Senate passes Kyl-Lieberman 76-22 on 9/25. Condi rolls out unprecedented Iran sanctions 10/25.

[flpoljunkie]

Condi seems to be 'rolling out the new product" right on schedule. It also sounds so dreadfully familiar.

Senate roll call vote on Kyl-Lieberman:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349

October 25, 2007
U.S. Levels Sanctions Against Iran Military Unit

By HELENE COOPER and JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 — The Bush administration announced a long-debated policy of new sanctions against Iran today, accusing the elite Quds division of the Revolutionary Guard Corps of supporting terrorism.

The administration also accused the entire Revolutionary Guard Corps, a part of Iran’s military, of proliferating weapons of mass destruction. While the United States has long labeled Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, the decision to single out the Guard reflects increased frustration in the administration with the slow pace of diplomatic negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program.

The designations put into play unilateral sanctions intended to impede the Revolutionary Guard and those who do business with it. This is the first time that the United States has taken such steps against the armed forces of any sovereign government.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced the new sanctions at a State Department news conference.

Ms. Rice said the measures were intended “to confront the threatening behavior of the Iranians.” As the Bush administration has many times before, the secretary drew a distinction between the Iran government and the country’s people. “We in the United States have no conflict with you,” she said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/world/middleeast/25cnd-iran.html?hp

[Colobo]

1. War drums...

[MethuenProgressive]

128. Like Obama was beating back in April?

Obama co-sponsored Iran bill almost exactly like Lieberman-Kyl in April.
In April, Obama was all for desinating the IRG as a terrorist organization,
co-sponsoring a bill saying hust that:

Obama suddenly 'forgets' Iran position - Dissociative Amnesia?
http://www.FirstRead.MSNBC.com

[0007]

2. Who in the fuck selected Lieberman to be VP to Gore?

I still need help with this one.

[DrDan]

43. I have ALWAYS wondered that . . .

That was horrible advice . . . and I fault Gore for not grasping that at the time, or for accepting the advice.

He was absolutely the wrong choice. I assume it was because they thought he would bring in the Florida Jewish vote, but that sure backfired.

[Carrieyazel]

124. I always thought it was Tipper. She made a lousy mistake.

Lieberman was a lame VP candidate, smiled along with Birdshot in that atrocious 2000 VP debate.

[0007]

125. I think that was the buzz at the time......I didn't buy it!

[gateley]

3. This morning, speaking at a health care forum, Biden said his most important

priority after becoming president would be to end the war in Iraq (no surprise), and to PREVENT a war with Iran.

That got me thinking -- do those in Washington really believe that's where this is all going? He didn't say 'begin diplomatic talks with Iran' -- almost seems like it's a given this admin has no intention of doing that? Do those in the know know, or do you suppose it's just the same fear we are all feeling now?

What do you think?

[flpoljunkie]

6. I think there is genuine concern that Bush will bomb Iran before he leaves office. Also, what does

Condi mean by this statement, “Unfortunately the Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations..." Is it because she knows they will never accept such negotiations? What does she mean by "open" negotiations?

While Washington is open to a diplomatic solution, Ms. Rice said, “Unfortunately the Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security by pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon, building dangerous ballistic missiles, supporting Shia militants in Iraq and terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, and denying the existence of a fellow member of the United Nations, threatening to wipe Israel off the map.”

[gateley]

7. Yeah - Condi presents an entire laundry list of reasons why military

action is obviously the best choice. "Open negotiations" That's laughable.

Sigh. I think you may be right about the concern in Washington. I wonder how this will play out. Sigh.

[ginchinchili]

20. My guess is that it's mostly fear, but well-founded fear.

A lot of people believe that Bush intends to hit Iran one way or another, but if they knew, I think we'd know.

Thanks for nothing, Hillary.

[gateley]

21. Thanks for your response. I feel like I'm teetering on the edge of a cliff. I don't

want to have to look into the abyss if I don't have to, but I also don't want to scramble away from the precipice and have all hell break out behind me as I just stroll away assuming all is well. If that makes sense.

[cuke]

22. Obama: "It is important to have tough sanctions on Iran..."

Looks like he agrees with Rice

[uberblonde]

4. But that won't stop us from bombing the shit out of you.

Just don't take it personally, okay?

[dajoki]

5. Just ask the people...

of Iraq what the difference is between the Iranian government and the country’s people. It doesn't work that way, the people are still the ones that are suffering.

As the Bush administration has many times before, the secretary drew a distinction between the Iran government and the country’s people. “We in the United States have no conflict with you,” she said.

[BootinUp]

8. Sanctions=War? Get serious people. n/t

[flpoljunkie]

9. "Unilateral" sanctions from the Bush administration warmongers could well mean a first step to war.

We are not talking rational "deciders" makers here.

[Lerkfish]

61. why do you keep defending warmongering crap like this?

you ALSO said clinton's vote on Kyl-leiberman was nonbinding and would not lead to sanctions.

guess what?

you're batting .000

[BootinUp]

132. Please show me where I said that. n/t

[spotbird]

10. There are 22 Democrats in the senate

we have quite a way to go before we gain the majority.

[flpoljunkie]

11. Statements today from Obama, Dodd and Edwards today on Bush administration Iran sanctions

Senator Obama responds to the Bush administration's announcement on Iran sanctions:

It is important to have tough sanctions on Iran, particularly on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which supports terrorism. But these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran. Unfortunately, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment made the case for President Bush that we need to use our military presence in Iraq to counter Iran - a case that has nothing to do with sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CJR2

Dodd:

"The glaring omission of any new diplomatic measures by the President today is the reason I voted, and urged my colleagues to vote, against the Kyl -Lieberman resolution on September 26.

"The aggressive actions taken today by the Administration absent any corresponding diplomatic action is exactly what we all should have known was coming when we considered our vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, and smacks, frankly, of a dangerous step toward armed confrontation with Iran."

Then Edwards:

“Today, George Bush and Dick Cheney again rattled the sabers in their march toward military action against Iran. The Bush Administration has been making plans to attack Iran for many months. At this critical moment, we need strong leadership to stand against George Bush’s dangerous ‘preventive war’ policy, which makes force the first option, not the last.

“I learned a clear lesson from the lead up to the Iraq War in 2002: if you give this president an inch, he will take a mile - and launch a war. Senator Clinton apparently learned a different lesson. Instead of blocking George Bush’s new march to war, Senator Clinton and others are enabling him once again.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/lieberman_kyl_and_bears_oh_no.php

[flpoljunkie]

12. While Hillary's vote for Kyl-Liberman defended yet again--today by Madeleine Albright in NH

Albright Defends Hillary's Iran vote
From NBC/NJ's Mike Memoli

HOOKSETT, NH -- Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright today said that Hillary Clinton has been "very clear" in stating that she believes President Bush cannot go to war without congressional authorization.

Albright, who was campaigning for Clinton here in New Hampshire, also defended the senator's vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which her rivals have said warned will be used by Bush as justification for military action. " was one in order to make very clear that the Revolutionary Guard was one of the most extremist groups within Iran and that it was important to sanction them in order to be able to move toward robust diplomacy," Albright said in an interview.

Albright also noted that Clinton spoke on the Senate floor in February to say she believed Bush couldn't go to war without Senate authorization. And she pointed to Clinton's co-sponsoring an amendment by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) stipulating that no federal funds could be used for military action in Iran. "So I think she's made her position very clear," Albright said. "She is against the President using force in Iran without using any kind of congressional authorization. And she has made very clear that she believes that robust diplomacy needs to be used in order to make difficult and impossible really for Iran to have a nuclear program."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/25/431115.aspx

[cuke]

14. Obama: "It is important to have tough sanctions...."

Obama agrees with Rice

[flpoljunkie]

18. Read the entire paragraph about the danger of Kyl-Lieberman.

It is important to have tough sanctions on Iran, particularly on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which supports terrorism. But these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran. Unfortunately, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment made the case for President Bush that we need to use our military presence in Iraq to counter Iran - a case that has nothing to do with sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard.

[cuke]

19. Obama co-sponsors S970 which designates the IRG as a "terrorist organization"

but now, designating the IRG is a BAD THING

[BootinUp]

27. Obama needs to read the final K/L resolution

Guess what, there is NOTHING IN IT about using the military against Iran.

[flpoljunkie]

30. Kyl-Lieberman is a green light for Bush to bomb Iran. Otherwise, why rush to co-sponsor Webb's bill?

Dodd said it best today:

"The glaring omission of any new diplomatic measures by the President today is the reason I voted, and urged my colleagues to vote, against the Kyl -Lieberman resolution on September 26.

"The aggressive actions taken today by the Administration absent any corresponding diplomatic action is exactly what we all should have known was coming when we considered our vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, and smacks, frankly, of a dangerous step toward armed confrontation with Iran."

[BootinUp]

31. Nonsense. n/t

[flpoljunkie]

33. Webb was just on Tweety and said the heads of the committees who know foreign policy all voted NO

on Kyl-Lieberman because they understood where it was going--unlike unnamed others with less experience.

[ShortnFiery]

60. I saw that segment. Yes, the people "in the know" knew better than to allow The Unitary Executive

to have that power. Unfortunately, it's going to be hard putting the genie back in the bottle. IMO, DAMN all those who voted for Kyl-Lieberman! May they be replaced by their next democratic primary challenger. :(

[Inuca]

100. He said a bit more than that

I think he refered to the top 6 (or 7 I do not remember exactly) members of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, which includes the two republicans that voted against K-L, namely Lugar and Hagel.

[flpoljunkie]

106. Yes, he did. Here's a link to the transcript with pertinent paragraph quoted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21490511/

WEBB: And a lot of that is going on right now. The Kyl/Lieberman amendment‘s a classic example. If you look at the vote on that, even though more than 70 senators voted in favor of it, the top six senators on the Foreign Relations Committee, the two ranking Republicans and the four ranking Democrats, all voted against it.

So, the people who have long experience in foreign policy can see this sort of thing coming, and the others kind of go along with the motion of the moment. And they need to take a lot closer at the language of what‘s coming this way.

[SOS]

57. Add Iraq AUMF and Kyl/Lieberman to get war

From the Iraq AUMF:

"(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations"

From Kyl/Lieberman:

"(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization"

Military action against Iran is already authorized.

[KoKo]

23. Albright looking for job in Clinton II Administration, probably....n/t

[ShortnFiery]

59. Here's a bit of history: Condi Rice was "the favorite student" of Madeleine Albright's

Father - a professor and mentor of Kind-of-sleazy. :wow:

If anyone has an inkling that these power brokers are not full into political incest, I suggest one think again? :scared:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/11_november/07/everywoman_albright.shtml

[cuke]

13. Obama: "It is important to have tough sanctions...."

I guess Obama is part of the war effort

[cali]

16. That's a false equation.

I do believe the admin is itching to bomb Iran. I can't recall where I read it, but I recall recently reading that bush wants to take military action because he doesn't believe that anyone following him will have the "political will". And btw, both my Senators fear that the admin is gearing up to bomb Iran.

[cuke]

17. I'll explain

Many DUers, and a number of the candidates, have described the clause that designates the IRG a terrorist organization as a "pretext for war"

If K/L was a pretext for war (and I don't think it is) then so is S970, which also designates the IRG as a terrorist organization. Obama co-sponsored S970

[cali]

25. ah, got it.

I actually think of it as a very small fig leaf for after he's shot his wad. (sorry to be so crass)

[rucky]

15. Thanksgiving? n/t

[hatrack]

108. What? And disrupt the all-important holiday retail season?

Nah, they'll wait until January or February.

[flpoljunkie]

24. "The international community's got to get a lot tougher if it's going to be resolved diplomatically"

This sounds like a threat of unilateral action against Iran. First Cheney this weekend, warning of "serious consequences"--now Condi today with her unilateral sanctions on Iran.

Administration officials say that they are imposing new sanctions to demonstrate a commitment to diplomacy, even amid increasing rumblings from neoconservatives outside the administration about possible military action.

In a speech Sunday, Vice President Cheney warned Tehran of "serious consequences" if it continues on its present course. "Our country and the entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions," he said.

The United States hopes that allies in Europe and Asia will impose similar sanctions, because efforts to get a tough U.N. resolution have stalled as a result of Russian and Chinese opposition. "The international community's got to get a lot tougher if it's going to be resolved diplomatically," Rice said about Iran's suspected nuclear program.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102501006_pf.html

[cuke]

26. Obama: "It is important to have tough sanctions...."

If it's a threat, then Obama is supporting the threat

[flpoljunkie]

29. If you can't understand the difference, I can't help you. Try reading it again.

It is important to have tough sanctions on Iran, particularly on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which supports terrorism. But these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran. Unfortunately, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment made the case for President Bush that we need to use our military presence in Iraq to counter Iran - a case that has nothing to do with sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard.

-Barack Obama

[Basileus Basileon]

36. The "combat, contain, and roll back" bit he was referring to

was removed in the version that passed.

[flpoljunkie]

39. It is no coincidence that Condi rolled out Iran sanctions one month to the day Senate passed K-L.

[Basileus Basileon]

42. Probably not. "One month" sounds like we're being deliberate about this.

"27 days" or "35 days" sounds like it took us that long to get our shit together.

[cuke]

130. So Iran's harboring terrorists by itself isn't enough for * to start a war?

Obama beleives that the IRG is a terrorist org. Isn't that enough for * to say "Iran is harboring terrorists. We must attack Iran. We cannot allow terrorists to have a safe harbor, like they had in Afghanistan"

[Carolina]

65. how reminiscent of 2002 and 2003

Fortunately, no one's buying the new product thus far. Good for China and Russia who've already said no way.

[sakabatou]

28. All I can say is this:

Fuck.

[Nutmegger]

32. The fact that this piece of trash passed, is unforgivable.

And those that voted for it shall receive nothing but condemnation from me.

[Think82]

34. Hillary, we will not soon forget this vote.

idiotic. The top 4 Dem and top 2 repubs on the Foreign Relations Committee voted against it. That didn't tell you anything?!

[Basileus Basileon]

35. I'm new, so I might get called a freeper mole for saying this, but...

Good.

Frankly, the Iranians are just as much to blame as the Americans are in this. Both parties have the exact same goal in mind--expanding their influence in the Middle East while preventing the other from doing the same. We don't need "to defend ourselves/Iraq" against Iran, and they don't need "to defend themselves" against us; either party could easily assure their own safety by appealing to the international community and making good-faith gestures to the UN, the EU, and the greater Middle East.

Iran could, if it so chose, cease funding of Hezbollah's terrorist operations, stop funding, supplying, and training Iraqi Shi'a militias, allow inspections, and agree to an EU proposal by which they are given nuclear power so long as they accept inspections.

America could, if it so chose, pull out of Iraq, leaving only police/military training forces behind, abandon plans for a permanent military presence in Iraq, and make its funding of Israel conditional on degree of progress towards creation of an independent Palestinian state.

But neither party will, because that would let the other party have everything it wants, and both parties find that unacceptable for obvious reasons. America doesn't want to see a hostile power in control of the Mideast's oil reserves, threatening a large-scale sectarian war between the Shi'a Crescent and the Sunni bloc to its south. Israel doesn't want to see its lifeline cut off while Hezbollah still receives its funds. And Iran doesn't want to see complete American control of the entire region.

So we're stuck here. Sanctions are by no means a declaration of war; rather, they are an honest attempt to avoid war while similarly avoiding the greater destabilization that Iranian expansion would cause. By further isolating the Iranian military, we strengthen its control over Iran, unfortunately. However, at the same time, we send the message that isolation has its costs, and in doing so add teeth to our negotiations. With any luck, this will prevent us both from blundering into the armed conflict that neither nation wants to see.

Now, do I think this will stop Bush from bombing Iran? Of course not. Do I think it will encourage him? Same answer; not at all. The crucial part is that it provides evidence to the more-hawkish in the governments of both nations that America is committed to bringing about a change in Iranian policy, and at the same time that we still believe there are a great deal of diplomatic options still remaining before war is "necessary."

[flpoljunkie]

37. Only if you trust the Bush administration to be a fair broker here and are not just ratcheting up

the stakes en route to bombing Iran. I obviously do not trust them.

[Basileus Basileon]

41. No, I obviously don't trust Bush to be a fair anything at all.

However, sanctions are more often an attempt to avoid war by forcing policy changes through nonviolent means than they are simple preludes to war.

Again, I'm not referring to my beliefs that Bush or Cheney will be fair brokers. There are, however, a good number of people in the State Dept. and the Pentagon who are neither Bush nor Cheney. Convincing them that war is not inevitable to prevent unchecked Iranian expansion will, in my mind, serve as the fulcrum in the diplomatic balancing act that will be required to prevent war.

[The Magistrate]

74. Your Comments In No. 35 Above, Sir, Are A Pretty Sensible Analysis

What you have described is what any neutral observer would see, and the courses you sketch out are those that would be taken were there people of good heart and sound mind in charge of the affairs of the nations involved.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

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

[BootinUp]

38. Forget arguing with them, they are just looking for a way to attack Hillary

And the other Senators like Webb and Hagel are expressing frustation with Bush. The fact is as you say sanctions always delays a military strike, otherwise why the hell do it? Secondly there is very little support for any military strikes in both houses of Congress and the Pentagon.

[flpoljunkie]

44. Hillary made a mistake voting for K-L. That's why she so quickly pivoted to co-sponsor Webb's bill.

Webb introduced his bill in March, 2007. Why the delay, Hillary?

[Basileus Basileon]

46. That isn't a pivot. At all.

Both Webb and K-L (as it passed) are dedicated to a peaceful resolution to the Iranian crisis. K-L set a minimum level of pressure, and Webb aims to set a maximum level.

After you propose a minimum, it isn't a pivot to propose a maximum, now is it?

[TwilightGardener]

47. Bwah! K/L was simply another brick in the war path. Declare the army

of a sovereign nation a "terrorist group", and now we can act upon them. Hillary blew it, big time. And she knows it. She could have supported the Webb measure months before, and didn't. Her timing for sudden co-sponsorship was a juuuust a little suspicious.

[Basileus Basileon]

48. And we did just act upon them, in exactly the way K-L allows.

Not all pressure is tantamount to war. Sanctions are a means of preventing war, not a means of enabling them.

[TwilightGardener]

49. Unilateral sanctions can be a step TOWARDS war, because by definition they're

imposed without international agreement. In other words, WE'RE the only ones who are positioning ourselves against Iran in such a manner--now you've got two countries glaring each other down, without the buffer of other countries to help enforce the sanctions and defuse hostilities. Didn't we already go through this with Saddam, for God's sake?

[Basileus Basileon]

50. Yeah, a decade before we invaded.

Sanctions aren't generally included in run-up to war.

It's not so simple as "unilateral" vs. "multilateral" with Iran. There's no united front against Iran, simply because there are too many players. Russia has an interest in maintaining a strong Iran, as does China. Europe has an interest in a weak Iran, but at the same time has a strong interest in not angering Russia. America has an interest in a weak Iran, but also has an irrational interest in war. The greater Middle East has a strong interest in both a weak Iran and a weak America. Israel has interest in a weak Iran and a strong American presence.

There are too many players with too many factors driving them for there to be an impenetrable international front (in contrast with the North Korean situation; even there we're only barely able to). That's part of the reason things are so dangerous at the moment.

But that doesn't make these a "step towards war." Pure multinationalism is impossible here, but a soft multinationalism, in which varying degrees of pressure are applied by various actors, may be possible. I'd wait for a reading on what Europe signals on these before I believe it's pure unilateralism.

[TwilightGardener]

53. CATO Institute (I think they're Libertarian) sez:

Why Unilateral Sanctions Are Bad Policy

Unilateral sanctions simply do not work. There are no examples of U.S. unilateral economic sanctions changing the basic character or significant policies of a foreign nation.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-53.html

Also read the link in post #45.

On edit--who's with us on the newest sanctions? France?

[Basileus Basileon]

54. I agree; sanctions are rarely useful.

They usually just end up entrenching the target regime, especially when they're relying on anti-Americanism to keep control. We'd be better served opening them up and brainwashing them with MTV and ESPN, and for that reason I think the sanctions are not beneficial. However, at the same time, there is a large contingent in both nations that believes that the worst-case scenario of war is inevitable. Anything to suggest to them otherwise is okay in my book.

And besides, I don't think we're going to be completely unilateral on this. It depends on the amount of pressure Russia has put on Europe, I think.

[Lerkfish]

64. a bit warhawkish for my tastes, actually

"anti-Americanism"?

wtf?

who is rattling sabers at whom here?

[Basileus Basileon]

68. The Iranian regime certainly uses fear and distrust of America as a tool.

I am not suggesting we do not deserve it.

Both parties are rattling sabers at each other, because both know that the other is the greatest obstacle to control of the Middle East.

[Lerkfish]

70. as a tool to stave off US hegemony?

There is no equal fault here: america has gone off the reservation with their preemptive naked war of agression and regime change to steal oil.

WE"RE the bad guys in this scenario.


and you're still a bit too warhawkish for my taste.

[Basileus Basileon]

72. As a tool to keep in power, despite being extremely unpopular on its own.

There are no "good guys" and "bad guys" in geopolitics. Playground thinking leads to stupid decision-making, and recognition of the political forces and pressures in the world is not warhawkish. I oppose war with Iran. Uninformed opposition, in my eyes, is less valuable than informed opposition.

[Lerkfish]

75. sorry, in this there ARE bad guys.

and we are them, in term of geopolitics.

here's a link for you:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[Basileus Basileon]

76. PNAC is a detrimental force, yes.

PNAC is not in sole control of our foreign policy, thank God. Their influence is waning.

But even still, they are not "bad guys." They are rational, extraordinarily intelligent people. They are wrong, and they are as wrong as a policy advocate could be, but they are not evil. A great deal of their incorrectness, it might be added, comes from a fundamental belief in good guys and bad guys.

[Lerkfish]

79. as I said, we fundamentally disagree: I believe desiring world dominion IS evil

if you think the PNAC is "rational, extraordinarily intelligent people" -- then you have not properly analyzed the naive nature of their agenda.
Everything they plan ONLY WORKS if there is no opposition...you know, people throwing us flowers as liberators for gangraping and assasination their children.

Rational is NOT a term I'd use for the PNAC -- Unless you considered Hitler rational.

The goal of the PNAC is "American Global Leadership", which is just a polite term for complete world domination and geopolitical hegemony.

If you view that as "rational', we again fundamentally disagree.

[Basileus Basileon]

87. Their agenda is naive, yes. But that is not because of a lack of intelligence on their part.

Hitler was mostly rational, but had several horrendously flawed fundamental beliefs regarding human development, eugenics, and the sanctity of all humanity underlying his logic. PNAC is entirely rational--and I stand by my claim that they are to a man very intelligent--but have several horrendously flawed fundamental beliefs regarding nationalism, stability, and reactions to American displays of power at the base of their logic.

I believe the end goal of PNAC is indeed irrational, because I find it rests on flawed assumptions. But it is not irrational because PNAC is insane. It is their sanity that makes them dangerous. And they will not be defeated by calling them insane and "bad guys." They are being defeated by being proven incorrect.

[Lerkfish]

91. we continue to fundamentally disagree

they are dangerous and evil. period.

[Basileus Basileon]

95. I will agree with half of that statement. The other will likely not be settled between us. nt

[TwilightGardener]

86. No, they ARE "bad guys"--they cynically used the fig leaf of wanting to "spread democracy"

as a cover to do two things: secure/control oil, and protect Israel. They have DAMAGED our world standing, wrecked our military, killed many thousands, and violated our national interests--and they knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and had it plotted for many years--they latched on to the useful idiot (Chimpy) as a friendly frontman, and Dick Cheney chose himself to run the show behind the scenes. They have exploited fear of terrorism and 9/11 to control us and our legislators, and so far we're still powerless to stop them. Now they've latched onto Giuliani as their hope to continue the scheme. They are treasonous bastards--NOT just benignly wrongheaded.

[Basileus Basileon]

93. Spreading democracy is not a fig leaf.

It is their goal, of sorts. Their end goal is not oil per se, but rather a world in which American economic supremacy is self-sustaining. In order for this to happen, two things must occur. The first is that all nations submit to open markets. The second is that American military, economic, and diplomatic power (with an emphasis on the first two) force isolated nations to become completely open.

They believe democracy is virtually required for a sustained free market. With economic liberalization come McDonalds, MTV, Apple, and fashion magazines. People soon find that they enjoy the lifestyle the market provides, and vote to continue along this path, according to their theory. This is flawed as well, but it is their belief.

