Good Tuesday noon,
Pres. Bush seems to be saying that yesterday’s big news that U.S. intelligence now believes Iran is not actively developing a nuclear bomb doesn’t affect his policy. I didn’t hear anything specific that might signal whether the bellicose “World War III” rhetoric, which seemed to be laying the groundwork for possible U.S. military action against Iran, is now behind us. We’ll see.
In general, I thought the Pres. was on his game, presentation-wise, notwithstanding a weird question from a reporter who told Bush he looked tired and depressed. But in his argument that Congress needs to stop sending him bills (SCHIP, Iraq funding bills with troops reduction timetables) that he will veto, the prez provides an opening for something I’ve been meaning to point out since he started using that argument
Let’s say, just for the sake of discussion, that the executive and legislative branches are truly “co-equal,” as they are often called. (Quick aside number one: An honest constitutional originalist would concede that the executive branch has become much more powerful than most of the framers intended. Quick aside number two: Someday someone will have to explain to me what the prefix “co” adds to the word “equal.”)
Anyway, if it is a “waste of time” for Congress to pass bills that the president opposes, why is not a waste of time for the president to propose bills (for example, a supplemental appropriation for the Iraq war that doesn’t include even a non-enforceable goal for troops withdrawals) that he knows the majority in both houses of the Congress opposes?
Just askin’.
1. So what’s new?
2. I think that, in this context, co means really.
As in: “we’re all equal, but some are more equal than others.”
And of course now “we have seen” ….
The bellicose verbiage continues.
In other words, ‘I don’t believe my own intelligence estimates, so you still have to prove to me that you are not developing weapons, and since it is impossible to prove a negative, I won’t accept what you say and will keep ratcheting up the rhetoric.
Iran is not going to suspend its civilian nuclear program to enrich uranium, and Bush doesn’t care that our collective intelligence agencies have a high degree of confidence that any Iran nuclear weapons program has been suspended.
Bush wasn’t “misled” by the intelligence in 2002: Bushco had already decided to invade and the “intelligence” was simply to be the public justification for the attack. As several insider memoirs reveal, invading Iraq was the top priority from Day One of this administration. The idea that they were “misled” by the CIA into attacking Iraq is simply laughable propaganda, yet that’s the only story our consolidated corporate media permits.
Now, watching the unstable deranged Bush at his presser, it is clear that the “reevaluated” intelligence certainly will not be used to guide or alter an already bellicose Iran policy—but at least the CIA won’t be left holding the bag after the upcoming aerial assault on Iran sometime in 2008.
In the interests of full disclosure…
“Suspended” does not meant “Stopped.” It means temporarily — perhaps with time indefinite — ceased working on.
I see no conflict between being advised that the program has been “suspended” and continuing to apply the pressure that apparently had something to do with that suspension.
As long as Aminadinadabadab (or whatever his name is) wants to continue flapping his mouth the way he has been, and as long as Iran continues to actively support terrorists who murder for the furtherance of their cause, it seems to me we are well advised to see Iran as a real threat.
As for those congressional bills, it seems pretty clear that deliberately passing bills they know are not “veto proof” is sheer political posturing. And it does not seem beyond any traditional roles for the President to use the veto given him by the Constitution to make that point. He can’t initiate funding legislation, but he can (and in a controversial situation I believe he should) force the congress to come up with something that a majority able to survive a veto can support. We have yet to see it, and I believe it is deliberate on the part of the dem majority — so they can say how hard they tried.
In short, when politics as usual is being played, only the naive should be surprised.
And what is the sound of two mouths flapping?
It’s not surprising that (unlike us) Iran has suspended its nookyooler weapons programs.
Why should the Mullahs who pull I’m-a-dinner-jacket’s strings waste resources developing weapons halfway around the world when we’ve provided them with a convenient target next door?
One consequence of overthrowing Saddam was removing a counterbalance to Iran in the Middle East (that’s why we set up Saddam in the first place) without providing a geopolitical substitute.
Bush definitely wanted to overthrow Saddam in the worst way ;-).