D.C. Establishment Pressuring Obama on Iran?
By Steve Hynd Sunday Nov 30, 2008 9:00am
There's a rapidly developing consensus among Washington's Very Serious person set that Obama's plans to negotiate with Iran should get only one try, and if that fails then the bombing should begin.
Today Iran's parliamentary Speaker and the Ayatollah's most trusted negotiator, Ali Larijani, told the press that Iran's parliament is considering a request from the U.S. Congress to "parliamentary negotiations between the two countries". (And just wait till the wingnuts start howlking about a Dem Congress sidelining the Lame Duck In Chief!) Also today, France's President Sarkozy partly walked back his previous confrontational rhetoric on Iran and said that Obama's statements "reflect our shared views on the necessity of dialogue without concessions with Tehran as the only way to obtain a negotiated end to the crisis."
It would seem that prospects for an international consensus on negotiations, and prospects for Iran actually taking those negotiations seriously, are quite hopeful. Yet David Ignatius in today's WaPo leads the bellicose VSP charge to give Obama a very short timeline to make any diplomatic initiatives work, echoing the tack of more rightwing and neocon thinktanks.
He begins by lamenting the fact that the Bush administration's hawks appear to have failed in their push to attack Iran and then recapitulates hawkish hype over Iran's nuclear program, conveniently forgetting that both the IAEA and the last US intelligence community's NIE say there's no evidence Iran has a weapons program behind its civilian one. He then goes on to catalogue repeated Bush administration failures in the diplomatic arena, seemingly without irony, and to say that Obama must have a Plan B if his own venture fails at the first hurdle.
It's impossible to say whether Iran's march toward nuclear-weapons capability could have been stopped by diplomacy. But there hasn't yet been a good test. Because of bitter infighting in the Bush administration, its diplomatic efforts
were late in coming and, once launched, have been ineffective.Bush stayed on the diplomatic sidelines for more than five years. A 2003 Iranian overture for a "grand bargain" that would address the nuclear issue went unanswered. Britain, France and Germany (the so-called EU-3) were left alone to try to negotiate a compromise. They concluded the Paris agreement of Nov. 14, 2004, in which Iran agreed to suspend its enrichment efforts. But without U.S. support, this deal withered and the Iranians resumed enrichment in August 2005.
Bush finally agreed to join the nuclear talks in 2006, but only if Iran agreed as a precondition to halt enrichment. Not surprisingly, that diktat went nowhere. The administration effectively dropped that demand this year, sending Undersecretary of State William J. Burns to join an EU-3 meeting in Geneva with Iranian representatives.
Bush also missed the chance to engage Iran in a constructive dialogue about the future of Iraq. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, agreed to send his top negotiator, Ali Larijani, to Baghdad for talks with the United States in March 2006. That upset Iranian hard-liners, but they needn't have worried. The administration backed out.
It's easy to criticize the Bush record on Iran. But anyone who thinks it will be easy for Obama to make a breakthrough hasn't been paying attention. Iran moves closer every day to becoming a nuclear-weapons power. It views America as an aggressive adversary that wants regime change, no matter what Washington says. Dialogue is worth a try, but Obama and his advisers should start thinking about what they will do if negotiations fail.
Two ignored "grand bargains", in 2003 and 2006, and a sham of diplomacy in the meantime that set out as a precondition exactly what was to be negotiated. Is it any wonder, then, that Iranians see America as "an aggressive adversary that wants regime change" after the last eight years of Bush and the neocons, to say nothing off nonsense like this from VSPs? Yet despite this, and despite the fact that Bush squandered repeated opportunities over the years since 2003, Obama should "start thinking" about what happens if Iran is slow to be convinced that an Obama administration is different? One gets the distinct impression that a failure at the first hurdle would please Ignatius very much indeed.
Shouldn't an Obama administration get at least as long to get it right as Bush did to foul it up? "What they will do if negotiations fail?" How about more negotiations, over the course of years, until we know there's definitely no hope of resolving issues and differences? That's how diplomacy is supposed to work in the world outside the cloisters of the American-exceptionalist D.C. set.
Crossposted from Newshoggers
Login or Register to post comments.
We elected Obama- still doesn't make this our country.
to belong to the American People on 11/22/63.
I still remember where I was and to whom I was talking when the news came that awful day.
I had just turned 18 and was a college freshman.
What a terrible, dark day (and weekend).
I believe that it hadn't belonged to the American people for quite a while before that date - but on that day it was made crystal clear.
To any who didn't get the message, it was reinforced by the consequent murders of Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Anybody threatening the system got whacked.
The politicians and the people have gotten the message.
Everyone lays low.
the Malcolm X murder signalled (though nobody knew it at the time) the country was headed into a long time of political killings.
Every president since JFK has known exactly what his murder meant -- cross the wrong people, and they'll have you killed.
and it's not just presidents who are at risk. Paul Wellstone's plane crash, the anthrax killings, the suspicious deaths of Ivins and Palfrey, Bhutto's assassination shortly after announcing the death of OBL, et cetera, come to mind. I believe one of the anthrax victims worked for a tabloid that had just published unflattering pictures of the Bush daughters. Maybe it's just a coincidence but I doubt it.
Rich and powerful people will do anything, including murder, to protect their status.
Rich and powerful people in secret societies ...just like JFK warned us about...
here is the speech that got him killed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WSGwnz7XpY&fe...
Thanks for the link, Milquetoast.
but after much research into the subject, I think the reason he was killed had more to do with Executive Order 11110.
Can you fill me in?
It had to do with issuing currency, bypassing the Federal Reserve. But getting into it here is way way off topic.
I'll check it out :)
Yes indeed! Kennedy forced the federal reserve to do something!...he made the bankers (FED RESERVE) keep putting silver in the coinage. Kennedy is gone and so are all the 40% silver coins (and siver backed paper bills) that were issued till 1970 or so. I have a 1965 Kennedy half dollar with real silver in it!
but...you know what they say...BAD money replaces GOOD money!
so indeed! (yeah you guessed it) ...secret society=federal reserve!Did you ever see the owl on the dollar bill?...or the all seeing eye...ontop of the pyramid?
Owl on the dollar bill...26 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSBP9aYwfhU
On the sidebar, there is the Sad George Happy George thing with the fold in the dollar bill.
I saw that a long time ago with the Canadian $20 bill and Queen Elizabeth. It is even more awesome. Just make a fold in the bill in the middle of her face, tilt it back and forth and she comes alive in a truly scary fashion.
Great bar trick.
I was shown a more grizzly bar trick a few years ago. There is a way to fold a $20 bill to make it look like the burning twin towers. And on one side it said "American" and the other, "United".
Creepy.
and it really is spooky, ain't it.
This is why I fear for President Obamas' safety. Not only are there many people not happy with a black man being Our President, I believe he will be The Peoples President. The powers that be, the true masters in Washington won't like that at all. Remember Jackie O's words after the deed had been done..."Oh my God, 'they'' killed him". God's speed and protection President Obama. May God protect you from 'them'.
Obama will probly not rock the boat,...just look at his voting record so far
Patriot act renewal yes
homegrown terror act yes
military comissions act yes
telecom immunity yes
Bailout yes
Obama will be OK unless he gives a speech like this one by JFK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WSGwnz7XpY&fe...
which would track Obama's progress on such contentious yet important issues.
I haven't found a Democratic site which will do it, because they still look at Obama with rose-tinted glasses and see him as the potential messiah.
The Republicans can't tell a single truth without adding 3 lies for flavour.
But one might argue that Truman's National Security Act of 1947 was the beginning of the slippery slope to a corporatist/fascist state. The CiA was sprung from those loins and we know now about the their 60-year record of deception, murder and intrusion into the civil affairs of other sovereign states, including assassination and the propping up of pathological dictators and thugs.
is being plotted.
Obama's history is to cave when pressured from the right.
I can't think of a single issue, including wearing a flag pin, that he didn't crumble.
Iraq. Gay marriage. FISA, Rev. Wright... you name it.
With so many innocent lives at stake, and Obama himself having at one time articulated a serious and novel approach -a willingness to sit down with the Iranians without preconditions - one has a slim hope that he will weather the storm. But it is a very slim hope.
We get it....you preferred Grandpa. Clowns like you never intended to give the man even one day's chance. I'm sorry that you're disappointed that Obama hasn't consulted with you and your "to do" list. I hope that he at least continues to do things his way....and I hope that way succeeds.
You unelected "Co-Presidents" are hilarious and pathetic.
The mutual masturbation of OBAMA SUCKS coming from so many people here makes me want to puke.
They're right. McCain and Palin would have been BY FAR better than Obama. Damn that Obama anyway.
No matter what he does, or doesn't do, he's damned by I don't know how many people here - people who at one point seemed to want him to win. Apparently not though. It's tiring reading the constant whining and complaining.
But anyone who wants to give him time to attempt to accomplish something? Well, we are bots. We drank the koolaid. Apparently once he was elected, life was to immediately have become perfect. I mean, why should we wait until he becomes president to expect His miracles. We want them NOW!
Unreal.
I hated FISA too, but I love the fact that this decent, intelligent man will select the next two or three Supreme Court Justices. I see potential for so much more good than bad. These traitors to fair process have zero appreciation for the abject hell Obama helped us all avoid.
And I hated the Homegrown Terrorist Act, too.
I am a realist. And I know what people have to say and do to get elected. And without winning the election, Obama would not be in any position to DO anything for anyone - his agendas would have been lost in the forever war and complete economic collapse that would have been McCain. Obama could have said everything and done everything we want to hear and see, but he would not be president.
The link that Milquetoast keeps posting, I think that many people want to hear Obama say those things so he can promptly be assassinated. It's like they want him dead. Either you say and do exactly what we want or you are better off dead.
There are political realities. You cannot change from without (unless you want another civil war); you have to work from within the political framework we have...not the Utopian one we do not have (Christ, I feel like I just broke out in a Rumsfeldism). But facts are facts and truths are truth.
A little reality check might go a long way. I won't hold my breath, though.
With all due respect, MsJoanne, I have read some reasonable comments here by intelligent posters who question some things that Obama has said and done. I see nothing wrong with that. If that makes you feel like puking, you'd better stock up on some barf-bags.
You are right, I, too, have seen reasonable comments. I do not discount those. They are few and far between, though.
When the whining and complaining is day after day after day and decision after decision after decision, that is exactly what they are saying; Obama sucks. He cannot make decisions. He is not fit to lead US (meaning them as they do not approve).
It is not just the incessant bitching, but bitching without a reason or without a suggested solution which makes it that much worse. Yes, there are some people with very well reasoned complaints. I don't see them too often.
I am not opposed to holding Obama responsible. But just what is it he is being held responsible for? Appointments? There has not been satisfaction in a single selection he has made. Nothing but bitching. Every single time and on every single selection Obama has made.
And, CalgaryLady, please do not take this personally, for I assure you I am not directing this at you in any way, but a couple of your fellow countrymen are some of the worst, especially when the complaining is inaccurate and further goes into sweeping statements about what a dumb lot we Americans are.
I know it's frustrating but I'm certain that most of us here love Obama. Americans have a chance to change things for the better now and those commenters have the right to express their opinion too.
Sometimes we will agree and sometimes we won't, but we need to be fair and polite.
Again, thanks for your response.
Perhaps it is a very vocal minority which does not love Obama...or even like him very much. And honestly, I don't care if they like him or not. Too many people in the US liked McCain, after all. BUT, to say that you are an Obama supporter and then turn all concern troll on every selection he makes, everything he says or does, that is an entirely different animal.
