« Dick Kicked Over Condi's Soapbox | Main | The Real Reason »

September 24, 2007


Walks like another AUMF, talks like another AUMF, and even smells like another AUMF. So why don't they call it another AUMF?

'Cause this time the Democrats who are going to vote for it want to be able to say: "Who knew?"

I can hear Junya and Deadeye now: "You gave us authorization. It's right here in black and white."

And Jowls Lieberman too: "It was my firm intent with this resolution that we bomb Iran. Nobody could think differently."

congress was stupid enough to vote for war in iraq... they will be stupid enough to vote for dumbass resolutions against iran as well... it is a given.. has a lot to do with re election chances for those who decide to challenge the israel lobby... look what happened with lincoln chafee.. don't mess with the israel lobby, or you will be cut down.. america is a servant to israel.. that is what it looks like to this outsider.

the kyl/lieberman amendment S.AMDT.3017 was introduced last week and both lieberman and kyl spoke in support of it at some length today (on the senate floor). i understand the vote may come as early as tomorrow (see comments here and here)

Might I suggest primary challengers for any Democrat who votes for this?

The statement by Rozen's "Hill veteran" exemplifies what's wrong with the political discourse in our country:

"This will be a hard amendment for Members to oppose ... because a no vote can be spun as 'You don’t care about Iranian munitions killing American troops.'"

Politicians who worry more about spin than the meaning of what they are voting on. And they are right to worry because this self-fulfilling prophecy grips the mind of the folks with their hands on the levers of power (the media, the think tanks, the leaders of both parties). And so it is that the most formidable military power in history is squandered on a series of aimless wars. Wars fought for no other reason than to fight wars.

Pardon me while I puke.

Italian is a much more lyrical and compact language than the english in those two paragraphs - in italian, instead of all that, you could have simply written: Fucka You!

It looks like "face-slapping Iran's insolence" is Bush's current strategery...

Well then, "anonymous Hill veteran," just MAYBE it would behoove the Democratic caucus to find one, SINGLE "sacrificial lamb" - who can visualize the possibility that five years from now, when he or she is up for re-election, the memory of this lamb's dastardly deed may have faded just a bit - to OBJECT to the still-pending (at least I saw no sign of it today) UNANIMOUS Consent Request that will otherwise usher this bill to the floor with banners flying tomorrow or later this week. Because upon such an objection, VOILA - unless a very rare vote to override that objection is scheduled by Harry Reid - NO ONE will be "forced" to vote in favor of, NOR to find the humanity and conscience to vote in opposition to, this pathetic, puerile, uncivilized, violent and UNPROVOKED rhetoric against the sovereign Persian nation of Iran. Or, "Hill veteran," did you actually mean to say that all the Democratic Senators actually WANT to vote for this, because AIPAC told them to?

It's amazing how Arabs, Persians, and Hispanics ("terrorists" and "Islamofascists" in "polite" discourse) are the new Blacks and Jews ("communists" in "polite" discourse) as objects of White America's pent-up need to hate, and how unbelievably unmentionable and unacknowledged is the unseemly lust for hate speech demonstrated on the floor of our SENATE. Apparently 9/11 has unleashed a sick sort of "justification" for open racial bias, spleen-venting and hate speech against whole classes of "foreign" people or their leaders - even in Senator Schumer's favored AG nominee - without a passing comment or the slightest fear of rebuttal from any of the many non-Arab, non-Persian, non-Hispanic white persons in our federal legislature. After all, defending the innocence of an Arab, Persian or Hispanic mother and child (not to mention the father) and condemning their mistreatment at the hands of our nation would be - what? Unpatriotic? UnAmerican? Uncivilized? Impolitic? Rude? Uncomfortable for the Corporate Agenda? What ties the tongues of the men and women who have authorized these atrocities in our name? Pure, nationalist self-worship at the expense of the rest of humanity? It's absolutely contemptible.

