7 Comments so far

1. namvet67 February 23rd, 2007 5:44 pm

   Congress has to take back the power to go to war. Until they do that we are always going to be under a threat of war. Congress should have no higher priority than to reclaim it’s authority to be the sole power to decide on war.
   Hoa Binh

2. RichM February 23rd, 2007 8:00 pm

   The authors observe that the media & the Democrats are the only 2 institutions which theoretically could stop this insanity. But it’s clear that the media would rather talk about Anna Nicole Smith & Bradgelina.

   As for the Democrats — they’ve already diddled away 6 weeks since the “surge” speech. Since their real function is not opposition, but rather providing pseudo-liberal cover for Bush, we are unlikely to see them “weighing in forcefully” against an attack. They don’t have the guts, or even the will.

   The authors write “…Cheney and Bush are not on a political suicide mission.” Actually, C & B don’t care what the public thinks at all, and are desperate men. They have a certain logic, but it’s the logic of ruthless criminals. Their main concern is what they can get away with — and in a system with a corrupt media & spineless opposition, they can get away with almost anything.

3. Robert Settgast February 24th, 2007 11:52 pm

   WAR RESOLUTION

   All Too Relevant Quote: How is the World Ruled, & how do wars start?—
   Diplomats tell lies to journalists, & then believe what they read.
   (Karl Kraus, Austrian Press,1874-1936)

   Even with our limited information on this war, it is all to evident that our legislators erred when they granted this unlearned and arrogant administration the authority to embark on and perpetuate this ill conceived war.

   The weapons inspectors were there and we had contained Saddam. The resulting “civil war” and chaos had been predicted by many informed experts, and should have been obvious–but their advice was ignored. One can only imagine the extent of disaster if Saddam had unleashed some biological, chemical, or primitive nuclear weapons on our troops during the invasion.

   After nearly four years, the only rational option left now is for congress to seize the war powers from the president–and then pursue a logical course to conclude this misadventure. This would include not only recognition of the recent advisory commissions recommendations (which the administration ignored) but also curbing profiteering, promoting measures for energy conservation and global warming mitigation to reduce our dependance on their oil–and regain some worldwide trust.

   The alternative is to permit continuation of this disastrous quagmire, while risking a war with Iran and destabilization of the entire area– and further damaging our international stature.

   Robert Settgast
   San Rafael, CA
   rhsettgast@hotmail.com

4. Alexander Syrus February 25th, 2007 11:41 am

   Touche to RichM (two posts up). I have long lost any hope in the mainstream media. They are after ratings and war reports bring about much more profit than do peace tales. Call me a cynic, but as for public opinion in affluent countries,I just wouldn’t hold my breath, simply because affluence breeds complacency, which is not exclusive to Western countries either (Japan is one good example of that). I’ve been to many countries and noticed that, generally, as long as people’s bellies and car tanks are full, they would rather sita back and be entertained by any old silly TV shows or movies and couldn’t care less about how and why other nations are destroyed.

   I’d like to add that the conflict between the US and Iran is not really about the possibility of Iran ever obtaining nuclear weapons. It’s not comletely about oil either, and it has certainly never been about democratization of that nation. The ongoing conflict is essentially premised in the US doctrine of maintaining its predominance in the world through any means available. And dangerously, to people like Bush and Cheney, the end, no matter how deadly and catastrophic, justifies the means.

   It is, therefore, clear that the US leadership, be it the Republicans or Democrats, simply do not want to see any independent nation powerful enough to dare defy US hegemony, particularly if that nation (Iran) happens to be located in the center of the world’s main source of energy. The US and its client states, not to mention the Likud neocons of Israel, simply do not wish to have in that important region they consider their own, yet another country such as China, which has become strong enough to stand up to them.

   In short, the ongoing animosity expressed towards Iran is about control, which is the main strategic source - the lynchpin of the US political doctrine.

5. machi February 25th, 2007 3:20 pm

   Last week’s agreement with North Korea, which Cheney was almost certainly against (it was openly denounced by many hardliners such as former UN Ambassador John Bolton) is a case in point. A key objective of signing off on this agreement was to begin to re-establish the President’s credibility on foreign policy and security issues.

   Perhaps another “key objective” is freeing hands for grabing, as germans and japanese did, signing treaties with the soviets in the eve of WW II.

6. sANDmeLT February 25th, 2007 4:05 pm

   “We don’t have to bomb Iran because the Israli
   war machine will do it for us.”
   When our administration grants the Isralis an air-corridor through Iraq to “surgically
   bomb” Iranian nuclear facilities, then the
   rhetoric of senatorial dialogue will do little to save us from catastrophe. The message to our government must be “keep Iran
   alive and unspoiled.” “Do not kowtow to our
   fearful client Israel.” Give Israel hope for equity and peace… (to be cont.)

7. bnsocihohena December 12th, 2007 10:33 am

   titxicisikivo…

   extevivuruza…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)