Letters to the Editor
-
he might be right...
...that you usually shouldn't broadcast military plans ahead of time.
But did I miss something, or is this advice coming from Mr. "bomb bomb Iran"?
-
God Forbid Iran Gets A Nuke
Then we can't bomb them.
-
The Nuclear Missile-Warhead Total
Of America-Israel versus Iran must remain at 50,000 to zero. We can't tolerate 50,000 to one.
-
Also
did Barry O really say anything about "bombing" Pakistan? The relevant quote that I've seen is
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.
which, thogh it certainly leaves open the meaning of "act," to my reading seems to suggest cross-border raids from Afghanistan more than anything else.
-
Secrecy? "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" is keeping things hush-hush?
Er, Mr. Greenwald, I'm not sure how this got past you, but if "secrecy" is so important to the "serious" John McCain, how does "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" help in the cause of keeping things under wraps?
-
Political Rock
If we wish to be taken seriously, I propose that we all post our comments in the form of a song. I'll kick things off:
Jonny came from Senate f.l.a (ccid)
Straight talked his way across the u.s.aShifted right on the way
Flexed his arms then he was a he
He says, hey Barack, take a walk on the serious side
Said, hey Osama.. er I mean Obama, take a walk on the serious sideJournalist came from out on the Beltway
In the backrooms they wanted to be everybody’s darlingBut they never do their job
Mostly because it could cost their job
They say, hey Barack, take a walk on the serious side
Said, hey Osama.. er I mean Obama, take a walk on the serious sideAnd the old white guys go
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran -
McCain's BS
McCain has said giving "sanctuary" to OBL and the boys is unacceptable.
There have to be, whatever the spin during the campaign season and no matter how "streched" the military may be, contingency plans to go into Pakistion to secure their nukes - if it comes to that. If it's unacceptable for Iran to get nukes, it must also be unacceptable for the Paks to lose control of them.
Prudence knows this. I just asked her about it this morning while inquiring if she knew Ms. Iseman.
And of course Sheriff Bush, although he became distracted rather quickly at the time, postured hugely about wanting OBL "dead or alive" right after 9/11.
-
Not Likely
which, thogh it certainly leaves open the meaning of "act," to my reading seems to suggest cross-border raids from Afghanistan more than anything else.
-- Paul Daniel Ash
This is why it was so important to get him at Tora Bora before he slipped across the border. That's not to say that some assets won't be placed on the ground in the region for intel and targeting purposes. It means air strikes of the type I suggested upthread.
-
Beautiful
Dead on.
I hope Obama's people read Glenn Greenwald.
The most blatant scum sucking war monger in the race is suddenly shy about telling people we'd bomb Osama. Even Clinton tried to bomb Osama, which is more than Bushy could do.
It really IS about the oil.
-
Paul Daniel Ash:
Yeah, I came to make that point too. Surprise, John McCain is deceitfully using the specious notion that Obama has advocated "bombing Pakistan" in order to equalize his own plethora of warmongering and belicose rhetoric.
It's particularly perniscuous because even if Obama had bombs in mind, bombing some terrorist cell in a remote region is hardly tantamount to "bombing Pakistan" in the way people understand the idea of "bombing a country" meaning widespread raids.
Bill Clinton used missiles in the Sudan, did he "bomb Sudan"? When a stray bomb hit the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade was that "bombing China"?
There is a case about violating soveignty and technically yes, if your bomb falls anywhere on someone else's turf you've "bombed their country" but in common dialog, the notion of bombing a country is taken to mean "bomb lots of stuff, infrastructure, etc"
I count two unfounded logical leaps in McCain's characterization of Obama's position. Shocking, that a Republican would misrepresent the foreign policy views of a Democrat to win an election. When in history has that ever happened?
-
McCain's view of Article Two: A president should consult Congress - - and then ignore Congress
McCain says a president -- prior to bombing Iran -- "should" first go to Congress, "absent an imminent threat."
McCain says, however, that Article II generally trumps Article I. (And McCain's also ignoring Article III since he's ignoring Supreme Court decisions that Congress does, in fact, have the constitutional right to "micromanage" military actions, if and when Congress enacts laws to do so.)
http://boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/McCainQA/
John McCain Q&A
By Charlie Savage
Globe Staff / December 20, 2007[BOSTON GLOBE:] 2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? And specifically, I'm thinking about non-imminent threat situations.
[SENATOR MCCAIN:] Well he doesn't. But if there is an imminent threat, the president has to act in America's security interest.
[BOSTON GLOBE:] But in terms of a strategic bombing, where nothing is going to happen tomorrow or next week, then he's got to go to Congress?
[SENATOR MCCAIN:] He should, absent an imminent threat. But in the event of an imminent threat, the President has a constitutional obligation to protect the American people.
[BOSTON GLOBE:] 3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops -- either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? Is that beyond Congress' authority?
[SENATOR MCCAIN:] It's beyond Congress's authority to micromanage wars. Congress has the power of the purse and the power to declare wars; the President is responsible for leading the armed forces as Commander in Chief.
- - Boston Globe 12/20/2007
http://boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
Barack Obama's Q&A
By Charlie Savage
Globe Staff / December 20, 2007[BOSTON GLOBE:] 2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
[SENATOR OBAMA:] The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
[BOSTON GLOBE:] 3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops -- either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?
[SENATOR OBAMA:] No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.
- - Boston Globe 12/20/2007