Senators to Bush: Stay out of Iran

From CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's warnings to Iran and Syria to not interfere in Iraq and the arrest of six Iranians in Iraq by U.S. troops raised eyebrows Thursday on Capitol Hill, where senators warned Bush against widening the nearly four-year-old war.

Sen. Joseph Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, warned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that Bush did not have the authority to send U.S. troops on cross-border raids.

"I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that, and he does need congressional authority to do that," Biden, D-Delaware, said during a Thursday hearing on Iraq. "I just want to set that marker."

That Bush speech statement definately caught my ear too while watching it, and I wondered what he meant:

"We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq," he said.

To destroy a network could potentially mean going into Iran or Syria. Hell, when the network reaches all the way into Tehran and Damascus, how do you destroy it without wiping out the source?

Even if he has no intention of directly going into those countries, attacking their networks will undoubtedly raise the bar and provoke them towards a response sooner or later. Iran has already got to be fuming over the US attack on their embassy in Iraq. Draw a response, and then use it as justification for a retaliatory attack on Iran or Syria? How can he possibly gamble that this will get any better if he opens up two new fronts with things as bad as they already are in Iraq?

Dems, you better come up with something fast before this looney causes WW3. Could he actually go in there claiming that it is preemptive defense and get away with it?

Bush's tough tactics are a 'declaration of war' on Iran

Friday, January 12, 2007

By Anne Penketh

American forces stormed Iranian government offices in northern Iraq, hours after President George Bush issued a warning to Tehran that was described as a "declaration of war".

The soldiers detained six people, including diplomats, according to the Iranians, and seized documents and computers in the pre-dawn raid which was condemned by Iran. A leading UK-based Iran specialist, Ali Ansari, said the incident was an "extreme provocation". Dr Ansari said that Mr Bush's speech on future Iraq strategy amounted to "a declaration of war" on Iran.

"The risk is a wider war. Because of the underlying tensions, we are transferring from a 'cold war' into a 'hot war'," he said.

So, attack their embassy, kidnap their diplomats, and destroy their networks. Sounds like war to me. If Iran sits back any further, gonna have to start calling them pussies. As much as I'd hate to see it, there's only so much a country is going to take. Since congress can't seem to do much to stop Bush the madman, and the war appears to be opening more fronts (Somalia), it's coming to the point where I am starting to HOPE that Iran and Syria drive them out.

I know, that is sad, coming from an American. But for Christ's sakes, what more is it going to take to drill the message into Bush's head that the American public is through with this war? He's also clearly lost the majority of Congressional support, and yet he STILL persists, trying to send in more troops and now attacking an Iranian embassy in an escalative move. I don't know why I even bothered with this story. The attempts of these senators to draw a line in the sand and keep Bush out of Iran will surely just fall on deaf ears.

I think we have all the makings of a constitutional showdown between the president and congress.

If bush is really intent on going into Iran I think now would be the time... at least half our navy is in Persian gulf and he just sent 20,000 plus more troops to Iraq (maybe for Iran?) and time is running out on him.

Now we will find out if congress means what it says and says what it means.
Can they really do anything to stop bush short of impeachment if he does go into Iran? Or will this be like the secret war in Cambodia? Where every knows were fighting a war there but no one will admit it.

Brits to Bush...................... we say the sooner the better, take out the main international state sponsor of terror, we are with you

Originally posted by English Speaking Alliance
Brits to Bush...................... we say the sooner the better, take out the main international state sponsor of terror, we are with you

speak for your self
should be minority of brits like a minority of americans still support bush

dont see why britain should risk the lives of more service men and women for a trigger happy lunitic in power accross the atlantic
also same goes for the americans doubt they want to send more people in

yes the us starts it and we clean it up

Bush is an arrogant little dill.

news.yahoo.com...

Not the critics OR the American people are going to stand in Bush's way no matter how few support him.

As far a constiutional showdown between congress and bush, i doubt that wil happen. Why? Because "something" ELSE will happen before then... Israel will attack Iran first, a "terror" attack over here or a combination of the two and it will be all downhill from there.


You all need to be asking yourselves why and how Bush got the power he does in the first place..

I will promise you all this.. ANY premptive strike on Iran will reveal some very rude awakenings to the whole world.


[edit on 14-1-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]

and also when does Tony Blair leave office is it march or july?

Britain also has a navy force in the gulf if Israel and the US is going to have Britains support attacking Iran they would have to do it before Blair leaves office.

From what i understand about this situation, the Irans people were arrested with links of helping the Insurgencey and it status as an Embassy wasent legal thus far game! Some that they did find had immunity and were released!

Get some facts straight before you anti-american trash start popping off your mouths saying your american but hoping for a lose in the middle east.


Remember we are still in Afganistan too and I think the wereabout of Osama Bin Laden should be found thats one thing I think the the current Bush and COmpany need to do and before you go off attacking me I do believe that the terriorists needed to be stopped in Afganistan. Saddam needed to be removed but it could of been done different and done with more troops orginally. Iraq could of waited, Bin Laden should of been hung first.

I agree with you that we probably should not be poking at other countries as of right now because imo we have our hands full. However, I do have one question for you. Say a group of people mortar one of our posts over there and kill 50 Americans then haul butt to Iran...do you think we should be able to go after em?

This is a tough one because we have really don't need to be fighting on yet another front right now.

Originally posted by etshrtslr
I think we have all the makings of a constitutional showdown between the president and congress.

If bush is really intent on going into Iran I think now would be the time... at least half our navy is in Persian gulf and he just sent 20,000 plus more troops to Iraq (maybe for Iran?) and time is running out on him.

Now we will find out if congress means what it says and says what it means.
Can they really do anything to stop bush short of impeachment if he does go into Iran? Or will this be like the secret war in Cambodia? Where every knows were fighting a war there but no one will admit it.

20,000 more troops is not enough to invade Iran.

We would need another 150,000+ troops to invade. (current troops in Iraq cannot leave if we go to war with Iran as Iraq would further collapse)

However, 20,000 troops ontop of the current number in Iraq and combined with Iraqi units would be enough to supress the majority of an attack by Iran or Syria or both. That is, we fly in, take out what we need to or want to, continue the bombings. Meanwhile the army and Marines stand ground simply to prevent troops and supplies from going either way.

This would be the most logical plan. The idea would be to destroy the military, send leaders into hiding, distress the populace. The people are already evenly split in support or not of the current government, if it where to collapse civil war would ensue in both Syria and Iran.

Of course the radicals could win in both cases, and no matter the out come no side will like America or any Western state..

I am no military stratigist though, and our current ones are not very logical so who knows what the hell will happen.. In any case furthering this war is a mistake.. The money, the cassualties.. the fact that this war is lasting a long time as far as wars go (averaging around 4-5 years and this one shows no sign of ending..)

As far as "stoping" the war and Bush short of impeachment would be to cut off funding. Democrats and a few Republicans have said they will support those actions, the American people might be less forgiving to any politician who does such a thing.. it would be like making the troops pay for Bush's faults..

And as far as the current provisions not legally allowing Bush to cross borders..

As far as I personally understand it, any where the threat on American's be it troops or civilian or intrest he has the athority to attack. Hence samollia.. If in the name of thworting a terrorist attack or some bs he could cross the borders with the current troops at his command. He also has the right to deploy troops any where in the world for (90 days?) which he did at the begining of Iraq .. We never gave a "declaration of war" to Iraq or Afgahnistan either, they are currently ongoing opperations..

George Double Trouble has bitten off way more than he can chew.


He should stay out off Iran...

I don't believe GWB is running this thing. He isWAY to stupid to think this # up even if it is a F#CK UP. It is senseless! And what the hell happened to Osama? Is he forgotten now?

That #hole needs to hang. In fact, not so easily!! Perhaps pull his finger nails and toe nials out and all his teeth and then nail him to a big tree to rot.

I find it hypocritical and funny how so many Brits seems to hate and despise President George Bush. Where's the moaning and growning about Blair, after all he's the one that sent your troops to Iraq, not Bush? Why dont you stay off another countries president for a day or two, the press will take up the slack, dont worry. Its hard as hell now to hear a positive word about him.

Should we go to war with Iran, hell no. The US doesnt have the manpower to do it right now and to only attack them by the air would hurt or relations with the Iranians that arent antiUS. If it comes down to Iran geting nukes, the other PG countries will respond or China will put its foot down.

And to the question above about going into Iran after guys that blew up a post- no. Thats were diplomacy has to come in just asit did with Mexico with regard to killers running south of the border.

Blair (UK) and Howard (Australia) are just as stupid and will follow the US into Iran if that happens...


...that really pees me off ...was not my country's war...never was...but is now


Thanks GWB and the rest of the liars and schemers.