Is
Bush is seeking the final Rapture?
by Juan Wilson on 14 April 2006
Yesterday a fifth retired US military general called for
the resignation of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Their reason
was that he is arrogant and a bad planner who does not listen
to experts.
Today, retired colonel Sam Gardiner appeared on CNN. Two
years ago he participated in a war game focused on attacking
Iran. That in itself is no surprise.
But, Gardiner made clear that an air attack Iran would be
anything but surgical. The Iranian nuclear program is scattered
and buried. At least a half dozen sites would need to be
destroyed to seriously impare the program.
He also made the case that the Iranians would not take such
an attack laying down. About twenty military sites would
have to be hit simultaneously to keep an immediateair attack
from imperilling US troops in Iraq and Kuwait.
Even if we could disable Iran's missiles and air force from
striking our forces in Gulf Region, is is very unlikely
that we could keep the Iranians from cutting off the Straights
of Hormuz by using their Navy to lay conventional underwater
mines.
After the first supertanker explodes hitting a mine or being
hit with a torpedo, oil flow from the Gulf would dry up.
Economic chaos will follow.
Moreover, the independent groups, like Hezbula and Hamas,
that have been supported by Iran, would soon create many
serious challenges to US interests throughout the Middle
East. In short, Sam Gardiner pointed out that any overt
involvement in a conflict with Iran would escalate into
a intractable regional war.
He also added that in his discussion with people who know
about our covert operations, he sees evidence that the ground
war against Iran has already begun. Rumors have persisted
for over a year about US military black operations in Iran.
An recently there have been increasing reports from Iran
concerning conflicts between US forces and Republican Guards.
Obviously, a simmering regional war is going on throughout
the Middle East. Now Bush & Company are leaking hints
of using tactical nuclear weapons on Iran to see what the
reaction will be amongst a war weary population.
If you don't want to see us ignite into World War IV, it's
time to reach out to your elected representatives and make
some noise. Tell Bush, Inouye, Akaka, Abercrombie and Case
what you think before it won't matter.
Here
are some pertinent webpages:
http://www.dontattackiran.org
http://political.moveon.org/dontnukeiran/
http://www.clearwaterforcongress.com/petitions/pnum248.php
Island
Breath: The Rapture
US
Federal Government:
US House of Representatives: Hawaii, 1st District
Niel Abercrombie
Honolulu Office
Prince Kuhio Federal Building
300 Ala Moana Blvd.
Room 4-104
Honolulu, HI 96850
phone: (808) 541-2570 fax: (808) 533-0133
Washington Office
1502 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
phone: (202) 225-2726 fax: (202) 225-4580
Neil.Abercrombie@mail.house.gov
US
House of Representatives: Hawaii,
2nd District
Ed Case
Honolulu
Office
5104 Prince Kuhio Federal Bldg
Honolulu HI 96850
Phone: 808-541-1986
Fax: 808-538-0233
Washington
DC Office
128 Cannon HOB
Washington DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-4906
Fax: 202-225-4987
ed.case@mail.house.gov
US
Senator from Hawaii:
Senator Daniel Akaka
Honolulu Office
Prince
Kuhio Federal Building
300 Ala Moana Blvd., Rm. 3-106
Box 50144
Washington Office
Honolulu, HI 96850
141 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-6361
senator@akaka.senate.gov
US Senator from Hawaii:
Senator Daniel Inouye
Honolulu Office
Prince Kuhio Federal Building
300 Ala Moana Blvd., Rm. 7-212
Honolulu HI 96850
Washington Office
722 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-3934
senator@inouye.senate.gov
President
of the United States
George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington DC 20500
Phone: 202-456-1414
Fax: 202-456-2461
president@whitehouse.gov
Congressman
against Executive War Privilege
by Peter DeFazio 13 April 2006 Fourth Congressional
District, Oregon
WASHINGTON, DC-U.S. Congressman Peter DeFazio will send
a letter to President Bush reminding him that he is
constitutionally bound to seek congressional approval
before making any preemptive military strikes against
Iran. DeFazio is circulating the letter to other members
of Congress seeking additional support.
Recent news reports, including a report by Seymour Hersh,
who won a Pulitzer Prize for uncovering the My Lai massacre,
have indicated that the administration is planning a
military action against them.
DeFazio will also introduce a resolution expressing
the sense of the Congress that the President cannot
initiate military action against Iran without congressional
authorization. He is seeking additional support among
other House members for the resolution as well. The
text of the letter is included below:
April
13, 2006
The Honorable George W. Bush, President
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Bush:
We are concerned by the growing number of
stories that your Administration is planning
for military action against Iran. We are writing
to remind you that you are constitutionally
bound to seek congressional authorization
before launching any preventive military strikes
against Iran.
As you know, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution grants Congress the power "to
declare war," to lay and collect taxes
to "provide for the common defense"
and general welfare of the United States,
to "raise and support armies," to
"provide and maintain a navy," to
"make rules for the regulation for the
land and naval forces," to "provide
for calling forth the militia to execute the
laws of the Union, suppress insurrections
and repel invasions," to "provide
for organizing, arming, and disciplining,
the militia," and to "make all laws
necessary and proper for carrying into execution...all...powers
vested by this Constitution in the Government
of the United States." Congress is also
given exclusive power over the purse. The
Constitution says, "No money shall be
drawn from the Treasury but in consequence
of appropriations made by law."
By contrast, the sole war powers granted to
the Executive Branch through the President
can be found in Article II, Section 2, which
states, "The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief
of the Army and Navy of the United States,
and of the Militia of the several States,
when called into actual Service of the United
States..."
Your Administration has argued that this "Commander-in-Chief"
clause grants the President wide latitude
to engage U.S. military forces abroad without
prior authorization from Congress. You further
argue that previous unilateral actions by
presidents of both political parties add credence
to your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
Contrary to your Administration's broad reading,
nothing in the history of the "Commander-in-Chief"
clause suggests that the authors of the provision
intended it to grant the Executive Branch
the authority to engage U.S. forces in military
action whenever and wherever it sees fit without
any prior authorization from Congress. The
founders of our country intended this power
to allow the President to repel sudden attacks
and immediate threats, not to unilaterally
launch, without congressional approval, large-scale
preventive military actions against foreign
threats that are likely years away from materializing.
With respect to Iran, according to the most
definitive U.S. intelligence report, Iran
is likely a decade away from developing a
nuclear weapon. Even the most pessimistic
analysis by outside experts puts the timeline
at least three years away, but that's only
if everything in Iran's development program
proceeds flawlessly, which would defy the
history of nuclear programs around the world,
including Iran's.
The architects of the U.S. Constitution were
well aware of government models, like the
monarchy in Great Britain, which vested the
power to go to war with the head of state.
Instead, the Founding Fathers made a conscious
decision to grant the solemn war-making powers
to the Legislative Branch. The intent of the
authors of the U.S. Constitution is clear.
In the Federalist Paper Number 69, while comparing
the lesser war-making power of the U.S. president
versus the King of Great Britain, Alexander
Hamilton wrote, "...the President is
to be commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy
of the United States. In this respect his
authority would be nominally the same with
that of the King of Great Britain, but in
substance much inferior to it. It would amount
to nothing more than the supreme command and
direction of the military and naval forces,
as first General and admiral of the Confederacy;
while that of the British king extends to
the declaring of war and to raising and regulating
of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution
under consideration, would appertain to the
legislature."
James Madison declared that it is necessary
to adhere to the "fundamental doctrine
of the Constitution that the power to declare
war is fully and exclusively vested in the
legislature."
In 1793, President George Washington, when
considering how to protect inhabitants of
the American frontier, instructed his Administration
that "no offensive expedition of importance
can be undertaken until after [Congress] have
deliberated upon the subject, and authorized
such a measure."
In 1801, Thomas Jefferson sent a small squadron
of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect
against possible attacks by the Barbary powers.
He told Congress that he was "unauthorized
by the Constitution, without the sanction
of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense."
He further noted that it was up to Congress
to authorize "measures of offense also."
While presidents in the latter half of the
20th Century have initiated military action
without prior authorization by Congress, "everybody
does it" is not a legitimate defense
to ignore the plain words of the U.S. Constitution,
the clear intent of the authors of the U.S.
Constitution, and more than 150 years of legal
precedent.
We also want to go on record that the Authorization
of Force Resolution (Public Law 107-40) approved
by Congress to go after those responsible
for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks
on our country does not, explicitly or implicitly,
extend to authorizing military action against
Iran over its nuclear program. The legislation
specifically says, "The President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate
force against those nations, organizations,
or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks
that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored
such organizations or persons, in order to
prevent any future acts of international terrorism
against the United States by such nations,
organizations, or persons." There is
no evidence that Iran was involved in the
September 11, 2001, attacks. Nor is there
any evidence that Iran harbored those who
were responsible for the attacks.
Further, the Authorization of Force Resolution
(Public Law 107-243) approved by Congress
to go to war with Iraq does not extend to
military action against Iran over its nuclear
program. This resolution only authorized you
to "(1) defend the national security
of the United States against the continuing
threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions
regarding Iraq." Like P.L. 107-40, there
is no explicit or implicit authorization on
the part of Congress in P.L. 107-243 that
would allow you to attack Iran without first
coming to Congress to seek a new authorization.
When asked about reports of your administration
planning for war with Iran, you said on April
10, 2006, "It [prevention] doesn't mean
force, necessarily. In this case, it means
diplomacy." We agree with the focus on
diplomacy. But, we want to be clear, should
you decide that force is necessary, seeking
congressional authority prior to taking military
action against Iran is not discretionary.
It is legally and constitutionally necessary.
Sincerely,
PETER DeFAZIO
Member of Congress
|
|
|
