is the Democratic Party fully engaged on the IRAN issue???

[welshTerrier2]

we may be on the brink of attacking Iran ... some, however far fetched the possibility may or may not be, worry that a world war could be the result ...

clearly, it could lead to a very ugly confrontation between the US and China (and Russia) ... it could drive a rift between Islam and the West for generations ... it would severely destabilize the oil markets and maybe even our access to OPEC oil ... it certainly would have a catastrophic effect on an already seriously hurting US budget ... and this doesn't even begin to take into consideration the staggering drain on an already badly compromised military ...

so, it's hard to argue that the entire issue of Iran is not critically important ...

so, I went poking around tonight on democrats.org to see if I could find some semblance of a Party position or even thoughts from prominent Democrats ... now one can certainly argue that a website is not the absolute and final voice of the Party's positions; neverthless, it is the official party website ...

here is a list of all "fragments" on Iran I could find that seemed to be, at least in some way, trying to express a position:

1. Iran is seeking a nuclear capacity
2. Along the way we've failed to halt proliferation with both North Korea and Iran
3. (We will) stop nuclear weapons programs in Iran
4. The memo is coming to light at the same time that Iran is continuing to defy the international community with regard to its growing nuclear ambitions, left unchecked while the White House pursued the war in Iraq.
5. Democrats will fight to focus on the real threats confronting America: destroying Al Qaeda and its terrorist networks, hunting down Osama Bin Laden and confronting the growing threat of nuclear weapons in Iran ...
6. Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran

now Democrats may not all agree on what we should do about Iran; but these few paltry comments indicate an abysmal failure of leadership ... at a bare minimum, an absolute minimum, there is just no excuse for Democrats not to demand that bush should have to return to the Congress for a new authorization if he wanted to attack Iran ... Democrats did raise this issue during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing with Rice a few months ago but I've heard nothing since then ... one should also question all the statements above as to the reality of an Iranian nuclear "weapons" program ... it's important to distinguish between nuclear energy programs and weapons programs ... are we going to believe bush again when he calls it a weapons program?

does any Democrat want to stand up and point out that the Iranian issue might just be about oil and oil bourses and not really about nuclear weapons at all? no, not too many seem to want to talk about that ... certainly not on the Democratic Party's website ...

I'm confident one Democrat here or another Democrat there MAY have addressed the issue of Iran in some detail. It's just not enough. How many here let alone the general public heard their message? How many believe they are fighting this battle everyday because of how critical it is? Will they wait until it's too late to react to bush's next insanity?

Has the Democratic Party and its most prominent representatives demonstrated genuine leadership on this critical issue? Have they shared their vision with the nation and gotten their message out? Are they fully engaged? or are they all still sound asleep?

[UDenver20]

1. I'm so angry right now....

This is the email I just sent to the DNC.

Its probably not the best expression of my feelings, and its probably misplaced anger, but nonetheless it felt good to voice my opinions to Chairman Dean.

---------------------------------

The President is seriously evaluating the use of nuclear technology in a first strike against Iran. MY GOD.. WE (DEMS) AREN'T ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL - WE'RE IN A FULL ON HIBERNATION.

Why isn't every single person with a D after his or her name coming out 110% against this nonsense? Where's the leadership from Pelosi? From Reid? From Kerry? FROM YOU?

This one is so ridiculous that some republicans might even follow our leadership. That would be nice for a change.

Governor Dean - Democrats HAVE to oppose the President on this one - not just for political reasons, but for the safety of our nation. The President is not only untrustworthy - he's clearly dangerous.

This opportunity is a GIANT softball pitch right down the middle. If the DNC isn't smart enough to capitalize on this and take a leadership position - its too damn stupid to succeed and deserves to remain the minority party forever.

The President is MANUFACTURING THE NEXT NUCLEAR CRISIS. Hello? Hello? Anyone want to object? Maybe a Democrat? PLEASE?

Bush might as well have gift-wrapped this for us. JEFF GANNON DOESN'T GIVE IT UP THIS EASY.

Whatever we all (DLC-types and DFA-types, moderates and progressives, those inside the beltway and those outside the beltway) have to do to get on the same page - THIS IS THE THING to get on the same page about.

A little OPPOSITION please?!?!!?

[welshTerrier2]

2. nice job, denver ...

i doubt the Party wants to discuss the issue at all ...

we are canaries in the mine, my friend ... they didn't listen last time and they're not listening now ....

[karynnj]

11. Kerry answered on MTP

last Sunday - It got nearly no press because Democrats don't - Now if McCain were on and called for invasion, it would have been the top of the news.

From the Transcript:
(Tim Russert brings up the Washington Post article, U.S. is studying military strike options on Iran.” Russert mentions that the article speaks of using tactical nuclear devices against Iran and asks if Senator Kerry supports that. )

"SEN. KERRY: No. I think that it—that is, that is another example of the move-from-the-hip—shoot-from-the-hip, cowboy diplomacy of this administration. For the United States of America, at a time when we’re already trying to wrestle with Iran and the, the proliferation of nuclear weapons—and North Korea, that is not paying attention to the six-party talks, partly because of what’s happening in Iraq, and they don’t need to—for us to think about exploding tactical nuclear weapons in some way is the height of irresponsibility. It would be destructive to any nonproliferation efforts, and the military assessment is it won’t work. That even this bombing strategy itself would not work. Once again, the administration is not engaged in the real kind of diplomacy—now, when President Clinton had to deal with Bosnia, sat down with Yeltsin, persuaded him that it was in the interest of Russia even to be involved there, I think that—you know, you—we, we’ve got to have leadership that stops proceeding so unilaterally, and in, in such a, a, you know, sort of overtly militaristic way, and start putting people together to resolve this.

MR. RUSSERT: But the, the Iranians have said, “Get out of our life. We, we are going forward with our program no matter what you do.”

Senator Kerry starts to answer and is cut off, so Russert could add:

MR. RUSSERT: So you seem to be accepting the Iranians having a nuclear bomb.

SEN. KERRY: No, I’m not accepting it, and I’ve said point blank that you leave that option on the table for the end, but I don’t think using tactical nuclear weapons still makes sense. But you leave the military option on the table. But it’s a terrible option fundamentally, and they know it and everybody else knows it. What you really need here is China and Russia to join with the United States and others in serious sanctions, ultimately if that were necessary. And in the meantime, you’ve got to have a more realistic approach to President Putin. I think we should have been tougher with respect to the G8 conference. We gave them something for nothing.

link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12169680/page/3/
(The pasted parts are the whole section on Iran - here's a time where Kerry's long sentences and paragraphs help with the 4 paragraph rule!

[wiggs]

12. There's simply no way to blame the media entirely

when dem messages don't get out in a memorable way. There are people and businesses whose jobs it is to communicate and inform. If they haven't found a way, they aren't doing their jobs. Sure, it's an uphill battle...that means going the extra mile, being creative, forceful, persistent.

An issue as important, looming, and current as Iran cannot be overwhelmed by media bias. If dem congressmen wanted to make a durable, effective point, they certainly could.

What Kerry says is good. He and other leaders need to say it clearly and often so that the entire nation hears it, not just MTP watchers. It takes a lot more than an appearance or speech here and there...those who are satisfied with isolated, limited stances on this important issue and who throw up their hands in frustration when MSM doesn't cooperate are shifting blame away from those who are bottom line responsible.

[karynnj]

13. Kerry has spoken up on Iran in many interviews

and even in the first debate. Maybe the problem is that we don't propigate his answers and those of other Democrats even in our own forums. Kerry, on Ed Schultz a while back, did say that part of the problem is we have a smaller megaphone. The truth is that over the last 10 years, the media has become increasingly partisan - while the Republican still moan that there is a liberal media.

Kerry, and I'm sure other Democrats, are out there nearly every day taking stands on Iraq, Iran, immigration, trade bills, and censure. What gets reported: McKinney hitting a police man and any scandal they can find. What forum should Kerry use and how does he assure that he gets to speak on the issue he chooses. For example, this latest wave of press conferences was designed to speak about Iraq. Tweety wasted half the time with the relevation that Bush was the leaker. Kerry was able to take control and get his points out, but it was because he managed to silence Tweety.

