Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Attack on Iran = Impeachment

Rep. John Conyers:

Late last year, Senator Joseph Biden stated unequivocally that “the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach” the president.

We agree with Senator Biden, and it is our view that if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued. Because of these concerns, we request the opportunity to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss these matters. As we have recently marked the fifth year since the invasion of Iraq, and the grim milestone of 4,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq, your Administration should not unilaterally involve this country in yet another military conflict that promises high costs to American blood and treasure.


Looks like Representative Conyers has had enough.

Too bad this is only reported on blogs.

advanced web statistics


Anonymous said...

Senator Biden is nothing more than a politcal hack who is in service not to Delaware and the USA, but Israel.

He attends AIPAC meetings faithfully and likes to describe himself as being a "Christian Zionist", whatever the fuck that is.

He won't do squat, if the bombs start falling on Iran, since his handlers in Tel Aviv and at AIPAC wouldn't like Joe boy to start defending America.

Conyers is another yellow-bellied traitor.

He was all over the place in the runup to the 2006 election, promising impeachment hearings if only us dumbassses would vote Democratic.

We did and then Conyers went and hid behind Pelosi's skirts.

Impeach bush? When will they start the hearings, in January of 2009, after that chimp-faced moron is living large in Texas?

zfolwick said...

there's always a way to spin it!

Think about it this way-- we invaded a country with NO infrastructure. Seriously, we may as well have invaded Mongolia for all the political and military infrastructure present in the initial 2003 push into Iraq. But the media reported a "shock and awe" campaign of b.s. Way to go guys, we're like a high-schooler picking on a 6th grade girl.

now, despite what ANYBODY says, the media and the administration will report that Iran is persuing nuclear weapons. or they'll cover themselves by saying "nuclear weapons technology-related capabilities". See the difference? One is a direct threat, the other is very vague but still invokes fear and reactionism. How about "nuclear technology".

I applaude the military for searching for alternatives to petroleum fuels, but I see it as just a chess-piece move in a large game of "let's fuck up Iran".

Oh well, there's a lot of choices to be made between now and then. Perhaps somebody with some sense will beat these swords into plowshares yet.