Oh, Hell

Andy, I really sympathise but this is a childish joke. We did such things whrn we were teenagers to lure girls. The issue of WWIII cannot be decided on the level of the primitive intrigue and usage of the Congress to play political entrapment games. On the contrary, if GOP has at least some brains they would use this letter and your support of it to dicredit the Dems and progressives, showing that they would use anyrthing, that they have no shame.

Congress if it respects intself must explicitly announce that thr US will never attack Iran or any other country for that matter. It has to announce that Bush had lied and that such Commander-In- Chief cannot lead the army to battle anymore. It has to be a resolution of no-confidence. Non- binding, just for all to know.

Andy, I am not here to judge your efforts but I am concerned when I see a person who usually knows what to do absolutely going astray.

by Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3574 comments) on Sunday, November 11, 2007 at 6:29:13 PM
 

Funny, but I think you've got it backwards

You think it is a childish joke, and would put the Democrats in jeopardy, if they were to assert that the president's launching a war without congressional approval would be an impeachable offense.

 I think it's just the opposite.  As a reminder about my reasons, I'll put here a passage from another recent piece of mine, arguing a) that it is clear from the Constitution that it is Congress, not the president, that has the authority to decide the issue of war and peace, and b) that arguing the point on Constitutional grounds rather than national security grounds --not "we're against attacking Iran" (which exposes the Democrats to the usual, "they're not tough enough to protect you" argument, but "it's our decision" (which calls attention to presidential usurpations-- is the more politically strategic course:  

 <blockquote>

THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT

First, there's the constitutional argument. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to declare war. The United States does not use such declarations any more, it seems, at least not since immediately after Pearl Harbor. But the meaning of the provision is clear: the decision to initiate armed hostilities with another nation is for the Congress to make. There's plenty of documentary evidence regarding the intent of the Framers: they did NOT want the president to make such decisions unilaterally.

The powers of the commander-in-chief may extend to dealing militarily with urgent matters, where the national interest requires immediate action and cannot await congressional deliberation and approval. But the present issue with Iran is no such matter.

The question whether to go to war to prevent some country from developing nuclear weapons is a long-term, fully premeditated decision. And the Constitution gives the power to make that decision to the Congress.

As a political strategy, the essence of this constitutional argument is this: make the issue one of presidential over-reaching, not one of national security."

This approach avoids the necessity for the Democrats to say anything about national security that the Bushite propagandists can use in their usual way: support the president or you'll die. And the Bushites are so adamant about the president as dictator --apparently so constitutionally (as it were) incapable of acknowledging the legitimate rights and powers of the other branches of government-- that there's a good possibility that the entire battle with the regime can be fought on these constitutional grounds.

Not only does focusing on the constitutional issue have the great advantage of avoiding those national security grounds that apparently are so frightening for the Democrats to confront the Bushites on, it also provides grounds that are both advantageous to the Democrats and vital for the country.

In other words, the Bushite beating of the drums of war against Iran provides an important opportunity to dramatize the larger issue --I would say the largest issue facing America-- of the president's lawlessness, and of the vital importance of re-establishing such vital American principles as the system of checks and balances, the three co-equal branches of government, and the rule of law.

And if the Republicans refuse to support a resolution along these lines, affirming Congress's constitutional authority of declaring war, this provides yet another opportunity. Such a refusal would enable the Democrats to raise to prominence yet another issue: Did not you Republicans take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? How can you justify putting your loyalty to your partisan president ahead of your sworn oath to defend the Constitution?

In other words, Republican support for Bush's usurpations on this issue can be an opening through which the Republicans can be hammered for the larger pattern of their being accessories to the Bushite assault on the Constitution they swore upon the Bible that they would defend.</blockquote>

by Andrew Bard Schmookler (314 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 146 comments) on Sunday, November 11, 2007 at 6:41:36 PM
 

Andy

'I challenge him to introduce a house resolution stating that an attack on Iran without prior explicit authorization from Congress will trigger an immediate initiation of impeachment proceedings by the House of Representatives.'

Andy, you are an educated man and surely had read  what Ceasar said to the  young tribune who tried to prevent him from looting the Rome's treasury after taking over the city.

'This is a war time and when the war   takes place the laws must be silenced. When peace comes  you could still talk in the Senate and I will listen. But for now if you  interfere I will kill you. And may you know that it is tougher for me to say that  than  to do it.'

