NationStates Jolt Archive

Of Imperial Presidents and Congressional Cowards


by Patrick J. Buchanan


Now that Congress is back from spring break and looking ahead to Memorial Day, July 4th, the August recess and adjournment early in October for elections, perhaps it can take up this question.

Does President Bush have, or not have, the authority to take us to war with Iran? Because Bush and the War Party are surely behaving as though this were an executive decision alone.

No sooner had President Ahmadinejad declared that his country had enriched a speck of uranium than the war drums began again.

Bush has said of Iran that even "a process which would enable Iran to develop a nuclear weapon is unacceptable." John McCain has said too many times to count, "The military option is on the table." The 2006 National Security Strategy re-endorses preventive war and elevates Iran to the No. 1 threat to the United States.

This is not enough for The Weekly Standard, which equates our situation with that of France in 1936, when Paris sat immobile while Hitler marched three lightly armed battalions back into the German Rhineland, which had been demilitarized by the Versailles Treaty.

"To Bomb or Not to Bomb, That Is the Iran Question," is the title of an extended piece in the Standard, whose editorial calls for "urgent operational planning for bombing strikes." As that would likely ignite Shia and Revolutionary Guard terror attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, the Standard wants Bush to send more troops.

In an editorial "Iran Now," National Review is already into target acquisition. It calls for plans for a massive bombing campaign "coupled with an aggressive and persistent efforts to topple the regime from within." Ideally, U.S. bombs "should hit not just the nuclear facilities, but also the symbols of state oppression: the intelligence ministry, the headquarters of the Revolutionary Guard, the guard towers of the notorious Evin Prison."

In The Washington Post, Mark Helprin, who is identified as having "served in the Israeli army and air force," says "the obvious option is an aerial campaign to divest Iran of its nuclear potential: i.e., clear the Persian Gulf of Iranian naval forces, scrub anti-ship missiles from the shore and lay open antiaircraft-free corridors to each target. ... Were the targets effectively hidden or buried, Iran could be shut down, coerced and perhaps revolutionized by the simple and rapid destruction of its oil production and transport."

Since Muslims may not like what we are up to, Helprin cautions, we should prepare "for a land route from the Mediterranean across Israel and Jordan to the Tigris and Euphrates," and, presumably, from there the final push on to Tehran.

In all this hawk talk, something is missing. We are not told how many innocent Iranians we will have to kill as we go about smashing their nuclear program and defenses. Nor are we told how many more soldiers we will need for the neocons' new war, nor how long they will have to fight, nor how many more wings we should plan for at Walter Reed, nor when it will be over – if ever.

Moreover, where does Bush get the authority to launch a war on a nation that has not attacked us? As few believe Iran is close to a nuclear weapon, while four neighbors – Russia, India, Pakistan and Israel, not to mention the United States – already have the bomb, what is America's justification for war?

If we sat by while Stalin got the bomb, and Mao got the bomb, and Kim Jong-Il got the bomb, why is an Iranian bomb a threat to the United States, which possesses thousands?

There is a reason the Founding Fathers separated the power to conduct war from the power to declare it. The reason is just such a ruler as George W. Bush, a man possessed of an ideology and sense of mission that are not necessarily coterminous with what is best for his country. Under our Constitution, it is Congress, not the president, who decides on war.

Many Democrats now concede they failed the nation when they took Bush at his word that Iraq was an intolerable threat that could be dealt with only by an invasion. Now, Bush and the War Party are telling us the same thing about Iran. And the Congress is conducting itself in the same contemptible and cowardly way.

It is time for Congress to tell President Bush directly that he has no authority to go to war on Iran and to launch such a war would be an impeachable offense. Or, if they so conclude, Congress should share full responsibility by granting him that authority after it has held hearings and told the people why we have no other choice than another Mideast war, with a nation four times as large as Iraq.

If Congress lacks the courage to do its constitutional duty, it should stop whining about imperial presidents. Because, like the Roman Senate of Caesar's time, it will have invited them and it will deserve them.


source (http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan40.html)


Agree, disagree?

For a conservative (and an American), he is suprisingly insightful.

I would hardly call Pat Buchanan right (as usual). In this case, I happen to agree with him. . .to a point. I definately think that, if for no other reason than the fact that we are saddled with Iraq and Afghanistan, that attacking Iran is simply out of the question. Moreover, it would destroy any possible vestige of hope that we might be able to win Muslim hearts and minds, and solidify forever the view of America as evil overlord in even moderate Muslim hearts for the next fifty years.