When are the Democrats going to file a binding resolution forbidding any military action anywhere without express consent from Congress as mandated by the Constitution?

pow wow said "What ties the tongues of the men and women who have authorized these atrocities in our name? Pure, nationalist self-worship at the expense of the rest of humanity? It's absolutely contemptible."

More and more as I stand back and ponder our nation's political discourse, I find the parallels between it and 1930's Germany strikingly similar.

The paranoiac Hate speech, the raving "America Must Be Right" pseudo-nationalism, the propensity to see enemies behind every bush (pun intended *g*) and finally, the paranoid's answer to all perceived threats: Attack them before they attack me.

And to all who would think this but more of Mad Dogs' humor, I fearfully tell you: It. Is. Not. So!

I remember from my History lessons how unbelievable it seemed that when asked "Why?", the ordinary German folks replied: "I didn't know."

I'm starting to believe it now, and that is really scary.

Why Iran?

Not the BS "they are supporting insurgents, they are going nuclear" stuff poured out by the neocons, but really, why?

Has anyone seen anything that looks like a thoughtful discussion about why a sane person would think expanding a war was a good idea?


It's the only way out of Iraq. They can't win a counter-insurgency, but they can try to turn the whole battlefield back into a bombing run. Turn it into a strentgh again.

Question is, when the oil gets shut off, how long does our war machine last before it runs out of gas. Because I can tell you--Chavez isn't going to fuel our war against Iran.

And China? They're not going to be too patient with us fucking with their oil contracts in iran, either.

This is what has been described before as the "slippery slope". We are on it and accelerating. Can any of you doubt, after seeing Act 1 of this play begin in the same month of 2002, (after being told that no-one introduces a new car in August) that this is the attempt to begin Act 2?

Having been on the short end of the phenomena that led to the 1950-60s civil rights movement, I've been worried about this country for longer than a lot of folk, but never has it been as bad as last night, as I watched the first installment of Burns's WWII doc.

Even with all the flaws displayed by that earlier America, right down to the internment of thousands of citizens never proven disloyal, the momentum of that society apparently in a completely different direction than now. Which makes us ... ?

(Fred Korematsu bio with a link to the amicus brief he joined in Rumsfeld v. Padilla at the bottom.)

Does the House have to approve this amendment in conference?

Wrote to Boxer and Feinstein ('we read every e-mail we get' she claims) urging them to vote against this one, because we can't afford in in any way: we have a broken military, a broken state department, no allies in the area to speak of (the Saudis and Pakistan may be allies, but they're shaky ones, and anyway they're the ones that brought us 9/11), and we don't have the money for it, because Bush has spent all our money, our children's mone, and our grandchildren's money, and is deeply in debt to the PRC and Japan.

Okay, it's a little exaggerated, but it should get their attention for oh, about two seconds ... before their donations from A*P*C kick in and they again forget which way is up.

Why Iran? Haven't you heard? It's nothing new! It's that old Imperial Policy called, "I fucked-up, now You pay."

In 64CE Rome burned significantly. The Imperial public relations effort was botched, and the net result was: The People of Rome suspected the Fire was all Nero's fault. Asked to explain his shortcomings in handling the Fire, Nero instead conflated the origin of the fire with "a class of people hated for their abominations."

In other words (iow), he found a "tar baby" for his Fire fuck-up - who had nothing whatsoever to do with the Fire. He demonized them, then had them hunted down, stripped of their possessions, and sadistically killed.

From the wiki:


"According to Tacitus, the population searched for a scapegoat and rumors held Nero responsible. To diffuse blame, Nero targeted a sect called the Christians. He ordered Christians to be thrown to dogs, while others were crucified and burned.

Tacitus described the event:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."


Hey that story sounds familiar!! In at least 2 scary ways. Sounds a lot like the evangelical version of genesis. And then there are the happenings in a more recent time...

Yeah! We're doomed.

Quick what's the solution to the fall of Rome, the last days, and today??