[welshTerrier2]

16. have Democrats argued that bush needs Congressional approval??

as i stated in the OP, this issued was raised by Democrats in a Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing ...

the issue here is NOT whether Kerry said this or Clark said that; we need a sustained, coordinated effort to stop bush's march to war ... i strongly agree with your point that our message delivery system is badly broken ... some of this is a biased media but by no means all of it ...

a very fundamental question remains: are the American people hearing a strong opposition to attacking Iran and are they hearing a steady chorus demanding that if bush wants to go to war, he requires a new authorization from the Congress ...

because absent that, here we go again ... clearly, Democrats are not doing all they could to stop bush's march toward war ...

[karynnj]

17. I agree - doing it will be incredibly difficult

I do agree that it will require all Democrats to put themselves on the line. The other thing is that some Democrats seem unwilling to rule anything out wr to Iran. We're relly positioned less well than we were with Iraq - though trusting Bush shouldn't be part of any equation here.

The other thing they need to say is that the President of Iran doesn't have the power. I think I now see why Bush discouraged Iranians in voting in a less than perfect election - this guy gives Bush a perfect target. No one on TV seems to point out that the former Pro-democracy President had no real power and the clerics really run the country.

[wiggs]

18. We're seeing the same measured, cautious approach

to the Iran issue that we've seen on a dozen other topics over the last five years. Limited exposure...saying the right thing sometimes but just not hitting the mark squarely and often....only one or two dem leaders taking the reins while the others protect themselves...using old politics phrasing rather than calling a spade a spade.

I think Kerry, or anyone else, would make headlines with: "I think it's clear this administration has bungled the Iraq invasion (and just about everything else for that matter) from the beginning. Therefore, the congress must take a stronger role in the Iran issue and ensure that adults are in charge"...or any of a hundred different ways to say it. I think if you got 40 dem senators to sign a billboard-sized letter or full page ad that you would get better exposure. I think if a couple of hundred congressmen led a parade through washington calling for peace, that would be something. I think a television commericial would work. A televised roundtable debate. A hunger strike. A 5 million person protest organized by senators. Shut down the senate. A filibuster. Interview with Opra with plain talking. A retreat with past presidents and former congressmen. A book. An interview with People magazine to warn the public.

There are many, many ways to get the word out strongly. They aren't doing it. Period! And I don't want to hear in rebuttal that one particular senator said something in one particular commencement speech as evidence of good opposition politics.

The administration knows it has control of this issue.

[welshTerrier2]

20. "congressmen led a parade through washington calling for peace"

"that would be something" ... yeah, that would be a miracle ...

"Kerry said this" or "that darned old media" does nothing but dilute the more important point which you phrased perfectly: "They aren't doing it. Period!"

There's a huge difference between "saying it's wrong" and rallying the American people against the madness ... it's kind of like witnessing a rape and whispering to the rapist "you know, you really shouldn't be doing that" ... and I don't buy the "we're in the minority; there's nothing we can do" argument either ... you've provided an excellent list of things the Democrats could do ... we might be in the minority but we shouldn't be comatose ...

for starters, Democrats need to make the case NOW that bush is NOT authorized to attack Iran without a specific, new authorization from the Congress ... he is clearly proceeding on a path that demonstrates he does not intend to seek any such authorization ... he's going to claim Iran is all part of the war on terror ... if Democrats let him get away with it, they have shirked their obligations to uphold the Constitution ...

[TayTay]

26. WT2 this is part of the ongoing crisis that we have in terms

of Constitutional powers. The Bushies will fight tooth and nail to not go to Congress for approval for their Iran plans. I can't imagine that the Rethugs, at this point in time, would welcome a vote on going to war again. (That last one is not popular in the country right now and it is a thing that is pulling the Rethug numbers down across the board.)

The Dems have to speak up and demand a vote on Bush's power to pre-emtpively go to Iran. We are under no imminent threat. We simply aren't. Condi and the others are trying to spin that we have to go get Iran because they are going to attack us any minute, but this is simply not true.

The Dems have to demand that a resolution authorizing pre-emptive action be drafted and voted on. I would hope that Sen. Reid would call in the troops for this next week. (Again, nothing happens by accident in this Admin. They chose this Easter Recess to start to beat the drums of war. They knew that it would be harder for Dems to challenge this during the recess.)

[KoKo]

23. John Murtha said....we will NOT go into Iran.

It was in an interview about a week ago when he was asked if Bushie needed to come back to Congress for an authorization to strike Iran.

So his position is pretty firm. It was posted here on DU and I heard it myself...but I don't have the link...sorry.

[Jack Rabbit]

3. No, the Democratic leadership isn't fully engaged in anything

We have a madman in the White House who thinks he has the right to use nuclear weapons in a preventive war and his finger is on the button. What do you do about that?

There shouldn't be any discussion about whether it's a good idea or not. The discussion needs to be about how to stop this lunatic.

[Doctor_J]

4. They're engaged in their usual enabling/prevaricating

"Can't allow them to have nukes". "Consensus". "Evil regime"

How about: "Why should we believe anything Mr. Bush tells us at this point?"

or

"Sounds to me like Mr. Bush is planning another pre-emptive strike to boost his poll numbers"

or

"Enough American soldiers have already died in an ill-advised war. I would rather he just put on his flight suit and cod piece and prance around without consigning half a million people to death"

[Neil Lisst]

5. not engaged, and once again, afraid of their shadow

Where's the HE'S DOING IT AGAIN, IS HE NUTS?!!

[peacetheonlyway]

6. any nuclear war is a failure for everyone

it's like gorbachev likes to point out, any nuclear war is a
loss for all sides.
Why Dean thinks he can't dictate Democratic party policy is
more crazy than the 'leadership vacuum' of pelosi and crowd.
i miss when Dean was cool, when he said the Iraqi war was a
bad idea... why is he more silent than a church mouse lately?
I think the only leaders on this nuclear issue will be the
usual crowd, conyers, boxer, feingold, maybe murtha....

maybe we start supporting the dems that consistently stand up
for the tough issues and show the spineless
other dems that the few courageous ones actually represent the
silenced majority of us out here.... (amy goodman quote,
silenced majority, silenced by corporate
media not representing our views).......

i'm fearful any nuclear war will lead to an all out nuclear
war across the globe... chain reaction of missiles and nuclear
bombs...

[welshTerrier2]

9. "silenced majority"

welcome to DU, peacetheonlyway !!

while I also blame the media for not representing the best interests of the American people, Democrats do have significant access to the MSM ... I'm afraid that the highest duty to oppose bush's madness rests first and foremost with the Democratic Party ...

just as i'm typing this, I heard a reporter on MSNBC say "Iran continues to defy the global community" ... the media are incredibly biased ...

but in the end, the Democratic Party is just not speaking out on Iran ... and it's not even that they're under any obligation to agree with me that attacking Iran is totally insane; it's that they, at a minimum, need to be forcefully making the case that bush does NOT have authorization to attack Iran without Congressional approval ... bush clearly will argue that with the "war on terror" and the IWR, he already has all the authorization he needs ... Democrats need to preempt that argument NOW ...

i'm afraid we are the "silenced majority" because we are the unrepresented majority ...

[TayTay]

15. The Dems are speaking out

However, this issue came up (on purpose?) during the Congressional Easter break. A lot of the Dem comments are coming through interviews with the Dems on their local media outlets.

Again, this may be by design.

It might behoove Rep Pelosi and Sen. Reid to recall their people to DC next week and organize a series of press conferences on this. It seems to me that the Prez is again usurping Congressional authority. We know the Rethugs don't care about this, but the Dems should argue for need for this Pres to have to come before Congress and explain his actions and seek Congressional approval for pre-emptive actions.

[peacetheonlyway]

53. unrepresented majority yes.. dem access to MSM no!

i only disagree with one aspect of your response.

how do you know dems have equal access to MSM? we have seen the conservative shift at all major news outlets including CNN, PBS taken over now by a conservative company and getting rid of all the good liberal shows or hosts... and a push for the FOXIFICATION of all other stations (abc/cbs/nbc) where blonde missing white girls take headlines far more quickly than bush taking us down a path of world war III. Remember 3 cable channels own collectively 90% of the market with each owning in the 30 percent or greater range... 3 basic companies control all the content on the nations hundreds of channels and please don't forget ALL SATELLITES THAT TRANSMIT CABLE are controlled and managed by the US government....

i would ask why we don't see more of the likes of John Conyers, an aggressive and politically forward democrat, I cannot recall a single time I"ve seen his face on the TV set, while knowing he stands out for things most democrats want, out of iraq, healthcare, investigation of bush and the downing street memo, etc.

i agree we are the unrepresented majority because I believe even the democrats in office were rigged into office by Diebold and ES&S owners (which is basically a small group of folks you can follow the money but Chuck Hagel, SAIC, Ken Blackwell, etc. are the real owners of the American election system).....

i'm sure that when we get 'real honest mainstream media' or 'representative government' the other will fall into place so quickly it will make your head spin.. the catch 22 is what do you do now to fix the problem?

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. I hate to say this since I always advocate backing the Democratic

nominee in the general election come hell or high water--

But there are those in the Democratic Party leadership who just plain believe in imperial America just as much as the neocons -- they just think they can do a better job at managing the empire with their kinder and gentler and more benignly arrogant hegemony.

There are also those who may not necessarily believe in the empire but they are afraid of being labeled "weak on defense", "unpatriotic" or accused by the likes of Joe Kline of "hating America".

[peacetheonlyway]

8. good point...

but I think we can vote in a new crew of democrats.. if only we could drive those voting machines off a ledge.. we do have choices... I think this 2006 is going to be the year of unseating the incumbents all across the board... let's hope so....
agreed that democrats and republicans differ only in scale and ruthlessness sometimes.. i.e. liebermann and clinton, who make some GOP members look downright boyscout like....

[tnlefty]

10. Welcome to DU, peacetheonlyway!

:hi:

[theobscure]

21. thank you....thank you....thank you...

I've been waiting for a Democrat on here to own up to the fact that when it comes to the macro issues of U.S. world domination and supremacy there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. We do not have an anti-war, anti-aggression, anti-empire party in this country that currently has even access to our government, much less representation in it. The fact that "progressives" continue to be so blindly loyal to the Democratic Party boggles my mind.

[TayTay]

22. Perhaps you should post on the

Anti-Democraticunderground web site. You might find a lot more people to discuss this with on that web site. This is DemocraticUnderground, established to talk about supporting Democratic candidates. There are other forums that discuss your interests.

[theobscure]

28. so everyone should just retire to their respective camps and commence

with nothing but preaching to the choir and diatribes against an opposition that isn't even privy to them in order to make a response? No wonder we haven't had any progress in this country for so long. All political discourse is about now is reading from your camp's talking points and silly, superficial partisan bickering.

If you oppose a Democrat, you must be a Republican and vice versa. That's our mentality today. Any views that cannot be found in either the Democratic or Republican talking points are dismissed out of hand as extreme or crazy. Our two party system has evolved into a tool against democracy.

[TayTay]

35. And the freedom of association is threatened

Some people even object to people getting together with common purpose and demand that all discussion be subject to hijacking by people with different agendas.

DU moderators should have the freedom to set rules about the purpose of this group and who can post and under what conditions. They are, after all, paying the bills to keep this place open.

There are rules and regulations that are posted here. If you don't like them, you are free to form your own forum and post. In the mean time, it is disingenuous to come in here and complain about the central reason that DU exists: to promote the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates.

What part of this is unclear or is not posted?

[theobscure]

48. fine..whatever...I'll leave you to your stimulating ...

"Bush sucks, Democrats rule" posts. Far be it from me to suggest that things are any more complicated than that.

[Jai4WKC08]

52. In most cases, "if you oppose a Democrat"

You might as well be a Republican. Because you are helping put or keep a Republican in office.

We need to clean our own house. But there are other houses that must be cleaned first. Three other houses, to be precise: both houses of Congress and the White House.

The idea that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans is what got us a Bush presidency in the first place.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. I believe in sticking with the Democratic Party because it is the only

electoral political mechanism we have that is actually capable of making a difference. Unlike many European countries we simply do not have a system capable of including third parties into the political process in any meaningful way. I wish we did. But we don't. And there is no possibility whatsoever that is going to change anytime soon.

And also this I have to consider:

If the Democrats take the House this November

10 members of the Progressive Caucus would become chairmen of committees

John Conyers becomes Chairman of the Judiciary Committee

Even a vote for a conservative Dem is a vote for Conyers and the 10

This is REAL political power for the progressive cause and could change the paradigm quite significantly.

I look how the far right working from the aftermath of the Goldwater landslide defeat of 1964 changed the big tent Republicans into a distinctly right wing party; so right wing that poor old Barry wasn't even welcome anymore. But, to do this the right wing did back in general elections candidates and Presidents who were clearly not their ideological soul-mates. Richard Nixon would be a socialist wacko by current Republican Party standards. But, it was the Nixon era that gave real rise to the long-term agenda of the right-wing.

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. Oh I think there is still a difference

I have compiled a list of Peace interest group ratings below contrasting the senatorial voting records of two liberal Democrats--Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Feingold two "centrist" Democrats--Sen. Clinton and Sen. Lieberman and that of two prominent Republicans--"centrist" Sen. McCain and "conservative" Sen. Allen.

There is still a difference on matter of War and Peace – Not as big a difference as I would like but still a difference:

Peace Majority – a compilation of scores from a number of different peace groups – see website: http://www.peacemajority.org/scorecard/

Sen. Russell Feingold: Final Score: 74.0/98.0 votes=76%

Sen. Edward Kennedy: Final Score: 79.0/97.0 votes=81%

Sen. Hillary Clinton: Final Score: 59.0/98.0 votes=60%

Sen. Joseph Lieberman: Final Score: 15.0/62.0 votes=24%

Sen. George Allen: Final Score: 4.0/98.0 votes= 4%

Sen. John McCain: Final Score: 4.0/95.0 votes= 4%
____________________________________________________

and

This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________

2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

“Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 67 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 33 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.
_________________________________


2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Peace Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Peace Action 38 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Peace Action 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.

[theobscure]

29. I see your point but...

the fact remains that, regardless of party affiliation, our government has always been controlled by pro-aggression and empire interests, all the way from Manifest Destiny to the military industrial complex of today.

So I guess I don't find it particularly useful, or heartening, to look at individual leaders and their voting record in a vacuum. It's the whole that counts. The fact that Democrats in general trend more toward peace advocacy has done virtually nothing to enlighten the actions and ideas of our government.

I wouldn't begrudge the Democrats their middle of the road stance if they hadn't conspired with Republicans to fix election laws to preclude a challenge to the duopoly status quo. That is why I cannot help but come to the conclusion that in the end, the top priority of Republicans as well as Democrats is to protect their mutual hold on power. Their deepest and most abiding interests are completely shared, equally valued, and distinctly counter to the interests of those they profess to represent.

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. I also see your point..but we are hardly in a position to overthrow

capitalism and eradicate imperialism and exploitation. Nor will anyone likely be in such a position anytime in the near future.

If we can restrain some of the worst abuses of capitalism, hegemony and exploitation -- even somewhat -- we have accomplished something that protects and perhaps improves the lives of perhaps millions and millions of people and might even save the planet from the ultimate doom.

It is highly unlikely that it is for our lifetimes that a better world and better system will be fully realized. Progressive is about making progress. So perhaps we can take some very real steps to move our country and the world forward or at the very least restrain the worse.