But that being said, the fact that Buchanan is right on this point does not excuse him from rather glaring errors in the past. This is the man, for instance, who once argued that we shouldn't have invaded Nazi Germany, because that way the Germans and the Soviets could have continued to beat each other to a pulp. The fact that the Jews of Europe would have been "collateral damage" troubles him not a whit.

We could just say flat out: We'll let you enrich uranium, but if there is ever a nuclear attack on any nation that can be linked to a perpetrator with the backing of their nation's government we will annihilate that nation and every citizen of the offending nation worldwide will be hunted down and killed. It will literally be wiped off of the map.

I guarantee you that something so draconian and brutal will keep Iran and any other nation that seeks nuclear technology on the straight and narrow and keep their program peaceful or at the very least unused. They get the technology they desire and we can hopefully rest easier and not be forced to use military action.

Hell, it frightens me that the clown is making sense to me. And that I agree with his postion on this.

Kill me now......

We could just say flat out: We'll let you enrich uranium, but if there is ever a nuclear attack on any nation that can be linked to a perpetrator with the backing of their nation's government we will annihilate that nation and every citizen of the offending nation worldwide will be hunted down and killed. It will literally be wiped off of the map.

I guarantee you that something so draconian and brutal will keep Iran and any other nation that seeks nuclear technology on the straight and narrow and keep their program peaceful or at the very least unused.

A Final Solution, if you will, to the Iranian Question.

A Final Solution, if you will, to the Iranian Question.

We don't fuck with them, they don't fuck with us. It's brutal, but in the end everyone wins...in reality, however, that response would occur anyway but stating it outright would do more than trying to badger them in to stopping what is by all means their right.

Sometimes, peace has to be achieved by the threat of unthinkable atrocities against those who violate it.

"As usual"?

We could just say flat out: We'll let you enrich uranium, but if there is ever a nuclear attack on any nation that can be linked to a perpetrator with the backing of their nation's government we will annihilate that nation and every citizen of the offending nation worldwide will be hunted down and killed. It will literally be wiped off of the map.

I guarantee you that something so draconian and brutal will keep Iran and any other nation that seeks nuclear technology on the straight and narrow and keep their program peaceful or at the very least unused. They get the technology they desire and we can hopefully rest easier and not be forced to use military action.

I think something close enough to this is pretty much implicit already. At the very least, the annihilation of Iran's current regime is pretty much assured if there is a nuclear strike.

Nuclear deterrence kept the imperialists and hardliners on both sides of the Cold War from using nuclear weapons; there is no reason to believe it will not work on Iran's government.

I think something close enough to this is pretty much implicit already. At the very least, the annihilation of Iran's current regime is pretty much assured if there is a nuclear strike.

Nuclear deterrence kept the imperialists and hardliners on both sides of the Cold War from using nuclear weapons; there is no reason to believe it will not work on Iran's government.

I'd put it in words, directly to the Iranians and any nation seeking nuclear technology. The world has no right to keep them from getting fuel for reactors, and if they manage to get a nuclear weapon the world should allow them to keep it without repercussions so long as they do not use it. Iran does have legitimate uses and need for nuclear power, so why deny them the opportunity if they are responsible with it?

Every nation has a right to nuclear technology, but they have to know the consequences of abusing it and spelling it out in words would do just that.

Pat Buchanan really annoys me. He's smart, he's insightful, and knows a lot about social and political life, but occasionally he'll just toss out a subtly offensive point. It makes him hard to argue against.

In this case, he is right on the money

I'd put it in words, directly to the Iranians and any nation seeking nuclear technology. The world has no right to keep them from getting fuel for reactors, and if they manage to get a nuclear weapon the world should allow them to keep it without repercussions so long as they do not use it. Iran does have legitimate uses and need for nuclear power, so why deny them the opportunity if they are responsible with it?

Every nation has a right to nuclear technology, but they have to know the consequences of abusing it and spelling it out in words would do just that.

Your solution is a little draconian. More importantly than that, it is unilateral; it is the US saying it has the right to do as it wishes, as always, and that will only provoke countermeasures by the other nuclear powers.

How about a declaration by the major existing nuclear powers - say, US, China, Russia - that any power which uses nuclear weaponry will have its national leadership annihilated?

Leaders insane enough to launch nukes probably wouldn't care much about the fate of their citizens anyway.

Leaders insane enough to launch nukes probably wouldn't care much about the fate of their citizens anyway.

Well, the US is the only nation to have used nukes.............

Well, the US is the only nation to have used nukes.............

Leaving aside the question of whether Truman cared about the US population, I meant today, in an age where there are plenty of nuclear powers.

Your solution is a little draconian. More importantly than that, it is unilateral; it is the US saying it has the right to do as it wishes, as always, and that will only provoke countermeasures by the other nuclear powers.

The "total eradication" statement would be like the nukes themselves; so severe that it would serve as a deterrent rather than a real policy on the part of the nations that agree to it. The sheer risk of such an action being a reality would be enough to dissuade nations that might be willing to sacrifice their leadership in order to undertake their nuclear attack.

How about a declaration by the major existing nuclear powers - say, US, China, Russia - that any power which uses nuclear weaponry will have its national leadership annihilated?

That's actually what I meant; all nations with nuclear capability and those who want to pursue the technology would be part of the declaration rather than it being a unilateral doctrine. Weapons of mass destruction and the technologies that produce them have to be multilateral rather than one nation doing what it wishes.

Leaders insane enough to launch nukes probably wouldn't care much about the fate of their citizens anyway.

But they do tend to care about themselves; if a leader were insane enough to seriously consider a suicide strike on another nation, hopefully the world's intelligence services would be able to detect it beforehand or the nation's allies would be able to dissuade them.

Also, the sheer possibility of total eradication would be a powerful deterrent, even if it were not meant to be a reality on the part of the nations who use it as a deterrent. It would never be used, even in the case of a nuclear strike unless absolutely necessary...and I can't think of a situation where that would be the case.

I'd put it in words, directly to the Iranians and any nation seeking nuclear technology. The world has no right to keep them from getting fuel for reactors, and if they manage to get a nuclear weapon the world should allow them to keep it without repercussions so long as they do not use it. Iran does have legitimate uses and need for nuclear power, so why deny them the opportunity if they are responsible with it?

Every nation has a right to nuclear technology, but they have to know the consequences of abusing it and spelling it out in words would do just that.

Nuclear power, as long as it is responsibly set up and regulated, is not a problem.

Nuclear weapons are more problematic, as there is unlikely to ever be an authorised nuclear attack, and with all the different nations, and hundreds of warheads on standby, any lone nation couldn't have the arsenal to stop a response.

The problem is if someone who doesn't care about the consequences get's there hands on nuclear weapon technology. Do I think President Ahmadinejad is such a man? No. But he is the closest we've got for quite some time.

Well, the US is the only nation to have used nukes.............

Yeah, and that's why we should be a stringent supporter of both peaceful nuclear technology and part of a multilateral agreement to ensure that nuclear weapons remain a deterrent rather than reality, ideally as a path toward disarmament of nuclear weapons worldwide.

"As usual"?



I think something close enough to this is pretty much implicit already. At the very least, the annihilation of Iran's current regime is pretty much assured if there is a nuclear strike.

Nuclear deterrence kept the imperialists and hardliners on both sides of the Cold War from using nuclear weapons; there is no reason to believe it will not work on Iran's government.
I'm not an alarmist, I understand the milestones that Iran has to clear before they get nuclear weapons and I understand it will be many years before that can happen. Having said that, there is every reason to believe they may use them when the US and USSR did not (during the Cold War, not WWII). Their current president and their Supreme Council are avowed radical islamists. They are every bit as fanatically Islamic as George Bush is Christian. The only check I think we have on George is a Congress, they don't have that in Iran, at least not one that is not also Islamist.

I'm not an alarmist, I understand the milestones that Iran has to clear before they get nuclear weapons and I understand it will be many years before that can happen. Having said that, there is every reason to believe they may use them when the US and USSR did not (during the Cold War, not WWII). Their current president and their Supreme Council are avowed radical islamists. They are every bit as fanatically Islamic as George Bush is Christian. The only check I think we have on George is a Congress, they don't have that in Iran, at least not one that is not also Islamist.

Iran's leadership is rather rational, foreign policy-wise. Why do you think Russia and China are not siding with the US on this question? Because of their fierce support for Islamic fundamentalism?

We don't fuck with them, they don't fuck with us. It's brutal, but in the end everyone wins...in reality, however, that response would occur anyway but stating it outright would do more than trying to badger them in to stopping what is by all means their right.

Sometimes, peace has to be achieved by the threat of unthinkable atrocities against those who violate it.

There's a hair of difference between advocating a full-strike retaliation should we be nuked... and suggesting that we exterminate every last Iranian if a nuclear blast anywhere in the world can be traced back to that government.

And peace by unthinkable atrocities is unacceptable. Self-defense is acceptable only with reasonable force, and only against those that harmed you. Example - if I'm struck in the face by a New Yorker, a reasonable response would be to fight back to the point of securing my person. An unacceptable response would be to firebomb his block in Brooklyn.

