Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- Frontline Gets Its Man: Lanny Breuer Leaves DOJ After Exposé
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- The Right of the People, Even At the Airport
- To End Extreme Poverty, Let’s Try Ending Extreme Wealth
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Iran Trap
The failure by Barack Obama to chart another course in the Middle East, to defy the Israel lobby and to denounce the Bush administration's inexorable march toward a conflict with Iran is a failure to challenge the collective insanity that has gripped the political leadership in the United States and Israel.
Obama, in a miscalculation that will have grave consequences, has given his blessing to the widening circle of violence and abuse of the Palestinians by Israel and, most dangerously, to those in the Bush White House and Jerusalem now plotting a war against Iran. He illustrates how the lust for power is morally corrosive. And while he may win the White House, by the time he takes power he will be trapped in George Bush's alternative reality.
We need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to stay the hand of Israel, which is building more settlements-including a new plan to put 800 housing units in occupied East Jerusalem-and imposing draconian measures to physically break the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza. We need, most of all, to prevent a war with Iran.
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, in a letter to President Bush on May 8, threatened to open impeachment proceedings if Bush attacked Iran. The letter is a signal that planning for strikes on Iran is under way and pronounced.
"Our concerns in this area have been heightened by more recent events," Conyers wrote. "The resignation in mid-March of Admiral William J. 'Fox' Fallon from the head of U.S. Central Command, which was reportedly linked to a magazine article that portrayed him as the only person who might stop your Administration from waging preemptive war against Iran, has renewed widespread concerns that your Administration is unilaterally planning for military action against that country. This is despite the fact that the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, a stark reversal of previous Administration assessments."
The administration, in rhetoric that is eerily similar to that used to build the case for a war against Iraq, asserts that the Iranian Quds Force is arming anti-American groups in Iraq and providing them with high-tech roadside bombs and sophisticated rockets. It dismisses the National Intelligence Estimate conclusion that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program. The White House has not provided evidence to back up its claims. I suspect it never will. And when Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz tells the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth an attack on Iran is "unavoidable" if Tehran does not halt its alleged nuclear weapons program, what he is really telling us is we should prepare for war.
Conyers' threat is too little too late, especially if the Bush White House, possibly assisted by Israel, launches airstrikes on some or all of 1,000 selected Iranian targets in the final weeks of the administration. But it is an effort. Conyers tried.
This is more than we can say for the presumptive Democratic nominee. Obama went before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Wednesday and said he will stand with the right-wing Israeli government, even if this means backing an attack on Iran.
"As president I will use all elements of American power to pressure Iran," he said. "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything."
Obama went on to blame the Palestinians for the conflict, although the ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed in 2007 was 40 to 1. This is an increase from 30 to 1 in 2006 and 4 to 1 in 2000-2005.
"I will bring to the White House an unshakable commitment to Israel's security. That starts with ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage, ..." Obama told AIPAC. "I will ensure Israel can defend itself from any threat, from Gaza to Tehran. ..."
Obama spoke about Israelis whose houses were damaged by the crude rockets, most made out of old pipes, fired from Gaza on Israeli towns. He never mentioned the Israeli siege of Gaza, the world's largest open-air prison, or that Israel was deploying fighter jets and helicopters to attack densely crowded refugee camps with missiles and iron fragmentation bombs or that it had cut off food and fuel. He ignored the steady expansion of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. He called for Jerusalem to become the "undivided capital" of the Jewish state, erasing Arab East Jerusalem from the map in contravention of international law. East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are internationally recognized as occupied Palestinian territories, which Israel took over in 1967. Obama's stance is the moral equivalent of assuring the Johannesburg government during the apartheid era that one would support their repressive efforts to punish the restive blacks in the townships.
The deterioration of the conflict in Israel, which would be accelerated by airstrikes on Iran and an ensuring regional war, will propel us into the Armageddon-type scenario in the Middle East relished by the lunatic fringes of the radical Christian right. And so, with Obama's enthusiastic endorsement, we barrel toward a Dr. Strangelove self-immolation. No one will be able to say we did not go out with a spectacular show of firepower, gore and death. Our European and Middle Eastern allies, who are numb with consternation over our death spiral, are frantically trying to reach out to Tehran diplomatically.
The instant we attack Iran, oil prices will double, perhaps triple. This price increase will devastate the American economy. The ensuing retaliatory strikes by Iran on Israel, as well as on American military installations in Iraq, will leave hundreds, maybe thousands, of dead. The Shiites in the region, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, will see an attack on Iran as a war against Shiism. They will turn with rage and violence on us and our allies. Hezbollah will renew attacks on northern Israel. And the localized war in Iraq will become a long, messy and protracted regional war that, by the time it is done, will most likely end the American empire and leave in its wake mounds of corpses and smoldering ruins.
