Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiConfronting Joe Lieberman to Stop a War With Iran
On June 10, Senator Joe Lieberman said on CBS Face the Nation that he had seen incontrovertible evidence that Iran was training and equipping Iraqi extremists to kill American soldiers and that we should prepare for military strikes against these training bases in Iran. He also decried Iran's nuclear weapons program, insisting that if we hope to stop their nuclear weapons development, "We can't just talk to them. If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me that would include taking military action."
Leslie Angeline, a member of the peace group CODEPINK who had just returned from a citizen diplomacy delegation to Iran, was appalled by the Senator's remarks. The next day, she began a sit-in at his DC office and decided to fast until the Senator agreed to meet with her and other activists. We also alerted our CODEPINK supporters to call Lieberman's office, and the phones were ringing off the hook. By the afternoon, the Senator had agreed to a meeting on Thursday, June 14.
On Thursday, a group of 60 people—including members of the Iranian community--showed up for the meeting. The group's anger only deepened when we were told by Lieberman's staff that the Senator had changed his mind and was no longer willing to meet.
Tensions mounted in the packed office as the group insisted on seeing the Senator and the staff called the police, who gave a warning that everyone would be arrested if they refused to leave.
Leslie Angeline now on the fifth day of her hunger strike, broke down, sobbing uncontrollably. "I MUST talk to the Senator," she pleaded. "He has to know that the Iranians are beautiful, warm, kind people, that 70 percent of them are under 30, that they love Americans, that they have never attacked another country in 200 years and have no intention of attacking the United States." Leslie took out stunning photos of Iranian children that she had taken on her trip. "These are the children who would die if we bombed Iran. We've already killed so many Iraqis; we just can't do this to the people of Iran," she cried.
The Iranian women in the group began hugging Leslie and crying as well. The emotional exchange, being filmed on camera, must have embarrassed the Senator's staff. They backed down from the threat of arrests and instead agreed to have their chief of staff, legislative director and Middle East aide meet with three of our team while the others waited in the hallway.
Inside, our group argued for over an hour about how to deal with Iran. The staff claimed that classified briefings proved that Iran is "responsible for the murder of Americans in Iraq". We asked for and received no evidence backing these claims. We said that the Iraqi government, protected by US forces, was pro-Iran so why would Iran want to kill American soldiers? Our group insisted that even if these concerns about Iran were real, if the US attacked Iran, the Iranian government would certainly retaliate against US soldiers in Iraq—and U.S. deaths would soar.
Our team argued that the timing of Lieberman's statement on national TV was extremely harmful to the ongoing, delicate negotiations that had begun last month in Baghdad and that it left the perception that Lieberman was trying to scuttle the talks. We noted that confrontational rhetoric from such a prominent U.S. official only strengthens the hand of the hardliners in Iran.
The staff pointed out that on Monday Lieberman reaffirmed his support for US-Iranian negotiations. We replied that his bellicose statements were much more prominent and asked that Lieberman speak out more forcefully in favor of negotiations. They agreed to pass this concern to the Senator.
Our visit to Lieberman's office with both emotional and well-reasoned arguments, combined with a powerful show of community support and calls from his constituents, seemed to have made an impact and the Senator might think twice in the future before publicly promoting a military attack on Iran. Just to be sure, we assured his aides we represented a much larger constituency and we would be back in greater numbers if the Senator repeats the threat of military force instead of actively supporting dialogue. We also repeated our request to meet directly with the Senator, and we have asked local peace groups and individuals in Connecticut to continue to pressure the Senator in his home state.
What we can learn from the war in Iraq is that once a war has started, it acquires a momentum of its own and becomes harder and harder to stop. That's why it's so critical to prevent a war with Iran before it starts, and holding elected officials like Senator Lieberman to account is a key element of stopping the next war now.
Medea Benjamin, cofounder of CODEPINK and Global Exchange, is coauthor of Stop the Next War Now. Global Exchange ( www.globalexchange.org <http://www.globalexchange.org> ) organizes citizen diplomacy delegations to Iran and CODEPINK ( www.codepinkalert.org <http://www.codepinkalert.org> ) is pressuring elected officials and the presidential candidates to stop supporting a military attack on Iran. To join us contact info@codepinkalert.org.
64 Comments so far
Show AllRE: GOOSE ON IRAN: IF WE BOMB THEM, IT'S THEIR FAULT
Goose2 June 18th, 2007 12:42 pm
"going to war with Iran is not the answer....It will be a close ally of the United States in the years to come..if we don't bomb them now because of this nob they elected as president."
"Not the answer"? Why you traitorous, commie son of a - What's that? Oh, if we do bomb them, it's their fault. Then, you do accept that, even though 'of course none of us want to,' bombing them is a valid choice? And we can blame them? Alright, wasn't sure of where you stood for a minute there...You were what? Oh, I get it now - just making half-hearted, equivocal little protestations to cover yourself, while leaving the door open for dropping the big one. Heh-heh - I like it, I liiiiike it!
Goose2 June 20th, 2007 12:19 pm
"People I have no problem with your being unhappy with the way the world is. I simply think that if you use a treaty to bash someone (even if they need bashing) then you need to know what that treaty says"
Bush apologist, I have no problem with your being unhappy with a treaty that nominally ties U.S. hands. I simply think if you invoke treaty language to make your argument, you need to declare a state of emergency and shut down access to the treaty before you begin rewriting history about "what that treaty says."
"Again a treaty is a legal document with exact meaning (Article VI of the NNPT is not that clear as it allows anyone to define what these negotiations are -"
And all your twisty little brain can make of that strange vagueness is - 'Whoo-hoo! Weasel room!'
"and what good faith might be."
Good faith, well, see that's...uh, never mind.
RE: DOES THE TREATY TO END THE "ARMS RACE" REFER ONLY TO REDUCING NUMBERS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
Goose2 June 20th, 2007 12:19 pm
"The treaty does not ban updating weapons or adding new ones as long as there are negotiations to reduce the NUMBERS of weapons depolyed."
That is not true. Nowhere does the treaty restrict progress on ending the arms race to reducing "NUMBERS" [sic] of nuclear weapons. (For that matter, the articles do not even mention "NUMBERS." (sic))
The treaty requires signatories to pursue negotiations in "good faith" on "effective measures to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament."
Cessation of "nuclear arms race," not 'reducing numbers.' The treaty does not state or imply that effective cessation of the arms race depends only on reducing the number of nuclear weapons.
A "good faith" interpretation of the intentions of the treaty authors suggests why: because they realized that numbers were an insufficient measure of progress, whereas they wanted efforts to end the arms race to be as comprehensive as possible.
Alas, Bush and his loyal asslicks - including right wing Democrats like Lieberman, and assorted sleazebag lawyer types (with their usual weasely loophole assertions) - have exploited this intentionally expansive purpose for the opposite purpose - to award Federal dollars to military contractors, and to continue their wasteful and dangerous arms race by other means.
Is there any way people of his state could start to impeach this idiotic Senator?
"Are you implying that after 30 years with NO "negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament", that the US and others are NOT in violation of this article?
Why does developing new "bunker busting nukes" somehow NOT put the US in violation of this article?
Do you have non-standard definitions of "good faith", "effective measures", and "cessation"?"
Good questions. The treaty does not ban updating weapons or adding new ones as long as there are negotiations to reduce the NUMBERS of weapons depolyed. The Russians are working on new weapons systems and have been throughout the disarmament years.
I would question your definitions of the words you cite because in the last 30 years there has been a reduction of 75% or so in the size of the nuclear arsenals of both the US and Russia.
During the 30 years you cite of no negotiations the following treaties have neen signed, ratified and completed.
* Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT II) - 1979
* Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty - 1987. Reduced intermediate range ballistic missles by 2692 missle systems (each missle being able to house 1-3 nuclear warheads) This included the elimination of the Pershing II and SS-20 missles that caused the protests all across Europe in the 80's.
* Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) - 1991 reduces warheads to 6000 on each side and forces Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to give up any weapons they might have on their soil after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
* Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II) - 1992 signed and 1996 ratified US and 2000 ratifed Russia. Enforced a 66% reduction in nuclear weapons and eliminated all ICBM MIRV systems so each ICBM carries only one warhead.
* Bilateral Destruction Agreement [BDA] - 1990 (non-nuclear weapons agreement) Called on the US and Russia to reduce chemical weapon stocks to 5000 tons each from the stockpine at the time of about 40,000 tons. A reduction of 7/8ths of the total stockpile.
Source is http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/bda/index.html Same as where you got the text of the NNPT.
People I have no problem with your being unhappy with the way the world is. I simply think that if you use a treaty to bash someone (even if they need bashing) then you need to know what that treaty says and need to look at the developments that have occured because of it.
There seems to be a belief that to be progressive, one MUST believe the entire cannon of what someone tells you to believe. That is as dangerous, precisely as dangerous, as listening to the Christian Right or the Republicans. Both parties win when their members don't take the time to think about what they say.
Again a treaty is a legal document with exact meaning (Article VI of the NNPT is not that clear as it allows anyone to define what these negotiations are and what good faith might be.) so accusing some state of not following it because you didn't research it is sort of like accusing people of witchcraft... it may make headlines, but you look like an idiot in the long run.
Aymon. You state you know nothing about arms control then tell us how the US is in violation of a treaty you hadn't read. You don't know the bodies involved and guessed at what someone had told you at one time or another. You create your own definitions for words that have been in use in one form or another for centuries. You accused me of racism without knowing who I am, where I am from, my background or anything at all about me.
Do you have no decency? Where do you stop with ad-hominem attacks? You have no logic behind your thoguhts, only the hysteria if an ill-informed zealot.
Please go for the decaf and read what I said. I honestly believe that war with Iraq is foolish and wrong on every level imaginable. I don't think it is right for Israel to have nuclear weapons. I do not think that the US is making the world safer by having more or better nuclear weapons. I simply said that using the NNPT as your basis is logically flawed if you know the treaty and understand that it does NOT say what you think it does.
Your argument about International Community is incomprehensible. You claim that the "Rational International Community" is different than "my" international community. Well you can simply rule out the input of any government or set of governments you don't like in order to get to any concensus you want. You can find a group of governments you could label Rational that insist women cannot vote and should wear burkas. You can select a "Rational International Community" that wants to continue commercial whaling. If you want to fillet the world to find exactly the set of nations that happen to agree with your position, then go on and select them, but don't be surprised when people laugh at you.
And no matter what you think sophistry or sophisticry mean, they don't. Don't use words you can't define. I did Google sophistric as you guggested and all the examples I found were people misusing the word sophistic. Your humor explanation simply doesn't wash but I grant you it is a noble attempt to make yourself look less foolish.
If you make up your own treaties, your own international community, your own words, your own history, then you can obviously win any argument you have, but that does not make you rational or thoughtful.
The biggest point of this article was what a chickenshit Lieberman is. To agree to a meeting and then back out is rank cowardice and not at all the quality of someone who should be in any position of power. It is so reminiscent of Bush being afraid of meeting an angry mother at his ranch.
Sorry, bongofury, I didn't read your post until I had written mine. Count it as a second of the motion.
Maybe Stephen hawking is right.
Maybe humanity will not survive the next 100 years as nukes become more and more wide spread.
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=178f89d3d9987efabcf31c6fb8364fd6.654968&cache=1
Just like a coward to refuse to see these people. I am not surprised by Joe's cowardly behavior. Reminds me of Cindy Sheehan being ducked by the cowardly G.W. Bush down in Crawford TX last year. These chckenshit creeps are all alike. Vote third party. Impeach Bush/Chaney, GENERAL STRIKE if you want to stop the occupation of Iraq.
The hypocrisies of the nuclear club are incredible.
1. They barely sputtered when Israel and other friends pursued atomic weapons.
2. The club members have used atomic weapons as potential offensive options to bully non-nuclear powers.
3. The club has made no verifiable agreement to reduce the ludicrous number of weapons.
4. The club has generated nuclear waste almost without control, storage plan, or security.
5. Weapons grade material is not fully accounted for and secured.
6. No peace and conflict resolution process has been promoted where each nation can vent their grievances openly and without retaliation.
7. The nuclear club has routinely intervened in the politics and government of any nation they or their corporate masters desire with little or no thought for morals, sovereignty, or human rights.
8. Attacks on Iran, North Korea, Iraq, and others not currently friends or puppets are on the population, personality of the leaders, humanity and religion; all of which entrench the worst of the leaders and destabilize the better ones.
9. In response to the certain blowback for the nuclear clubs action they say see we were right and must intensify their program.
There is a lot more. It is amazing that there is any stability anywhere. The U.S. is about to experience serious blowback. Global warming may be the least of our problems unless we may a hard turn to the benefit and will of the people here and in the rest of the world.
RE: POSTING LINKS - THE ABOVE POST WOULD NOT APPEAR UNTIL I REMOVED THE HIGHLIGHTED FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS LINKS
This a rule of the system, prob for others?
RE: LIEBERMAN, ISRAEL, AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
On the question of how the U.S. shapes Israeli foreign see the on-line journal, bookmarked on Commondreams, Foreign Policy in Focus (http://www.fpif.org/).
In particular, re US foreign policy influence on Israel's military response in Lebanon, see:
How Washington Goaded Israel into War
FPIF Policy Report
Aug 21, 2006
And re US foreign policy as underpinning the supposed power of the Israeli lobby, see:
The Israel Lobby: How Powerful is it Really?
FPIF Discussion Paper
May 16, 2006
TEST4
RE: LIEBERMAN: IS HE A "TRAITOR" TO THE U.S., OR JUST PLAYING THE ISRAELI CARD TO ASSIST U.S. FOREIGN POLICY?
alamac June 18th, 2007 2:01 pm
"Why don't we call Lie-berman what he is: a TRAITOR!
A good working definition of "traitor" is one who works against his own country for the benefit of another. [i.e., Israel]"
No, Lieberman is not a traitor to the U.S. The right wing foreign policy of the U.S. has long supported the right wing of Israel.
The frequently aired idea that the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) wields great influence in the U.S. gets the relationship backwards: the U.S. does not support Israel because of AIPAC; rather, Israel provides the U.S. with a pro-U.S. 'beach head' and greater 'interest' in an oil-rich region of the world. That is, Israel provides political cover for a longstanding U.S. effort to shape middle east governments - whether, as in the past, to oppose Russia, or, as was always the case, to maintain an oil flow.
Of course, Lieberman's views get him in strong with right wing U.S. Jews - but this foreign policy is supported by right wing U.S. Christians as well (which have similar ideas of a non-Arab biblical territory). And right wing Jewish groups only have strength because their position is aligned with a greater U.S. foreign policy goal.
Simply - Israel is the creation and proxy of U.S. foreign policy.
CONTINUED BELOW
RE: COMMONDREAMS "CENSORING" YOUR POSTS - DON'T THINK SO
fd32 June 19th, 2007 10:40 am
"Common Dreams censors out my comments"
My posts don't always appear, and if I send them twice, a message says they're posted already...either there's an option I haven't turned on/off, or it's a glitch of Wordpress, the message system used by Commondreams...
I retired from active military service in 1997. I voted for Gore/Lieberman in the infamously stolen 2000 election. Since then, Sen. Lieberman has proven to be nothing more than a mouthpiece for AIPAC and Bush/Cheney. My anger about Gore not being allowed to take his rightfully elected place as President has been mollified a bit, because I realize that Lieberman would not have been much of an improvement over "Crazy Cheney" were Lieberman the Vice President.
The Senator should come clean with his State and the nation who voted for him in 2000. He already acts and talks like a Repugnantcan, so it would not be that much of a stretch for him to do the honest thing and officially become a member of that ethically challenged political party.
The bio on Lieberman's website states that he is a "strong and consistent advocate of using American military might, most recently to disarm Saddam Hussein." WMD's were proven to be non-existent (as claimed by experts before we attacked Iraq) so shouldn't his website be updated to reflect that we attacked Saddam for oil and to satisfy the aims of AIPAC?
Senator Lieberman is a cowardly chickenhawk, a man who never served in uniform, yet is more than eager to send the children of others to illegal wars. And now, just like his friend "Crazy Cheney", Chickenhawk Lieberman wants to attack Iran. Put on a helmet, pick up a rifle and lead the way, Joe! The man is truly proving to be one mealy-mouthed, lying War Pig.
Critical Thinker: thank you for bringing balance and clarity to the nuclear debate as per Iran.
Abbywood: Love your wit!
Baska: I believe your analysis is right-on as per the balance of power between the respective governments of Israel and USA.
Chrolorcardium: It's tough for anything to stand out in the U.S these days. Millions go on a peace march and the matter is merely marginalized, as per the politics of excluded alternatives furthered by the MSM. So... the ladies go PINK to stand out. It makes perfect sense!
Energetic: Excellent analogy and I know what you mean about looking at "facts" as given by today's "news sychophants" and potentially going insane from the deceit and disconnects with reality.
Way to go--Medea and the rest of Code Pink! You used the Democratic process and got a military industrial congressman to listen up. Cudos--Applause--Yeah! That is fabulouse!
Starting a war with Iran would be insanity! How many wars are people going to allow these criminal's to start before something is done about the problem....Bush/Cheney! They are the root of all the middle east's problems. They have started two wars now. Afganistan is questionable if we should have even invaded them no more committment to the invasion than was put into it by this administration. Iraq was started for the same bogus reasons they are trying to start one with Iran. We start another war and it's going to be the end of us. Eventually the rest of the world is going to start looking at us as a rogue nation out of control that needs to be contained. We are so weakened and battered now from 4 years of the drain I don't know if we could muster enough to do it. It's going to be a disaster of the highest order if they do. When leaders won't use any common sense, then it becomes the duty of the citizen's to make certain they do. The only reason Iran wants nuclear weapons is to protect itself from us and Israel! Who can blame them???? They have every right to defend themselves from a rogue fascist nation. We are the ones and the neocon's who are driving Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.
