Congressional Shame and Duplicity - by Stephen Lendman
The latest October Reuters/Zogby Index shows record low approval ratings for George Bush and Congress - 24% for the president that looks almost giddy compared to the bottom-scraping 11% level for the nation's lawmakers. It's more evidence that the criminal class in Washington is bipartisan and hoping November, 2008 will change things is pure fantasy.
A voter groundswell sent a message last November to end the Iraq war and occupation. Instead, the Democrat-led 110th Congress continues to fund it generously. In May, the House overwhelmingly passed HR 1585, the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. It calls for $506.8 billion for DOD plus $141.8 billion (of the $150.5 billion White House request) for ongoing Iraq and Afghanistan operations. The Senate followed with a similar bill on October 1 with only three opposing votes against it. Neither bill proposed an Iraq withdrawal timeline, and final legislation has yet to be sent to the president.
Add on further amounts like George Bush's latest $46 billion request putting FY 2008 supplemental war-funding above $196 billion and rising. Congress will approve it and more in spite of Democrats signaling a protracted budget showdown ahead. The only showdown will be over how much pork will be added to the final appropriation and for what purpose.
Democrats also back the administration's push to attack Iran by echoing what the Israeli Lobby calls "The Iranian Threat." War with Iran is AIPAC's top priority, and key Democrats in Congress are on board hyping a non-existent threat to prepare the public for what may be coming. Earlier in March, Speaker Pelosi removed a provision from an appropriations bill that would have required George Bush to get congressional approval before attacking Iran. Then in July, the Senate unanimously (97 - 0) passed the Lieberman amendment that practically endorses war if it's declared. It affirmed George Bush's baseless charges that Tehran funds, trains and arms Iraqi resistance fighters "who are contributing to the destabilization of Iraq and are responsible for the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces."
The House added its voice on September 25 by voting 397 - 16 for the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 that imposes sanctions on non-US companies investing in Iran's oil sector. The next day the Senate acted again by overwhelmingly (79 - 22) passing the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that calls for US policy to "combat, contain and (stop Iran by use of) diplomatic, economic, intelligence and military instruments." Other bellicose language in the resolution stated:
-- "the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp as a foreign terrorist organization....and place (it) on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists....it should be the policy of the United States to stop inside Iraq the violent activities and destabilizing influence of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies."
This measure helped smooth the way for George Bush's October 25 unilateral imposition of sanctions discussed below. It was an unprecendented move against another nation's military Senator Jim Webb (voting no) said provides "a backdoor method of gaining congressional validation for military action, without one hearing (or) serious debate (and that the action) is Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream."
George Bush acted provocatively twice. At his October 17 news conference, he menacingly said he believes Iran "want(s) to have the capacity, the knowledge in order to make a nuclear weapon....it's in the world's interests to prevent them from doing so....If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace....So....if you're interested in avoiding World War III" this possibility must be prevented implying war (potentially using first-strike nuclear weapons) is the way to do it.
On October 25 Bush acted again to counter China and Russia's opposition to sweeping UN Security Council measures. He unilaterally imposed harsh new sanctions against Iran's Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), its Quds Force, three state-owned banks and over 20 Iranian companies. The IRGC was named as "proliferators of weapons of mass destruction," and the Quds Force was called a "supporter of terrorism."
Democrats buy this stuff and ignore IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei's latest October 28 statement that repeated his earlier ones. He said he had no evidence Iran is building or seeks to build nuclear weapons and accused the Bush administration of adding "fuel to the fire" with its bellicose rhetoric. The "loyal opposition" prefers instead to accept White House press secretary Dana Perino's October 29 charge that Iran "is a country that is enriching and reprocessing uranium and the reason one does that is to lead towards a nuclear weapon."
This accusation and new administration sanctions ratchet up tension further and amount to what one analyst called "a warning shot across the bow (that stops short of) a signal we're going to war," but it's got other observers thinking the likelihood is greater than ever with Congress on board. The move also caught Vladimir Putin's attention in Lisbon where he was attending an EU leader summit. "Why worsen the situation and bring it to a dead end" with sanctions or military action," he said. He then added a pointed reference to George Bush stating: "Running around like a madman with a razor blade, waving it around, is not the best way to resolve the situation."
Newly imposed sanctions won't affect US companies. They're already barred from doing business directly in Iran, but they do target their foreign subsidiaries and other foreign-based ones with threats of penalties and exclusion from the US market. It remains to be seen how effective they'll be as key EU countries as well as China, Russia, India and others have growing economic ties to Iran. They won't be eager to sever them or join the US campaign for a wider Middle East war. In addition, Iran is a major oil supplier. With the price of crude touching $96 a barrel on November 1 (and December futures up to $125), any cutoff or severe reduction of supply guarantees it'll top $100 and make a global economic slowdown or recession much more likely.
Nonetheless, the Bush war machine presses on with congressional Democrats aboard. Presidential candidates from both parties support Bush's move, and Democrat front runner Hillary Clinton is as hawkish as Joe Lieberman and John McCain. They both endorse attacking Iran, and McCain believes striking Iran's nuclear sites "is a possibility that is maybe closer to reality than we are discussing tonight."
Clinton is just as bellicose, is close to AIPAC, and in an earlier speech said: "The security and freedom of Israel must be decisive and remain at the core of any American approach to the Middle East. (We dare not) waver from this (firm) commitment." She was also quoted in the current issue of Foreign Affairs saying: "Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill US troops in Iraq....(Iran) must not not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran (won't comply with) the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table."
The only give in her position (that's hardly any at all) is wanting congressional approval for any future military action. Up to now, that's been pro forma rubber stamp. It'll be no different if George Bush orders an attack as congressional Democrat leaders, including Hillary Clinton, have already signaled their approval.
I am a 72 year old, retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.
missing only a conclusion. At least one which enumerates a solution.
I would imagine that all these domestic "terrorism" bills could be said to be self preservation in action. With an approval rating so low one might need some form of protection from an increasingly dissatisfied mass.......
So, as to a solution....I see none that doesnt require years to bear fruit frankly, dismissing out of hand any call to arms domestically of course. If we start with the premise, proven well by this article, that our two party system is broken and unresponsive to the wishes of the people, then it behooves us to take one of two steps.
Either we endeavor to take back the democratic party from the usurpers who have stolen it or we look elsewhere for a party that we can support, one that supports us. I have chosen to look to third party politics as a long range solution. I believe, that as we sink deeper into a nation that wages perpetual war, not only upon the third world for its dwindling resources, but also upon the American worker in order to wring every last drop of profit from every possible source, we will see rising support for such new politics.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Thursday, November 1, 2007 at 9:46:18 AM
As usual a well constructed readable and thoughtful piece. Your thoughts are one of the highlights of the site.I do wonder at the importance/interpretation you place on poll figures when they are nearly always contradicted by election results. If you look at all the votes cast at the last election (the election that allegedly) gave the Dems a mandate and then compare it to:-
·The number of citizens entitled to vote will notice a glaring discrepancy. It is reasonable to assume that the % that didn’t vote didn’t feel sufficiently interested to vote. Ergo they were prepared to accept Status Quo.
·In Australia where voting is mandatory the ‘informal’ vote (screw ups deliberate or otherwise) is usually less than 10%. It has been noted that polls rarely reflect accuracy of the election. Voter lack of engagement with the issues. In other words voters often vote differently to answers give to pollsters. The Current 12% difference consistently given in polls on an election that is 3 weeks away is unlikely to translate in the election (the biggest swing since WW11 was just under 7%). Even with the pollsters admitted statistic error factor of 1.5-2% there is a massive difference. Transposing you 24% poll into 74% in favor of democrat policy is an unrealistic stretch. For a fuller description see my responses to Steven Leser’s Democratic party strategyregarding Iraq
·If it was the view of the actual majority of US citizens then why did the Dems get such an ambivalent majority in the Reps and not enough in the Senate to manage a Veto over ride? Might I suggest a truer interpretation would be that the public is unhappy with the strategies of GWB but not yet prepared to accept unrestricted Democratic power. This would include their self interests and what to do about Iraq. (one could include here national pride and innate fear as generated and fostered by those who stand to benefit.
·I have offered some possible? Solutions.
·The previous commenter is right everyone is critical but no one is offering objective doable solutions.
I look forward to your thoughts on this.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 532 comments)
on Thursday, November 1, 2007 at 6:43:57 PM
When Hitler said he would eliminate the Jews it was not mere rhetoric. Iran's leaders want to eliminate Israel. Probably that doesn't disturb you. Also, what would prevent Iran from giving small bombs to Hizbolla and Hamas both who wish to eliminate Israel. Iran gives them plenty now. In Philadelphia amid a pleasant home friends and safety it is easy to poo poo the threat.
by
philip rosen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments)
on Saturday, November 3, 2007 at 6:37:56 PM
and what bombs are they handing out? Several assumptions made in arriving at a conclusion unsupportable by any factual information makes for a tenuous political stance.
Amadinajhad has been criticised within his own country for his remarks about the holocaust. There is no proof whatsoever that Iran is seeking to make a bomb either. Of course, given Israels abominable treatment of Palestinians over the decades one might assume a general "resentment" to be inevitable among the those in the arab world, would nt you think?
So one might rather correctly blame Israel itself for the way it is hated by arabs.....There are now several history books relating the way Ben Gurion decided, and in the mid thirties, to oust about one million arabs from what was then Palestine in order to give the new Israeli citizens to come a clear majority.....'The Red House' is one such....
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Sunday, November 4, 2007 at 4:47:24 PM
