Here we go again: Iran. How can we stop the madness?

[kohodog]

Bush today from the AP via MSNBC:

"Hezbollah attacked Israel. I know Hezbollah is connected to Iran," Bush said tersely at the end of Oval Office meetings with Romanian President Traian Basescu. "Now is the time for the world to confront this danger," Bush said.

Our leaders are insane and have had this plan prior to the 2000 selection. As an art student I learned how to look at things from many perspectives. Looking for the pattern in the current conflict I see an attack on Iran coming into focus. 911 gave them license (in their minds) to attack Iraq. This is giving them license to attack Iran (in their minds). This is the excuse they will try to use. Their problem is that Iraq wasn't the cake walk they imagined and our military is stretched too thin. Will that give them reason enough to go nuclear?

Congress has abdicated their oversight role and this may soon become ugly. The republicans are the War Party and need to scare Americans to win. Another war may be their recourse. They don't care about lives, especially if they're brown, black, olive or anyone except their cronies.

It's getting ugly.

[Monkeyman]

1. You just stated Karl Rove's plan

[kohodog]

4. Are they sick or what?

I fear for my childern.

[RufusEarl]

2. Congress has abdicated their oversight role.

You're correct in this statement, but let's be clear! It's a republican run congress, that abdicated their oversight role.

[madokie]

10. Thats the point we need to hammer home over and over again

It's a republican run congress, that abdicated their oversight role. The sad part is the Dems are going to have to ask the voters to do exactly what allowed this insanity to come to fruitation, one party rule.
:hi:

[trebleclef]

3. Armaggedon anyone?

Take a look at the front page of the Wall Street Journal today. Article about some evangelical minister egging on Israel all in hopes of fulfilling the biblical philosophy of the end of days. Totally sickening. Bush supports this nut. Where will it end.

[kohodog]

5. How many in Congress subscribe to that view?

Probably more than we would believe. This all feels very wrong.

[Emit]

12. I think there are more than we can withstand

Even though they still are a minority.

Theocracy Watch, for example, has some info on how many voted for the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (which thankfully, didn't pass, but which I think has been submitted more than once)-- you have to figure most of these folks do subscribe to this mindset to vote for this:

Sponsors, Constitution Restoration Act

As of September 22, 2004, these are the 39 co-sponsors of the Constitution Restoration Act.

Senate

S.2082 Title: A bill to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.

Sponsor: Sen. Shelby, Richard C. (introduced 2/12/2004)

Cosponsors (5) Related Bills: H.R.3799, S.2323 Latest Major Action: 2/12/2004 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. COSPONSORS(5), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)
Sen. Allard, A. Wayne - 2/12/2004

Sen. Brownback, Sam - 2/12/2004

Sen. Graham, Lindsey O. - 2/12/2004

Sen. Inhofe, Jim - 2/12/2004

Sen. Miller, Zell - 2/12/2004

House of Representatives

H.R.3799 Title: To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.

Sponsor: Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. (introduced 2/11/2004)

Cosponsors (34) Related Bills: S.2082 Latest Major Action: 9/13/2004 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Subcommittee Hearings Held. COSPONSORS(34), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)
Rep. Bachus, Spencer - 2/24/2004

Rep. Barrett, J. Gresham - 5/5/2004

Rep. Bartlett, Roscoe G. - 6/2/2004

Rep. Bishop, Rob - 4/27/2004

Rep. Brown, Henry E., Jr. - 7/13/2004

Rep. Collins, Mac - 5/18/2004

Rep. Cramer, Robert E. (Bud), Jr. - 2/24/2004

Rep. Davis, Jo Ann - 3/10/2004

Rep. Deal, Nathan - 3/18/2004

Rep. DeMint, Jim - 4/1/2004

Rep. Everett, Terry - 2/24/2004

Rep. Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 7/13/2004

Rep. Hall, Ralph M. - 4/27/2004

Rep. Herger, Wally - 6/18/2004

Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. - 4/27/2004

Rep. King, Steve - 6/25/2004

Rep. Kingston, Jack - 2/24/2004

Rep. Lewis, Ron - 4/27/2004

Rep. McCotter, Thaddeus G. - 4/27/2004

Rep. Miller, Jeff - 3/10/2004

Rep. Norwood, Charlie - 7/19/2004

Rep. Pearce, Stevan - 3/18/2004

Rep. Pence, Mike - 2/11/2004

Rep. Peterson, Collin C. - 7/15/2004

Rep. Pitts, Joseph R. - 2/24/2004

Rep. Rogers, Mike D. - 2/24/2004

Rep. Ryun, Jim - 3/11/2004

Rep. Souder, Mark E. - 3/25/2004

Rep. Stearns, Cliff - 5/18/2004

Rep. Sullivan, John - 6/15/2004

Rep. Terry, Lee - 5/5/2004

Rep. Vitter, David - 6/15/2004

Rep. Wamp, Zach - 3/10/2004

Rep. Wilson, Joe - 9/9/2004


Last updated: September 22, 2004

http://www.theocracywatch.org/sponors_cra_sept22_04.htm

An excerpt of the bill introduced, which according to the link, "Latest Major Action: 3/3/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary."

