t say “itching,” because it’s a different climate now, but I would say the majority of our fellow citizens would be OK with it.
Bingo. They wouldn’t and won’t.
Oh, and as for the action, looks like elucidator just put a Franklin on “invade.” Sucker bet, if you ask me …
Most Americans during this time thought Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks because Bush Co. told them so. I would never call him adictator; but I would say he is Machiavellian, dishonest, unethical, immoral etc… Now they have lost credibility, go figure.
How would your bet look if the US was hit again by terrorists?
I agree that at the moment they couldn’t get it authorised but let’s see what happens in the future. IMO a part of the reason the support was there for Iraq was because in the climate of the time it would have been political suicide for a politician not to go with the War. How many voted against again? One IIRC. The media and the administration were playing hardball back then. They would have landed on anyone who disagreed from a height.
That attitude is somewhat changed now, not by much IMO but enough for the support not to be there.
If the US gets hit again though, all bets are off. So to speak.
First off, I’ll nitpick the “Most”. Some, sure. If you poll average people and ask them questions some of them answer seemingly at random. Think how dumb the average person is, then realize half the people are dumber than that.
As for the other comment: exactly. He’s “lost credibility”! Due to his previous lies! Shocking!
Only an idiot would believe that the same George Bush who got us mired in Iraq, with his credibility shot and his approval ratings in the toilet could just get on TV and say “Iran is building nuclear weapons, the invasion is starting tomorrow.”
See, if he was popular and beloved, with a record as Commander-in-Chief of successfully kicking the ass of every other third world country he’d invaded it would be a different story. But he isn’t and he doesn’t so it isn’t.
How is it supposed to work? If we’re talking about a WMD surgical air strike against Iran, then Bush doesn’t need no stinkin’ unitary executive theory to do that. Dont’ you remember Operation Desert Fox.?
And no, this isn’t a tu quoque. It’s just an example of what many presidents have done w/o authorization from Congress (although usually after consulting Congressional leaders in secret).
Invade or make a few “surgical” air strikes? I think Americans would be OK with the latter, but not the former. Not while the majority wants us out of Iraq. Do you have some poll info or something that leads you to your conclusion?
Just to let you know, I am going to start using this phrase in future conversations. I’d ask you for permission to use it, but either way this phrase is going to enter my lexicon, I have no choice. 
I didn’t make up the line and I have no idea where it comes from. So attribute it to…Mark Twain. Or Will Rogers. Whichever.
Yup. We’re pretty much fucked.
Oh yeah? Well why don’t you just start a Pit thread along those lines and see what kind of response you get!
Although to be fair, a bombing of Iraq was a different story than bombing against any other country, since Clinton arguably had previous congressional and UN authorization to use force against Iraq if they violated the cease-fire that ended Gulf War I.
That kind of action, if taken against any other country than Iraq, would have caused quite a lot of controversy. Against Saddam, not so much, we’d been bombing Iraq on and off ever since Kuwait. We haven’t conducted any overt military operations against Iran since the hostage rescue attempt. But that might be another example of the President ordering military action without a full congressional vote.
Hey! That’s a pretty good idea! As a matter, of fact, it’s such a good idea, I’ll use a time machine and go back and start the thread a couple of days ago, so it’ll look like it was my idea!
It’s been a long 3 years, and I was disappointed at the Congressional action at the time. But my recollection was that the Congressional authorization was along the lines of “use force if other efforts fail.” And my recollection was that no other efforts were attempted other than issuance of ultimatums, followed by the mobilization of troops.
So yeah, a majority of Congress inexcusably got on board for this merry little adventure, but can anyone seriously question that Bush and a small coterie of pals were driving the damn bus wherever they damn well pleased?
It’s true that the Iraq AUMF was written so that the military option was available if diplomatic methods failed. But it was also written such that Bush was the sole determining party wrt failure of said diplomatic measures. Bush was indeed the driver of the bus-- this is his deal. But, he could not and would not have invaded w/o approval from Congress. They wrote him a blank check and he cashed it.
Lemur: It’s certainly true that Iraq was a special case, but don’t be fooled-- there was still plenty of controversy about what Clinton did. Much of it was probably politically motivated, but so what? And you seem to have forgotten Reagan’s bombing of Lybia.
John - what Lemur said.
Lemur - So, who would stop Bush from a-bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb-Iran?
Yeah, and thanks a bunch for the earworm. Every time I see it, I hear Terence and Philip from South Park singing,
Looks like we may be out of luck,
tomorrow night we’re pretty fucked!
but no one could have foreseen he’d cash the blank check…
Lemur: Let’s also not forget Operation Allied Force– no Congressional approval their either. The House and Senate had passed some non-binding resolutions, but those didn’t give the president any additional authority. IOW, they were not an AUMF.
You’re kidding, right? Is that like no one could have predicted that <insert Bushism here>?
What he said did not refute my claim, and note the other instances. Tell us, RTF, how is it supposed to work?
BTW, if you think Clinton still had authorization to bomb Iraq from Congress and the UN Security council, then Bush had that same authority to invade Iraq. So, no, I don’t believe for a second that you agree with Lemur. You’re just dodging the question.