The hypocrisy of Lieberman and the entire US mainstream media on the topic of Iran flows forth in such massive floods that we are unable to perceive it any more. Hypocrisy has become the element in which we live, the air we breathe and the water in which we swim.
The issue of whether Iran is "interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq" is so absurd that it causes insanity in anyone who considers it.
Is Iran interfering? This question is being asked by the country that INVADED Iraq, killed several hundred thousand Iraqis, smashed the country's entire society, set up a vicious little puppet government that controls virtually no territory and lets its militias torture at will, is building permanent military bases, still storms around breaking into Iraqis' homes, rewrote Iraq's constitution and imposed a raft of new laws, and our mainstream media can still ask with a straight face, Is Iran interfering in Iraq's affairs?
Here's my World War 2 analogy of the day: It's 1940, and the entire German media is fixated on the question, day after day, of whether Canada is sending weapons to the Polish Resistance. Is Canada interfering in the internal affairs of Poland? Should the Lufwaffe bomb Canada?
Code Pink needs to step back and ask how much of the GOP framing its members have allowed themselves to internalize. The only sane response to Lieberman's charges about Iranian interference in Iraq is howls and gales of sardonic laughter.
Those familiar with Lieberman's statements over the past years know he is a quick read - Israel first, first over all - and it's OK that Americans die and suffer economically for Israel because, well ... Israel comes first. Lieberman may be sincere in his belief that what's good for Israel is good for Americans - including wars in which Americans die. But this type of sincere lunacy should be recognized for exactly what it is - lunacy. "Pro-Israel" = "and the hell with Americans".
Jo Blower said
"Code Pink is an embarassment to the peace movement.
What is the purpose of wearing pink boas and crowns and interrupting hearings? If I see Ms. Benjamin craining her neck to get on the camera one more time, I think I will puke.
Code pink is giving peaceniks a bad name and I think they shoud rethink their strategies.
Can't we be a little respectable?"
Fine, put on your suit and go do the work that needs to be done yourself. Maybe you should be even more like the "respectable" War party and drop some bombs.
I personally respect the bright colors and guerilla theater. Go Code Pink!!! Thank-you ladies!!!
Code Pink is an embarassment to the peace movement.
What is the purpose of wearing pink boas and crowns and interrupting hearings? If I see Ms. Benjamin craining her neck to get on the camera one more time, I think I will puke.
Code pink is giving peaceniks a bad name and I think they shoud rethink their strategies.
Can't we be a little respectable, ladies? Is it about publicity or change?
test
test2
RE: LIEBERMAN: IS HE A "TRAITOR" TO THE U.S., OR JUST PLAYING THE ISRAELI CARD TO ASSIST U.S. FOREIGN POLICY?
alamac June 18th, 2007 2:01 pm
"Why don't we call Lie-berman what he is: a TRAITOR!
A good working definition of "traitor" is one who works against his own country for the benefit of another. [i.e., Israel]"
No, Lieberman is not a traitor to the U.S. The right wing foreign policy of the U.S. has long supported the right wing of Israel.
The frequently aired idea that the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) wields great influence in the U.S. gets the relationship backwards: the U.S. does not support Israel because of AIPAC; rather, Israel provides the U.S. with a pro-U.S. 'beach head' and greater 'interest' in an oil-rich region of the world. That is, Israel provides political cover for a longstanding U.S. effort to shape middle east governments - whether, as in the past, to oppose Russia, or, as was always the case, to maintain an oil flow.
Of course, Lieberman's views get him in strong with right wing U.S. Jews - but this foreign policy is supported by right wing U.S. Christians as well (which have similar ideas of a non-Arab biblical territory). And right wing Jewish groups only have strength because their position is aligned with a greater U.S. foreign policy goal.
Simply - Israel is the creation and proxy of U.S. foreign policy.
On the question of how the U.S. shapes Israeli foreign see the on-line journal, bookmarked on Commondreams, Foreign Policy in Focus (http://www.fpif.org/).
In particular, re US foreign policy influence on Israel's military response in Lebanon, see:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3444
How Washington Goaded Israel into War
FPIF Policy Report
Aug 21, 2006
And re US foreign policy as underpinning the supposed power of the Israeli lobby, see:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3270
The Israel Lobby: How Powerful is it Really?
FPIF Discussion Paper
May 16, 2006
The Israel Lobby: How Powerful is it Really?
FPIF Discussion Paper
May 16, 2006
Nuking Iran would send radiation clouds racing across Asia from Iran to Japan--poisoning crops, cattle, water, and people for generations to come--due to the interactive effects of nuclear missiles hitting uranium- and plutonium-rich sites.
Please read me article at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/weden1.html
I hope by joining forces with CodePink, we can prevent this monstrous calamity from happening.
William Wedin, Ph.D.
Lieberman is very openly showing his support for Bush and the Bush plan to completley take over the Middle Eastern Oil and protection of Israel. They plan to attack Iran, period. It is only a question of when, exacttly, in order to promote their power.
While I love the actions of the women who descended upon Lieberman's office, and I admire and respect everything they did, and continue to do, it will, in the end, mean nothing.
As someone said in "Vanity Fair" some time ago, (widely believed to have been Karl Rove), "We are an empire now and we are making reality while the rest of you are studying it." (Not an exact quote, but the total gist.)
But, we must fight on and on and on. Therefore, my deepest congratulations and thanks to all who showed up at the "Betrayer's Office".
Lieberman works for Israeli's and Bush now. Period. He calls it "Independent".
Dear Alamac:
Male or female....I think I'm in love.....
But I digress.
I recently moved to Connecticut from Los Angeles. (It's sadly funny. To the person I meet, when I tell them I moved here from L.A. they always say, "Why??!")
Today I went on a scavenger hunt to find a USB cable for the damn printer I was trying to get hooked up. While out and about I happened on a quaint restaurant on the Connecticut River. There I found last weeks copy of "The Hartford Advocate". Now, mind you all, this is the REAL DEAL!! of Connecticutans??.
I will pull but a few choice quotes from Alan Bisbort's column:
"Bush has, as W.B. Yeats wrote in "The Second Coming," loosed a blood-dimmed tide and "everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned." No assessment of what has occurred since 2001 can top this line from Yeats' poem: "The best lack of all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
...."F. Scott Fitzgerald, in The Great Gasby, also had something to say about this period of time. When he wrote this, about Tom and Daisy Buchanan, he could very well have been writing about Bush and Cheney: "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy--they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made..."
Mr. Bisbort goes on to say, "Maybe Americans will never again let such a travesty occur. Indeed, this should serve as a sort of collective cautionary tale about what happens when you don't let people select their leader; the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in 2001 will go down as one of the worst."
He continues, "But getting back to The Sopranos. The show has been a nearly flawless mirror to the institutional lawlessness embodied by this White House. I have often, including in (The Hartford Advocate), referred to this administration as the BUSHPRANOS. (Abbybwood's emphasis!!) After all, Tony, Carmela, Christopher, Silvio, Paulie, Bobby, Uncle Junior, et al, have run amok for seven seasons now, only one longer than Bush and his posse. And yet, it says a lot about our political climate that the Sopranos' cast is more appealing and infinitely more honest than the cast at the White House."
And to go on..."This isn't to say that the Bushpranos can't match the Sopranos in one thing---pure vindictive viciousness. Indeed, many instances of conduct by White House officials could fit into the plot of a Sopranos episode. Among them:
o Cheney holding secret energy policy meetings with the private sector executives who will profit from the policy, then destorying evidence that theese meetings took place.
o Bush sent goons Gonzo and Andy Card to the bedside of John Ashcroft to get him to sign off on warrantless spying.
o Cheney tells Sen. Pat Leahy, "Go fuck yourself!" on the U.S. Senate floor
o Ari Fleisher telling Americans "YOU'D BETTER WATCH WHAT YOU SAY!" (Abbybwood's emphasis...)
o Libby, and probably Cheney, blow the cover of a CIA agent to retaliate against a critic of the administration.
o Bush's "Bring it on!" taunt.
And on and on for pages.
The historians will, indeed, have a field day in 50 years."
And so goes Connecticut folks.
You may reach the writer (Alan Bisbort) at: editor@hartfordadvocate.com
Let's all let Alan Bisbort and Sen. LIE-berman know how we feel regarding Alan's column in "The Hartford Advocate".
"MY" STATE....EEECCCCHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
P.S. Remember to catch "Lil Bush" on Comedy Central Wednesday night. It'll BLOW YOUR MIND!!!
Vets,
Ahmadinejad's term ends in 2009 when he is up for re-election. Also, as president he does not control Iran's military, that is the job of the Supreme Leader, Ali Khameini.
Regardless, I'd love to hear about Ahmadinejad getting assassinated or removed from office(by his own people).
I hope diplomacy accomplishes something, but I get the impression that hawks like Lieberman are trying to do all they can to sabotage these talks. The Mullahs are not popular, and as said before 70% of the population is under age 30.
"Am I in danger of wrecking the morale of our soldiers fighting and dying in the Middle East? Their morale, like so many lifeless bodies, is already shot to pieces. They are being treated, as I never was, like toys a rich kid got for Christmas."-- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. (1922- ) Author
According to the new book "Second Chance" (3 Presidents & ...The Crisis Of US Super Power) the unholy trinity (THREE!! back-to-back Conservatives) Bush-Clinton-Bush squandered the resources that gave it the international leadership role. What we lost most critically was, at bottom, what he called "moral authority." The social hedonists & self-indulgent model of the Clinton era (as described by Brzezinski, the author), to whom human rights & morality played no role probably still don't get it. It may not be *t-a-n-g-i-b-l-e! capital --more often the single thing today's Neo-Cons, the new (fiscal) conservative"democrats" understand-- but this moral "capital" we lost --may have cost the World.
Now Bush, ever the "visionary" wants to deplete that capital to it's logical bankrupt conclusion conditioning "amnesty" for "illegals" upon recruitment into his new army of underclass "mercenaries.
Anyone think the chances are good that if/when Clinton loses the nomination she re-joins Lieberman (career-affiliate & Bill's lifetime friend) as the Independent Party Candidate?
The risks of letting a nut case such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who believe that if he die in a holy war - he'll go to haven and get 72 virgins, an access to nuclear weapons - is just too great.
I hope it will be possible to archive this goal in diplomatic means.
Waiting 20 years may be too late peaceistruth.
criticalthinker:
Superb, just siperb piece of reasoning. Thanks for it, it is powerful.
Aymon
I have often heard people use this term jewnited states of america. Do you suppose there might be some truth to that?
As pessimistic as I am about this, there still is reason for hope...
I seriously doubt the Mullah regime of Iran will last much longer, maybe 20 years more is the maximum.
And hopefully, the level-headed people in our government, and leaders in the Middle East and other parts of the world will do all they can to stop this soon to be war with Iran.
RE: Goose2:
Here is what the treaty says:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm
Article VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
Are you implying that after 30 years with NO "negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament", that the US and others are NOT in violation of this article?
Why does developing new "bunker busting nukes" somehow NOT put the US in violation of this article?
Do you have non-standard definitions of "good faith", "effective measures", and "cessation"?
Goose2:
"Oops, did I type a "C" instead of an "A" in IAEA? well, well, what a tremendous amount of data to infer I do not know anything about world -wide nuclear matters. You will make a good "statisrician" for Karl Rove."
There are three complete sentences above. I see you have the intellectual resources to grasp only "I do not know anything about world -wide nuclear matters". Also I said "Oops, did I type a "C" instead of an "A" That is a generic admission (I hope you understand the meaning of the word "generic") in which the article "a" does not mean "one" but a possibly repeated error of the same type.
All this demonstrates why I said I can't elevate you to a "sophist", which your intellectaul capacity obviously does not merit.
Please, return to Grade 8 and learn how to read phrases in context, or as some one here pointed out a few days ago, please take your meds. I think Salia was right that we should just ignore you.
