Why Is Barack Obama Buying Into White House Framing on Iran?
By Nicole Belle Monday Sep 03, 2007 12:46pm
This headline made my heart sink:
Hit Iran where it hurts
Democratic presidential hopeful takes a get-tough stance against tyrant of Tehran
By BARACK OBAMA
Americans need to come together to confront the challenge posed by Iran. Yet the Bush administration and an anonymous senator are blocking a bill with bipartisan support that would ratchet up the pressure on the Iranian regime. It's time for this obstructionism to stop.
The decision to wage a misguided war in Iraq has substantially strengthened Iran, which now poses the greatest strategic challenge to U.S. interests in the Middle East in a generation. Iran supports violent groups and sectarian politics in Iraq, fuels terror and extremism across the Middle East and continues to make progress on its nuclear program in defiance of the international community. Meanwhile, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared that Israel must be "wiped off the map."
Hook, line and sinker. He bought the whole thing. Please, other than the increasingly hysterical rhetoric of the Bush White House (that is eerily similar--if not outright identical--to the 2001-2002 rhetoric against Saddam Hussein), why would Barack Obama believe that Iran is such a threat? Given the past seven years, should Bush's say so truly carry that much credibility?
In fairness to Obama, much of his op-ed is actually very critical of the Bush administration for their lack of diplomacy, but it hardly matters, because by accepting the Bush framing of a looming crisis against Iran, he's given all the right wing pundits the ammo of saying, "Even that liberal Obama thinks we have to take out Ahmadinejad!" He even justifies the threat by citing Ahmadinejad's words against Israel, although, unfortunately, he relies on the Bush administration's translation of Farsi, which as we've seen before, only has a glancing relationship with reality.
This is not to single out Obama either; all of the top tier candidates have tried to earn their "I'm not a wimpy Democrat but a strong leader" bona fides with tough talk against Iran. But this kind of talk is incredibly irresponsible and we--as the progressive community--MUST be clear with the Democratic contenders who are seeking our support that if they think the occupation in Iraq is going bad, any military actions against Iran would be like Iraq on steroids. We've already seen how much damage a president with no understanding of the geo-political or cultural circumstances of an area can do. We simply cannot afford another one.
Login or Register to post comments.
I TOLD you he was a Trojan Horse.
NOW do you believe me?
This is totally unfair to Obama. He's staking out a position as a realist by advocating economic sanctions. To say thats "buying into the bush line hook line and sinker" is simplistic, alarmist, and naive.
Bushco opposes economic and diplomatic measures because they AVOID WAR. I think that you need to rethink this.
Hussein was a secular contained threat, more concerned with his own livelihood than the destruction of others. Iran is the threat that Iraq was made out to be. Even the Bush white house can be correct once in a while.
David Ehrenstein @ 1:
Yes...and No. They're ALL "Trojan Horses" if I get your meaning. It takes that to get elected. We are, after all, living in America. I'm not a big Obama guy but he gets it. Say what you need to say to get in the WH.
i give up.
Meanwhile, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared that Israel must be “wiped off the map.”
1. No, he didn't.
2. Ahmadinejad doesn't control Iran's military.
Looks like Obama wants some of the Republicans' "bed-wetter" voters.
.
I think that it is easy to buy into the rhetoric of fear. This is exactly how we got into Iraq. I think Obama is a strong candidate and the reason he is doing this is to appear strong on foreign policy issues.
Nicole Belle's point is that Obama is using the White House spin words. If you use their words, they won. Whoever sets up the game always wins. So ... Obama is trying to act tough but a tougher position would be to stand up and deny the White House claims. Acquiescing to their baseless assumptions is hardly "tough."
The way i read it is he is supporting the policy of "sanction and isolate" with other countries and congressional approval while Bush is of the tone "annihilate and quagmire" with Cheney and Co.
Since we are now stuck in Iraq and shouldn't possibly take on another major offensive this seems to be a reasonable goal to pursue as Iran isn't looking like a country that is just going to go away and throw down their arms.
Obama is just saying the same thing he's said all along.
September 25, 2004
Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,45...
Mar 07
Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us."
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article
simple math.
obama = shill.
questions?
Let us be frank here. Obama is courting the Jewish vote. Iran poses a threat to Israel. He figures that African Americans will vote for him and if he can capture the Jewish vote, he will have the two largest segments of the Democratic demographic.
Raise your hand if you think things will get worse no matter who's president.
if you use their vocabulary, THEYVE WON, even if you are disagreeing with them.
content DOES NOT MATTER, VOCABULARY DOES.
Grand Moff Texan @ 6:
In all seriousness, what did Ahmadinejad say that was misconstrued or misinterpreted? Who does control Iran's military?
so is the first bit of anti-Iran PR to roll out after labor day coming from Obama?
that is sick.
Time for Ron Paul.
Not sure about the military. I believe the mis-translation about isreal is that he would like to wipe ZIONISM off the face of the earth, which is completely different that Isreal, since most do not support the Zionist's goals.
This guy is truely an amateur.
He lost my vote entirely.
Hillary is looking better and better.
I believe Ahmadinejad did say that Israel should be wiped off the map, or something similar, but he does not control the military. The President of iran is a figurehead position like the Queen in the UK, except Iran elects its figurehead. All power and governance in Iran rests with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
He also talks about going to war with Pakistan.
Front runners...
It is no mystery WHO supports them...
And there is no mystery as to where WHO supports them wants to go.
Obama is not a realist... he is another fucking puppet on a string or two.
When Cheney said he wanted the media to sell the Iran war, who woulda thought correspondent Barack was a journalist?
Just call him Hillarack.
Same "tough girl" stance as Hillary to reach out to blue dogs.
Fuck that noise.
Fuck the democrats, they're no better than the repugs.
My memory of the [not American] translation was that Israel would be relegated to history, or something to that effect.
Screw Obama, and Hillary while you're at it.
Edwards, Edwards, Edward.
I just don't buy it Barack. the biggest threat to world peace is the United States under its current leadership. You've identified this before in your speeches, but now you say Iran is a bigger threat. Why the change of heart?
Grand Moff Texan @ 6:
Amen...
There is always one more. One more grave and gathering threat that we can sacrifice thousands of American lives for.
After we hit Iran, there will be still another looming enemy of America.
Fear and cowardice define America. We lie in urine soaked sheets, wishing someone would save us from our paranoiac visions. We lack the courage to face the facts and truth, and see that the bogey man is a figment of our imaginations.
Our politicians and the media say scary things, and we beg them to take away our freedoms and protect us from the scary words.
The paralysis of fear is what makes America what it is. It substitutes for thought. It substitutes for reason. It substitutes for understanding. It gives us excuses to use to avoid dialogs with scary brown people.
I am ashamed for my country and its cowardice.
why, i have half a mind to write a letter....
Your heart sank? Do you really believe that any one of these candidates would do anything differently than Bush? The president of the US is not the one who runs this country. Democracy? Constitution? No one but a fool would believe that they mean anything.
I watched the man on TV several times. He is clueless, inexperienced and immature. He is good at preaching, not running a country. He is as bad as the rest of them. Mark my word: there will be a race among these good-for-nothing jokers to see who would bomb Iran sooner and longer.
bushsuckcheney @ 23:
Wrong. The Democrats are WAAAAYY better than the Republicans. neither party is perfect, but to say something like that is rediculous.
n69n @ 14:
Is this the honest truth now? Democrats can't even use the same language as Republicans anymore? If that's the case then they've already won, because people are more concerned with what words are being used than with what people are actually saying.
The mantra of the politician is, "Say anything to get elected." If you know this then you know that they all lie.
I TOLD you he was a Trojan Horse.
NOW do you believe me?
I never doubted your assessment of Obama for a second. Bet you got drowned out over at Kos when you try to point that salient fact out.
A strong Democrat declares war as a last resort - they don't start wars, period. By definition, it's looking like Kucinich and Edwards are the only strong Democrats running for POTUS, cause Hillary and Barack are still singing the "Bomb Iran" theme song, and Hillary never apologized for her Iraq war vote like Edwards did.
It's brave to admit when you're wrong. You are truly seeing some cowardly democrats, indeed.
justabill @ 19:
justabill, I linked to Juan Cole who long ago debunked that particular talking point. Look at the hyperlink "relied on the Bush administration's translation of Farsi".
The reality that everyone has to remember is that it is in Iran's best interest to puff their chest out, especially in the face of hostility via the U.S. and Israel in countries surrounding them. They have no particular hostility towards us, but they are not going to back down from a fight or cower in the face of a threat from us--especially since they know that our own military resources are so stretched now we can't afford another front.
A war with Iran during the remaining years of Bush's Administration can only be regarded as a monumental failure on the part of the Democratic members of Congress that we worked so hard to elect.
PS: if you're really that annoyed with the Dems and Repubs, then start voting for a third party, any third party. Things won't get better in the US until you shed the two-party system and start offering people real political choice and politicians see consequences.
He (and we) ought to be just as concerned about the nuts who are running Iran as we are about the nuts in charge here. Yeah, Bush loves to hype the threat, but that doesn't mean there is no threat.
I was crushed...and still am...when I read this over the weekend...I still support edwards...and I am staying with that for now...I can not believe that Obama would be getting bad advice on these issues- but he clearly is...
It's possible Obama believes, and means, what he says. The more important question is what he means by "U.S. interests in the Middle East" and have an honest debate about whether the game is worth the candle.
Every time they start talking up air strikes against Iran this article comes to mind:
Iran is prepared to retaliate, experts warn
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/02/12/iran_is_...
Truly scary.
he's a politician...trying to get elected. Haven't you learned anything?
There are MILLIONS of votes out there completely unrepresented in the legitimate race for the white house. I say LAY IT ON THICK, OBAMA. TAKE THAT HILL!
Why is Obama parroting White House assertions about Iran? Oh please, the answer is obvious: Because he wants to please the Zionist voters the same way Hillary does.
BECAUSE HE HEARTS JOE LIEBERMAN.
Thought I'd shout in hopes we don't have to hear anything good about this GOP shill again. Obama is a fraud. Just ask Ned Lamont.
I can see this as a ploy to get votes, but it gives me a mixed message.
If Barack is lying about this position, then what else might he be lying about?
If he's telling the truth, then he appears to be another corporate shill.
A strategy that many of the candidates may be courting is to distance themselves from the old mistakes, while embracing mistakes that have not yet been made.
They may perceive that the MSM is successfully portraying Iran as the new bogey man, so they need to pound on Iran themselves. If they do so, then the MSM will promote them.
Look at the media attention that Kucinich and Ron Paul are getting. They are being sidelined.
The media wants this war, so they will promote candidates that will get it rolling. Anyone lending credence to the idea that Iran is a threat will get air time.
Our news media wants millions of Arabs to be slaughtered. They love the slaughter in Iraq and they want it expanded to Iran.
I've been saying all along that Obama was no damn good. Now do you believe me?
Fuck Obama! He's lost what little credibility he had with me!
So when November comes next year and your choices are Clinton/Obama vs. Rudy/Mitt, who you gonna vote for? As far as I'm concerned there is little difference!
Why does not mutually assured destruction work in the case of Iran (assuming they get nuclear weapons) and Israel as it did with U.S. and Ussr? Furthermore, they do not have them yet and we have 5-ten years before they do, time during which to change our stance towards them diplomatically, lower the rhetoric, lower the tension, bring them back into the international community should they decide we do not HATE them and that they do not need nuclear weapons to defend themselves. When are we going to grow up on this planet?
Nicole Belle @ 34:
Thanks for pointing that out.
Edwards/Richardson!
How come no one seems to be listening to Governor Bill Richardson? He's the only presidential candidate with the smarts and experience to deal with a problem like Iran.
What possible downside could there be to WWIII?
he’s a politician…trying to get elected. Haven’t you learned anything?
There are MILLIONS of votes out there completely unrepresented in the legitimate race for the white house. I say LAY IT ON THICK, OBAMA. TAKE THAT HILL!
No. He may have just sabotaged his chances and those that put this bullshit in his ear know it.
Iran is only a danger to empire because empire has its sites on Iran. It is next in line and it's a foregone conclusion that Iran will be hit by empire before GWB leaves office.
the greatest threat Iran can pose to us is to stop accepting US currency as payment for oil...
"On November 6th of 2000 Iraq became the first country to receive all of its oil export payments in euros instead of American dollars. This switch was estimated to cost Iraq $270 million dollars, but Iraq had since actually come out on top due to the rise in the value of the euro, which was actually probably influenced by Iraq’s decision to use the euro as its foreign exchange currency. At the time of the switch Iraq was selling over $60 million in crude oil a day so its easy to see that the change to the use of the euro could have a positive effect on the value of the euro.
http://rationalrevolution.net/war/opec_iraq_euro.htm
what would you folks say if i suggested that maybe this is why we really invaded Iraq???
"News media around the world have been touting Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its threats to Israel and US interests in the region, but Iran is about to unleash another weapon of mass destruction. It is called the Iranian Oil Bourse, a new oil exchange scheduled to commence trading oil in euros beginning the 20th of March. Its goal is to make Iran the main hub for oil deals in the Middle East.
This will set in motion a series of events, which will see all the major countries emptying their central banks of US currency in favor of euros, a reshaping of the global monetary system, the collapse of the US economy and a shift of power from the US to Western Europe (the EU). It may, in all probability, force the US into another war that would include the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
Most people in the US, Canada, Australia and other western democracies are unaware that this was the primary reason for invading Iraq. It is a documented fact that Saddam Hussein had switched to euros for the purchase of Iraqi oil. This move would probably have been followed by other OPEC nations doing the same and threatening the US economy. Garner Ted Armstrong stated this as far back as April 2003 and before. In his news commentary, “It’s All About Oil” he stated:
“Meanwhile, as I have written previously, there could be a major, underlying reason for Bush’s adamant insistence that Iraq will undergo a regime change. That reason is found in the move Iraq made prior to the war to sell its dollars and buy euros, and demand that henceforth all oil payments be made in euros. If Nigeria, Mexico, Venezuela and all of OPEC were to also insist upon payment in euros, it would flood the global economies with dollars, dropping the currencies’ value to around 40 to 50 per cent. That would mean the collapse of the US economy!
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/Mark_Wordfroms/manews0054.shtml
what i am saying: since the US just can't seem to play nice with others...
and we just can't divorce ourselves from supporting colonizing efforts on the part of Isreali extremists...
and we just can't seem to think in terms that involve anything other than military force...
well...
heads up, Iran... we're gonna have to bomb ya...
Joementum @ 37:
I agree with that. It's what we should have done with Iraq instead of lying and making stuff up in order to go to war. I don't have a problem with monitoring a countries nuclear intentions. I also agree with the poster who wanted to know exactly what is meant by "US interests"...should we just read that as oil?
Why Is Barack Obama Buying Into White House Framing on Iran?
ONE WORD..........TOOL
If we rewind back to 2001...
Iran was making serious attempts to open diplomatic ties with the Bush Administration. They wanted to open the country up to Western business. They wanted to forge a peaceful alliance with the US.
Bush told them they could shove their peaceful overtures where the sun don't shine. He called them a member of the Axis of Evil.
Had a different man become president, Iran might be a safe place to take the kids on vacation today. Iraq might have been open for western businesses, with regular flights into Baghdad, for anyone with a valid passport.
In the bedwetter's millennium, it can be hard to visualize what peace is like, but I come from an age, before Bush was President, when we lived in a world of relative peace, and we can afford such visions.
With the exception of the mis-translation, everything Obama said is true. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. The theocratic regime in Iran is not a force for good.
Obama is advocating sanctions that have wide bipartisan support. I don't see what the story is here except more kneecapping of potential democratic candidates.
This is the same as the Pakistan military option. He is advocating judicious use of all measures in accordance with US policy that hasn't changed since the first Bush.
Fanon @ 54:
So are you two willing to protect us from this "threat"?
I wrote about the subject last April:
"Why I Can’t Vote for Obama now (and other debate-night revelations)."
Obamam is supporting the attack on Iran becuase of Zionism.
Old Billy @ 57:
Not after Bush started trying to poke them in the eye with a sharp stick.
try the Bush form of diplomacy for a while. Every time you meet someone new, kick them hard in the crotch. I'll lay odds that like Bush does, you'll find enemies everywhere.
Nicole:
Please read carefully Ted Sorenson about his years working in the White House, "Kennedy". On what basis does any Democrat who has studied world history assume that with Bush gone the forces of fascism will dissappear?
Nuclear detante was managed through Kennedy's firm resolve, not a two and three-faced Bush approach with backdoor arms-deal profit motives. We were moving to eliminating nukes altogether in '62.
With firm resolve against all fascists such as Ahmadinejad comes our strongest chances for peace. Kucinich's "Department of Peace" is a sweet idea, but the dynamic of what was started long ago with our Saudi "colleagues" demands less accomodation and more action..by this I do not mean war. The world's people will respect us again if we delineate who the fascists are and resist romanticizing all who opposed Bush.
Ok, I admit I am guilty of perusing just the piece posted here. I went and read the entire Op Ed and I think that Obama is not off the mark here. He may have used the mistransaltion (wipe off the map) and that is unfortunate. However, the rest of the piece goes on to discuss economic sanctions including divestiture of U.S. companies in order to force some diplomatic cooperation.
I don't think he's wrong and I think this was a misrepresentation
If Obama doesn't drop the rhetoric about Iran, then he can forget my vote. He's the only politician in my life I've donated money to, but for someone who campaigns on "The Audacity of Hope," it is sad to see him spewing out the Rhetoric of Hate.
Nicole Belle @ 34:
They are a theocratic oligarchy who have maintained proxy wars in three other countries. Sure, they are only as bad as Saudi Arabia, but they aren't cub scouts. Ask the people of Lebanon how much they like Iran's proxy war on their citizens.
The hype on Iran is mostly at the behest of the Bush administration, but Iran's influence in the Gulf has been dangerously magnified by the Bush invasion of Iraq. It is no longer a right-wing talking point, but an actual political issue. Obama's written position of alarmist might, is tempered by his other rhetoric, which I trust he truly believes in, which is diplomacy diplomacy diplomacy.
is this the thread for kucinich 08? my goodness, i can't believe how easily and dishonestly some emotional segments of progressive democrats employ the brainwashing / framing strategies of the MSM toward their own end-- in this case, the belittling of the best candidate by any and all measures....whoweee, go edwards, go kucinich....
He's buying into the whole CFR philosophy... He almost had my support, but with this, never. I will never support anyone who believes in preemptive war. It's insanity.
Weaseldog @ 61:
The next president is going to have a lot of work undoing the Bush/Cheney clusterfuck. Iran has been being poked with a sharp tick in the eye since 1954.
I'm sorry to hear that Obama may be falling for the hype from the White House. I've been trying to find out if Bush can attack Iran without Congress signing on. As far as I can tell, he can. And he can keep up military actions for 60 or 90 days. By that time, I'm sure he'll have unloaded a million bombs on Iran. I'm even worried he will use nuclear bombs! Bush/Cheney don't care about the mess he will make. It will be like poking in a hornet's nest! They need to understand that a lot of the threats issued by the leader of Iran is the way the Arab world works. They make a lot of noise and bluster and pounding on their chests. Kind of like Bush. It seems so crazy to me that they would bomb Iran, so I'm sure it'll happen. They will catch "someone" in Iraq that's from Iran and claim they have information of something bad Iran did (Gulf of Tonkin style) and start bombing Iran.
Grand Moff Texan @ 6:
Not 100% accurate. Iran's President does set military "policy" for the country. Though the final decision is made by the mullahs of the inner-circle, but the Iranian President is the chief military/economic policy adviser of Iran.
Duffy @ 68:
Where did he say pre-emptive war? Talk about framing...
#56 weaseldog is right on the money.
@68
Read the actual piece. He says nothing about pre-empitve war. I guess he should have made a better headline for his piece and called it "Hit Iran Where it hurts...the pocketbook".
When Obama made that speech he lost all of my support....first off who's going to pay for this war in Iran.... we as a nation are so in the hole right now because of Bush's past adventures that even our great grandchildren will be paying off this current war in Iraq.....I know spend spend spend....enough of this crap.. Lets face it, if there were no oil in the middle east we wouldn't give a rats ass what go's on there... does our government care about Durfar..I'm sorry, my mistake a few of our so called movie stars care so they can sleep on there million $$$ easier at night. We as a nation have to wake up and not be so dependant on middle eastern oil and get our heads out of our ass and help the truly needy of this world and not kill...we weren't put here to SPEND SPEND SPEND....Iran will make its own grave. Show your heart not your weapon....JCB
Has there ever been ANY proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons? all i've ever seen is that they have a peaceful nuclear program.
2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. ...
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm
It seems to me Iran is on solid footing with its nuclear program. At least Iran is a signatory to the NPT, unlike Israel, India, or Pakistan. All Iran has to do is look at how we treated all of them once they developed nuclear weapons. Now they are all our BFFs.
Callahan @ 17:
Suuuuuuure.
one thing is for certain, bellicose and irresponsible threats to iran only serve to bolster the not-very-popular conservative mullahs. (and, as others have said, ahmadinejad does not control the country).
obama, in his oped, just proves that he--along with 90% of the prez candidates--is willing to be a pawn of the corporate-military empire.
a truly intelligent statesman (of which there are nearly none) would have considered the real and long-term effects statements like this have on the internal politics in iran. that is, unless one doesn't TRULY care about bringing about peaceful change in iran and is just chomping at the bit for an excuse to spread america's war of terror.
OIL (operation iraqi liberation) increased the iranian sphere of influence more than the mullahs could ever have dreamed, and now it seems like those jockeying for position to replace the war-criminal-in-chief have learned nothing.
and, btw, who has iran invaded? who have they attacked? who did the US support in the iran/iraq war? hmmm?
I used to be really excited about Obama. Then he turned out to be "centrist" about way too many things. Impeachment? Should be reserved for serious crimes. (HELLO?!) Coal-to-gas? Was fine with it until the environmentalists noticed, and then tried to say he meant it in a purely Pickwickian sense. Separation of church and state? Definitely, except when he's taking to a fundamentalist audience. And so on. Very, very disappointing. And now this. As far as I'm concerned, he's done. Toast.
No doubt, Weaseldog (56), Iran was having mass demonstrations about progressive candidates who were disqualified by the ruling clerics. Then Bush started talking about how evil the place was and pushed everyone into supporting Ahmadinejad.
Read the whole op-ed, Obama is a great candidate.
Old Billy @ 72:
"If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. The war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act." - Barrack Obama
Don't forget about how he stated he'd go into Pakistan if Musharraf "wouldn't act".
hadenuf @ 13:
It's going to be four years of hell even if the Dems win in 08.
This country is REALLY FU*CKED UP.
And we have 16 months of Bush Co's shearing the sheep to go.
What the progressives fail to realise is that the Democratic Party has as much interest in furthering their cause as the Republican Party has of instituting an Xian theocracy. The Republicans are using the Xians as useful idiots - footsoldiers in the war for power. The Dems are using the progressives the same way. Both power centers throw their constituents a bone or two, but the real facts are: they are both owned by the corporations, who have specific interests: profit, and global domination.
The Dems will kick the Progressives to the curb or feed them bread and circuses that please them, just like the Republicans do with the bible thumping freak jobs who are their base.
Obama is no more or less than another cog in that machine.
Deal.
Duffy @ 81:
That was a quote from Bush at the West Point graduation, not Obama. And the Pakistan reference was the stated policy of the US under Bill Clinton. How would you deal with Osama Bin Laden?
Old Billy @ 57:
Ho, come on ! You should never use words like "good" in a geopoliticial context.
The Bush administration policy is a force for good ? The zionist regime that rules Israel is a force for good ? Is there ANY foreign policy that could be seen as a force for good ?
The US and Iran are rivals for the control of the Persian Gulf Region, its oil supply and revenues. And IMO Iran has much more legitimity in this matter.
Obama was on my list of candidates I was considering. No more.
Hillary and Obama are going to have to prove their macho with tough and unforgiving talk.
Otherwise they don't stand a chance and someone like Thompson will win.
Uggh. . . . WTF happened to this country.
Fanon @ 74:
The problem is, every reason to hurt Iran is pure Bush BS propaganda.
David Ehrenstein @ 1:
This is why I have washed my hands of the ruling parties. If you scrape away the rhetoric and the empty promises, Democrat and Republican are identical. I have always said I will be voting for an alternative party, I may not even vote at all. I am leaning more toward the belief that like the rest of our government the elections are just a smoke screen. An exercise in futility to maintain the illusion that the U.S. is a democratic Republic. Since the installation of the Bush regime and 9/11 every aspect of our government and our system itself has been taken over and politicized by NeoCon agendas, and it will not be changing anytime soon. The next person to sit in the Oval Office will just be a puppet like Bush is, regardless of what party he/she is affiliated with.
Richard Ray Harris @ 62:
There is absolutely no romanticizing here, RRH. The reality is that Iran was moving towards a more secular nation and many Iranians were very disenchanted with Ahmadinejad. Look at it from their point of view. A secular government that we had armed against Iran and supported suddenly turned into the world's biggest threat with weapons EVERYONE in the region knew was false, necessitating a devastating invasion and occupation. Then they--a nation that actually held candlelight vigils and sent large sums of money to us after 9/11--became part of the axis of evil. But we turn a blind eye to Israeli nukes and aggression against Palestine, Lebanon, etc. Again, I say to you IT IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST to puff out their chest and appear unafraid.
And please, don't bandy about labels incorrectly. Iran is not a fascist state. They are a theocratic state. But here's the thing about accepting White House framing: THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE A THEOCRATIC STATE. We will do far better in terms of world reputation if we stop telling other countries how they have to live.
justabill @ 76:
Once we thought Iran's Nuclear Program was A-OK
Im beginning to hate the phrase "U.S interests in the Middle East". The Middle Easts interests in the Middle East weights far far more.
[...] wtf? [...]
Democrats carry the Saudi's water just as much as the Republicans. You don't hear any criticism of Saudi Arabia from them, do you?
jaafar @ 91:
nuff said.
[...] Mine Why Is Barack Obama Buying Into White House Framing on Iran? » This Summary is from an article posted at Crooks and Liars on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 This [...]
Old Billy @ 84:
My bad about the Bush comment. As for the Pakistan reference, he said "They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will." I don't care who's policy it was, it's wrong. As for what OBL, he's not really a threat to the US. He's been on kidney dialysis machines for years, I'd be surprised if he was even still alive.
Bush and the Neocons want to return Iran back to the days of the Shah. By force if necessary.
They want the Return of the Shah.
Cuz he wants the "kill em all, let god sort em out" voting bloc
I'm glad he started this crap before he was in a position to get elected.
Goodbye obama. You are now irrelevant. Say hello to jesse and al in the "nobody takes us seriously anymore" line.
The Audacity of Blind Ambition.
Obama is the Democratic equivalent of Mitt Romney - a values free candidate.
Maybe he and Lieberman (Independent - State of Israel) can form a ticket.
Hillary is no better. Remember Bill Clinton was more conservative than Nixon.
If only Kucinich could win. The first vegan President.
Do you guys even RTFA?! He said that we should divest from Iran.
Jesus wept!
Obama was never my candidate anyway.
FC @ 88:
I don't necessarily know that to be true.
Greup @ 92:
Excellent point.
And as Howard Zinn says, middle to whom?
Why Is Barack Obama Buying Into White House Framing on Iran?
Who knows. It's an arsehole move and shows why he shouldn't be elected pres.
This could be a DLC/DNC thing to make Hillary look prettier. Those shits want her bad, and they thought that by 'Giving' us Obama as a 'Choice' (as in "Here is Hillary and your other 'Choice'), Sen. Clinton would be a shoo-in. Those cynical bastards thought the ick factor with a black human being would make Hillary's campaign.
They're not Thug enough yet to know if you want to ramp up the ick factor-he's got to be teh gay, too.
Kucinich 2008. The top tier are all trying to get street cred from the Pollack and O'Hanlonians
Why is he buying in? C'mon. You're smarter than that C&L. Cause there's big bucks in that agenda. Contributions from the corporate elite. Can't win the election without that money, now can we.
We also need to be mindful of our history. When President Carter allowed Shah Reza Palahvi into the country for medical treatment, it catapulted Ayatollah Khomeini to prominence. Meddling in their government yet again can only bring about further grief.
The IAEA has not found any evidence to support claims of a nuclear weapons program. Nor has Ahmadinejad's claim of 3,000 centrifuges been verified.
A second war of aggression on our part will also risk international reaction from Russia and/or China, who also have a vested interest in Iranian oil.
Jerry @ 89:
You think Al Gore would have started the Iraq War?
Some of you guys are too quick to throw your hands in the air and give up just because no candidate meets your requirement of ideological purity.
FC @ 85:
Fair enough. I agree that US hegemony in the middle east is worse than Iranian. But Obama is calling for economic sanctions against a theocratic oligarchy exerting regional influence. Doesn't that sound like a reasonable approach?
Believe it was Tom Friedman who said "Just because George Bush says something doesn't make it wrong."
Though that George Bush did say something does increase the likelihood that it's wrong.
--- Swashbuckler
He's trying to make up for his lack of foreign policy by showing how tough he is. I'm not impressed.
We don't need another posturing fool. We're having eight of bs. Last thing we need is another posturing fool. Lets not repeat our disaster.
FAke.
This guy is business as usual same as anyone else who might get elected.
British troops getting out of the Shia south before the strike on Iran?
I never believed Washington claim that (in so many words) Iran is the 'great satan.' Iran's silly posturing calling us the devil left and right, is equally reciprocated by extremist think tanks and those elected think tank supporters. We have been at peace for 30 years with Iran, and this war of words is stupid, cheap, and becoming dangerous now that more and more people are believing this crap.
'Not a Force for GOOD' is a silly thing to say, and not something somebody who is supposed to bring change to Washington.
The Shaw's days have been over for many years, and he wasn't that great of an ally to begin with. Just because Iran doesn't have a separation between church and state like we do, doesn't take away from Iran being a democracy. It's time to accept Iran as a democracy.
***
A clarification is in order Barack, tell us what you plan on doing about this 'force for non-good' We would all like a specific policy, and we would be able to use that policy to better differentiate who to vote for in our list of democratic candidates, this is a democracy too after all.
Rusty Shackleford @ 111:
But many do meet the neocon definition of ideological purity.
What a mess this country is. The Republicans are evil. The Democrats are divided. We will sacrifice our own country for an ally. It is unbelievable.
America need to put Americans first. We should support our allies but ONLY as a secondary goal. If Americans are well fed, the economy is good, etc..., then we can go help our allies. Instead, we help our allies first and find ourselves facing another great depression, elimination of our civil liberties, failing infrastructure, uneducated children, the loss of leadership in the world, etc... Then if we complain about the hardship we endure for this sacrifice, we are attacked by our allies. Let it be clear that I support Israel and our other allies but I first support America. You are not American if you don't put your own country first. You are not a good parent if you don't put your own children first. Let me add that if you only put yourself first and you have no room for others (secondarily) than that's bad too.
Duffy @ 98:
That was quite the big bad on your part.
Seele^ @ 116:
Read the piece. He gave a specific and detailed policy.
Rusty Shackleford @ 40:
Funny I know somebody just like that.
"...unfortunately, he relies on the Bush administration’s translation of Farsi, which as we’ve seen before"
Good point. Better to distance yourself from Bush's endless race to war democratic candidates. The man has been proven wrong about everything.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html
"the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"
That is the best translation, but it really is beside the point. The neocons want to wipe Iran off the map and so does Israel. Anyone running for president has to toe the line or miss out on nice bundles of campaign checks. So Obama channels Bush at his very worst. The only nuclear power in the Middle East is Israel. If there is a nuclear holocaust it will be caused by them.
w @ 103:
I did. And fuck him. The only reason Iran is jumped up is because we're in their part of the world kicking the crap out of the neighbours.
Just what we need to do-punish some country of people who are concerned about our murderous illegal activities-"If you don't stop crying-I'LL GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO CRY ABOUT."
Fuck off Dad.
Seele^ @ 116:
"Force for good" was my words, and I'm not ready for prime-time. I was trying to capture the argument of those who say that Iran is all warm and cuddly, and we shouldn't talk bad about the little mis-understood dears.
It is blatantly unfair to single out Senator Obama on this issue, especially when his bill merely calls for rules that will allow funds to divest themselves of energy companies that invest in Iran. (Guess who? Begins with "H".)
Edwards has been saying this for months and gets a pass on it?
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123...
Hillary:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran...
She goes further, introducing multiple Senate resolutions (S.292, S.Con.RES.78, S.Res.36, S.2681.IS, etc) condemning Iran or attempting to change its regime. (I'm sure that the $3.8 million that Bill Clinton gets for speaking in front of various Israeli and Jewish groups has nothing to do with her strident attacks on Iran in the Senate.)
Richardson:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13690/
The sad fact is that nobody is going to get elected if they don't at least somewhat kowtow to the powerful lobby from rightwingers in a certain Middle East country. It has been proven over and over. Yes, the administration lies about Iran but the media backs them up unquestionably -- and to tell you the truth, I have not see much on this site that calls out the media for their false statements on Iran. Only when it is politically convienent do we decide to portray Obama as a warmonger.
Shame on C&L for falling into the Republican trap -- if everybody decides that "they are all no good", the Republicans win.
miss_kitty @ 124:
We have had sanctions on Iran since 1980, Obama is talking about making them effective.
Bush Cartel + Democrats = Genocide
The plans in Iran call for at least 1200 strikes and most likely the use of nuclear weapons that will kill thousands of innocent Iranians. The counter-attack by Iran will most likely cause a spike in oil prices. In the first world this will cause gas lines. In the third world this will mean that food will not reach the market and may kill more innocent civilians. Edwards, Obama, Pelosoi, Clinton and all the rest of these supposed progressives have all signed on to the genocide either through inaction or outright cheer leading. Liberals need to stop supporting the Democrats or you will also be complicit in one of the greatest cases of mass murder ever recorded. When the avalanche of pain and suffering occurs don't run around criticizing the Bush Administration and feel like your hands are clean. Stop living in your "after this election things will change" bubble. This country and the world deserve more than a bunch of self-righteous Monday morning quarterbacks.
The Repugs want to paint the Dems as being weak on military force, and yet the Repug President instead has by getting us stuck in Iraq created a weak military force that cannot be sustained without a draft.
Imagine a Repug chickenhawk like Gulliani or Romney ordering an attack on another country while having his nails done, or having a nice coiffured trim.
Allowing Repugs to tag "wimp" on Dems is their game, and Dems should not fall for it.
what does anyone expect from the DLC? Obama=Clinton=Bush
Duffy @ 98:
Yet it never fails. When Iraq isn't selling, out comes talk of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. He's the quintessential boogeyman, and like a bunch of scared kids, we keep yelping and running about.
Even when we nailed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, he wasn't on a slab for more than a week before the next evil genius was identified and credited with an operation. Funny how nobody talks about him anymore ...
The thing about using the GOP key words is that it grants legitimacy to their worldview. If they were talking about pink dinosaurs gallloping across the White House lawn, would Obama say, "It's time to recognize the serious threat posed by pink dinosaurs," or would we be better served by a candidate who has the courage to say, "My policy will address the real world and engage it in real terms." (Fill in whatever campaign-speak seems appropriate.)
Old Billy @ 127:
"We have had sanctions on Iran since 1980, Obama is talking about making them effective".
Is this another "500 000 dead children is worth it" argument?
Not 100% accurate. Iran’s President does set military “policy” for the country. Though the final decision is made by the mullahs of the inner-circle
Mugsy is, of course, correct. I should have said that Iran's President doesn't command his nation's military the way ours does, the mullahs do.
And, in the last round of elections, said mullahs threw Ahmedinejad's candidates out of the frakkin' race. This is why I say that people who see danger in Ahmedinejad's ramblings are a bunch of bed-wetters.
.
George @ 126:
It would be nice if you actually read my post before castigating me. I quote:
You're missing the point entirely. Obama (AND ALL OF THE DEMOCRATIC CONTENDERS WHO ECHO IT) buying into the "Iran is our greatest threat" is falling into White House framing that does not actually match reality.
What EVERY Democratic candidate should do is push back and say that Bush was wrong about Saddam, he has hurt this country with his ill-informed, ill-planned and ideology-driven policies and that it does NOT serve our interests in the region to act as he has done. What he is doing is playing to a base that will NEVER vote for him anyway.
Old Billy @ 127:
to what purpose? To turn Iran into a powder keg?
Iran is nearing the point where it will be consuming oil at the same rate it produces it. Then it will no longer be able to export oil.
Oil revenues in Iran will decline. The nation will become impoverished.
What is it we wish to accomplish?
I think that the Bush plan is to stop Iran from using it's own oil, so that Halliburton can pump and sell it. This involves a massive bombing campaign. A return of the draft. A possible disaster in the gulf with oil exports barely getting out. $12/gal gasoline. Millions of lives lost.
Under Obama's the nation becomes lean and mean. Hungry for resources. Pressures will build along with resentment. Iran may well start striking out by feeding regional terrorism.
If we do nothing, Iran falls apart anyway, and oil exports decline. The central core of Iran's government disintegrates and civil war ensues. Oil exports are interrupted.
How should this game be played?
Pass on this guy.
Geez.
Old Billy @ 127:
And I'm saying "Lay off!" No need to mess with another country, just because they are acting as if they're a sovereign state, and not one of our own minions. The whole mindset is based on a fucked-up paternalistic Imperial model, that needs to stop now.
If you continuously pick at a scab, it'll never heal.
Swashbuckler @ 113:
And...just because George Bush says something...doesn't make it RIGHT.
Iran,Iran,Iran... I'm tired of this shit, what about Pakistan they already have the bomb and they could fall any day....JCB
Nicole:
Sadly, I think pushing back is one of the Democrats' failings. They don't push back because of the conventional wisdom that you must, therefore, have The Answer (and it must be correct). This was a common ploy in the ramp up to going after Saddam, and also when USA PATRIOT was being foisted upon the public.
If they offer The Answer, it gets twisted into, "So you don't think Saddam is/was a threat?" and you're immediately on the defensive. The Democrats have also had a bad habit of conceding points, as with the illegal wiretaps. Instead of sticking to the point, that the procedure was illegal and unconstitutional, they fell for 'we're not saying we shouldn't eavesdrop on terrorists' - and the public hears that as an acknowledgement that the Bush gang is right.
The media, too, plays this game. "We never said imminent," didn't draw the sensible question of, "If you were misquoted, and it wasn't your meaning, why did you remain silent?" but meek acceptance.
Obama knows if he wants to have any chance to become president, he needs to take a extreme Likud party stance in the Middle-East. Clinton has already been there. Obama will be down in single digits if the Israeli Lobby gets mad at him. Howard Dean got castrated just for saying our approach to the Israel/Palestinian conflict should be "even-handed."
Perhpas Nicole Belle has not been paying attention. All of the Democratic front runners have accepted the rationale of having to bomb Iran and steal its oil. This is why some people call them Cheneylites. Even the one who coined the term is a Cheneylite. It is not funny.
My only problem with Sen. Obama has always been his willingness to accept US militarism as necessary, which is why he will not win my support.
Jason Wolfe @ 8:
Exactly. Obama's just giving us "more of the same"
And as Gallup's recent polling shows, the LAST thing we who voted Democratic last fall want is "more of the same".
the situation in iran is, arguably, completely our fault (see, mossadeq. see, APOC/AIOC/BP). and since then we have misunderstood/mishandled, either willfully or ignorantly, the situation.
the rhetoric being leveled against iran is nearly identical to that of iraq--as far as the threat they pose to us, israel, "freedom loving people", etc. i simply don't trust our current leaders or the media to accurately frame the situation.
what is for certain is that the iraq war helped iran gain influence. the recent israel failure in lebanon to hurt hezbollah actually helped iran gain influence.
so.... maybe the lesson we should learn is stop the unilateral/imperialistic scheming in the ME. if we FEAR iran so much mayeb we should learn that all of our supposedly wise actions have only strengthened the regime that the US decision makers fear so much.
Obama's just getting started in a career and already he's a fool for the money.
From the start I thought he was insincere. Slick but not so disciplined he could pretend not to give the ball alway to the first taker.
Hillary and Obama are liars and sluts in either order. Republican Select.
The only way to make anything clear to any politician is if you are:
a) a television pundit;
b) a corporate lobbyist with a big, fat check or;
c) a political strategy "expert".
They don't give a flying fuck what any of US think! They have made this abundantly clear to me. They figure that their pundits, lobbyists and experts will tell us what to think and we will fall in line. And it appears for most Americans, they are correct. The only exceptions to this rule that I have seen are Sen. Russ Feingold and Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur. That's it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSBLA04636620070830
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2783058020070828
I linked these the other day, you might want to get sources on how the inspections are actually going, you know, before the USAF tells the inspectors to get the hell out of there or get blown up.
I respectfully disagree (that Obama has "bought" the Bush line "hook line and sinker.")
The "wipe israel off the map" quote notwithstanding, I see nothing in the article that is not true. At the same time, in writing the op/ed, Obama has accomplished a few things:
First, he has made the point that Iran is only a danger because of Bush's War.
Second, he has distinguished his approach to diplomacy -- keep your friends close, and your enemies closer -- from that of not just Bush (shoot first, don't ask questions later), but also Hillary (whatever this week's CW says to do). Apparently, that whole "naive" business has stuck in his craw (can't say I blame him), and he's found a way to turn his retort into an argument that both dovetails nicely with his "change" theme and lumps Hillary in with the entrenched Washington crowd.
And third, he's exposed the anonymous senator who put the block on his legislation. Should be fun finding out who did it.
Fanon @ 15:
It's my understanding that the Ayatollah and Supreme Council control everything in Iran. The President is little more than a figurehead or spokesman.
Barack O'Lieberman. Told you so.
DLC'ers need not apply for my presidential vote.
Login or Register to post comments.