Just a coupla of words to add to the Mix about these Congressional limitations on an Iranan invasion.
Cambodia
Nicaragua

Mike, I understand the Nicaragua reference, of course. But while I don't know the Cambodia history well, I thought Congress only prohibited ground troops from being sent into Cambodia, allowing Nixon to merrily bomb as much as he wanted.

did. for the second time around.

Some of my friends, who died in the war, and whose names ARE NOT on the Wall, DIED in Cambodia, in the ground war. Those names ARE NOT allowed because they didn't die in Viet Nam, they died "illegally" in Cambodia. I had known they were killed in Cambodia, but imagine my "surprise" ( couldn't stop crying, went back to drinking for a while)when I went to look for their names. I found out this little known fact from the support people at the Wall. Check it out for yourselves. My younger brother (Army) faught in Cambodia, as did one of my cousins (Marine). Go ask at the WALL.

Congress needs to put the armed forces on the spot here. A simple resolution prohibiting an attack on Iran stands a fair chance of just being ignored by the unitary executive acting as decider-in-chief. What's needed is a motion reminding members of the armed forces that attacking Iran in contravention of congressional wishes would be acting in violation of the military oath to uphold the constitution. Giving the armed forces direct permission to revolt would up the ante in a way the administration can't easily counter and just might be the only way to bring Cheney's reign of war to an end.

I feel petitions are useless at this stage and I agree with Turkey^3 that any sort of executory binding via resolution will simply be ignored. I don't agree with T3 about his second point; members of the military serve the constitution and the president, not congress.

The Military WILL follow the President, look at Abu-Grayb, Gitmo, Bagram, etc. NEVER, NEVER make the mistake of thinking they won't. Generals got careers, privates got orders, that's the way it is. Look at what happens to whistleblowers. No, it's the President that HAS to be reined in, if Congress can't or won't, then we're on our own. (or else go with the flow)

Read Robert Perry's article, can't say what I want to say, so I don't know what to say. I am glad those Soldiers were finally recognised for their valor and service. I'm sure that the bodywashing still goes on, nothing new there. ( I suppose I should add El Salvador, to my first post)

Kucinich is also a cosponser of all and introduced the bill w/ rep. Paul. He is the only pres candidate that taken an unequivical stand on both Iraq and Iran.

hedgehog. I'd watch the movie, I have the time, but this machine is ancient and not enough harddrive for more than a couple of minutes video. I gather from your explaination it has to do with Venezuela. That's them not us, and that was to Restore their President not to go against him. Now I don't doubt there ARE generals who would want to at this time, in an attempt to save the country, but they're old and want that golfcourse retirement. Generals in South America are RICH people, here they are public servants and WILL want that retirement.

Excuse me for being a nitpicking irritating pedant, but Pete De Fazio is an OR rep. He has been representing my father's district in S. Oregon for several terms.

Other than that, go ahead and sign petitions!

Hmm. How embarrassing. In my defense, DeFazio was BORN in Massachusetts. And that's pretty much like being a representative from that state.

Thanks for this. The more people that are active in speaking out against our bellicose administration, the better our chances of survival.