Spreading democracy is not a fig leaf to cover America hegemony. Rather, it is a fundamental aspect of it.

[Lerkfish]

96. sorry, I have to call bullshit on that

if democracy were their goal, we'd not be on such good terms with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Dubai.
none of which are democracies.

you're being extremely naive to think democracy is an actual goal: hegemony is.

[Basileus Basileon]

98. The nations you have listed

are all already members of the American-dominated world of trade. They do not threaten it remotely. Therefore, they are only C-list threats; it is the belief of many neoliberals that they will continue to slowly modernize and liberalize due to domestic pressures, and that those same pressures combined with American diplomatic and economic pressures will prevent backsliding. It is nations of economic value that will not of their own accord fully liberalize that are PNAC's primary targets.

[TwilightGardener]

99. No--there are many places where we could have "spread democracy"--

they weren't stupid, they knew that democracy wasn't going to happen there--just an excuse to invade. Democracy isn't necessary for thriving trade--look at China.

[Basileus Basileon]

103. It's interesting you bring up China.

China is actually a good example of a split in the neoconservative movement. China is an economic powerhouse, but something of an atypical one. It has no fear of trade wars, and is currently locking up exclusive agreements with a number of resource-rich central asian nations. While it is a powerhouse, it is one that does not play nice with the American trade paradigm.

There are those who believe that China's economic liberalization will slowly lead to a sustained political liberalization, and that China will end up fully entering the American world. There are those, calling themselves the Blue Team, who believe that China must be confronted in the next 20-30 years.

(I'm not going to argue that democracy isn't necessary for thriving trade; since I believe the two are not always bound. Neoconservatives believe it is necessary for sustaining that trade.)

[The Magistrate]

102. And Of Course The Problem, Mr. Basileon

Comes with the tremendous flaws in that view, which is in many cases not held honestly by those who expound it.

Perhaps the most important of those flaws is that by the generally accepted meaning of the word democracy, that the will of the people rule, the free-marketeer ideology being spread is profoundly anti-democratic. It is not what the people want, and can only be imposed on them by force against considerable popular resistance. This has been the tale of all efforts to spread 'open markets' by Western imperialist powers, from the earliest days of the Victorian expansion, in which the program you have outlined was frankly known as "Liberal Imperialism".

[Basileus Basileon]

105. I certainly agree with that.

It is a fundamentally flawed view, and one that is disingenuous. Democracy is not an end goal, and there is no belief in human political rights attached to it. Instead, democracy here ends up being no more than a lack of authority able to oppose economic co-optation.

[The Magistrate]

112. A Pleasantly Exact Phrasing, Sir, That Last Is

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[TwilightGardener]

119. No--democracy is NOT necessarily a fundamental aspect of American hegemony--

all we need to have in place in Iraq in order to control things to our liking is a WEAK government and a WEAK citizenry--NOT necessarily a truly genuine and functional democratic system of government. Even a benign "strongman" might challenge us, so we make sure that the government there is an ineffective, crippled muddle of tribes, interests and influence--and since they were "elected", we call it a democracy. Do you really believe that the complete failure in rebuilding Iraq, establishing a functional government, and quelling the insurgency after the invasion was only due to incompetence? Our economic interests in Iraq come down to two things: oil, and war profiteering. Neocons do not give a rat's ass about "opening up" their market and making them a trade partner--that is laughable. They have ONE resource, one viable industry--and it happens to be the one we're really interested in. And it's not the figs.

[The Magistrate]

120. Ms. Naomi Klein, Ma'am

Has written some excellent commentary on the subject of 'free market' restructuring in Iraq, and its full extent and purpose. You would probably enjoy them.

[TwilightGardener]

121. Thank you--I googled her and noticed "Shock Doctrine"--

sounds a lot like what we've been up to in Iraq--decimating it, and then private companies and contractors take advantage of the destruction and the weakened populace to make a profit. At least that's what I'm gathering--will have to check it out.

[The Magistrate]

122. It Is A Great Article, Ma'am

And details the degree to which an attempt was made to restructure everything economic there into a sort of 'duty-free zone', a kind of 'freemarketers utopia' in line with the fondest droolings of the CATO and A.E.I. and Club For Growth. The attempt to graft this ideological fantasia onto the people and society of Iraq did feed a great deal of fire into the chaos and insurgency.

[The Magistrate]

80. The Problem With This Analysis, Ma'am

Is that Iran does have its own hegemonic desires in the region, and these include appropriating oil-rich territories not currently within their borders. This is a fact of the region, dating to Khomeni's rise. There is no difference whatever in the character of ambition between the would-be hegemon's, only in their size....

[Lerkfish]

82. Last I checked, I still have the plumbing to be a man

and in other regards, we also disagree.

I edited to add:

further: are you implying that the US has as much right to a controlling presence halfway around the world in the middle east, vs. a middle eastern country?

neither is good, but you're equating them as equal, just differing in size is overly simplistic.

[The Magistrate]

84. Conquest Is Conquest, Sir

The distance travelled to wreak it is immaterial. Do you consider it morally superior to beat a man to death with a club rather than to shoot him dead at five hundred yards with a rifle? If you consider hegemony over an immediate neighbor superior to hegemony that requires an ocean voyage first, an answer suggests itself.

[Lerkfish]

89. I would consider it better to not presume that hegemony is a valid policy

regardless of who or where. You're jumping to an incorrect conclusion.
I was just attempting to make the point that our presence in the region is more abstract than Iran's.

[The Magistrate]

94. Hegemonic Aspiraton Is A Fact Of Politcal Life, Sir

All governments, in all places and times, expand to the practical limit of their capability to do so.

[Lerkfish]

97. well, so is serial murder, pedophilia and genocide

that doesn't make them preferable

[The Magistrate]

104. But As You Observe, Sir, They Continue

And that despite a good deal of effort to stamp them out. The world must be taken as it is, not as one thinks it ought to be, in considering what people are actually going to do, and the likely consequences of it, anyway.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[Basileus Basileon]

111. Sockpuppetry?

My beliefs are not those of Zandor. I find the comparison somewhat insulting. There is a difference between understanding a belief and supporting it.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[Basileus Basileon]

114. I was not born the day I registered,

nor is my posting style remotely like his. He was emotional and posted short unjustified opinions, and replied to criticism with accusations. My initial post here was a long-ish defense of an opinion, and have attempted to fairly address the points you and others have raised. Frankly, I would be ashamed to have written anything he did.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[Basileus Basileon]

117. Or, rather, it is proof that calling DUers trolls, sockpuppets, and the like is against the rules.

He agreed with me in this one matter, and you responded by attacking his impartiality and insinuating that we were all trolls. Your posts were deleted as per the rules. I don't think that's "proof positive" of a "relationship."

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[nashville_brook]

138. and this is why we adopted the UN Charter, to provide "collective security" against hegemons

a fact of political life -- yes. but, without collective security, we're just as "hegemonous."

[TwilightGardener]

81. Well, it hasn't been working--Iranians have been pretty pro-American--

(the people, not the administration). They are a young population, and we're really squandering an opportunity to reach out and influence them, past their leaders. With stepped-up sanctions and a threat of war, we're GOING to turn them anti-American, that's for sure.

[The Magistrate]

77. The CATO Institute's Opposition, Ma'am

Is based purely on a doctrinaire opposition to government regulation of trade in any form. It is not a serious analysis of whether the things actually work or not: their only interest is pressing for business making any profit anywhere it can wrangle it, whatever the consequences.

[TwilightGardener]

83. Right about CATO's motives--but, what do we expect out of these new

sanctions--that they will really work to change the regime's behavior? I doubt they will--seems like just a way to say, "Hey, look everybody--we tried (our own) sanctions, and they didn't work, nuke program's still on--sorry, we have to bomb them now". Is there a recent history of unilateral sanctions being successful?

[Lerkfish]

85. no

sanctions are used disingenuously as pretexts for pretending to "exhaust all diplomatic options" as if sanctions were diplomatic: they're not, they're punitive.
Punitive actions are iherently UNdiplomatic, as they do not encourage exchange of ideas or influence but instead impose control unilaterally.

Anyone who says sanctions are a diplomatic option are mistaken: they are symptoms of FAILED or UNATTEMPTED diplomacy.

[TwilightGardener]

90. Yup--you said it.

[The Magistrate]

92. You May well Be Right About the Purpose, Ma'am

Sanctions, whether unilateral or by a wide coallition, are generally done for one of two reasons: either to be able say, 'well, see, we are at least doing something' in a situation that is difficult and intractable to the point not much actually can be, or will really be, done, or else to be able say, as you suggest, 'well, we have tried everything else, and only force remains'. A third, more seldom encountered reason, is to provoke an enemy to hostile action, or place an enemy in a postion where, from its point of view, hostile action is the only viable course on its own political terms.

[flpoljunkie]

55. How about "CYA" then?

[Basileus Basileon]

56. I have no doubts that was part of it.

Partly to send a message to Democrats, "Hey, I don't really want war, I was just trying to look tough for the centrist voters."

Partly to send a message to the Administration, "Hey, I don't really want war, I just want to apply pressure to Iran and then leave it at that."

[TwilightGardener]

45. Webb and Hagel (and Lugar) aren't "frustrated"--they're WARNING us about what is

going to happen. We're now imposing unilateral sanctions, which is another step to war. Not my opinion, my Senator's opinion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2136577&mesg_id=2136577

[Lerkfish]

63. "sanctions delay a miliatry strike,"

but they do nothing to prevent one.

[Basileus Basileon]

66. Depends. nt

[Lerkfish]

67. if it depends on the goodwill of the current administration, there is no 'depends"

about it, sanctions WILL precede invasion

[Basileus Basileon]

69. The administration is not monolithic.

Were it, we would already have gone to war with Iran and Syria both. There are many forces within the administration pushing against war, and many forces on the fence. As I've already noted, sanctions are likely to push some of the more-hawkish fence-sitters in the anti-war camp.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[Basileus Basileon]

73. What makes you think I'm defending the administration?

They aren't monolithic. There are many people in it, and many of them disagree. Bush and Cheney are reckless, warmongering fools. There are many people in State who are not, and they do have some degree of sway. There are many in the Pentagon who see Iran confrontationally, for the reasons I stated above. I believe sanctions will nudge them towards the wait-and-see camp, rather than the only-option-is-war camp.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[Texas_Kat]

40. Welcome to DU!

Partisans on all sides call each other names all the time. Don't sweat it.

Thank you for your thoughts on this issue. Personally, I'm tired of all the screaming, it gets in the way of thinking.

[madfloridian]

51. In other words, it is about controlling the Middle East.

which is what we here have been saying for years.

It is not about fear of terror, terror, terror, it is about "spreading Democracy" so we can have their resources.

And we don't care who dies so we get control.

[Basileus Basileon]

52. Pretty much, yeah.

Nations don't launch wars in hopes of making someone else happier. If we wanted to make the Iraqis happier, we would have baked them cakes and air-dropped them in.

Or lifted the sanctions.

Or funded nuclear and renewable energy, destroying petro-despots.

[Lerkfish]

62. deleted

[Carolina]

78. You need to study history

1953: Iran elects president Muhammad Moussadeq (sp?) who wants to nationalize Iran's oil for the benefit of Iranians. Makes sense. But British Petroleum and the CIA (US) won't allow that to happen. So MM is overthrown and the Shah of Iran (puppet beholden to UK and US) is INSTALLED! As a result, BP and the US get 80%(40 each) control of Iran's national resource, OIL, while the people of Iran are left with a mere 20%

They live with this crap until 1979, then along comes the Ayatollah (not a good man, but nonetheless) who topples the Shah and under whom the US embassy is overtaken, hostages and all.

The other factor, backdrop to all of this, is Israel, another US/UK creation in 1948 out of what was previously PALESTINE and the ongoing, overwhelming financial and military support of Israel.

Then don't forget the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war when the US, pissed with Iran for the above, armed Iraq with all those WMDs (chemical weapons). And then, of course, turned on Iraq (and the US puppet Saddam Hussein) ...

So what did Iran learn:

1)the US is indeed the Great Satan, a bully that preaches freedom but uses and abuses other nations and peoples (with the exception of Israel which can never do wrong!)
2)the best defense is a strong offense

[Basileus Basileon]

101. I am certainly aware

of the reasons for Iran's distrust of America.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[Moochy]

136. Interesting

[jmp]

58. k/r

...

[Carrieyazel]

123. Hillary, great move on your part---NOT!

[AtomicKitten]

126. She didn't learn the first time the dog bit her.

[flpoljunkie]

131. Even Paul Begala admitted today that politically Obama had the upper hand on this issue

[MethuenProgressive]

127. Obama co-sponsored Iran bill almost exactly like Lieberman-Kyl in April.

Obama co-sponsored Iran bill almost exactly like Lieberman-Kyl in April.
In April, Obama was all for desinating the IRG as a terrorist organization,
co-sponsoring a bill saying hust that:

Obama suddenly 'forgets' Iran position - Dissociative Amnesia?
http://www.FirstRead.MSNBC.com

[Lerkfish]

129. so, do you approve of both bills?

or just Kyl-Lieberman?

its confusing. I'm not sure if you're saying he was WRONG then but Clinton is RIGHT now for what you view as the same thing?

:shrug:

[DemFemme]

134. I can't believe there are people here defending anything titled "KYL-LIEBERMAN"

Yeah, I trust neocon Senators Kyl and Lieberman and IWR champion Hillary more than Jimmy Carter, Jim Webb
and Mario Cuomo. :sarcasm:

[flpoljunkie]

139. This is what Senator Jim Webb said right before the vote on Kyl-Lieberman...

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I have grave concerns about this amendment. I spoke at length on the floor yesterday about them. We have never characterized an entity of a foreign government as a foreign terrorist organization. If we are saying that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is conducting terrorist activities, what we are saying, in effect, is that the Revolutionary Guard is conducting military activities against us. This has the danger of becoming a de facto authorization for military force against Iran.

We have not had one hearing. I recommended yesterday that the amendment be withdrawn so we can consider it in the appropriate committees. I oppose passage at this time in the hope that we can get further discussion.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110QKVHjq:e19685:

(Italics mine.)

[DemFemme]

133. That was before the final IAEA report. The Kyl-Lieberman report was unecessary on 9/25.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but Obama signed on with 68 other senators including Clinton and Webb
but it never came up for a vote. After the IAEA report came out, Iran was revealed to be years away from
nuclear success.

[OneBlueSky]

135. the hypocrisy has become so blatant that they can't even see it . . .

if the Revolutionary Guard is a "terrorist" organization, what do we call the U.S. military, which is engaging in an ILLEGAL occupation of a sovereign nation -- and decimating both its people and the land itself? . . .

obscene notion? . . . you bet . . . but no more obscene than this latest bit of BushCo/Congressional war mongering . . .