Lieberman goes into more detail on Neil Cavuto's show, suggesting a "a strike to send a message to the Iranians" because they "have taken a belligerent act against us...and if they feel they can get away with that, they'll just keep doing it, not only in Iraq, but elsewhere throughout the Middle East and here in the United States of America."
Lieberman also manages to slag the negotiating of Bill Richardson as just "talk", which isn't enough, and then Ret. General and former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO Wesley Clark's assessment of Iraq as "not grounded in reality." In some ways you've got to admire the chutzpah of a man who never served a day in his life in the military, who got enough deferments to rival Dick Cheney for draft dodging even challenging some of the frank assessments of men with lifetimes of expertise.
(Also, note the flashing red ALERT by Fox News. Subtle these guys are not.)
This piece represents a joint effort by ANN GALLOWAY and ROBIN WINICK and is the second of two posts about AIPAC; Part II deals primarily with global issues; if you haven’t yet read Part I – which focuses on domestic aspects – you might want to read that as well by clicking here.
Note:
It has become dangerous to suggest that AIPAC may be exerting undue influence on both US and Israeli policies. Critics have been accused of anti-Semitism; and politicians who hope to remain in office (as well as those who seek political office) have been silenced by the enormous influence that AIPAC wields –including its ability to direct the use of mega dollars, either to support or defeat those it targets.
For the record, both authors of this piece are Jewish women, and both have been to Israel; one’s daughter studied at Tel Aviv University; the other has worked for a major American Jewish organization and has taught in two Jewish day schools. Both strongly believe in the importance of the existence of the State of Israel. However, we also believe that just as our country’s founders would turn over in their graves to see what the right wing has done to compromise our democracy, so Israel’s founders would be appalled at the damage its extremists have done to compromise the very existence and safety of Israel’s citizens.
May 30, 2007 -- Bush-Cheney rift. WMR's Washington sources have confirmed that a major rift has opened up between President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over U.S. Iran policy. Cheney and the remaining neo-con cabal inside the Bush administration favor quick and decisive U.S. military action against Iran while Bush, backed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, favor the current diplomatic negotiations with Iran, particularly the Baghdad Green Zone talks concerning Iraq's security.
Bush has reportedly bristled at Cheney's suggestion that he is a "wimp." The junior Bush has made no secret of his obsession with his father's "wimp" persona and has striven to prove his own machismo. Cheney's "wimp talk" has infuriated Bush, according to our sources.
Daddy comes to the rescue of Little Boots again?
There are also indications that former President George H. W. Bush is quietly supporting a "whispering campaign" against Cheney in an attempt to force him and his remaining neo-con stalwarts from office.
Respond to this video question from Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) via comments, e-mails, letters and most importantly a DIY Impeachment petition of memorial.
Over the next few weeks, the congressional
Democratic majorities must decide how scared they still are of George W.
Bush and his right-wing attack machine. Or put differently, can a weakened
President still intimidate Democrats by questioning their patriotism or
doubting their support for the troops?
Bush has
thrown down the gauntlet with his demand for another $105 billion in war
funding without “strings” attached. He also has warned that he would
veto any measure that seeks to limit his discretion over how to fight the
war in Iraq.
With that question firmly in mind, we wondered whether Democrats would hold
firm on their pledge to include an ammendment to the Iraq war funding measure
which would require Bush to seek permission from congress before
launching any attack on Iran. It didn't take Bush and his radical right
minions long to start slinging mud
and issuing threats at the Democrats:
The White House has issued a veto threat against the measure, and Vice
President Dick Cheney attacked its supporters in a speech, declaring they
“are telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out.”
Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President
Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership
concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq
war.
Lies Bush's Emissary Spouts to Connecticut Constituents
We no longer write to the "independent" senator from Connecticut, as we are disgusted by the pat, impersonal, defensive responses and his arrogant pronouncements often at odds with prior statements - as if these remarks were drawn from an Orwellian part of his brain that enables him to lie, confabulate and dissemble without regard to truth and reality. In fact, his reality has become the reality created and nurtured by the Bush Administration - one adulterated by neither facts, nor truth. An acquaintance of ours, perhaps not so worn down by the constant barrage of mendacious statements, recently wrote to Lieberman and received a response, parts of which we would like to share with you, along with some commentary.
The Chairman's responsibilities and Jurisdictions will include real oversight concerning failures of the Bush administration in providing security to our nation during times of war, illegal invasions, ongoing occupations, and natural disasters, as well as overseeing the bloated budget and operations of the largest branch of government ever to be created in the US governments' history through legislation authored under the Republican controlled Senate and House, and signed by the Republican pResident of the time.
Your main and immidiate responsibilities will include holding the needed hearings, directing sub-commitees and legislation needed to avoid repeating the previous disasters, corrupt practices, and failures that will be found with the propper direction and oversight of a NON-PARTISAN and ethical Senate leader.
(1)Minorities such as moderate Republicans having no ties to far-right-wing radical organizations like the Neoconservative movement, the American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation, Energy Corporations, or the Bush administrations most recent policy proposals that are doomed to failure, are encouraged to apply to Senator Harry Reid for any consideration concerning this soon to be available position.
(2)Note to applicants: Please mark the subject of the Email as "Homeland Security" and refer to this x-posted Blog diary in the opening paragragh of the application. You will be contacted shortly before I post an "I told you so!" diary covering the flawed positons, election statement lies, and propaganda of the far-right-wing radical Neoconservative Joe Lieberman.
Craig Unger in Vanity Fair details the past, present, and future of the neocon infatuation with Iran. Highlights include parallels to the Iraq lead-up to war, with questionable political proxies, distaste for negotiations, cherry-picked intelligence playing out once again with Iran. We've known about the continued episodes of neocon belligerence towards Iran policy, but Unger not only catalogs them but makes a cohesive story - one that is very scary. It's a long read, but there's no fat. Highly recommended.
But waging war against Iran could be the most catastrophic choice of all. It is widely believed that Iran would respond to an attack by blockading the Strait of Hormuz, a 20-mile-wide narrows in the eastern part of the Persian Gulf through which about 40 percent of the world's oil exports are transported. Oil analysts say a blockade could propel the price of oil to $125 a barrel, sending the world economy into a tailspin. There could be vast international oil wars. Iran could act on its fierce rhetoric against Israel.
America's 130,000 soldiers in Iraq would also become highly vulnerable in the event of an attack on Iran. "Our troops in Iraq are supplied with food, fuel, and ammunition by truck convoys from a supply base in Kuwait," says [retired colonel W. Patrick] Lang. "Most of that goes over roads that pass through the Shiite-dominated South of Iraq. The Iranians could cut those supply lines just like that-the trucks are easy to shoot at with R.P.G.'s," or rocket-propelled grenades.
The only hope is that Congress will stand up forcefully against Bush (and Lieberman) to prevent disaster. IMHO, this may be more important than an anti-escalation measure. But they have to act soon, the chess pieces are already moving into place.
According to Sam Gardiner, the most telling sign that a decision to bomb has already been made was the October deployment order of minesweepers to the Persian Gulf, presumably to counter any attempt by Iran to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. "These have to be towed to the Gulf," Gardiner explains. "They are really small ships, the size of cabin cruisers, made of fiberglass and wood. And towing them to the Gulf can take three to four weeks."
Another serious development is the growing role of the U.S. Strategic Command (StratCom), which oversees nuclear weapons, missile defense, and protection against weapons of mass destruction. Bush has directed StratCom to draw up plans for a massive strike against Iran, at a time when CentCom has had its hands full overseeing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Shifting to StratCom indicates that they are talking about a really punishing air-force and naval air attack [on Iran]," says Lang.
Moreover, he continues, Bush can count on the military to carry out such a mission even without congressional authorization. "If they write a plan like that and the president issues an execute order, the forces will execute it. He's got the power to do that as commander-in-chief. We set that up during the Cold War. It may, after the fact, be considered illegal, or an impeachable offense, but if he orders them to do it, they will do it."
Lang also notes that the recent appointment of a naval officer, Admiral William Fallon, to the top post at CentCom may be another indication that Bush intends to bomb Iran. "It makes very little sense that a person with this background should be appointed to be theater commander in a theater in which two essentially 'ground' wars are being fought, unless it is intended to conduct yet another war which will be different in character," he wrote in his blog. "The employment of Admiral Fallon suggests that they are thinking about something that is not a ground campaign."
(x-posted) Below are the Key Judgements of the NIE (at least the declasified version taken from the PDFthat was released) and it is obvious that it does not paint a pretty picture. Of note is that while it mentions the influence of Iran, they also make it clear that Iran's influence is the negligible when you look at the overall picture of chaos.
I am including the "Explanation of Estimative Language" at the bottom of this so that you can get a clearer picture of what they mean to say with their specific choice of wording. Also, all emphasis is NOT mine, and is included as originally in the report.
David Lightman has an article today about Dodd and Lieberman both opposing the compromise wishy-washy nonbinding Warner-Levin resolution on Iraq... for entirely different reasons, of course.
Meanwhile, Sirota brings up an excellent point - that, given the pickups in the Senate, there would likely be a bipartisan group of 49 Senators who would today support the other Levin proposal - the June 2006 Levin-Reed Amendment that called for phased redeployment:
That's not a subjective characterization: the Democratic caucus was almost fully unified 6 months ago in support of ending the war completely, now the Democratic caucus is billing as a "step forward" a resolution that merely (and meekly) criticizes expanding the war. That's a legislative retreat, and one that comes after an anti-war election mandate. I wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm not.
I tend to agree with Dodd and Feingold on the merits of the legislation. It is meaningless in the first place, and worse, it could be spun by some as an approval of some aspects of the escalation policy.
But strategically, I see where Reid and Levin are going too. Any resolution critical of Bush that gets 60 senators on board does a lot to split the GOP on Iraq. And given the rumblings that Republicans are ready to completely cut Bush loose towards the end of the year, anything that would hasten that day is nothing but a good thing.
The question is whether Dodd and Feingold are the only Democrats to bolt (something tells me they won't be), and whether this might end up making us look more divided than them. This is all nonbinding, so it's all about perception in the end.
In a widely expected move, Tehran said it would use the euro for all future commercial transactions overseas."
The last country that tried to switch to selling their oil in Euros? Iraq... Not long before they were illegally invaded under the bogus threat of impending mushroom clouds.
(Raw Story update below the fold - CM1)
We have all heard about FLYNT LEVERETT's efforts to get his OP-ED printed in the NY Times. Even after the CIA had cleared the piece as being OK, and un-classified material, the Bush administration scrambled to get the piece - at least, parts of it - edited out.
It should be interesting for the Blogosphere to play a game of "Fill In The Blanks" as the NY Times prints the OP-ED anyways, but with the edited parts blacked out.
A Sample of some of the material:
The argument that Iran helped America in Afghanistan because it was in Tehran's interest to get rid of the Taliban is misplaced. Iran could have let America remove the Taliban without getting its own hands dirty, as it remained neutral during the 1991 gulf war. Tehran cooperated with United States efforts in Afghanistan primarily because it wanted a better relationship with Washington.
But Tehran was profoundly disappointed with the United States response. After the 9/11 attacks, xxx xxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xx set the stage for a November 2001 meeting between Secretary of State Colin Powell and the foreign ministers of Afghanistan's six neighbors and Russia. xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Iran went along, working with the United States to eliminate the Taliban and establish a post-Taliban political order in Afghanistan.
In December 2001, xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx x Tehran to keep Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the brutal pro-Al Qaeda warlord, from returning to Afghanistan to lead jihadist resistance there. xxxxx xxxxxxx so long as the Bush administration did not criticize it for harboring terrorists. But, in his January 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush did just that in labeling Iran part of the "axis of evil." Unsurprisingly, Mr. Hekmatyar managed to leave Iran in short order after the speech. xxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx the Islamic Republic could not be seen to be harboring terrorists.
It should be interesting to see if some of the brighter bulbs in the Blogosphere can piece some of the edited material together. To make the game easier and more fun for all of us: Leverett has provided his original citations "to demonstrate that all of the material the White House objected to is already in the public domain."
As sufi noted, the White House has launched an offensive against Senator Dodd and his trip to the Middle East this week. Senator Dodd has pushed back hard, particularly on the allegations by White House spokesmodel Tony Snow that the trip is somehow "inappropriate."
One controversy surrounding this trip was sparked by The Hartford Courant's diction. David Lightman described the trip as Dodd's "own Middle East peace talks" and right wing blogger JimK suggested that this action was somehow illegal. While the balance of Lightman's piece made clear that no "peace talks" were taking place, his second article on the White House reaction to Dodd's trip clearly stated that it was actually a "fact-finding trip" - a very specific designation in Senate parlance (PDF link).
I spoke with Senator Dodd's Press Secretary, Colleen Flanagan, to help clear up the confusion about the nature of his trip to the Middle East. Flanagan disagreed with my characterization that the phrase "peace talks" implied negotiations and said that the specific terminology isn't as relevant as what Senator Dodd plans on doing in the Middle East during his trip.
[Senator Dodd] is going to Damascus to open a frank and honest dialogue between the two countries. He hopes that Syria can begin to work with the United States for a more stable and prosperous Middle East.
Senator Dodd's tour of Iraq, Syria, Israel, and Lebanon was planned before the release of the Iraq Study Group Report, which recommended that the US open dialogue with both Syria and Iran. Flanagan added what I think is the most important reason for Senators Dodd and Kerry to speak with Syria's President Assad.* "Summarily ignoring countries when we don't agree with their stances on a lot of issues isn't helpful."
WEST HAVEN - Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman Monday tamped down expectations that the Iraq Study Group will provide a template to halt the deteriorating situation in Iraq, as he remains skeptical of what is expected to be its key recommendation - direct talks with Iran and Syria.
The senator made his comments to the press after touring the Errera Veterans Administration Community Care Center, which provides housing, job, mental health and substance abuse counseling for veterans.
The study group, headed by former GOP Secretary of State James Baker and former U.S. Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, a Democrat, met Monday and are meeting again today, to hash out a new strategy to end the spiraling violence in Iraq, which left 3,709 civilians dead in October, the highest toll since the war began.
Lieberman said the group "can play a very constructive role," but it is only one piece of information, as the Pentagon and the White House have commissioned separate reports.
Baker, for several weeks now, has emphasized the wisdom of America talking to its foes as it tries to stabilize Iraq. "It's not appeasement to talk to your enemies," he said on the ABC news program, "This Week."
But Lieberman doesn't follow that logic.
"I am very skeptical of the value of having direct discussions with Iran and Syria about how to do better in Iraq," Lieberman said. "The notion that the road to peace or stability in Iraq is through Damascus or Tehran is puzzling to me."
What is the harm in TALKING???? Talking is NOT appeasement. Why does Lieberman oppose any sort of diplomatic approach to solve our problems preferring, instead a path of indiscriminate violence and brutality? I really get the impresssion Joe Lieberman fears the threat of peace.
MLN is powered by