The Israeli leadership, like the Bush White House, is increasingly bellicose and threatening. The Israeli prime minister, after a 90-minute meeting with Bush in the White House on Wednesday, said the two leaders were of one mind. "We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat," Ehud Olmert said. "I left with a lot less questions marks [than] I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and American resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term in the White House."
This time around, unlike about the war with Iraq, the Washington bureaucracy, loathed by the Bush White House, did not remain silent and complicit. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program released last Dec. 3 distinguished Iran's enrichment of uranium at Natanz and Arak from its formal nuclear weapons program, which it said had halted in 2003 after the American invasion of Iraq. Adm. Fallon, who put his country and his integrity before his career, spoke out against a war with Iran, tried to stop it and lost his job as the head of CENTCOM. He has been replaced with Gen. David H. Petraeus, whose devotion to his career admits no such moral impediments.
" ... There is no greater threat to Israel or peace than Iran," Obama assured AIPAC. "This audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats. And the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in support of Israel's security. ... The Iran regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and ... its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. ... [M]y goal will be to eliminate this threat."
Barack Obama, when we need sane leadership the most, has proved feckless and weak. He, and the Democratic leadership, is as morally bankrupt as those preparing to ignite our funeral pyre in the Middle East.
Chris Hedges, who graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, is the author of "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America."
© 2008 Truthdig
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

103 Comments so far
Show All... and, should Obama "pardon" Bush and thereby dismantle Vincent
Bugliosi's proposition "THE PROSECUTION OF GEORGE W. BUSH FOR
MURDER" from taking hold which lets democratic constitutional
accountability unfold, then, bye-bye "U.S. DEMOCRACY", and, hello-
hello "U.S. CORPORATE FASCISM". U.S. Fascism will be, officially,
confirmed ...
Why does anybody believe that Obama would be different? In a land of bought cowards there are no exceptions. Long live the Corporate Fascist State.
Barack needs to come out against an attack on Iran.
One of Mr Olmert's deputies, Shaul Mofaz, is quoted as saying:
"If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it, the sanctions are ineffective. Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable."
We need a leader that makes it clear to Israel that a premptive attack would not be acceptable without irrefutable evidence Iran has highly enriched uranium
Yes but the Obama advocates will tell us "politically naive" sceptics, that these remarks by Obama are "flanking maneuvers" in order to garner the necessary support, and that we doubters are drinking "battery acid", or that we must not have seen an election before. Sober up.
Attack Iran and receive a major surprise. Go ahead. Do it. See what happens. Like losing every ship in the two aircraft carrier groups sitting like ducks in the Persian Gulf. Go ahead. You know you just can't wait to attack. Do it. We're sick of you trying to make us live in fear over these sorts of things. Expect a massive invasion of Iraq by Iran and the total crushing of US military in Iraq. Expect Russian and Chinese troops and air forces coming in to support Iran. Imagine World War III. IT SHALL BE GLORIOUS!!! You twisted, psycopathic, sociopathic Zionist bastards. Go ahead. Attack. Let's get it over with. Hopefully some small percentage of the human race will survive the radiation and begin to rebuild. Obviously I'VE been driven over the edge. I'm just SO SICK OF IT ALL. Maybe 60,000 people on the face of this earth are holding the 6 BILLION of the rest of us hostage. Why do we let them get away with it? Haven't you ever heard of General George Custer. He and his troops were properly dealt with. Now its time to deal with the 60,000.
"House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, in a letter to President Bush on May 8, threatened to open impeachment proceedings if Bush attacked Iran." Get real. Since John Conyers already lied to Dennis Kucinich and Ms. Sheehan about impeachment, this can only be construed as another lie. He has lost all credibility and anything he says regarding impeachment should simply be ignored at this point.
Obama sold his soul in his speech to AIPAC. He revealed the truth that he is nothing more than a special interest panderer that makes good speeches. I sincerely hope he doesn't get elected.
The greatest threat to world peace isn't Iran, it's the United States. We're the ones openly attacking other countries. We attacked Afghanistan to get Bin Laden (remember him?). We attacked Iraq to disarm Saddam of his (nonexistant) stockpiles of chemical weapons, no wait - it was to establish a democracy in Iraq and liberate the people, no wait - it's um... to fight al-quada that's it so they don't follow us over here.
So now we need to attack Iran because (what will the moronic idiots buy??) oh yeah, they have nuclear weapons! Well not yet but they are building them! I know the NIE and the IAEA both say that they aren't but they are! Bin Laden is behind it too! Support the troops!
Somebody please raise up the IQ bar - dang.
Hedges says what I and other Nader supporters (and Nader) have been saying for years, that the "Democratic leadership, is as morally bankrupt as those preparing to ignite our funeral pyre in the Middle East." Democrats, so many, so duped again, so eager to acquiesce to the rarest of remote possibilities that Obama will be different. Don't you see the chances of this happening are less that Nader's chances are of winning? The inescapable fact is that the two major parties are of but one, corporate, imperial mindset. Hope that Obama will be different is on the face of it a concession that it will not. Nothing will change with Obama. Nothing. The ruling elite will dictate to Obama what he is to do. Obama will comply for to get to the top of the political pile one must eagerly mount the manure below and like it give off the same scent.
I have always firmly believed in the Death Wish. It is as true for nations as it is for some human beings. The great detective novelist Raymond Chandler once compared the world to a gangster giddily trying out his first machine gun. An attack on Iran will loose a myriad of both forseen and unforseen consequences upon the world. Perhaps all those looney and half-assed Christian evangelical fanatics are right and we are in the last days. For everywhere you go the evangel they and their allies preach is DEATH.
kent shaw June 9th, 2008 2:29 pm -- Obviously I'VE been driven over the edge. I'm just SO SICK OF IT ALL.
Well, don't feel too lonely. I think there are more than a few of us who are teetering and may join you shortly.
The entire notion of voting for someone founded on the hope that he or she is actually lying (or dissembling for those who prefer a politer word) and will, upon election, doublecross those who supported him or her based on those lies boggles my mind. And for that system to be proclaimed as the "greatest democracy on earth", suitable for export to all others by force of arms as deemed appropriate for the maintenance of "U.S. interests", is enough to drive anyone to search for sanity in the nearest asylum.
Eloquent and right on target. Thank you Chris Hedges!
Now .... let's all forward this to our friends and let's ask the Obama campaign to respond.
It is a given that it is OK for Obama to visit American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) the day after his "victory". Don't we need to question this link more than ever before with war-threat towards Iran!
Forgive me if I am just not so sure. Stephen Kinzer remarked today on C-span, that Obama is running on a blank slate - that if he wants to get elected, he will keep it blank. Obama shapes his speeches to generate audience support. Consider the following:
"As president I will use all elements of American power to pressure Iran," he said. "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
We need to know how Obama defines "his power," and specifics are not included anywhere in the speech. The blank slate. Lawyers do this; choose their words very carefully to allow themselves maximum space as time goes along.
Obama is very, very intelligent - he makes our current president look like more of a dunce than he does already. Obama has experience outside the US, and roots deep in the US. He has a worldview formed by more international experience than all the senators and representatives who go on tours and junkets; especially those who, early in the Iraq war, enjoyed dinner in a Baghdad hotel, served by waitors in turbins.
I agree with you Mr. Hedges, and support your opnions. Obama will not be able to make change alone; we have to change congress, too. Let's start by kicking out every congressman/woman who voted for the patriot act and the war in Iraq.
All of this is first of all about the the multinationals destroying the U.S. And Bush, Obama, et al. are their lackeys. Americans, remember your heritage.
No one politician can defang AIPAC, and Obama has several other dragons to slay before he can even begin to take them on.
Instead of demanding that Obama be our knight in shining armor, how about hassling your local reps in Congress about their connections to AIPAC? If they're not responsive, hassle your fellow voters about those reps.
Israel has been seduced by the dark side of the force... American supplied military power. It's up to us to free them from the clutches of the Empire, so they can live in peace with their neighbors.
Stand back for a second and consider Obama's speech to AIPAC. I see 3 explanations for this pro-zionist sabre rattling. None of them are reassuring.
1. Is Obama is as big a hawk as Bush and Hillary, and does this speech show him ready to pursue the Project for a New American Century, even to the point of the nuclear option?
2. Is Obama committed to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, the "ultimate Palestinian solution," whether genocide or mass expulsion of Palestinians in the manner of US decimation of native Americans?
3. Does Obama's speech demonstrate that American elections are so totally dominated by militant Zionist's that you can't win an election without their approval? Does this have something to do with who controls all the country's money? The bankers?
I pick door #3, and assert that hearing Obama spout the Zionist war cry makes me look differently at all the issues affecting our country in a new light. Zionists ... Banks ... Military ... War. I wonder if you figured out that disease, global warming would respond to popular control.
Hedges says (and I concur), "The instant we attack Iran, oil prices will double, perhaps triple. This price increase will devastate the American economy." IF news networks TRULY told the American public that this would result, even the mindless devotees of End Times might wake up and say "no!"
I wish some major figure would get some MSM time to look into the eyes of Americans and say flatly that the very concept of, perception of WINNING a war is passe. What is won? What kind of tallying goes into planning something as insane as expanding this Middle East rendered-Hell on earth? Is the oil meant to burn for years as its own inferno? If it gets hit by DU or "bunker buster" low-great nuclear weapons, it will spread radiation exponentially. What can winning mean in such a paradigm? How many lay dead? And to this likely outcome FOOLS attach a religious rationale?
There is a place in the Bible where the question is asked, "Choose ye which master ye shall serve." That is the quintessential issue... either we serve life, which depends on the cooperation of mankind and its myriad tribes, or we elect death and take down so many in this magnificent creation along with U.S. A choice I never thought I'd live to have to face!
Obama goes whichever way the wind blows...
"Obama Voted to fund war until 2006; now wants no blank check
Q: Some involved in the anti-movement have said that in 2004, 2005, 2006 Barack Obama voted to fund the war; that you were not a leader in trying to stop the war until you ran for president and had a sense of the anti-war fervor in the Democratic base. Where was the leadership?
A: I disagree with that. Throughout I was a constant critic. It is true that my preference would not be to end this war simply by cutting off funding. My preference would be for the president to recognize that we needed to change course, and that was what I continually pushed for. At the point where we realized the president was not willing to change course, I put forward a very clear timetable for when we should remove our troops. And, when that was vetoed, I then suggested that the only way to negotiate a different direction in Iraq is by not giving Bush a blank check when it comes to funding.
Q: You have changed now in your support of cutting off funding.
A: But I haven't changed in my opposition to the war.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Nov 11, 2007
*********
Late to vote against war is not late to oppose war
EDWARDS: Obama voted late for the timetable for withdrawl; a lack of leadership.
OBAMA: I opposed this war from the start. So Edwards is about 4-1/2 years late on leadership on this issue. It's important not to play politics on something that is as critical and as difficult as this. It is not easy to vote for cutting off funding because the fact is there are troops on the ground. All of us exercise our best judgment, just as we exercised our best judgment to authorize or not authorize this war.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007"
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm#Voting_Record
^^Regardless of the bunk coming out of the candidate's mouths, we will be in Iran by the end of the year, if not sooner.^^
Hedges lists the rhetoric of everyone but Hamas, Hezbollah and their Iranian ally. What they say and do is much stronger than the comments coming from Americans or Israelis. Hamas celebrates killing civilians as "heroic operations," and their attacks consistently ignore any differentiation between military and civilian targets. Their very charter calls for the elimination of Israel, as Iran also frequently calls for. These bellicose statements seem to be far more threatening than any comments flowing the other direction.
In the last 30 years, the chickenhawks have only attacked basket case countries, like Grenada or Panama.
Iran is no basket case. The chickenhawks had best prepare to get more than their hair mussed by the blowback. Wish it could be limited to them and their loony-toon "Christian" followers, rather than the poor in the Middle East.
Even a few cruise missiles fired into Tehran will guarantee continued obscene oil profits for many years to come.
Just one addendum to this despairing, yet perfectly accurate, piece. The US and Israel will unleash nuclear weapons in a volume not seen since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, infecting the entire globe with all kinds of nuclear waste products -- possibly even creating a "nuclear winter," which will be the beginning of the Endgame.
Also, the Israeli nuclear weapons facilities at Dimona will be exposed to attacks from jets, rockets or direct assault by Arab troops or irregulars. So the only nuclear super-power in the Mideast will see how useless and sucidal its huge nuclear actually inventory is.
This is the price we must all pay for finally seeing what reality is. We should have looked sooner. It would have been more affordable.
You forgot to mention, this is a best case scenario...worst case would be all of the above, plus China and Russia becoming involved. I am not willing to fight & die for Israel.
We need to focus on us, "the people" instead of hoping that Bush would not get us into another war, or Obama not to cowtow to AIPAC.
Look at where we are:
The Bush administration has bankrupt our country
8 trillion dollar deficit, $4/gal gas, 8.2 million homeowners on the verge of foreclosure, our dollar has lost most of its value (when Bush entered the Whitehouse, one Euro was .97 cents-today it is $1.60)
Bush/Cheney have trampled on our civil rights;
have illegally (catering to the Israeli wishes) invaded and destroyed Iraq.
NOW, once again doing Israeli's bidding, intend to get us involved in another illegal war.
What does it take for the people of this country to say enough is enough?
I believe we are the solution and we have the power, if we are willing to use it.
Are you ready?
Been sayin' it all along - BO is corporate paymaster approved, or he wouldn't be the Dem choice. Hence, he does what his leash holders tell 'em to.
Ron Paul or Ralph Nader. Or kick back and enjoy more illegal mass murders, maimings and spyings, more resource theft, more super-rich coffer enhancements, more Earth melting, more citizens imprisoned, and even less corporate regulation and oversight (less than zero, that is.)
But at least we won't have a total moron and his greedy, ruthless puppy owner to kick about anymore, right?
On another note: "Adm. Fallon, who put his country and his integrity before his career, spoke out against a war with Iran, tried to stop it and lost his job..."
Did I read the same Esquire interview? In it, Fallon DID NOT say he was against illegally attacking Iran - he only had a problem with the timing.
He said: "Get serious. They're ants. WHEN the time comes, we'll crush them."
Not IF, but WHEN. How did everyone overlook that? Not only did he say WHEN, but he said that "serious" people view 70+ million Iranians in a 4000 year old country as "ants" to be "crushed."
Yea, Fallon's my f**king hero. Too bad he got canned before the murdering begins...
As someone who came of age in the 60's, it is hard to believe that a Black man could sit in "the big chair" in the Oval Office. I think its called cognitive dissonance. Beyond the wide spectrum of little folks who have supported Obama through the primaries, who are powermakers who have sanctioned his run? Their are elements in business, government, and media who could have ended this for him long ago. What has been going through my mind since this primary season started is this: You can't tell the truth AND be elected president in this country. You can't say that this government was established here on stolen land through genocide. You can't say that Jews though deserving of a homeland continue a cycle of abuse, theft and murder that was perpetuated upon them in Europe... and Arabs in relationship to this issue are far from innocent too. We are in a perfect storm of tragic global proportions. I wonder if anyone individually or collectively has the courage and power to interrupt this madness? Who will answer? The terrorist are responding to the same military industrial complex that oppresses us, eats our young, devastates our land, air and water, pollutes and misinforms our minds with poisonous media drech. Maybe the most disturbing thing about this is that there is no military solution is any of this. It's the profit motive, not the love of freedom or self-determination that keeps the military option going strong.
Hey I see the banjo troll is back with a slightly revised handle. I am still surprised to learn that trolls play the banjo.
As to the article above; Don't worry Mr. Hedges, Mr. Obama is only pretneding to be an AIPAC supporting, corporate fascist. He is really here to save us.
Oh and I love the bit about Conyers threatening Bush with impeachment hearings, what a joke. Conyers sold out with the rest of em.
AHLADAN: In high school I was privileged to have an incredibly good social studies/history teacher who made it very clear there is a vast distinction between the thing that TRIGGERS a war and its deeper causes.
Israel may WELL be a factor, but let's not kid ourselves or look for singular reasons. The oil companies, the Republican party and its sense that war makes for good followers, the elite's interest in greater control(s) of civilian populations (needing enemy/terrorism as basis for so-called homeland-style security programs/pogroms), the vulture-driven profits of the military industrial complex, the broken dreams of those who believe in and advocate for End Times... ALL of these must be factored into the mix to arrive at the whys and wherefores that have led the "civilized" world to the brink of its own extinction. Israel is a trigger, not the entire cause. Far from.
Dang, Lorax !
That was beautifull. Lots of eloquent folks on line tonight.I'm writing Conyers right now- what a chicken, if bush & the israelites steam Iran it'll be TOO LATE for alot of people, won't it ? Impeach the mob now, its the only expediant solution... I just read what I wrote and it gives me the willies, I think I've over the edge, too.
Barack Obama needs to speak out against an attack on Iran.
Conyers, Why wait? Impeach this administration BEFORE they destroy us!
I may be voting for him but when I get the inevitable zillion calls for $$ for Obama I'll say I'll contribute when Obama stops supporting Israeli aggression, clearly states his support for single payer health care etc.
"...its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map."
Hmmmmm... ...that brought to mind:
May 26, 2007
'Wiped off the Map' – The Rumor of the Century
by Arash Norouzi
Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran's president has
threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, "Israel must be wiped off the map." Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025
ditto that: anyone who makes it to the white hacienda is morally corrupt. obama continues to cave on issue after issue. he came to play--the game.
Message to Obama and Bush, leave Iran the hell alone!!!
I am still taking August 15 in the pool of Iran strike dates!
Although Obama reminds me of those bright and likable if not very imaginative brown noses who were perpetually re-elected class president in 7th and 8th grade, I entertain one ray of hope for his tenure as leader of the free world. I have to assume that he is sufficiently observant that he knows he is about to step into a job that does not require him to suck up to anybody. When the campaign is over he gets to be the decider. If he chooses an autocratic style, as might be hoped, he will inherit a power structure which does not require him to consult the American or the Israeli people before taking foreign policy initiatives. His pre-election posture can be explained by the fact that he does not need Palestinian votes in the Fall, but he can not afford to be demonized by AIPAC. George Bush, remember, promised to be a compassionate conservative. Hardly anybody holds that broken promise up to him these days, buried as it is in the avalanche of surprises he had in store for us. I agree we are probably scheduled to go out with a whimper, but we can dream can't we? What if Obama actually is both smart and a good guy with a calling to lead a lost and dangerous people back to sanity? Job one would be to get elected. Job two would be to take charge of Congress and the military and the treasury. Have dinner with any damn foreign leader you want. Issue fiats. Kick ass. Barack the Lionhearted.
The vox can tentatively join hereontheres in his pea green boat to indulge a pleasant fantasy. Obama's remark about an undivided Jerusalem was a bit unnecessary, but he took it back. Taking the rest of his statements literally I can find agreement with them. I personally would support Israeli security, and think they should be protected while they are evacuating their bogus settlements and relocating behind their own 1967 borders. And most of us believe the threat of angry neighbors who wish to wipe Israel off the map should be addressed, most effectively by making the availability of American money and weaponry to Israel contingent on their ceasing to piss everybody off. The mark of a great statesman is the ability to make bitter medicine taste like kosher pickles.
Doomed okey dokey on with stuff. At least the Fucking pigs in the Senate and House passed a bill for PTSD, too bad for the tens of thousands that Suicided by PTSD, but we all will be dead too. Only been waiting since Vietnam, I'm just sayin' of course we are still doomed, Orange of course has never entered into the early Cancers of Vietnam Vets and the Vietnamese people right, the VA said they'll be dead with us. Just think Conyers OFFICIALLY invited, well that's different then, McClellan to testify under oath on Friday, the 20th at 10 am in front of the Judiciary Committee(under oath, perjury and such) SHOULD HE LIE, for all of us soon to be dead that are so foolish that who'da thunk, perjury = lies. Asking him @ bush and the fucks we'll be dead with THEM OOOH, that outted Valerie Plame, putting lives, yeah just fuck the Plames 'cos they were used to the being dead thing way ahead of us, the Firing of the US Attorneys, where's Bolton and Miers, maybe they're already dead.UH OH WATCH IT YOU EXECUTIVE SATAN WORSHIPPERS, who blatantly conspired to breaking, Breaking violating, potato poTAToes, US International Law prohibiting the use of torture, hmmm. Oh bolton and miers with their asshole buddy rove said WE ain't comin' to that party, ewre all going to die before the 20th, anyway. Sighh, iran has murdered us such woeful souls.
Alrighty then, see ya when we're dead.
oh RichM that was until the Reverand Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. decided to make that great offering of reaso to the layity and other clergy in the first church he preached in Harlem, 'Time to Break Silence'.
If the US attacks Iran none of the politicians get my vote it is the last straw for me.Tony
@demosthenes June 9th, 2008 4:12 pm
You got that right. It is door 3.
* Only 5% of America's population is Jewish.
* The banks in this country are mostly controlled by Jews, and have been for a long time.
* AIPAC is is able to direct funds from the wealthy in a strategic manner, as campaign funds, or other "deals" where businesses owned by our politicians can be made to flourish.
* AIPAC is extremely effective at contacting and persuading our politicians.
* That Jews hold key positions in our media organisations, and are able direct it.
* Rupert Murdoch is a Jew, and controls a massive media empire. He pull no punches, and doesn't bother with fairness.
* 40 percent of all senior Judges are Jews.
* AIPAC provides a free member of staff for most of our politicians. That guarantees access for them as well as lots of information on each politician.
* Most of our politicians enjoy regular free trips to Israel. Including Pelosi and Hillary.
* While politicians are hounded if they even speak to Iranian politicians, all U.S. politicians must pledge allegiance to Israel, if they are to survive.
* A strategic ownership of internet networking hubs permits them to spy at will.
curmudgeon99 June 9th, 2008 6:45 pm
"I am still taking August 15 in the pool of Iran strike dates!"
OK. I'm taking not going to happen at all in 08.
voxclamtis writes, re:Obama,
"When the campaign is over he gets to be the decider. If he chooses an autocratic style, as might be hoped, he will inherit a power structure which does not require him to consult the American or Israeli people before taking foreign policy initiatives. His pre-election posture can be explained by the fact that he does not need Palestinian votes in the fall, he cannot afford to be demonized by AIPAC.
...What if Obama actually is both smart and a good guy
....Job one would be to get elected. Job two would be to take charge of congress and the military and the treasury.
...Barack the Lionhearted."
So are you, and other Obamites, saying, "yes, yes, let's have a dictator, maybe THIS time we'll get a good one?! One that doesn't have to listen to the American people, can do whatever he wants cause he seems like a nice guy and smart and he'll know what to do.?!"
It's NOT the presidents job to "take over" the Congress nor the Treasury!
Barack the Lionhearted yeah! maybe you'll get Barack the Terrible. Let's take a gamble! hurray!
Don't you get it? All you are doing is saying "damn this crap table just isn't paying off, let's move to another table", without realizing that it isn't the damn table! The entire game is rigged. You democrats are like gambling addicts, and don't know when enough is enough!
And as far as justifying Obama's "tactics" in order to get elected, i.e. "the means justify the ends", that is the exact formula all totalitarian regimes utilize. But it seems you are comfortable living under a dictator and willing to gamble on whether they will be benevolent or malevolent.
Good on you Chris Hedges! We all must speak to truth.
Sadly, sadly, Obama's positioning with the Zionists this early in the campaign is one more indication that all the mainstream politicians are sell-outs, or bought out by the Israeli lobby, because they knew the road to power and elections runs through AIPAC.
Obama's "change You Can Believe In" is already suggesting its a shame, yet more catchy political rhetoric. Obama and his foreign policy advisors obviously haven't read Ilan Pappe's book, "The Etdhnic Cleansing of Palestine", they have not talked with the people on the ground themselves to know what really is happening or maybe they have and, like all the other U.S. politicians who kow-tow to AIPAC know what side their bread is buttered on.
Doesn't Obama know that perhaps the best way to ensure a McCain victory in November is to do exactly what Bush and the Zionists want to do which is to embroil the U.S. in another conflict which will either (a) cause the Novermber election to be posponed/suspended (which Bush has the power to do) during the new war or (b) serve as the best campaign advertisemsent and incenstive for votes to be cast for the Republicans since now Obama has already aligned himself with the war mongers and thu/s is a weak second to the hawks like McCain.
If the end of the world as we know it is to start in any one place it will be in the Middle East. But this is what all t he Fundamentalists have been prophecing for years and hoping happens to bring about the second coming so they can be raptured into the next world.
XThe whole thing is very sick, and sadly, Obama is showing that he is as much a part of the sickness as the cure he ostensibly offers.
The military may not go forward with an attack on Iran for practical reasons. U.S. naval ships in the Persian Gulf are sitting ducks and the Iranian military has missiles which are capable of destroying them. A land to sea missile costs a lot less than an aircraft carrier. It is frightening to consider what Bush, et al, might do if they do launch an ill advised attack and a couple of carrier groups with their tens of thousands of sailors are blown up and sunk, which could well happen.
The saber rattling may have more to do with dissuading the Iranians from playing their hand in Iraq than an actual intention to attack.
Obama was way off base last summer when he made the statement that he would bomb Pakistan, and the speech he gave at AIPAC was even worse. I was in Pakistan when Obama made his comments, and the headlines in the papers in Pakistan the next day read "Obama Says He Will Bomb Pakistan," so regardless of what he actually said, that is how the Pakistanis took it.
The Democratic Party has a major problem. They must convince many voters in its so-called 'base' to vote for candidates that directly oppose the beliefs they hold. This is just one very poignant and important example. Most of the base of the Democratic party, and certainly a large percentage of the votes it needs to win in Nov, are firmly against both continuing the war\occupation in Iraq and are against attacking Iran.
The leadership of the Democratic Party is in favor of continuing the war in Iraq and is in favor of attacking Iran. There are many actions of the last two years to support both points. Pay no attention to words, but the actions are there for all to see. These policies are obviously supported by the money that funds the Democratic Party. Otherwise it would be insane for the party leadership to oppose its membership in such a way.
As was entirely predictable, the nominee of the Party for President also is now taking these positions. No real surprise that he's waited until after the nomination is chosen. That's pretty typical of lack of respect the party gives its members.
But here's the problem the party has. It must somehow convince millions of its supporters who oppose these policies to vote for their candidate that supports them. How is it supposed to do this?
The rather novel strategy of the party is what I've taken to calling the 'fantasy Obama' strategy. Voters are supposed to ignore the words and positions of the candidate. Instead, voters are encouraged to create a fantasy image of an ideal candidate in their head. They are then supposed to believe that Obama is really this fantasy candidate and vote for him on that basis.
In such a way, the Democrats get to ignore the wishes of millions of people. The Democrats get to produce a candidate that supports the policies which so many people today object to and oppose. Then, they still get to get the vast majority of Americans to vote for this candidate, under the very bizarre theory that the candidate is not who he says he is.
Absolutely amazing. Its hard to believe that so many people are willing to fall for this con. And make no mistake, it is a con. For those who appreciate the art of the con, it is a really incredible con. Its staggering to think that it might work.
Obama will choose boxing czar Don King as his running mate and if elected he will enslave the white race.
rebelnow June 9th, 2008 8:00 pm: "So are you, and other Obamites, saying, "yes, yes, let's have a dictator, maybe THIS time we'll get a good one?! One that doesn't have to listen to the American people, can do whatever he wants cause he seems like a nice guy and smart and he'll know what to do.?!"
Rebelnow, you got it in 1. Herr Schicklegruber got in the same way. Faith based politics. Talk talk talk - DO NOTHING for working people - EVERYTHING FOR THE RICHFILTH. Just like the Dims.
Can't wait to hear him make the speech where "America has to tighten it's belt - read starvation for 10%, gross poverty for 45%, 35% hang by a thread, while the Top 3% live in palatial wealth and private law (privilege for them) and 7% get to be Overseers with full medical. You always did want to know what it would be like to live at the bottom of a 3rd world slave state with nukes, didn't you?
Are you ready for the fire?
We only have five months before the election and I'll say it again. George Bush will not attack Iran.
It's not that I don't think George Bush would love to occupy Iran until all of their oil runs out. That's a given.
The problem is that the U.S. military is already spread out too thinly. Not only in Iraq, Afghanistan and hundreds of 'forward operating bases' around the world, but Bush is also aware that the military might have to be used to put down middle class taxpayers at home who are sick and tired of supporting a handful of greedy corporations and Republican lackeys.
The other thing is even though Big Oil would profit tremendously from a war with Iran (price of oil would indeed skyrocket) there are other corporations in the game as well who would find themselves going bankrupt with higher fossil fuel prices.
As for the MIC (military industrial complex), they're all ready making a shit load of cash to the point where they can't even handle more orders.
Finally Olmert doesn't speak for the majority of Israelis. In fact most Israelis don't want Israel to attack Iran. Olmert is very unpopular in his country right now and his hold on power is tenuous at best.
As for Obama, I really don't think he gets the big picture, but he may be catering to corporate America because of the power they weald. Nevertheless it is shameful or damn ignorant that at this point in the presidential race, the Democratic candidate can't speak for the majority of Americans.
We all know at CD that Bush caters to his corporate friends. But the big question is WHICH corporations does he favor the most!
DENNIS KUCINICH HAS BROUGHT FORTH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST BUSH!!!!!
C.D. ....WHERE'S THE STORY?????????
.
IMPEACH both BUSH and CHENEY.........NOW
Save the world from spinning into WWIII.
We, the United States are broken, bankrupt, and being led by a criminally insane President.
Bush plunged our military into an illegal invasion of Iraq.
Stop Bush and Cheney from attacking Iran!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.................ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
@rebelnow June 9th, 2008 8:00 pm
I agree with everything you said, except for one caveat. If we dont get Obama in, that means McCain gets to be the president. Another President Bush for another decade. I sure as hell dont want McCain.
Im am hoping that "alexnosal June 9th, 2008 8:58 pm" and "Thomas More June 9th, 2008 7:58 pm" are right. I HOPE that they are right, even though those presidential and congressional trips to Israel followed by, universal pandering to Israel followed by the Israeli war talk leave me believing that there is a plan for war.
In any case, if Alex and Thomas are wrong then it wont matter too much who we put in. Then Ill vote Nader or green.
If they are right, and yet we put McCain in, he is going to have to create war somewhere in order to be a true war hero. I think McCain will do it, if elected. Call me a coward, but I dont want to take that risk.