Can the US-Iran Talks Succeed?

The US-Iran talks start Thursday in Geneva and, while a lot of other countries will be there too -- the UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany are all part of the so-called P5 + 1 -- it's really the United States and Iran who will have to make a deal. Even the latest flareup over the secret Iranian enrichment facility doesn't change the basic fact: that Washington and Tehran, after three decades without diplomatic relations, will be talking. It's a startling and important reversal of US policy, as promised by candidate Barack Obama in 2008, abandoning the charged rhetoric of the Bush administration, which lumped Iran incongruously into the Axis of Evil in 2002 and looked aghast at the idea of negotiating with Iran.

Robert Gates, the secretary of defense, did his part yesterday to lower the temperature of the rhetoric by stating explicitly that the US does not have a military option to deal with Iran's nuclear program. He didn't exactly take the military option "off the table," as the unfortunate phrase goes, but he did say:

"The reality is, there is no military option that does nothing more than buy time. The only way you end up not having a nuclear-capable Iran is for the Iranian government to decide that their security is diminished by having those weapons, as opposed to strengthened."

Gates, of course, has long been opposed to a military strike on Iran, and a few years ago he co-chaired a Council on Foreign Relations task force on Iran that opposed the military option and called for US engagement with Iran in pursuit of a comprehensive accord. (Incidentally, if you want to read a lengthy account of why a military strike on Iran, by Israel or the United States, would be so difficult, read CSIS' Anthony Cordesman's "The Iran Attack Plan," published Friday in the Wall Street Journal.) However, like the rest of the Obama administration's top officials, including the increasingly hawkish secretary of state, Gates did emphasize that the alternative if Iran doesn't deal is a toughened regime of economic sanctions. "There obviously is the opportunity for severe additional sanctions. I think we have the time to make that work," he said.

The reality is, of course, that it's highly unlikely that truly tough sanctions will get the support of the Russians and Chinese, and so the UN Security Council is likely to pass far more milder sanctions than the "crippling" ones, such as a cutoff of Iran's gasoline supply or a shutdown of Iran's access to international finance, that Hillary Clinton wants. The more likely result, if the talks don't go anywhere by the end of the year -- and it's almost impossible to imagine some breakthrough by then -- is that the UNSC might agree to far more mild, targeted sanctions that focus on Iran's nuclear program itself. But sanctions are the "sticks" in the US arsenal, and it's unclear what the "carrots" are -- or whether the US intends to offer the key "carrot," i.e., international acceptance of Iran's inherent right to enrich uranium. (Iranians, by the way, hate the carrot-and-stick talk, and they consider it insulting and demeaning, as if Iran were a donkey.)

Howard Berman, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a close ally of AIPAC, has introduced legislation in support of Clinton's "crippling sanctions." Writing in the Washington Post, Berman warns that his bill targets both Iran's gasoline imports and its financial dealings:

"[It] provides President Obama with a mandate to increase the level of financial penalties against Iran and would prevent companies that facilitate the provision of gasoline and other refined petroleum products to Iran from doing business in the United States. Much of the world's trade is conducted through international financial transactions in dollars that must be cleared through American banks. So if the United States were to prevent any bank doing business with Iranian banks from clearing dollar transactions, the Iranian banking system would collapse. And because Iran has to import 25 percent or more of its daily demand for refined petroleum, its economy would be seriously impaired if it were denied those imports. Indeed, a credible threat of both these sanctions might provide the best chance to persuade the Iranian regime to agree to suspend its nuclear enrichment."

Tough, yes, but as Berman points out, the bill only provides Obama with a "mandate" to impose those draconian measures. It doesn't force him to do so. And so far, Berman, in spite of pressure from AIPAC, has refused to push his bill through Congress all year. And he isn't thrilled about the idea of doing anything that might disrupt the president's ongoing diplomatic effort. It's an enabling measure only, although its passage by Congress would hurt, not help, by inflaming passions on both sides and providing Iranian hawks with yet more leverage to sabotage the talks.

Speaking for the neoconservative alliance of hawks, Israeli hardliners, and outright kooks is Eliot Cohen, writing in the Wall Street Journal today. Cohen argues that neither diplomacy nor sanctions will dissuade Iran from pursuing the bomb:

"The U.S. government has hoped for a middle course of sanctions, negotiations and bargaining that would remove the problem without the ugly consequences. This is self-delusion."

And he adds:

"Pressure, be it gentle or severe, will not erase that nuclear program. The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time."

Like many neocons, Cohen seems to feel that the military option is unworkable. Israel, he says, isn't capable of dealing a knockout blow to the Iranian program, and an American strike would "probably lead to real warfare in the Persian Gulf, disrupting oil supplies and producing global responses." So Cohen falls back on the tired old regime-change strategy:

"It is, therefore, in the American interest to break with past policy and actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Not by invasion, which this administration would not contemplate and could not execute, but through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard."

Cohen blithley ignores the fact that it was precisely President Obama's policy of offering to talk to Iran that helped to spark the Green Wave opposition movement in Iran. If "regime change" does come to Iran in the next year or two (or longer) it will be that opposition movement -- the very reformists and pragmatists who were disparaged and despised by the neocons until June 12! -- manages to get the upper hard. If Cohen's regime-change-via-America policy were to be adopted, it would vastly strengthen the Iranian hawks and undercut the very opposition it would be designed to help.

Unfortunately, what Cohen, like the rest of the hawks, wilfully ignores, and what it isn't clear that the Obama administration gets, is that the US can't just bluster and threaten Iran with sanctions to get its way. Negotiations succeed when both parties, not just one, can claim victory. To succeed, the United States is going to have to put on the table an offer to accept Iran's nuclear enrichment program, without calling for a "freeze" or the dismantling of the whole thing. In exchange, Iran is going to have to accept strict and intrusive international oversight and inspections of its facilities, to ensure that it doesn't have a military dimension. That's the deal that will work. Anything less just ain't happening.

Comments (210)

1. no. will not work. iran sees itself as a major power and believes it needs nuclear weapons to be resspected.

   not defending the regime, just don't see them dumping their weapons program.

   they may hem and haw and pretend and delay...but they are going to get their nukes eventually.

   Posted by dexter666 at 09/28/2009 @ 09:29am

2. Not quite sure I agree with you Dexter. The IAEA has repeatedly stated that according to the information they've obtained, Iran is not driving for a nuclear weapon. What they are going for is the "Japan option" in which the country develops nuclear technology for civilian uses while simultaneously putting themselves in a position to rapidly develop a nuclear weapon.

   The negotiations will follow a familiar pattern: Iran makes (and already has) several offers which resemble something akin to another "grand bargain," the U.S. then insists on a freeze on Uranium enrichment as a precondition and the talks break down.

   Posted by nkurland at 09/28/2009 @ 09:50am

3. Naturally, our right-wing bloggers will develop their selective amnesia and "magically not remember" that this is what even Dubya and Condi Rice were shooting for in late 2008 and will claim it's more "appeasement by Obama."

   And naturally, they'll offer nothing but "hints" as to what THEY'd like seen done, because an open answer would be too embarassing for them.

   and then Shingo and rightwingnutcase will go at each other for 4-5 hours later tonight!

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 09:52am

4. Why the US go after Iran? What is the logic behind it? Iran is a not threat to the region.It never started a war of it's own.It is a democratic country and a signatory of NPT with International Atomic Energy Agency. It has the mandate to use the atomic technology for the peaceful purposes. If Iran wants to make nukes, let them make it.Israel,India,North Korea and Pakistan have the nukes long ago and all are non-signatories with IAEA.That FACT is not an concern for the US and Co.Out of these 4 countries, Israel is the main threat to the world.They started many wars in the region, used the brutal powers against the Gaza .They used white phosphorous, depleted uranium on the helpless people.They even stole and sold the organs of the Palestinians held during the war. US and Co kept their silence on these matters.If they want a nuclear free world, they must abandon their stockpile of the nukes and advice others. PEACE TO THE WORLD.

   Posted by Dastu11 at 09/28/2009 @ 10:08am

5. heheh

   Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 09:52am | ignore this person | warn this person

   No advance warning about the anti-AIPAC/Israel crowd Maskie?

   Posted by OneVote at 09/28/2009 @ 10:09am

6. "But will Obama stop blustering about sanctions and really deal?"

   Not as long as US policy in the region is subject to Israeli policymakers' wishes first. And it would seem that Obama is as entangled here as he is elsewhere (Wall St, health care insurance).

   Continuity persists.

   Posted by sloper at 09/28/2009 @ 10:15am

7. Posted by nkurland at 09/28/2009 @ 09:50am | ignore this person | warn this person

   that sounds plausible. i'm just trying to put myself in their place.

   US has blown its wad in iraq and afghanistan...would have had a helluva hard time "liberating" iran if not, and unlikely to unleash strikes on iran as we try to get around to getting started to get fixin' to draw down in iraq and get out...

   and as long as israel has a stash of the nukes, i find it hard to imagine iran backing down.

   but lets go through the motions nonetheless. at least makes for good soundbites about how dangerous it is for an aggresive power to have nukes - who like the US has on numerous occasions since 1945. could use nuclear threats to back up policy and insure nobody would ever invade...

   honestly i can't see a better option for iran's leaders than to continue their program as is.

   not that i approve, of course...

   Posted by dexter666 at 09/28/2009 @ 10:17am

8. Mask,

   In your "forecast" above of what will happen on this blog as the day unfolds, you forgot one prediction.

   That prediction would be that you will post in with commentary that is in no way worthwhile or productive.

   Wait a minute...that prediction has already come true!

   Posted by sjchermak at 09/28/2009 @ 10:30am

9. Twice.

   Posted by ficheye at 09/28/2009 @ 11:04am

10. Posted by OneVote at 09/28/2009 @ 10:09am

    That's a given, OV....just as we'll get the "Israel Can Do No Wrong" fringe as well.

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 11:13am

11. Posted by sjchermak at 09/28/2009 @ 10:30am

    I support trying to negotiate with Iran, SJCHER...

    supported it when it was DUBYA and CONDI trying it too, same as Obama.

    You gotta beef with Bush and Rice's policy to Iran???

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 11:17am

12. That's a given, OV....just as we'll get the "Israel Can Do No Wrong" fringe as well.

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 11:13am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Okay....just checking....I thought for a moment you were moving left from that "moderate" position of yours...lol.... I am still saving you a seat Maskie.

    Posted by OneVote at 09/28/2009 @ 11:22am

13. Mask,

    It obviously didn't work, did it?

    Yet you still support it?

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/28/2009 @ 11:26am

14. The Mobster Who Wanted To Be Buried In Israel

    by Ted Merwin

    Special To The Jewish Week 01/28/2009

    'By defending Jewish interests and supporting the Haganah and Irgun with money and weapons, Rockaway said, Lansky and other Jewish gangsters tried to buy respectability in American society and honor among their fellow Jews. But when Lansky, about to be prosecuted for tax evasion, fled to Israel in 1970, he found himself under the shadow of his criminal past. His application for citizenship was denied when Golda Meir found out that he had been involved in the Mafia. (Many observers have speculated that the Israeli prime minister feared that permitting Lansky to settle in Israel would jeopardize donations from American Jews or even cause the Nixon Administration to defer sending the Phantom jet fighter-bombers that Israel needed to help block the Soviet weapons being placed by Egypt on the Suez Canal.) He was sent home to Miami, where he lived out his remaining days.'

    Hmmmmm....a Robin Hood of different stripe. Haganah and Irgun - terrorist organizations. That nasty Nixon. Would Peres, Olmert (currently on trial for corruption) and Bibi feel the same?

    What has happended to the Zionism over the 60 years?

    Posted by OneVote at 09/28/2009 @ 11:32am

15. 'But is this the time to be putting Lansky front and center? Rockaway said that in the early 1970s, when he first started writing about Jewish gangsters, he got a lot of flack. Many people, including Jews, asked why he felt compelled to open an old wound; some even feared that his work would draw anti-Semitic responses.

    More recently, he said, Jews have been excited to discover that they had a gangster in the family; one student of his even turned out to be the granddaughter of Evelyn Milstein, a blonde bombshell from Brooklyn who was dubbed the "Kiss of Death" because she had a predilection for Jewish gangsters. Rockaway pointed to the cliché, "What the second generation wants to forget, the third generation wants to remember." Yet even he conceded that the depredations of Madoff and other Jewish white collar criminals may turn the clock back once again, making the history of Jewish criminality in America more of a liability than a source of ethnic pride.'

    cite to above.

    Catch that....may turn the clock back again....because Madoff actually had the audacity to prey upon fellow Jews....

    oh boy................"Ethnic Pride"

    Which begs the question, is their confluence of Jewish Zionist interests and American interests, or is this a public relations ploy...."terrorism, oil, weapons of mass destruction, bringing democracy, women's rights in Afghanistan, freedom of elections,.......

    AIPAC wants you believe. But you need to understand who is AIPAC. You need to trace its history up to present date.

    Posted by OneVote at 09/28/2009 @ 11:41am

16. And the music goes 'round and 'round.

    Talk, talk, talk, talk, while Iran arms up.

    Nothing is more expensive than freedom, whether on a personal level or as a people, in ways that are plain and not so plain. The bleeding hearts who want to keep coddling dictators and madmen do not appreciate their freedom which has been won by the blood of so many.

    Dreyfuss talks about Bob Gates and even quotes him. What he doesn't understand is that when Gates says, "The reality is, there is no military option that does nothing more than buy time. The only way you end up not having a nuclear-capable Iran is for the Iranian government to decide that their security is diminished by having those weapons, as opposed to strengthened," he is speaking in code.

    What he is really saying is, the United States is not the country that is going to bomb you. Israel is. We will then defend Israel from anybody who doesn't like it.

    While Nero fiddles, Rome burns. Barack Obama may be able to sway ignorant American voters with his smooth talk and his charisma but those things mean nothing to screwballs like Ahmadinejad. BTW, Dreyfuss doesn't mention the madman's name once in either of his last too articles on Iran. Maybe he doesn't know how to spell it.

    Ahmadinejad is a religious fanatic who is, as we speak, conducting missile tests. It won't be long until puts a nuclear warhead on one he carries out his threat to obliterate Israel and finish the job that Hitler started. All it will take is ONE.

    Israel is probably drawing up the plans, as we speak, to deliver a message that Iran will not recover from any time soon. Hopefully it will also deliver Iran's people from the clutches of these maniacs. As I said earlier, Obama needs to get out of the way and let freedom ring.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 11:50am

17. If I was in charge of Iran, I would absolutely believe development of nuclear weapons to be good for my country.

    What is the primary benefit of nuclear weapons? Deterrent!

    The US has major troop deployments in two countries that border Iran, and either have troops or use of military bases in 4 other countries that border Iran. Israel has nuclear weapons, as does Pakistan and India.

    Possession of nuclear weapons is a security blanket and deterrent. I am not saying it is right for them to develop weapons, but who are we to tell them they can't.

    Imagine if China (or whoever) had invaded Mexico and Canada, and then was telling us we could not develop defensive weapons? It sure is easy for those with nuclear weapons to support enforcement of the non-proliferation treaty. Seems a bit disingenuous to me.

    Posted by Extraneous at 09/28/2009 @ 11:55am

18. If I was in charge of Iran, I would absolutely believe development of nuclear weapons to be good for my country.

    What is the primary benefit of nuclear weapons? Deterrent!

    The US has major troop deployments in two countries that border Iran, and either have troops or use of military bases in 4 other countries that border Iran. Israel has nuclear weapons, as does Pakistan and India.

    Possession of nuclear weapons is a security blanket and deterrent. I am not saying it is right for them to develop weapons, but who are we to tell them they can't.

    Imagine if China (or whoever) had invaded Mexico and Canada, and then was telling us we could not develop defensive weapons? It sure is easy for those with nuclear weapons to support enforcement of the non-proliferation treaty. Seems a bit disingenuous to me.

    Posted by Extraneous at 09/28/2009 @ 11:55am

19. The Zionists and the cronies of the war monger George W Bush , the former President are still around Obama.AIPAC and the pro Jewish media also influence the policies of the Obama Government , especially in the Middle East affairs. The Iraq war was a good example of this unholy nexus.And the Palestinians issue also. INJUSTICE MAY LEAD TO TERRORISM.

    Posted by Dastu11 at 09/28/2009 @ 11:59am

20. Liberals and progressives need to get over their hatred of Bush/Cheney and start doing what is right for America and it's allies. We have a serious responsibility, as the world's only superpower, to keep danger at bay, both for us and our allies. At the same time we need to protect our own interests in the ME.

    If Obama can be pursuasive in persuing peace, he can be pursuasive in carrying out his role as C>I>C and lower the boom when necessary. The Bush/Cheney admin. is over. I'm afraid that while they stood tall, Obama is sending messages of weakness. When the dictators of Venezuela and Libya express fondness for our President, you know we're in trouble.

    The sooner Iran is disarmed, the better. Israel's existence, a vital ally for us in the region, depends upon it.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 11:59am

21. Posted by Extraneous at 09/28/2009 @ 11:55am

    Are you an American? Would you like to have seen Hitler or Hirahito develop the bomb before us simply because they were entitled too and who the hell are WE to say otherwise. Do you have something against Jews? Smarten up.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:01pm

22. Posted by Dastu11 at 09/28/2009 @ 11:59am

    You do understand that Israel is being threatened with obliteration don't you? Jews already lived through one attempt to wipe them out. Are you hoping it wil happen again?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:03pm

23. The goal is to get Iran to go none nuke. Too,late. You can't threaten a 9th century govt and a 6th century man who is willing to martyr 1/3 of his country to bring on the 13 or whatever imam....with military power.

    Iran will be nuke free just like Clinton helped N Korea become nuke free...

    PPPPFFFTTT.

    Get used to a weaponised Iran and watch Israel take the first hit other by a direct shot someday soon, or by "missing "fissonable material......suddenly found in Israel and the US in the form of "Sunlight"...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 09/28/2009 @ 12:03pm

24. You know people, it's easy for us to sit around in our comfortable lives while the people of Israel live with the threat of extinction every day. Nobody is going to wipe America out because we sit in a position of undeniable strength. We have the firepower to destroy the world ten times over and no-one can stop us. Imagine if our leader was a madman like Ahmadinejad?

    We, however have nothing that Iran wants, that they cannot get from Russia and China. That's what makes Iran an annoyance, a very dangerous one. That and their vow to destroy Israel. Anyone who believes that a strike at Iran's nuclear facilities wouldn't send our enemies a strong clear message is simply weak.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:10pm

25. It sure is easy for those with nuclear weapons to support enforcement of the non-proliferation treaty. Seems a bit disingenuous to me.

    Posted by Extraneous at 09/28/2009 @ 11:55am

    Indeed so, but what does this mean for the future? When will the Iranians build nukes (if the North Koreans can build nukes in a starving prison state, what's to stop the oil-fat Iranians)? Will they use them against Israel? Will they just threaten Israel with them? Will Israel back down? Will Israel thumb its nose at Iran the way Cuba does towards the USA?

    Can we just ignore all this discussion of "if" Iran will get nukes and start talking about what to do when they finally build them?

    Posted by Mistral at 09/28/2009 @ 12:11pm

26. You know people, it's easy for us to sit around in our comfortable lives while the people of IRAN live with the threat of extinction every day.

    Posted by DPGrassley at 09/28/2009 @ 12:14pm

27. BTW, Bob Gates said, over the weekend on one of the talking head shows, that withdrawing from Afghanistan would be an incredible victory for the Taliban. They will have defeated TWO superpowers.

    Obama needs to do the exact same thing that George W. Bush did in Iraq and give the Generals the tools and troops they need to get the job done in Afghanistan. There's no other acceptable choice.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:15pm

28. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 11:59am

    While I have no desire to see ANY new countries develop nuclear weapons, our position of influence has greatly diminished. If the Bush/Cheney regime did anything it was to encourage our 'enemies' to develop nuclear weapons. Invading two countries in the middle east has scared Iran, and while we are stumbling with our pants around our ankles fighting two losing wars, Iran is using this opportunity to strenghten its position in the region.

    Seriously, what options do we have right now? Bombing? That would only strenghten their resolve and encourage an escalation in the region, likely resulting in Iranian troops crossing into Iraq. Total disruption of Oil production and economic disaster here in the US.

    Lets take this further, lets say we invade and topple the current Iranian regime. How are we to know that whatever government that forms in the power vacuum will not just pick up where the last one left off? Will we spend trillions more rebuilding another country?

    Thanks to George and Dick we have no stick and a rotten carrot.

    Iran knows we do not have the capability to invade, nor the willpower, thanks to Bush and friends. Talks won't work, but they are the only option, and we are not the ones dealing from a position of power.

    Posted by Extraneous at 09/28/2009 @ 12:18pm

29. Iran having nuclear weapons is alot like Israel having nuclear weapons. It will have to be negotiated, it will elevate Iran's bargaining position - just like having nuclear weapons elevates Israel's bargaining position. The alternative is to slaughter Iranian men women and children over some phony Gulf-of-Tonkin style provocation - slaughtering innocent people - because we're scared. Not that we have anything against the Tens of Millions of Civillians whose lives we would be interfering with when we drop tens of thousands of bombs on their country - we feel sorry when we kill them - but - it's necessary to kill them because they might be a threat - someday.

    We narrowly escaped having a Killer McCain and Friller Palin, who would work with Ahmadinejad to help him stay in power while cranking up a war that couldn't be put back in the bottle thus assuring further authoritarianism on both sides - Killer McCain was hell-bent to implement PNAC - Project for a New American Century - right where Cheney left it

    Posted by DPGrassley at 09/28/2009 @ 12:20pm

30. INJUSTICE MAY LEAD TO TERRORISM.

    Posted by Dastu11 at 09/28/2009 @ 11:59am

    And what injustice was perpetrated by the children at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City?

    Posted by Mistral at 09/28/2009 @ 12:21pm

31. The solution to the Middle East crisis, and the solution to the antagonism between the West and Islam is simply for America to be balanced in its dealings with Israel and the Palestinians. America seems incapable of doing that. Obama, even more than Bush, is incapable of being even handed in the Middle East. He turned a blind eye to the Gaza massacre, he is turning a blind eye to Israeli settlements. He is acting more right wing than Bush. Only his words are different. The world will soon see that his words are mere deceptions. The right wing throughout the world seems to know that. Look at Honduras. This fight between Obama and the right wing is just a mock battle, to perpetuate the deception that Obama is on the left. He is not. If the left wants to survive Obama, it will have to distance itself from him. By the way, does Hilary Clinton still want to "obliterate Iran".

    Posted by trueleftist at 09/28/2009 @ 12:23pm

32. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    so what's your solution? surgical strikes?

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:26pm

33. Imagine if our leader was a madman like Ahmadinejad?

    We, however have nothing that Iran wants, that they cannot get from Russia and China. That's what makes Iran an annoyance, a very dangerous one. That and their vow to destroy Israel. Anyone who believes that a strike at Iran's nuclear facilities wouldn't send our enemies a strong clear message is simply weak.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:10pm

    Ahmanutjob is not the leader of Iran. He is only the annoited public face. The real power rests with the supreme leader ayatollah ali khamenei.

    While you may think that air strikes on Iran would be no big deal, they would absolutely result in some form of retribution. You from you position of comfort and security have little to lose, or so you think. You call others weak? Are you kidding me?

    Iran is not Iraq, they have not had military and economic sanctions in place for a decade. They actually have a military. Any act of war by the US will result in just that a new war in the ME. You need to get a clue, or maybe your one of those wackos looking forward to WW3.

    Posted by Extraneous at 09/28/2009 @ 12:33pm

34. Iran knows we do not have the capability to invade, nor the willpower, thanks to Bush and friends. Talks won't work, but they are the only option, and we are not the ones dealing from a position of power.

    Posted by Extraneous at 09/28/2009 @ 12:18pm

    Read back what you wrote here.

    Who is 'we'?

    America does have the ability to invade but a bombing will accomplish more. Iran's leaders do not have their people behind them, similar to what is happening in America right now. Liberals and their President don't have the stomach to make the tough choices. Thanks to Bush and friends, the world knows that we will go it alone if we have to but not with our present leadership. We don't have to. 'We' just have to get out of Israel's way.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:47pm

35. Posted by DPGrassley at 09/28/2009 @ 12:20pm

    Can you name one country that is threatening to annihilate Iran?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:48pm

36. i just don't see how we have the moral voice to lecture and hector the iranians. we have a huge nuclear stockpile, and for decades have waved that big stick menacingly behind our back regardless of our self deluding self image.

    the whole issue is pointless now. sanctions will not work. if anything they may be used by the regime to whip up anti-western fervor and solidify their control.

    but we can sure talk about it a lot...

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:50pm

37. By the way, does Hilary Clinton still want to "obliterate Iran".

    Hillary was making Iran an offer they can't refuse. Unfortunately her boss doesn't have the backbone to follow up on her offer.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:50pm

38. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    so what's your solution? surgical strikes?

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:26pm

    Yes. ASAP.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:51pm

39. That might help Iran's people in their efforts to get rid of their dictator and the religious Mullahs who rigged the last 'election'.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:53pm

40. and gee - if we had not gone blundering into iraq and flattened the main bulwark against evil theocratic iran, we'd have evil secular iraq still as iran's most immediate, hated enemy!!!

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:53pm

41. Iran is not Iraq, they have not had military and economic sanctions in place for a decade. They actually have a military. Any act of war by the US will result in just that a new war in the ME. You need to get a clue, or maybe your one of those wackos looking forward to WW3.

    Posted by Extraneous at 09/28/2009 @ 12:33pm

    First of all, you have no idea of my circumstances or what I have to lose.

    Secondly, my America doesn't back down when one of their major allies is threatened with extinction. I wouldn't want to share a foxhole with you.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:55pm

42. Excuse me but this unfortunately is a lousy situation! There is only so much that can really be done so sir, I believe it is YOU who is "blustering"! If you're so wonderfully bright and know all the answers why aren't you running this country? Sick and tired of the so called pundits who really are just jerks like you!

    Posted by suzyku at 09/28/2009 @ 12:56pm

43. Naturally, our right-wing bloggers will develop their selective amnesia and "magically not remember" that this is what even Dubya and Condi Rice were shooting for in late 2008 and will claim it's more "appeasement by Obama."

    And naturally, they'll offer nothing but "hints" as to what THEY'd like seen done, because an open answer would be too embarassing for them.

    and then Shingo and rightwingnutcase will go at each other for 4-5 hours later tonight!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 09:52am

    I guess I can take the day off from this particular blog since Mask has already determined our comments.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 12:58pm

44. Posted by dexter666 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:53pm

    I disagree. We didn't have a presence in Iraq while Saddam was running around attacking the Kurds and Kuwait. Let Iran come over the border. It will be the biggest mistake they ever made. I don't think it will happen because their people aren't on the same page with their so-called leaders. If it does, we will take care of the problem once and for all. Don't forget, we will have a strong, nuclear armed Israel there for us. That's why we need to be there for them. Let Israel do what it has to and we will be in a better position to mop up.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 1:00pm

45. Posted by suzyku at 09/28/2009 @ 12:56pm

    You talkin' to ME?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 1:00pm

46. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    it might...but not until after they develop the technology i think. and once you open pandora's box o' nuclear instant respect... they'll probably keep what they have built regardless...

    i mean sure - give it a shot i guess.

    but perhaps a cool, level headed engagement with the regime could be as effective. i think they WILL get their nukes and then military strikes are no longer an option.

    so the struggle is to attempt to draw them into the world of civilized nations - not an easy task all things considered and possibly only viable after a decade or so of containment and sanctioning...

    but weeping and gnashing of teeth, though it feels good, is just a waste of energy.

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/28/2009 @ 1:01pm

47. Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 12:58pm

    Too bad, I'm getting tired of fighting your battles, heh heh. Take over please. I'm exhausted.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 1:02pm

48. Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 12:58pm

    Too bad, I'm getting tired of fighting your battles, heh heh. Take over please. I'm exhausted.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 1:02pm

    that's his game plan. just endless circular arguments.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 1:04pm

49. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 1:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    two points...

    1. iran is not stupid. i don't see them giving us an excuse to hit them by meddling too much in the US.

    2. opposition is growing in iran, but i wonder how much. i also wonder if this phenomenon may be more a result of our wishful thinking than reality. we should be careful of imputing our wishes as well as an assumption every country in the world really wants to adopt our system and become good little "towelhead" version americans... we do ever over assume this as well as our own importance/rectitude.

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/28/2009 @ 1:07pm

50. "Liberals and their President don't have the stomach to make the tough choices."

    Your neocon president sure did make a the tough choice, when he chose to invade Iraq. He acted like an 8 year old with some GI-joes, dressing up, landing on air craft carriers. He was clueless. But you keep calling folks weak or lacking backbone... etc. It sure is easy for you to call for war and agression and killing, when your sitting nice and comfortable at home. You are clueless about any ramifications. You think a "surgical airstrike" would be all it takes. Just like Bush and Cheney, no regard for the future. I bet your lousy at chess.

    "Thanks to Bush and friends, the world knows that we will go it alone if we have to but not with our present leadership. We don't have to. 'We' just have to get out of Israel's way."

    Really? Maybe the world thought that for a year or so, then they realized our military was over drawn and our financing of our agression was due directly from our borrowing money from COMMUNIST China (anyone else see the irony in that?) Now 'thanks to bush and friends' we lack the capability to 'go it alone'.

    Israel is not going to do anything, they are within range of Irans missles. They don't have much support in the region and Iran will have multiple allies in the area if Israel goes on the offensive.

    Posted by Extraneous at 09/28/2009 @ 1:09pm

51. Israel has always known the dangers of having its neighbors armed. That's precisely why the zionist mob (aka the media) is making so much noise these days. They conned the Brits into doing their dirty work, until they finally caught on and got out. Then they conned the US into doing their filth. Now even some REPUBLICANS are onto their game. The real battle seems to be whether or not the zionists can keep the American public clueless and bamboozled. Israel's real enemy isn't Iran, it's their 100+ years of relentless lying, terrorism, back door politics, bribery and deception of every stripe.

    And you know what? Karma doesn't really give a damn how 'smart' these guys are.

    Posted by DejaVu at 09/28/2009 @ 1:17pm

52. Suspect election in Iran? Solution; have results verified by old pal Jimmy Carter... ;^) -- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

    Posted by reg373 at 09/28/2009 @ 1:18pm

53. Secondly, my America doesn't back down when one of their major allies is threatened with extinction. I wouldn't want to share a foxhole with you.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:55pm

    No one is threatened with extinction. The puppet Ahmanutjob has no real power, he is all show. They are not going to attack Israel. If they do I would support bombing them back to the stoneage. As I said before the only reason to develop nuclear weapons is deterrent. Even the nutjobs realize that if you use them against another country you will be anhiliated.

    While you would not want to share a foxhole with me, I would not want you as a neighbor as you would likely as you sound like you would firebomb my house if you knew I just bought a new handgun. For the irrational fear that I may not use it for defense.

    Posted by Extraneous at 09/28/2009 @ 1:19pm

54. Secondly, my America doesn't back down when one of their major allies is threatened with extinction. I wouldn't want to share a foxhole with you.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:55pm

    Beirut Embassy bombing and USS Liberty comes to mind.

    Posted by OneVote at 09/28/2009 @ 1:23pm

55. Ok, last one.

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/28/2009 @ 1:07pm

    1. iran is not stupid. i don't see them giving us an excuse to hit them by meddling too much in the US.

    - Google, 'Operation praying Mantis'.

    2. opposition is growing in iran, but i wonder how much. i also wonder if this phenomenon may be more a result of our wishful thinking than reality. we should be careful of imputing our wishes as well as an assumption every country in the world really wants to adopt our system and become good little "towelhead" version americans... we do ever over assume this as well as our own importance/rectitude.

    - Can't even begin to reply to that nonsense.

    Posted by Extraneous at 09/28/2009 @ 1:09pm

    - I'm actually an expert chess player. And yes, I agree, Bush in the flight suit was childish. Again, you have no idea what sacrifices I or my family have made in service to their country. Let's just leave it at that.

    Israel is not going to do anything, they are within range of Iran's missles. They don't have much support in the region and Iran will have multiple allies in the area if Israel goes on the offensive.

    - Israel has bombed Iran before. They will do it again. Believe it, Iran's allies in the region fear Israel much more than they support Iran. Israel does not have the same restraints that we do but they have more to lose. Their people also are not cowards.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 1:26pm

56. Posted by DejaVu at 09/28/2009 @ 1:17pm

    Aren't there some neo-nazi sites that are missing your input?

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 1:29pm

57. Iran continues to make fools of the Obamanation and the Demoncrat congress and has no desire or need to change its course from pursuing development of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver first stike capabilities against anyone of their choosing.

    When capable in 1 to 3 years as the experts predict they will seek diligently for some feigned or imagine provication to use their new power thumbing their noses at the totally impotent U.N. controlled by terrorist sympathizer regimes and the impotent actions of the Democrats under Obamanation. Iran knows that even if Americans die Demoncrat regimes historically do nothing today.

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 1:35pm

58. The real battle seems to be whether or not the zionists can keep the American public clueless and bamboozled.

    Posted by DejaVu at 09/28/2009 @ 1:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    The press in Israel is more open to discussion about ME issues than the US!

    Unbelievable!

    Our media sucks and is lapdog of Zionism.

    'This week, a roundtable of the Jewish journalists employed by Jewish media moguls discuss Iran.'

    You can't distinguish between the "commercials" anymore.

    Posted by OneVote at 09/28/2009 @ 1:37pm

59. Iran knows that even if Americans die Demoncrat regimes historically do nothing today.

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 1:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Yeah....that is why Iran made a fool of Bush and Blair in the Strait of Hormuz.

    Posted by OneVote at 09/28/2009 @ 1:44pm

60. "Israel has bombed Iran before. They will do it again"

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 1:26pm

    Just curious...

    When did Israel bomb Iran?

    Posted by Benchrest at 09/28/2009 @ 1:47pm

61. Odd argument from our Right-wing friends...

    they attack Obama for "doing nothing"

    but then tell us WE don't have to "do anything" about Iran...Netanyahu will.

    ?!??!??!?

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 1:51pm

62. When did Israel bomb Iran?

    Posted by Benchrest at 09/28/2009 @ 1:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Iran - Iraq, what's the difference...lol......

    Posted by OneVote at 09/28/2009 @ 1:52pm

63. Odd the nation does not add to its blogs their interview gloryfying the leftist hero Hugo Chavez?! Guess his close ties with Russia and Iran and desire to develop a nuclear Venuzeula just don't fit in here right now?!?

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 1:59pm

64. When did Israel bomb Iran?

    Posted by Benchrest at 09/28/2009 @ 1:47pm

    Of course I meant the Israel has bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor and they would do it again to Iran. Told you I was exhausted. My bad.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 2:03pm

65. Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 1:59pm

    Nothing odd about it.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 2:04pm

66. Guess his close ties with Russia and Iran and desire to develop a nuclear Venuzeula just don't fit in here right now?!?

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 1:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Published on Friday, August 7, 2009 by CommonDreams.org Seven New US Military Bases in Colombia Is Hardly a Move to the Left by Moira Birss

    'In a recent edition of the Wall Street Journal, Mary Anastasia O'Grady laments an apparent shift left in the Obama administration's Latin America policy. Clearly, O'Grady hasn't been keeping up to date with current events. If she had been, she would have heard about negotiations underway between the U.S. and Colombia to establish at least seven U.S. military bases in Colombia. Last I heard, folks on the left tend to oppose increased militarization; it's tough to see seven new military bases as a move to the left.

    Why is the Obama administration pushing for these bases, despite having previously criticized Colombia's human rights record?

    The Administration's goals for the military facilities are "filling the gaps left by the eventual cutting of [military] aid in Plan Colombia," according to sources in Washington and Bogotá. The proposed bases, replacements for the soon-to-closed U.S. base in Manta, Ecuador, would serve to expand the U.S. military's counter-narcotic operations in the region, deepen involvement in Colombia's counterinsurgency war, and combat "other international crimes," according to Colombia's Foreign Minister.'

    Yeah....sure..................

    Posted by OneVote at 09/28/2009 @ 2:16pm

67. Netanyahu, the biggest neocon around, is now acting like the leader of the free world. I guess he is. It serves Israeli interests to have America tied up with wars against Muslim countries, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, whatever. Does it serve American interests? Does it serve the American people. Obama came preaching a new era of peace around the world. Was'nt that why he was elected? Now he is the foremost warmonger. I guess the neocons are smarter than we think.

    Posted by trueleftist at 09/28/2009 @ 2:18pm

68. Maybe we should all just relax, the Soviet Union got the bomb years ago and we were all freaked out. Now, about the only worry is that (when the price of oil is high) they might be able to fund an invasion of some towns in the Caucasus. Why should we be worried about Iran getting the bomb...

    Posted by Mistral at 09/28/2009 @ 2:22pm

69. ...oh, that's right, they say they're going to use it to wipe out another sovereign nation and UN member.

    Posted by Mistral at 09/28/2009 @ 2:22pm

70. As I have sometimes commented in Haaretz, I do not have a lot of faith in the Arrows System, if they think it is a Star Wars system that will stop everything thrown at Israel. It was developed by Boeing who gave us that piece of crap intended for Poland and the Czech Republic. Further, nuclear weapons are weapons of uncontrolled mass destruction that would take out the Palestinians and the holy city of Jerusalem. All or parts of neighboring Islamic countries would also suffer collateral damage. God help the Middle East and the world if the Israeli nuclear plant or an active Iranian plant was hit. It would be repeat of Chernobyl on a massive scale.

    Posted by pjcasey at 09/28/2009 @ 2:55pm

71. Posted by Mistral at 09/28/2009 @ 2:22pm

    So, again, Mistral...what's your solution?

    Has it just come down to "Israel will bomb them"??? That it?....the whole thing?

    Israel bombs Iran...and then our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq deal with the consequences and you guys blame Obama either way???

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 3:02pm

72. Mask is right:

    "A document found in Zarqawi's safe house indicates that the group was trying to provoke the U.S. to attack Iran in order to reinvigorate the insurgency in Iraq and to weaken American forces in Iraq.[49][50] "The question remains, how to draw the Americans into fighting a war against Iran? It is not known whether America is serious in its animosity towards Iran, because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the West in general, of the real danger coming from Iran ..." The document then outlines six ways to incite war between the two nations.[51]"

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/28/2009 @ 3:07pm

73. What is in the interest of the American people is: jobs, a public option and curbing the greed of Wall Street. If we are tied up in wars in Afghanistan etc then it will cost us treasure. Our deficit will skyrocket. There will be no great dent in unemployment, no public option and no curbing Wall Street's greed. We dont have to act like a muscle bound, unthinking puppet being lead around by the likes of Netanyahu. Or is it that "Niebuhr's realism" has become paranoia. I guess part of the price of waging war continuously is the fear that the enemy is just waiting for us to slack off. A new era of peace, that's what we expected from Obama. What we seem to have is war and rumours of war.

    Posted by trueleftist at 09/28/2009 @ 3:07pm

74. Israel bombs Iran...and then our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq deal with the consequences and you guys blame Obama either way???

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 3:02pm

    Peel away the layers, and that is precisely the plan - The Western and Eastern Front.

    Posted by OneVote at 09/28/2009 @ 3:16pm

75. There will be no great dent in unemployment, no public option and no curbing Wall Street's greed.

    Posted by trueleftist at 09/28/2009 @ 3:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Speaking of Wall Street greed, check out the news on "on the take" First Place Winner Zionist Charles Schumer today.

    Wall Street money rains on Chuck Schumer By VICTORIA MCGRANE & LISA LERER | 9/28/09 4:34 AM EDT Politico

    Of the $11 million to the senate year to date, Schumer's take is 15%.

    And, Schumer was the leading proponent of the recent Russia deal to give Russia their old sphere of influence in exchange for help on Iran.

    Posted by OneVote at 09/28/2009 @ 3:30pm

76. Interesting piece in Slate about Senator Schumer. David Plotz has the following to say:

    His New York Democratic colleagues have coined the phrase "to Schume." It means "to take credit for something that others have done.")

    http://www.slate.com/id/5863/

    Posted by Mistral at 09/28/2009 @ 3:37pm

77. trueleftist,

    You say "......Netanyahu, the biggest neocon around, is now acting like the leader of the free world. I guess he is...."

    My comment: I wish he was!

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/28/2009 @ 3:44pm

78. Iran knows we do not have the capability to invade, nor the willpower, thanks to Bush and friends. Talks won't work, but they are the only option, and we are not the ones dealing from a position of power.

    Posted by Extraneous at 09/28/2009 @ 12:18pm

    America doesn't need to invade Iran..ever...Iran could be surgicaly taken apart, including water systems..Haliburton bulit all of their oil [pipe lines and terminals..water systems...the country could be at its need in 30 days... they import everything including gasoline and food.

    Israel can't bomb Iran any time soon....they have no safe airspace to fly over to get to them...especialy with the current group in the WH in charge...

    a more realistic point is should Israel hit Iran, then it is only a matter of time before Iran hits them back..with Hellsboolah and every other martyr Islamo nut group in the area, working around the clock against Israel for starters...Israel starts to bend under the pressure, maybe Syria "helps"...oil rises to $300 a barrel,...and suddenly the US has to step in...but only after weeks of analysis(see Afgan troop request)...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 09/28/2009 @ 3:48pm

79. 'April 2005: Donald Rumsfeld was on an official visits to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. His diplomatic endeavors were described by the Russian media as "literally circling Iran in an attempt to find the best bridgehead for a possible military operation against that country."'

    Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran by Michel Chossudovsky May 1, 2005

    http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html

    Posted by OneVote at 09/28/2009 @ 3:54pm

80. Mistral,

    Normally, I am no defender of Chuck Shumer, for sure....but there was a time 8 years ago when he got "Schumed" himself.

    This was bad, very bad that it happened because it was totally unfair and wrong.

    On and immediately after mid morning on September 11, 2001, Senator Schumer got his staff going and was working hard to do whatever he could do that a U.S. Senator, the senior Senator representing the place attacked, could make happen to provide assistance and relief.

    He and his staff were working hard and in no way publicized or promoted their efforts, they were just working (as were many, many other people from all walks of life) at warp speed to help out.

    But, his colleauge in the Senate, the junior Senator from New York State, the current Secretary of State of the United States, took credit for the efforts/results.

    (this was documented in a book by Dick Morris)

    Is this pathetic, or what? Is this sick, or what?

    Answer, it's not "or what?" It was just pathetic and sick but typical Clintonian behavior.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/28/2009 @ 3:57pm

81. 'March 2005: NATO's Secretary General was in Jerusalem for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon and Israel's military brass, following the joint NATO-Israel military exercise in February. These military cooperation ties are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to "enhance Israel's deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria." The premise underlying NATO-Israel military cooperation is that Israel is under attack:

    "The more Israel's image is strengthened as a country facing enemies who attempt to attack it for no justified reason, the greater will be the possibility that aid will be extended to Israel by NATO. Furthermore, Iran and Syria will have to take into account the possibility that the increasing cooperation between Israel and NATO will strengthen Israel's links with Turkey, also a member of NATO. Given Turkey's impressive military potential and its geographic proximity to both Iran and Syria, Israel's operational options against them, if and when it sees the need, could gain considerable strength. " (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies, http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v7n4p4Shalom.html )

    The Israel-NATO protocol is all the more important because it obligates NATO to align itself with the US-Israeli plan to bomb Iran, as an act of self defense on the part of Israel. It also means that NATO is also involved in the process of military consultations relating to the planned aerial bombing of Iran. It is of course related to the bilateral military cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey and the likelihood that part of the military operation will be launched from Turkey, which is a member of NATO.'

    cite to above

    Posted by OneVote at 09/28/2009 @ 4:01pm

82. And naturally, they'll offer nothing but "hints" as to what THEY'd like seen done, because an open answer would be too embarassing for them.

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 09:52am | ignore this person |

    --why is Mask talking about his lack of a substantive position on what healthcare system would be best for the u.s.? heheh

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/28/2009 @ 4:15pm

83. Posted by Mistral at 09/28/2009 @ 3:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Thanks for link Mistral...very intereting.

    'My mother-in-law, who lives in Schumer's congressional district and always votes for him, says she's thinking of supporting D'Amato this year: "He's a sleaze. But he's good for the Jews." Substitute "gays" or "Irish" or "farmers" or "cancer victims" or "bankers" for "Jews," and you begin to see Schumer's struggle. Sen. Pothole is the master of the ethnic pork barrel. (He shows up at Jewish gatherings wearing a yarmulke with "Alfonse" stitched on it.) He relies on "We owe him" to override voters' distaste for his viciousness and basic amorality, and for 18 years, it has.'

    And from 1998 no less. D'Amatoing D'Amato Chuck Schumer has to be Sen. Pothole if he is to beat Sen. Pothole. By David Plotz Posted Friday, Oct. 30, 1998, at 3:30 AM ET - Slate.com

    Now see this:

    Derivatives is one of the dirty words of the financial crisis. Though these often-risky bets were blamed by many for helping fuel the credit crunch and the downfall of Lehman Brothers and AIG, it seems that Wall Street has yet to learn its lesson.

    U.S. commercial banks earned $5.2 billion trading derivatives in the second quarter of 2009, a 225 percent increase from the same period last year, according to the Treasury Department.

    More than 1,100 banks now trade in derivatives, a 14 percent increase from last year. Four banks control the market: JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citibank account for 94 percent of the total derivatives reported to be held by U.S. commercial banks, according to national bank regulator the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

    Huffington Post - 09/29/09

    Posted by OneVote at 09/28/2009 @ 4:18pm

84. --why is Mask talking about his lack of a substantive position on what healthcare system would be best for the u.s.? heheh

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/28/2009 @ 4:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Urmy - don't you know that Maskie is here to ask the questions, not answer them. I am still waiting for his position on Israel....

    "I am for 'high level diplomacy'"...lol...

    Posted by OneVote at 09/28/2009 @ 4:30pm

85. Secondly, my America doesn't back down when one of their major allies is threatened with extinction. I wouldn't want to share a foxhole with you. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:55pm

    From ALTERNET:

    Israel runs one of the most aggressive and damaging espionage networks targeting the U.S., yet public discussion about it is almost nil. Scratch a counterintelligence officer in the U.S. government and they'll tell you that Israel is not a friend to the United States.

    This is because Israel runs one of the most aggressive and damaging espionage networks targeting the U.S.. The fact of Israeli penetration into the country is not a subject oft-discussed in the media or in the circles of governance, due to the extreme sensitivity of the U.S.-Israel relationship coupled with the burden of the Israel lobby, which punishes legislators who dare to criticize the Jewish state.

    Israel's spying on the U.S., however, is a matter of public record, and neither conspiracy nor theory is needed to present the evidence. When the FBI produces its annual report to Congress concerning "Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage," Israel and its intelligence services often feature prominently as a threat second only to China. In 2005 the FBI noted, for example, that Israel maintains "an active program to gather proprietary information within the United States." A key Israeli method, said the FBI report, is computer intrusion.

    ........

    I don't wish them harm, but it's questionable just what it is that they wish for us, except for us to keep writing checks.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/28/2009 @ 4:58pm

86. Of course the right-wing hawks do not want to negotiate with Iran,

    and they have co-opted our mainstream Media which churns out the latest "infringement of Democracy" article against Iran daily (while almost completely ignoring the Honduras military coup that has truly eradicated Democracy there).

    But negotiate we MUST, ignoring all the hawks. This would be an absolutely senseless war, feeding interests that are not ours (namely, Israel's).

    Posted by Virginia888 at 09/28/2009 @ 6:18pm

87. (this was documented in a book by Dick Morris)

    Is this pathetic, or what? Is this sick, or what?

    Answer, it's not "or what?" It was just pathetic and sick but typical Clintonian behavior.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/28/2009 @ 3:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    No, pathetic and sick is being a toe-sucker like "Dick" Morris.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/28/2009 @ 6:21pm

88. ...but he seems to fit right in to the neocon pantheon of restroom cruisers and assorted serial adulterers like Gov. Mark "Studmuffin" Sanford (R).

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/28/2009 @ 6:23pm

89. Odd the nation does not add to its blogs their interview gloryfying the leftist hero Hugo Chavez?! Guess his close ties with Russia and Iran and desire to develop a nuclear Venuzeula just don't fit in here right now?!?

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 1:59pm

    It would be odd if there was any truth to it, or any facts to back it up.

    Posted by Shingo at 09/28/2009 @ 6:24pm

90. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 1:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    1. iran is not stupid. i don't see them giving us an excuse to hit them by meddling too much in the US.

    - Google, 'Operation praying Mantis'.

    well they could indeed be stupid. wonder if they are so stupid they would invade a country that did not attack them, allowing the guy that attacked them to get away because most resources were taking down the guy who didn't attack them...

    google gulf war 2 or whatever the black hole of baghdad is called...

    2. opposition is growing in iran, but i wonder how much. i also wonder if this phenomenon may be more a result of our wishful thinking than reality. we should be careful of imputing our wishes as well as an assumption every country in the world really wants to adopt our system and become good little "towelhead" version americans... we do ever over assume this as well as our own importance/rectitude.

    - Can't even begin to reply to that nonsense.

    ok...whats nonsensical, specifically, and why can't you reply?

    what percentage of the iranian people support their regime and what % oppose? of those who oppose, how much do they oppose? would they rally behind the flag if attacked? we're already supporting guerilla terrorist groups in iran as it is (the nastiest one marxist leaning, i believe). i don't know, myself...i just think you over-impute your love for our system and over-assume the rest of the world's desire to be good little americans.

    well gotta go, guy. wish i had more time. i like the way you argue. i'll enjoy ripping you a new one over the next few weeks here, my huckleberry...

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/28/2009 @ 6:27pm

91. Mr. Dreyfuss, up above, talks about the upcoming meetings with Iran and talks about deals, etc.

    He says "........Iranians, by the way, hate the carrot-and-stick talk, and they consider it insulting and demeaning, as if Iran were a donkey....."

    My comments:

    1. What the Iranians consider insulting and demeaning concerns me how? Holocaust denial is insulting and demeaning, too.

    2. It is clear, through Mr. Dreyfuss' words above, that he sort of knows that this is a total impasse, but he has no clue himself what to do about it and obviously rejects the only things that could do something about it. (the "draconian measures" he refers to and also military force.

    3. These meetings are being labled as "talks", from which Mr. Dreyfuss and others hope productive "deals" will be made. (which they won't be).

    Instead, what should happen is that these "meetings" would be information sessions, where the Iranians would be told what they will do (complete dismantling of any nuclear capability with complete visibility/verification to the world that this is happening, total dismantling of any support by Iran to terror organizations with complete visibility/verification to the world that this is happening, conduction of a totally free and fair election to re-do the "election" that just took place, with complete visibility/verification to the world of the election process, procedures and results.

    The information session would also provide the Iranians what the immediate consequences would be for not cooperating. Those consequences would not be anything Mr. Dreyfuss would recommend, instead the opposite.

    4. The verification of elections in item 3 above would absolutely NOT include Jimmy Carter.

    5. There is no possibility that Obama would even consider my suggestions.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/28/2009 @ 6:33pm

92. Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 1:35pm

    If Iran continues to make fools of the Congress, it's only because by sticking to the NPT, the continue to deny any fodder for the corrupt whores on the AIPAC payroll.

    All 16 US intelligence agencies continue to maintain that there are no nukes being made in Iran. http://www.newsweek.com/id/215529

    Israel have been claiming that Iran was 6 months away from a nuke since the late 90's, so those so called experts have no credibility left.

    The right wing are finding that crying wolf only works a few times.

    Posted by Shingo at 09/28/2009 @ 6:35pm

93. Shingo,

    But a nuke only needs to work once.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/28/2009 @ 6:39pm

94. Posted by sjchermak at 09/28/2009 @ 6:33pm

    "3. These meetings are being labled as "talks", from which Mr. Dreyfuss and others hope productive "deals" will be made. (which they won't be). "

    On the contrary. Bush and Obama both said that Iran has a eight to nuclear power. Once the US and the West accepts that Iran is not pursuing nukes, then a deal is entirely possible

    "5. There is no possibility that Obama would even consider my suggestions."

    Though you still can't accept it, you guys lost the electi9ons big time. You had 8 years to get it right, and failed, so why should anyone be listening to your suggestions?

    Posted by Shingo at 09/28/2009 @ 6:39pm

95. But a nuke only needs to work once.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/28/2009 @ 6:39pm

    Twice. It needs to be tested first and a test would consume all of Iran's existing LEU stockpile, which would in turn, need to be converted to HEU, which is impossible while teh IAEA are watching it.

    Posted by Shingo at 09/28/2009 @ 6:43pm

96. Too bad, I'm getting tired of fighting your battles, heh heh. Take over please. I'm exhausted.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 1:02pm

    Yeah, spreading propaganda and right wing BS can be exhausting. So many talking points to remember, and ittakes it out of you when you gotta dust yourself off and repeat them every time they get debunked.

    Posted by Shingo at 09/28/2009 @ 6:53pm

97. Though you still can't accept it, you guys lost the electi9ons big time. You had 8 years to get it right, and failed, so why should anyone be listening to your suggestions?

    Posted by Shingo at 09/28/2009 @ 6:39pm

    Will you carry the same tune should the Dems take a beating and lose control in the next elections in 2010?

    Posted by YourJomamma at 09/28/2009 @ 6:55pm

98. Will you carry the same tune should the Dems take a beating and lose control in the next elections in 2010?

    Posted by YourJomamma at 09/28/2009 @ 6:55pm

    Yes I will be singing the same tune because the Republicans approval ratings have not changed cine the last elections. All they've been doing since 2008 is pandering to their base, and as we saw then, the base won't get them over the line.

    Posted by Shingo at 09/28/2009 @ 6:59pm

99. "Cohen blithley ignores the fact that it was precisely President Obama's policy of offering to talk to Iran that helped to spark the Green Wave opposition movement in Iran."

    More evidence that Dreyfuss is clearly delusional and out of touch with reality. I love how he calls his opinion a "fact" which the US government had better not "ignore".

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/28/2009 @ 7:35pm

100. More evidence that Dreyfuss is clearly delusional and out of touch with reality. I love how he calls his opinion a "fact" which the US government had better not "ignore".

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/28/2009 @ 7:35pm

     I agree. I am not convinced that nuclear talks have sparkd the Green Wave, though I believe the Cairo speech may have been a contributing factor.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/28/2009 @ 7:41pm

101. I think the mullahs are smarter than we thionk. They are the true power in Iran. The little guy is just a lightning rod. What is his true power? It seems the top religious guys are playing Fran,Kukla, and Ollie on us. Why would they not want to have talks with us. It is in their besty interest.

     Posted by whatozz at 09/28/2009 @ 8:06pm

102. "Why would they not want to have talks with us. It is in their besty interest."

     Obama would never be stupid or crazy enough to bomb Iran. Hence, if talks fail, all he can do is threaten Iran and punish it with sanctions. These sanctions will hurt the people of Iran, but strengthen their government. It is actually not in the best interests of the Mullahs to bother talking. Acting defiant to the West in the face of sanctions and threats would boost their popularity. It is in the best interest of the Iranian people that the Mullahs talk, but they obviously don't care about their own people.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/28/2009 @ 8:22pm

103. "though I believe the Cairo speech may have been a contributing factor."

     What put it over the top? Obama suggesting that the hijab is a freely chosen fashion statement and that public schools in France (and Turkey) are Islamaphobic and discriminating against Muslim women by banning them even though there is a mountain of evidence that many Muslim girls are forced and pressured to wear them against their own will by their family and are afraid of the consequences for refusing?

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/28/2009 @ 8:31pm

104. ...even though there is a mountain of evidence that many Muslim girls are forced and pressured to wear them against their own will by their family and are afraid of the consequences for refusing?

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/28/2009 @ 8:31pm

     Where is the mountain of evidence that these Muslim girls are forced to wear them against their own will?

     If you knew anything about tribal communities, you would be aware that the desire to conform, seek approval and please elders runs very deeply. The same goes for Jewish women is orthodox communities.

     Thus, most girls in Muslim communities would prefer to wear them.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/28/2009 @ 9:15pm

105. I didn't say it was true for all Muslim girls, but for some it certainly is. Karima Bennoune has published research conducted among the many people of Muslim, Arab and North African descent in France who support that country's 2004 law banning religious symbols in public schools which they see as a necessary deployment of the "law of the republic" to counter the "law of the Brothers," an informal rule imposed undemocratically on many women and girls in neighborhoods and at home and by fundamentalists.

     By the way, in evil racist intolerant xenophobic empire America that killed Iraqis for oil as a Christian crusade, Muslim girls can go to school covering their faces entirely save for their eyes. Do you suppose many who do so actually WANT to? Imagine how socially limiting it must be!

     Frankly, that is unacceptable.

     At least France isn't worried about offending jihadists at home, though they tend to be soft on jihad abroad.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/28/2009 @ 10:14pm

106. "If you knew anything about tribal communities, you would be aware that the desire to conform, seek approval and please elders runs very deeply."

     True, but I don't regard that as a good thing.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/28/2009 @ 10:15pm

107. It would be odd if there was any truth to it, or any facts to back it up.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/28/2009 @ 6:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Kinda like your "knee jerk" eh? Only a leftist would get the "matthews leg tingle" interviewing Chavez as is posted on the web site!

     Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 10:23pm

108. " Obama Changes Tack Toward Sudan

     On Tuesday, government officials will convene to hammer out the details of the United States' policy on Sudan, which is largely controlled by Obama's envoy to the region, retired Air Force Major General Scott Gration. Gration has advocated a policy of engagement similar to the Bush-era position that Obama once criticized and has been criticized by Darfur advocates as being naive about the region's political realities. During a recent five-day trip to Sudan, Gration received a hero's welcome from Bashir supporters in the Sudanese capital and, while visiting rebel strongholds in southern Sudan, rebuffed notions that chronic rape and harassment were part of a larger government plot. In a visit to a displacement camp, Gration expressed surprise that problems were still ongoing with aid work and permits, suggesting that there was a disconnect between high-level officials and low-level bureaucrats. Rather than accuse the government in Khartoum of propagating violence, Gration suggested, "we've got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries, they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement."

     More evidence Obama has a soft spot for jihad, even jihad that involves exterminating millions of black Africans.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/28/2009 @ 10:24pm

109. "Cohen blithley ignores the fact that it was precisely President Obama's policy of offering to talk to Iran that helped to spark the Green Wave opposition movement in Iran."

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/28/2009 @ 7:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     I wonder.

     Maybe this is like Pappa Bush encouraging Shiite to rise up against Saddam.............

     'Covert Intelligence Operations: Stirring Ethnic Tensions in Iran

     Meanwhile, for the last two years, Washington has been involved in covert intelligence operations inside Iran. American and British intelligence and special forces (working with their Israeli counterparts) are involved in this operation.

     "A British intelligence official said that any campaign against Iran would not be a ground war like the one in Iraq. The Americans will use different tactics, said the intelligence officer. 'It is getting quite scary.'" (Evening Standard, 17 June 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FOX306A.html )

     The expectation is that a US-Israeli bombing raid of Iran's nuclear facilities will stir up ethnic tensions and trigger "regime change" in favor of the US. (See Arab Monitor, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ARA502A.html ).

     Bush advisers believe that the "Iranian opposition movement" will unseat the Mullahs. This assessment constitutes a gross misjudgment of social forces inside Iran. What is more likely to occur is that Iranians will consistently rally behind a wartime government against foreign aggression. In fact, the entire Middle East and beyond would rise up against US interventionism.'

     Posted by OneVote at 09/28/2009 @ 10:58pm

110. Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/28/2009 @ 10:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Stories like that just give you the Chris Matthews leg tingle! The Obamanations foreign policy is just the love fest he promised he and Biden "the foriegn policy expert" in the campaign said they would deliver!

     Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 10:59pm

111. At least France isn't worried about offending jihadists at home, though they tend to be soft on jihad abroad.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/28/2009 @ 10:14pm

     That's funny. There have been terrorist attacks in London, Spain, NY and Bali, but none in France. I wonder if it's because they're soft on jihad, or just figured out how to avoid sticking their hands into a meat grinder.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 01:11am

112. Kinda like your "knee jerk" eh? Only a leftist would get the "matthews leg tingle" interviewing Chavez as is posted on the web site!

     Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 10:23pm |

     Only a wingnut would feel the need to mention Chavez on a thread that has nothing to do with him.

     Are you scared of Chavez BigPasture? You seem pretty obsessed with him.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 01:14am

113. True, but I don't regard that as a good thing.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/28/2009 @ 10:15pm

     Why not? Tribalism it's a common right wing trait.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 01:16am

114. More evidence Obama has a soft spot for jihad, even jihad that involves exterminating millions of black Africans.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/28/2009 @ 10:24pm

     Obama's policy on Sudan is identical to that of Bush, which must mean that Bush had an even softer spot for jihad.

     And since when have you wingnuts ever cared about what happens to black Africans? The wingnut South still believes in slavery.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 01:20am

115. BTW.

     An FBI whistleblower has revealed that the CIA was covertly supporting al-Qaeda linked groups in the Balkans and central Asia right up until 9/11.

     You don't get much softer on jihad than supporting them, which the Bushies did until they were voted out of office.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 01:39am

116. Shingo,

     Since you seem to have a penchant for declaring people wingnuts, let me take the opportunity to tell you that you are a wingnut Yankee snob.

     Why are you still fighting the War Between the States?

     In case you ever learn how to read and pick up a history book, you will find that it ended at Appomatox over 140 years ago.

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/29/2009 @ 07:26am

117. Posted by OneVote at 09/28/2009 @ 4:30pm

     OV, what exactly is YOUR realistic solution?

     Or do you think "Hold a gun to Israel's head, via threats of embargos and sanctions, until they do what the Palestinians want" is a "realistic solution"???

     Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 07:40am

118. France's SG is pretty good. I think they have had intelligence inroads going back to their colonial days. We could probably learn from them.

     Posted by whatozz at 09/29/2009 @ 07:48am

119. But a nuke only needs to work once.

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/28/2009 @ 6:39pm

     It doesn't even need to work at all, really. A faulty nuke can make even more of a mess; a fizzle that spreads radioactive material over a dozen square miles can cause more havoc thqn a bomb that levels a city. Chernobyl is still uninhabited, not Nagasaki. That's why everybody is so worried about those deep-space probes that are powered by plutonium: one malfunction on liftoff...

     Posted by Mistral at 09/29/2009 @ 08:54am

120. "(The Israelis)even stole and sold the organs of the Palestinians held during the war" (Dastu11) Correction: It's even worse than what you say.The UN asked the government of Sweden to investigate after there were ru8mors that the Israeli gov ernbment was murdering Palestinian men, plundering their body organs for harvesting to be sold in thew blkack market for profit,

     Posted by mystic at 09/29/2009 @ 10:00am

121. "(The Israelis)even stole and sold the organs of the Palestinians held during the war" (Dastu11) Correction: It's even worse than what you say.The UN asked the government of Sweden to investigate after there were ru8mors that the Israeli gov ernbment was murdering Palestinian men, plundering their body organs for harvesting to be sold in thew blkack market for profit,

     Posted by mystic at 09/29/2009 @ 10:00am

122. "(The Israelis)even stole and sold the organs of the Palestinians held during the war" (Dastu11) Correction: It's even worse than what you say.The UN asked the government of Sweden to investigate after there were ru8mors that the Israeli gov ernbment was murdering Palestinian men, plundering their body organs for harvesting to be sold in thew blkack market for profit,

     Posted by mystic at 09/29/2009 @ 10:00am

123. "(The Israelis)even stole and sold the organs of the Palestinians held during the war" (Dastu11) Correction: It's even worse than what you say.The UN asked the government of Sweden to investigate after there were ru8mors that the Israeli gov ernbment was murdering Palestinian men, plundering their body organs for harvesting to be sold in thew blkack market for profit,

     Posted by mystic at 09/29/2009 @ 10:00am

124. "(The Israelis)even stole and sold the organs of the Palestinians held during the war" (Dastu11) Correction: It's even worse than what you say.The UN asked the government of Sweden to investigate after there were ru8mors that the Israeli gov ernbment was murdering Palestinian men, plundering their body organs for harvesting to be sold in thew blkack market for profit,

     Posted by mystic at 09/29/2009 @ 10:00am

125. "(The Israelis)even stole and sold the organs of the Palestinians held during the war" (Dastu11) Correction: It's even worse than what you say.The UN asked the government of Sweden to investigate after there were ru8mors that the Israeli gov ernbment was murdering Palestinian men, plundering their body organs for harvesting to be sold in thew blkack market for profit,

     Posted by mystic at 09/29/2009 @ 10:00am

126. "(The Israelis)even stole and sold the organs of the Palestinians held during the war" (Dastu11) Correction: It's even worse than what you say.The UN asked the government of Sweden to investigate after there were ru8mors that the Israeli gov ernbment was murdering Palestinian men, plundering their body organs for harvesting to be sold in thew blkack market for profit,

     Posted by mystic at 09/29/2009 @ 10:00am

127. "(The Israelis)even stole and sold the organs of the Palestinians held during the war" (Dastu11) Correction: It's even worse than what you say.The UN asked the government of Sweden to investigate after there were ru8mors that the Israeli gov ernbment was murdering Palestinian men, plundering their body organs for harvesting to be sold in thew blkack market for profit,

     Posted by mystic at 09/29/2009 @ 10:00am

128. "(The Israelis)even stole and sold the organs of the Palestinians held during the war" (Dastu11) Correction: It's even worse than what you say.The UN asked the government of Sweden to investigate after there were ru8mors that the Israeli gov ernbment was murdering Palestinian men, plundering their body organs for harvesting to be sold in thew blkack market for profit,

     Posted by mystic at 09/29/2009 @ 10:00am

129. Or do you think "Hold a gun to Israel's head, via threats of embargos and sanctions, until they do what the Palestinians want" is a "realistic solution"???

     Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 07:40am | ignore this person | warn this person

     "Realism" would recognize the considerable leverage that the US has over Israel. I think we can accomplish the task short of embargos and sanctions actually.

     1) Cut off military and economic aid to Israel

     2) Remove loan guarantees

     3) Remove strategic oil reserve guarantee

     4) Suspend "cooperation" with Israeli military

     5) Boot Israel out of Iraq and Afghanistan

     6) Suspend US veto power on behalf of Israel with regard to world economic sanctions

     I guarantee you this will change the "equation."

     Your high level diplomacy has failed because it has no consequence.

     Do you suppose that we would continue to provide military aid to Mubarak if Egypt didn't back off Israel and do Israel's bidding in relation to Gaza?

     Not a chance.

     The high level diplomacy charade has got to stop.

     'You do this, or we will do that' generally is more effective than 'You should do this, but we will let you decide without consequence and will continue to support you, no matter what you do."

     Posted by OneVote at 09/29/2009 @ 10:06am

130. Or do you think "Hold a gun to Israel's head, via threats of embargos and sanctions, until they do what the Palestinians want" is a "realistic solution"???

     Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 07:40am | ignore this person | warn this person

     BTW - the way that you phrase this question is indicative of your "moderate" stance.

     What are you afraid of? If you support Israel right or wrong say so!

     Posted by OneVote at 09/29/2009 @ 10:27am

131. When someone criticize Israel, then comes the subject 'Holocaust'.The world is fed up hearing that subject over and over. It is not a subject in this era, which eventually took place long ago.Whether it is a truth or false is not a subject in today's world. The subject Holocaust is always used by Israel to their advantage, especially when the world condemn them , for their attacks on Palestinians.The so-called Holocaust is committed by the Europeans and not by Arabs. Iranian President Nejad is a very intelligent leader, and he knows the fact the western powers wanted to forget the incident.So he intentionally mention that subject often. The western nations , come to a dilemma then. They can't deny or accept the statements of the Iranian President.Both positions are difficult for them. So before going after Iran and control Israel and give back the Palestinian land to them.We can't make this world by threat and bullying. There are 4 known countries in this world with Nukes, that also non- signatories of NPT with IAEA.Israel,India,Pakistan and North Korea.Make them sign the NPT first.

     Posted by Dastu11 at 09/29/2009 @ 10:46am

132. KUDOS TO mystic and One Vote for their postings.

     Posted by Dastu11 at 09/29/2009 @ 10:53am

133. Posted by mystic at 09/29/2009 @ 10:00am | ignore this person | warn this person

     really? they stole organs?

     how bout some gentile babies? did they steal gentile babies for their blood libel too?

     is israel controlled by the world zionist conspiracy, or the headquarters of it?

     beware crediting sources from "protocols of zion" folks...

     Posted by dexter666 at 09/29/2009 @ 11:07am

134. The so-called Holocaust is committed by the Europeans and not by Muslims.

     Posted by Dastu11 at 09/29/2009 @ 10:46am

     But remember how Fatah and the President of Iran would answer you:

     "Not Yet!"

     Posted by Mistral at 09/29/2009 @ 11:16am

135. Posted by Mistral at 09/29/2009 @ 11:16am | ignore this person | warn this person

     i don't support isreal all the time because i think our interests are not always the same, and although no fan of aipac...

     i also find the most virulent anti-israel folks DO dabble in "protocols of zion" insanity and seem oblivious to the nature of isreals most virulent enemies.

     Posted by dexter666 at 09/29/2009 @ 11:29am

136. Posted by OneVote at 09/29/2009 @ 10:27am

     I realize that the problem with be "wild-eyed" is you also tend to get myopia...

     but have you NEVER noticed when we start one of these "Middle East" threads my critique of the Larry/antisoc side as the "Israel-Right or Wrong!" fringe....'

     just as much as your "Israel is Nazi Germany!" fringe?

     BTW, thanks for proving my point in the preceding post.....since "We're going to strangle/bleed dry Israel until they do what the Palestinians want" "solution" is NEVER going to happen...

     you have NO realistic solution to the situation, do you?

     Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 11:42am

137. Posted by dexter666 at 09/29/2009 @ 11:29am

     Sorry to tell you this dexter...but that sort of "moderate" talk, wins you an automatic labelling by guys like Larry/antisoc as an "anti-Semite who wants to kill Israeli babies"...

     and guys like OneVote as a "Zionist stooge who wants to kill Palestinian babies!"

     Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 11:45am

138. Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 11:45am | ignore this person | warn this person

     them dastardly jews...oops -i mean zionist israelis - is a stealin' babies - uh...i mean HUMAN ORGANS MASK!!!! how can you abide that????

     Posted by dexter666 at 09/29/2009 @ 11:50am

139. i also find the most virulent anti-israel folks DO dabble in "protocols of zion" insanity and seem oblivious to the nature of isreals most virulent enemies.

     Posted by dexter666 at 09/29/2009 @ 11:29am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Is truth one of Israel's most virulent enemies Dex?

     A simple Google search of the topic will reveal a plethora of evidence, aside from your assertion that this is just a "Protocols" assertion.

     Posted by OneVote at 09/29/2009 @ 11:57am

140. you have NO realistic solution to the situation, do you?

     Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 11:42am | ignore this person | warn this person

     i love rhetorical questions!!!

     Posted by dexter666 at 09/29/2009 @ 11:57am

141. you have NO realistic solution to the situation, do you?

     Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 11:42am | ignore this person | warn this person

     i love rhetorical questions!!!

     Posted by dexter666 at 09/29/2009 @ 11:57am

142. and repetition!!! and repetition!!!

     Posted by dexter666 at 09/29/2009 @ 11:58am

143. and guys like OneVote as a "Zionist stooge who wants to kill Palestinian babies!"

     Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 11:45am | ignore this person | warn this person

     It is the "closet" Zionist stooges that concern me more.

     Posted by OneVote at 09/29/2009 @ 12:02pm

144. you have NO realistic solution to the situation, do you?

     Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 11:42am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Oh...there is a solution in REALISM, but you are right, 'realistically' it isn't going to happen because of the Zionist infestation of our government. Thus, REALISM has been pushed out the door, while NEOCONSERVATIVE (NEO-LIBERAL) Zionist ideological doctrine rules. The mandate of NEOCONSERVATISIM is to remake the world (world as measured by Israel's orbit of concern) rather than attempt to manage the relationship of nation-states.

     The "remaking" of the Palestinian people is their impoverishment and ultimate genocide. Very similar to let us say Hitler's solution. As your bitch of Zion stated...."it's worth it."

     Posted by OneVote at 09/29/2009 @ 12:16pm

145. Certainly the recent revelations concerning the Iranians efforts toward nuclear weaponry, and therefore ascendency over most of their regional neighbors, should convince us that curbing their ambitions cannot succeed for long. They have nothing but contempt for the West, and their knowledge or quest for knowledge will continue, and they will obtain these weapons. Therefore, perhaps a better plan would be to actually bring them into the fold. Stop treating them like renegades, which only spurs them on. Tell them, privately of course, that when they reach nuclear status they are welcome-they are in the big leagues now, with all the benefits and rules that that consists of. And should it ever be discovered that they initiated, or helped someone initiated a nuclear strike of any kind, they and everything they know will be wiped of the face of the earth. Period.

     That's the caveat and one which they must know we mean. Or at least, we must make them believe we mean it.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/29/2009 @ 12:47pm

146. i love rhetorical questions!!!

     Posted by dexter666 at 09/29/2009 @ 11:57am

     But what if there were no rhetorical questions?

     Posted by Mistral at 09/29/2009 @ 12:48pm

147. Posted by OneVote at 09/29/2009 @ 12:16pm

     Two options, OV.

     1. You expect things to change...and have SOME idea as to when that will happen and when we'll put the choke hold on Israel and force them to sign a peace the Palestinians dictate.

     2. You DON'T expect things to change...and will continue to bitch about it for years, even decades to come.

     Which is it?

     Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 2:43pm

148. A simple Google search of the topic will reveal a plethora of evidence, aside from your assertion that this is just a "Protocols" assertion.

     Posted by OneVote at 09/29/2009 @ 11:57am | ignore this person | warn this person

     a simple google search will turn up evidence of all sorts of stuff.

     but when i hear that israelis are harvesting palestinians' organs...

     REALLY? guess it COULD be true...guess lots of things COULD be true...

     but you know what it sounds like to me? the worst form of sensationalist, dehumanizing propaganda in the fine old tradition of villainizing and scapegoating the jews.

     modern version of blood libel.

     again i find all sorts of israeli policies unwise and bad, but i also have trouble seeing the palestinians and isreal's stated foes as israel's moral equals, much less betters.

     and as much as i hate being knee-jerk smeared as an anti-semite when i criticize isreal, i gotta say i think there's more than naught of antisemitism in the most strident anti-israel crowd.

     Posted by dexter666 at 09/29/2009 @ 2:53pm

149. a simple google search will turn up evidence of all sorts of stuff.

     Posted by dexter666 at 09/29/2009 @ 2:53pm

     Just for the fun of it, do a Google search on "tree octopus." it will direct you to the fascinating site www.zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/

     Posted by Mistral at 09/29/2009 @ 3:14pm

150. Posted by Mistral at 09/29/2009 @ 3:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     well i'm convinced!!!

     Posted by dexter666 at 09/29/2009 @ 3:17pm

151. and as much as i hate being knee-jerk smeared as an anti-semite when i criticize isreal, i gotta say i think there's more than naught of antisemitism in the most strident anti-israel crowd.

     Posted by dexter666 at 09/29/2009 @ 2:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Yeah - like Jews Against Zionism.

     Posted by OneVote at 09/29/2009 @ 3:23pm

152. well i'm convinced!!!

     Posted by dexter666 at 09/29/2009 @ 3:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Query: Israel Body Parts.

     Poser.

     Beyond The Fringe » Blog Archive » The Great Israeli Body Parts ... Aug 25, 2009 ... In 2001, an Israeli Health Ministry investigation found that Hiss had been involved for years in taking body parts, such as legs, ... www.kadaitcha.com/.../the-great-israeli-body-parts-scandal/ - Cached - Similar Israel Steals Body Parts: Palestinians - IslamOnline.net - News Sep 6, 2009 ... "These people have no morality, save the morality of murder and lies," Shahin said about Israeli authorities still holding the body of his ... www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C... - Cached - Similar BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hezbollah has Israel 'body parts' Jan 19, 2008 ... Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah says his group has body parts of Israeli soldiers killed in Lebanon in 2006. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7197679.stm - Cached - Similar Israel Steals Body Parts: Palestinians - Kavkazcenter.com Israel Steals Body Parts: Palestinians. Publication time: 8 September 2009, 00:14. RAMALLAH – The controversy triggered by a Swedish newspaper report about ... www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2009/09/.../10985.shtml - Cached - Similar Israeli trade in Palestinian body parts - The IDF: Israel's Organ ... Israeli trade in Palestinian body parts - The IDF: Israel's Organ Grinder. August 20th, 2009 2:50 AM Print. Gilad Atzmon ... www.thepeoplesvoice.org/.../israel-trade-in-palestinian-body-parts-t - Cached - Similar Irish4Palestine: ANOTHER REPORT OF ISRAELI BODY PARTS THEFT Aug 24, 2009 ... Labels: Bilal Ahmad Ghanem, black market body parts, Israel illegal organ trading, israel steals body parts from palestinians ...

     Posted by OneVote at 09/29/2009 @ 3:31pm

153. Iran defies world pressure, and the majority of posters cheer. Sudan defies world pressure, after promoting actions with acual-genocide like results, and the world loses interest. Zimbabwae defies world pressure, and the world yawns.

     Israel defies world pressure because it not unreasonably perceives it to be one-sided and unfair. If Isreal had been criticized for targeting non-military facilities, and for using phosphorus bombs (which is allowed for illumination purposes, which is how Israel used them) in a location too residentially dense for their safe use, there might have been a reasoned debate about the issue with perhaps some relaxing of the blockade restrictions. But a wholesale indictment of war crimes, in a war in which civilian casualties numbered only (yes, only -- too many, but proof against a charge that Israel targetted civilians)700, is not unreasonably perceived as a lynching, a blood libel.

     Netanyahu and Abbas have shown themselves incapable of offering the compromises necessary for peace. Unless Obama and the EU come out in favor of a peace treaty along the lines of the 2003 Geneva Peace initiative, and demand good faith negotiations on that basis from both sides, the current tragedy will sadly continue.

     Posted by gren at 09/29/2009 @ 3:37pm

154. Iran defies world pressure, and the majority of posters cheer. Sudan defies world pressure, after promoting actions with acual-genocide like results, and the world loses interest. Zimbabwae defies world pressure, and the world yawns.

     Posted by gren at 09/29/2009 @ 3:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Gren - thank you for your moderate comments as always.

     This world pressure you allude to is primarily orchestrated by US/Israel.

     The difference between Sudan, Zimbabwae and Israel is that we are hogtied sponsors of Israeli atrocity.

     If Israel has proof disputing the Goldstone Report, let's see it.

     They are acting very much like criminals. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about. Pardon me, but you think we should take the word of a criminal like Olmert?

     Posted by OneVote at 09/29/2009 @ 4:04pm

155. Posted by OneVote at 09/29/2009 @ 4:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Shana Tov.

     Not sure what you are referring to in connection with Olmert, but the Washington Post interviewed Abbas earlier this year when he was in Washington DC, and reported that Abbas not just confirmed, but actually boasted that he turned down Olmert's offer to withdraw from 95% of the West Banl, give a 1:1 land compensation, and divide East Jerusalem. (The offer also was no right of return except for limited family reunions.)

     With regard to Goldstone Report, the issue I identified and which has Israel reasonably infuriated, is that of(extremely) selective prosecution. As I stated, US, NATO, Sri Lanka, Darfur have done much worse, but have not come under the prosecutorial threat that is being unleashed against Israel. The civilian casualties and property damagr can be criticised as excessive, but to charge it as a war crime, relative to military actions around the globe, is sheer partisan hypocrisy.

     There is nothing wrong with being reassoned, pragmatic and moderate. It may not be a romantic posture, but I've grown too old to sacrifice the good in the name of the utopian. I'd like to see peace in my time, so my children are not engaging in these pointless ideological rantings.

     Whatever.

     Posted by gren at 09/29/2009 @ 4:21pm

156. please read the guardian.the criminal ehud barak could be arrested for war crimes.

     Posted by excalibur999 at 09/29/2009 @ 5:47pm

157. I'd like to see peace in my time, so my children are not engaging in these pointless ideological rantings.

     Whatever.

     Posted by gren at 09/29/2009 @ 4:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Happy New Year to you and your family. Blessings for the New Year.

     http://www.greetingsisland.com/preposting.asp?id=418

     So tired too......

     Posted by OneVote at 09/29/2009 @ 6:07pm

158. Not sure what you are referring to in connection with Olmert, but the Washington Post interviewed Abbas earlier this year when he was in Washington DC, and reported that Abbas not just confirmed, but actually boasted that he turned down Olmert's offer to withdraw from 95% of the West Banl, give a 1:1 land compensation, and divide East Jerusalem. (The offer also was no right of return except for limited family reunions.)

     Posted by gren at 09/29/2009 @ 4:21pm

     Gee, you mean to say that Abbas nevar took an offer from a sitting duck PM with no power or influence let in Kneset seriously?

     Who would have believed it>?

     "With regard to Goldstone Report, the issue I identified and which has Israel reasonably infuriated, is that of(extremely) selective prosecution. "

     It's not selective prosecution, but relative scale of the crimes. There is no disputing that whatever Hamas did, Israel did it worse by an order of magnitude.

     "As I stated, US, NATO, Sri Lanka, Darfur have done much worse, but have not come under the prosecutorial threat that is being unleashed against Israel."

     Sri Lanka, Darfur are not occupiers and in the case of the US and NATO, that's the beauty of being a permanent member of the UNSC. Might makes right.

     "The civilian casualties and property damage can be criticised as excessive, but to charge it as a war crime, relative to military actions around the globe, is sheer partisan hypocrisy."

     I see, so your argument is that as long as there are more extreme examples of mass murder, then Israel should get a pass.

     "It may not be a romantic posture, but I've grown too old to sacrifice the good in the name of the utopian."

     What, may I ask, is good about massacring 1,400 Palestinians?

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 7:12pm

159. Certainly the recent revelations concerning the Iranians efforts toward nuclear weaponry, and therefore ascendency over most of their regional neighbors, should convince us that curbing their ambitions cannot succeed for long.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/29/2009 @ 12:47pm

     Please enlighten us as to what you mean by "Iranians efforts toward nuclear weaponry"?

     As of this week, the U.S. intelligence community is reporting to the White House that Iran has not restarted its nuclear-weapons development program.

     http://tinyurl.com/ychc2tn/

     If you are alluding to the new enrichment plant, that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with nuclear weaponry. it is 100% compliant with the NPT and what's more, Iran are inviting the IAEA to inspect and oversee it's operation.

     They would hardly be doing that if the plant was for making nukes.

     Secondly, the plant was not a secret, but known by the West for over a year.

     However, I do agree with your suggestion that we should bring them into the fold and stop treating them like renegades. That won't stop the wingnuts from screaming about appeasing Hitler of course, but it will ensure security.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 7:22pm

160. "Why not? Tribalism it's a common right wing trait."

     True Ayn Randian/Capitalism Magazine right-wingers like myself are not tribalists. We are individualists (yes, I know CapMag's views on foreign policy are mentally deranged and deluded and show as thorough a lack of understanding of counter-insurgency, military strategy, and basic geo-political realities as do the articles right here on the Nation).

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 7:34pm

161. "As of this week, the U.S. intelligence community is reporting to the White House that Iran has not restarted its nuclear-weapons development program."

     Under the Obama administration, our government has also taken the position that the government of Sudan is not directly complicit in massacres it has been charged with supplying weapons and support towards, and that Sudan cares about its people and wants engagement with the international community. The jihadists and Communists Obama keeps appointing to government positions are naive. German intelligence has already proven Iran never canceled its program, but the jihadists and Communists on the left say it hasn't restarted the program, in complete denial.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 7:42pm

162. True Ayn Randian/Capitalism Magazine right-wingers like myself are not tribalists. We are individualists (yes, I know CapMag's views on foreign policy are mentally deranged and deluded and show as thorough a lack of understanding of counter-insurgency, military strategy, and basic geo-political realities as do the articles right here on the Nation).

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 7:34pm

     John Dean, a conservative from the Nikon administration, wrote a book called "Conservative without Conscience", where he sites a study done on right and left wingers. it concluded that the right wing mentality is far more tribal and more prone to rallying around a leader, and defending that leader from criticism, even if it means abandoning their own values and beliefs.

     We saw that amply with the Bush Administration and it's followers.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 7:42pm

163. Under the Obama administration, our government has also taken the position that the government of Sudan is not directly complicit in massacres it has been charged with supplying weapons and support towards, and that Sudan cares about its people and wants engagement with the international community. The jihadists and Communists Obama keeps appointing to government positions are naive. German intelligence has already proven Iran never canceled its program, but the jihadists and Communists on the left say it hasn't restarted the program, in complete denial.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 7:42pm

     The Obama administrations policies are the same as the Bush administrations policies with regard to Sudan.

     "The jihadists and Communists Obama keeps appointing to government positions are naive. "

     What jihadists and Communists has Obama appointed to government positions?

     "German intelligence has already proven Iran never canceled its program, but the jihadists and Communists on the left say it hasn't restarted the program, in complete denial."

     Absolute rubbish. German intelligence has NOT proven anything of the sort.

     As you suggesting that German intelligence is superior to US intelligence? Are you suggesting that if the German intelligence you are referring to had any validity, that the 16 US intelligence agencies and the IAEA would not have investigated it?

     Why do you hate America?

     As it turns out, the intelligent on which the claim that Iran even had a nuclear program in 2003 is based on forgeries.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 7:48pm

164. "We saw that amply with the Bush Administration and it's followers."

     Liberals are FAR more likely to surrender their own convictions for the sake of a secular religious faith in a deranged and evil ideology. 145,000 Iraqis would have been killed by Saddam by now based on his average kill rate. If he lasted 15 more years, that number would be over 300,000. This is not counting the sanctions and assuming he never embarked on genocide again. Over 25,000 Iraqis have been saved by improved healthcare. If Saddam's divide-and-rule policies, which in fact were re-enacted by insurgents working with the very Baathist secret police who carried them out during his two decade long reign of terror, were prolonged, the consequences of the collapse of his regime would have been inevitable and the violence following it would have been on a far greater scale than what we saw following the actual collapse of Baathist rule in 2003 when Saddam died unless Saddam's sons were able to succeed him successfully. But even if they ruled Iraq for decades, they would only have brutalized Iraq further to ensure an even bloodier implosion unless there was a Saddam 3 to succeed them successfully.... there was only a choice between an implosion resulting in more deaths than the total number killed throughout the entire war, OR, say, 15 more years of Saddam followed by a few more decades under his sons followed by a few more decades under another Baathist dictator and maybe even possibly another one after that, OR some combination of these two options (i.e., Saddam's sons take over for decades, they die, and then Iraq implodes), OR an invasion. It is obvious that an invasion was the most humane possible option. It IS obvious, and yet liberals oppose fighting Saddam's overtly facist regime...

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 7:54pm

165. Iran defies world pressure, and the majority of posters cheer.

     Posted by gren at 09/29/2009 @ 3:37pm

     That's because Iran is being singled out for maybe, one day, being in a position to think about possibly developing nukes, while Israel, who have just told the IAEA to go to hell over joining the NPT, have 200 nukes pointing at Iran.

     Sudan has not been subjected to any world pressure, and speaking of which, it's massively hypocritical to point the finger at Sudan, when the US have killed just as many Iraqis since they invaded.

     Israel has always defied any pressure, but has usualyl been shielded from world pressure by the gurnateed veto at the UN.

     Isreal HAS been criticized for targeting non-military facilities, and HAS been using phosphorus bombs in a location too residentially dense for their safe use.

     As FYI, the cilian casualties amounted to 1,400, not 700.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 7:55pm

166. 45,000 Iraqis would have been killed by Saddam by now based on his average kill rate.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 7:54pm

     But 1.2 million Iraqis were killed, so had there been no war for oil based on lies, 1 million Iraqis would still be alive.

     Even if he lasted 15 more years, that number would be over 900,000 still alive. That's not counting the sanctions that the US is guilty of.

     then there are the millions of tons of depleted uranium, which will lead to deaths and birth defects for decades o come.

     In fact, 15 years from now, more than 2 million Iraqi lives would have been saved had there been no war.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 8:01pm

167. ...Why do they? Aren't they opposed to fascism? Aren't they for giving women the vote? Don't they hate racist governments? Doesn't the Iraqi left look to Bush as their hero? Don't Iraqi Communists have a long history of resisting Saddam?

     The left has no rational reason to oppose the invasion. If Iraq imploded as it would have without a continual succession of Baathist dictatorships for decades, it would have descended into violence far worse and costing far more lives then what followed the invasion and might have devolved into a genocidal anarchy ruled by jihadist warlords. Morgues in Iraq say that 2006 was the only year in which violence surpassed a typical year of Baathist rule. In that year, only 226 Iraqis were killed by Americans, yet the left supported the INSURGENTS, the Iraqi Khmer Rouge!!!

     Does the left care about human rights in the Middle East? NO!!! Except for the Palestinians.

     The betrayal was even more marked in the case of Afghanistan. These feminists were unmoved by the emancipation of Afghan women, by Afghan girls going to school! These secularists supported the Taliban. Its been proven that each year, we save more than twice as many Afghan civilians through improved healthcare as died in the war! Why would you oppose the invasion if you are a liberal feminist secularist?!?!?!? Pure mental delusion.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 8:06pm

168. "The Obama administrations policies are the same as the Bush administrations policies with regard to Sudan."

     Alone among world leaders, Bush accused Sudan of genocide.

     The Iraq war has probably killed 130,000 people as the most likely estimate. Anything higher than 160-175,000 is plainly impossible.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 8:15pm

169. Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 7:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijNZg6KZHds

     Your hero!

     Now what was that about:

     "Liberals are FAR more likely to surrender their own convictions for the sake of a secular religious faith in a deranged and evil ideology"

     Posted by OneVote at 09/29/2009 @ 8:15pm

170. Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 8:06pm

     The right is not opposed to fascism. Bush's grand daddy supported Hitelr after all, and so do the 2 Bush Presidents.

     Bush loves racist governments. He loves to kiss the tyranical ruler of Saudi Arabia.

     No,. the Iraqi left does not look to Bush as their hero. whenever Bush arrived in Iraq, he had to secretly sneak into the country, where as Amadinejad was given a red carpet state welcome.

     The left had every reason to oppose the invasion. It was based on lies. Lies about WMD. Lies about 911 links and links to AQ. The left knew that innocent people would be killed and they were right. The left knew there would be a civil was and they were right.

     Yes, the left does care about human rights in the Middle East, Palestinians included, which is why the left is opposed to supporting the dictators that Bush supported.

     The hypocrisy of the sigh is most evident in the case of Afghanistan, where the Taliban were praised by Reagan for being freedom fighters who represented American values.

     It was not the secularists that supported the Taliban., but the Saudi Wahabists.

     The right are mentally deranged and only show interest for human rights when it serves as a rationale for starting a war.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 8:16pm

171. "Bush loves racist governments. He loves to kiss the tyranical ruler of Saudi Arabia."

     The world's largest supplies of oil are in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska, but they remain untapped because of environmental laws. Saudi Arabia has the world's largest oil production capacity, thanks also to environmental laws coupled with an irrational foreign policy of appeasement and accommodation with the Saudis and OPEC that dates back to the 1940's.

     So I take it you oppose the left's stance on the environment and/or favor bombing the Saudis?

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 8:22pm

172. "The right are mentally deranged"

     Funny, from someone who claims to be on the right.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 8:23pm

173. Gee, you mean to say that Abbas nevar took an offer from a sitting duck PM with no power or influence let in Kneset seriously?

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 7:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     'But another Israeli official said Olmert was merely trying to establish his legacy. "There is going to be no agreement, period," he said on condition of anonymity'

     Last update - 00:00 12/08/2008

     PA rejects Olmert's offer to withdraw from 93% of West Bank

     By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent, and Reuters

     Not only was the "proposal" a raw deal for Palestinians, it was bullshit as well.

     7% of the West Bank in exchange for 5.5% of Negev Dessert.......Hamas has to go in Gaza...."right of passage" under Israel's control, no right of return, Palestine must have no army and be demilitarized (helpless), Jerusalem 'to be decided later'......

     'Next week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will visit the region to continue her efforts to advance the negotiations. However, Olmert opposes her proposal to publish a joint U.S.-Palestinian-Israeli announcement detailing progress in the negotiations since Annapolis. Olmert objects to publishing partial positions; he only wants to announce a complete agreement - if one can be reached.'

     cite to above

     Posted by OneVote at 09/29/2009 @ 8:27pm

174. "The left knew there would be a civil was and they were right."

     Well, it SHOULD have been obvious, given how clearly Iraqi society had been eroded and destroyed as of 2003 and how obviously Baathist dictatorial rule being in place was the only way to guarantee Iraq didn't descend into a genocidal anarchy ruled by jihadist warlords and become a vortex of chaos and pointless misery and suffering that would suck in all its terrorist neighbors.

     Terror attacks worldwide dropped after the invasion of Iraq to record lows not seen since 1969. We've killed 19,000 terrorists in Iraq. We've drawn up and killed terrorists from throughout the Middle East, many backed by Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. As a result of the invasion, Libya gave up its WMD and we've closed down a black market for WMD in Pakistan. In 2003, the coalition shut down three terror training camps harbored by Saddam. Saddam harbored nearly every terror group in the Middle East save for AQ. He only posed direct problems as a result for Israel, not America. He did harbor Yassin from the WTC attacks and meet with AQ, as well as harbor Zarqawi. I believe he was driven to this out of a desire for revenge for the sanctions and no-fly-zones, whereas his hatred for Israel was based on his religious views. Terror attacks financed by Saddam in Israel did, however, take the lives of 36 American citizens. No one ever said Iraq had a direct operational connection with AQ or was involved with 9/11. The percentage of people in the Muslim world who support AQ has actually gone done following the Iraq war, according to a recent study. Presumably they have less recruits.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 8:37pm

175. The world's largest supplies of oil are in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 8:22pm

     Actually it's Mexico and Canada, but the oil supply to the US is not the motivation so much as who controls the oil. The necons wanted to wrestle control of the oil away from Saddam and the Saudi's, but Bush was always in bed with the Saudis.

     Also, big the oil companies make their biggest profits when supplies are limited, which happens when we have wars.

     If you want to get rid of the Saudi's there is no need to bomb them, though they have control of this country with all the money they have invested here.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 8:38pm

176. Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 8:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A09Ha5M82us&NR=1

     And No. 2.

     Case closed.

     Posted by OneVote at 09/29/2009 @ 8:41pm

177. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A09Ha5M82us&NR=1

     And No. 2.

     Case closed.

     Posted by OneVote at 09/29/2009 @ 8:41pm

     An obvious joke by Bush is treated like a fascist proclamation by anti-semites like onevote.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 8:54pm

178. An obvious joke by Bush is treated like a fascist proclamation by anti-semites like onevote.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 8:54pm

     It's not a joke at all. In fact, Bush's own Chief of Staff has argued that nothing is illegal if the President does it. The last president who made that argument was Nixon.

     That makes him a dictator by definition.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 8:59pm

179. Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 8:37pm

     Terror attacks worldwide increased by 600%.

     There is no way of knowing how many terrorists were killed in Iraq, becasue we don't do body counts and the US military has been exposed planting evidence neat bodies to implicate them as terrorists.

     No matter how many terrorists we kill, they will always be replaced because the number of terrorist is not a finite number.

     Libya's surrender of WMD hjad nothgi to do wtih Iraq, in fact, Lybuia wer trying to do a deal from the early 90's.

     As the Senate 2006 reports revealed, Saddam was not harboring terrorits.

     Saddam harbored no terror groups.

     He posed no problems fro Israel or America.

     He has nothign to do with Yassin from the WTC attacks.

     The 2006 Senate Report revlawd that he had nothign to do with AQ, and was an enemy of Zarqawi, who's camp was outside his reach. Bush refused to bombs Zarqawi's camp at least twice.

     Saddam did not finance any terror attacks in Israel.

     Bush said that there reason he kept repeating that Iraq had a direct operational connection with AQ, is because ther was a direct operational connection with AQ.