[theobscure]

37. I guess I just don't see how traveling down the same road to ruin..

only at a slower pace, is progress. If these are our only two choices than I think I would be inclined to get the train wreck over with. Taking the slow road to destruction with a return to overt feudalism along the way only serves to lessen the drama of the impact. Far more difficult it will be, to fully remember what we've lost.

If there is no hope to change to a progressive course now, the best hope for one in the future is the catastrophe Bush and his maniacs have us primed for, the sooner the better.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. The developing Bush catastrophe can take us all down with him

That's how bad his Presidency has been for America and the world. We are destroying the climate for centuries to come, one more appointment by Bush to the Supreme Court that Democrats can't stop with a filibuster will cement a reactionary majority for decades, the Constitution is being watered down beyond recognition, and we are about to enter a multi generation inter continental cycle of religious revenge war fare in a world with the nuclear genie out of the bottle.

We need a Democratic majority in at least one House after November so that full scale Congressional hearings will expose what is going on to the public.

[Douglas Carpenter]

41. well I guess I am an optimist then

I cast my first vote of my life on my 18th birthday in 1972 for the one major party candidate who actually could have altered the course of miliarist-hegemony.

We have not had such an option since then. But just as Barry Goldwater's 1964 landslide defeat was not the end of the far right -- it was only the beginning. Perhaps the same could be true with the progressive cause.
_____________________

and if I may indulge with this quote from Dr. Chomsky:

"There are other differences. The popular constituency of the Bush people, a large part of it, is the extremist fundamentalist religious sector in the country, which is huge. There is nothing like it in any other industrial country. And they have to keep throwing them red meat to keep them in line. While they¹re shafting them in their economic and social policies, you¹ve got to make them think you¹re doing something for them. And throwing red meat to that constituency is very dangerous for the world, because it means violence and aggression, but also for the country, because it means harming civil liberties in a serious way. The Kerry people don¹t have that constituency. They would like to have it, but they¹re never going to appeal to it much. They have to appeal somehow to working people, women, minorities, and others, and that makes a difference.

These may not look like huge differences, but they translate into quite big effects for the lives of people. Anyone who says "I don¹t care if Bush gets elected" is basically telling poor and working people in the country, "I don¹t care if your lives are destroyed. I don¹t care whether you are going to have a little money to help your disabled mother. I just don¹t care, because from my elevated point of view I don¹t see much difference between them." That¹s a way of saying, "Pay no attention to me, because I don¹t care about you." Apart from its being wrong, it¹s a recipe for disaster if you¹re hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative."

link: http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/chomsky090204.cfm

[theobscure]

45. The problem with what Chomsky says is that...

you can tell red meat, red staters that you care about them all you want, but the first time you say "Happy Holidays" to them you will be none other than the Devil Incarnate and have a better chance of getting burned at the stake than getting them to vote for a Democrat.

While I believe the corruption of the two party system is the explicit reason for the state our country and the world is in, I believe religious faith is the implicit cause. This is another reason why I don't see the Democratic Party as possibly part of a progressive movement. Do we even have an openly non-religious elected official at the federal level? And as long as our only choices are Democrats and Republicans, we never will.

To me, this speaks volumes as to why we are locked in "primitivistic" ideas, laws, and ideals.

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. most places where democratic-left movements have been successful

they have been able to communicate with and sometimes form alliances with religious people; even if that is not my personal inclination.
Certainly the liberation struggles in Latin America or South Africa could not have gotten anywhere without the support of many, many religious people. It would simply not have been possible.

In the province of the Philippines where I live part of the year almost everyone is at least a socialist and the very same people are also either Pentecostals, Evangelical Protestants or Charismatic Catholics.

These things are not mutually exclusive for building a progressive movement. In fact I do not see how it can possibly be done without the support of the religious who comprise the overwhelming majority of working class people. I would have to say it is impossible.

In our own American society where 94% of the population believes in God/80% are certain and only 1% are convinced atheist it is ludicrous to imagine that a progressive majority can be built without the support of lots and lots of religious people. See Gallup poll:http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001659292

Furthermore, many progressive Christian groups are decidedly on the progressive/left end of the political spectrum. This is the reality.
Religion may not be my thing. But that's beside the point. The abolition movement, the civil rights movement, the peace movement and almost every other movement for social change in American history could never ever have gotten off the ground without their help.

But I guess were getting off subject so I better stop.

[welshTerrier2]

34. a little OT but what the hell ...

the greatest disservice a government can do is to limit the free exchange of ideas and restrict political opportunity for all comers ... i take that to be supportive of your statement about the duopoly status quo ...

i am in constant struggle regarding my allegiance to the Democratic Party ... i certainly do not have "final clarity" of my own views on this issue ...

for now, where I am, and all I'll offer in response to your statement that "Their deepest and most abiding interests are completely shared, equally valued, and distinctly counter to the interests of those they profess to represent." is that I think your brush is too broad ...

to stand in full opposition MAY do a real disservice for those fighting for change from within ... to turn away from all MAY be to leave our allies stranded in the front lines ... I think a more selective and discriminating approach is called for ... my approach is to support selected Democrats and NOT every Democrat ... and just clarify, I do NOT share the disdain many here express for third party supporters ... surely, by remaining within even when we are horrified by much of what is done in our names, we MAY not be the change agents we hope to be ...

[theobscure]

39. I agree with your sentiment, but the problem is that

the election laws, not only insulate the two parties, they protect incumbency. So, the status quo is protected not only from outside challenge (third party, independent), but also from within. The current system makes it impossible to change the direction of an existing party at anything other than glacial speed. Not exactly useful given the immediacy of the modern age.

[TayTay]

14. What legal and Constitutional basis does this Admin have

for doing this in Iran? It is more pre-emptive invasion and assault plans. This wasn't covered under the IWR vote in 2002.

doesn't the Admin have to back to the Congress and get permission for this effort in Iran?

[leesa]

19. Well, Dianne Feinstein probably has her profit margins worked out.

[KoKo]

24. Many Dems voted against going into Iraq, particularly in the House.

If they have been silenced it's because of Pelosi and Hoyer. I believe well over a hundred Dems voted against it in the House.

[Lexingtonian]

30. what is "the Iran issue"?

There are no real issues involving Iran. There are just issues involving the Idiot Triumvirate of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

Despite being morons, the Triumvirate knows perfectly well that if they use nukes on Iran in any form whatsoever, that's a genie that isn't going back in the bottle if they let it out. Thar would be an invitation to Al Qaeda to nuke an American city.

Nuclear proliferation is basically impossible to stop as long as countries are engaged in the hostilities that compel them to "need" nukes. The Triumvirate hates this reality- which makes them look and feel weak- abyssmally.

As far as I can tell, this game is partly about them trying to stave off defeat in Iraq and partly gross retaliation for the Iranian humiliations of Americans in 1977-1980. This is the worst form of saber rattling between stupid and dysfunctional and fear-driven old men.

Yes, the only people benefiting from this idiotic game are oil traders, oil companies, and oil producers. And they have no problem telling Bush to keep up the game, just not to let it get out of control.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. Direct face to face Diplomacy.

Clark has repeatedly been calling for direct diplomacy with Iran. And he has been warning about the consequences of military action even while he describes likely possible military options available to Bush. Here are a few of his comments on Iran, taken from various speechs and commentary appearances.

On FOX:

General Wesley Clark on Big Story Weekend Edition
January 1, 2006

Jamie Colby: Let me ask you, General Clark, about public sentiment. Uh, the Iraq war, the American public has at times supported it and felt that it was the right thing to do, that we needed to stay until we left democracy in place. What about gaining public support for the potential for an invasion in Iran? How difficult a challenge is that, politically, for the president?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, a couple of points. First, there's going to be a lot of skepticism about the exact nature of the Iranian program because the record of our intelligence agencies on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program wasn't very good. Secondly, of course, when the president calls for strikes, he's going to strengthen his hand at home once these strikes are underway because his critics are going to be faced with the dilemma of going against a threat to the United States and our allies abroad if they challenge the president. So he's going to pick up support. At least that's the way I believe the White House will read this. So I would guess there would be a program of consultation with allies. There would probably be the appearance of some last minute diplomatic measures and then there would be, um, the buildup here at home, politically, and then the strikes. And…<crosstalk> I think the administration would calculate that this would be the end of it.



General Wesley Clark on Fox News Live
January 2, 2006

You know, the United States still hasn't talked to Iran and, on the other hand, I mean, we don't like the Iranian president, but on the other hand, before we bomb him, we could at least try to have a dialogue. We've gone through the Europeans, why can't we talk to him before we bomb him?


General Wesley Clark on Fox News
January 16, 2006

"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think it's possible to construct a military option that could be, could approach adding five to eight years to the development cycle of the Iranian nuclear weapon. In other words, you could set them back.


Brigitte Quinn. Mmm Hmm.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I don't think that you can totally eliminate the possibility, and remember after such a strike, it's very possible that A.Q. Kahn and Pakistan or some other country would come rushing to the aid of Iran."



General Wesley Clark on Your World with Neil Cavuto
January 25, 2006

Neil Cavuto: When you say it's over-stretched, too over-stretched to do something about Iran right now?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Depends on what you're going to do about Iran. Now, you can certainly run bombing strikes and Special Forces activities and you can go after those nuclear sites. You could-

Neil Cavuto: You have to know where those nuclear sites are.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think that's less of a problem. I think the, the greater problem is figuring out what's the end state. Let's say you, you run eight to fourteen days of bombing against Iran. You take out thirty sites, maybe fifteen of them were the nuclear sites. You've taken out some command and control, his missiles, his air bases, some of the stuff that would threaten us along the literal of the Persian Gulf. Okay, and then what? What happens? Does he then say, 'Oh, I give up. I surrender. I'll be your friend."? No, he's not going to say that.

Neil Cavuto: But who cares, if he's less of a threat?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because what he's going to do is he's going to be a magnet-

Neil Cavuto: I see.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: - pulling in all kinds of anti-American resistance. How do we know A.-

Neil Cavuto: So, it'll actually galvanize Arab-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: How do we know A.Q. Kahn's not going to replenish that nuclear stock right away.


Neil Cavuto: Yeah.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So, it's a danger. We've got to think through the thing, not just from the initial strikes, not 'Can we hit the target? Can we penetrate Iranian airspace?' Of course we can do that. It's 'What's the end state- strategically, geopolitically? How do we handle the conflict in this part of the world?'



General Wesley Clark on Fox News Live
February 5, 2006

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well that's the problem with the military option. It's that once we take action, Ahmedinejad probably becomes stronger domestically. There's no assurance that you can get regime change and the historical record of countries that have been bombed suggests that when you bomb a country, normally people rally around the leader. In this case, it would be most unfortunate, but it could happen.

And after we had set back their nuclear program by taking out a number of sites, there's no reason to think that AQ Khan in Pakistan and his cohort couldn't provide them the additional information, that some other nation might not have an incentive to smuggle in highly enriched uranium.

They could be back where we started much sooner than if they rebuilt the program entirely on their own. So that's the risk of the military option - leaving an embittered, angered Iran which is determined to seek revenge and get it.



General Wesley Clark on Fox News Sunday
March 5, 2006

Page Hopkins: The IAEA meeting tomorrow morning, Iran's already being defiant saying that if it were referred to the Security Council, that's it - all bets are off we're going to resume enriching uranium on a large scale. What can be done to diffuse this?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I think the first thing that needs to be done, really, is the United States needs to talk directly to the leadership in Iran. That's the essential first step. The United States leadership hasn't done this. We've got a lot of different things we can do. There's still a military option - I don't know how effective it's going to be in the long-term, but it's there. There are sanctions. There's the embarrassment of going forward. But, when we push Iran, they're going to push back on us and Iran has positioned itself to be the sort of leader of the Islamic world. It's an historic opportunity for Shia Islam to lead the whole Islamic world in standing up for their right to have nuclear energy and maybe a nuclear weapon. So this is a huge, difficult, political issue for us to face. It's a political issue first; it needs to start with dialogue.


Page Hopkins: How do you have that dialogue, though, since 1979 Iran's been responsible for more killing more Americans in terror attacks than any other country; it's a theocracy; how in the heck do we neutralize or deal with these people?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, the first thing to do is you've got to find someone to talk with. There are low-level conversations going on. They're not sanctioned or they're not supported by the US Government. They could be - the United States government could deal with the low level and raise the level of discussions. It could get to the critical issues that are on the table but <crosstalk>


Page Hopkins: But sir ...


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: There are going to be disagreements between the United States and Iran. That can't be papered over <crosstalk>


Page Hopkins: But General Clark...


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: but before we use force, shouldn't we at least talk to them?


Page Hopkins: How do we talk, though, with a president who is alm…crazy? This is a guy who says 'Israel should be wiped off the planet.' How do you reason or talk to somebody like that?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Maybe you don't have to talk to him directly, maybe you talk to other people in the government first. Maybe you build this thing up over a period of time but this has been an opportunity that we've passed by for years. We spoke strongly about the need to put the right government in place in Iran. We basically, our government, tried to interfere in their election. We probably are responsible to giving Ahmedinejad some measure of support because voters don't like it, in whatever country they are, when foreigners try to interfere in their election. We may not think they had a real election. We may not approve of their democracy but people in Iran believe that they voted for Ahmedinejad so what we have to do is we have to decide what we as Americans want to do to pursue what we believe is in our interests. If we only use the stick on Iran, then it's going to be difficult to move the issue, in a constructive way, in the near term. So we need a combination of dialogue and pressure.



Clark on Main Stream Media:

General Wesley Clark on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"
March 5, 2006

George Stephanopoulos: Let me turn to Iran. You told the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this month, that before we take Iran to the UN Security Council over their proposed nuclear weapons program, we should try talking to them directly and doing business with Iranian businesses. That's a very different approach from what other Democrats, like Senator Evan Bayh and Senator Clinton, are calling for. They say we need tough sanctions now. Why are you convinced that your approach is better?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, maybe we will need tough sanctions later on. But before any of that happens…years ago we should have talked to Iran, and it's not too late right now.

George Stephanopoulos: Directly.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Directly to Iran. The Iranian state is not unified. There are differences of opinion in Iran, but rather that passing a $75 million Iranian Liberation Act funding proposal, why don't we just talk to the Iranian leadership and see if there's not a way <crosstalk>

George Stephanopoulos: But don't you believe that if they're this intent on developing a nuclear weapon…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think they are intent and the more we press against them, the more difficult it would be for them to change their direction. Iran represents an historic opportunity for the Shias to have leadership in the Islamic world and this nuclear issue is being crystallized in such a way that it's going to make it extremely difficult for them to back off.

George Stephanopoulos: But don't they know that the message is 'if you don't give up your nuclear program then you're not going to be able to join this modern world'? Isn't that what the United States is saying; isn't that what the European community is saying?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it's a very mixed message going to the Iranians, frankly. We're not saying we're not going to buy their oil. China's not telling the Iranians 'we won't help you build subways'. The Russians aren't telling the Iranians 'you're not going to get our billion dollars worth of weapons that you've ordered'. It's a very mixed message and really it's the United States which hasn't taken its leadership responsibilities seriously enough to go and talk to the Iranians first before this crisis comes to a head.


LINKS FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE INTERVIEWS ARE FOUND HERE:
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/23




From Clark's Real State Of The Union Address January 30th 2006
THE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION on Capitol Hill: "The Real State of the Union 2006"

We should join now — right now - in opening new talks with Iran, in which we ourselves participate, before pressing for UN action or moving toward the military option. No one should be mistaken: there is a military option.

We can strike hard enough to set back Iran's nuclear quest by many years, and take out much of their military capacity in the process. And we can at the same time protect most of the oil flow from Iran and deny their capacity to block transit through the Straits of Hormuz. But we also must recognize the possible consequences of this action: an embittered, vengeful Iran, seeking further destabilization of the region. Far better to pursue dialogue now, whatever the precedents, and save the military option for truly last resort. Understand: unlike others you may hear, I know when and how to determine our course with Iran.
http://securingamerica.com/node/560




Iraq: The Way Forward—A Conversation with General Wesley Clark

Council on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC
February 14, 2006


QUESTIONER: Reuben Brigety from George Mason University. General, thank you for coming.

Senator McCain has said that the only thing worse than a military strike on Iran is a nuclear-armed Iran. I wonder if you agree with that statement, and if you could offer your thoughts on viable options to prevent Iran from being nuclear armed.

CLARK: Well, the official policy of the United States for a long time has been that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. And if you just connect the dots and you say, well, they have an implacable determination to get an nuclear weapon, and you say but under no circumstances can they have one, then there's only one possible outcome -- (chuckles) -- and it's a very unpleasant outcome.

I think that, first of all, we've had a lot of mistakes in dealing with Iran. What the administration's grand strategy actually resulted in was that if you believed in late 2001 that there was a significant proliferation problem -- risk -- and that your three greatest risks for proliferation were Iraq, Iran and North Korea, then the administration put all of its effort into the least significant problem, which has then caused us to defer and be distracted from necessary attention to the two greater problems of North Korea and Iran.

When I testified in front of Congress in 2002 and wrote articles -- I kept talking about Iran being a greater long-term threat because they clearly were embarked on a program then. And in 2001-2002, we were saying five to eight years for their nuclear weapons to come to -- now we -- I don't know what the intelligence says. And they're probably -- if we're honest, there's probably a lot of disputes in the intelligence community, whether it's now another five to eight years or till 2010 or maybe it's only a year. We don't know. But we've lost critical time in dealing with Iran.

I would encourage the United States leadership right now, this week, before March, before it goes to the United Nations Security Council, immediately to talk to the Iranian government. Iran has been a -- it's a great nation. It's 60, 70 million people with a tremendous heritage, and we've got a wonderful Iranian-American community. And the policy that we've pursued toward Iran for the last five to 10 years, no matter what the historical antecedents were or our anger at 1979 and the hostages, still, it's a policy that hasn't served American interests.

We should be doing business -- we should have been a long time ago doing business with the Iranian business community. We should have worked with them. We worked with East Europe when it was under communist domination, and it was one of the key factors that helped East Europe throw off an outmoded set of ideas. We need to be working in the Middle East to help their business communities move past old ideas.

So right now what we need to be doing is talking to Iran -- right now, this week.

http://securingamerica.com/node/607

[welshTerrier2]

33. from the OP ...

"I'm confident one Democrat here or another Democrat there MAY have addressed the issue of Iran in some detail. It's just not enough. How many here let alone the general public heard their message? How many believe they are fighting this battle everyday because of how critical it is? Will they wait until it's too late to react to bush's next insanity?"

the issue on the table is more than speaking out about the right path in Iran; it's leading the party and the nation down that path ... speaking out on the issue is a critically important start but it's nowhere near enough ... has Clark challenged the Bayh and Clintons who want to up the hostilities? those pushing diplomacy need to build a consensus within the Party or they will have virtually no impact ... and the point isn't to blame Clark for anything; the point is that the Democratic Party, as an entity, does not have a position on Iran (sheesh, i keep typing "Iraq" - there should be a lesson in that)...

not to harp on democrats.org but what the hell? does it seem reasonable that there is no clearly stated position on this critical issue? frankly, i'm increasingly disgusted with big tent politics ... i see it as ineffective ad hoc politics ... there is simply no excuse, none whatsoever, and this applies to every single Democrat, Clark included, for failing to say that bush does not have an open-ended authorization to wage war anywhere he wants to ...

that, my friend, is THE issue ... let's call it Democratic pre-emption ... the way to stop bush is to start by trying to stop him; commenting on the importance of direct negotiations with Iran is great - I'm in full agreement ... but bush is not going to listen to Wes Clark or anyone else; he needs to be stopped; not counseled ... that's where the front is located ... it's time for the Party's armchair Generals to fully engage the real battle ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Yes we need Party Leadership on Iran. It starts with us

The whole matter of Iran has been profoundly frustrating as well as frightening to me, to the point where I have a chip on my shoulder that I know I have to knock off because I know it isn't doing any damn good to keep it there. Maybe if I own it I can shake it off. Here is a post I made on Democratic Underground on January 3rd:

"10. Well, the relative lack of interest in discussing this matter

outside of Clark related threads, is not encouraging. I'm not saying no one else is bringing it up here at DU and elsewhere, but preventing a crisis from exploding always makes infinitely more sense than organizing to end one after it already is out of control. If Democrats put one tenth as much energy into preventing war with Iran as they put into dealing with the consequences of the war with Iraq, we might be able to stop the next one."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2345130#2346383

Here is a thread I started on March 7th, the response to this one REALLY depressed me:

"Why Won't More Democrats Back Direct Talks With Iran?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2499347


I admit, it is precisely because Clark spoke so frequently and powerfully about the threat of impending conflict with Iraq that I tuned into it as soon as I did, as did a number of other DU members who respect Clark's opinions and predictions, and frequently whenever one of us tried to get other activists to take the drift toward war with Iran seriously it was ignored, or dismissed as impossible given how "beaten up" our military is.

I won't bore you with further similar links to posts like that above (but I could), still the question of why so many Democratic Peace activists had to hear Hersh bring up the U.S. possibly using Nukes against Iran before they got really alarmed is a good one to think about. In my own opinion activists fixed virtually exclusively on withdrawing from Iraq to the exclusion of another dangerous Elephant in the room. There has been virtually no heat placed on Democratic Party leaders regarding their stands or lack of same on Iran. Half the leadership of the Party is running around the country trying to line up campaign funds or promises of campaign funds for a possible 2008 Presidential Run, and they are avoiding talking about a polarizing issue like Iran, in my opinion because they don't want anyone to even think of turning off the money tap on them for coming down the wrong way on this.

The President of Iran is the new "Saddam Hussein", he's perfect for the part. He denies the Holocaust exists. He wants to see Israel wiped off the map. Israel has certainly valid security concerns about Iran, but it always returns to the same question, how are those concerns best dealt with? Unlike Iraq, Iran really is advancing with their nuclear program, whether or not one believes it is for Nuclear Power only. Most leading Democrats don't want to touch Iran's President with a ten foot pole. They don't want to be seen urging negotiations with a regime "led by a Madman", one who wants to destroy Israel. And if the Party base isn't even pushing them on this issue, do you expect any of them to actually lead on it?

I am waiting for the Peace camp to challenge Clinton and Bayh and the rest on Iran. When Edwards made his reply to Bush's State of the Union, this is all he had to say about Iran:

"We have to be stronger at home so that we are better able to meet the many changes we face abroad--whether it is dealing with a rising China, halting the spread of weapons on mass destruction, stopping North Korea and Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, combating Islamic extremism, showing leadership to end the genocide in Darfur, or dealing with the continuing conflicts and instability in the Middle East."
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/01/31/the_america_we_believe_in.php

I'm not aware of anyone on DU or anywhere else asking for any details about what "stopping North Korea and Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons" meant to Edwards. That speech was made on January 31st, and Clark had been loudly warning us all about Iran constantly for a month by then (and getting media flak for urging negotiations with terrorists). And I am only using Edwards as an example here, and not implying that his full position when stated wouldn't be a sensible one.

I think Clark has a sound position that can be sold to the public, that most people can rally around even with all the poison pen commentary being written about Iran and terrorists and nukes and Israel. Democrats seem scared shitless of being "soft on Iran" in an Election year. Sound familiar? Clark has a two prong strategy. Educate the public about the repercussions of going to war with Iran, and hold to a simple moral principle that you should always be open to talking with people before you start shooting at them. Clark's already doing the heavy lifting, working to sell that message to FOX viewers. We should be able to sell it to liberal Democrats, and if we don't try they won't listen.

[welshTerrier2]

43. you need no defense from me, Tom ...

i too have written about Iran many times often with very few responses ... for me, Hersh's article was not at all the incentive for my post ...

one of my greatest frustrations with "candidate supporters", and I generalize here, is that many of them migrate their positions based on what their candidate is saying ... i won't mention specific candidates or DU'ers ... it's just very foreign to me ... even in supporting a candidate, i still feel comfortable criticizing positions I don't agree with ... and i certainly don't change my position when my candidate changes theirs ... i just can't get my head around that ... it seems totally hypocritical to me ... but I digress ... i'm sure you understand none of this applies to you ...

i'm fully supportive of Clark's emphasis on diplomacy ... again, what's lacking for me is the fact that the real enemy here is bush ... my view is that there are virtually no circumstances I can see where, with bush in the WH, i could condone a war ... period !! ... i see his abuses as more dangerous to the national interest than any potential foreign threat ...

my view is that while it is useful, even critically necessary, to make the case to the American people about why an attack on Iran would be devastating to the US and the cause of world peace, it's even more important to try to "take the gun out of bush's hand" ... what I'm hoping to hear from Democrats will be very quickly labeled as playing politics with the war on terror ... it might even cost the Dems politically; who knows ... but i don't think we can afford to have an opposition party that "may disagree with him but doesn't try to stop him" ... there are many things prominent Dems could be doing right now to stack the deck against bush's blundering march to war; they just ain't doin nuttin ...

finally, and perhaps most disturbing, was your comment "There has been virtually no heat placed on Democratic Party leaders regarding their stands or lack of same on Iran." ... the question I would ask is whether they would even care ... i'm afraid they think they know best and "they have to win" ... representing "the base" is much lower down in the pecking order ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. I found this comment particularly chilling

"So I would guess there would be a program of consultation with allies. There would probably be the appearance of some last minute diplomatic measures and then there would be, um, the buildup here at home, politically, and then the strikes. And…<crosstalk> I think the administration would calculate that this would be the end of it."

The path is so clear that Clark could just rattle it off on January 1st. We've been down this path before. Here is the weakest link in that chain:

"...and then there would be, um, the buildup here at home, politically..."

Some of us may have strategic disagreements on what should be said by who, how, right now, but one thing is clear. Silence is acquiescence to "the buildup here at home".

[welshTerrier2]

49. "Silence is acquiescence"

here's my current dilemma; any help over the next few months would be greatly appreciated ...

take Iran as one of many examples ...

we have some Democrats talking tough - perhaps they believe Iran really is a threat and we have to do whatever is necessary to stop Iran's development of a nuke ...

we have some Democrats who might see Iran as a genuine threat to Israel and perhaps they support an attack on Iran ...

we have some Democrats who think that "winning is all" and the rest is just mouthing opinions ... whatever wins is the way to go and they think tough talk will win over some of those republican voters ...

we may even have intra-party pressure to not speak too far "off the script" ... it's OK to express a little disagreement but it's not OK to launch an all out attack on the neo-cons ... doing this is seen as "rocking the boat" at a time Dems believe they are gaining ground ...

and finally, we have the progressive left who doesn't believe anything bush says or does and knows that he is the REAL enemy ... take a look at Iraq ... even take Clark ... how long has he been calling for regional diplomacy and a political solution instead of bush's "military only" approach? but nothing happened ... Democrats should have been providing hard deadlines backed up with threats of funding cut-offs ... you either are fighting to stop the war or you aren't ...

the dilemma is that i think we need to lobby the party to build a process that provides for much better intra-party communication and consensus building ... i'm not naive enough (almost though) to believe we can actually reach a consensus on every issue ... it just seems to me that being a Democrat is rendered somewhat absurd when the Party is a big tent that encompasses pro-war, anti-war and every other flavor in between ... i'm issues focussed and getting the warm fuzzies from a party that just wants to win and is tolerant of all views just doesn't do it for me ...

so the dilemma is to try to fight for reform; it's to pressure the party to start building some message discipline beyond the ad hoc egos of this Democrat and that one ... some think that's what the primaries are for; i don't ... i see a party that stands for just about everything ...

it's like the old joke about the difference between a specialist and a generalist ... the specialist learns more and more about less and less until he eventually knows everything about nothing; the generalist learns less and less about more and more until he knows nothing about everything ... that's how i see the Democratic Party of today: we've become generalists ... by being a "big tent" and condoning views that are often polar opposites, we are deeply committed to less and less to appeal to more and more ... our depth becomes shallower so that we can be spread over a wider and wider area ... frankly, even just pragmatically, i.e. politically, I think that strategy has been costing us elections ...

i'm way left of where i ever expect the party to be and yet i'm still an active party member ... but something's got to give here ... i've got to have some hope that the party label really means something ... this isn't a "both parties are the same" argument ... it's a "just winning isn't good enough for me" argument ...

i have no way of knowing whether i am really just a 1% or 2% oddity or whether the party's whole progressive wing is wrestling with issues about whether to stay in the party ... i've pretty much gotten to the "i'll vote for anti-war progressives only" school; i don't rule out leaving the party completely ... and it's not about being a purist; i just want to feel like my party represents me ... right now, i really don't think they give a damn what i think ... they're too busy winning to worry about "voter noise" ...

you said "silence is acquiescence"; my view is that "just going along" is acquiescence too ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. A metaphor that always stuck with me (sort of anyway)...

How far an Aircraft Carrier will travel mostly straight ahead before it executes a sharp turn after the rudder is fully turned. Of course I don't actually remember how far it is, but I do remember that it does take miles.

Things are happening, activists are pulling at the wheel, but the Democratic Party is a very big ship. And it is the only one afloat in the troubled waters we are in that has the capacity of actually delivering the goods in a time span short enough to effect several real crises we are in the midst of.

Someone above wrote about the winner take all Political System that we have in America which makes third party votes risky at best. We need an instant run off system of voting, where one's vote shifts to one's second choice etc if one's first choice is eliminated. But we don't have it.

Meanwhile the NeoCon version of the Republican Party that currently is in power is a deadly mutant strain from previous Conservative Republicans. It's S.A.R.S and A.I.D.S and the Bird Flu combined attacking the American body politic. It has to be beaten back, it just has to. We have no choice. Stalin and Roosevelt and Churchill made a pact in the face of Hitler.

I think we have to multi task. We have to keep this leaky old bulky Democratic ship steaming ahead through the 2006 Elections, because we desperately need people like John Conyers to become Committee Chairs, but in order for that to happen we have to elect a few Blue Dog Democrats in Red parts of the country also, or we won't "be in the majority". But I am thrilled to have Dean as DNC Chair, that is a real advance. He is working from within which comes with real limits, but termites work from within also, and they don't act quick, but they do ultimately bring tangible results.

Air America is new, but it is growing rapidly. Our connections through the web are growing also. We are learning how to fund our own candidates, and if we get enough of them elected to local offices they can run for higher offices as proven winners and incumbents, which can attract non ideological money to their side. I support Primary challenges within the Democratic Party. The far right used them to take over the Republican Party, but notice that they won't run anyone against Lincoln Chafee, or run him out of the Republican Party. Still they kept honing their message until it started to sound normal to a lot of people. Progressives have a message also, but it won't be fully heard over night.

If the answer was simple we wouldn't need to have discussions like this, but I guess the answer will never be simple...

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. Democrats should have been providing hard deadlines backed up with threats

"Democrats should have been providing hard deadlines backed up with threats of funding cut-offs"

How forceful is a threat that you are not able to deliver on? I understand taking strong positions because the truth must be heard, but I am not as clear about the advantages of making a hollow threat. That is why both Parties employ "Whips" as vote counters. The dialectic we are dancing around is will the Democratic Party regain power sooner by having progressive leaders take the lead in presenting a strong agenda without broad Party support, or will it regain power quicker by fashioning more of a Party show of unity, even if that makes the "unity platform" weaker? The power to deliver on threats in Congress comes from having the votes to do so.

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state.

In fact, the Iranian regime has gone further, calling for the Middle East to be a nuclear-weapons-free zone. On Feb. 26, Ahmadinejad said:
“We too demand that the Middle East be free of nuclear weapons; not only the Middle East, but the whole world should be free of nuclear weapons.”
Only Israel among the states of the Middle East has the bomb, and its stockpile provoked the arms race with Iraq that in some ways led to the U.S. invasion of 2003. The U.S. has also moved nukes into the Middle East at some points, either on bases in Turkey or on submarines.

Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect and monitor its nuclear energy research program, as required by the treaty. It raised profound suspicions, however, with its one infraction against the treaty--which was to conduct some secret civilian research that it should have reported and did not, and which was discovered by inspectors. Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy. Ahmadinejad’s election is not relevant to the nuclear issue, and neither is the question of whether he is, as Liz Cheney is reported to have said, “a madman.” Iran has not behaved in a militarily aggressive way since its 1979 revolution, having invaded no other countries, unlike Iraq, Israel or the U.S. Washington has nevertheless succeeded in depicting Iran as a rogue state"


snip"Bush’s allegations about the Iranians providing improvised explosive devices to the Iraqi guerrilla insurgency are bizarre. The British military looked into charges of improvised explosive devices coming from Iran, and actually came out this past January and apologized to Tehran when no evidence pointed to Iranian government involvement. The guerrillas in Iraq are militant Sunnis who hate Shiites, and it is wholly implausible that the Iranian regime would supply bombs to the enemies of its Iraqi allies."

link to full article: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929
_______________

And be sure to watch/listen/or read transcript of Sy Hersh's interview on Democracy Now. He pretty much says that baring unforeseen events a major attack on Iran is almost certainly going to happen in the not too distant future:

link to listen/watch/or read transcript:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/12/1359254

snip: "Everybody I talk to, the hawks I talk to, the neoconservatives, the people who are very tough absolutely say there's no way the U.N. is going to work, and we're just going to have to assume it doesn’t in any way. Iran, by going along with the U.N., what they're really doing is rushing their nuclear program. And so, the skepticism -- there's no belief, faith here, ultimately, in this White House, in the extent of the talk, so you've got a parallel situation. The President could then say, ‘We've explored all options. We've done it.’ I could add, if you want to get even more scared, some of our closest allies in this process -- we deal with the Germans, the French and the Brits -- they're secretly very worried, not only what Bush wants to do, but they're also worried that -- for example, the British Foreign Officer, Jack Straw, is vehemently against any military action, of course also nuclear action, and so is the Foreign Office, as I said, but nobody knows what will happen if Bush calls Blair. Blair's the wild card in this. He and Bush both have this sense, this messianic sense, I believe, about what they've done and what's needed to be done in the Middle East. I think Bush is every bit as committed into this world of rapture, as is the president."

[FrenchieCat]

42. Clark says we must talk to Iran......

First and foremost!

General Wesley Clark on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" 3/5/06
George Stephanopoulos: Let me turn to Iran. You told the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this month, that before we take Iran to the UN Security Council over their proposed nuclear weapons program, we should try talking to them directly and doing business with Iranian businesses. That's a very different approach from what other Democrats, like Senator Evan Bayh and Senator Clinton, are calling for. They say we need tough sanctions now. Why are you convinced that your approach is better?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, maybe we will need tough sanctions later on. But before any of that happens…years ago we should have talked to Iran, and it's not too late right now.

George Stephanopoulos: Directly.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Directly to Iran. The Iranian state is not unified. There are differences of opinion in Iran, but rather that passing a $75 million Iranian Liberation Act funding proposal, why don't we just talk to the Iranian leadership and see if there's not a way <crosstalk>

George Stephanopoulos: But don't you believe that if they're this intent on developing a nuclear weapon…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think they are intent and the more we press against them, the more difficult it would be for them to change their direction. Iran represents an historic opportunity for the Shias to have leadership in the Islamic world and this nuclear issue is being crystallized in such a way that it's going to make it extremely difficult for them to back off.

George Stephanopoulos: But don't they know that the message is 'if you don't give up your nuclear program then you're not going to be able to join this modern world'? Isn't that what the United States is saying; isn't that what the European community is saying?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it's a very mixed message going to the Iranians, frankly. We're not saying we're not going to buy their oil. China's not telling the Iranians 'we won't help you build subways'. The Russians aren't telling the Iranians 'you're not going to get our billion dollars worth of weapons that you've ordered'. It's a very mixed message and really it's the United States which hasn't taken its leadership responsibilities seriously enough to go and talk to the Iranians first before this crisis comes to a head.
http://securingamerica.com/node/692

Clark also warned us during the Democratic Debates back in 2003 that Bush's policy would activate and Iran issue.....

Clark also criticized his Washington-based rivals for failing to take action against Mr. Bush's foreign policy. He said North Korea and Iran are accelerating their nuclear weapons development in reaction to the administration's "pre-emptive doctrine" and the Democrats in Congress are doing nothing to stop it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/09/politics/main...

Read this for further insight....
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002044.php
see week of 10/2/03 for the article and the discussion that I find interesting on the subjects of PNAC, Iraq and Iran.....interview of Gen. Clark by Joshua Micah Marshall at TMP.

[NCarolinawoman]

44. Clark said he had talked to Iranian officials himself, and THEY WANTED TO

TALK to the Bush Administration. He was speaking to the dispicable O'Reilly who said the Iranians would never talk to the Americans. This was way last summer, as I remember.

Just tonight I was going through an old tape and Clark was being interviewed by Pat Buchanen, of all people, on MSNBC right before the '04 election; he said that we "MUST start communicating with Iran. That this was urgent and that they would be open to dialogue."

Wes Clark is friends with Seymour Hersch, so maybe much is going on behind the scenes that we just don't know about. At this point, I have to feel that only the non-retired military brass, (and it has to be a LOT of them) will have any clout with this administration.

(By the way, I saw some idiot retired Major General on FAUX tonight talking about how we needed to bomb Iran because of the impending threat. He sounded like a NeoCon.)

[Douglas Carpenter]

54. poll shows American divided about attacking Iran -- not good news

TIMES/BLOOMBERG POLL
Doubts About Taking On Tehran
About half those polled support military action if Iran continues its nuclear activity but don't trust President Bush to make the call.
By Doyle McManus, Times Staff Writer
April 13, 2006

“WASHINGTON — Americans are divided over the prospect of U.S. military action against Iran if the government in Tehran continues to pursue nuclear technology — and a majority do not trust President Bush to make the "right decision" on that issue, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

Asked whether they would support military action if Iran continued to produce material that could be used to develop nuclear weapons, 48% of the poll's respondents, or almost half, said yes; 40% said no.

If Bush were to order military action, most respondents said they would support airstrikes against Iranian targets, and about one in four said they would support the use of American ground troops in Iran.”

Link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-iranpoll13apr13,0,7195484.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. wackos at News Max gleeful about coming attack on Iran!!!

I hate to quote NewsMax and my apologies to admin and the moderators if I am inadvertently breaking any rules. Obviously I am not quoting them because I value them. I'm quoting them because it shows that there are other sources of info predicting a massive bombing campaign against Iran:

"'Big George': The Coming Attack on Iran
Kenneth R. Timmerman, NewsMax.com
Friday, April 14, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney calls it the "Big George" scenario.
According to the man who helped plan the first air war against Saddam in 1991, U.S. aircraft, armed with conventional bunker-buster bombs, would be more than enough to wipe out Iran's nuclear and missile facilities, and cripple its ability to command and control its military forces.

McInerney believes that U.S. air power is so massive, precise, and stealthy, it can effectively disarm Iran with just limited assistance from covert operators on the ground whose task would be to light up enemy targets.

In his "Big George" scenario, the United States would attack 1,000 targets in Iran. Fifteen B2 stealth bombers based in the United States and another 45 F117s and F-22s based in the region would carry out the initial waves of the attack, crippling Iran's long-range radar and strategic air defenses."

link:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/4/13/94944.shtml?s=sp