BTW, you still have not answered my question (after several posts - - dodging are you?) on "INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY". That is your terminology, not mine, and thus you owe us an explanation. But maybe I have already exhausted your brain. But I must say you are good at looking up an English dictionary. Perhaps if you were to Google "sophistric" you will find increasing contemporary use of my term to identify just the deceptive but plausible Gricean speak you are spewing out here.
Aymon
Goose2:
Racist? I'm not sure I get that. I don't know what color you are, where you are from or anything about you and you don't know a thing about me. Nice try to play the race card though. Don't you have any other real logic or thought to bring out? Just race? How sad and unchallanged you are.
Sorry I didn't get your sophistric reference. I wish I could say it was part of my strategery for debatery but it's just my dumbery.
I don't get what you mean as legalistic flim flam. An accusation was made that the US was in violation of the NNPT and that Iran was not. This is not true. You can go look at the treaty. If you want to say that the US is proliferating nuclear weapons and that Iran is not, say it. Fine. Lots of people agree with you. Just don't use the NNPT as your basis because you're wrong.
You typed IAEC twice. Not a typo. You then state, "I do not know anything about world -wide nuclear matters." OK. I grant you that. Having admitted that though, why should we listen to you about proliferation, a subject on which you admit having no knowledge.
BTW, sophistry is not, "to go around in circles in more or less irrelevant minutiae". Sophistry has a very specific meaning: plausible but fallacious argumentation or a plausible but misleading or fallacious argument. Meaning if you state that the US is in violation of the NNPT without knowing what the NNPT actually says (it is plausible that it did say something about ABMs or updating the arsenal) and then build your argument against Bush based on that, that is sophistry.
One almost wonders whether branches of thought weren't created to keep bright people spinning their mental machinery on useless and socio-economically disengaged topics.
Philosophy, logic, etc. can be fun entertainment, lend clarity of thought, etc. But there are traps and pitfalls that people seem to settle into: disengaging the train of thought from any social relevance, so-called race conditions, infinite recursion/regression, etc. The landscape is littered with natural obstacles and potential disasters which have claimed many.
Goose2:
Sorry, punched the "submit" button by mistake.
Continuing:
I said "Is Israel not in violation of nuclear non-proliferation treaties by posessing 300 nukes, openly boasting about them, and allowing NO IAEC inspections at all?"
You said "No. It is not a signitory of the NNPT. One of four nations in fact."
Thanks for reminding us that not signing treaties (Israel) is a way for being lawless and then going to the UN to scream for the law to be applied to those who have have promised to be lawful and fulfilled all of their obligations, such as Iran. If they haven't fulfilled their obligations, including special provisions that they voluntarily agreed to over and above the call of the treaties, why are El-Baradei, head of the IAEA and its experts so reluctant to nuke Iran as much as lawless Israel is?
That by the way, is what sophistry is all about, comprendez vous?
Goose2:
Sophistry is what Plato and Aristotle condemned, namely to go around in circles in more or less irrelevant minutiae. Thanks for noting I am creative in using the English language. Anybody with minimum knowledge of the above would notice that i used "sophistric' for a person who apes sophistry, and not "sophist" because that would elevate you to the rank of a person with logic and not somebody tied up in legalistic flim-flam while the central issue goes unanswered.
An example of thsi is your clever, but oh so obvious, change of subject in my question on the "INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIITY".
Oops, did I type a "C" instead of an "A" in IAEA? well, well, what a tremendous amount of data to infer I do not know anything about world -wide nuclear matters. You will make a good "statisrician" for Karl Rove.
Ah, I don't know English do I? Ay, my, aren't we in a racist foul mood today?
I said:
Thank you codepink for doing your part maybe Joe Lieberman will finally shut up! Wouldnt that be amazing? Further more does Mr.Leiberman have kids? Will they go to war? Better yet if the Senator is so for going to war against Iran, Lets suit him up in army gear give him a m-16 some grenades and drop him off there,surely a man of his stature and "Patriotism" will have no problem going to fight for his country and his beliefs right? right? Doubt it.. not him going to war so i suppose its nothing for him to start talking trash.Hey Joe!easy to talk the talk huh big fella? You'll find its a lot harder to walk the walk though my friend. You cannot bring about peace through war even a monkey should no that, and to think anything otherwise just proves what a bunch of idiots we have running the American government.Vote Ron Paul for 08,that is if Bush Ever leaves the White House.
pabs666@hotmail.com
BTW, it is sort of funny that you mention the IAEC which is either the International Automotive Electronics Congress, or the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission. I think you mean IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency. The agency of the UN for which my father worked for 20 years.
You know a couple minutes with Google before you post can make you seem worlds smarter. Wearing glasses does too...
"Is America not in violation of the non-proliferation treaties in "improving and replacing" it current nuclear arsenal?"
No. That is allowed in the treaty. Nothing prevents updating the arsenal. Can you go look at the NNPT and show where it states that that is prohibited? The treaty is really short. About two pages. That's it. I know you don't like that, all I am saying is don't wave about a treaty while being ignorant of what it states.
"Is Israel not in violation of nuclear non-proliferation treaties by posessing 300 nukes, openly boasting about them, and allowing NO IAEC inspections at all?"
No. It is not a signitory of the NNPT. One of four nations in fact. The others are Pakistan, India, and North Korea (which was, but withdrew giving the appropriate notice allowed for in the treaty in Article X.) All of them have nuclear weapons as well and have tested them but are not in violation of the treaty as they haven't signed it.
"Ah, what did or does the "INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIITY" say about this. Speak up, can't hear you among the RATIONAL INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIITY."
I am not against you being against nuclear weapons or be upset by our positions towards Iran, all I am saying is that Iran IS in violation of the Treaty and the US is NOT in violation of the Treaty. Simple. No value judgement on you or your beliefs, simply correcting that incorrect interpretation of the Treaty.
In short, a treaty states what it states, no more, no less. It is a legal document, not a banner to waive at people and things you don't like.