Andy,  you can fortify  the scheme all you like. But in the essense the course of action  this man is proposing is a cheap blackmail and the usage of the Congress mechanism  for the cheap blackmail  is inexcusable. If Democrats, a majority believe that Commander-In - Chief is not fit- let them go after him and  say it. Let them make a resolution that Commander-In- Chief must be replaced. Let them take over the  wheel and go for impeachment now.  YES it is a matter of National Security and an Honor of  Congress is at stake. Bush is not some  little dictator who has to be jumped from behind and  Congress is not a place for  cheap intrigues  no matter how   legalese it sounds. There is more at stake than one man and Congress HAS to show that.

Andy,  if under the Majority of Dems  Congress must resort to the   blackmail ( and that is blackmail- let's see how it works when Bush organizes Gleivits in Iran and  some 'Iranians' kill  the US soldiers. Then Bush surely is entitled to the Ceasar's behaviour and the Dems will eat theire own shoe) then we have  no Congress. No, I did not get it baackwards. Congress is not a buerocratic organization which works upon the guidance of a handbook. It is a legislative body which makes laws.  It has an intrinsic sacred responisiblity to  be a face of the US people and that face does not smirk in the cheap intrigue, ' hey, we got you, sucker, outsmarted you in evil.' Not a chance. On the evil turf Bush is much a better player.

Andy, I  am not a young man and neither are you. We both know what does that mean 'overplay'.  Politics is a game but only  up to the point when honesty  really becomes a best policy.  Congress MUST disconnect itself from Bush  once and  for all.  It just has to function in the domain of honesty or we all die. No more intrigues, no more  ' cunning undermining'.  There is no time.

Andy, I use this site  primarily to understand how people think.  I consider that people on this site are most likely the best people I encounter, so how they think is important to me.  If you truly think that way you have presented,  I surely might be wrong. But  all my experience says to me that I am right and that is very worrisome that you might think that way.

At that we part.

by Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3574 comments) on Monday, November 12, 2007 at 7:49:17 AM
 

Cheap blackmail to insist that the Constitution...

Cheap blackmail to insist that the Constitution be followed?

I don't think so.

This president has already committed more impeachable offenses than any president in history, by a whole order of magnitude.

Congress, regrettably, has not honored its oath to obey the Constitution.

This president therefore gets to stay in office till the end of his term.  We can survive that, provided that he doesn't create another catastrophe.

 Here's a two-fer:  block his plunging us into another disastrous war AND make use of that blocking to fire an impeachment shot across his bow.

 Cheap blackmail to draw the line, telling a president he does not have the constitutional authority to declare war?

Not blackmail.  It's a threat to do what should have been done anyway, as a way of keeping him from doing what the Constitution forbids him from doing.

 Two really good purposes served, PLUS it begins to protect and defend the Constitution, which is an obligation solemnly pledged.

by Andrew Bard Schmookler (314 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 146 comments) on Monday, November 12, 2007 at 8:45:58 AM
 

Andy

'Not blackmail.  It's a threat to do what should have been done anyway, as a way of keeping him from doing what the Constitution forbids him from doing.'

Andy, I once  has seen an episode from the " LA law' in which a young man was accused of rape and he vehemently denied it. He then was asked just to describe what happened in his own  words and when he finished  he realized that he was  describing a typical rape..

The process you have described above  which culminates in the 'threat' is  the process of the blackmail ( usually by bluff). If the president already did  all those violations  the Congress must just act accordingly and switftly, not threaten to  maybe act  'in case he  does it again'.

Andy,  we here  both  love this country obviously  and I might be all wrong. The matter is  that I consider myself a pretty educated and  well-read individual. What does it tell you that I, a member of the public react that way?  How will  other people see it?

 This is with the best...

by Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3574 comments) on Monday, November 12, 2007 at 9:48:57 AM
 

We agree it shouldn't be a matter of drawing a line now

Yes, Congress should be dealing more aggressively with the already-committed transgressions.  I agree.

 But I'm not one of those who equates "threat" with "blackmail."  

 Threats have a legitimate place in conducting relationships involving conflict and power.  Blackmail has other connotations.

Given the danger of the Bushites making another decision about war and peace disastrous to this country, and given the evident fact that Congress is NOT presently heading toward removing these "Deciders" from power, some means need to be found to block them from such a catastrophic course.

 This seems as good a means as I've seen proposed.  If someone has a better one, I'd like to see it.

by Andrew Bard Schmookler (314 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 146 comments) on Monday, November 12, 2007 at 10:08:08 AM