Josh Marshall: "the president now has very different interests than the [U.S.]"

Joshua Micah Marshall:

Is this an accurate assessment? And if so, how dangerous is this divergence of interests? And what, if anything, should we do about it?

Completely accurate.

Very dangerous as the next gamble will be military action against Iran on some trumped up, pot/kettle pretext.

Multiple impeachments.

It’s called being a lame duck, and it happens every 4 to 8 years. What do we do? We elect a new president next year.

You can choose to twist and squirm and agonize over the fact that Bush is going to finish his presidency, but that won’t change things. We elected a new Congress last year, and it hasn’t done squat. Maybe “we” should kick them out again next year and get new blood in there.

Bush has always had very different interests than the country he purports to lead. This is news?

Yeah, it happens every 4-8 years that we have a President in whose case it’s anybody’s guess whether he’ll start a third major war on account of the first two wars he’s started not going so well.

Happens all the fucking time, right?

And maybe at 12:01pm on January 20, 2009, we’ll all heave a sigh of relief, knowing we dodged the bullet of Bush bombing Iran. Or maybe we’ll all heave a sigh of relief, knowing that the cleanup after Bush’s three wars can finally start.

I’ve got this wacky idea that perhaps letting it be a riverboat gamble as to which way it goes is a very bad idea for the World’s Sole Superpower. And leaving Bush and Cheney with the power to attack Iran is, for all practical purposes, a riverboat gamble: they don’t care what anyone else thinks.

You know the actual benefit to the citizenry of the United States of the Iraq war, as opposed to the Vietnam war is that in the latter case, the general populace has no clue how we ended up in Vietnam, with an army and no military objective for that army to accomplish. The Iraq war is Bush, and the Congress in office at that time. No quibbles, it was their idea, they all decided together that what we need is to get involved in a land war in Asia.

“Hey, Ernie! Let’s play two!”

Tris

“There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited.” ~ Sun-Tzu ~

If that was supposed to some brilliant, insightful political analysis, it went over my head.

Well, why don’t you tell us what you think we should do? You seem to want some magical solution, when the only tools we have of getting Bush out of power are revolution or impeachment (and subsequent removal from office). Take your pick, but I don’t see either of them happening.

I guess the third thing we can do is bitch and moan about how much Bush sucks…

If so, that reflects poorly on you, not on RT.

For one thing, we can whip up public opposition to the point where action against Iran becomes politically impossible even for the CinC.

Wait, doesn’t such public opposition to make action against Iran impossible already exist?

Although if you think we should have more discussion about why invading Iran would be a bad idea, knock yourself out. I’m not going to disagree with you.

Yes, but the Admin is relentless trying to chip away at it in various ways. (See this thread.) We can’t relax. We mustn’t even be satisfied to run faster and faster to stay where we are, like the Red Queen.

Except the question is not just whether we should invade Iran. The question is also whether we should bomb Iran.

And I think we need to make as much noise as possible to let our government know we don’t like that idea either.

Of course, there’s always direct action.

You were equating the present situation, and the risks associated with the divergent interests of Bush and the country, with the lame-duck period of every other President. I was pointing out the complete and total dissimilarity.

I don’t either. I’ve argued before - and I think Marshall’s analysis makes the need clearer - that the present situation calls for impeachment.

The votes are almost certainly not there to remove Bush and Cheney from office. But that’s no reason for the Democrats not to try.

Lacking the super-powers to personally jerk Bush and Cheney out of their lair and deliver them, gift-wrapped, to The Hague, I’m afraid my powers are limited to advocating a course of action.

I guess I can do that, or I can shut up.

If it bothers you that people are advocating Bush’s impeachment in a forum such as this, even though they have no power to actually make it happen, then I heartily recommend you stick with MPSIMS, GQ, and the other nonpolitical fora.

Indeed. Not that Bush and Cheney are required to take such noise into consideration - AFAICT, the War Powers Act gives them free rein to bomb Iran for up to 90 days without Congressional approval - but maybe it’ll get enough Pubbie Senators to lean on them that they might think twice.

Hasn’t worked yet. They’ve gone from quiet expressions of concern to daubing themselves with shit and setting their hair on fire. Response: nada damn thing.

With Warner’s call for some withdrawal more moderate Republicans will make their break with Bush. You have to think many would like to do so.

If Iran is bombed we’re in the shit. It doesn’t matter what the political fallout is, we’ll have a gaping hole in the Middle-East that stretches from Saudi Arabia to China and threatens the stability of Pakistan and the KSA. It’ll be the Non-State actors failed state wet dream. It’ll be a black market bazaar with weapons going back and forth and well trained militaries training terrorists all over the place. The loss of Iran will hurt China’s access to oil and natural gas significantly and will probably sour our relations with China in a big way. Bush is the psychotic with his finger on the trigger and holds the entire world hostage. The power vacuum that it will create in the middle-east will suck every major power in, in the long term causing a massive militarization and land grabs for oil.

We’ll just see how dedicated to forcing the Christian Eschaton Bush really is, because bombing Iran is how he can get his wish.

Lame duck, ruptured duck, Raptured duck. Duck!

Warner sure talks a good game. But when it’s time to vote to limit Bush in any way, he’s never there.

So what you’re saying is you want us to re-evaluate your idea of a preemptive impeachment? Why didn’t you just tell us that in the first place… It was a bad idea then and it’s a bad idea now. Nothing has changed. Or maybe we start the impeachment process for Obama right now, just in case he wins, since he says he might bomb Pakistan. That’s scares me more than bombing Iran, btw.

Well, gee RTF, given that all you did for your OP was copy something out of TalkingPointsMemo.com, I thought we were in MPSIMS. :wink: