Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditThe essential and not surprising reality of 2008: The Republicans are desperate for a national security threat to rally their base. How else to explain McCain's uber-adviser/ lobbyist/ Charlie Black's "slip" about how a terrorist attack will help his candidate's failing fortunes.
Now we have Sy Hersh, the reporter who has done more, singlehandedly, to expose the Administration's drive to war--with Iran--than any congressional committee.
Last December, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) found that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Barack Obama claimed that the NIE's findings vindicated his calls for greater engagement with Iran. "By reporting that Iran halted its nuclear weapon development program four years ago because of international pressure, the new National Intelligence Estimate makes a compelling case for less saber-rattling and more direct diplomacy." Then Presidential candidate John Edwards used the strongest language: "The new National Intelligence Estimate shows that George Bush and Dick Cheney's rush to war with Iran is, in fact, a rush to war."
Defiant when confronted by fact-based reporting, Bush stated: " I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program. The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it."
Fast forward. The Bush-Cheney machine has ousted military men like Admiral William Fallon -- whose open and outspoken resistance to the idea of war with Iran gave voice to others in the Pentagon. "Another war is just not where we want to go," Fallon told the FInancial Times a few weeks before he "resigned." The resistance to military action seems to be shared by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. But as the neocon/Cheney camp vents over the decision to de-list North Korea from the terrorism blacklist, that same faction seems even more determined to stoke the Iran fear machine.
These hardliners are endangering the very people they claim to be supporting. Consider the testimony of Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel Peace prizewinning lawyer and dissident who has warned that US support for regime change and US covert funding of Iranian dissidents taints them as foreign proxies undercutting their legitimacy in their own country and endangering their lives.
Congress must reassert its role: Review the 1982 Boland Amendment. Shut down any preemptive military act --covert or overt-- without the consent of Congress.
If that seems a weak reed, given the spinelessness of too many members of congress, and the gullibility of the mainstream media, consider that the rising price of oil is already threatening the world's economy --and military action will almost certainly push oil to $200 a barrel. Consider that we are already bogged down in two wars, stretched thin militarily, and spending $12 billion a month in Iraq. Isn't it time to talk about relying on non-military means to resolve political problems?
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/30/2008 @ 11:44am | ignore this
Regarding your first point (forgive the outdatedness, but I think the premise is still valid):
"To understand the real weight of military Keynesianism in the American economy today, however, one must approach official defense statistics with great care. The "defense" budget of the United States--that is, the reported budget of the Department of Defense--does not include: the Department of Energy's spending on nuclear weapons ($16.4 billion slated for fiscal 2006), the Department of Homeland Security's outlays for the actual "defense" of the United States ($41 billion), or the Department of Veterans Affairs' responsibilities for the lifetime care of the seriously wounded ($68 billion). Nor does it include the billions of dollars the Department of State spends each year to finance foreign arms sales and militarily related development or the Treasury Department's payments of pensions to military retirees and widows and their families (an amount not fully disclosed by official statistics). Still to be added are interest payments by the Treasury to cover past debt-financed defense outlays. The economist Robert Higgs estimates that in 2002 such interest payments amounted to $138.7 billion"
Chalmers A Johnson
On your second point, I have to agree with you, and I certainly hope we're both right.
On your third point, I think it's more likely that Iran would rather further embarrass and infuriate Bush and the neocons by NOT attacking despite any de facto slack the US would cut them following a "congressional repudiation" of Bush. It would be foolish of them to take any action anyway. If Iran has any intention of continuing to exist and/or retain their status as another victim of the big bad bully, it's in their best interest to keep diplomatically cool.
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 12:18pm
Regarding the Chalmers Johnson quote:
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/01/0081346
A fascinating article about the military's significant role in our modern economy. Though I mentioned that the article includes dated figures, I'm going to assume that those figures have gone up if anything.
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 12:22pm
Consequences of attacking Iran would include I personally the price of oil shooting up and I also think that this would only be the tip of the iceberg. As it stands, there are so many different ways the US and supposed "allies" like Israel in particular would come out of such an attack losers, I believe. Iran has not overtly attacked any party, and to the extent that Iran has any operations it supports through proxies in Iraq nobody would be surprised that Iran would involve itself with a war, occupation, and anarchy right along its most important border, undertaken by an arch-enemy country (the US). Iran will be seen very sympathetically and any attack on the country would be seen as unacceptable aggression by the US. Furthermore, the Shi'a world would be enraged and that includes the majority of the population of Iraq. Attacking Iran would be about as stupid an act as could possibly be done.
Posted by Zero at 06/30/2008 @ 12:41pm
Bush and the right have forgotten all about 9/11 and have no interest in keeping America safe from those that attacked us.Instead,they prefer to go after countries that are not a threat,but have oil.The terrorists that came up with 9/11 are in Pakistan and Afghanistan,but Bush and the right don't care if they are making new plans,recruiting,training,etc. because,as a McCain person stated,it is to their advantage to have another terrorist attack here.They need for these terrorists to stay strong just as they need abortion to stay legal.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/30/2008 @ 1:07pm
I guess we wait, then. Apparently we are supposed to.
After Obama becomes president, Iran will have the nuclear weapons they can develop quickly - once civilian and power producing capability out of nuclear materials is developed it is only a short hop over to nuclear weapons from the material.
After that, the next step is that Iran will probably go ahead and destroy Israel.
Then, I guess, Obama will open up diplomatic channels to start dialog with the Iranians to determine what we did to make them angry, and see what part of our behavior needs to be modified in order to coexist in peace with them.
Hopefully either the Israelis or George W. Bush or both will do something about this so the scenario above doesn't come to pass. (and by doing something about it I don't mean peace and love and dialog and discussion and consensus and concession, etc.)
And if they do, will libs have a fit! But untold numbers of lives will have been saved.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2008 @ 1:07pm
sjchermak-If you'd get informed you'll discover that Israel could wipe Iran from the face of the Earth,but Iran can't do much of anything to Israel even if they got a nuclear weapon.Nuking the Dome would cause Iran to have serious problems with the rest of the Muslim world and nuking Israel would,also,affect Mecca.They aren't going to nuke the Pals nor are they going to nuke Muslim holy sites that exist in Israel.The Iranians,also,know that nuking Israel would mean their complete destruction.Do we have a treaty with Israel?
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/30/2008 @ 1:15pm
As long as I am on a roll I might as well keep going here.
Message to i'm nobody:
About your last sentence - you say you are nobody but you ARE somebody. You ARE alive because when your mother chose (which she of course has a right to do - a right that is so absolute beyond belief and that nobody dare question as commanded by liberal America and which is constitutionally guaranteed, according to liberal America) she chose to allow your birth to occur.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2008 @ 1:17pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2008 @ 1:07pm | ignore this person |
"After Obama becomes president, Iran will have the nuclear weapons they can develop quickly - "
But if MCCAIN becomes president-- they won't? Or will he already have "Kicked There ASS" within his first day?
Unfortunately, if there is to be a conflict with Iran, it will probably be Israel to throw the first punch, thereby dragging the US into the conflict, be it MCCain or Obama (see AIPAC speech transcripts).
But heavan forbid anyone should ever verbally resolve anything before squeezing that trigger! Intelligence Estimate? HA! Bush is right about this, just like he's been right about EVERYTHING!!
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 1:19pm
sjchermak-Do you have a response that requires maturity and intelligence?I,already,know that my mother gave birth to me.I learned about that sort of thing many years ago.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/30/2008 @ 1:22pm
Hello i'm nobody,
You say that nuking Israel would mean complete destruction for Iran.
Uh, where have you been? If John McCain gets elected, then maybe. If Hillary Clinton had been elected, then that would have been the outcome, she said so.
But she was "defeated" in your Democrat race for president by Barack Obama, who said that Hillary Clinton's response about the question was not language "needed right now"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/04/clintons-obliterate-iran_n_1000 31.html
So it is what I said it is, which is why I said it.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2008 @ 1:23pm
MBB-If you'd get a clue then you'd figure out that there is no reason to attack Canada because we get along with them and trade with them.You are not killing terrorists.They kill themselves.You are creating terrorists because you need them in order to stay in power.That's why you allow them to be free in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The reason the GOP needs for abortion to stay legal, and the reason it is legal, is because they need those one issue voters to keep voting for them.You aren't creating a democracy in the middle east.You are creating an Islamic state.By the way,I'm not Jesus nor does Jesus need to get a clue..
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/30/2008 @ 1:32pm
sjchermak-Israel has more than enough nukes to take out Iran and would be able to launch them even if Iran struck first.There is no reason to believe that Obama would not respond just as McCain or Hillary would.Something you would know if you'd get informed.Again,do we have a treaty with Israel?
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/30/2008 @ 1:35pm
To sjchermak - I'm trying to figure out if you are for real. Diplomacy does not mean appeasement, it is not the same as being wishy-washy. Nor is being a bully the same as being strong. Personally I found it terrifying that Bush would consider invading Iran if it looks like Obama will win (or if he does win?).
This administration makes decisions based on political goals. Then they sell their decisions as if they were moouthwash. The reason they couldn't cope with Katrina (the hurricane) is that they couldn't manipulate people with words who had seen the pictures.
I do hope that those who think an invasion unlikely are right. But I also hope Congress takes action to make it not only unlikely, but impossible.
Posted by ramara at 06/30/2008 @ 1:35pm
libzr-Iran does not have rockets that can get here.Saddam could not get here,either.Stop being afraid of your own shadow.Your spouse or kids are thousands of times more likely to kill you than an Iranian rocket.Your bath tub is a much much much etc. more of a threat to your life than Iran is..
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/30/2008 @ 1:45pm
Now isn't it most patently absurd to see the campaign to attack Iran as an exclusively Republican phenomenon? How many Iranian resolutions have passed the Congress in the last couple of years withouut neigh-on unanimous Democratic Party support? Does it really occur to the writer that after his full court grovel before the AIPAC Congress three weeks ago, Barak Obama's talk of dialogue with Iran is anything but the most egregious facade? The American people have no genuine freedom where matters of Middle Eastern policy are concerned. Our Congress is utterly enslaved by the threats and intimidations of The Lobby, anyone in their right mind knows that. We have no independence of action when it comes to Iran, and even less so does Obama, his having wussed his way through his speech before His Master's Voice. And there is the matter of the AIPAC authorized - probably written - resolutions concerning a blockade of Iran facing certain passage by the Congress within a week or so. A blockade, should anyone be unaware, is an act of war. With covert activities to overturn the Iranian government long in progress and more on the way, we are no less at war with Iran today than we were with National Socialist Germany in the period immediately prior to Decenber 7, 1941. And its farcical to depict party attitudes toward events as divided. They're not.
Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 2:10pm
Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 2:10pm
The most accurate assessment yet!
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 2:19pm
Thanks for the important post, Katrina.
There should be no doubting the seriousness of the situation of the current U.S. executive vis–à–vis Iran. I would also suggest, along with others here, that it would appear unlikely from a sanity standpoint, that an attack on Iran will occur.
But never say never I suppose –even if an attack on Iran would assuredly send this nation on an even deeper downward spiral.
In any case, I'd like to add some brief commentary on the Sunday Roundtable at Stephanopoulos' "This Week" show.
First, I was a bit disappointed with Katrina's defense of The Nation's past stance of "Ralph, don't run". As Ms. vanden Heuvel indicated, Nader is running outside of the electoral system, and that can be problematic, I agree. But I believe that Katrina's assertion of the current importance of "working within the system" to reform it presents a fallacy of the false choice.
Why can't an insurgency campaign be one tool in our progressive toolkit among many?
Especially in light of the apparent fact that progressive organizations are not likely to team up and voice their unified dismay at Barack Obama's sharp right turn since his June 3rd clinching of the Democratic nomination. This is a point I've been arguing for over the last few weeks here at The Nation, we need to act now in order to apply the needed maximum force to correct Obama's dangerously craven maneuvering.
Unfortunately, Katrina, on this latest episode of This Week (viewable online) you were behind the curve a bit, but Arianna Huffington did, to some extent, pull our progressive bacon out of the fire.
Ms. Huffington was right on point when she warned that "if Obama is seen as oscillating" it may cause serious problems with his brand –his brand being hope for a new kind of politics over the tired old "finger to the wind" tactics so in vogue in DC.
As Arianna indicated, we have a pregnant moment in American politics where items previously seen as too leftist are now popular with 60 to 80 percent of the people –troops home ASAP, health care reform, corporate responsibility, addressing global warming. Obama's recent flip flops on some core issues -- NAFTA, and campaign finance reform among them--are threatening to cede the high ground to McCain's (admittedly a sham but effective given a supine and defective media) message of straight talk and principled action. That message should be Obama's ace in the hole, and he's in the act of discarding it as we speak.
I would submit, since progressives seem incapable of synchronizing our voices in an effort to correct Obama's now badly wobbling trajectory, we have very little option left but to threaten a mass exodus to Ralph Nader's campaign, or simply to not vote in protest of a system (and an empire) that is destined for collapse no matter who wins in November –it's now becoming simply a matter of how rapid that collapse will be.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/30/2008 @ 3:32pm
Hello i'm nobody,
You say that I would know that Obama would respond the same as McCain or Hillary Clinton if I got informed.
Since Obama's comments about the matter are on the public record and were widely broadcast, how am I not informed?
If Obama is not willing to come out and say he would obliterate Iran if they attacked Israel with a nuke, there is every reason to believe he would not.
Don't forget - the time is NOW to let Iran know they will be no more if they attack with a nuke, not AFTER they do it. If they know they will be destroyed, then maybe they won't attack in the first place.
Hopefully, that won't be an issue because hopefully we will do something in the near future to render them incapable of attacking with a nuke in the first place. But in case we do not, they need to know what their fate is if they do attack Israel or anybody else with a nuke.
You keep asking if we have a treaty with Israel. I do not know if we have a treaty, I do not care if we have a treaty and I am not going to look it up. Treaty or no treaty, if Iran were to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, Iran would need to be totally destroyed.
To ramara:
You want to know if I am for real. Yes.
You said "Diplomacy does not mean appeasement"
Oh, but for most posting in on this website, it absolutely does. You see all kinds of things on this site, such as promoting that we bring the troops home ASAP, even though we are now winning in Iraq. We are supposed to immediately capitualte and surrender and give up, and concentrate on building socialism here at home, as commanded by the editors and contributing writers and most leftist bloggers that have comment here on this site, on the issues of the day.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2008 @ 3:52pm
Israel may very well render this whole issue moot.
By the way, consider the following points: Abu Ghraib where people with no training were doing stupid things and posting them on the internet.
The CIA sent someone like Joe Wilson to Niger. He doesn't know anymore about intillegenge gathering than the morons referred to in the previous paragraph.
The intelligence leading to the Iraq war sucked at best.
I just don't have much faith in our intelligence capabilities. Israel has shown itself to be far better in this area than we are. The rest of the world needs to stop Iran before Israel bombs the shit outta them and starts one hell of another world war.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/30/2008 @ 4:17pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/30/2008 @ 3:32pm
I would call what we both witnessed on ABC yesterday an embarrassment, but its seems rather typical of Katrina to sell herself out to the system since she's so much a part, albeit the left end, of it. And it is for this very reason that your post is so important. All the self-interested are on-board now with an intent on gaining power. You won't have power, and I won't have power, but Katrina will have power pretending all the while to give voice to those who are powerless. Ultimately, one's stomach turns watching these vermin appear to contend for the interests of this or that group each week. A progressive vote for Nader is of the essence and precisely because he isn't on-board in this way. He's been a problem for those that are on-board for decades. And now he's a problem for the Katrinas and for the Daily Kos go-alongs and the rest of these reptiles and thank goodness that he is.
Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 4:41pm
>>>and military action will almost certainly push oil to $200 a barrel. Consider that we are already bogged down in two wars, stretched thin militarily, and spending $12 billion a month in Iraq. Isn't it time to talk about relying on non-military means to resolve political problems?<<<
Bush, AIPAC and the Neocons have broken new ground, in which they COMPLETELY IGNORE the NIE considered judgment that since 2003 there has been no nuclear program in Iran.
One has to ask why?
If you know there are no nukes, but you want to bomb and destabilize another country in the Middle East, what is driving your thought process?
In listening to Hersh today on Democracy Now, it is clear that if Obama is going to be our next president, these idiots plan to attack Iran before Obama's inauguration to tie up the new president in yet another ill-advised dumb war. Even Defense Secretary Gates has indicated that if we attack Iran, our grandchildren will be fighting Jihadist their entire life.
So who would be the beneficiaries of such a scheme? Certainly, the military-industrial-complex, that Dick Cheney has swore an oath to protect and defend would benefit. And this includes not only the Republican Haliburton-type companies, but the Democratic Feinstein/Blum - URS/Boston Scientific type companies as well.
And what about Israel? AIPAC has been urging Congress to attack Iran for years, and was one of the principle groups spreading false intelligence concerning Iran's non-existent nuclear program that was debunked by the NIE. If Iran really has no nuclear program, why do the powers-that-be in Israel want us to attack Iran?
Apparently, it is some sort of macho-bravado chest pounding thing, in that ANY country in the Middle East that is thought to rival Israel in power and influence must be taken down a notch (or two, or three).
This is INSANE! Americans and the rest of the world are being held hostage to macho insecurities on the part of a few very short-sighted individuals who have no business in ANY position of power. And John (McSame ) McCain really is more of the same with his "bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran" comment.
When are the American people going to stand up and say ENOUGH!!!?
