Not What Digby Said
Posted on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 06:44:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
In my continuing campaign of disagreeing with Left bloggers and writers, I now turn to everybody's favorite (but my favorite first) blogger, Digby, who appears to endorse the very line of argument I find infuriating:
Deciding what to do next about Iraq is hard — on the merits, and in the politics. . . . By comparison, Iran is easy: on the merits, in the politics. . . . While the Congress flounders about what, exactly, it can do about Iraq, it can do something useful, while it still matters, in making clear that it will authorize no money and provide no endorsement for military action against Iran.. . . It may be just this possibility that has the administration carrying on so about how Iranians are behind the killing of Americans even though it is an absurdity. They would like to create the conditions where they can say that anyone failing to back action in Iran is failing to protect the troops.
In a sane world, the congress would move very quickly on this before that notion jells. But it won't, because they believe they must allow the president to have all "options on the table," --- . . . Still, that seems to be where they are, at least with respect to Iran. Not only are they not prepared to stop it, they are either silent on the issue or actively supporting the premise upon which the president's argument is built.
First, Digby appears to implicitly endorse the Fallows "put Iraq on the back burner" proposal which is simply unacceptable. Second, Digby simply ignores the very strong statements Democrats have made against attacking Iran, including the most crucial argument - Bush has no authority to attack Iran:
"The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the National Press Club.
Last week, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., challenged the president's ability to make such a move. In a letter to Bush, Biden asked the president to explain whether the administration believes it could attack Iran or Syria "without the authorization of Congress, which does not now exist."
More importantly, Biden said:
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about a constitutional question, Senator. Stephen Hadley was on “Meet The Press” this weekend and sort of dodged the question. Should the president be required to get the approval of Congress before he attacks Iran, should he decide to do so?BIDEN: Absolutely, positively, unequivocally. . .
MATTHEWS: But you don‘t expect him to sign that bill [his draft bill], do you?
BIDEN: No, I don‘t, but I expect it to generate a constitutional crisis were he to ignore it and to, in fact, him—for then attack Iran.
What does Biden mean? He means impeachment. That's what he means.
Now Digby joins Fallows and Yglesias in wanting to put Iraq on the backburner because, as I understand it, a threat to impeach the President if he invades Iraq is not tough enough from Dems.
Well, Digby is absolutely wrong. As I said before, want to stop a war with Iran? Then end the war in Iraq.
| < Dueling Libby Motive Briefs Filed | Cuba's Jewish Community > |