     The percentage of people in the Muslim world who support AQ went up dramaticalyl as a result of the Iraq invasion, because OBL's prediction of a US invasion came true. they always said that OBL's indispensable ally was George Bush and visa versa.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 9:08pm

180. According to data from the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), as of September 2007 the global death toll from terror attacks was down by 40 percent compared to 2001. A separate study by the IntelCenter examined the 63 "most significant" attacks launched by al-Qaeda and its affiliates over a period of nearly 10 years. It found that by mid-2007 the number of Islamist attacks across the world had declined by 65 percent from a high point in 2004--and fatalities were down by more than 90 percent. The bottom line: The Bush administration's strategy of staying on offense worked.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 9:18pm

181. Today, support for suicide bombings has plummeted in Muslim nations from the Middle East to South Asia, and Osama bin Laden's popularity is at its lowest point since the 9/11 attacks. According to the 2007 Pew Global Attitudes Project, support for suicide attacks has dropped by more than half from 2002 to 2007 in key Islamic countries: In Lebanon, from 74 percent in 2002 to 34 percent; in Bangladesh from 44 percent to 20 percent; in Indonesia from 26 percent to 10 percent; and in Pakistan from 33 percent to just 9 percent.

     In Saudi Arabia--the nation that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers in the September 11 terrorist attacks--a December 2007 poll by Terror Free Tomorrow found that Osama bin Laden's countrymen have turned "dramatically against him, his organization . . . and terrorism itself." Less than 10 percent of Saudis retain a favorable opinion of al-Qaeda, and 88 percent approve the Saudi military and police pursuit of al-Qaeda fighters. Support for bin Laden has dropped from 49 percent in 2003 to 15 percent today. And 69 percent of Saudis said they favored their government working with the United States to defeat the insurgency in Iraq. http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2009%20-%20Summer/full-Thiessen.html

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 9:21pm

182. According to Ted Gistaro, U.S. national intelligence officer for transnational threats, al-Qaeda senior leaders spent nearly half their airtime in 2008 defending their legitimacy and responding to charges they had violated Islamic laws of war.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 9:23pm

183. "Osama bin Laden remains a pariah in the West, and support for the al Qaeda leader has eroded in several Muslim countries in recent years. In Jordan, confidence in bin Laden has plummeted since May 2005. A year ago, 25% of Jordanians said they had a lot of confidence in bin Laden to "do the right thing regarding world affairs," while another 35% said they had some confidence. Today, almost no Jordanians (fewer than 1%) express a lot of confidence in bin Laden, and 24% say they have some confidence in him."

     Nigeria is the only Muslim country I know of in which support for AQ increased following the Iraq war.

     If you check you will find that support for al Qaeda plummeted in Muslim countries, during the Iraq war and remains very low today. That, it has been suggested, is primarily due to its indiscriminate killing of innocent Muslims and most likely has also been affected by its humiliation in Iraq.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 9:34pm

184. According to data from the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), as of September 2007 the global death toll from terror attacks was down by 40 percent compared to 2001.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 9:18pm

     According to the Mother Jones Magazine, the number of fatal terrorist attacks has increased by over 600 percent since the U.S. invasion.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 10:43pm

185. According to Ted Gistaro, U.S. national intelligence officer for transnational threats, al-Qaeda senior leaders spent nearly half their airtime in 2008 defending their legitimacy and responding to charges they had violated Islamic laws of war.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 9:23pm

     That does not address whether al Qaeda's following increased or decreased since the Iraq invasion.

     According to Michael Sheur, former had of the Bin Laden unit at the CIA, AQ's popularity sky rocketed because of the invasion.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 10:45pm

186. Nigeria is the only Muslim country I know of in which support for AQ increased following the Iraq war.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 9:34pm

     What you didn't know is that Saudi Arabia and the populations of the surrounding Arab states supported Al Qaeda too.

     It's true that the popularity of AQ subsequently suffered due to o its indiscriminate killing of innocent Muslims, but that was after it was increased by the invasion.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 10:50pm

187. Michael Scheur is an idiot. He'd have us believe the Afghan war helped AQ out as well.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 11:25pm

188. Michael Scheur is an idiot. He'd have us believe the Afghan war helped AQ out as well.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 11:25pm

     Yeah, he was just head of the Bin laden unit at the CIA for 8 years, what would he know right?

     You've cited Scheur yourself in previous posts, so I guess that makes you an idiot too.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/29/2009 @ 11:41pm

189. Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 8:54pm

     Larry, what exactly was the determiner of when "Bush is making a joke"!??!?!?

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 07:33am

190. An obvious joke by Bush is treated like a fascist proclamation by anti-semites like onevote.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 8:54pm

     Not that OneVote can't defend himself, but he's not an anti-semite. His strident anti-zionism is difficult for me to understand at times, given that only one strain of Zionism is rightwing, militaristic, uber-nationalistic, and more interested in land than justice. There is also socialist Zionism and liberal Zionism. Being in favor of a two state solution with a division of East Jerusalem is a mainstream Zionist position. OneVote has his ideological and personal reasons for posting the way he does, but his actual beliefs and loyalties apparently are more complex and profound than posting on this site allows.

     Shingo also is difficult for me to understand, and I have not been able to have a conversation with him to see what if anything lies behind his ideological posturing. But I suspect that he too is not a "self-hating" Jew.

     Posted by gren at 09/30/2009 @ 08:43am

191. Posted by gren at 09/30/2009 @ 08:43am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Thank you Gren.

     Zionism is complex, and there are shades of grey. Perhaps I need a verb or two to define better what I "rail" against. When we can discuss this issue with maturity, clarity, and honesty, we will be half-way there, and headed in the right direction.

     Posted by OneVote at 09/30/2009 @ 09:56am

192. Larry, what exactly was the determiner of when "Bush is making a joke"!??!?!?

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 07:33am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Most have called this a "Freudian slip."

     Pretty serious subject matter to making a "joke" of.

     Can you imagine Obama making such a "joke"?

     I sense of the presence of Cheney/Rumsfield, and it is no secret that Cheney's view of executive power aligns itself closely dictatorial powers.

     Posted by OneVote at 09/30/2009 @ 10:05am

193. Larry, what exactly was the determiner of when "Bush is making a joke"!??!?!?

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 07:33am

     the fact that he laughed as he said it would be one good indicator.

     I've debunked this clip before. Here is the relevant transcript from CNN

     <CHRIS BLACK, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Frank, President- elect George W. Bush came to Capitol Hill today for the first time since the election intending to listen to congressional leaders, the bipartisan congressional leadership. But he also made it clear to them, in more than two and a half hours of meetings, that he intends to stand by his tax cut proposal and other planks in his campaign agenda.

     (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

     GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.

     (END VIDEO CLIP)>

     http://tinyurl.com/6gtkc

     Why should liberals be taken seriously if they are going to believe that Bush was serious about that comment?

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 11:16am

194. Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 11:16am

     Well, maybe you're right. He DID joke about "finding those WMDs" at the Correspondent's Dinner.....after we were at war and troops were dying in the field due to that claim.

     Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 12:08pm

195. Larry - debunk this one for me will ya?

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&feature=fvw

     Posted by OneVote at 09/30/2009 @ 12:11pm

196. Obama Bin Ladin is selling out this country, and he is doing it openly. and what is worse the people of America are doing nothing about it. By the year 2013 america will be in worse shape then any Marxist regime that ever existed. That is if there is an American nation left!!!!!!!!!

     Posted by balbarith at 09/30/2009 @ 12:55pm

197. Posted by balbarith at 09/30/2009 @ 12:55pm

     Hit and run paranoid posters.....gotta love 'em.

     Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 1:18pm

198. Larry - debunk this one for me will ya?

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&feature=fvw

     Posted by OneVote at 09/30/2009 @ 12:11pm

     Just another Bush misspeak acting like a politician.

     he didn't actually see the plane hit. he simply heard a report that a plane had just crashed into the 1st tower on CNN.

     the 9/11 truthers are perhaps the most deceived people in all of the wacky world of conspiracy nuts.

     Chew on this Onevote;

     If somehow all of you conspiracy geniuses figured out the "real" truth about 9/11; how come the Democrats can't figure it out?

     Given your conclusion,

     either:

     Given the power plays in DC, it is impossible that the Dems would not use this for permanent power in Washington if there was any truth to it.

     Second conclusion: The Dems know it was true yet did nothing and thus are complicit in "Bush's conspiracy and the coverup".

     One of those must be true in order for your conspiracy to be real.

     So why would you vote for a single Democrat knowing they are either completely incompetent to recognize the "truth about 9/11" or are in on the conspiracy?

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 1:55pm

199. I've already stated my opinion on how the Iranian nuclear question should be handled. But today we find that Iran has intentionally built their bomb making facilities into a side of a mountain so that it would be protected from an areial attack and there are probably more facilities yet undiscovered. Is Iran cagier that thought? Probably. Is Ahmadinejad a tougher customer than Saddam? Probably not. Remember just before Iraq was hit, Saddam ran around destroying everything he had. So why would anyone who is entering the nuclear world just for peaceful purposes want their facility to be bomb proof? Sinister motives apply I fear.

     It will be way too late to do anything about this problem if America pussyfoots around much longer. Iran does not fear sanctions. They want to destroy Israel and will not stop until they're stopped. I say that Israel, with America's blessing, should launch an attack against Iran's facilities now and level that mountain to pebbles. That means an assualt similar to the softening of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The weaponery is much better now. Shock and awe is the answer to this problem. The sooner the better.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/30/2009 @ 2:05pm

200. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/30/2009 @ 2:05pm

     And what happens AFTER that, gunny?

     Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 2:36pm

201. gunslinger1, appropiately named.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/30/2009 @ 2:55pm

202. Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 2:36pm

     Well, probably the same thing that will happen after Iran launches they're missles at Israel. The only difference is that by striking first, we still have our ally. Duh.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/30/2009 @ 3:02pm

203. Posted by Denise29 at 09/30/2009 @ 2:55pm

     Thank you.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/30/2009 @ 3:02pm

204. Larry

     How many different accounts have we heard about Bush's actions on the day of 9/11?

     You are not troubled?

     You would think that two months after, he would have his story straight.

     Misspeak is really a stretch, even for you. This kind of misspeak is enough to convict in "most" criminal courts.

     Posted by OneVote at 09/30/2009 @ 3:22pm

205. Larry

     How many different accounts have we heard about Bush's actions on the day of 9/11?

     You are not troubled?

     You would think that two months after, he would have his story straight.

     Misspeak is really a stretch, even for you. This kind of misspeak is enough to convict in "most" criminal courts.

     Posted by OneVote at 09/30/2009 @ 3:22pm

     I guess that's a no response to my questions

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 3:53pm

206. "Michael Scheur is an idiot. He'd have us believe the Afghan war helped AQ out as well.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/29/2009 @ 11:25pm

     Yeah, he was just head of the Bin laden unit at the CIA for 8 years, what would he know right?

     You've cited Scheur yourself in previous posts, so I guess that makes you an idiot too."

     So, Shingo, it is your position that the Afghan war has also helped out AQ and made us less safe?

     Only the most deluded among us could possibly believe something so utterly deranged.

     According to data from the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), as of September 2007 the global death toll from terror attacks was down by 40 percent compared to 2001. A separate study by the IntelCenter examined the 63 "most significant" attacks launched by al-Qaeda and its affiliates over a period of nearly 10 years. It found that by mid-2007 the number of Islamist attacks across the world had declined by 65 percent from a high point in 2004--and fatalities were down by more than 90 percent.

     I love how, despite empirical evidence proving that terror attacks went down dramatically after the invasion of Afghanistan and even more dramatically to levels not seen since 1969 after the invasion of Iraq, and further showing that the Iraq war has lead to a dramatic DECREASE in support for AQ in the Muslim world and a smaller percentage of Muslims being willing to join AQ as recruits then there would have been without the war, combined with 41,000 terrorists being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the left refuses to simply accept the empirical evidence and facts and embraces delusional fantasy-realities where Bush has actually made a new 9/11 more likely.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/30/2009 @ 5:27pm

207. "You've cited Scheur yourself in previous posts, so I guess that makes you an idiot too."

     I only cited him once on a matter of public record; namely, that Clinton could have assassinated Osama but refused to do so despite being offered chance after chance to eliminate him. I could have cited other sources. Bin Laden actually is an open admirer of Michael Scheuer who has praised his books and recommended them numerous times, and even explicitly stated that American policy ought to be based on his books. Since bin Laden has cited him, and you are suggesting that I should not be able to cite sources with whom I disagree on political issues, are you implying that you think bin Laden and Scheuer are actually on the same ideological side?

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/30/2009 @ 5:35pm

208. So, Shingo, it is your position that the Afghan war has also helped out AQ and made us less safe?

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/30/2009 @ 5:27pm

     yes, because:

     a) Bush let the senior leaders of AQ and the Taliban get way.

     b) We are not fighting AQ anymore, but the local Pashtuns, and thus creating more terrorists every time we bomb a weeding party or a civilian house.

     That's basic logic.

     Since the Iraq invasion, terrorist attacks have risen 600%, so it is clear the empirical evidence proves that we are less safe.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/30/2009 @ 7:22pm

209. I only cited him once on a matter of public record; namely, that Clinton could have assassinated Osama but refused to do so despite being offered chance after chance to eliminate him.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/30/2009 @ 5:35pm

     But he was right about Clinton was he not? And the fact that you can cite other sources to corroborate what he says, means he is credible.

     Bin Laden does not admirer Michael Scheuer, but agrees with Scheuer becasue Scheuer knows what motivates him.

     Don't you wingnuts often quote what Bin Laden says to prove your argument? Does that mean that because you accept what Bin Laden says, you are ideologically aligned with Bin laden?

     Posted by Shingo at 09/30/2009 @ 7:27pm

210. The US and it's NATO allies use democracy and freedom , to loot and plunder the third world countries, as they have been using for ages.The West put it's cronies and kings through fake elections, where votes are forged to suit their greedy, selfish and materialistic way of life.We know the heads of most of these states are the puppets of the powerful corporations and arm industries , that makes money and living out of deadly destruction, looting , wars, civil wars etc.. For their own goal, they will support anyone, that obeys them.See how they used the Taliban, against the Russians in Afghanistan.Yesterday's friend, Today's enemy. What was Saddam for them, before Iraq invaded Kuwait? Who helped Iran in war against Iran? There are many examples in the past. Injustice makes this world unsafe.You can't bring safety with wars and aggressions.

     Posted by Dastu11 at 10/01/2009 @ 10:47am