Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do Obama, Edwards, Biden, Etc. Get It? Hillary And The Congress Sure Don't!!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Radicalman Donating Member (170 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 07:15 PM
Original message
Do Obama, Edwards, Biden, Etc. Get It? Hillary And The Congress Sure Don't!!
A neo-conservative cabal operating out of the Pentagon that, will lead the United States to attack Iran. We should not doubt this. A recent article by Laura Rozen for the Los Angeles Times revealed the Pentagon has created yet another Office of Special Plans type body called the Directorate for Iran, or the Iranian Directorate. The notorious Office of Special Plans – which focused on Iraq –bears a special responsibility for causing the calamity in that fractured "nation."

Now, The Directorate is in charge of military strategy against Iran and employing techniques of brainwashing used on the American people to support a war against Iraq.


The Iranian Directorate's staff includes several Office Of Special plans veterans such as neo-conservatives Abram Shulsky ,John Trigilio. Ladan Archin and Reuel Marc Gerecht. Why would Bush put people who got everything wrong in Iraq in charge of Iran?
Obviously, it's madness, but what else in new in Bushland?

Why is it certain that the Bush Regime will wage war on Iran? Let’s examine both the military and political evidence: The U.S. is doing everything militarily it would do if it were going to attack Iran. It has installed Patriot Missile Batteries in Kuwait. Iraq has no missiles, Iran does. The U.S. has deployed minesweepers in the Persian Gulf. It has deployed F-16 fighter bombers for the first time in 3 years in Turkey.

Worst of all, according to the current issue of Newsweek, the aircraft carrier battle group, built around the carrier Nimitz, will be deployed to the Gulf. We currently have two carrier groups deployed off Iran, the Eisenhower and the Stennis battle groups. Colonel Sam Gardner of the Air War College has stated that when the U.S. deploys 3 groups to the Middle East it is a sure bet that the U.S. will go to war with Iran. This is because this action uses up our war fighting capability and can only mean the intent to go to war.

On the political front the mass media is acting as a conduit for war propaganda, just as it did for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Headlines in the New York and Los Angeles Times scream about the Iranian danger. The Bush Administration is now implying that Iran is behind everything in Iraq. Their line is that the lives of our soldiers in Iraq are endangered by Iran. (Never mind that Saudia Arabia, Syria and Jordan are deeply involved, and that the so-called government we support in Iraq is pro-Iranian.) The Bush cant goes on to get us to believe that heavily nuclear armed Israel’s existence is threatened. ( Ignore the reality that Iran is years away from making nuclear bombs.)

We all remember that, when Bush signed the Iraq War Resolution he said, in connection with it, that the War Powers Act, which limits his power to go to war, is unconstitutional. He acknowledges no limits on his war making power. Bush is a military dictator whose boots march on the faces of a supine congress and a mass media which prostrates itself at his feet.

Why shouldn't Bush, this incompetent and dismal failure, egged on by neo cons, attack Iran? Politically he has nothing to lose. We know this. It is difficult to image his poll numbers going lower. And this man, who sees himself as some sort of an all powerful commander-in-chief, of all Americans (he's not my commander in chief, I'm not a member of the armed forces), this top gun wannabe, might be able to brag that he knocked out a few Iranian nuclear installations. But at what price?


The U.S. will become more politically isolated from its allies, military overstretched, Iran will cut off oil supplies from the Straits of Hormuz, and there will be a huge increase in terrorist attacks on Americans and U.S. interests worldwide. The backlash on the streets of Iraq will be horrible and hold many of our soldiers hostages to Iraqi hatred and outrage.

Can this calamity be averted? Yes. Congress must say “no, never again” to the inept, disgraceful Bush.

How? As Larry Diamond a very conservative a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution has written, nothing prevents Congress from using its power of the purse to prevent an American attack on Iran. He writes, “Congress should not wait. It should hold hearings on Iran before the president orders a bombing attack on its nuclear facilities, or orders or supports a provocative act by the U.S. or an ally designed to get Iran to retaliate, and thus further raise war fever. “ But congress, as usual, presents the spectacle of limpid disinterest and stupid ignorance about this most pressing problems of our time, It seems to have no plans to hold any hearings!

We will not see on TV that there is a neo-conservative cabal operating out of the Pentagon that will lead the United States to attack Iran. Without TV attention, the masses of Americans, who get their news from that source, will have no concept of what we are discussing here. Meanwhile our mass media chefs are serving the kool aid of unthinking hatred and contempt for Iran, just before the cabal sets the table with its poisonous dishes of death, destruction, and human misery. We must ask ourselves if we too are drinking the kool aid. Has our hatred of Iran deeped over the last few weeks? Have you and I caught the fever?


We must contact our Senators and Representatives and demand hearings on this issue. We must write letters to newspapers and engage our friends. We must ask questions when Democratic Aspirants for the Presidency come to our states and towns. Once the war begins it will be too late because, predictably, they will rally behind the troops already engaged in battle. We know that Hillary Clinton would not agree with this analysis. But what of Edwards, Obama, and the other Democratic Aspirants? They should be demanding that congressional hearings be held now, and speak out against the coming calamityy. We must hold their feet to the fire now and hold them accountable.

The issue is simple: Who rules America? is it the people, who recently voted for peace, or a warmongering cabal aiding and abetting a demagogic, military dictator?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Missy M Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. How do you know what Hillary would or would not agree with?
Did you ask her?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durrrty libby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I see so many ridiculous laughable assumptions in GD,
it is beyond pitiful


:hangover: :hurts: :boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radicalman Donating Member (170 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Always Nice To Hear From The Peanut Gallery!!
x
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radicalman Donating Member (170 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Why Are People Here Reluctant To Engage In Real Debate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radicalman Donating Member (170 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Did I Ask Her Personally? What A Stupid Question!
Rarely do people in DU support their conclusions or statements with premises. Now, tell me, can you engage in critical analysis? Do you think the conclusions and supporting premises I presented in my post are at variance with the letter written by Hillary posted by bcoyolepa? Where do you think there is agreement and disagreement with the arguments she presents and mine? An argument is a claim supported by premises (reasons) that are relevant, have a reasonable degree of probability, and are sufficient to establish the claim. To give you a helpful hint, analysis of her positions is usually difficult because of "triangulation." This simply means the the Clintons typically have walked both sides of the street on issues. They typically take a "liberal" position on issues but then will attempt to bring in "conservative" ideas to appeal to everyone. So, in the present instance, Hillary implies that we must use war, if necessary, to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons. (Hawkish.) She says we must keep all options on the table, (meaning war, one supposes). (Hawkish.) But then she says we should "engage" Iraq diplomatically. (Dovish.) So you end up with mush.......it's like trying to nail Jello to the wall. At any rate, good luck with your assignment. If you need further help, I'll be glad to assist you.


bcoylepa (160 posts)
Mon Feb-12-07 10:17 PM
Original message



Hillary's letter on Iran





sent to a friend of mine

so very disappointing - sounds just like the bs on the buildup to the invasion of Iraq - I so want to support her if she is our candidate - but this is just garbage

Dear Ms.XXX

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding Iran . Certainly, Iran is one of the most serious national security challenges facing our nation today. The Iranian President has made a series of outrageous comments questioning the Holocaust and calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. He has also been the leading spokesperson for Iran 's pursuit of the technology that could potentially allow it to build nuclear weapons.

United States policy in this regard must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran would pose a serious threat to Israel and others in the region. It would also pose a significant threat to the United States by combining access to nuclear materials and technology with support for terrorism. The Iranian regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the seriousness of the threat we face.

While I have long said that we must keep all options on the table, I also believe we should engage with our enemies in order to learn more about them, what their objectives are, where the real power centers are, and what leverage we can bring to bear on them. Because we need our friends and allies to stand with us, I also want to send a message to the rest of the world - should we ever have to take more drastic action - that we have aggressively pursued all diplomatic options .

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts and concerns with me. You can be sure that I will continue to follow developments related to Iran with the utmost attention. For more information on this and other issues being discussed before the United States Senate, please visit my website at http://clinton.senate.gov .

Sincerely,

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton


bcoylepa


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy M Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Why is that a stupid question, your friend obviously asked...
Hillary something and she answered. What would you have Hillary say. We will never engage in a war with Iran, no matter what the circumstances. Your main analysis is regarding Bush and the neo-conservatives but in the end you tell us "we know that Hillary Clinton would not agree with this analysis" and I asked you a simple question, how do you know. You then present a letter she wrote to a friend of yours, how convenient. What you want Hillary to say is we will never engage a war in Iran, no matter what. Now go ask Obama, Edwards, Biden etc. if they get it, I assume it is your brilliant analysis you want them to get. Chances are they would say just about the same thing Hillary wrote in that letter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radicalman Donating Member (170 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Pathetic, Just Pathetic.
Your problem is that you are thinking in a linear versus configurational framework. At any rate, the lady in question is a member of DU and I don't know her. This is your problem, among many others. You continually make unwarranted assumptions, such as this one, that the poster is my friend. Your christal ball is very clouded. There is nothing in my analysis that suggests that I am opposed to ever engaging in a war with Iran in the future. But here you go again!! You say that "
chances are that
Let me help DUers out here. The millitary aspect of my argument importantly rests upon the assumption that the Nimitz battle group is being deployed to the Gulf and, when it arrives, will be part of a 3 carrier battle group. But this may not be correct. It may be deployed to relieve the Eisenhower carrier in off Iran duty and we'll still only have 2 carrier groups in the area.

At any rate, this topic is of supreme importance and merits research and critical analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 04:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC