Reply
Mon 16 Jul, 2007 10:15 am
I'm so tired of Senator Joe Lieberman carrying Israel's water for them in the Senate. I noticed this when he was the vice-presidential candidate. If Lieberman's primary goal is to protect Israel's interests, then he should resign his U.S. Senate seat and move to Israel and run for a seat in the Israeli Knesset. ---BBB
July 16, 2007
Idiots on the March
by Charley Reese Anti-War.com
Idiots in Israel, along with those American idiots in the punditocracy who can't see where they are going because their vision is blocked by Israeli backsides, are trying to pressure our idiots in the White House to commit an act of insanity.
That act of insanity is launching a military attack against Iran because the idiots and their followers believe, despite a total lack of evidence, that Iran is pursuing a nuclear bomb. If you think the Middle East is in turmoil now, just watch what happens if idiocy prevails.
Let's review a few facts. There is no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. Of course the Iranians put a lot of their nuclear facilities underground. After all, they saw the Israelis - in clear violation of international law and without any evidence that Iraq was building a bomb - attack and destroy a nuclear reactor in Baghdad without a peep from the U.S.
Given how the Israelis constantly rant against Iran, Iranians would have been fools not to put as much of it as possible underground.
Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel refuses to sign it. Iran allowed international inspectors. Israel never has. Israel has nuclear weapons - and apparently a lot of them. Iran doesn't have any, not one. If you are worried about an Islamic nuke, I remind you that Pakistan already has them. A Hindu nuke? India has them.
So Israel, Pakistan, and India all have nuclear weapons, all refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and all are warmly held allies of the idiots in Washington.
Here's another fact to stack against the clear evidence of insanity on the Potomac. Suppose Iran is lying about peaceful uses and does build a bomb (even the Israelis say it will take until 2009). So what? The world is full of nuclear weapons. My whole life, since the 1950s, has been lived 30 minutes away from nuclear annihilation.
People, especially in the press, tend to get hysterical about nuclear weapons. A nuclear bomb is, after all, a bomb. It has, whatever its size, a limited burst radius. Fallout is a captive of the wind. There have been lots of nuclear detonations on the ground and in the atmosphere, counting the two we dropped on Japan, plus all the nuclear tests conducted by us, the Russians, the French, and whoever else. So far as I know, the people around the world are still producing normal babies, and no giant spiders or ants have appeared over the horizon.
Furthermore, having five or six nuclear weapons does not make you a threat against a country with 200 nukes (Israel), much less the U.S., which has more than 3,000 nukes.
So let these facts settle into your head. Iran says it seeks to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, as it is legally entitled to do under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There is no evidence to contradict that. Iran has said repeatedly that it has no desire to acquire a nuclear weapon. It has never - despite the propaganda based on a misquotation - ever threatened Israel or the United States, or, for that matter, anyone else.
So what's afoot? I'll tell you what I think. The neocons in the U.S. and their pet bully, Israel, intend to dominate the Middle East and its oil. That means any country not run by a servile suck-up (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc.) must be weakened or destroyed.
We've pretty much destroyed Iraq and Lebanon, so that leaves Syria and Iran. I imagine the neocons plan on Israel taking out Syria while the U.S. carpet-bombs Iran. The neocons are not only idiots, they are evil. They show a complete disdain for peace, a callous disregard for human life, and utter contempt for the rule of law. If that ain't evil, the devil had better retire.
Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran
Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran
by Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
Monday July 16, 2007
The Guardian UK
· Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out
· President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved'
The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.
The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."
The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.
Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.
Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.
"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.
"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."
Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time.
No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route.
Sporadic talks are under way between the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, on the possibility of a freeze in Iran's uranium enrichment programme. Tehran has so far refused to contemplate a freeze, but has provisionally agreed to another round of talks at the end of the month.
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that there are signs of Iran slowing down work on the enrichment plant it is building in Natanz. Negotiations took place in Tehran last week between Iranian officials and the IAEA, which is seeking a full accounting of Iran's nuclear activities before Tehran disclosed its enrichment programme in 2003. The agency's deputy director general, Olli Heinonen, said two days of talks had produced "good results" and would continue.
At the UN, the US, Britain and France are trying to secure agreement from other security council members for a new round of sanctions against Iran. The US is pushing for economic sanctions that would include a freeze on the international dealings of another Iranian bank and a mega-engineering firm owned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Russia and China are resisting tougher measures.
Great article BBB. Thatnks
So Hillary and Obama are neocons now too?
lol Oh my!
Re: Neocon Idiots on the March toward Iran
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:I'm so tired of Senator Joe Lieberman carrying Israel's water for them in the Senate. I noticed this when he was the vice-presidential candidate. If Lieberman's primary goal is to protect Israel's interests, then he should resign his U.S. Senate seat and move to Israel and run for a seat in the Israeli Knesset. ---BBB
.........................
Idiots in Israel, along with those American idiots in the punditocracy who can't see where they are going because their vision is blocked by Israeli backsides, are trying to pressure our idiots in the White House to commit an act of insanity.
..................................
The neocons are not only idiots, they are evil. They show a complete disdain for peace, a callous disregard for human life, and utter contempt for the rule of law. If that ain't evil, the devil had better retire.
Fishin' - excuse me, but where do you see Obama and Mrs Clinton mentioned? Or have you automatically classified them as - respectively and in this order - the idiot and the evil one?
Re: Neocon Idiots on the March toward Iran
High Seas wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:I'm so tired of Senator Joe Lieberman carrying Israel's water for them in the Senate. I noticed this when he was the vice-presidential candidate. If Lieberman's primary goal is to protect Israel's interests, then he should resign his U.S. Senate seat and move to Israel and run for a seat in the Israeli Knesset. ---BBB
.........................
Idiots in Israel, along with those American idiots in the punditocracy who can't see where they are going because their vision is blocked by Israeli backsides, are trying to pressure our idiots in the White House to commit an act of insanity.
..................................
The neocons are not only idiots, they are evil. They show a complete disdain for peace, a callous disregard for human life, and utter contempt for the rule of law. If that ain't evil, the devil had better retire.
Fishin' - excuse me, but where do you see Obama and Mrs Clinton mentioned? Or have you automatically classified them as - respectively and in this order - the idiot and the evil one?
They aren't mentioned.
They did however, vote to pass the bill in the Senate that this article is based on and Lieberman sponsored.
Since the bill passed the Senate 97-0 I guess that makes everyone that voted for it a "neocon idiot".
Re: Neocon Idiots on the March toward Iran
fishin wrote:High Seas wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:I'm so tired of Senator Joe Lieberman carrying Israel's water for them in the Senate. I noticed this when he was the vice-presidential candidate. If Lieberman's primary goal is to protect Israel's interests, then he should resign his U.S. Senate seat and move to Israel and run for a seat in the Israeli Knesset. ---BBB
.........................
Idiots in Israel, along with those American idiots in the punditocracy who can't see where they are going because their vision is blocked by Israeli backsides, are trying to pressure our idiots in the White House to commit an act of insanity.
..................................
The neocons are not only idiots, they are evil. They show a complete disdain for peace, a callous disregard for human life, and utter contempt for the rule of law. If that ain't evil, the devil had better retire.
Fishin' - excuse me, but where do you see Obama and Mrs Clinton mentioned? Or have you automatically classified them as - respectively and in this order - the idiot and the evil one?
They aren't mentioned.
They did however, vote to pass the bill in the Senate that this article is based on and Lieberman sponsored.
Since the bill passed the Senate 97-0 I guess that makes everyone that voted for it a "neocon idiot".
Appealing to Extremes is a poor form of argumentation, as you know.
Cycloptichorn
Re: Neocon Idiots on the March toward Iran
Cycloptichorn wrote:fishin wrote:High Seas wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:I'm so tired of Senator Joe Lieberman carrying Israel's water for them in the Senate. I noticed this when he was the vice-presidential candidate. If Lieberman's primary goal is to protect Israel's interests, then he should resign his U.S. Senate seat and move to Israel and run for a seat in the Israeli Knesset. ---BBB
.........................
Idiots in Israel, along with those American idiots in the punditocracy who can't see where they are going because their vision is blocked by Israeli backsides, are trying to pressure our idiots in the White House to commit an act of insanity.
..................................
The neocons are not only idiots, they are evil. They show a complete disdain for peace, a callous disregard for human life, and utter contempt for the rule of law. If that ain't evil, the devil had better retire.
Fishin' - excuse me, but where do you see Obama and Mrs Clinton mentioned? Or have you automatically classified them as - respectively and in this order - the idiot and the evil one?
They aren't mentioned.
They did however, vote to pass the bill in the Senate that this article is based on and Lieberman sponsored.
Since the bill passed the Senate 97-0 I guess that makes everyone that voted for it a "neocon idiot".
Appealing to Extremes is a poor form of argumentation, as you know.
Cycloptichorn
Yes, I know. You only like it when you do it...
Re: Neocon Idiots on the March toward Iran
fishin wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:fishin wrote:High Seas wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:I'm so tired of Senator Joe Lieberman carrying Israel's water for them in the Senate. I noticed this when he was the vice-presidential candidate. If Lieberman's primary goal is to protect Israel's interests, then he should resign his U.S. Senate seat and move to Israel and run for a seat in the Israeli Knesset. ---BBB
.........................
Idiots in Israel, along with those American idiots in the punditocracy who can't see where they are going because their vision is blocked by Israeli backsides, are trying to pressure our idiots in the White House to commit an act of insanity.
..................................
The neocons are not only idiots, they are evil. They show a complete disdain for peace, a callous disregard for human life, and utter contempt for the rule of law. If that ain't evil, the devil had better retire.
Fishin' - excuse me, but where do you see Obama and Mrs Clinton mentioned? Or have you automatically classified them as - respectively and in this order - the idiot and the evil one?
They aren't mentioned.
They did however, vote to pass the bill in the Senate that this article is based on and Lieberman sponsored.
Since the bill passed the Senate 97-0 I guess that makes everyone that voted for it a "neocon idiot".
Appealing to Extremes is a poor form of argumentation, as you know.
Cycloptichorn
Yes, I know. You only like it when you do it...
I don't even like it when I do it. But you are correct, we all commit logical fallacies from time to time in the name of spirited discussion. This doesn't remove the validity of the observation, however, when we are called on it.
The bill passed in the Senate doesn't equate to an authorization or desire to engage in armed conflict with Iran - which is what the Neocons want.
Cycloptichorn
here ya go fishin' this ought to give you some wood....
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QDT5U80&show_article=1
they really are homicidal maniacs
From BPB's link:
General Pace is no fool and contrary to some posters' belief he can actually read a map. As long as our troops are in Iraq nobody - not us, not Israel, nobody! - can attack Iran. Think about it
Re: Neocon Idiots on the March toward Iran
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't even like it when I do it. But you are correct, we all commit logical fallacies from time to time in the name of spirited discussion. This doesn't remove the validity of the observation, however, when we are called on it.
The bill passed in the Senate doesn't equate to an authorization or desire to engage in armed conflict with Iran - which is what the Neocons want.
Cycloptichorn
I see... so you counter a logical fallacy with your own? There is nothing, other than the paranoia of the left that demonstrates that "the neocons" want any such thing.
Re: Neocon Idiots on the March toward Iran
fishin wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't even like it when I do it. But you are correct, we all commit logical fallacies from time to time in the name of spirited discussion. This doesn't remove the validity of the observation, however, when we are called on it.
The bill passed in the Senate doesn't equate to an authorization or desire to engage in armed conflict with Iran - which is what the Neocons want.
Cycloptichorn
I see... so you counter a logical fallacy with your own? There is nothing, other than the paranoia of the left that demonstrates that "the neocons" want any such thing.
Um, have you been paying attention lately?
I'll give you a chance to retract this last statement, before I track down the exact quotes from Podhertz, Kristol, Cheney et al. which show that yes, this is what they want. Explicitly.
Cycloptichorn
I mean, you really couldn't be more wrong.
Podhertz, recently:
Quote:Q: What kind of international fallout can we expect from such a campaign?
PODHORETZ: Well, if we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will, we'll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we've experienced so far look like a lovefest
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882
Attacking Iran is exactly the goal of the NeoConservative movement. For you to not recognize this doesn't reflect well on your understanding of the Republican party and how they are operating these days.
Cycloptichorn
Re: Neocon Idiots on the March toward Iran
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Um, have you been paying attention lately?
I'll give you a chance to retract this last statement, before I track down the exact quotes from Podhertz, Kristol, Cheney et al. which show that yes, this is what they want. Explicitly.
Cycloptichorn
Another logical fallacy on your part.
Who decided that "Podhertz, Kristol, Cheney et al." are "the neocons" the article (and BBB) is referring to?
If, as the title of this thread reads, the "Neocon Idiots on the March toward Iran" who, exactly, is on the march?
You seem to think the 97 Senators that voted for it get a pass.
Re: Neocon Idiots on the March toward Iran
fishin wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
Um, have you been paying attention lately?
I'll give you a chance to retract this last statement, before I track down the exact quotes from Podhertz, Kristol, Cheney et al. which show that yes, this is what they want. Explicitly.
Cycloptichorn
Another logical fallacy on your part.
Who decided that "Podhertz, Kristol, Cheney et al." are "the neocons" the article (and BBB) is referring to?
If, as the title of this thread reads, the "Neocon Idiots on the March toward Iran" who, exactly, is on the march?
You seem to think the 97 Senators that voted for it get a pass.
Now, you are resulting to mendacity.
The vote in the Senate didn't authorize nor call for armed attack of Iran, yet that is
exactly what the leaders of the NeoConservative movement are arguing for, and have been for some time. And yes, Lieberman is a Neocon.
The Neocon idiots are on a march to a futile and useless attack on Iran. The politicians in the Senate lose nothing with their vote on the last bill, as it didn't have anything to do with actually attacking Iran.
You're all wet on this one and really should give in, before it gets embarrassing.
Cycloptichorn
Re: Neocon Idiots on the March toward Iran
fishin wrote:Another logical fallacy on your part.
Who decided that "Podhertz, Kristol, Cheney et al." are "the neocons" the article (and BBB) is referring to?
If, as the title of this thread reads, the "Neocon Idiots on the March toward Iran" who, exactly, is on the march?
You seem to think the 97 Senators that voted for it get a pass.
I'd say that Podhoretz and Kristol are neocons, wouldnt you?
What Cyclo wrote was, "The bill passed in the Senate doesn't equate to an authorization or desire to engage in armed conflict with Iran - which is what the Neocons want."
So he's careful to make his distinction clear - there's the Senators who voted for the bill, which in itself doesnt imply a desire to go to war with Iran - but the Neocons certainly
do want a war with Iran.
Fairly straightforward assertion. The Neocons want a war.
Now you could have replied, OK who exactly do you
mean by "the Neocons"? Are you talking about the guys the article is talking about? Or the guys BBB probably means? Or since you are making your own distinctions here, you probably have your own definition again?. Could have asked that since its certainly been a term bandied around very flexibly.
But instead you responded: "There is nothing, other than the paranoia of the left that demonstrates that "the neocons" want any such thing."
Thats a mistake, since as Cyclo shows there most certainly have been prominent neocons explicitly making clear that thats exactly what they want.
Re: Neocon Idiots on the March toward Iran
Cycloptichorn wrote:Now, you are resulting to mendacity.
The vote in the Senate didn't authorize nor call for armed attack of Iran, yet that is exactly what the leaders of the NeoConservative movement are arguing for, and have been for some time. And yes, Lieberman is a Neocon.
The Neocon idiots are on a march to a futile and useless attack on Iran. The politicians in the Senate lose nothing with their vote on the last bill, as it didn't have anything to do with actually attacking Iran.
You're all wet on this one and really should give in, before it gets embarrassing.
Cycloptichorn
That's fine. You've already embarrassed yourself.
If the "March" is on you can't honestly claim that the vote isn't a part of it.
You can try and tuck your tail between your legs and pretend that your party isn't responsible but the fact remains that they all voted for it. Yeah, the bill wasn't an approval to attack Iran. But it does ratchet up the noise level. They are just as complicit in "the march as Cheney, Kristol, Lieberman, etc...
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace