From Resolution 63 to War With Iran: Kucinich Explains It

As I get ready for work in the morning, I listen to either the House or the Senate on C-Span.  Yesterday the House opened its day with one-minute speeches about the surge—alternating pro and contra.  One member got up and said something so stunningly logical it froze me.  Because I was in another room, I didn’t even know it was Dennis Kucinich until I accessed the Congressional Record today.

Haven’t you been wondering all week why Bush and his anonymous henchmen are coming forward now with flimsy, unsubstantiated evidence of Iranian arms in Iraq?  Kucinich offers a lucid and very persuasive reason:  Bush must produce something now, because the Congressional debates on war resolutions are occurring now.  He is laying the groundwork to invoke a specific section of the 1973 War Powers Resolution and thus to bypass whatever Congress resolves.

Please read Kucinich's remarks below the fold.  They are amazing.

Bush's emphasis on the phrase "I will protect our troops" is a tip-off to his strategy. This line was especially prominent in his recent press conference.  Kucinich brilliantly deconstructs the motive for this:

BUSH LAYS GROUNDWORK FOR ATTACK ON IRAN -- (House of Representatives - February 15, 2007)

MR. KUCINICH:  [...] yesterday the President said that the Iranian Government is supplying deadly weapons to fighters in Iraq, even though he cannot prove the orders came from the highest levels in Tehran.

Why is he maintaining this? I believe he is maintaining it to satisfy section 2C of the 1973 War Powers Resolution which reads in part: "The constitutional powers of the President as Commander in Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances and are exercised pursuant to a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions or its Armed Forces."

So what is going on here is that the administration is seeking a justification for a military conflict with Iran. That is why the administration is changing its emphasis. Its justification now is to protect U.S. troops in Iraq. Very significantly this justification could relieve the President of needing congressional authorization.
 
Contrary to his assertion, the President has been provoking Iran. The President has given U.S. military the authority to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq, but fails to present credible evidence that explosives used in Iraq have come from Iran.

He is laying the groundwork for an attack on Iran and appears to be preparing to bypass congressional authorization for a military strike against Iran.

As Kucinich also notes, Bush's strategy results directly from the ongoing House debates about the surge.  It is an attempt to pre-emptively undercut whatever Congress resolves:

In light of the House of Representatives' action to disapprove of the President's escalation in Iraq and the mounting opposition to the war in Iraq, the President has advanced a new justification that could be used to bypass congressional approval for a military conflict of war.

I have been unable to make sense of the sudden White House PR surge about Iranian weaponry in Iraq.  For me, Kucinch's simple, one-minute statement resonates with truth.  His full statement is here.      

•  Impeach Bush before he kills again

  Bush is a liar and a killer, and only his removal from office will stop him from killing again. Does America really want to play double or nothing in the Mideast?

  by ANKOSS on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 06:07:55 AM PDT

•  National emergency?

  "The constitutional powers of the President as Commander in Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances and are exercised pursuant to a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions or its Armed Forces."

  Even if the government of Iran were giving weapons to the Iraqi Shiite militias, it is hard to see how that qualifies as a national emergency.  An attack on our troops in a combat zone is not a national emergency.  If it were, the flow of arms to the Sunni militias/insurgents in Iraq from Saudi Arabia would have forced us to wage war on the House of Saud.

  by DWG on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 06:08:55 AM PDT

  •  yes, I agree, this scarcely seems to qualify

    as a national emergency.  That's the reason the phrase "I will protect our troops" sounds so bizarre.  We sent them to war, of course they're being attacked.  And thus for me Kucinich's explanation makes sense of the otherwise nonsensical.

    by katchen on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 06:18:48 AM PDT

    •  Kuccinich is right

      This is the logic Bush is using, but national emergency is the key phrase and if Bush decides to justify military action, then the Dems in Congress need to press for why this is a national emergency rather than aiding an attack on our troops in a war zone and explain why the same logic has not been applied to the Saudis.  The time for impeachment is overdue.  

      by DWG on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 06:31:41 AM PDT

    •  Doesn't qualify unless you read it differently

      If you interpret the statement to mean a national emergency that is caused by (among other things) an attack on the U.S. military.

      That is, the emergency is created by an attack on the military. By that interpretation, an Iranian attack on US forces in Iraq would, by definition, create a national emergency ... in steps The Decider.

      It's a simple Gonzales legal interpretation ... wrong ... but enough to implement the assgoal asshole's goal.

      by EclecticFloridian on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 07:21:09 AM PDT

•  Kucinich is correct

  The Bush administration is concerned that a sovreign Iraq and a soreign Iran may be going their own way and finding solutions in which the US is not a part of the decision making process. They have the affrontery to be engaged in a diplomatic surge backed up by putting the money where the mouth is.
  Iran's meddling in Iraq includes things like sending in some of the most dangerous weapons you can supply to a country, bankers. Irans diplomats whom we have been interdicting are bankers and businessmen with a billion dollars to spend on restoring the transportation infrastructure Iraq needs to govern.
  The War Powers Act is the reason we are proposing a redeployment of our troops out of harms way. Bush is holding them in harms way as hostages so that Congress can't call him to heel.

  by rktect on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 06:09:40 AM PDT

•  Kucinich As Cassandra

  He's telling us what is going down, but nobody (with any authority anyway) is going to listen.

  The only benefit I can see to the Bushiter attacking Iran would be yet another opportunity to impeach Bush and Cheney.

  Lefty!!!

  by LeftyLimblog on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 06:10:03 AM PDT

•  This is one of the MANY reasons why

  I support Kucinich for President, and have signed up to volunteer. :)

  by flautist on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 06:17:26 AM PDT

•  Love Dennis.

      I always thought that he was a cut above most politicians. I was very surprised in early 2004 when I took a "blind" test on the internet that promised to match my views to the candidate: Dean, Kerry, et al. I was more than a bit surprised to find that I matched highest with Congressman Kucinich.

  by Hillbilly Dem on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 06:24:01 AM PDT

  •  I Don't Trust That Blind Test

    I took it the other day and it also said my views matched Kucinich 100%. I find that very suspicious, as I voted anti-gun control and I'm pretty sure Kucinich isn't pro gun.

    by YestoWes on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 07:26:08 AM PDT

    •  he is anti gun

      but i wouldnt be suprised if he was against government control of guns.

      by carlos oaxaca on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 11:31:06 PM PDT

•  OF COURSE it's why the WH is taking...

  this approach.  The Decider appears to want to attack Iran, and the Guy Who Decides for the Decider decided long ago that he would attack.  I mean, when you have a guy who literally shoots first and asks questions later holding the ultimate decision-making authority here, the ultimate decision is fairly predictable.

  The question is why Kucinich is about the only one stating the obvious in public.  Where are Pelosi and Reid?  Where are the presidential contenders?  Hell, I haven't seen anything here about Feingold stating it.

  Remember, we are dealing w/ people who create their own realities.  While Congress is tied up in knots about a non-binding resolution, they're moving carrier groups into the Gulf.  Why aren't leading Dems sounding warnings about what's going on here?

  by RFK Lives on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 06:34:06 AM PDT

  •  kucinich is running

    he is a contender if we want him to be

    we the people are the deciders, aren't we?

    by carlos oaxaca on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 11:32:25 PM PDT

•  Wow.

  Just wow.

  by bluedogtxn on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 06:34:06 AM PDT

  •  yes, I think this is a WOW analysis

    on Kucinich's part.  And yet it falls down a black hole.  It is certainly a reasonable explanation, worthy of debate, worthy of news coverage.  But it disappears...

    by katchen on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 06:38:04 AM PDT

•  Dennis K.

  sees clearly through the sulfur (or should it be sulfur dioxide) fumes. I wish there were a few more around like him.

  by truong son traveler on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 06:47:40 AM PDT

  •  Just maybe a little taller and w/o the hair dye

    /snark

    ;)

    by polecat on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 07:47:56 AM PDT

    •  Yeah.

      I much prefer a pretty rock star who will tell us pleasant lies.

      by chesapeake on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 08:19:30 AM PDT

      •  pretty rock stars

        we haven't had an election that did not have the "rock star" component since the Eisenhower years.
        television, since its infancy has been a huge influence in the thinking and perceptions of americans in national elections, starting with the kennedy/Nixon 1960 election.

        doesn't say much for the voting population...

        by migo on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 09:02:27 AM PDT

        •  Snarkalicious!!!

          But hey, he's got a cute trophy wife!

          by polecat on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 11:37:44 AM PDT

•  Waiting for Aramegeddon

  The Congressional debate over to surge or not surge n Iraq, non-binding of course, by the Democratically controlled congress, is more endless distraction from the slow march toward the bombing campaign by the US on Iran.  This has already been predicted by Scott Ritter already with back-up from Seymour Hersh.  I feel that I am watching from a window, as children play with a box of matches in DC.  For all his failed attempts at presidential campaigns, Representative Kucinich is right on the mark.  Mr. Bush is already blaming Iran for targeting US troops in Iraq and I am sure, sometime before April, when his partner in mayhem, Phony Tony Blair, will step down as Prime Minister, his last act will be to give Mr. Bush all the international cover he will need to do this last, horrific act that will set the final match that will set the middle east blaze on fire.

     The argument is the safety of the troops and the Democratically controlled congress is giving Mr. Bush with Cheney at his side, the tacit approval he needs for this.  Actions speak louder than non-binding resoultions, with more air-craft carriers in the Gulf, more patriot missle batteries, the movement of Sadr and his supporters to the safety of the marsh on the border of Iran are more signals this will occur.  Bombs are going off in Iran, targeting the Iranian guard and a deadline looms at the UN on the 21st of February.  Russia, China and India are already preparing for the post-US dominated world by setting up the frame-work for a new economic relationship in the world.  Mr. Bush et al, have been very carefull not to say they are going to "invade" Iran and congress is equally, clear that on the record, Mr. Bush would have to seek authorization first, barring an emergency, before any miltary action against Iran can commense.  That is why, the BushCo propaganda machine, is cranking out evidence that Iran is supplying weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq, directly, targeting US forces. The Democrats and Republicans have shifted the debate to the surge for a reason.  They are preparing to defend the Green Zone with a few more troops in Iraq.  It is obvious that many will use this as an excuse to absolve themselves from the unthinkable, using even nuclear weapons, on nuclear power plants, to justify the next phase of the war with Iran. The Democrats, with the rare exception of a few, will march in lock step, with the Republicans to aid in this new war effort just like Europe did before WWI.  But unlike WWI, it will be like a 21st century version of "Pearl Harbor" but not for the Americans.  It will be like a Pearl Harbor for the Iranians and for most people in the middle east an act of vicious aggression by an arogant nation. Under Ms. Pelosi and Harry Reid more money to continue the occupation will be tied to more training for US troops not an honest consideration of a serious withdrawel in 6 months time.  The US newspapers are already saying that we, meaning you and mean, want to withdraw US forces in Iraq, before the next president is elected.  That is two years away by my calculation.  How did the papers wind up with that number?

     We are witnessing, in real time, via the inter-net , what the debate over "Tonkin Gulf" resolution would have been like waiting for the actual provocation by Iran of course, to begin.  Like the Isreali war on the country of Lebannon, it may be something that has happened a million times but it will happen unless, the congress steps in to stop it with impeachment hearings soon.  Nancy Pelosi's greatest mistake was in saying, impeachment is off the table before she got the position she holds.  We are provoking Iran and without warning we are one incident away from the beginnings of a wider war, that in the end we will not win.  God help us and our world.

  by lucretiamott on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 07:30:05 AM PDT

  •  he has failed one time

    For all his failed attempts at presidential campaigns, Representative Kucinich is right on the mark.

    he hasnt lost the 2nd one yet!

    hopefully he will go 2 for 3.

    by carlos oaxaca on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 11:35:16 PM PDT

•  A simple explanation:

  Since the neocon's have failed to provide for a permanent US military presence in Iraq by virtue of the total failure of their war effort, the only path left to them is to attack Iran. This will totally destabilize the Persian Gulf, requiring a permanent US presence on the ground to protect oilfields. At that point, Pappy Bush's sorry excuse for an offspring will haveserved his purpose and can retire to his well deserved funny farm!

  A proactive opposition in Congress to this cynical and destructive plan is mandatory now...impeachment and removal of Cheney and Bush is deserved and the only way to thwart this madness.

  by Arctor on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 07:31:40 AM PDT

•  Kucunich sees the game they

  are using.  Congress must stop them.  It appears the Pentagon is not on board either - General Pace called bullshit on the game.  

  My concern is that we may have to rely on the military to save our democracy from Bush.  

  by TomP on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 07:41:56 AM PDT

  •  And that's why he is always

    a big target.

    by mattes on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 07:52:09 AM PDT