On Heels Of Senate’s Iran Vote, Brownback Declared I’m Ready To Strike Iran

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/15/brownback-attack-iran/

On Heels Of Senate’s Iran Vote, Brownback Declared I’m Ready To Strike Iran

On Wednesday, the Senate voted 97-0 to pass a resolution sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to censure Iran “for what it said was complicity in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.” The resolution required the Bush administration to regularly report to Congress on Iran’s role in Iraq.

While the resolution explicitly rejected authorization for immediate military action, the gist of the resolution declared Iran is participating in acts of war against the United States, thereby laying the foundation for a confrontation with Iran. Newshoggers wrote that the resolution may provide the “political cover for launching a war.”

Validating the concern many felt, Sen. Sam Brownback appeared on Fox News shortly after the vote and declared he was ready to preemptively strike Iran. Host Sean Hannity asked Brownback, “There’s probably going to come a point for the next president that they’re going to have to determine whether to go out and have that preemptive strike. And you’re ready and would be ready to do that?”

“Yes, I am, and I think we have to be,” Brownback answered. “Sean, if we’re going to be serious about this fight, and we’re in this fight, and probably for a generation. We’re probably in this fight for a generation.” Watch it/read transcript at link~

When the Congress vote to authorize force against Iraq in 2002, it cited as justification the fact that Congress had passed a law in 1998 sponsored by Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) and co-sponsored by Lieberman that concluded Iraq posed a serious threat. From the 2002 resolution:

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’

UPDATE: The LA Times reports the most number of foreign insurgents in Iraq come from Saudi Arabia:

Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.

About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer.

UPDATE II: More at Hullabaloo:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/closer-by-dover-bitch-revisiting-digbys.html

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. 45% Saudis targetting the US in Iraq

that figures

where did you say UBL was?

[MadMaddie]

2. Once again....these criminals are trying to attack a country that

has not attacked us...When will the madness stop?

[wiggs]

5. Iran was always the prize for the neocons. nt

[bjobotts]

3. Good Piece. Bush would have us believe al qaeda is Iran

They are looking for any excuse to attack Iran and are poised to do it. The Senate has joined in making such action justified. They didn't even bother to hold off on voting and check the facts. They were so ready to believe Iran is doing all of this they never even questioned it...in spite of knowing who Jerusalem Joe stands for. Impeachment is the only way now to tie Bush's and Cheney's hands and maybe prevent them attacking Iran. The 3rd aircraft carrier just sent to the Persian Gulf. Will sanity ever return to the senate?

[MadMaddie]

8. Well if Al Quida is not there now....if the US attacks Iran and takes

out the leader, Iran has a population of Millions that will take an oath to destroy the US....

From what I have read if they use the ships to pound Iran...they still will need military boots on the ground....we don't have the forces.

The Republicans are setting America up to be attacked on our soil...and not like 9/11 it's not rocket science.

This time the world may just say they have had enough.

Can we finally say that the * Regime is Hitleresque in it's attempt to force US style Democracy down the throats of other countries by attacking them and leaving them in ruins....with the false promise of rebuilding the country?

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Al Qaeda being a Sunni extremeist group wouldn't be able to operate in Shia controlled Iran

But since Bush thinks they're all the same, that certainly won't stop him.

[and-justice-for-all]

4. Fuck him!! nt

[xchrom]

6. well if he's ready -- then he can go do it himself.

but leave the army, airforce, marines and navy out of it.

[Disturbed]

7. Some people just love death, pain and destruction as long as it

is done to another nation. I used to think that Congress had some fairly smart people in it. Now I know that most of them are of mediocre intelligence & self serving jerks.

[xchrom]

17. ain't that right. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

9. How else to distinguish yourself to the bloodthirsty GOP base?

War sells to the 26-percenters. McCain's making headlines for his spectacular implosion, Fred's doing a little "will-I-won't-I" number while probably paying hush money to gay former partners, Rudy's still the frontrunner, and Mittens is hitting the Mormon wall--time for a second-tier loser to up the ante and break through with a message of death and destruction!

[Blackhatjack]

10. If we are lucky Brownback will get swept out to sea in the coming Democratic tsunami...

It is amazing how the religious right fundamentalists' choice for President is so ready to attack Iran and kill thousands of civilians who are not happy with their leader.

Using military power as a first option to resolve differences is not necessarily an admirable characteristic in a Presidential candidate.

[Telly Savalas]

13. Brownback isn't up for reelection until 2010.

[Blackhatjack]

18. Last time I checked he was still running for the Repub Presidential Nomination...n/t

[NNN0LHI]

11. Someone had better check this boy to see if he is wearing dirty diapers too

Because he is definitely full of shit.

