AIPAC slams Bush's Iran policy

[Scurrilous]

Pro-Israel lobbying group criticizes Bush administration for reversing stance on Iran's nuclear program, failing to support bringing case before U.N.'s Security Council. New policy is disturbing and dangerous, AIPAC says in letter to Congress

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3189709,00.html

<snip>

"American President George W. Bush's handling of Iran's nuclear program is "disturbing" and dangerous," pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee) claimed this week in a letter circulated to supporters on Capitol Hill, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

The release mostly criticized the United States' willingness to accept a Russian compromise to allow Iran develop nuclear energy under Russian supervision.

AIPAC, which clashed with democratic and republican leaders in the past, has until now remained supportive of Bush and his administration, considered to be one of Israel's greatest allies.

However, the pro-Israel lobby set out to target Bush and his strategy, after the president recently reversed his stance on the Iranian issue, and decided to hold off pushing to report Iran's nuclear case to the U.N. Security Council."

[Tom Joad]

1. AIPAC wants war, and it wants it now! What else is new?

It may have to wait till hillary is President, though.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fujiyama]

26. Well there are some pushing for war...

and I would be guessing that many prominent neocons with some connections to AIPAC are among those cheerleaders.

This is not to say that a majority of Jews, or Israelis desire a conflict. After all, Israelis would face any Iranian retaliation,. But AIPAC and the loonies heading the Likud government in Israel are more than likely itching to launch an attack against Iran.

And we already know that the Iranian nutcase wouldn't mind a conflict. He's their own version of Bush. A fuckin lunatic obsessed with saber rattling.

[IndianaGreen]

2. I expect Hillary to be calling for war against Iran

She will grovel at AIPAC's feet at the drop of a hat.

[Coastie for Truth]

3. First Amendment

Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Letter to Congress - protected under The First Amendment the last time I got my ACLU Newsletter. I don't recall seeing any changes by Clarence, Nino, John, et al.

[High Plains]

6. Is someone trying to censor AIPAC?

[Tom Joad]

7. Which means we can publicly say AIPAC sucks, doesn't it.

[Coastie for Truth]

11. Yes - but irrelevant

The point of the First Amendment in the context is that we can not stop them from "petitioning Congress."

[Poll_Blind]

4. Let Israel do something about Iran, if it has the GUTS to back up...

...the years of rhetoric. We're out of money.

PB

[Coastie for Truth]

5. Maybe the rhetoric is the negotiating style of the ME bazaar

Not everybody negotiates Texas Ranger-Wild West style, two six guns blazing.

[Poll_Blind]

8. Damn, that's the best you can come up with? Makes me miss Jem Note. n/t

PB

[Englander]

24. Ah, but was Jem Note related to Trotsky?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=108548#108566

:)

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Jem never name-dropped...

:)

[Tom Joad]

9. Let's NOT let Israel do something about it.

I don't think the world needs another war. And if Israel does something about it, it is a US backed war in any case.

What we should demand is a nuclear-free Middle East. Starting with the place that introduced them to the ME in the first place, Israel.

[Poll_Blind]

10. Tom, I agree. But do you think Israel will give up their nukes?

No, they'll use the same reasoning that created Israel in the first place: It's their G*d-given land and it's their G*d-given right to have the most powerful, world-destroying weapons to protect G*d's will.

And almost as fast as the nuclear chain reaction, itself, those who will try to implement such a reasonable peace plan will be accused of anti-semitism or, if Jewish, as self-loathers. I'd love to be wrong about all this, I truly would.

PB

[Coastie for Truth]

13. Read append 12

I just happen to be Jewish. But read append 12 -- and and to save you the trouble of going over to the technoid geek "Energy and Environment Forum" here's a link to the Scientific American article -- Note: The Adobe Acrobat PDF file is free to "Digital Scientific American" subscribers: $5.00 charge for non-subscribers.

[tatertop]

15. We could force them to give up those nukes. And we should.

Let them call us what they will, the Middle East will rest easier
once those nukes are out of the area.

[Coastie for Truth]

18. Not as long as the US, Russia, UK, France

India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran have nukes.

Did the Israelis bomb Hiroshima? Did the Israelis bomb Nagasaki?

[Colorado Blue]

22. The "Middle East" will rest easier? What about the Israelis,

whom the "Middle East" has been trying to wipe out for almost 60 years, which is smaller than New Jersey and has 6 million citizens as opposed to hundreds of millions?

Why are you de facto declaring war on ISRAEL? Do you have some romantic idea of what the Middle East is really like, or the fact that we are de facto supporting regimes like the Iranian mullahs and the Wahabi in Saudi Arabia, the government of Sudan which is commiting genocide, because they have oil? Maybe you prefer THEIR ideals and their politics? Perhaps you prefer women completed subjugated, punishments that include amputations, eye pluckings and stonings, honor killings and religious bigotry?

Maybe if "the Middle East" would recognize Israel's right to exist and stop threatening to exterminate her people and wipe her off the map, Israel could AFFORD to give up the nukes. In fact I think that would be an excellent place to start negotiating.

Step 1. Israel exists.
Step 2. We recognize this fact.
Step 3. We recognize the fact that continuous warfare and terrorism are counterproductive to peace and to the creation of decent lives for the people of the Middle East.
Step 4. We will stop threatening to wipe Israel off the map and throw the Jews into the sea.

THEN we will discuss a nuclear-free Middle East.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. The Palestinians have taken those steps...

..and look where it's got them!

Violet....

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

12. A nuclear free world

Anything less then a nuclear free world is "asking for it."

Start with the country that bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki - United States, FIRST. And then Russia, UK, France, Peoples Republic of China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Iran, Ukraine (some people the Ukraine has nukes). Belarus (verification), and Kazakhstan (also verification).

BTW - while I firmly believe that nuclear generation of electricity is probably the only thing that will keep us out of Bush type "Resource Wars", i would want 100% complete accountability inspections for fuels and radiological health hazards. (Yes - I have read Jim Kunstler's "The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century" - and while I agree with a lot of what he has to say - I do not agree with his chapter 6 - which is why I want 100% inspection, monitoring, and accountability of civilian power plants as part and parcel of a nuclear weapons free world).

[tatertop]

14. I'll second that. Those Israeli nukes should be confiscated ASAP.

Nothing good can ever come of a nuclear Israel.

[Jim Sagle]

16. Nuclear Israel has been around for decades.

It's all good.:beer:

[Coastie for Truth]

17. Or US, Russia, UK, France, N. Korea, Iran, Pakistan, India

I personally don't think anything good can come out a nuclear armed US, Russia, UK, France, N. Korea, Iran, Pakistan, or India, either.

Did the Israelis nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki?????

Who was "eyeball to eyeball" with who in October 1962?????

[fujiyama]

25. Confiscated?

By whom? By what army?

I love when people make nonsensical statements not rooted in any reality.

Hell, I'd be especially happy if the Chinese and Pakistanis didn't have nukes. Those are two despotic tyranical regimes that shouldn't have nukes, but do.

Nuclear weapons are not a good thing. I'm not happy nuclear weapons are even in existence. But they are. And Israel has them, as does Pakistan, China, and probably even North Korea. Unfortunately, nukes are also in the hands of our lunatic leader.

[Colorado Blue]

19. The fact that Israel exists is evidence of GUTS. I'm tempted

to say something really nasty but I'll wish you a Happy Holiday instead.

[Jim Sagle]

23. AIPAC RRRRRAWWWWKSSSSSS!!!!!!!!