Amendment Eases War on Iran
By Leslie on September 22, 2007 at 6:33 PM in Current Affairs
Via Iran Nuclear Watch, from Carah Ong, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation’s Iran Policy Analyst:
On September 20, 2007, Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) filed Amendment No. 3017 to the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization bill. This extremely provocative measure is a “Sense of Senate” resolution, which if passed, would say it is the policy of the United States to “combat, contain and roll back” Iran and its surrogates in Iraq. The amendment also expresses the view that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard should be designated a terrorist organization, a move that the Bush administration is possibly now considering according to leaked media reports last month.
The corporate media probably missed this because they’ve been focused on OJ and a newspaper ad. Here are the relevant sections of the amendment [which is in pdf, so please follow the link above]:
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.
and this, based upon the Congressional testimony earlier this month of General Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker…
(12) The Department of Defense report further states, with respect to Iranian support for Shi’a extremist groups in Iraq, that “[m]ost of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups are provided by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force. . . For the period of June through the end of August, [explosively formed penetrator] events are projected to rise by 39 percent over the period of March through May”.
Before the Bush administration and members of Congress push us into another war of choice with another country that hasn’t attacked us, shouldn’t we be engaging in direct talks with Iran first before we start dropping bombs. Would that be too much to ask?
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
The behavior of the Bush administration—on a personal level—appears to be much like that of an abusive parent who berates and beats a child for, well, acting like a child.
Rather than choosing to identify the offending behavior, setting boundaries around it and engaging in rational conversation regarding it, the first impulse is to to threaten and coerce. This is hardly a strategy for success, but one that this administration apparently delights at taking at every turn.
These choices clearly make this administration—and, by proxy—this nation, the schoolyard bully on the international stage.
I don’t understand why “we” even need to engage in TALKS with Iran over this manufactured crisis.
There is no evidence that Iran as done anything it is not legally entitled to do in its nuclear program. Further, Iran has every right and reason to develop nuclear power, and in fact I understand that some of the very people who are screaming the loudest now have previously encouraged Iran to develop nuclear energy technology.
So far I have not seen anything that convinces me that Iran is “the world’s greatest state supporter of international terrorism”. Its alleged support for Hamas and Hezbullah are not convincing.
If Iran really is “killing Americans in Iraq”, so what? Those Americans have no business in Iraq, and are up to no good there, and in fact if any other country has a right and reason to be concerned about Iraq’s business it is Iran, not the United States. And let us not even mention the glaring hypocrisy of the U.S. complaining about Iran interfering in Iraq’s business!
You go, Shirin!!
If the Shiite attacks on American forces are rising at this rapidly a rate, we’ve already lost the effort in Iraq. Aren’t these supposed to be the groups which are our friends in Iraq, the dominant groups in the Iraqi government? Saying that the Shiite militias are attacking American forces is like saying that the Iraqi military is attacking American forces. Perhaps the good General Petreus might be more effective if he gained some sort of modus vivendi with the Iraqi military rather than hyping an “Iranians are coming, the Iranians are coming” hysteia.
Right. Also, how can the US be making progress in Iraq and then argue the necessity of expanding the war to Iran. Some of the charges the Bush administration is making are absurd on their face, and how can we believe anything they say after the disaster they’ve created in Iraq.
If you’re interested, Ambassador Peter Galbraith has a very good article about all of this, and he makes your point too, here.
Why are we considering ANY proposal put forth by the Connecticut Quisling? Nothing this man has supported or advocated is in the best interest of America or Democracy much less International Relations.
Can the Turks advocate and be justified in attacking the United States because of the huge amounts of American arms used by Kurdish Rebels to kill Turkish military and civilian citizens? And why didn’t the Soviets “nuke” us for supplying the Mujahdin (sp?) with Stingers and anti-tank rockets . . . killed a lot of Russia’s finest . . .???
As long as useless resolutions and “Sense of Senate Statements” are taking up so much time: I think we ought to pass a resolution stating the War Is Over We Won - then go home, end of story
We should throw W’s best friend OJ in prison just for the distraction alone!
I’ve listened to several conservative talk radio programs to hear Rick Santorum, Michael Savage and others saying that Iran was responsible for funding al-Qaeda and the 9-11 hijackers.
Can you believe it?
Did anyone say what army we’re going to use to roll back Iran? Are the Blackwater armed PKK the proxy warriors that will be used?
Are the lies that are being told preparing fools for a draft?
Help me.
Comment by Cee | 2007-09-22 23:14:43
“Are the lies that are being told preparing fools for a draft?
Help me.”
Ahhh…the “D” word. Actually I believe the fools would run down and sign up for the draft if they believed the____________are coming, the_________are coming.! You fill in the blanks we all know they are.
However I don’t think the neocons would resort to this because it would be much easier just to give Blackwater another gazillion dollars. Besides in the time it would take the Selective Service to get their offices open much less the training, etc, Blackvader I mean Blackwater could have thousands of storm troopers anywhere at the taxpayers expense.
Seig heil!!
If there was just a MAINE to explode, a LUSITANIA to be sunk or a MADDOX and/or TURNER JOY to attract some torpedo boat fire.
I ask you, Sports Fans: How’s a demagogue to get a useful cassus belli in today’s crazy world?
I thought the Senate already passed a bill on Iran introduced by Lieberman, and that its passage was nearly unanimous. This is a new one?
Yes, see National Review article by the Editors: Countering Iran’s Designs.
Great thread, Leslie.
And astute comments. No one disgusts me more than Lieberman.
And regarding your link - the brilliant minds at NRO.
Let me see - Didn’t we go into Iraq for their nookyular weapons capabilities?
Although you probably wouldn’t hear that from the fine folks at NRO.
Yes, making IED’s are a lot more sophisticated than nuclear warheads.
Chinese manufactured weapons recently were recently found in Afghanistan, can we expect something from these clowns on that?
And yes Leslie - we should be talking to Iran, Syria and others - war is the bluntest tool of diplomacy and should only be the very last resort. I wouldn’t bet against it with this crowd though. This is all too frighteningly familar.
The fact that this could turn into Khartoum for US soldiers doesn’t appear to cross these SOBs that claim to support our troops.
And somehow I don’t picture Dave Petraeus as Chinese Gordon.
Voice of America and Fiasco at Persian Service.
As a native born Iranian, I would like to suggest that there is no need to attack Iran militarily if the Bush administration pays attention to those who know the situation and use the awesome power of publicity instead of military.
Millions of dollars are spent in Persian Service of Voice of America but the end result is nothing but scandalous way of management and programming.
It is hard to believe but the Persian Service which supposed to be an organization to convey the policy of the U.S. has become a free platform for hard-line terrorist group of communists who attack the United Sates!
I have the documents in writings to prove that these were done with the knowledge of the management.
I used to work there and as I said before, I have all the documents in writings.
The manager is a woman called Sheila Gandji who can not read and write Persian. Therefore, in order to hide this shortcoming from the higher management, she has hired an eighty something man called Kambiz Mahmoudi who has a lengthy background as crook and in charlatanism.
Don’t think that this is a personal vendetta.
Let me quote you a view from another media:
“The Iran Steering group concluded that much of the anti-American perspective that is broadcast is the result of decisions made by station managers in Washington D.C. and Prague. Sheila Gandji, the manager of Persian service has faced sharp criticism, particularly for her decision to stop VOA shortwave radio program in July, 2006 in order to focus on television broadcasts, which are more susceptible to censorship, since the government regularly confiscates satellites dishes in order to prevent the infiltration of foreign broadcasts.”
The bizarre situation at the Persian Service of Voice of America caused the Republican Senator Coburn to write a long letter to President Bush about the fiasco there.
It is only in America where the government pays to be insulted. Really, why voice of America is doing this harm to our nation?
No surprise . . . the Bush Administration prides itself on locating the most unqualified party lackey or Regent graduate to head whatever department needs to be “Bushified”. Language or professional skills are not part of the job description - where did the 22 year old with no accounting background get the job to head up the Iraqi Stock Market come from? Or the “kids” in charge of contacts for rebuilding? How about that horse walker that saved NOLA? Terrific job on the DOJ, Abo! Would not surprise me if they were broadcasting troop position co-ordinates during the weather . . . maybe I’m a little too critical . . . maybe NOT
When this nightmare is over we will discover too late just how much damage has be done to America by these criminals. Like an old dog run, it may take awhile before we see green grass again.
[...] by Charles on September 22nd, 2007 Larry Johnson has excerpts of the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment to the Defense Authorization Act. It declares Iran to be [...]