Posted by Metteyya at 06/30/2008 @ 5:06pm
To sjchermak:
Thank you for answering. I have a hard time seeing how talking to countries we don't agree with is in any way a far left concept. Did you know that at the Reagan Library they recently made public papers showing that Reagan was actively pursuing talks with the Soviets almost from the baginning of his tenure? He was a sensible man (though I disagreed with him most of the time) and knew how dangerous the impasse between the 2 countries was. He was in favor of reaching a nuclear reduction treaty, and knew that negotiations were the only way to get one.
As for the Nation, I am a fan, being an old-fashioned New Deal Democrat, but I have always seen different views in the letters.
As for John Lowell - Please think of the Supreme Court and what will happen to it if another conservative becomes president. I wish Nader had chosen a few election cycles ago to run as a Democrat. That would have been an interesting debate. Or maybe for Congress. But we cannot afford any more Justices like Alito and Roberts.
Posted by ramara at 06/30/2008 @ 5:22pm
Posted by Metteyya at 06/30/2008 @ 5:06pm
"And what about Israel? AIPAC has been urging Congress to attack Iran for years, and was one of the principle groups spreading false intelligence concerning Iran's non-existent nuclear program that was debunked by the NIE. If Iran really has no nuclear program, why do the powers-that-be in Israel want us to attack Iran?"
No, no. The problem isn't understanding why the powers-that-be in Israel want us to attack Iran, that's simply a question of lets you and him fight. What else would you expect? The problem is in understanding why a candidate for the office of President of the United States trots himself off to AIPAC with a dual lapel pin attached to his suit coat and grovels so abjectly before a leadership there that ought to register their organization as an agent of a foreign power. That's the problem. If you think for five minutes that Barak Obama after doing that grovel intends anything different for this country than we've had for the last eight years with the present Regime, you need a sunny room and a wheelchair.
Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 5:29pm
Posted by ramara at 06/30/2008 @ 5:22pm
A good point. Nader's great but a.) be realistic-- he can at best(or worst) attract 1/3 of the left and hand the presidency to McCain, and b.) The Supreme court is the heart of the ideological battle. Any more R.A.T.S in the court and progressives can kiss their high hopes goodbye!
However you want to characterize it, voting Nader this time is a mistake, not with so much AT stake. It's time to "get real". (Yes, Dr. Phil style)
Posted by MATTMAN at 06/30/2008 @ 5:41pm
Hello Ramara,
The difference between talking to the Soviets back then and talking to Iran now is that the Soviets did not declare they wanted to kill us. They wanted to defeat us and impose their communism on us, which of course was bad, but they did not want to kill us in the process.
The leader of Iran has stated publicly as follows:
link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn
/content/article/2006/08
/03/AR2006080300629.html
(I broke the link up into 3 lines so it will post)
Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, End Crisis
By SEAN YOONG The Associated Press Thursday, August 3, 2006; 10:49 AM
PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel.
So there is a difference between dealing with the Soviets and dealing with the monster running Iran. If a leader of another country talks to him, that is giving him legitimacy he does not deserve.
This is not a case of just not wanting to talk to a country we don't agree with. As you have pointed out, we have in the past and we do now talk to a lot of people we don't agree with.
But this goes beyond not agreeing with him. This monster must be stopped at all cost now, or we will pay a higher price later on.
And yet, it seems on left-leaning websites, and with the leftist candidate for president this year, that talking to Ahmadinejad is advocated.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2008 @ 5:45pm
Posted by ramara at 06/30/2008 @ 5:22pm
"As for John Lowell - Please think of the Supreme Court and what will happen to it if another conservative becomes president. I wish Nader had chosen a few election cycles ago to run as a Democrat. That would have been an interesting debate. Or maybe for Congress. But we cannot afford any more Justices like Alito and Roberts."
And likewise, can we afford any more justices like Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer? In one case, one more vote brings the death of democracy and in the other, the death of millions more children. I have no illusions about a "liberal" court, any more than I do a "conservative" one, Ramara. Any system that presents citizens with either/or choices of the kind I've just described has reached the end of its useful life. Any choice you make within it is morally reprehensible. In an environment such as this, the least damaging course is to support no candidate, or two candidates, depending on already existing biases, and each of which is outside the pale, Nadar for "progressives", Baldwin for "conservatives". Anything, but not Obama and not McCain. Please, not Obama and not McCain, please!
Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 5:52pm
>>> If you think for five minutes that Barak Obama after doing that grovel intends anything different for this country than we've had for the last eight years with the present Regime, you need a sunny room and a wheelchair.
Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 5:29pm <<<
Barack is doing what he has to do to get elected - how he actually governs is quite another matter.
Like it or not, 50% of the campaign cash going to Democrats comes from AIPAC and their operatives. If Obama is to have coattails in a win in November, AIPAC is unfortunately still a key to such coattails.
I suspect as OBama settles in to office, serious proposals to reform our election system, including publicly funded elections for ALL federal positions, will get passed. This leaves AIPAC and all lobbyists out in the cold, in which the 527 route is the only route left until the Supreme Court changes the scope of protected free speech or there is a constitutional amendment to do the same.
Federal lobbyists are on their last leg.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/30/2008 @ 6:42pm
The problem is that if you don't vote for Obama or McCain you still get one of them. And this time around which you get makes a difference.
One of my favorite cartoons back in the '60's was a picture of 99 ostriches on a beach with their heads in the sand. Enter #100, who looks around and says, "Where'd everybody go?"
Posted by ramara at 06/30/2008 @ 6:50pm
Posted by Metteyya at 06/30/2008 @ 6:42pm
"Barack is doing what he has to do to get elected - how he actually governs is quite another matter."
So your theory here is that the end justifies the means, that its OK to say or do anything so long as it assists in getting you elected. Hitler made that principle the center piece of his strategy also, you know. With all due respect to you personally, I think you ought to make a call to your priest, minister, or rabbi to get their guidance on this question.
"I suspect as OBama settles in to office, serious proposals to reform our election system, including publicly funded elections for ALL federal positions, will get passed. This leaves AIPAC and all lobbyists out in the cold, in which the 527 route is the only route left until the Supreme Court changes the scope of protected free speech or there is a constitutional amendment to do the same."
