The Democrats on Iran: the silence is deafening ...

[welshTerrier2]

things are going very, very badly in Iraq ... even those Americans who almost never pay attention to the news can see the problems ... polls on the Iraq occupation are getting worse and worse for bush ...

so how is a poor president to launch an attack on neighboring Iran amid such a negative national mood?

the answer is easy ... blame Iran for what's going on in Iraq ... even the Democrats agree that non-Iraqi terrorists have been entering Iraq to join the fighting against the Americans ... of course, the truth is that most of these foreign fighters are coming from Saudi Arabia ...

next, keep beating the drums about Iran building nuclear weapons ...

and next, stir up a little hate from the old hostage crises from way back in 1979 ... look at this article from today's Reuters: "As soon as I saw his picture in the paper, I knew that was the bastard," said Scott, of Jonesboro, Georgia. "The new president of Iran is a terrorist." (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=5&u=/nm/20050630/ts_nm/iran_usa_ahmadinejad_dc)

let's see, foreign terrorists, nuclear weapons, hostage crises ... and a new religious "extremist" (this must mean he's too religious) president who's a terrorist (well, 25 years ago ... maybe) ... that should be enough to justify an attack on Iran ...

so bush is busy making his case for war ... but WHERE THE HELL ARE THE DEMOCRATS ?????????????

Democrats should be talking about what weapons expert Hans Blix just stated about Iran's nuclear capabilities (see below) ... are Democrats really going to let bush peddle the WMD lies again? the Democratic Party's platform mistakenly suggests that Iran could convert its civilian nuclear program into weapons and the platform calls for mandatory inspections ... isn't that kind of how we got conned into invading Iraq? are Democrats trying to "out-hawk" the republicans? have they all gone insane?

During his Senate floor testimony on the Bolton nomination, Barack Obama accused the Iranians of "meddling in the affairs of Iraq" ... Has anyone heard any complaints about Iranian "meddling" from the Iraqi government?

The time to stand up and clearly state we, as Democrats, do not support and attack on Iran is NOW ... if we, and our elected leaders, wait until the Iran War Resolution is placed before the Congress, we're off to the next stop in bush's never-ending global war ... the propaganda machines are all being put into motion NOW and the Democrats remain squirreled away on this issue of critical national and international importance ... no one is going to vote for a party that fails to lead ... the Democrats are failing to lead on policy and it's going to make for very, very bad politics ...

Here's what Hans Blix said last week about Iran's nuclear capabilities (http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?DOCID=1P1:110378053&refid=ip_encyclopedia_hf):

Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Thursday it will take many years for Tehran to produce the highly enriched uranium needed for an atomic bomb.

Blix also dismissed worries about a new nuclear reactor being built in Iran, saying it was not suitable to produce nuclear weapons.

"They have many years to go before they will be able to produce highly enriched uranium for a bomb and I believe there is plenty of room for negotiations," Blix said in an interview with Swedish Radio.

********************

[SteppingRazor]

1. This is still a tempest in a teapot

If we see a march to war like the one leading up to Iraq, it will be different this time around. Like Bush says, Fool me once, shame on... shame on... uh, you?

[snickersnee]

6. remember, the last "march to war"??

in retrospect, it was more ceremonial than substantive, given when the secret air war apparently began.

Maybe * can't launch a full-scale invasion right now, but he can certainly start dropping big bad boys, and perhaps precipitate a greater crisis.

But maybe you are right, and *this time* the people will rise up in righteous outrage, demanding vengeance for bloody deception, arming themselves with facts and courage, confronting the murderous liars with pitchforks and inquests...

..........:popcorn:

[JohnyCanuck]

2. Well Scott, much of the rest of the world has a similar reaction

when they see a newspaper pic of Busholini.

As soon as I saw his picture in the paper, I knew that was the bastard," said Scott, of Jonesboro, Georgia. "The new president of Iran is a terrorist."

[leveymg]

3. All sides are painted into corners right now. The Europeans control

the game ball. Here's a recap:

Sharon and the neocons were pushing Bush into an attack, but that got red-flagged when the FBI busted the OSP-AIPAC spy ring. The Euro-3 also refused to press the matter into the UN Security Council for sanctions. The Russians and Chinese signalled that they would veto a sanctions resolution. The Saudis are happy getting rich with the status quo rise in oil prices that go along with escalating tensions, short of war. So are the Russians.

No war without EEU support. No way. That means that any new terrorist provocation is likely to be targeted at London-Paris-Berlin and has to be plausibly pinned on Tehran. Not likely.

Deadlock, for now.

[sandnsea]

4. What's Europe negotiating about?

Do tell.

[leveymg]

5. The E-3 aren't disinterested referees. They depend on Iran for

about 25 percent of their oil imports. There is also considerable trade in everything from caviar to car parts. On the other hand, the Europeans have to go along with BushCo, to a point, but not beyond. More than anything else, the Europeans want to avoid another immensely destabilizing war against Iran. They know how dangerous that could be for everyone.

[sandnsea]

7. So they're just playing along?

Pretending Iran might consider building nuclear weapons? Is that it?

[welshTerrier2]

8. an evening ...

kickeroo ...