Followed Larry’s link and find the key to our next war:
“(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;”
This essentially states that anyone in Iraq that embraces a Shi’a (Iranian) “influence” is a threat and to be dealt with as such - “indigenous” would refer to NATIVE BORN RAISED Iraqi INSIDE Iraq - essentially mandating no opposition to a Sunni dominated government. So the case is made that we have selected a winner in this “civil war” and can now go home or just go on an invade Iran . . . no need to declare war, based on this Amendment, Bush has the power and OK to go into Iran as an extension of Section (4) dealing with “proxies” (as defined by ?? Bush, Army, Cheney?) without bothering further consultation with Congress - which will no doubt be TOO busy in deep debate over the next MoveOn AD . . . .
gonna need some more soldiers . . .
Speaking of destabilization
Syria Newspaper Teshreen in its editorial accused the US and Israel of the assassination of Lebanese deputy Antoine Ghanem saying:
If Bush administration wants to accuse Syria, then we reverse the accusations on this administration and Israel of this crime [Ghanem assassination] also on all the crimes, at least they benefited from these crimes especially that the Bush administration adopts the creative-chaos theory (Ledeen Theory).
http://roadstoiraq.com/
It is high time that liberal Jews in America take a stand against warmongering AIPAC scum the likes of Lieberman, who, aligned with the neocon criminals in this administration, are the single greatest threat to world peace. Not the other way around.
Many did long before the neocons got their war on.
The MSM just didn’t think they should be heard so we kept seeing idiots like Tom Friedman and Ken Pollack.
Can American Jews unplug the Israel lobby?
One of the most trenchant commentators is Philip Weiss, a regular contributor to the Nation. Weiss’ blog, MondoWeiss, offers informed and passionate discussions of what he calls “delicate and controversial matters surrounding American Jewish identity and Israel.” He routinely skewers attempts by mainstream Jewish organizations and pundits to lay down the law on what is acceptable discourse. This means being willing to look at off-limits subjects like “dual loyalty.” When the American Jewish Committee, a powerful advocacy group that shares AIPAC’S line, issued a reactionary response to the Mearsheimer-Walt piece and the Carter book, accusing Jewish intellectuals who didn’t toe the party line on Israel of being “self-haters,” Weiss pointed out that the heavy-handed attempt had backfired — instead of silencing dissenting voices, the AJC piece revealed for all to see the “anti-intellectual, vicious, omerta practices of the Jewish leadership.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/03/20/aipac/print.html
Cee,
Before the Neocons got their war?! Are you kidding.
Considering American Jews comprise about 2% of the total population and voted overwhelmingly* against Bush twice, I’d say that Jews, relative to the overall population, are very well represented in the anti-Bush movement before and now.
*According to PEW, 70-80% of the Jewish population voted for Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004 respectively. But I’ve seen other polls showing over 80%.
Why do you think we disagree? I said they were speaking out against AIPAC before the war. The media didn’t show Phillis Bennis and others.
For one thing: You quoted Weiss talking about “dual loyalties.” So I feel as if my patriotism as an American is being questioned, because I’m also Jewish. FYI: I consider myself an American first.
And American Jews didn’t just speak out before the war in Iraq. They’ve continued to speak out. I don’t want Bush taking us into another unprovoked war anymore than anyone else here. It would be a criminal act, costing thousands of innocent lives and it would gain nothing.
The only people I hear advocating more war are Bushies/Neocons, their equivalents in Israel, the Likud party, and France. War with Iran would be devastating for Israel, the US, Iran, and the entire ME region.
For one thing: You quoted Weiss talking about “dual loyalties.” So I feel as if my patriotism as an American is being questioned, because I’m also Jewish. FYI: I consider myself an American first.
Weiss stated that. I’m sorry if you feel senstive about it.
Your reaction just reminded me of Real Time with Bill Maher the other evening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAehMPVFFE0
Also watch for the remarks of Garafalo.
I do think the some like Lieberman and the guy who funds the Brookings Institute don’t consider America as their first concern.
His name escapes me now (Saban?) but he even said Israel is his concern. He’s one of the reasons we’re in the mess we’re in.
They should all be denounced. Loudly! Often! NYTimes ad. Whatever before they start the next war.
You quoted Weiss. You must’ve done so for a reason, when your comment was in support of Anonymous’s about Jews not uniting against Bush? And, yes, I do feel sensitive about having my loyalties questioned vis a vis religious affiliation.
Watched the Bill Maher interview of Mike Sheuer, but not clear what your point is?
Regarding Lieberman and the Brookings Institute or Neocons…I’m not responsible for their beliefs or their loyalties, neither as a Jew nor as an American. Nor are other Jews responsible for them. Lieberman et al speak for themselves and they should take responsibility for their statements and beliefs. And, the last time I looked, it was the Bush administration that created the situation we’re in.
I resent very much the implication that there’s this secret fifth column of Jews in the US, who wield such enormous political power that they alone decide US foreign policy. That there’s this “Jewish lobby” that dictates Bush’s policies toward Israel and the Middle East, and therefore it behooves all Jews to speak out as a group or risk having their loyalties questioned. As if U.S. imperialism didn’t have good reasons of its own for maintaining Israel as its number one client state, and the Bushies don’t have their own reasons for invading Iraq. Many of the Neocons, for instance, aren’t even Jews: Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice. While the Jews who are in the administration, Feith, Wolfowitz, work at the beck and call of the non-Jews, who have the real power.
I would no more accuse Christians of being responsible for Bush’s policies than I would Muslims or any other ethnic group. Yet that’s what you’re doing when you single out Jews for special responsibility. Besides, as mentioned above, most American Jews didn’t vote for Bush, and many have spoken out against him and continue to do so. Ditto Lieberman–who was voted into office by Connecticut and not the Jewish block.
We might also add that a lot of the reflexive rightwing support for Israel in the US these days is based on these nutty Rapture-based scenarios which foresee an Apocalypse in the Middle East in which all the Jews of Israel convert to Christianity and all their enemies (Arabs) are destroyed in some grisly fantasy. So it’s really an ultimately anti-Semitic worldview, that’s propelling it at the popular level, even if its adherents could never acknowledge the fact.
There’s a conservative church in my neighborhood, beautiful forested setting. It has a set of flag poles on its grounds. Two years ago it started flying the American flag and the Oregon state flag on one (Okay), an Israeli flag on the second, and a flag that says “Jesus” on the third. It just seems beyond bizarre to me.
BTW, I think for people like Cheney and Rumsfeld the war is all about power and oil. If any nation, including Israel, got in the way of what they saw as their greater interest, they wouldn’t hesitate to sacrifice it. Controlling the Mideast is necessary in their minds because that’s where the oil is. Others, like Wolfowitz, may have factored the interests of Israel into the equation, but as you pointed out, Leslie, they weren’t the ones making the ultimate decisions.
Delia,
The Bushies have abandoned Israel and Palestine in the peace process.
Minor correction: The Rapture crowd doesn’t want or expect to convert Jews to Christianity. The Jews would go up in smoke along with the Muslims. Then the Rapture-ists would have the Holy Land all to themselves. That is, once they returned to Earth. They’re totally nuts. And you’re right–they’re anti-Semitic.
P.S. You have to wonder how much the Bushies truly support Israel, when Bushie’s grandpa, Prescott Bushie, was doing business with the Nazis during WWII. It was probably a partnership based on money. But who knows if ideology didn’t also play a role. Have any of the Bushies really changed that much either–in terms of supporting fascism?
Individual Jews are not responsible for decisions, choices and actions made by other individual Jews or by Jewish organizations with which they are not affiliated, and it is absurd to hold them responsible.
As for the dual loyalty thing, it is completely unfair and very offensive to make that charge against American Jews in general.
Yes, Prescott Bush did business with the Nazis. Ben Gurion and other Zionists also collaborated with the Nazis, and Ben Gurion, typically of the narrow views of the ideologue, had some shocking ideas about the value of Jewish lives relative to the value of the Zionist project. In short, he valued Zionism more than he valued Jewish lives. The same thing could be said of many others, including the Zionist underground in Iraq who found it quite appropriate to kill and maim Jews - including Jewish children - in their effort to terrorize reluctant Iraqi Jews into immigrating to Israel.
I guess Shirin meant the case of Hungarian Jews being sold by Zionists for saving a group of prominent Zionists.
There’s another thing that kind of mystifies - and annoys - me about the attitude that Jews must somehow legitimate themselves by repudiating Lieberman. It does not only - absurdly - make American Jews individually and severally responsible for the beliefs and behaviours of - apparently - each one of their fellow Jews. In addition to that it makes being Jewish THE central concern about Lieberman. What is UP with that? Is his religion/ethnic affiliation/however you want to define Jewishness really the central, most critical fact about him? Isn’t it his record on the issues that matters?
Right Shirin. Lieberman’s Jewishness isn’t the issue, it’s his politics.
Ditto with bin Laden and al Qaeda: It’s not the Muslim religion that ought to be at issue, but al Qaeda’s crimes. It’s absurd when you hear people saying, “What Muslims have spoken out against bin Laden?” Besides the fact that many have…besides the fact that bin Laden has murdered many Muslims [in Afghanistan alone], it’s not the responsibility of individual Arabs and Muslims to speak out against a murderer or risk being confused with him. Muslims/Arabs aren’t responsible for 9/11, bin Laden was.
That’s why this whole brouhaha with whether or not to allow Ahmadinejad to visit the WTC site in NYC is so ridiculous. What does Ahmadinejad or Iran have to do with al Qaeda or 9/11? Absolutely nothing! Let Ahmadinejad pay his respects.
Exactly Shirin. I don’t belong to AIPAC and don’t support them. Nor should anyone expect me to denounce them, Lieberman, et al, as some sort of loyalty test. This kind of thinking helped lead to the creation of the Japanese internment camps during WWII. It’s the type of thinking that could lead to reprisals, and has lead to reprisals, against Muslims/Arabs in the US.
It’s called scapegoating.
[Ben Gurion supported the Nazis!? I've never heard that before, will have to look into it.]
Leslie, please reread my comments on Ben Gurion and other Zionists and note that I did not in any way suggest that they supported the Nazis. I used a completely different word with a completely different meaning.
Whoops, well I’ve never heard that he collaborated?
“The Rapture crowd doesn’t want or expect to convert Jews to Christianity. The Jews would go up in smoke along with the Muslims.”
No, Lesly, a part of Jews WOULD be converted and only non-converted would perish. But for religious Jew to convert to Christianity is fate worse than death.
You’re right Lidia. But either way the Jews would be toast, along with anyone else who was a non-believer or didn’t convert.
You quoted Weiss. You must’ve done so for a reason,
I quoted a portion. The article was rather long.
when your comment was in support of Anonymous’s about Jews not uniting against Bush?
My comment to that person what that Jews did speak out but were ignored. The ones he listens to are the hard right nuts.
And, yes, I do feel sensitive about having my loyalties questioned vis a vis religious affiliation.
Blame that on people of your religion who claim to act in your name.
They have hijacked your faith and this government.
There IS a fifth column who have done that. Guess who will be blamed for a acts of a few fanatics. All Jews. We’re seeing that happening to Muslims now!
Watched the Bill Maher interview of Mike Sheuer, but not clear what your point is?
Your unwarranted response to me. Should I find it again?
Regarding Lieberman and the Brookings Institute or Neocons…I’m not responsible for their beliefs or their loyalties, neither as a Jew nor as an American.
Speak up like Jewish Voices for Peace have and Committee to Prevent Home Demolitions have.
Seek out people who will interview them like I have.
Those interviews might cost a person their job (I won’t go into details) but those voices need to be heard.
Dammit! This morning I see that asshole Ken Pollack on the news again after he lied us into Iraq, now lying us into Iran. You better find some power to spot clowns like him again.
And, the last time I looked, it was the Bush administration that created the situation we’re in.
The administration and these unelected crackpots who DO have the power!!
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
I resent very much the implication that there’s this secret fifth column of Jews in the US,
I’m sorry that you resent it. The facts speak for themselves.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/24/podhoretz-bush-meeting/
Do something about it.
Cee, I don’t get it. what exactly would you suggest that Leslie “do” about it outside of, being Jewish, taking responsibility for the actions of other free adults who just happen to be Jewish too - something that she is in no way obligated to do, and something that is in any case pointless and useless?
Or do you imagine that somehow Leslie has some kind of authority over the likes of Lieberman, Feith, Perleman, etc? Do you imagine that she can somehow influence their actions or force them into line?
Or are you merely demanding that she and other Jews disassociate themselves with the Jewish criminal wack jobs in order to prove something to someone?
Appreciate your help Shirin, but it’s not worth your time or mine respond to this. This is more of the same anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bullshit I’ve heard since 9/11. That it’s somehow the fault of the Jews, the Muslims, the Arabs…next it will be African-Americans who are Muslim, or Filipinos, or Malaysians, or who knows who…. It’s so much easier to blame someone else.
Perhaps because many Jews in America don’t see these issues as exclusively Jewish, or as religious issues, but as political. That’s why over 80% voted against Bush according to polls. Many Jews have spoken out against the Bush administration as well, this post by me is an example of that. But I could cite many more, such as Glenn Greenwald at Salon, Jews Against the War, actor Paul Newman, author Norman Mailer, comedian Bill Maher, Noam Chomsky, Jon Stewart, Al Franken, Amy Goodman, Nat Hentoff at the Village Voice, and Cee’s example of Philip Weiss at the Nation.
Regarding Lieberman, why is it the responsibility of Jews as a group to counter him? Shouldn’t you be asking Connecticuttans about that? They elected him.
Using your argument, shouldn’t Christians, especially born-again Evangelists, join together collectively and take a stand against the Bushies?
In terms of AIPAC, which isn’t exclusively Jewish [a lot of Bushies also belong to it], Tikkun has talked about creating a liberal think tank to counter it. I don’t know if that idea has gone further than the talking stage.
Great response, Leslie.
It really is the fault of the people of Connecticut who let Karl Rove play them. The Republicans actually had a candidate (forget his name now) who wasn’t half bad, although the GOP and MSM managed to paint him as a weirdo. In the debates, he did very well, but Rove had already done his manipulative magic, and the Connecticut GOP ignored him, intent on voting for Lieberman.
It also was unfortunate that Ned Lamont, a political rookie with no previous government experience, didn’t have a better-run campaign — he went to sleep for a while following the primary, instead of hitting hard. Now, if Connecticut Dems had had a candidate like Whitehouse or McCaskill or Webb or Tester — with experience as well as talent — they might have pulled it off.
(Then there’s my irritation with the lefty blogs that, going into November when it was plain as day that Lamont would lose to Lieberman, kept haranguing and pressuring their readers for more donations for Lamont, INSTEAD of asking people to pour money into the truly tight races where momentum was going to the Democrats. More money wasn’t going to help Lamont at that point who, by the way, had plenty of his own to give to the campaign if need be. An infusion of cash with some key TV ads could have swung more House seats to the Dems, but they didnt get it because there wasn’t any oxygen left in the room for their races. Sorry, just one of my beefs from last fall.)
In fairness to Ned Lamont you need to add the role of the DLC in his demise. While your at it refresh everyones memories as to that organizations membership. You might also do a little checking as to how much support Webb and Tester received from the DLC during their Senate runs from the DLC. And gee, I seem to remember that both faced well funded Primary fights. Funded by who???? Just a few of my pet peeves. If memory serves me correctly it was only after Tester and Webb won against long odds did Rahm and the gang claim them as their own. Ned Lamont’s efforts may have fallen short but where was the help from the national Dem groups? I’ll tell you, they were behind efforts to elect people like Bob Casey Jr. The people of the nutmeg state were not only played by Karl and his crew, but the DLC.
You are so right. I remember vividly telling my daughter, just over a year ago (prior to Allen’s Macaca statement), that there was a great candidate for senator in Virginia — an unusual candidate with his service to the Reagan administration and military background, and who’d argued brilliantly in opposition to the Iraq war before the invasion of Iraq — but he had no chance, it seemed, because the national Dems had decided not to give him any money. Webb plugged along. A lot of bloggers touted him. The Macaca incident helped. The bloggers kept helping him. He endured a lot of nasty stuff, including the excerpts from his book — which I’ll never forget Don Imus repeatedly reading on his show and calling Webb a pervert and child molester. (That was during a time when I didn’t sleep, and I’d lie there in bed listening to that asshole smear Webb, and I was so glad when, months later, Imus got his due.)
The Dems should finance every campaign, and also more thoroughly investigate the quality of the candidates — the best candidates have a real chance even in conservative districts. In eastern Washington, we had a fantastic candidate, Peter Goldmark, who could have won if he’d gotten any national Dem. money. He is a longtime rancher with a PhD and on the board of trustees of W.S.U., and from a storied political family. He has deep roots in his district, and strong connections to the huge conservative farming communities there. He could have done it. But the Dems didn’t pick up any new House seats in Wash. state in ‘06.
Susan
Thanks for the affirmation. In my own humble opinion the Dems have their own slime to clean out and Rahm is high on my personal puke list with Harold Ford a close second.
I’ll keep my eyes and ears open for him, Susan.
Eric Massa and Jim Marcinkowski are two other excellent candidates that could have used some help.
There are even lots and lots of Jews - including Israelis - who speak out against Israel, its manner of creation, its racist policies against non-Jewish Israeli citizens, and its crimes against the Palestinians and its neighbors. An increasing number of Jews are joining in calling for a single-state solution.
I don’t get the attitude that somehow Jews are collectively and individually responsible for Lieberman such that they are obligated to “counter” him. It is the same attitude that makes Muslims collectively and individually responsible and obligated to do something about bin Laden and suicide bombers.
Maybe I blinked and missed it, but I do not remember white Christians rushing to take responsibility and do actions to “counter” the white Christian guys who did the Oklahoma City bombing, or for the terrorists acts and murders committed by so-called “right to lifers” against facilities and staff who perform abortions.
And, in fact, many Muslims have spoken out against bin Laden, who has killed many Muslims and would kill many more if given half a chance.
Yes, Leslie, that is true, of course, as have many Muslims and Muslim groups spoken out against all attacks on civilians, and suicide bombings in particular. Attacking the defenseless, and suicide are both huge sins in Islam, so suicide bombers who target civilians are committing a double sin.
That is why, when people complain about not hearing Muslims condemning these things, I simply say that if they are not hearing it, then that means they are either not listening or don’t want to hear - or both.
I heard a Muslim cleric, on the morning of 9/12/2001, respond to a question about Islamic Terrorism by saying, “Terrorism can clothe itself in any religion, but in reality it is the religion of Satan.” I’d call that a pretty unequivocal condemnation. Still, I’d like to be able to point those who still appear not to have heard anything like that to a list of such statements made by Muslims, especially heads of Muslim organizations, religious or not. Anyone seen that anywhere on the web?
Also Chris Hedges, the son of a Christian minister, says emphatically in his book, _American Fascists_ that it *is* the obligation of Christians to call out and oppose those who would clothe their Fascist agenda in Christianity.
As for the obligation of Jews, the only thing I’d say on that is that the community of Militarist Idiots is able to monkeywrench the debate about Israel pretty effectively by screaming “Anti-Semite” at the drop of a hat. Jews are at least marginally less vulnerable there, because the charge of “self-hating Jew” isn’t nearly as convincing, at least to the truly simple-minded. Education, of course, can produce a more sophisticated kind of stupidity.
And OK, I’ll go out and pick up a copy of this month’s _Tikkun_, which has a cover story about the “Israel Lobby.”
F.
Fingal, here are a few Muslims who’ve spoken out against bin Laden and al Qaeda:
• Muslims Clerics in Spain issue fatwa against bin Laden
• Bin Laden’s violence is a heresy against Islam
• Scholars of Islam speak out against terrorism
NOTE: There are many more examples, and they’re not hard to find using google. Also consider the history of al Qaeda and its terrorist attacks in the Muslim/Arab world, for example in: Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Egypt, Philippines, et al. Plus, Al Qaeda considers Shiites apostates, and al-Qaeda-linked groups have been bombing Shiite mosques in Iraq for example, in an attempt to further the civil war as well.
Thank you. I’ll try Google as well. Of course, the people who haven’t heard the denunciations have almost certainly not Google’d for them, and others of us might well do some good by shoving the links (gently) in their faces.
Of course, I go back and forth on whether there’s any point leading those particular horses to water.
F.
My first response to people who insist that Muslims are not speaking out against bin Laden, etc. is to point out that bin Laden, etc. has nothing to do with Muslims and so they are under no obligation to answer for or speak against him in any way. Bin Laden and other so-called “Islamic” terrorists are not leaders of Muslims, they are in no way representatives of Muslims, and Muslims certainly did not choose them, nor do they look to them for any kind of leadership or guidance. Bin Laden, who has taken it upon himself to issue some fatwas has absolutely no standing to issue a fatwa of any kind.
My second response is to suggest, as I have said already, that if they have not heard Muslims speaking out against bin Laden, etc. they they clearly have not been listening.
Regarding Lieberman, why is it the responsibility of Jews as a group to counter him?
Because when anyone else tried to do it they were called anti-Semitic. Secondly, it was expected of Muslims.
Using your argument, shouldn’t Christians, especially born-again Evangelists, join together collectively and take a stand against the Bushies?
ABSOLUTLEY!! The sooner the better.
“born-again Evangelists” — you don’t mean these people, do you?
Christians United for Israel
http://www.cufi.org/site/PageServer
they are in my small town in SC - an Israeli flag was flying with a sign that said “we support you, Israel” during the recent Lebanon / Israeli conflict. the CUFI’s were featured in CNN’s “God’s Warriors,” the Christians.
i just wish that people of faith would come to their senses.
(disclosure: i’m a lapsed catholic who married a jew…we raised our kids on the “do unto others…” and it worked out pretty well. they are productive members of society now.)
I made a comment about this above. There is a church in my neighborhood — in Eugene, Oregon — that flies a US flag & an Oregon state flag on one flagpole, an Israeli flag on a second, and a flag that says “Jesus” on a third.
And I’m sure these are the same sort of folks that go nuts if people of Hispanic descent wave a Mexican flag in a parade.
It’s just completely insane.
Oh yeah - they support Israel all right! The support Israel because Israel is necessary to bring about their end-of-days scenario, which, coincidentally, means the end of the Jewish people. How much more anti-Semitic can you get than that?
Yes Leslie, as Susan said,you nailed it.
Didn’t Bill Clinton campaign for Lieberman, Susan?
It’s no secret how much Wes Clark (Who campaigned for Lamont)and Joe Lieberman feel about each other.
I am assuming Clark had a long talk w/Hillary about Joe Lieberman before he tossed in his endorsement.
Obama campaigned for Lieberman too last year. And so did Chris Dodd, who was somewhat compelled to do so. (I forget if most of those were during the primary, or during the general, and can understand the predicament that Senate Dems were in, especially when faced with the prospect that if they abandoned Lieberman and he won, he’d wholly abandon them.)
I used to defend Lieberman on a progressive mailing list. That was years ago, during and after his VP run with Gore. He has been very, very good on a number of environmental and marine mammal issues, dear to me. That influenced me for a long time.
Haven’t tracked Lieberman’s recent votes, and should, but he’s probably still good on environmental and other such issues. He’s just so disastrously, scarily wrong on Iraq and national defense.
Yes, me too, Susan. He has been a staunch advocate on civil rights, consumer protection and environmental concerns - maybe it was the kiss that gave him the fevah.
He would probably be more comfortable now though in a room w/Perle and Likkudniks than with Levin & Hagel.
I can’t stand Lieberman. Jon Stewart does a perfect imitation of him!
Hey MEP,
This is a great piece Larry did regarding Rahm.
Not Afraid to Fight
by
Larry C Johnson
A little over a year ago I sat in the office of DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel in the Democratic National Headquarters in Washington with Jim Marcinkowski.
The Democrats approached Jim about running for Congress. Rahm promised Jim, in my presence, that if Jim showed he could raise money then they would back him. After the meeting broke up, I went to the bathroom. Rahm came in and used the urinal next to me. He asked, “Is he going to do it”. I said, “yes”. Rahm reiterated his promise to help Jim if he jumped into the race. If the Dems take the Congress, don’t count on the word of Rahm Emanuel.
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/10/not_afraid_to_f.html
Thanks Taters
It really pisses me off that people do not understand that some Dems like Rahm are slimy lying bastards. The reason the DLC pukes withheld help from Webb, Tester, Marcinkowski etc, is because the pukes knew those guys could not and would not be controlled. I’d love to watch Rahm try to muscle any of the three above. Give me three days to sell tickets and I could probably retire. Have I mentioned how much I detest the DLC?
[...] gave you the scoop in “Amendment Eases War on Iran.” Now, via an e-mail as well as a post by Josh Marshall, it’s time for us to pick up [...]
I strongly believe Jon Kyl and Joseph Lieberman should be tried for TREASON against the United States. Clearly they are working against the interests of American’s and America. They must be working in the interest of a foreign country (Israel) and they show more allegiance to that country then to America. We all know it would be against the interests of America to go to war with Iran. It would be far more deadly and cost far than Iraq, and frankly it is a war we cannot win since our forces are stretched so thin and are having problems pacifying a country 3X smaller than Iran. Jon Kyl and Joseph Lieberman are agents of Israel and are handled by their Proxy AIPAC here in the US.
Why else would they be advocating war?
Time American’s woke up to the traitors in our midst and smelled the rotten stench emanating from these immoral, inhumane and TREASONOUS Politicians.