Now, in this case, it would be to an entirely different kind of an advisor that I'd point you.
Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 7:06pm
Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 7:06pm
You must challenge your own cynicism and doubt or you become part of the problem rather than the solution.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/30/2008 @ 7:09pm
Couple of scared sheep posting here.... Let the fearmongering begin... Rovian playbook going full tilt already...
Sad ass lieberman yesterday implying an 'attack within the first months of the next presidency'.... RUN EVERYONE !! if we dont elect Mcsame we're all going to die.
Iran is another in the great smokescreen that is the Bush administration. Dont forget its the folly of the whole "Operation Iraqi Freedom (lol)" that has emblodened them... So when I read the blind acceptance of The Bush Administrations "latest Assesmants" by the republican posters on here, I just laugh... Laugh in a sympathetic way for them...
Do you republican MORONS really think Iran would nuke Palestine..?? LOL... Look at a map of Israel... Is anything sinking in now..?? lol...
Hopefully this election, Mericans' won't be so FOOLISH as to believe the side that has YET to be 'RIGHT' ON ANYTHING.
GET A GRIP...
Common sense... Not so common.
Posted by Vvf1969 at 06/30/2008 @ 7:25pm
Posted by ramara at 06/30/2008 @ 6:50pm
"The problem is that if you don't vote for Obama or McCain you still get one of them. And this time around which you get makes a difference."
Well, the premise in both instances here is faulty. There is no necessary connection between not voting for either Obama or McCain and getting one of them. To the contrary, its precisely not voting for one of them that helps assure their defeat. You don't overhaul a diseased system by voting for the survival of its key components, you vote to take them out if you decide to vote at all and don't seek to participate in some kind of direct action, the kind that characterized the situation in Ukraine a couple of years ago, for example. Frankly, in my view, this later is the only way you'll ever see convincing change in this country, ramara. What we need in November isn't so much an election, what we need are public trials and sentences and a new constitution that prohibits public service to the kind of bacteria that hold office today.
Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 7:29pm
Posted by Metteyya at 06/30/2008 @ 7:09pm
"You must challenge your own cynicism and doubt or you become part of the problem rather than the solution."
"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving beast. Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 7:38pm
Posted by Maskbeta at 06/30/2008 @ 8:05pm
"lowell, what is Ralph Nader's position on abortion...and why do you support it?"
I answered this question for you on another thread, Maskbeta, so I'll copy it for you here also:
A fair question to ask of me, Maskbetta. Nader favors abortion to my knowledge, and for that reason I could never vote for him. Baldwin, the Constitutional Party candidate, opposes both the war and abortion but seek an end to the UN and social security, positions I can't support in conscience either. So I'll be sitting it out this time yet again. But few will follow the path I've chosen for myself, of course, and will vote for someone anyway. In the interest of inflicting the least damage possible on humanity, I'm encouraging those that purpose to vote and that see themselves as "progressive" to cast theirs for Nader and those that purpose to vote and that see themselves as "conservative" to cast theirs for Baldwin. Its the least offensive configuration I can manage such being the available choices.
Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 8:09pm
Hello Vvf1969,
Joe Lieberman knows what he is talking about. That sets him apart from those who do not, for example, you.
You ask us "Republican Morons" if Iran would nuke Israel. The answer is yes, they would. Their president has said he thinks Israel should be destroyed.
What part of THAT don't you understand?
You want us to look at a map of Israel and wonder if "anything is sinking in now".. If you are implying that Israel is small then what is sinking in to my mind is where do the Arab/Palestinian/Islamic people get off dictating for all these years now that there is to be no Israel, and making attempt after attempt to achieve that goal - first by overt war and then by terrorism?
These are things that a "scared sheep" like me looks at. And I did not try to call Karl Rove to get words for this posting, I assume he is busy meeting with the chickenhawk neocons before going to the meetings to figure out how to steal more money from the poor and give it to the rich, take everybody's civil liberties away, manipulate gas prices for the oil companies, torture the poor little darlings at Gitmo who want to kill us, steal more money from the poor, and help President Bush install state theocracy. Mr. Rove is a busy man so I didn't want to bother him, because even though he doesn't work in the White House any more he is, of course, behind the scenes manipulating and scheming in order to help the President oppress the people of this country and the world.
To those of you who are nodding your head in agreement with my last paragraph, stop nodding- I am being sarcastic!
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2008 @ 8:18pm
>>> I'm encouraging those that purpose to vote and that see themselves as "progressive" to cast theirs for Nader and those that purpose to vote and that see themselves as "conservative" to cast theirs for Baldwin. Its the least offensive configuration I can manage such being the available choices.
Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 8:09pm<<<
But since you are posting this nonsense on progressive boards like The Nation, not conservative ones, the effect of your actions is electing John (McSame) McCain. This wouldn't be a bad choice for you personally as a pro-life booster with three "liberal" justices about to retire, but you obviously want to keep that aspect of your campaign quiet.
You are using Nader's campaign to push the pro-life agenda because you know more votes for Nader means less votes for Obama and a likely McCain win in November.
I just hope progressives are not stupid enough to be influenced by so-called Nader supporters like you.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/30/2008 @ 8:27pm
john lowell - Maybe the Pope would do for you, being against both the war and abortion? I've enjoyed sparring with you. Maybe we'll do it again. I'm new to this whole internet thing, and I'm having a blast.
By the way, 2004 is the first time I voted for president. Bush convinced me that waiting for the revolution was too dangerous.
Metteyya - Thanks for making sense.
Posted by ramara at 06/30/2008 @ 9:02pm
Face it everybody, we invade Iran we are the bad guys. That would be a shame because Americans are not the bad guys.
Those who seek to control via missile are.
Iran isn't a threat any more than Saddam was a threat. America defeated the USSR by letting it collapse under the weight of its corruption and injustice.
Iran will fall in the same way eventually. People long to be free.
Don't let the fearmongers take us there again!
Posted by ginza00 at 06/30/2008 @ 10:51pm
Don't allow them to justify unjust war!
Posted by ginza00 at 06/30/2008 @ 10:52pm
I'm no fan of Lieberman, but Clinton was challenged early in his term by the WTT bombings. And GW was challenged by 9/11.
Statistically, it is a safe assumption that Obama could be likewise challenged...
He will respond as a leader, unlike his predecessors.
Posted by ginza00 at 06/30/2008 @ 11:00pm
Posted by ramara at 06/30/2008 @ 9:02pm
Oh, indeed, the Pope would be my very first choice for president if he weren't already serving in a far more important capacity. A very great man and intellect, Pope Benedict XVI.
I've enjoyed meeting and communicating with you, too, ramara. Don't stay away.
Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 11:26pm
Posted by Maskbeta at 06/30/2008 @ 9:27pm
Since its your rather annoying habit to double post, I've left some carefully worded comments and instructions for you on the other thread in answer to these remarks. I'm sure you'll want to read them. I have no plan to post them here as well.
Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 11:33pm
Posted by john lowell at 06/30/2008 @ 11:33pm
Ah, I have read all of your "carefully worded comments and instructions" in numerous posts. Your logic is both twisted and contradictory. You tell progressives to vote for Nader, while you yourself will not, and in fact will not vote at all, while hoping for public trials and sentences and a new constitution, while you sit on your ass and do nothing.
I can summarize your instructions in a simple sentence. "Do as I say, not as I do."
However, I do give you credit for honesty in your convictions, as strange and self incriminating as they may be.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/01/2008 @ 12:14am
sjchermak...
I feel for you ... Seriously, when you get your head out of your butt, first clean up, then really look at a map of Israel... do you see that little speck know to some as Palestine...?? Ya can't 'Nuke' israel w/o Palestine being involved... DO YOU GET THAT..?? THINK... THINK... This isn't '24'... Fallout, refugees, are real... a real mess.... NOT to mention
LIEBERMAN KNOWS WHAT?? What makes him Know anything..?? Trust Liebermann... Trust Liebermann... LOL... HE KNOWS... TRUST The Administration... They have been spot on...
Iran would lose everything with an attack on Joes masters... Thats reality lil guy...
So, upon reading my first post, I realized i was way to harsh on you, and your kind.
So to conclude I sincerely apologize to sheep, and morons. Never again will I compare them to Mindless Republicans. Sorry.
Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/01/2008 @ 08:43am
This monster must be stopped at all cost now, or we will pay a higher price later on.
what is he? King Kong? you're foaming at the mouth.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2008 @ 3:06pm
Hmm. A lot of this comes down to propaganda. The President of Iran's quote when closely examined by someone who doesn't buy the propaganda isn't saying he wants to kill all Israelis. He said the elimination of the "Zionist regime." Now there is a grossly fundamental difference between saying you support genocide or saying that you ousting a government you don't agree with. After all wasn't that supposed to be our goal going into Iran? We were getting rid of a government that we didn't agree with. It would appear that if you cut through all the propaganda that what Iran want's isn't the destruction of the Israeli people, but instead he wants the destruction of the Israeli GOVERNMENT which America does all the time, Cuba, Iraq, Russie, North Korea.
This is all propaganda. Once again we posturing for war based on a misquote and fundamentally faulty information. If he really wanted to obliterate Israel would he have stopped building nukes? Wouldn't he be doing a bit of military posturing now? Instead right now all the threats are going TOWARD Iran and none are going toward the US or Israel. Buy into the propaganda andc the fear mongering all you want however you can not change the fact that the man never called for the murder of Israelis or Americans, he only ever called for the destruction of the Zionist Regime, which is a government, not a people.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/01/2008 @ 5:40pm
Hello emile duBois,
You ask if I am foaming at the mouth. I would have to ask what are you doing, that you have your head in the sand and don't understand that when someone says they are going to destroy something, maybe they mean it and maybe they should be stopped.
Hello CCComfor1,
Even if Ahmadinejad does not want to kill Israelis (and I believe he does) it is not the Israeli government he wants to get rid of, it is Israel. Virtually every last Arabic person/Islamic person/Palestinian person's goal for the last 50 years has been the destruction of Israel, with the exception of Anwar Sadat and King Hussein of Jordan. They want no Israel and they have never backed off of this.
It is not acceptable to say that the Jewish people can continue to live in the region, but not in a country called Israel, but something else governed by somebody primarily other than they. It is not acceptable to call for Israel to go out of existence.
The situation gets worse, because Iran will have a nuclear weapon in the near future (and they will have it despite what this National Intelligence Estimate shows - it is not difficult to move beyond nuclear capability developed for power generating purposes to developing it for weapons purposes - this NIE claims they are not developing a weapon but they indeed are developing the capability by developing power generating capability to have a weapon quickly).
One has to believe that using the nuclear weapon will probably be or could likely be Ahmadinejad's choice of method to destroy Israel. At that point, a lot of people will be killed.
He is not trying to remove the Israeli government and replace it with another Israeli government acceptable to him. He wants to destroy Israel as an entity to begin with. NOT ACCEPTABLE.
If we go the pacifist route and trust that he doesn't really mean what he says or even if he does he won't use a nuclear bomb to achieve his goals, then we run the risk of losing millions of people when he does wind up using the nuclear bomb after all.
Letting him go now and hoping for the best is like playing Russian Roulette with this issue, with people's lives in the balance. We need to take this threat seriously and stop this monster before it is too late.
Repeating - the destruction of Israel or the elimination of Israel as a country is NOT ACCEPTABLE, and those who advocate it's destruction and will probably have a nuclear weapon besides need to be STOPPED NOW.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/02/2008 @ 12:30pm
Posted by sjchermak
you have a poor understanding of iranian politics.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/02/2008 @ 12:57pm
Repeating - the destruction of Israel or the elimination of Israel as a country is NOT ACCEPTABLE, and those who advocate it's destruction and will probably have a nuclear weapon besides need to be STOPPED NOW.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/02/2008 @ 12:30pm
You are basing a full scale military invasion on assumptions that are baseless. Let's face it the NIE is the Intelligence of EVERY intelligence organization in the US. Yet you are summarily dismissing YEARS of collected data and substituting your own assumption for a region that in actuality we know little to nothing about other than the propaganda you and I read. That is not acceptable. You have to base this countries well being on FACT. Right now the FACT is that every credible intelligence force we have is saying that Iran disbanded nuclear weapons research. That is what we have to go off of. Bush ignored the NIE going into Iraq and they ended up being right. We can not go to war based on assumptions.
You say that if we wait and Iran does have a nuke and it ends up using it that there will be a loss of 1 million lives. Well if we go to war with Iran there will be a loss of a comparable amount of life. This is not going to be like Iraq, where we were invading a country that was under the finger of a dictator. If we invade most of Iran will take up arms against us. We will cause a GLOBAL economic destabilization through the price of oil jumping to $200 p/b. There will be thousands of American troops and hundreds of thousands of Iranians killed. There will be MASSIVE population displacement into other regions. We will once again. Find ourselves alone, sinking Americas economy even more into the hole. The repercussions of this fight based on nothing, let me emphasize that, NOTHING more than an assumption are not worth the few gains.
Why do Arabs not like the state of Israel? Probably because Israel was raised from the dirt by forces outside of the Middle East. They empowered Israel and gave them governing force over a huge region, displaced massive amounts of the Arab population who already lived there. We gave Israel power over the most hotly contested religious region in the world, Jerusalem. We then told every Arab in the region to blow out it out their ass if they didn't like it. No wonder they hate the west. We showed a complete and utter disregard for the population of the region in our decision. Israel should never have been created. The Jews had no governing power in the region for 1600 years prior to the recreation of Israel and it is not the place of the West to step in and tell them how things in their region should be done. Like I have said before. If you support the recreation of Israel then you have to support the giving of America back the Native-Americans because the argument for both is essentially the same.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2008 @ 1:56pm
Cccomfo1,
Israel has a right to exist.
This area is the ancestral homeland to the Jewish people.
Between biblical times and the approximate time of the late 1800's and early 1900's the area became sparsley popluated.
Jewish people returned to this area after that, as well as people who now call themselves Palestinians. The concept of Palestinians as a people, in the context it is used now, is only a recent concept.
Jewish people created fertile lands out of what was desert.
In 1947-48 the United Nations proposed a two state solution for the region. A Jewish state and a Palestinian state.
"Israel proper" which seems to be the term for Israel without the territories, is only 9 miles wide at one point. One of the bloggers in this tread keeps pointing out how small Israel is. Compare that to all the Arabic/Islamic land world-wide.
The Jewish people had no quarrel with a Palestinian state.
The Palestinian/Arabic/Islamic people said no, had no intention of ever saying yes, and to this day have no intention of ever saying yes and have done everything in their power to bring about the end of Israel.
The Israelis were not in the territories at all, nor did they control all of Jerusalem, until after the 1967 war.
There was no justification whatsoever for the Arabic world to oppose the existence of Israel. YOu say it was done without regard for their views. Their views were wrong. It was not a matter that they did not opposed Israel in and of itself but that they were not comfortable with the proposed arrangement and wanted to negotiate something different. They did not want something different, they wanted no Israel, period.
You say populations were displaced. The Israelis did not require Arabs leave Israel, they were encouraged to do so by other Arabs. And you make no mention of the Jewish refugees that had to flee Arab lands. Don't forget, also, there are Arabic people in Israel, even in the Knesset, and they live a lot better then many Arabic people in Arab lands live.
What I see coming through in your argument is the same thing I have seen many times before- that even if you do not intend to say it or even imply it it is implied that the Arabs have absolute authority over the region.
I say this because the Arabs had no intention of ever agreeing to Israel, but I guess since they said no, then the Jewish people were required to give up on the idea of Israel. To do otherwise, as was done, is declared wrong by you and a lot of others - I have seen a blogger call it imperialism.
You say it is not the place of the West to tell people in their region (Middle East) how things should be done. But the Middle East is not just the Arab's region, it is the Jewish people's region too. But that aspect of it doesn't seem to matter.
You say the Jews had no governing power in the region for 1600 years. The purpose of the creation of Israel was not to give Jews governing power over the region, it was to give them governing power over a small piece of the region, Israel.
The Arab view is a very racist and one sided view that they have the right to control all that goes on over their and deny a tiny sliver of land to someone other than they.
I could go on all day with this. Israel has a right to exist and Israel is here to stay whether those in the Arab world and those on the political left here at home like it or not.
As far as Iran this NIE has changed recently regarding the subject of Iran. How do we know it is the correct assessment now? And supposedly disbanding nuclear weapons research means nothing because the big hurdle is developing the capability to use nuclear materials to generate power, and once that is done, which the Iranians are doing, then it is not far removed to go the next step and put that capability into weapons.
I am not the least bit comfortable with showing somebody (the Iranian president) with the view of the world he has, any kind of leeway at all.
It is 6 of one and half a dozen of another. Stopping Iran will cause a lot of problems, as you have pointed out. But do we wait and then one day wake up and find a lot of the world has been nuked by the crackpot running Iran?
I am sure most people are sick of hearing the analogy by now, but we went down this path in the 1930's - with Winston Churchill calling attention to the growing German threat and most people ignoring him and going the pacifist route instead. "Peace in our time" did not work out very well, did it?
Chuchill was right, the pacifists (including people like Charles Lindbergh and Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.) were wrong. I am sure Tony Blair had this in mind (the failed policiy of PM Neville Chamberlain) when he was assessing how to handle the threat from Saddam.
We need somebody like Tony Blair to be our next President. He is not elibible to run for President, Winston Churchill can't either due to his being dead -even though his mother was American so if he were alive maybe he would qualify, so we have to go with the only person available right now who is not committed to defeat in Iraq, and that is the Republican In Name Only candidate John McCain.
Joe Lieberman would be another person who would be right for the job at this time because of the threat of Iran, but he is not available because 1) there is 0% chance of the Democrats ever nominating him for that office now and 2) he won't change parties to Republican because on domestic policy he is liberal as the day is long.
So that is what I think. Have a good day.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/02/2008 @ 5:14pm
"It is 6 of one and half a dozen of another. Stopping Iran will cause a lot of problems, as you have pointed out. But do we wait and then one day wake up and find a lot of the world has been nuked by the crackpot running Iran?"
First of all this is a ridiculous, ridiculous, ridiculous claim. First of all Iran doesn't have ONE nuke let alone enough to nuke most of the world. Also if they ever got enough nukes to nuke even 5% of the world we would know about it. So do NOT even try to posit this ridiculous claim.
Second you are proposing war on nothing but a claim. I could say we should go to war with France because they have nukes. Or we should nuke Russia because they might one day go bad. War is not waged based on assumption. War is waged based on risk assessment. Right now Iran poses no threat to the US and little to our allies so there is no need to fight them.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2008 @ 8:25pm
You say the Jews had no governing power in the region for 1600 years. The purpose of the creation of Israel was not to give Jews governing power over the region, it was to give them governing power over a small piece of the region, Israel.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/02/2008 @ 5:14pm
so, you have no qualms with giving florida back to the seminole?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/02/2008 @ 10:06pm
Hello Cccomfo1,
Okay okay okay, we are going in circles.
Iran poses no threat. Okay.
Just like how in the 1930's it was said that Germany posed no threat.
It is said on this website that Iran is no threat. I guess there is a big disagrement over what is a threat and what and when to do something about it.
It is frustrating beyond belief to see this. I guess we are supposed to assume the best out of everybody, believe that we can negotiate our way always to peace and never go to war unless ?
I do not know what the opinion would be on this website as to when it IS OK to go to war. Somewhere else in one of these blogs Vietnam was being discussed and one of the opinions was that allowing Vietnam to become communist was the right thing to do, rather than having war, with the inference we should not have tried to stop it in the first place.
We apparently are supposed to never go to war, always hope for peace, and if somehow our enemies will not give up WE are then to avoid war by giving up, such as letting Vietnam become communist. You are supposed to do that instead of suffering the death that comes from fighting back against your enemies.
Or at least on this website that appears to be the consensus.
But apparently not so in the state of New Hampshire. The people there have a different view, apparently, since they have the motto "Live Free or Die" on their license plates.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/02/2008 @ 11:02pm
Or at least on this website that appears to be the consensus.
But apparently not so in the state of New Hampshire. The people there have a different view, apparently, since they have the motto "Live Free or Die" on their license plates.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/02/2008 @ 11:02pm
Is Iran a threat to our freedom? No. They are a fly on the backs on this country. They are not a threat. They could never take over the world because the world is not what it was like in the 1940's. You are talking about very different era. Comparing Germany in the 1930's to Iran now shows a viralent lack of understanding, not knowledge,UNDERSTANDING, of history and how it applies today.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 12:22pm
Hello CCComfor1,
Okay I get the point there is no threat.
Except there is - Iran sposors terrorism - and so is a threat to our freedom and others - when people are killed in a terrorist attack they are not alive - and thus not free here on earth.
And if Iran get their nuclear weapon then there is not telling the havoc they could cause, or for sure the leverage they would have that would limit our abilty to stop any mayhem (such as behind the scenes support of terrorists)
I know I do not understand history because you have told me I don't, and I know the Germany in the 1930's example doesn't apply because you have told me so.
Why?
The specific ways in which Iran could cause trouble may be different than the ways Nazi Germany caused trouble, but the common thread is the CAUSING TROUBLE part. And I believe the example does apply because in the 1930's we did not do anything about the threat, and were told there was none, and look what happened.
And now today things do not look good with regard to Iran, but we are told there is no threat and not to do anything about threats that may be in the future.
So we are told the same things about threats that people were told in the 1930's. And people who advocate doing something more pro-active about those threats are told they are wrong, same as people back then were. And we are told today that war is not the answer, and many people theorize that if there are problems and threats than we are the ones who caused the problem to begin with. Same as what people back then were.
If we do not do anything about Iran, what will people say if Iran causes some big time damage somehow (different from the types of damage Nazi Germany caused, but damage nonetheless)?
What will people say? I know what they will say - they will say it is George W. Bush's fault - even if it happens 7 or 8 years from now!
So a lot of the bloggers on The Nation get to have "the best of both worlds". George W. Bush is crucified now for what it is percieved he may do. He will be crucified beyond belief if he does something about Iran. But if he does nothing about Iran and then Iran causes big time trouble later, he will be crucified after the fact and held to blame for Iran's actions.
You have indicated before that threats don't exist - it seems last week you seemed to imply that terrorism was not a threat - that it was limited to a few people in another country.
So what a lot of people, not just me, see as big time threats from Islamic extremeism and radicalism, and threats from places like Iran, you see as no real threats at all.
Will you please tell me how it is I don't understand history and why radical Islamists who go beserk just because a Danish newspaper prints cartoons of Mohammed are not a threat. How are they not a threat given that, at least in Europe now they are immigrating big time and filling a vacuum left by Europeans who have low birth rates and have become more and more spiritually aimless people provided for by their socialist style governments, with no responsibilities of their own.
These Islamists who preach jihad and in their own writings indicate the desire for an Islamic caliphate in a lot of places.
Please tell me why these things are things we are not suppposed to worry about and pro-actively deal with. Please.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/03/2008 @ 4:46pm
How are they not a threat given that, at least in Europe now they are immigrating big time and filling a vacuum left by Europeans who have low birth rates and have become more and more spiritually aimless people provided for by their socialist style governments, with no responsibilities of their own.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/03/2008 @ 4:46pm
NOT AGAIN.
you look up the stats.
myths.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/03/2008 @ 10:57pm