TITLE I--JURISDICTION

SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) Amendment to Title 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

(b) Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.520:


Also, here's an interesting read. Probably nothing new to you, but chilling, nonetheless -- one of the reasons I'm volunteering with efforts to register voters and getting Dems and Independents to vote and persuading them to vote for Dems!!!:

There may not be much chance that a majority of Americans would willingly vote to overturn the Constitution and to surrender their freedom to a band of religious zealots. But the long-term plan of the Christian right no longer relies on the so-called moral majority. Its new strategy depends on a tiny but disciplined minority that can exploit voter apathy and ignorance to gain power incrementally -- first on school boards, then in state legislatures and finally in Washington.

Should the Christian right succeed in taking over the Republican Party, it will inherit an extremely powerful apparatus. Such a party, running against the usually fractious and disorganized Democrats, is a chilling prospect.

The irony is that if it does come to pass, it will happen because the ordinary couch potatoes did what they usually do: nothing. Most of them won't know what's happened until their favorite TV shows are censored.

Read What Guy Rodgers, the director of organizing for the Christian Coalition, has said to audiences around the country for the past year:

In a presidential election, when more voters turn out than in any other election, only fifteen percent of eligible voters actually determine the outcome. How can that be? Well, of all the adults eighteen and over eligible to vote, only about sixty percent are registered to vote. It's less than that in many states. Of those registered to vote, in a good turnout, only half go to the polls. That means thirty percent of those eligible are actually voting. So fifteen percent determines the outcome in a high-turnout election. In low­turnout elections -- city council, county commission, state legislature -- the percentage that determines who wins can be as low as six or seven percent.

Is this sinking in? We don?t have to worry about persuading a majority of Americans to agree with us. Most of them are staying home and watching Falcon Crest. Do you understand??

Well, do you?

http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over_copilot.htm

[Emit]

14. Jeesh

Just as I wrote that post above, while also listening to CSPAN -- USHouse -- Ted Poe, R-TX stood up and rambled on about God in our government and how we must retain our motto, "In God we Trust..." That was the entire point of his speech -- Kucinich opened up with oil profits, others are talking of similar concerns -- Exxon, etc. And this wing nut talks about "retaining our motto of In God We Trust!!!!"

These people have infiltrated our government.

[newyawker99]

8. Hi trebleclef!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Emit]

11. Do you have a direct link to that piece?

I'd be interested in reading it - sounds like it is dealing with some concerns that I've been following closely. Tx in advance. And welcome to DU! :hi:

[Spearman87]

6. It can't happen until after the 2006 or even 2008 election

Bush would not do it until then, unless Iran gave him an excuse by attacking Israel directly. But they are too shrewd to make that blunder I think. Notice that their President, who previously railed about the myth of the holocaust and wiping Israel from the map, has become strangely silent over the last 3 weeks.


If Bush ever does to it, it would not be an occupation—as you allude to we lack the manpower—he would simply attempt to set back their military capability about a dozen years. I think you need not worry about it being a nuclear attack*. We have far more than enough conventional weapons capability to flatten all of Iran back to the stone age. But IMO even that would not be the war plan. I think there are plenty of Neocons who still believe in the golden goal of spreading democracy, and they know that outside of Israel and Turkey, the Iranian people are the most Western-friendly and most likely to embrace a free society if they can somehow break the shackles of their current fascist leadership. The likely warplan would be to target mainly their militarly and related industries, with a limited number of quick, small-scale incursions into the country by special forces operatives with specific mission targets………. and then to hope/pray that by the time Iran next returned to the threshold of nuclear weapons, a more moderate leadership would have come to power.

However IMO there is not sufficient political will on the Right to do this. “They don’t have the guts”, as one conservative aquaintance of mine put it (though he thinks we’d be better off in the long term if they did). If/when nukes are used over there, it won’t be us, it will be in an exchange between Iran and Israel.

(*--well, a caveat. I think we have some small-scale underground detonating, bunker-busting "tactical nukes".....low yield, that we might use without even publicly acknowledging it)

[kohodog]

7. I hope you're right, but I don't trust Cheney et al. n/t

[newyawker99]

9. Hi Spearman87!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[treestar]

13. The Decider has such a knack for oversimplification

I bet his dumbest followers actually think the "axis of evil" has a formal alliance.