« There's No Inflation, Except for Everything That's Going Up In Price | Main | Former-Soviet-blogging »
September 30, 2007
What Oliver Willis Said
by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math
This has been another edition of What Oliver Willis Said. Military strikes against against Iran would quite clearly be an act of war; without Congressional authorization it would pribma facie be an impeachable offense. If Freedom's Watch thinks they can convince the US to attack Iran just by running some TV ads they must be more out of touch than I thought possible.
September 30, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Well, it might seem prima facie to many reasonable people, but given the imprimatur of a resolution characterizing major state institutions of Iran as lawless terrorist organizations, and existing AUMF guidelines, interpretations, and precedents, I would consider that a US strike against Iran would prompt no move toward impeachment by the power centers of the Democratic Party.
In fact given the long history of US establishment foreign policy characterizing Iran as a dangerous terrorist state which threatens the very existence of Israel, I suspect the attack would open up huge rifts within the Democratic Party.
Perhaps if there were some particularly awful consequences for the establishment U.S. of such an attack, maybe there might be drastic political consequences, and maybe there is some degree of energy about this simmering beneath the surface of U.S. politics that I don't sense.
Maybe it would be the equivalent to the Nixonian escalation of LBJ's bombing of Cambodia to carpet bombing stage, but it wouldn't be the equivalent of Watergate.
Posted by: El_Cid | Sep 30, 2007 10:41:39 PM
I'm with Cid above. Wasn't the whole purpose of Kyl-Lieberman to give Bush cover, by claiming that Congress HAS authorized strikes against Iran? Check out Sy Hersh' latest article. I'm afraid you're reading the situation far too optimistically.
Posted by: beckya57 | Sep 30, 2007 10:55:47 PM
Because he hasn't done anything impeachment-worthy yet?
Posted by: yoyo | Oct 1, 2007 1:21:44 AM
Any more impeachable than Clinton's surgical strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan?
No, I'm not rattling off right wing talking points - just pointing out that presidents have up and bombed other countries every now and then without congressional authorization and not been impeached.
Did congress say that we could invade Somalia? This time that is, not last time.
Posted by: justaguy | Oct 1, 2007 1:52:10 AM
They're not trying to convince us to attack - Cheney and Bush will decide that with no input from us. They're trying to provide political cover if and when it does happen.
Attacking Iran would be catastrophically stupid, but we've seen plenty of evidence that congress doesn't consider that an impeachable offense.
If it happens it will be up to congress to demand an end to it, or refuse to provide funding for it. Why do I think they're more likely to bend over and grease up for Bush?
Posted by: Peter | Oct 1, 2007 2:25:48 AM
I believe the term people are forgetting is "flimsy pretext"; if we go into Iran - something that I still find a bit farfetched though Lieberma-Kyl disturbs me deeply - there will be some kind of vague "incident" that precedes it. What's happened up to now would not be enough, but the likelihood that some other "attack" in Iraq could be pinned on Iranians and serve as pretext is not an especially outlandish one. I think there's always been the insane prospect that the Bushies, desperate to retain power and desperate to "do something" would go into Iran. If they really have their heads set on it, I'm not sure what reasoned process can hold them back. But it's crazy, and it won't work.
Posted by: weboy | Oct 1, 2007 6:46:59 AM
Perhaps if there were some particularly awful consequences for the establishment U.S. of such an attack, maybe there might be drastic political consequences, and maybe there is some degree of energy about this simmering beneath the surface of U.S. politics that I don't sense.
From outside the country, it's amazing how whether or not to bomb another country - illegally - comes down to American domestic politics.
Instead of, you know, tens of thousands of people dying. Admittedly, only brown, non-English speaking, non-American people.
If the US attacks Iran first then do you think the rest of us will object if Iran spreads poison gas through the New York subway or explodes a nuclear weapon in the middle of Washington DC in retaliation?. If America keeps allowing its government to start wars, then eventually America is going to face the consequences.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Oct 1, 2007 7:37:02 AM
For all we know, we are already committing covert acts of war against Iran.
Posted by: bob h | Oct 1, 2007 7:49:05 AM
From outside the country, it's amazing how whether or not to bomb another country - illegally - comes down to American domestic politics.Instead of, you know, tens of thousands of people dying. Admittedly, only brown, non-English speaking, non-American people.
Yeah, I really, really wish that I saw strong evidence that any powerful forces within or outside the USA gave the slightest damn about the threat to Iranian civilians (and perhaps the entire existence of a coherent Iranian state) posed by a US attack, but I don't really see it.
I wish that the factors I thought ought be important to powerful US institutions, but they aren't. Right now the only constraints I see on a US attack against Iran -- constraints which may still win out, or keep a US attack down to a token size versus the 'complete eradication' scale -- have to do with fears about what the consequences might be for the powerful.
Posted by: El_Cid | Oct 1, 2007 9:45:49 AM
TV commercials are not to convince Dubya, if they were the ad buy would be on Cartoon Network. The TV ad buy is to get the meme that bombing Iran is the logical thing to do and therefore SO not impeachable.
It no longer matters if an offense is technically impeachable or not; what matters is whether there is the political will to bring about impeachment for something, and this campaign is to push that boundary as far as possible with the electorate.
Posted by: random | Oct 1, 2007 10:05:03 AM
Military strikes against against Iran would quite clearly be an act of war; without Congressional authorization it would pribma facie be an impeachable offense.
A preemptive attack on Iran without a UN Security Council resolution approving hard sanctions or military action would make the US an international outlaw (like Saddam attacking Kuwait). Russia and China have signaled that they will veto any more sanctions in the immediate future, (and maybe forever). The UNSC - to be clear - would also have to authorize action by member nations if the US did an preemptive attack, which the US/France/UK would veto. But we would still be violating the UN charter, and any nation could independently retaliate (as was the case in Iraq I).
If the Dems are to offer any opposition to an Iran War, it would likely be centered on the lack of UN approval - that slender reed of inaction, oh so often, as well as an argument over Presidential war powers without Congressional action.
a
Historical note: the Korean 'Police Action" was undertaken by the UN (and the US and others) when the Soviet Union happended to be boycotting the UNSC, so the resolution passed without a veto. The Russians won't make that mistake twice.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Oct 1, 2007 1:55:49 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