Obama has not made one policy decision and the critics are already out in full force...from the left. How will he accomplish anything? I am pretty far left, but I also realize that he has to be the president of all of us. And if his policies take a turn to the centrist on some issues, I may not like it, but we have a process here to accomplish things, and with bluedog dems and republicans, it is going to take a lot to accomplish ANYTHING. And my country needs an awful lot of everything, not just anything.
I have no love nor liking of Obama. Politics of any stripe is largely about grooming an image. But he was the Democratic candidate, and he's reasonably coherent.
The thing is though, he's not going to start warming the Oval office chair until January 20th 2009. Most of what he's done so far is just make appointments to his personal cabinet, of which it is not unusual to be changed at least a couple of times before a prez leaves office.
And isn't outsiders to an adiministration or Congress (who declares war) trying to stir up war basically guilty of treason? It sounds like attempts at war profiteering nonetheless.
I no longer wish to comment at this point in time.
Thank You all for everything. But this bitching has gotten to much for me. There is a reason the comments have dropped off.
See Ya.
Don't go. Just 15 minutes ago I was asking myself what on earth happened to make this incredibly bright, thoughtful community lose its collective mind. I, too, was going to walk away and say, Whatever. But someone has to provide a little sanity.
If's, might's maybe's are doing little more than tearing us apart.
Please, please don't go.
Please stay, mudshark. We miss you.
Sometimes we all have bad days at the same time but deep down we are all friends, mkay? Please?
I sincerely appreciate what you're saying.
But the negativity and the lack of good will has taken it's toll on me.
I'll be back, of that I'm sure. I just can't say when.
I knew what I was getting into. Sadly, some people didn't. Good Night and Thank You.
Be Well. mudshark signing off.
and I hope you will always consider me a friend. Maybe we'll talk again sometime.
Stay safe and be happy.
The question is not McCain or Palin.
We did not elect them.
The election is over.
Now we must pay attention to the President-Elect.
He has shown a great capacity to go to the right when pressured to do so.
He has yielded to the right many times during the last few years while he was seeking the presidency. People on the left have been saying that he was doing so because it was necessary in order to be elected.
Now he is elected.
The election is over.
Yet there are those among us who are still responding to criticism of Obama as if we were supporting McCain or, worse, Hillary Clinton.
The election is over.
Those of us who do not want war with Iran are within our rights to try to exert pressure on the commander-in-chief-to-be to exercise more intelligence than his predecessor.
He has a record of behavior. We would be chumps not to acknowledge it.
I'm sure he's well aware that we're tired of war. He ran on ending the war in Iraq. Afghanistan is still a problem. Our troops are stretched thin. We can't keep using Stop Gap losses measures forever. Our treasury is broken.
My point wasn't that we shouldn't express our views, but that we shouldn't expect them to be 100% adhered to. You're right that Obama has a history of moving toward the right, but in his pragmatic world-view there is no right nor left.
Unfortunately, if it does come to war with Iran, we need to wait until Obama's in charge, not boosh, before we complain about Obama. Even if we do go to war with Iran, no one will ask our opinion.
But in the meantime, watch boosh, he may take any minor instigation to start open hostilities against Iran on his way out the door. It'll be his way of removing all the W keys from Whitehouse keyboards (since disproven).
and my sentiments exactly. Thank you for your eloquence.
Between MsJoanne and LeftandLeft I'm feeling as if I'm in a fun house with all those crazy mirrors.
Some people, both on the left and the right, just don't feel comfortable criticising the President.
There were some on the left who decried this sort of behaviour when it was done by the Republicans only to do just the same themselves when a Democrat is in charge.
However, for the sake of everyone and civil discourse, criticisms of Obama could be considered pre-emptive at this point, so avoid insults and keep the rhetoric to a minimum. That way, people who disgree with you are forced to argue the points you make, and not the way in which you make them.
and I feel the same way. Our man Obama won and something we all wished for beyond our wildest dreams came true. And yet here we are, fighting amongst ourselves.
What happened? Everyone needs to take a deep breath and relax. Please. We're all on the same side.
I must admit that Obama's win was not something I wished for with the same intensity that I believe you did. I was glad that McCain was defeated - and that there is at least the possibility of some enlightened leadership and the Bush era could be finally over.
But the glow came off Obama for me long ago - when he went up to Connecticut to support Lieberman against the challenge from Lamont. Obama not only urged Lieberman's reelection, he said he should be reelected so that Lieberman could continue to work in "our behalf".
At that moment, he revealed himself to be a very ordinary politician to me. He could blow with the wind with the rest of them. And this was on the issue of the war in Iraq. His supposed signature issue. Lamont was trying to unseat Lieberman - on the issue of the war. This vile war that has killed so many. And Obama opposed Lamont and supported Lieberman like any other pol hack.
His supporters have consistently excused any of Obama's departures from progressive ideals on the basis of pragmatism. He had to do thus and so to get elected, they say. I don't think they're right. But right or wrong, he has done things, said things and voted in such a way that I found myself interested in him only to the extent that his election might end the domination of the republican party.
But he is not my dream candidate.
I am suspicious.
I am skeptical.
I will be as happy, perhaps happier, than most people if he is indeed the progressive that his supporters claim he is.
Only time will tell.
just from having suffered through the Bush years with you, but Obama gives me such hope for the future. It feels great to finally see that change for the better is possible. Obama is the only guy that can make it happen.
Having said that, however, I will always remain skeptical of politicians and their promises.
Supporting Hillary is worse than supporting McCain? I repeat...HUH?? I wasn't exactly a Hillary supporter but you have got to be shitting me.
This is the biggest IF I have heard to date. I personally think this is an outrageous IF. You talk as if Obama is a chickenhawk, war monger. Do you really think he is going to start another war? He continues to say Iraq was wrong, a bad idea, and last I heard, his plans for ending it remain in tact. You think he would start ANOTHER war for...?
Ms. Joanne
At the risk of being excoriated for daring to criticize Obama, allow me to point out, if I may, that Obama is certainly giving every indication of being a chickenhawk and a warmonger. Obama's foreign policy advisers, such as Warren Christopher, Anthony Lake, and the loathsome Madeline Albright [who expressed no remorse that a half million Iraqi children perished when the United States imposed sanctions upon Iraq in the 1990s] lean hard right. Dennis Ross is a firm supporter of Israel and AIPAC, which means that he and Obama will care little at how the Palestinians have been treated at the hands of the Israelis.
You state that Obama "continues to say Iraq was wrong, a bad idea, and last I heard, his plans for ending it remain in tact." That statement is extremely disingenuous as you conveniently neglect to mention that Obama wishes to leave anywhere from 60,000 to 80,000 American troops in Iraq even after his phased [as opposed to immediate] withdrawal plan has been finally completed. In addition, Obama, the former [alleged] antiwar candidate, also wishes to keep 140,000 civilian contractors in Iraq and that would include the infamous para military organization Blackwater. Leaving those 200,000 American forces in Iraq will never, understandably, win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.
Obama, the former [alleged] peace candidate, has not been hesitant in stating that he wishes to send two or three brigades in Afghanistan. However, that now seems to be superseded by Robert Gates' desire to send 25,000 American soldiers to that country with the apparent blessing of the future president. Wishing to escalate the occupation of Afghanistan will, like Iraq, never win the hearts and minds of the Afghans as they would realize that adding more American soldiers to their country would then increase the misery and suffering of the Afghan people.
Let us not forget that Obama, that [alleged] former antiwar candidate, wishes to emulate Bush's policy of sending in American troops into Pakistan, which have already, under Bush, killed innocent Pakistani civilians.
When Bush directed a U.S. air strike into Syria a few weeks ago, which resulted in the deaths of innocent Syrians, Obama's silence at Bush's actions spoke volumes of his desire to be just as militant as Bush.
Obama, in a major speech last July to demonstrate his fealty to Israel, has sworn that "no tool of statecraft should be taken off the table" in regard to Iran which clearly implies that military action is an option that Obama would consider against Iran. In a speech at AIPAC last June, Obama assured Israel's supporters that he would do "everything" to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
If Obama fulfills his pledge to carry out his bellicose rhetoric against the innocent civilians of Third World countries, he would indeed have proved himself to be just as much, if not more, of a warmonger, then Bush and McCain.
They'll be needed for the reelection of 2012.
Cannot afford peace.
At the risk of sounding like Comrade Stalin, the sooner these neocon plants are purged from their postions in government and the private sector the better. You can bet they'll be putting in overtime from here on out.
I can't see another war with the two that dumbya has already lost, and the second dumbya recession looming large.
Paranoia of WMD is what caused the Iraq fiasco, these nutty hawks seem hell bent on repeating a mistake with no proof as last time. Obama was partly elected on his antiwar stances against Bush's war, he knew that was not a just war. I know his ideas on "redeployment" to capture Bin Laden but at least that makes sense. Making a bogeyman out Iran makes no sense, besides it's ridiculous Pakistan and India have nukes and these damn "hawks" don't make a stink about it. I'm convinced this "concern" of neocons is really designed to bring the US down as it already has through Bush.
When are we going to rise above all the petty issues and start talking about things that really affect our lives, like achieving ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. Obama says that is his top priority, however he says it will take 10 years (conveniently after he would be out of office).
There are technologies available today to give us Clean, Renewable ENERGY in a year even (especially if we took just a fraction of what is being spent in Iraq).
I am not talking about BS stuff like bio, nuclear, coal or more oil, I am talking about wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and electric/magnetic (also hydrogen using Tesla methods not conventional methods). The best thing about these is that they are abundant, completely clean, and renewable.
Whoever gets elected needs to be reminded that this is the top priority and not allowed to slack off on this. Look up Tesla and geothermal energy and check out some videos on it, also zeitgeist:addendum for more info.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releas...
Her is energy from water in a different way!http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/01/smallbusiness/blacklight.fsb/index.htm
Here is the company website Blacklightpower ...greater than fire!
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
Obama will listen to what everyone has to say, and then I am confident that he will make the right decision. For the first time in a long time, the one making those decisions has both a brain and a heart.
While I agree that Obama sometimes buckled to neocon pressure during the election process. Hopefully, he was doing a little pandering to the right to gain some fence-riding voters. His goal was to become President, and Obama is a goal oriented man.
Now his goal is to unite the country and restore our respect in the world. He is going to be appointing some people in his administration that are not exactly progressive to help bring the sides together. But it is Obama who will be calling the shots. I can accept that.
Now that he is in office, he can do what he believes is good for the country. And he is aware more progressive policies are needed to rescue this nation, so that is a plus. I hope.
. . . is that Obama understands the dangers involved in handling the Iranian situation. Another is that he has his own ideas on how he should proceed given his understanding. Another is that he is picking seasoned, qualified and knowledgeable persons to help him manage the very delicate and critical concerns that are involved. Yet another is that he knows America truly does not want - nor can it afford - more war.
Let's see what he does given these facts.
*
We have a way of making little threats seem big and big threats seem un-important. I actually trust Iran more than I do Korea or pakistan, or the security of the South African Nuclear facility that was recently broken into.
Jesus Christ people you are talking about what a difficult task the Iranians will be. (Remember for us, nukes are a deterrant, maybe Iran's having a nuke will prevent more war in the middle east) What if we just left them alone?
How about we focus on spots on the earth which are much hotter and more dangerous than Iran. I'd start with the USA.
Israel will never allow another nuclear power to challenge it's military dominance of the middle east.
So - if Israel wants a war with Iran - let THEM bomb them. Let THEM go to war with Iran. WE should stay out of it. They're like the bullying child that knocks another child down on the playground and then runs and hides behind their mommy's skirt.
We should not fall for this ploy.
*
Cause I don't see anyone with those kind of cajones on either the Left or the Right.
Unless maybe your priority is Isreal.
we have to fix our really serious economic problem at home before we can pick another expensive and entirely unnecessary fight.
That is the common problem with Obama and McCain, they both see Iran as a threat to our national security. It is the same rhetoric that was used in the Iraq war and both of them need to be called out on it.
If there was one thing the debacle with Iraq taught us, it's that evidence, public opinion, international opinion, and even the so-called "intelligence", none of it matters. Those who want war, will get war. They will lie to the public, they will be believed by some, and the mainstream media will continue to trumpet the lies that they need to. (e.g. That most if not all the intelligence agencies in the world were in agreement over the Iraq WMD's)
There will be war with Iran, because the right people want war with Iran.
It is as inevitable as the morning sun.
But since MOST Iranians DO NOT want war with America - maybe it can be prevented.
Someone has to be the adult here. America has a chance to do the right thing. Israel can have their own private war with Iran if they insist. Theirs - their own - not ours. Not our children. Not American blood - Israeli blood should be spilled on behalf of Israels war-like blather in this scenario.
Israel should STFU and let the diplomatic process go forward.
*
"But since MOST Iranians DO NOT want war with America - maybe it can be prevented."
What do Iranian's wants have to do with anything?
Are you implying that most Iraqi's WANTED to be invaded by the US?
Are you a FOX viewer or something?
Our military is so stretched who are we gonna send in to Iran, Brownie troops?
Little girl screams of excitement as offensive weapons are banned under the Geneva Convention.
Let's send all the re-thugs who are still clamoring for "war, war and more war!"
If you open your mouth and shout "War with Iran!!" -- we grab them - put them in a uniform, give them a gun and ship their asses over there.
Okay - we give them food rations too.
*
No, Amen to the Nth degree.
hey now that sounds like a plan! now just add afganistan and by golly you nailed it!
Who controls the Democratic party? Israel does. Why??
Because we, the original Democrats, stopped supporting them for their weakness and ineffectiveness.
The Clintons, McAuliffe, Emanuel and Schumer became heavily indebted to the East Coast bankers, the Wall Street types, hard-liners, war-monger and AIPAC, all who took advantage of their weakness and stuffed their pockets full of money, with huge IOU's attached. Obama won, but only in name.
The party divisions between Obama v. Clinton, were almost entirely based on that same divide. We the people were with Obama, while the party sellouts and insiders, hardliners, war-mongers and pro-business crowd stuck with 'the Clintons'.
Now the problem is, as most of your know who've tried to have serious political discussion about Israel's domination over every American issue, including our economy, the chants of "anti-semitism" drown out the peoples voices. We know it has nothing to do with religion. So we can deal with that.
The problem is that our major institutions and congressional committees are now run by them, and hold so much wealth and power in their little fingers - all they need do is snap them and everyone comes running. While you thought it was the Cheneys and the Liebermans they've so packed our government we're not much different than the Israeli Knesset.
Lucky for us, we've not been reduced to another Gaza. Yet.
We have our own Gaza in Iraq.
These stupid Neocons are actually demanding that Obama's negotiations with Iran should be on a short time table. Congress will be controlled by the Democrats that rules out a declaration of war. The Presidency will be controlled by the Democrats that rules out unilateral action. These Neocons just need to shut up and let the adults handle things.
to be seen as weak on the issues of war or security.
Face it, the Democratic Congress will fold quicker than Superman on laundry day, and have no problem rushing into war. Again.
There's no way in hell we're going to invade Iran. Obama was against the Iraq invasion. Why is he suddenly going to change his tune and invade another country that is no threat? But Obama is starting to get the Clinton treatment. I saw a headline on the the National Enquirer or one of those grocery store rags that said something like "Sex, Drugs and Murder--The Secret Obama Is Hiding!" It's only the Enquirer but I'm sure it'll start making the rounds soon enough.
Just nuke it. Or use lots and lots of conventional bombs. Either way.
Login or Register to post comments.