Iran's leadership is rather rational, foreign policy-wise. Why do you think Russia and China are not siding with the US on this question? Because of their fierce support for Islamic fundamentalism?
Because China needs Iranian oil - BADLY, and because Russia makes a lot of money selling them nuclear technology. I do expect their support to wane, however. BTW - They ARE siding with the US, just not completely. They want Iran to comply with the security council resolutions, they are just not ready to impose sanctions for the reasons above.

BTW - They ARE siding with the US, just not completely. They want Iran to comply with the security council resolutions, they are just not ready to impose sanctions for the reasons above.

No nuclear power wants to see another power get nukes. My point is just that the Iranian government is hardly insane; they have used what leverage they have rather effectively.

-snip-

So, Pat Buchannan emerges as the voice of sanity...

Does that scare anyone else here?

There's a hair of difference between advocating a full-strike retaliation should we be nuked... and suggesting that we exterminate every last Iranian if a nuclear blast anywhere in the world can be traced back to that government.

And peace by unthinkable atrocities is unacceptable. Self-defense is acceptable only with reasonable force, and only against those that harmed you. Example - if I'm struck in the face by a New Yorker, a reasonable response would be to fight back to the point of securing my person. An unacceptable response would be to firebomb his block in Brooklyn.

It's a deterrent rather than reality; much like the nuclear bomb, the purpose is to fill those who would consider using them against others with enough fear of severe retaliation that they would not do it.

Even if they actually attacked, it would be virtually impossible that any nation would seriously consider eradicating an entire population...it's fear rather than reality, and in many cases instilling fear of a terrible response is far better than having to deal with someone testing the determination of the world to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

They are every bit as fanatically Islamic as George Bush is Christian.

Please, they make the President of the US look like an athiest in their devotion.

And the only reason people are "afraid" that Pat Buchanan said something sane is because of their complete and total hatred of conservati(sm/ves) and their bias towards it. It's patheticly childish, really. I've seen a few five year olds with more respect for other people's opinions and views. Anyways.

Personally, I'm all for the sharing of peaceful nuclear power, with regimes that won't use it to either create weapons or use them. The Islamic Republic of Iran...really doesn't qualify, or it barely skids along. I was hoping they wouldn't figure it out until after the inevitable uprising from the populous -- be it armed or not -- but unfortunately, that doesn't look like it's happening.

No nuclear power wants to see another power get nukes. My point is just that the Iranian government is hardly insane; they have used what leverage they have rather effectively.
We're gonna have to agree to disagree there. I think they are absolutely bonkers but have not had the chance to prove it yet. I think they had to deal with Iraq first, right when that was done they saw what happened to Iraq when it invaded Kuwait, then they saw Iraq attakced again and now they have seen that we have a retarded monkey in the White House and look at how badly he has run his war and have decided that America and teh West are toothless. I think all this "wipe Isreal off the face of the map" stuff is just the beginning. I'm hopeful that there are enough moderates in Iran that they, with the help of the international community, can get their government back to sanity before Iran can actually build an arsenal. Iran, despite their government, is known for having generally sane people. The countryt is not a bunch of raving lunatics, but their government is.

Please, they make the President of the US look like an athiest in their devotion.

And the only reason people are "afraid" that Pat Buchanan said something sane is because of their complete and total hatred of conservati(sm/ves) and their bias towards it. It's patheticly childish, really. I've seen a few five year olds with more respect for other people's opinions and views. Anyways.

Personally, I'm all for the sharing of peaceful nuclear power, with regimes that won't use it to either create weapons or use them. The Islamic Republic of Iran...really doesn't qualify, or it barely skids along. I was hoping they wouldn't figure it out until after the inevitable uprising from the populous -- be it armed or not -- but unfortunately, that doesn't look like it's happening.George Bush is a religious fanatic. A very stupid one. that's a very dangerous combo.

George Bush is a religious fanatic. A very stupid one. that's a very dangerous combo.

*is speechless*

Bush is a religious fanatic? Is that because he's a Christian in public office and decides to do what Christians are supposed to do and profess their faith? You, my friend, are one of the most bigoted people I have ever met. I have had conversations with KLANSMEN who were more reasonable than you. I feel like I'm talking to a propaganda booklet and not a human.


I suppose I'm a religious fanatic, too, though. I quote the Bible, I believe in it, and I'm not afraid to tell people it.


However, don't get me wrong, I don't like the guy as my president.