Also there is no word in English "sophistric" I like it though. I think you mean "sophistic" which also more properly applies to the original poster, or if you'll excuse me, applies to you, who posted incorrect facts and made an argument based on them which is pretty much the definition of sophistry. I read the treaty, it's online, and stated facts from it. End of story.
Text of treaty here. http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm
Between Lieberman pounding the war drums, and fools like Medea Benjamin grandstanding as though getting in the face of a jerk like Lieberman for the cameras could ever accomplish anything, we'll be lucky if we survive the next ten years.
Goose2,sophistric agent of the Darkness:
"The INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIITY is debating whether or not the NWS or Nuclear Weapons States are in violation or not under treaty law" (emphasis added)
Please start listing the members of the "INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIITY" (a much used phrase by the neo-con Anglo-American-Israeli Hegemony (AAIH) - - US, Israel, UK, ....???
Is America not in violation of the non-proliferation treaties in "improving and replacing" it current nuclear arsenal?
Is Israel not in violation of nuclear non-proliferation treaties by posessing 300 nukes, openly boasting about them, and allowing NO IAEC inspections at all? Ah, what did or does the "INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIITY" say about this. Speak up, can't hear you among the RATIONAL INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIITY.
I wonder how much money Leiberman makes, directly or indirectly, from war profiteering? There is always a payoff that motivates human behavior....
Why hasn't someone recalled Connecticut? Seems like that state's denizens need their heads read.
Thanks so much MB for this protest/action and all the other courageous things you and Code Pink do.
Reminds me of the old days when I was active - The only difference between then and now, is that in todays world You and Code Pink, Cindy'S group, with a few others thrown in, are the only ones actively (every day)working for peace. Shame shame on the majority of the young who are doing nothing!
As for joe lieberman ... he will roast in hell some day, along with gwb/ cheney/et-al for the killings of thousands and thousands of human beings ... both ours and the citizens of Iraq ... Now they want to add Iran to the "shock and awe" list -and liberman is their brown nosed goat.
His argument sounds the same as the one they used for war with Iraq.
Why hasn't Conn. recalled him ??
Maybe it should be put into terms the religous right can understand
Joe Lieberman had he been alive in a biblical time would have been called a False Profit. Or by todays lingo he's a douchebag supreme
Joe is just the stenographer for the Israel Lobby. He is the megaphone yelling to see which way the wind is blowing. The backlash against this Likudnik warmonger has been heavy, at least online. Keep speaking up, maybe the American people have a voice afterall.
If I may, I highly recommend a recent article if one wants to understand the neocon phenomenon. Called "Of Crazies, Neocons and the Enemy Within" it speaks volumes of the way the neocons have treated this nation, and the passion of the writer speaks of the anger I am sure millions of us feel towards these cretins. It is a great read, IMHO.
Link:
www.valenzuelasveritas.blogspot.com
Watch this movie -- *Endgame," the sequel to *De Israel Lobby*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHtgYCS12ZE
"Confronting Joe Lieberman to Stop a War With Iran"
You mean confronting a dual Israeli/American national, aka, "Israel-first" spy? He should be registered as an agent of a foreign country. Wow, it blows my mind. Please do help tell me what do those people who elected this creature have for brains?
When I heard about this effort on the part of CodePink, I thought, "What a waste of time, trying to talk sense into the negative/fearful souls among us," but immediately, I remembered that those of us who are hopeful people are bound to seek ways, never tiring in our efforts to bring about peace through peace. I applaud the CodePink effort and promise to keep seeking ways to support them, and to follow their example. Thank you for doing this, even for those who don't know about hope, love, and how to achieve peace.
You are all wrong!!! Holy Joe has allegiance to only one person; JOE LIEBERMAN. The man has no conscience, no morals, no scruples. Ask people who knew him professionally when he was AG of Connecticut. Joe was always for Joe, the sanctimonious bastard.
Lets ship Joe to Tehran and the rest of us all (including our military) can stay here.
Thank you Leslie Angeline and CODEPINK for confronting this Likud provocateur posing as US Senator for Connecticut. I cannot for the life of me understand why the US establishment, even given the bribes for American political campaigns, is so craven to extremist Israeli interests at the expense of American ones. It is treasonous to act in the interests of a foreign country to the detriment of your own. Eisenhower was the last President to tell Israel where to get off (although Bush I, to his credit, did threaten blindly-given aid briefly). What a spineless political elite! Israel certainly has a right to exist but it has no right to foment wars that cause holocausts.
CanuckChuck - "The USA is also a signatory to the Nuclear Proliferation treaty. The USA is required to reduce its stocks of nuclear weapons, and is barred from developing anti-missle systesm, which could destabilize the balance of power. THE USA IS IN VIOLATION OF THIS TREAT, NOT IRAN."
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Article VI states not tnat the signatories have to reduce stockpiles of weapons, but that they need to enter into "good faith" talks to do so and to move towards a "Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control" . For many years there were talks, but have not been since the late 80's. The international community is debating whether or not the NWS or Nuclear Weapons States are in violation or not under treaty law.
So the US is not in violation of the NNPT at this time.
Iran is a signatory to the treaty as a Non-Nuclear Weapons State (NNWS - which has different obligations than the Nuclear Weapons States - NWS) and under Article III is obligated to work with the IAEA to allow full and complete inspections of their facilities to make sure that no nuclear material is diverted to weapons use. The US as an NWS is not obligated under Article III to allow inspections.
So Iran is in violation of the NNPT at this time.
The NNPT does not cover Anti-Ballistic Missle (ABM) systems in any way. There is simply no language in the treaty to cover that. There was however an ABM treaty that was in force from 1972-2002 between ONLY the US and the USSR (and follow-on states from either entity). The US withdrew from the treaty with the required 6 months notice as stated in the treaty.
So the US is not in violation of the ABM Treaty at this time.
Why don't we call Lie-berman what he is: a TRAITOR!
A good working definition of "traitor" is one who works against his own country for the benefit of another. Lie-berman has consistently represented the ethnically-cleansing, imperialistic, genocidal Eretz Yisraelis at the expense of what is best for the US. He is willing to strike Iran even at the cost of the destruction of the American experiment--which may well be the result: The blowback would be so fierce that NSPD-51 would probably be invoked, leading to a military dictatorship here.
I can only think of 1 good use for Gitmo: Put Lie-berman, Cheneypig, Bushfool, Wolfowitless, Hadley Cohen, Richard Perle, and the rest of these neo-cons there, and waterboard their asses until they renounce their traitorous ways. Or just do what is usually done with traitors: hang them by their scrawny chickenhawk necks until they are dead.
And the sooner the better, before they start WWIII.
The people of Connecticut should be ashamed of themselves for reinstalling this Israeli agent as a U.S Senator. He is not merely unregistered as such, he is a traitor.
Yes, the escalation of this imperialist oil-war is now fast upon us --- God help us.
The global corporate Empire behind the facade of this "Vichy America" is about to launch its first preemptive and nuclear war in the Middle East 'oil territories'.
This is why Gen. Peter Pace has been removed --- because he had the audacity (actually the courage) to confront the faux Emperor chimp and Cheney and demand that US General Officer Corp not "carry-out illegal and immoral orders that violate Geneva and Nuremberg conventions".
[See: http://vdare.com/roberts/070617_iran.htm ]
Yes, the warmonger cowards of both parties are about to do what International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei just this week called "an act of madness" in nuking Iran.
The following assessment from WSWS accurately focuses on the new (Iran) war about to escape out the same barn door, after the old (Iraq) war:
"The reality is that behind the public debate between the Democratic leadership and the White House over Iraq, both sides are agreed on the need to continue the pursuit of the predatory goals that drove the 2003 US invasion in the first place: the establishment of US hegemony over Iraq and its oil wealth and the utilization of the country as a base for US military presence and operations throughout the strategic region." --- which now includes nuking Iran.
I have long advised that chasing the Bush/Cheney war-mongers around like a 'bad puppy' that has pooped on the den rug, and rushing to put papers on the living room rug, is not a sensible course for we American citizens. We must get ahead of the 'bad puppy' of this global corporate war Empire in our house before it fully takes over the country and makes it a full "Vichy America".
The only solution is to throw out the 'bad puppy' --- to throw out the entire phony two-party global corporate war Empire that is taking over America.
Vern (above) is right ---- that Lieberman is merely the nastiest and unpopular foil for this dual-party, three card Monte of launching a preemptive nuclear war on Iran.
Vern, you're absolutely right --- in a three card Monte scam the 'jack' is just the distration, we need to keep our eyes on the Queen, and I think everyone knows who I mean --- the Queen of mean!
Right on canuckchuck! I'd love to see more PROOF of a lot of things:
1/ Its' alleged Iran is financing Hamas but we know Isreal has sealed all the borders, and the US had seen to it that all international banking was frozen so the Palestinian Authority had to do without money to pay civil servantsa and security gaurds. So just how is Iran "financing" Hamas and sending them arms? Where's the PROOF? It may be happening but I'd like to hear on what scale, facts, figures, witnesses, evidence that would stand up in a court of law, from RELIABLE sources! (Not the Bush administration!)
2/ Same questions regarding Iran's support of Hezbollah? Where is the PROOF from RELIABLE sources? Politicians carry on as if everybody knows but knows what exactly?
3/ Syria is a bigbaddy in the media spin in cahoots with Iran and killing off anti-Syrian
people in Lebanon. Probably some truth, since some Lebanese representatives seem to agree but again, what SCALE, who is doing it, what PROOF?
Investigative journalists should be exploring the details of all these allegations so we have a reliable picture of who and what is involved in this mounting crisis that Cheney appears to be engineering, in collaboration, alas, with Israel that was only too happy to cry "wolf" with regard to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and is now beating the Iran war drum.
They are pulling the wool over your eyes.
While everyone gets hysterical about the typical Lieberman boilerplate--all the others, notably Hillary, get a pass. Lieberman is unpopular and doesn't pose a threat, but watch who they appoint for us. Watch, do not get distracted!
http://www.antiwar.com/solomon/?articleid=10808
The IAEC has stated numerous times that their is absolutely NO PROOF that Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons.
Under the Nuclear Profliferation Treaty, which Iran is a signatory, they are allowed to develop nuclear power. The Iranians know that their oil is a finite stock that will eventually run out. Also, as oil becomes more scarce, the price will rise, and will become too valuable to use domestically.
The IAEC has stated that if they were developing a bomb, they would not even be close for over 10 years!!
The USA is also a signatory to the Nuclear Proliferation treaty. The USA is required to reduce its stocks of nuclear weapons, and is barred from developing anti-missle systesm, which could destabilize the balance of power. THE USA IS IN VIOLATION OF THIS TREAT, NOT IRAN.
Joe Leiberman was obviously recruited by AIPAC and the White House to "SELL" an attack on Iran, just as we were "SOLD" on attacking Iraq.
We are in no immediate danger from Iran, and it is doubtful that we ever would be unless their entire government was suicidal.
I think you will find that "leaders" are willing to incite OTHERS to kill themselves in the name of God or country, but very few of the "leaders" themselves want to join in the fun.
We are supposed to be worried about Iran or North Korea building a half dozen nukes, when we still have a stockpile of over 10,000 nukes... enough to blow the entire Northern Hemisphere off of the map.
No folks, this is just more hype to justify doing whatever the White House and the pro-Israel lobby wants to do and we have already seen how well their plans work!
If Leiberman wants to fight Iran, let's give him a rifle and send him over there... tell him to take Cheney with him, Cheney is already experienced at shooting people.
No one wants Iran to produce nuclear weapons. That having been said, going to war with Iran is not the answer.
The Iranians are the mose developed and modern country in the Middle East outside Israel. They are currently under a tyranny of their religious elite but when that situation passes, as they do, then Iran is lined up to be a rational, powerful, forward-looking nation in the center of the Middle East.
We should be working to help Iran build middle-class institutions and an economy integrated with its neighbors. It will be a close ally of the United States in the years to come... if we don't bomb them now because of this nob they elected as president.