Katrina vanden Heuvel: Deja vu Iran

Nation Editor and Publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel argues that Congress must act firmly to rein in the Bush Administration's rising hostilities with Iran: Nullify the war powers authority it granted to the Administration and prohibit Bush form widening the war.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• katrina
• vanden
• heuvel
• iran
• iraq
• politics
• bush
• war

[Clutch1721]

all sports fans especially the ones that pay good money to go to a stadium are mental masturbators. And you are probably worse than that,probably a republican.

[archstan8]

Did that office come from a Hollywood set? Because I wonder if she's read any books. But she's great at pretending to know what she's talking about. I used to read the Nation in grad school--hip Chomsky talk for the millionaire and nebbish. My advice to her, the "working class" advocate: go to a NFL game in NY or Philly or Baltimore and sit in the cheap seats. She'd be tossed over the railing in ten seconds if she said anything this stupid.

[adb888]

The reason Bush sent troops over to Iraq was to put down Saddam because of the threat of WMD's (which obviously weren't there). 9/11 kicked of the war on terror. The reason there are troops in Afghanistan is b/c of 9/11 to find Osama.

[adb888]

You're right the troops did capture Saddam and now they are trying to fix the gaping hole that was left behind and would have been filled with someone with Saddam's same interests or worse. And the food you are talking about is all American-owned. If the troops had just gone in and taken out Saddam you can bet it would have been like dropping an atomic bomb on Iraq, and the retaliations against America would be much much worse if the terrorists didn't receive any further challenging. A

[FerFer1958]

The troops already did their thing. They capture Saddam. Is done. Leave the Iraquis alone. If somebody is abusing you in your house, imagine the police coming in, detaining the bad guy, and then the police proceeds to install new beds and eat your food with the excuse of protecting you forever. I'm sure that nobody likes that. That new embassy that the US has there is telling the Iraqui people that the US is going nowhere for a looong time.

[FerFer1958]

I'm from Peru.I've seen how difficult is to fight terrorism. I was in the 17th fl when a small bomb was thrown to the 1st fl (State Water office). The way they capture the leader was with intelligence (what the Democrats and some Military people are suggesting). They survey a house for 4 months. When they were sure, they went in and done! Sending 140,000 troops to a muslim country where the concept of 'infidels' walking around is against their own religion and you have "terrorists" everywhere.

[adb888]

You make a very valid point, I always learn something new. But regardless of where our troops were sent or for whoever's personal agenda, they are fighting for a great cause and it is something they believe in. Bush didn't attempt to declare a war on Iraq, he declared (unofficially of course) a war on terror, which is far more than what Clinton did for this country. He would have rather sat back than take a bold step as Bush did.

[FerFer1958]

Bush war more tangible? The 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia. Bush sent soldiers to Iraq under false pretenses. Now Arabs are investing in the Military Industry of Carlisle, where Republicans have a lot of interests too (1.5 billion as per CNN 2007-09-24). You have to second guess the real reasons to go to war. I do.

[saadasim]

I would like to call them impeached, traitors and Camp Leavenworth occupants. But I can only dream.

[adb888]

Think for a minute about the last actual congress-declared war. It was WWII. The Clinton administration had our soldiers all over the world fighting "small wars" undeclared. So Bush gets the US involved in a war that admitedly has taken its toll but the war is for a cause much more tangible than Clinton's wars, and Clinton's skirmishes didn't get half the bad publicity as Iraq. It just seems a little one-sided.