I've been holding off on this comment, but since somebody brought up the fire in Rome in 64CE, I'm going to say it. The fundamentalist Christians in this country seem intent on recreating the Empire that crucified Jesus of Nazareth. Their preferred economic policies would return the world to the extreme stratification that existed in the Roman empire. Their foreign policy tracks that of Imperial Rome as well. Of course, they support a President who really seems to think he has the same position of power vis a vis the legislature that Caesar had. On the legal front they've rolled back 800 years of the rule of law and they're working on the other 1200.

They've stopped worshipping the God I know and started worshipping Imperial America. I like to remind them that the only people Jesus explicitly condemned to Hell were the rich who claimed to worship God but didn't feed, clothe, and shelter the poor.

Good point Mr. Ockham.

If Bush and Cheney want to bomb Iran, they will. Even if the Democrats suddenly grow the balls to protest, they'll never be able to pass legislation preventing it, thanks to Der Lieberfascist and the Republican locksteppers. But the blowback (gas at $10 a gallon, renewed terrorist attacks, the economy tipping into depression) will be enormous and while, sadly, an attack will harm Iranian civilians, it might just bury the Republican party for good.

4jkb4ia: Does the House have to approve this amendment in conference?

Yes. This vile amendment, if it is attached to the defense authorization bill, joins a looonnng list of other amendments added in the Senate (look up H.R.1585 at thomas.loc.gov to view the sausage-making so far), including the earlier Lieberman amendment requesting a report from the administration every 60 days on "Iranian government support for attacks against U.S. troops". That one passed 97-0 in July.

So the conference committee reconciliation might take awhile. By the time the first of those reports gets delivered, the attack might already be on.

I peg it for late December or January, after our ruling regime has "exhausted the diplomatic options". The base near the Iranian border in Iraq is scheduled for completion in November. The Truman carrier group arrives to join the Enterprise then. The IAEA consultation with Iran to resolve the outstanding questions about their nuclear program is scheduled to be completed in December (if it gets going; the EU gave this initiative only tepid diplomatic support, despite it being the most promising development in years if the issue were actually nuclear weapons).

If not then, then next spring. Oh, and the answer to DefendourConstitution's excellent question: When are the Democrats going to file a binding resolution forbidding any military action anywhere without express consent from Congress as mandated by the Constitution?

When pigs fly.

The House already rejected McGovern's bill to forbid a strike on Iran without specific Congressional authorization with 100 Democrats voting 'no'. Reid won't bring Webb's similar bill to the floor.

Hell, given the two-minute-hate atmosphere surrounding Ahmadinejad's visit, and the extent to which the lies have taken hold, it's hard for me to imagine Congress refusing authorization for such a strike even if Bush were to give them a chance to vote on it.

I remember some coincidences concerning re-ignitions after successful suppression and the proximity of gangs of christ fans . Perhaps the prosecutions were pressured but it would be strange to just dismiss the apocalyptic visions of the christ gangs and their devotion to that rather than , oh lets say "Reason" , in any age .

W.O...evangelicals also have the highest divorce rate. Something about their intolerance just doesn't work very well, does it? But can we by our behavior and role modeling..."Be the change we want to make in the world"? Are we strong enough to make the changes that would change the world? I can only try, even if it kills me.

I would much rather die trying to role model peace than die by taking other lives with me in a war. To me, that was the ultimate scary message of Jesus Christ. The message most of us,(not just evangelicals) reject. He showed us how it works. So did Martin Luther King. We have had our role models present the reality of peace.

Martin Luther King and Jesus Christ did not come back from the dead, but I believe have left us with important words that live!! They, in that sense have risen from the dead. No magic, but "magical" (or perhaps important to our evolution and survival) that the role modeling they did does not die. In Jesus's case it continues to survive several thousand years after his death.

It might cost our lives, but the secret weapon is our minds. We can keep peace in our hearts no matter what the other person is doing to us.(Even Bush)

It is within the ability of the human being to do this. But truly, most of us, do not see the logic and have lost the desire. We cannot see the power in this. We cannot seem to process the fact that Jesus, Martin Luther King were a threat to those who use power and control. (and many others...Mahatma, Indira, many, many others.)

You cannot control someone who is willing to die for peace. That is a threat to those who are in power. It's not an accident that the most peaceful role models are persecuted and killed. Their example is dangerous the status quo. Very dangerous. It gets to the heart of the power. It's like a wooden stake to the vampire. But it will cost us our lives to deliver the remedy.

It's far more effective for the
universe if we are willing to die for peace than it is to die using power and control forcing "others" to make a change. Einstein wrote much about the logic of peace. It is a wise mind choice. It is a choice that is hard in the short run but better for the universe in the long run. It's just that most of us, fall back to the primitive position of power and control. And yes, fear is the weapon that keeps us in line when power and control is used. It works and the only weapon against it is peace in our hearts and minds, a long view instead of a short sighted one, a view that is univerally good not just personally convenient and a refusal to be controlled by the fear.

Sorry... I just have to get that out once a month or so!!

I agree with the comment that the Dems won't stop an attack on Iran.

They won't even stop a flying monkey like von Spansky from getting on the FEC, so Iran is way out of their league.

I guess if the US destroyed the balance of power in the Mideast and Bush is going to end his term with a failed state in the middle of it all, he would like only "friendly" states like Israel and Saudi Arabia to remain intact.

But that is so thin, stupid, and irrational an excuse, I keep thinking there has to be a rationale that someone not crazy would recognize.

I Called Hagel and Nelson on Spanky.

Fire in Rome - Nero persecutes the Christians
Fire in Berlin - Hitler persecutes the Jews
Fire in New York - Bush persecutes the Muslims?

The excesses of Power treat "other" Religions as Fodder for Ideology.

Our Founding Fathers were not dreamy idealists. They said, in effect, "To the Inheritors of Our Freedom in Future Times: Long after we are gone, if you ever see something like Church and State and Money merging together - then Break Glass on the Last Remedy We Know to Take: Impeachment. It doesn't matter if you can make a Criminal Case against the Leader and his Party, or not - The Loss of Faith by the Governed for the Government is Fatal to Our Design, which is based on Individual Freedom. We've seen it before, but People are quick to forget. In this situation, Take Our Advice: Chop the Head of the Snake off, before it's too late."

Because, if we don't take the Remedy, then the Sickness is likely to lead to...

I called McCaskill about it, but I don't think the person who answered the phone had ever heard of this amendment nor did I do a good job describing it.

Has anyone seen anything that looks like a thoughtful discussion about why a sane person would think expanding a war was a good idea? Perhaps because Bush, Cheney, et al., are uneducated and stupid besides? As Vietnam wound down, some people were determined to deal with the mechanism of violence. Check it out: we've been down this road.

The revised version passed. Clinton voted for it. She really is planning on staying in Iraq.

If you want to see the vote breakout go to http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_three_sections_with_teasers/legislative_home. Click on the votes link and look for Kyl-Lieberman. I suggest that if your senator voted in favor, you should contact that person and give'em hell. (And mention it to anybody you know that cares.)

By the way, Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.) spoke eloquently and to the point against this amendment. He's a former Marine Vietnam vet. I would love to take all those Democrats who voted in favor of this amendment and put them in active combat for at least six months; alternatively, have them live as ordinary civilians in a hot zone. Then maybe they'd take their responsibilities a bit more seriously...

When mentally deranged, plot a war is not different from a crime committed by criminal robbing a house and killing it’s occupants, that is not a war only a premeditated crime and will judge as such by court of God. Even Hitler could not come up with a better scenario.

When mentally deranged, plot a war is not different from a crime committed by criminal robbing a house and killing it’s occupants, that is not a war only a premeditated crime and will judge as such by court of God. Even Hitler could not come up with a better scenario.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad