Redstate

The Democrats... decided, sometime roughly in early November of 2002, that they'd accept an American city being nuked in return for ridding themselves of this troublesome President;

What's your basis for saying that? If true, it's the ugliest thing I've ever heard in American politics (which is saying quite a lot).

I never thought anyone would take it literally.

The Thomas a Becket reference.

The decision to move on Iraq and Afghanistan was a brilliant move by the administartion and the military planners.  The military action (please note that I did not say occupation) was much easier in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The building-up of our military presence in that region will prove to be invaluable as we now have strike capabilities from Iraq in the west and Afghansitan in the east.  If Iran wants to play, they will be faced with a two front war.

the contradictions you may expect on any action taken against Iran have been present from the beginning of the Iraq war if not earlier.  The refrain of "why not North Korea or Iran" at the very least implied inconsistency as the left would have been against that also.  Bush has already been criticized for "allowing" these nations to progress in bellicosity and arms development so the inchorence of the left is with us already .  As for the bombing of an American city, change the scenario somewhat and it becomes less hyperbolic.  When the dust, or radiation, settles you can bet your fanny there would begin, slowly, a groundswell opposition movement against Bush.  Reason, as above, he "allowed" it to happen.  How extensive is hard to say, how virulent a lot easier.

Because politics no longer ends at the water's edge, there is simply no way on God's green Earth that we will do anything but stand by and watch as Iran goes nuclear.

I don't see how domestic politics would be an issue here. If/when the administration decides that the threat of an Iranian nuke has progressed to the point that the benefits of military action outweigh the costs, they can go ahead and act. They already have the authority to pursue the GWOT and that would certainly apply here- any politics would come after the fact.

If the President doesn't do the right thing here it's not the fault of the Democrats or the CIA disliking him- he's got a full range of options here, and has clearly decided that diplomacy is the best strategy for the time being.

The Democrat leadership are like debate team dropouts.  They will argue everything was wrong, that everything they obstructed didn't work efficiently enough to be worth doing, anything that did work could have been done better, was motivated by the wrong reasons, and tell you that if you see them for what they are that YOU are interjecting personal animosity into the debate because you can't answer their challenges because YOU are a ____ [fill in your own moral failing-- racist, oreo, fundamentalist, poor hater, despoiler of the earth, flesh eater, land owner, Catholic, whatever].

A preview of D-crat talking points you might see for the next thirty months or so:



Haven't we been told time and again that "There is no link between Hussein and 9-11"?  

 It seems as though W has let our foreign policy be held subject to a French and German veto on the "Single Most Important Issue in US Foreign Policy".

His unilateral, personally motivated, hunt for wealth, search for acceptance from Daddy, controlled by Haliburton-Cheney-Brown and Root, totally unneeded, distracting us from the Taliban, poorly planned and executed, costing thousands of lives, attack on the innocent, peace-loving non-religious leadership (after all Tariq Aziz is a Catholic) of Iraq ( a traditional counterweight to Iran, don'tyaknow?) has offended the world and robbed the US of the credibility needed to wage a coalition based battle against the spread of the Most Dangerous Weapons on Earth.(tm)

Oh yes, it will be totally lost.  Just the way they feel free to criticize the military leadership for not having the O/M funds needed to fight a war after they forced the military to starve the services to fund RnD.  

The Dems worked night and day for thirty years to kill the military, and when its pale ghost rises from the dead to fight for freedom, the same traitorous bunch calls the elected leadership "criminal" during a war.

Zell Miller was trying to be ironic or something, but spitballs wouldn't have been authorized unless they could be proven to be both effective at killing AND not too dangerous to our enemies-- because we don't want to provoke them, and we don't want to waste money on ineffective military programs.

Well Blackhedd, don't you realize that Rethuglicans know exactly what everyone else is thinking? Oh, and they know exactly what the terrorists think, why they do the evil things they do. Yes that's right. Rich, lily-white, fat, elitist, corporate pigs know what these guys halfway around the world and who live in a totally alien culture are thinking. Please.

I live in NYC and I am PROUD to be a LIBERAL. And you know what else? I REFUSE to live in fear despite the fact that the Redneck Nation towns and cities are not exactly high on the terrorists' wish lists. Don't you EVER tell ME how afraid I should be! I saw your beloved 9-11 with my own 2 eyes.

YOU RETHUGLICAN SOB's WILL NEVER WIN. Why are you a majority? Because you manage to "convince" blue collar working middle class and poor middle-american regular people to vote against their own best interests. So its's the Corporate VPs and Boardroom Despots lying through their sleazy smiles and telling the Christians and Pseudo-Christians that they represent them. THEY DO NOT. Their God is Money. Period. The religious right and "regular" working class Americans will go down as the biggest tools of all time.

Bush WILL be impeached because the Wizard's green curtain has been pulled back and you can't put that genie in the bottle. If you are a so-called Conservative and you are still acting all cocky-like about maintaining control of Congress, then you clearly don't live with the rest of the world. The reality-based world.

Jesus hates George Bush. Deal with it.

Impeach!

Impeach!

Impeach!

Impeach!

HALLLLIIIBBBURRRTTTONNNNNNNN!!!!!!!

Thought I'd get a friendly "Hello" in before the inevitable and imminent "Goodbye" occurs.

Glad you popped in! Now I remember why I'm not a member of the "reality-based community" <snicker chuckle guffaw>!

AP(2008-07-06)During a campaign swing through midwestern states, Senator John Kerry (D-MA)was again asked about the current Iranian crisis, to which he replied "Remember, I voted for Nuking Iran  before I voted against it".  Thunderous applause followed.  

...how easy it is to not to dismiss out-of-hand the most insane things about the Democrats. Sorry I misread you.

Generally, people who take the time to sign up for one grand mal post can come up with better stuff than this.

YOU RETHUGLICAN SOB's WILL NEVER WIN.

If by that, you mean, "YOU RETHUGLICAN SOB's HAVE WON THE LAST THREE ELECTIONS" then you are absolutely correct. Otherwise, it's just more "Reality" from the RBC.

DIEBOLD!!!!@@$~$@~!!@$~!!!!!!

Let me ask you this... whats the difference between mass genocide by Hitler and mass genocide by Nuclear weapons?

Anyone who votes for nukes is no different than terrorist.  Just like terrorist you go after civilians to make someone submit to what you want.

You guys make me sick.

you've become cynical.

We will not stand by to see Iran reach nuclear capability.  However, whether or not those of us with any semblance of common sense succeed is a different story.

I share your cynicism of politics, and rightly so, for men are fallible.  Better to petition that One you know, and to realize there is always hope; and if not hope on earth, then hope thereafter.

sometimes (maybe even often) get the detaisl wrong, but i do trust them to get the big things right, and to handle Iran as it neesd to be handled. I am certain their information on the matter is far more accurate than anything available to the public.

The Iranians appear to be unwilling to play according to the rules.  It's not a light matter.

That being so, I'd be perfectly happy to see an American air strike doing whatever damage we can do to some number of their more crucial nuclear facilities.  If other countries want to join in, all the better.

What are they gonna do, cry foul?

My money says we won't do it.  One of the reasons we won't do it is that we have something like 150,000 Americans next door in Iraq.  It would put them at risk of retaliation.  Oops.

Recognizing that your intent was to some degree hyperbolic, I will nevertheless also make a very specific response to this:

The Democrats (by which I mean the Party, not individual voters, though I'm open to persuasion on the latter) decided, sometime roughly in early November of 2002, that they'd accept an American city being nuked in return for ridding themselves of this troublesome President

Worst case scenario: black market Russian suitcase nuke in midtown Manhattan at noon on a weekday.  That would probably be the worst single violent act in the history of the world.

What would I give up to prevent that?  It's hard to say.  I can tell you what is on the far side of that line, i.e., what I would not give up.  I would not give up the Constitution of the US.

We're at war or we're not.  If we are, and I think we are, some of us may be killed.  We didn't ask for it, but it has come to us.  And, you know what?  We're all gonna go sometime.  At least it would be quick.

Will giving Bush whatever authority he cares to ask for remove the risk of such an event?  Not bloody likely.  What is he, a superman?  So we might as well suck it up and do our best, without selling out what something north of 1,000,000 Americans have already died to preserve.  At some point, you have to draw a line in the sand.  That's my point of view.

And, just to put a point on it, I'll note that I was born in NYC, now live just outside of Boston, and the likelihood that such an event would kill me or folks I love is, most likely, significantly higher than for the typical red stater.  They won't be coming after Birmingham.

Just for laughs, I'll touch on the now-famous Tiberius quote, uttered when, despite his objections, the Roman Senate insisted on their willingness to pass whatever legislation he sent their way.

"Oh, how eager these men are to be slaves!"

I'm sure you or others here will correct any inaccuracy in my citation, but I think you catch my drift.

Thanks -

2 points:

1. I am not sure your angle, Amos, on giving up the Constitution, and that's probably a good thing.  I hazard a guess that nearly all Conservatives are likewise not interested in giving up the Constitution, especially since one of the things that unites us as Conservatives is our love and reverence of that document.  It is interesting how Liberals so selectively adore the Constitution.  They have amended it so many times through judicial fiat, that what passes for Constitutional rights today bears little resemblance to the Founders original intent.  
   
2. Finally, why do blue staters persist in feeling somehow superior because they are more at risk from terrorism because they make up the bulk of the population in New York City, LA, and Chicago?  Or, perhaps they really mean that it's easy for us red staters to take a tough line on terrorism because Birmingham, Charlotte, Oklahoma City (oops) are not going to be targets.  I will grant that the former symbols of American excess make tempting targets for Islamofascists, but Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Orlando (wow, you could make an impression there!), Denver - they all could just as easily be targets.  So, just because you were hit in NYC on 9/11, I don't think that means that targets in these other states might not get hit.  If I was OBL, I'd be looking for max damage, with least risk of failure.  A more obscure target might maximize that trade-off.
   
3. With respect to who is bearing the burden of the current GWOT, it is dispropotionately the sons and daughters of red states.  So, when we speak of actual volunteers in harm's way, please try to remember that our kids are out there, protecting us all equally.

It's not all about you, after all.

My "angle" on giving up the Constitution has to do with the now-popular doctrine of the unitary executive, which forms part of Bush's justification for warrantless wiretapping.  IMO it's hogwash.  I'm not a ConLaw scholar, chances are there's more to it than I recognize, but as far as I can make out from a plain reading of the Constitution as written and my understanding of the history of how that document has been interpreted, it's hogwash.  I look forward to the courts sorting it out.

The reason I mention the fact that blue state cities are among more likely targets is to take the discussion, from my point of view, out of the realm of the theoretical and into the realm of the concretely possible.  No doubt red states boast attractive targets of opportunity, "symbols of American excess", as you somewhat oddly put it.  Historically they simply are less frequent actual targets of Islamist terrorism.  Let's hope it's nobody's turn next.

I have no idea what the blue state/red state makeup of the forces in Afghanistan and Iraq are.  You say it's mostly red state people, you could be right.  I will say that young men and women from my town, people I know, are there.  People I know have lost family members there.  So, we're all carrying the weight as far as I can tell.

But I'm curious: If not in the President, where does the Constitution vest all executive power?

As I read it, the executive power is vested in the President.

Also as I read it, what the President and/or agents of the executive can do are limited by the laws passed by Congress, wartime or not.

It's happened often enough to count as precedent that the President, driven by circumstance, has taken an illegal action during wartime.  Lincoln's suspension of habeas is an example.

In those cases, if the circumstance is in fact a compelling one, the President basically gets a pass.  Lincoln would probably never have been impeached or prosecuted for the suspension of habeas during the Civil War.

I don't see that in what's playing out now.  What I see is a claim that, as a matter of Constitutionally sanctioned privilege, the President may or may not observe the law at his discretion.  I think that's wrong.

So, we'll see how it turns out.

Do you write for the Alan Schorr character on "Boston Legal", or did you cough up that resinous loogie solely for our benefit?  

...with his powers of independent thought.

You say that the Democratic Party would accept the nuclear destruction of an American city if it bought Bush's impeachment. I don't know what the Democratic Party thinks, to the extent it thinks at all, but I'm a Democrat and I can tell you what I think.

I think the prospect of Iran getting nukes is horrifying. I think everything possible should be done to prevent it. I think that any President, if he takes America's security seriously, would be preparing for the possibility, even the inevitability, of military action against Iran.

I think that there are a number of Democratic Senators and Representatives that agree with this stance, notwithstanding what is written on Daily Kos. There are still some things on which bipartisan agreement is possible.

That's the funniest parody of an idiot leftist I've read in a long time. Thanks!

More likely Israel will strike the first blow aginst Iran and its quest for nukes.  Pure self preservation - recall what Iranian President Ack-a-whatchamacallit said about what he would like to see happen to Israel. And Israel did it to Saddam.

We were late comers to WW1 & WW2. It may turn out that we won't fire the first shot in the next WW either.

tactical problems for Israel to overcome. Like, for instance, how does it get at Iran?

Does anyone really think we're going to allow overflight of Iraq? Or, more improbably, Turkey or Saudi Arabia will?

With the number of AWACS in the area there is no way they can make the run from Israel to Iran undetected.

So if we don't hit them, they have nothing to worry about.

What I see is a claim that, as a matter of Constitutionally sanctioned privilege, the President may or may not observe the law at his discretion.

We have yet to see anyone present any evidence that any law was broken? This whole attempt to paint this as "domestic spying" is dispicable. All the Democrats have done has been to continually "cry wolf". I am just hoping that GWB won't hesitate to pull the trigger on an Iran strike because of it.

You can tell the difference between democrats and republicans.  Reps. give intelligent discussions regarding their opinions while all the dems can do is name calling with expletives in front of it.  They are so childish, they are liking dealing with my toddlers.  When you "defeat" them all they can do is pout, cry and stomp their feet.  I wish they all would get out of my country and go live in Iran or Venezuela where they are just in love with those leaders.

They must all have the same play book for all their discussions.  They need to realize that anything that accuse the republicans of is just mirroring who that party is.  The republicans are mainsteam America and until they change their ways then they will just keep facing defeat after defeat.  Now we just need to get the Republican leaders to stop caving into the demands of the left.

Thomas(?) said this was a hyperbole but he in effect is very correct.  Why else are the dems leaking to the press the security measures that the Bush Administration is taking to protect our nation.  They now know that their lines are being wire-tapped so they need to find some other form of communication that the feds can't listen to.  Something else they leaked to announce to the terrorists which I cannot think of off the top of my head now.  They want Bush to fail.  They want another city to be bombed so they can scream LOOK.  Bush is not doing his job.  He allowed another attack on our land.  He can't handle this job so let's get rid of him.  The Left is in a very sad state of affairs where they would give up the lives of Americans just to get their power back.

1. If we believed that a nation presented a significant threat to our security and our sovereignty, but couldn't get agreement from other nations, would America care overmuchly what people thought of us flying over their airspace to deal with it?
   
2. If Israel makes the same determination as we would in such a situation, whether we agree or not, what do you think the chances are that we will shoot down an ally's planes to protect Iran?