Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Democrats Support Bush’s Iran Policy

By Josh Frank

Read full article...

Posted 01/19 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. Right on.  One of the reasons that an attack on Iran, is in my opinion less likely comes in a report from the BBC that Iranians, both in the state and independent media believe that Hersh’s piece is a psy-op.  Further, the Democrats, far more beholden to the agents of influence at AIPAC than Republicans, would be far bigger cheerleaders (and will be, if a war takes place) than they were for Iraq.

    According to the Richard Clarke (neo-liberal, as opposed to neo-con) worldview, Iraq was a waste of time on the way to Iran and Saudi Arabia - terrorists are in 60 countris, after all - Iraq was a personal goal of the Wolfowitz set, but to the terror idealogues, war against Iran is neccessary even if Iraq was not.  I can see even Michael Moore supporthing this.  Everyone should remember that Iran’s biggest dissident nobel priz winner Shirin Ebadi believes that perception of US attack or covert action in Iran strengthens the conservative establishment.  Seeing how some facets of that establishment has ties to Israel, I can see that this type of story can be read on multiple levels. .

    So I can see Democrats supporting this, while Scowcroft leads antiwar rallies.

    Posted by j cummings from Canada  on  01/20  at  02:36 PM

  2. According to an opinion piece in today’s Socialist Worker Online, Michael Moore recently commented in an interview that the Democrats’ best bet for challenging the Republicans was to find a candidate who wants to “kick some ass”? in the “war on terror.”

    Posted by Greg Stricherz from Minneapolis, MN  on  01/20  at  05:04 PM

  3. Watching the pathetic Democrats and their clueless “progressive” shills is more and more like seeing a gaggle of Keystone Cops flailing and slipping on the ice.  If there weren’t so many lives in the balance, it would be hilarious.

    Posted by Paladin from Michigan, USA  on  01/20  at  07:26 PM

  4. Scrotum… is a rare commodity these days. See this.

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  01/21  at  04:12 PM

  5. It would seem to me Seymour Hersh has some explaining to do to federal prosecutors.  He has clearly violated 18 USC 794 by publishing defense information which could aid and assist foreign governments during a time in which the United States is at war. 

    I am a big fan of free speech, but I recognize that this right has its limitations.  Mr. Hersh should be more mindful of the information he publishes.

    Posted by Jaco Pastorius from In the Ethers  on  01/22  at  04:22 PM

  6. Jaco, are you a fool or just stupid?

    Posted by Greg Stricherz from Minneapolis, MN  on  01/22  at  06:22 PM

  7. Greg Stricherz, why do you attack me?  If you look at what Seymour Hersh published and you look at the statute, you would see he has clearly violated it. 

    Perhaps it is your critical skills which are lacking.

    Posted by Jaco Pastorius from In the Ethers  on  01/22  at  07:07 PM

  8. Soon after Obama made these statements about strikes on Iran, Warren Buffet, I think the second or third richest pig in the capitalist firmament, flew him out to Kansas on his personal Lear jet for private “discussions, as reported in the Tribune.” Some progressive!

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from Chicago  on  01/22  at  11:08 PM

  9. It’s amazing how quickly liberals are turning on Obama.  The guy demonstrates some common sense on foreign policy and the left is ready to through him under the bus.  I for one always thought he was overrated.  My boss said he thought Obama’s speech at the Democratic convention was the best political speech he’s ever heard. But my boss is also a mouth breathing imbecile with a sloped forehead. 

    My theory on Obama’s meteroic rise goes like this… The patronizing and racist left sees Obama.  He’s a well spoken African American who has picked himself up by his bootstraps.  He handily wins election to become the first African American Senator.  Automatically the rallying cry becomes “Obama 2008.” But if Obama even so much as slightly agrees with the White House, he becomes persona non grata.  God forbid he stray from the party line. 

    My bet is that it won’t be long until the former KKK recruiter Robert Byrd is out flapping his gums about how Obama needs to learn his place as a junior Senator. 

    The soft racism of the left is despicable.  They will assassinate the character of any conservative African American without blinking an eye.  The same goes for any liberal African American if he or she strays off message.

    Robert Byrd, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid? ? ? ?  The left will continue cede political power while these racists and bigots soak up all of the media coverage. 

    What has happened to my party?

    Posted by Benmont Staley from Pittsburgh, PA  on  01/23  at  09:59 AM

  10. Obamna is not the first African American US Senator. He’s not even the first one from Illinois. How much respect did the mainsteam Democratic party give Carol Moseley Braun?

    Posted by Greg Stricherz from Minneapolis, MN  on  01/23  at  11:32 AM

  11. It never ceases to astonish me how narrow-minded conservatives set up a false dichotomy between Democrats (liberals) and Republicans (conservatives).  As if there is some difference between the two.  The reality is they are the two wings of the business party.  Democrats don’t “stray” from the party line.  Their line is identical to that of the Republican, with the exception perhaps of a few rhetorical flourishes.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from Chicago  on  01/23  at  01:18 PM

  12. Apparently I misspoke above when I said Obama was the first African American Senator.  But I stand by my statements that soft bigotry exists, much of it being found on the left side of the spectrum. 

    Regarding Carol Mosley Braun… Even lunatics distance themselves from her. 

    I totally disagree that the democrats and republicans maintain similar party-line positions.  It is laughable to argue that today’s democratic party is merely a wing of a business party.  Democrats, in their current form, are NOT pro business.

    Ms. McLellan, where can I get some of that weed you are smoking?

    Posted by Benmont Staley from Pittsburgh, PA  on  01/23  at  01:42 PM

  13. Benmont, and if you can get your hands on a pair of sparking slippers, put them on… click your heels together...and repeat “the Dems are really different from the Repubs” a number of times… until you get that warm and fuzzy feeling that comes with believing that to be true.

    A la Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz.

    Posted by Nader Rider from Somewhere other than Oz  on  01/23  at  02:16 PM

  14. At war with whom?  When did the US declare war on Iraq, Syria or Iran?  I don’t think the Iranians are the fools.  I guess it’s ok to break into Jaco’s home to find out what he eats and drinks.

    Posted by MDPB from  on  01/23  at  03:01 PM

  15. For your information:

    “To date, four African Americans have served as United States senators. In 1870, Hiram Revels of Mississippi became the first African American senator. Five years later, Blanche K. Bruce of Missisppi took the oath of office.  It would be nearly another century, 1967, before Edward Brooke of Massachusetts followed in their historic footsteps. In 1993, Carol Moseley-Braun broke new ground again, becoming the first African American female to serve as U.S. senator.”
    http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/h_multi_sections_and_teasers/Photo_Exhibit_African_American_Senators.htm

    Posted by MDPB from  on  01/23  at  03:21 PM

  16. fixed it.

    here

    looks better.

    Posted by MDPB from  on  01/24  at  02:59 PM

  17. The United States is at war.  Despite the fact that Congress did not declare war, it did grant President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq on October 11, 2002 (Senate voted 77-23, House voted 296-133).

    I don’t know what breaking into the house of some guy named Jaco to find out what he eats and drinks has anything to do with the possibility that Seymor Hirsh potentially violated a statutory provision of the espionage act.  Perhaps that is a reference to the Patriot Act.  I always thought that if you are not doing anything illegal, terroristic or seditious, then the Patriot Act is really of no concern. 

    Am I missing something here?

    Posted by Shane Easton from So Chas  on  01/25  at  07:34 PM

  18. The United States is not at war; it is on another of its perpetual imperial grabs for empire.  That Congress did not declare war but granted Bush permission to wage it is unconstitutional.  Seymour Hersh as much violated a provision of the Espionage Act - itself also unconstitutional - as he was “the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist, frankly,” as Richard Perle put it after Hersh broke the story that Perle was CEO of a military contracting corporation that was realizing remunerative benefits from decisions made by the Defense Policy Board, of which Perle was a board member, indeed had been made the chair by Rumsfeld, a violation of a government code of ethics governing such employees.  Perle threatened Hersh widely in the press with a slander suit for his reporting.  Soon thereafter Perle resigned his chair of the DPB, and a year later his seat altogether.  The slander suit never materialized.

    Sounds like you’re missing something alright.  Like the fact that this slander of Hersh sounds much like the other one - but ought be expected of one of America’s premiere journalists in this vicious political climate of cupidity, dissembly, and warmongering.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from Chicago  on  01/25  at  08:46 PM

  19. I agree that it may very well be unconstitutional for Congress to cede its constitutional authority to declare war to the President.  But I don’t understand how the Espionage Act is unconstitutional.  It can’t be unconstitutional on free speech grounds, because free speech in not a license to say whatever one wants.  There are limits.

    Also, I don’t see how anything that has been said on this thread can be construed as slander with respect to Mr. Seymour Hirsh.  As a lawyer, I can tell you, ruminations posted on the internet pondering whether some elitist journalist violated a federal statute by publishing certain information does not constitute slander by any stretch of the imagination.  Nor could it be construed as libel, which is probably what you meant, as libel refers to written defamation whereas slander goes to that which occurs verbally.

    Posted by Shane Easton from So Chas  on  01/26  at  07:04 PM

    20. Next entry: A Conversation with a Hit Man

    Previous entry: Pity the Fool

    [ads]

    Support Press Action