Heard that reaction when you've expressed concern that the administration might authorize an attack on Iran? The Democratic Congress, it's assumed, would surely defer to its war-weary constituency and bar the administration from starting another one. But with Americans focused on Iraq, the Democrats don't need to defer to public opinion on Iran like they do with Iraq.
In fact, according to John Byrne in Raw Story, leading Democratic members of Congress are "uncertain" about how to handle Iran. Their pronouncements on the use of force are not only few and far between but perfunctory in nature.
Take new House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. He recently informed The Jerusalem Post that force was "not an option we want to consider until we know there is no other option." But, he added, "I've not ruled that out."
Hoyer, wrote reporter Hilary Leila Krieger, claimed that his view "is shared by his party, rejecting assertions that the Democrats would be weaker than the Republicans on Iran." Nothing like a public admission by a Democrat that he never met an act of war he wouldn't rubber-stamp.
Thus has Hoyer provided us with our first opportunity to lament his appointment over John Murtha, who doesn't seem to be one of those Democrats sharing Hoyer's view. "The president," said Murtha, "does not have legal authority to go into Iran." That's a start, but we need him to grab the administration by the lapels and shake it, like he did the Iraq War.
You would think Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who had backed Murtha for House majority leader, agrees. Think again. In May, 2005 she gave a speech to AIPAC, in which she said: "The United States will stand with Israel now and forever. Now and forever." We get it, Nancy -- now and forever. Does that still stand if Israel decides to use their tactical nukes?
What about Hillary Clinton? In a January 2006 speech, she said that "we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran -- that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons." What else can you expect when she's just now coming around to de-escalation in Iraq?
In 2006 other top Democrats addressed the use of force against Iran. However ironic its intentions, GOP.com posted their comments:
John Kerry: "[I]'ve said point blank that you leave that option on the table. . ."
Joe Biden: "I think the President is going about it the right way."
Evan Bayh: "The Iranians are hardened people. They've made a strategic decision that they want to acquire nuclear weapons. I don't think they will respond to words alone."
Christopher Dodd: "I don't disagree that we ought to leave the military option on the table, but I don't think we've been working hard enough on the diplomacy side of this."
And Obama? Back in 2004, he said that the "big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to [pressure], at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" His stumbling reply suggests that, in a perfect world, he'd come down firmly on the side of peace.
What's most apparent is that prominent Democrats are acting on the assumption that an attack will involve only bombing. Americans, including our leaders, operate under the illusion that bombing is risk-free -- when was the last time an American attack plane was shot down? -- not to mention benevolent, as Kosovo supposedly was.
More to the point, we may unconsciously feel that by bombing Iran we'll redeem ourselves. In other words, we can make up for attacking a country that had no nukes (Iraq) by bombing one that actually does. Or, is trying to develop them -- maybe. Hey, at least the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) speaks to it in a firm tone of voice. That counts for something, right?
Russ Wellen is the nuclear deproliferation editor for OpEdNews. He's also on the staffs of Freezerbox and Scholars & Rogues.
"It's hard to tell people not to smoke when you have a cigarette dangling from your mouth." -- Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency
I doubt we will see much in the way of explanation or even commentary from our resident DLC supporters here on this rather pointed example of Democratic complicity in madness.
In another and duplicate Universe the USA would talk to Iran, offer financial and technical assistance in establishing a nuclear ENERGY industry there, in exchange Iran would agree to inspection from the UN to ensure no military application was attempted. I want to move to THAT universe, really I do.......
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 7:09:01 AM
Same way Israel got into a war with Lebanon, just ensure that some of your soliers spend time taunting the border guards, till some of them get kidnapped/captured (or simply Have it done by conspiratorial means) and BANG! YOUR IN! Going in to save 'your Boys'....
Same way you set up a 'Bully' Send in one of your friends so they get attacked, and you rush in, in their defense...
But wait, Iran Has a Nuclear ENERGY Program, a SANCTIONED Energy program...WHERE is the evidence of them Conducting a Weapons Construction Program??
The CLEAR evidence, clear enough that anyone who saw it would know, c-l-e-a-r-l-y!
by
Mr. Robin Parsons (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 64 comments)
on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 7:48:29 AM
mad people can only be cured by actually fortifying that they have a real case to worry... You know those folks in Congress who are complicit in madness. The only way to stop them is to make them afraid not of Iran or Bush but of you, of us, of the US people. So, one of the slogans on Jan, 27 has to be 'Traitors, we know who you are and we know where you live: Hillary, Steve, Nancy, Harry, whatever- if the war with Iran starts- you will be responsible personally.' You know, folks, in the real democracy the govt is afraid of the people. Make them afraid. It will be good for them. And for us.
by
Mark Sashine (42 articles, 19 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 3219 comments)
on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 8:14:59 AM
Tucked into the last sentence of an interview he gave to USA Today published today, Bush (for the first time I'm aware of) directly raised the possibility of an attack inside Iran:
"Bush reiterated his earlier warnings to Iran, which is accused by the United States of secretly funneling weapons and ammunition to insurgents and pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq.
Earlier this month, US forces arrested five Iranian nationals in northern Iraq, saying they were connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard that provides weapons to Iraqi insurgents.
Several Iranians were also detained in Baghdad last month, when US troops raided a compound of a powerful pro-Iranian leader.
This new, more aggressive strategy was laid out in a secret executive order signed by Bush several months ago as part of an effort to reduce Iran's clout in its neighboring country, according to administration officials. And the president reaffirmed his determination to stand by it.
'The Iranians have heard my message that they should not be inside of Iraq providing weapons that will harm our troops or anybody else's,' Bush said.
But he appeared to narrow conditions under which US forces will be allowed to engage the Iranians, saying, 'the only way there will be a confrontation inside of Iraq is if they continue to try to promote these weapons.'"
While the article attempts to frame Bush's statement as a narrowing of conditions in which U.S. forces would attack inside Iran, in fact his statement does the opposite: it opens the door wide to such an action.
by
Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 8:58:30 AM
Personally, I think the absolute safest and least likely to be mis-used weapons on the planet earth would be those held by Iran.
Think about it. Nuclear weapons have pretty obvious traces, so if an Iranian Nuclear weapon was ever used in any setting, the entire nation of Iran would probably be melted to glass within a few hours. (I'm not advocating this response, simply predicting it.)
Knowing that, a nuclear-armed Iran would be in the middle of a junior version of the US vs. USSR "MAD" protocol (Mutually Assured Destruction) except it would be more one-sided, in that wherever the nuke was used, it would cause a fair number of deaths (50K to 1M, depending on luck and the general level of government incompetence in dealing with the fallout) but far from total destruction of the enemy.
I don't doubt that Israel or the USA or even the EU would make Hiroshima look like a bad night during the bombing of London by the time they were finished with Iran, so the leadership of Iran would have to put in place protections against use or theft that would rival those of the USA.
Don't ya think?
Charlie L
Portland, OR
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 612 comments)
on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 2:18:53 PM
That Bush IS going to attack Iran. That's the only way to stop him. In my mind, he is 97% there. He attacked Iraq on far less provocation. If we all act on the assumption that he will, then we will do and say what we nedd to do and say to stop him. These things are to write about it, to write our Congressmen, to attend the Rally on the 27th, to write letters to the editor and to scream like hell. I don't believe that Bush cannot help but to attack Iran. In his sick mind, he is our saviour and he will do what he feels he has to do. To believe otherwise is to make a catastrophic mistake. A mistake we might not be able to correct. This is a prime argument for pre-emptive impeachment for a pre-emptive personality.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 575 comments)
on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 3:57:24 PM
That goes for Democrats, Republicans, Progressives, Kucinich, the people on this board, etc. There are too many agendas and/or appeals to political orthodoxy in these groups.
Nothing that has come out of the UN (that I have seen, admittedly, I have not read official UN communications on Iran in a few months. I will shortly) has indicated that Iran is definitively pursuing a nuclear weapons program. That is enough for me to say any attack would be wrong.
I dont know what I would do or for what I would be in favor if I knew that the Iranians were definitely pursuing nuclear weapons. I guess my preferred response would be to attempt to provide aid to subversive groups in Iran. Everything that I have read seems to indicate that Ahmedinejad and the Mullahtocracy are at a serious low point in Iranian public opinion. I certainly would not want to cause the Iranian people to coalesce around them as the result of a foreign power (i.e., the US) attacking the country.
I do not trust the Iranians and I have said why on more than one occasion. I dont trust Bush either so there is a conundrum. If Iran IS a threat, or becomes a threat, who would I trust to do the right things to keep us safe without going overboard?
Better yet, why isn't anyone talking to Iran? Why did Cheney blow off the Iranians in 2003? If he had not done so, we wouldnt even be talking about this. If Gore had been President, he would not have blown off the Iranians, I am certain of that.
So, to sum up this up logically and in order:
1. If I had my druthers, there would be a full diplomatic effort to reach out to Iran, not this crazy refusal by the Bush/Condi team. The Democrats and the Iraq Study Group agree with me, by the way, and I was glad about that for all the good it did vis-a-vis the administration. So, for all of this criticism of the Democrats in this thread, they happen to be right on the most important point. We should be talking to Iran so that we can deal with any differences diplomatically.
2. The UN needs to continue monitoring and keeping us up to date as best as possible as to its assessment of the Iranian nuclear program. Peaceful only or not.
3. If it turns out to not be peaceful, is Iran really a threat to us or anyone else? Assuming they fear being destroyed, probably not.
4. If their nuclear program is not peaceful and if Iran might be a threat, how sure are we that they would fear being destroyed? That is to what the argument would come down.
I guess I am not as willing to completely discount the idea that Iran could be a threat to us. But we shouldnt even be there yet. Condi and Ahmedinejad should be sitting together in Amman coming to some sort of understanding. Instead, the Bush administration is doing everything possible to provoke them and Ahmedinejad is doing the same.
Very frustrating stuff
by
Steven Leser (187 articles, 34 quicklinks, 31 diaries, 1251 comments)
on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 6:27:20 PM
Tim, someone should nail our new savor up to a rouged old wooden cross. If he's going to play the role, than he needs to die and come back to become our savor.
If we would have not been in the middle east flexing our muscle to began with, we would not have these worries. Once we interfered on issues that where boiling over in the middle east, by selling arms and making Israel so powerful this was bound to happen eventually.
If we would of only acted in that region with peace keeping mission from the UN, they would have been a little more cautious about war acts towards the USA.
To many knuckle heads have screwed us from ever having that type of relation.
What is needed is for a smoking of the peace pipe over there without the use of fork tongues. Just truth and honesty and if they don't want to agree with such plans.
We simply can't change the past and we can't protect terrorist.
So, let the Middle East fight out there troubles among there selves, with and understanding we will not come to any ones rescue, arm anyone, give any support or fund anyone efforts.
then when they have all resolved there issues and still fill they won't war with us. God help them, because there will not be a civil war to mix us into.
I don't believe they would chance a straight forward war.
by
Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 363 comments)
on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 9:55:00 PM
".....someone should nail our new saviour up to a rugged old wooden cross. If he's going to play the role, than he needs to die and come back to become our saviour."
Makes sense. God talks to him. He answers not to his own father, but to a higher father. Gotta be the Son of God. Must be time for The Passion. Even we who know not what we do, still gotta do what we gotta do. And since we know that He will forgive us, I don't see any legal, social, religious, or other "political realities" standing in our way.
But I'm not suggesting that we actually do anything. There's no longer any need for that. Things were different a couple of thousand years back, but this is the age of technology. We know that everything we post online is monitored, and that anything that mentions His name is specifically checked for threats. So the Secret Service being the sort of upright, moral, highly religious folks that they would have to be in order to have such exalted positions of trust, will immediately understand what needs to be done and take care of it.
Hallelujah! We've been saved! Thank you, Fred.
--Mark
by
Mark E. Smith (20 articles, 26 quicklinks, 64 diaries, 772 comments)
on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 4:02:50 AM
When I came to the US first I was surprised by the number of Marks. Once I was working in the field with a group of technicians; we had a break and I told them that in Russia Mark was not a popular name. It is considered foreign, unnatural even 'Jewish' In Russian literature that name carries a stereotype of weakness, lack of manliness,etc. There is a plenty of negative Marks in Russian literature and the one big positive Mark, that is Mark Volochov in the 'Precipice' by Goncharov is not well-known. All that I told them and then a burly 6.5 -foot guy stood up in all his glory and said, 'Our Marks are different'.
I agree. Our Marks are different. Here's to all Marks on this site and all the other Marks who are with us who try to do the good thing. That is not that I am against Johns or Russes or Cliffs. But Marks are different here. That's for sure.
by
Mark Sashine (42 articles, 19 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 3219 comments)
on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 12:07:02 PM
is that you cut off my comment before the part where I said it was just a joke.
As to my understanding of "things," if you are saying that words are things, they are, in a sense, but their function is usually as a abstract representation of actual things.
The word "book" is a thing, in that it is a word. But it is not a book.
Were I making a serious statement, rather than a joke, to a professional forum, I'd apologize for imprecise or incorrect usage. But not to anyone who appears to delight in jargon so opaque that I can't tell whether it is demonstrating a sense of humor or compensating for the lack of one.
--Mark
by
Mark E. Smith (20 articles, 26 quicklinks, 64 diaries, 772 comments)
on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 9:09:27 PM
I did send a letter as you requested, which I'm copying below.
Actually, I don't have any perceptions of my own. I'm a telepath who can tune in to what the majority of Americans are thinking but don't dare say, and since I have nothing to lose, I just write it down and put my name on it. (Just a joke, but sometimes it almost feels that way.)
--Mark
*****************
M.S., San Diego, CA
Please oppose any hostilities against Iran.
Please stop funding the Iraq war.
Please stop the torture.
Please impeach Bush and Cheney.
Please return this country to being a law-abiding citizen of the world, not a rogue terrorist nation.
Please recognize the Geneva Conventions and the Conventions Against Torture.
Please don't vote for the Republican agenda.
Thank you.
by
Mark E. Smith (20 articles, 26 quicklinks, 64 diaries, 772 comments)
on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 5:03:02 PM
Those points are already part of more than one campaign platform -- the Green Party platform, the Peace & Freedom Party platform, and several other third party platforms. But everybody knows that Democrats will never vote for what they pretend they want.
--Mark
by
Mark E. Smith (20 articles, 26 quicklinks, 64 diaries, 772 comments)
on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 9:51:18 PM
