"Could"

McClatchy's Matt Stearns writes that "Taking military action against Iran could put President Bush on a collision course with Congress, leading Democrats and a Republican lawmaker cautioned Friday following Bush's threat of unspecified consequences for alleged Iranian meddling in Iraq." You'd like to think that starting a second war would rather than could set Bush on a collision course with congress.

That said, considering that congress was willing to cave to Bush on FISA and, eventually, on Iraq funding I don't think Bush seriously needs to worry that congress would stop him from starting a war with Iran or, for that matter, Venezuela. The Democratic majorities aren't large ones, and plenty of Democrats still seem to think the appropriate response to Bush yelling "Boo! National security! Here's my plan to make everything much worse!" is surrender.

Comments

I don't know why I even get my hopes up about the Democrats anymore. I really don't.

Posted by Freddie | August 12, 2007 11:22 AM

...erm, shouldn't that be "start a third war"?

Posted by raff | August 12, 2007 11:54 AM

That's the price of having only a razor-thin majority -- it's stalemate in Congress, so Bush will win every time. The '08 elections are the only way to fix it.

Posted by Bat of Moon | August 12, 2007 12:36 PM

You'd like to think that starting a second war would rather than could set Bush on a collision course with congress.

It didn't, but I think you mean starting a third war . . .

Posted by rea | August 12, 2007 12:43 PM

Bush could announce he was starting internment camps for Democratic members of Congress and Democratic members of Congress would vote to authorize it.

Posted by steve duncan | August 12, 2007 12:51 PM

The Democrats will cave every time, because the party leadership fundamentally accepts the same equation that the Republicans hold sacred, i.e. that

Security = national interest = military power = oil.

This is the essential foundation of the foreign policy consensus touted by the “foreign policy community”.

Until that foundation is effectively challenged, we’ll never be able to find a way out of the hegemonic aims and strategies pursued by the US government, whether Republican or Democratic.

Posted by Justin X | August 12, 2007 1:09 PM

Frankly, I don't see how any incidental contact between Bush and the Nerf Congress could be called a "collision."

Posted by Primigenius | August 12, 2007 1:23 PM

Bush could announce he was starting internment camps for Democratic members of Congress and Democratic members of Congress would vote to authorize it.

Harsh. But not harsh enough. As soon as Mitch McConell pointed out that the detainee dems still had rights, the left wing Obama/Clinton coalition would require the sites be placed on Guantanamo before they could support the plan. Lindsay Graham would relucantly agree.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | August 12, 2007 1:25 PM

"Security = national interest = military power = oil"

Do you mean controlling oil or having secure access to oil? The Carter Doctrine and FDR's deal with the Saudis was about the latter while the Iraq War may have been about the former. Having governments with which we have friendly relations export us oil, such as Canada and Mexico, is cheaper than controlling it. We could have friendly relations with Iran, but the DC elite is dead-set against this. Where does the Democrats' rolling over on wiretapping fit into oil? The idea that the Democratic leadership needs to grow a spine is probably a better explanation for that.

Posted by Reality Man | August 12, 2007 1:29 PM

Reality,

Add FISA in front of Justin's "National Security" and it still flows.

Matt had a post the other day about dependency on Saudi oil and the possible end result if the US were to able ween itself off of it, or petroleum in general.

I think the major counterpoint in that thread was something along the lines of "but Europe and Asia would still keep the Saudis in business", which is basically true in the short-term but overlooks the long-term effects of that significant energy technology event that allows the US to move decidedly away from petroleum in the first place. As in data management and services, countries and companies who want to keep up won't be able to avoid the new energy paradigm either, and it will take a US or Europe to break that mold.

Also looking at the "oil industry" by itself is really missing the point. You have to consider the massive financial and logistical interests that underpin the daily workings of this market; the financial and derivative obligations alone are huge. Then there are the peripheral industrial interests that we all know about such as automotive, transport, defense and manufacturing. Then there are numerous overseas political interests as well that have their own domestic influence in trade, finance and security.

So what you are looking at when people say "oil" isn't just the extraction, processing and shipment industries, but more so the entire financial support and industrial dependency network that relies on the basic assumption of oil as the primary energy staple.

Therefore I think it is wishful thinking to assume that the "oil" lobbying influence doesn't extend as broad and deep as well. That "influence" can also be something as simple as not wishing to piss off everyone and their sister.

So it should be no surprise that Democrats cave when faced with these odds. It's just sad that they feel they have to.

Posted by Thunderlips | August 12, 2007 2:59 PM

"The '08 elections are the only way to fix it."

That's exactly right. A handful of the roots-supported D's caved, and they should be shown their walking papers. Meanwhile, any D who voted for both habeas repeal and FISA extension should be targeted for a primary challenge. Next year looks good enough that we don't have to worry about one of those going the wrong way and disturbing a razor thin margin, at least in the House, and frankly I think it would result in actual gain.

Also, Thunderlips is right.

Posted by drinkof | August 12, 2007 3:33 PM

It may seem like a joke to imagine Democrats approving a Bush initiative to intern Democrats.

But during the Clinton years marijuana arrests soared. By the end, the Dems had persuaded themselves that they should outlaw dancing, take control of the pop music industry, and run Joe Lieberman for VP.

I guess the air gets pretty thin when you're up near the top.

Posted by serial catowner | August 12, 2007 4:14 PM

Reality Man, of course “we” need secure access to oil, as we do to every other traded commodity. But with oil, mere trade is not the issue. Chavez is more than willing to “trade” Venezuelan oil and have “friendly relations” with the US. So did Mossadeqh in Iran, or for that matter Saddam Hussein.

The issue is control, has always been (witness Britain’s previous imperial role in Mesopotamia), and is increasingly so as competition heats up among industrial and newly industrializing countries today and in future for a limited natural resource that is (under existing technologies) key to industrial profits directly and indirectly (hence the overwhelming overlay of financial and economic interests that Thunderlips mentions above).

With the drive for control, comes the willingness to resort to the big whip of CIA efforts to undermine intransigent governments and ultimately exercise of the military weapon which also feeds and lines the pockets of the military-industrial complex and its lobbyists.

The Democrats “roll over” on anything which appears to compromise these interests, which can always be effectively shrouded in the veil of “national security”, but which at the same time provide them with mountains of financial support in and out of election season. To challenge this weak-kneed dependency, we have to begin with whole-scale reform of the system of political financing - at least as a start.

Posted by Justin X | August 12, 2007 5:03 PM

That's the price of having only a razor-thin majority -- it's stalemate in Congress, so Bush will win every time. The '08 elections are the only way to fix it.

Hilarious.

Tell me, when the Senate votes 97-0 that they'd never dream of curtailing Cheney's authority to bomb Iran -- what fucking miracle is the next election going to bring? Reid and Pelosi -- some of the "good" Dems, I'm told -- have done nothing that I can see to oppose, even postpone the many sell-outs of the "opposition" party.

The system is broken, it's gamed by dozens of savvy players (among whom few are more skilled or determined than the "defense" and "security" communities). It's all empty forms and rituals, now. You want a primer on 21st Century American national politics, watch old videotapes of the Politburo.

Posted by sglover | August 12, 2007 8:37 PM

Remember, it's important that you do your civic duty and vote in November 2008.

Vote for the pro-War candidate of your choice, but vote!

Posted by kafka | August 12, 2007 8:47 PM

The Iran war is a done deal. If Bush doesn't start it in 2007 or 2008, whoever wins in 2008 will start it in 2009.

The arms deals to the Saudis and Israel were to seal the deal, nothing more. The Saudis were reluctant to get on board, and the Israelis wanted the US to start it, not them, so they wouldn't get blamed when it inevitably goes sour. Cheney arranged this deal so the Israelis would start the war (Avigdor Lieberman explicitly told the Israeli government that they had a "green light" to attack Iran themselves any time they want - this undoubtedly came direct from Cheney) and so the Saudis would sit back and let it happen. The other possibility for Israel is that they were guaranteed by this deal money for weapons no matter how badly their coming attack on Syria and Lebanon goes (and it will go badly).

Given that all of the front runners for the Democrats - including the darling new boy, Obama - are firmly on board with the notion that Iran is or will be a nuclear threat to the US, and given that Democrats get their campaign money from the same military-industrial-security complex as the Republicans, I fail to see how the war can be prevented by anybody.

Even impeachment of Bush and Cheney at this point probably wouldn't stop it. Even Pelosi as President could probably be stampeded into starting one if the neocons remaining in the Defense Department could arrange an incident in Iraq over the alleged "bombing our troops" or "training terrorists".

A new war in the Middle East is a done deal. Israeli will attack Syria and Lebanon again and they or the US will start one with Iran. Nothing can stop it now. The only question remaining is the setup and the timing.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 13, 2007 2:47 AM