Don

[spanone]

12. These guys are so fucking willing to kill yours and my loved ones.

i bet he calls himself a christian too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. 97-0. Erect bogeyman, wave flag, claim a majority, send in the bombers. K&R

There'll be no "Profiles in Courage" written about the senators who voted "yes" to another futile war.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

19. The most disgusting vote by any Senate in quite some time.

How they can justify this is unfathomable.

Edit to erase Congress oops

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Don't feel confident that many Democrats don't feel pretty much the same way

I ran an interesting poll on DU a few weeks back. I asked DUers whether they agreed with the following statement:

"Under Absolutely No Circumstances Can the U.S. Allow Iran to Acquire Nuclear Weapons"

I asked that people give an affirmative answer "only if you are convinced that, at the end of the day, the United States must do whatever it has to do to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons." The poll received 138 votes, with 32% of DU readers voting that they agreed with that statement. Unlike now I didn't make any special effort to alert people to the poll, I just waited for the people who found it on their own to vote in it. Here is a link to that thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3340289

I wrote a Kos Diary about how thoroughly the ground work is being laid with the public to attack Iraan. "We Are Losing The Fight Over Iran":
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/15/133035/232

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Please help spread this YouTube Video

It is from July 2006 but it is just as relevent today as it was then. This is a message we have to do better at getting out. People are becoming increasingly afraid of Iran, but what they really need to fear is the predictable aftermath of any American or Israeli attack on Iran. On this video General Wes Clark directly confronts the fears about Iran expressed by a member of a FOX studio audiance, and debunks it, after earlier making the case for diplomacy while sternly warning:

"Otherwise, you’re just going to end up raising a 10-million man army to invade the Middle East and that’s something we don’t want the United States to do and I don’t think your viewers want all their children to spend the rest of their lives in uniform."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N79-4cyqfl0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enewshounds%2Eus%2F2006%2F07%2F24%2Ffox%5Fundercuts%5Fwesley%5Fclarks%5Fsane%5Fwords%2Ephp


The entire exchange was covered by News Hounds. In doing so they provided a partial transcript, but I urge you to view the video. It is much more powerful. Here is part of what News Hound wrote at the time:


"Later, a member of the audience challenged Clark and said she agree with Gillerman that the world is in World War III. "We simply don't appreciate or fear the threat we have from radical Islam. They want to destroy us," she said.

Clark was well-prepared to respond. " I think we have to be careful of labeling things World War III," he said. "We're not in the same position of Israel. ...We don't want to get drawn into a head-to-head conflict if we can avoid it. That's why we should be talking to people."

Huddy did her dirty work again, interrupting Clark, "Can we talk to people like Syria and Iran? How?"

"Yes you can," insisted Clark. "And here’s the thing. You cannot occupy those countries, you cannot simply declare World War III unless you want to raise an army of 12 millon men and march into the Middle East and occupy it, and we’ve already seen the example of Iraq. This is very, very difficult. So this is not like World War II with Germany and Japan. This is entirely different. We should use the military sparingly, as a last resort."

Again Huddy, who rarely challenges a conservative guest, asked Clark how the U.S. could "have diplomacy ... with countries like Syria and Iran. ... These are countries that have been on the record saying let's destroy the United States."

"If you agree with people, the dipolomacy is different. When you don’t agree with people, it’s even more important to talk, to box them in, to understand what they want, to help them see the world differently. Keep the force in reserve,. Otherwise, you’re just going to end up raising a 10-million man army to invade the Middle East and that’s something we don’t want the United States to do and I don’t think your viewers want all their children to spend the rest of their lives in uniform."

After he finished, a woman said, "I disagree with the general, and I agree with Juliet. We’re dealing with people that want to kill us. It's like if somebody's holding a gun to you how can you just talk to them?"

Clark again was ready with a response. "They’re not holding a gun to our heads," he said. "We are there. It’s our military that’s in Iraq. It’s the Israelis that are there with the most powerful vorce in the region. Iran has no way of reaching us except through Hezbollah terrorists. We’re tracking those people in the United States. I’m not saying there’s no threat, but I’m saying don’t make the mistake of thinking that this is a head-on conflict like Germany and the United States in World War II. It’s not there."

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/07/24/fox_undercuts_wesley_clarks_sane_words.php

[Disturbed]

20. The ignorance and stupidly of millions of American is scary

ain't it? War is the only answer that millions can come up with to solve problems. When a 4 star General offers a better way, resistance is still in the minds of small minded people. It is discouraging. Hopefully, reason will prevail.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. It's pretty clear, elect a Republican in '08 and we will strike Iran...

Elect a Democrat and we will do the responsible thing and negotiate with Iran.

[Blue_In_AK]

23. Isn't it ironic? n/t