Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News Bomb Iran

That story seems a bit strange: Democrats are supporting bombing Iran? I doubt it. They just don't want to see a nuclear-armed Iran, so they want the President to explore one of the many other options. For example, there was the proposal Iran made before Amedinejhad was elected President. You know, the one where they would give up their enrichment program in exchange for supervised operation of power-generation reactors?
But of course, that would have required some diplomacy, or at least the willingness to talk to them in a civilized manner.

That offer is probably still available: It was made by the clerics who really control Iran (including the nuclear program), and that has not changed a bit. Remember, Amedinejhad is sort of like Ronald McDonald. If you get a bad hamburger, you don't take it up with the clown standing out front. You have to talk to the manager!

I was dismayed to see how many Dems voted for the Kyl amendment!
Kyl amend

When you attack a portion of another country's military, isnt that, in itself, (even if you declare them Terrists) an act of war? What is it about these Dems that dont recognize the not so subtle Cheney drums of war again? The subtle wording that Kerry tried to hide behind in the original war powers act, was naturally ignored by the BA. "We dont do subtle!" said the VP except the stuff I had Yu and Addington write about torture, I mean extended interogation techniques...

TAT

We used to have discussions when I was a kid playing Army in the woods killing imaginary Krauts and Japs, while future chicken-hawks were having circle jerks and torturing frogs back in the safety of their homes.

We wondered why the German people had followed their obviously evil Fuhrer instead of just standing up to him.

It was a good question then.

Doesn't. Implements Israeli foreign policy.

Neocon writers such as Bill Roggio reports only the party line that the Iranian government is providing assistance to whatever faction in Iraq is most suitable. They not only fail to provide all the information such as in the G. Porter article which accurately describes the situation but when asked, they dismiss facts which do not support their agenda.

The cited editorial presents exactly the wrongest possible argument to answer the allegations put forth in the Kyl Amendment.
In the first place, the writer is dead wrong. The Administration has indeed come forward with evidence. Not everyone accepts the evidence as valid, but that is entirely another issue. The fact is that it is evidence.

But more importantly. Many of us peacemongers made the same mistake in the runup to the Iraq invasion re: WMD's. It matters not a whit whether Saddam was or was not in "material breach" of 1441. The correct argument is whether or not launching military action without UN approval constitutes a legal action by internationally accepted rules of law.

There is no opening to argue against the "whereas's" of S Amend 2011. The argument is entirely about the "now therefore's".

An appropriate response IMHO would be to draw up a similar document relating to the activities of Blackwater and/or the CIA and move forward with a grassroots campaign to have them declared "terrorist organizations" under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place Blackwater and/or the CIA on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224.

We could even go so far as to name the US Army as a Terrorist Organization, as it is common knowledge that they have been arming insurgent groups in Iraq.

rporter314,

I wonder just how much of that assistance originates in China?

Joe

pondering_it_all,

Didn't the dems remove some provision from a defense budget bill which would have required the President to go to Congress before bombing Iran? If true, isn't that a sort of tacit support?

Joe

Steve,

It's an excellent start. IMHO, we are the terrorists in Iraq.

Joe

Recommended reading: Seymour Hersh in the current issue of The New Yorker: "Shifting Targets: The White House Redefines the Iran Threat."

EmmaG