Steny Hoyer: Use of Force Against IRAN On the Table

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

I knew the 110th congress was too good to be true.

Betrayed.

Democrats: Nuclear Iran unacceptable 07 Jan 2007

Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable, new House Majority
Leader Steny Hoyer told The Jerusalem Post hours after entering
the party leadership position. The Maryland Democrat said the view
is shared by his party, rejecting assertions that the Democrats
would be weaker than the Republicans on Iran. He also said that
the use of force against Teheran remained an option.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467674368&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Hoyer's job is to ensure that the US stays at war in the middle east.
Never mind that Israel has nuclear WEAPONS.

[leftofthedial]

1. The Democrats are very near driving me out of the party

after over 30 years . . .

[madokie]

24. me too but where to

[ShortnFiery]

36. They underestimate the will of their constituents

We need to tell Hoyer that he's off the mark.

:wtf: Are both parties filled with warmongering idiots?!?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

33. Indeed.

This constant drumbeat from the Democrats for war with Iran is terrible! :eyes:

[Tom Joad]

40. In the party or not, i don't think is all that important.

We need to make our voice heard. We demand a different foreign policy.
http://www.endtheoccupation.org/

[me b zola]

83. Here's my feeling on the subject...

Every Liberal who leaves the party makes it easier for the handful of corportists to contronl/ruin the party. The Democratic Party is the Party of the people, and we should stay to return the party--and the nation--to the people.

I urge you to dig your heels in and fight from with-in the party. :pals:

[oberliner]

2. Discussions, negotiations, sanctions

From the same article, those are the quoted words from from Hoyer vis-a-vis Iran.

Regarding military action, he said: "It's not an option we want to consider until we know there is no other option."

[depakid]

6. "...until we know there is no other option."

Unfortunately, to many of us, that strikes a chord of Deja Vu re: IWR.

Seems to me that there's a legitimate question as to whether certain Dems have learned their lesson.

2004 Top Ten Career Recipients of Pro-Israel PAC Funds

Compiled by Hugh Galford

House: Current Cycle
Hoyer, Steny (D-MD) $37,500
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL) 36,000
Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) 35,100
Lantos, Tom (D-CA) 31,600
Frost, Martin (D-TX) 31,300
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) 23,750
Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) 23,000
DeLay, Tom (R-TX) 23,000
Lowey, Nita (D-NY) 20,650
Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) 20,650

House: Career
Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) $201,455
Frost, Martin (D-TX) 165,414
Engel, Eliot (D-NY) 137,918
Levin, Sander (D-MI) 113,727
Lowey, Nita (D-NY) 109,738
Lantos, Tom (D-CA) 107,250
Hoyer, Steny (D-MD) 92,275
Evans, Lane (D-IL) 87,379
Harman, Jane (D-CA) 86,271
DeLay, Tom (R-TX) 81,050

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2752244

[oberliner]

11. $37,500? Wow that's almost as much as he got from Electric Utilities PACs

More than half anyway. They gave him $63,000.

So of the 1.2 million dollars in PAC contribution that he got in 2004, 37.5 thousand of it was from pro-Israel PACs? That does not seem like a lot.

Especially considering, he also got 700 thousand dollars in individual contributions.

I think the ability of the pro-Israel lobby to manipulate congressional representatives is overstated.

[depakid]

17. Just sayin'

He's right up there at the top of the list. Whether there's any quid pro quo- I have no good way of knowing, though I guess if one were interested, it wouldn't be too hard to do an analysis of $$$, public statements and voting patterns. Might be a good Poly Sci project for an enterprising student.

My worries are that I heard things like this leading up to the IWR vote (and why ANYONE in their right mind would have granted Bush and his cadre of Neocons the ostensible authority to invade- well, let's just say- it remains beyond me).

[oberliner]

18. I share your concerns

It does feel similar to the march to war with Iraq. I, too, am worried about the direction things seem to be heading with regards to Iran. I just think people overstate the power of those lobbyists.

In any case, I think we can all agree that with the Democrats calling the shots we are a lot more likely to see some actual negotiating and a real attempt to engage in some sort of diplomacy before rushing into battle.

Especially if we can get a Democrat in the White House ASAP.

[stansnark]

20. their power is more than cash

[stansnark]

19. i think understated

he got 700,000 from individuals with no voice in the matter? yet 37,500 buys his allegience ?

[frazzledmom]

65. So they are just giving money out of the goodness

of their hearts? They don't expect anything in return? I bet $40,000 buys you a vote in Congress..

[HysteryDiagnosis]

25. Why is it legal or acceptable for our hired hands to accept

money from anyone for any reason? In a real place of business the ethics rulebook would have you out the door asap.

[oberliner]

88. Hey, if you want to outlaw all lobby groups

Then I think that's a larger discussion.

[napi21]

3. Oh for goodness sake, stop being so naive. First of all Stenny

doesn't have any power over foreign policy. Second, it would be a mistake for any Dem to outright say that any military action was off the table! This is all posturing right now with Iran. Ahmadinijad is posturing too. Sit back and wait to see what the next move is.

It's this NO MILITARY ACTION attitude that got us Dems the reputation of being wimps. Right now, it's all talk, and we don't have the ability to do any additional military action anyway, so relax.

[thatsrightimirish]

4. agreed n/t

[tblue]

12. Hear hear! And I hope to God you are right. The last thing we need is another war.

[stansnark]

21. what got dems the reputation of being wimps

was the fact of them ACTUALLY BEING WIMPS

[Mr Rabble]

31. you mean wimpy like LBJ?

Or wimpy like JFK? Or maybe FDR?

[bdamomma]

28. I hope you are right.

[LSK]

56. thank you

[LynneSin]

74. Not even 72 hours and we're ready to let the republicans run things again

:eyes:

[Morgana LaFey]

82. I saw one interview with him over the weekend and that's EXACTLY

how it went down. The dumb questioner asked him about it and it was a throwaway line for him -- one of those things you HAVE to say, so that no one gets the idea you're a treasonous bastard giving aid and comfort to the enemy and all that crap. It was PURELY reflexive, a "yes, of course" sort of response that was just what was required AND expected in the moment.

[populistdriven]

5. Reyes is a TOOL also

The only reason you put someone so ill-informed in charge of a position like that is because he has been bought.

Monday, December 11, 2006
Incoming House intelligence chief botches easy intel quiz
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, who incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tapped to head the Intelligence Committee when the Democrats take over in January, failed a quiz of basic questions about al Qaeda and Hezbollah, two of the key terrorist organizations the intelligence community has focused on since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

When asked by CQ National Security Editor Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda is one or the other of the two major branches of Islam -- Sunni or Shiite -- Reyes answered "they are probably both," then ventured "Predominantly -- probably Shiite."

That is wrong. Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden as a Sunni organization and views Shiites as heretics.

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/12/incoming-house-intelligence-chief.html

[madrchsod]

10. jeeze get this guy up to speed....

[NYC Liberal]

7. Of course it "remains an option", he'd be stupid to say otherwise

I don't see anywhere in there where he says that he or the Dems are calling for an immediate bombing campaign in Iran. All he is saying is that it is an "option," which obviously it is. That doesn't mean that they support nuking Iran tomorrow. Sheesh.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

29. why ok for Israel to have nukes?

Since when does the US have the right to tell Iran it can't
have nuclear capabilities?

Why do we wink and nod at Israel for having nuclear weapons?

Why do we sell nuclear materials to other countries?

Its all about control of other countries assetts and resources (oil).

Iran knows that if they don't have nuclear capacity, they
will end up like Iraq or any other country that has
oil.

[mzmolly]

48. Iran and the NPT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Iran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Nuclear weapons

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on July 1, 1968 and ratified the treaty on February 2, 1970.<9>

A number of countries, including the U.S., France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom, have accused Iran of a clandestine intention to develop nuclear weapons.

..........

IAEA

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an autonomous body, established by the United Nations, that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to inhibit its use for military purposes.

According to the IAEA, Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, or even weapons-grade uranium. On March 6 2006, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA, reported that "the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices ... however, after three years of intensive verification, there remain uncertainties with regard to both the scope and the nature of Iran´s nuclear programme".<11>

On December 18, 2003, Iran signed an additional protocol that allows IAEA inspectors access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military-owned workshops, and research and development locations.<12>

On May 12, 2006, claims that highly enriched uranium (well over the 3.5% enriched level) was reported to have been found "at a site where Iran has denied such sensitive atomic work", appeared. "They have found particles of highly enriched uranium , but it is not clear if this is contamination from centrifuges that had been previously found or something new," said one diplomat close to the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These reports have not yet been officially confirmed by the IAEA (as of June 1, 2006).<13><14><15>

On 31 July 2006, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment activities.<16>

In late 2006, "New traces of plutonium and enriched uranium — potential material for atomic warheads — have been found in a nuclear waste facility in Iran." However, "A senior U.N. official who was familiar with the report cautioned against reading too much into the findings of traces of highly enriched uranium and plutonium, saying Iran had explained both and they could plausibly be classified as byproducts of peaceful nuclear activities. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the report publicly, said that while the uranium traces were enriched to a higher level than needed to generate power, they were below weapons-grade."<17>

[David__77]

8. He should be made to be more judicious in his utterances.

There should be no such statement made. Surely a more appropriate wording can be found that fails to confirm or deny the potential "necessity" for such action. I understand the desire not to be pigeon-holed by the right - but now there allowing such from the left.

[madrchsod]

9. this has been a policy since 1979 to contain iran

whether by sanctions or military action every president has continued these policies. as long as the saudi`s ,big oil,israeli`s influence our foreign policy iran will always be the bad guy for one reason or another. but this policy is`t going to work anymore because india,china,and other south east asian countries need iran`s natural gas. 27 years of this crap has`t changed a thing is`t it time to try and work out a deal?

[Hippo_Tron]

13. I dunno what planet Hoyer is living on, but the American people won't approve a war with Iran

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

32. They wouldn't?

If Iran starts blowing up oil tankers or engages American forces I think that public opinion would change mighty quick.

[populistdriven]

35. U mean Iran or a False Flag?

Gen. Boykin: “If there is another terrorist attack, Americans will demand the cessation of the Constitution for their own safety.”


The 22nd Amendment will not save us from these felons.

[windbreeze]

52. uh huh....especially if we were TOLD Iran did it...

exactly the thought that intimidates some of us...Gulf of Tonkin...the Maine...yeah...no possible way someone would falsely claim it was Iran who started it...and after they are nuked...well, who cares then??? too late to correct the "official" story...
wb

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

85. Yes.

I'm sure Steny Hoyer's evil plan to fake a war with Iran will go off without a hitch.

[bluewave]

14. Stenny, we can put you back in the minority again, if you wish. n/t

[rcdean]

15. We need a counter-argument; not just complaints. Here are a few points

It's important we raise counterpoints when people like Hoyer and other Israeli suck-ups join with the jingoists and red meat eaters to proclaim "A Nuclear Iraq Is Unacceptable!"

Implicit in their veiled threat are the notions that

• Ahmadinejad is nuts and unstable, and nukes in his hands are a hazard,
  
• Iran, under any leadership, will use nukes to threaten Israel,
  
• if we (or the Israelis) wanted to, we could destroy their enrichment facilities,
  
• under the Bush doctrine, if we or Israel strike first that is a legitimate pre-emptive attack.
  

There are many reasons why these points are bullshit, and we must begin to advance them. These responses are not well organized, but hopefully they're a start:

1. Ahmadinejad, under the Iranian system does not have control of the military,
   
2. Iran is a form of semi-democracy. True the council of high muckity-mucks has the final say. But elections do occur, and the outcomes matter. Witness the one two weeks ago that were a slap in the face to Ahmadinejad.
   
3. Crazy Ahmadinejad has plenty of opposition inside Iran. But the nuke program has near universal support. An invasion of any sort would radicalize the nation and make Ahmadinejad stronger.
   
4. Enrichment facilities are underground. They are impervious to destruction. Modern conventional weapons cannot penetrate deeply enough to damage them. Neither can nukes. This was detailed in a Harpers story by Ben Phelan last April: Buried Truths; Debunking the nuclear “bunker buster”. There has been no challenge to his assertions that I'm aware of.
   
5. The consequence of striking but not destroying these facilities would be an even more enraged Islamic world and a wounded Iran on the verge of having a nuke.
   
6. What earthly power gives us the right to determine who may and who may not have nuclear weapons?
   
7. When we say Iran is one of 3-parts of an "Axis of Evil" then invade another part right next door, don't Iranians have a right to be fearful and do what they can to protect their homeland from America? (Christ! I cringe when I write the words "protect their homeland from America". It is so sad that they are all too true!)
   
8. Human nature is such that people do not want to destroy themselves. Hence all nations that go nuclear are forced by reality into a "MAD" mode. They know, like we know, that if they use a nuke on somebody else, they will suffer retaliation and perhaps annihilation. Iran will adopt the same kind of rational restraint when their nukes come on line.
   

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

30. add to your list that "Israel has nukes and we give them aid"

since we send billions to Israel - yet do not
threaten them for having nuclear weapons,
we don't need any other reason for leaving Iran alone.

Israel is constantly at war with their neighbors,
and yet we don't threaten to bomb them.

[Tom Joad]

39. We give Israel aid in violation of US law. It is against US law to

give military aid to a nation not a signer of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and in possession of nuclear weapons.

[MadHound]

34. Something else to add to your list,

Namely that Iran has absolutely NO nuclear weapons, and is currently at least ten years away from having any. Oh, and every single independent observer of Iran's nuclear program has confirmed that they are persuing it for their stated intention, ie nuclear power generation. They aren't enriching to weapons grade material, they're enriching to fuel grade material.

[tavalon]

16. This surprises you?

First off, this is how they force Iran to do what they want. Second of all, Iran won't be pushed like that - it isn't manly. And thirdly, did you think Steny Hoyer, a DLC stooge, would say any different?

Don't judge the whole Congress on this asswipe. It won't be good for the ulcer you are trying to develop. Hopefully we will be too mired in the many investigations coming down the pike to have time to nuke Iran.

[stansnark]

22. what did you expect ?

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Forgot to add that this is particularly stupid given Ahmadinejad's low approval

No, Iran isn't getting a western style democracy again any time soon (they had one in the 1950's but we fixed that for them). But they are pissed at Ahmadinejad for spending all of his time taunting the US instead of addressing domestic problems and they can vote him out of office.

Frankly Ahmadinejad kinda reminds me of Bush. Only interesting in pleasing the hard-liners.

[leesa]

26. Good, at least their loyalties are clear. Pelosi also pledged, Israel first, no matter

what in front of an AIPAC meeting in 2004 (I think that's the right year).

This is why I am glad Cindy and others are in their face...it might remind them which country they live in and work for.

[bdamomma]

27. If Murtha was in Steny's position I am sure Murtha would not support

this sort of suicidal action.

[paulk]

47. why do you think that?

:shrug:

No, really.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Emit]

50. Hoyer's sister, Bernice Manocherian, is a former President of AIPAC, from '04, I think n/t

[NoodleyAppendage]

51. Figures. n/t

J

[Tom Joad]

38. Iran does not have nuclear weapons.

[TahitiNut]

42. Irrelevant. This is the Jerusalem Post ... red meat for the AIPAC zealots.

It's a pep rally. :shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. This is my letter to congress critter

So war with Iran is on the table...

Why am I having a dejavu moment to 2003?

How many times does the President of the United States and his agents have to lie to you guys before you get it. They are cherry picking intelligence

These are the guys who gave you Team B in the 80s and also gave you the failed policy in Iraq. But now we have Stenny Hoyer publicly say that war with Iran is on the table and that a Nuclear Iran is non acceptable?

Ok forgive me for laughing, I could cry as well I guss, but the UN IAEA has found ZERO evidence that the nuclear project is meant to produce nuclear weapons. They are still under the inspection regime since they STILL REMAIN under the NTP. For how long? who knows? We are doing a dandy job of pressuring Iran to leave the NTP and PRODUCE NUKES, why? Well lets be honest, what have we done about a Nuclear armed N. Korea?

Now here is what the Congress should be doing... INVESTIGATIONS... uncovering all the crap of all the lies that the President has said to us and yes, if need be defundthe war. Yes I know the 109th passed the DoD budget before leaving town... but at this point the lesson from 1970s is clear, Nam, another war in the end fought for the ego of one man, only ended when the war was defunded. It is time to bring the kids hoer

And yes, it is time to impeach the President of the US for LYING to you guys into a war. He's about to do it again. Don't take my word for it, but they are about to.

So how many times will they need to lie before you look them in the eye and tell them no more.

[mzmolly]

43. The use of force against Canada also "remains an option."

Doesn't mean we'll bomb Vancouver.

Let's look at the ENTIRETY of his statement:

Hoyer said the Democrats' position, like that of the Bush administration, was that preventing a nuclear-armed Iran had to be done through "discussions, negotiations, sanctions." Hoyer added that the US needed to work with the international community to block Teheran's nuclear ambitions.

At the same time, Hoyer said the use of force hadn't been taken off the table.

"I've not ruled that out," he said, but added, "It's not an option we want to consider until we know there is no other option."•

In fact, I'll post that last tidbit for itself.

[mzmolly]

44. "It's not an option we want to consider until we know there is no other option." ~ Steny Hoyer

in the article above. This post is flame bait IMO.

[Lurking Dem]

46. Don't be gettin' all logical.

The folks jonesing for outrage might have to find a Democratic Party Platform plank they actually agree with.

[mzmolly]

49. Sorry about that man.

;) Logic is a nasty thing when we want to take quotes out of context and all.

[Hippo_Tron]

61. That's different and you know it

Some of us are scared shitless about the possibility of Bush pulling the trigger on Iran with his 2 years left in office because we think he might be crazy enough to do it. For Steny to even raise the possibility that Democrats will allow this to happen is cause for concern.

[mzmolly]

63. Reading Hoyers quote in context is not "scary."

Here it is again, in case you missed it:

"It's not an option we want to consider until we know there is no other option."

Hoyer was asked about Iran, and answered the question as any rational person would. Democrats are not pacifists.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Politics, and politicians, as usual.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[Vidar]

53. Whatever AIPAC wants AIPAC gets,

[rpgamerd00d]

54. I agree with Hoyer. I can't see why any sane person would disagree here.

Nuclear Proliferation = bad. This is a liberal position, and I think we all agree.

Iran is a particularly bad regime to obtain nuclear weapons.

We need to stop them, diplomatically if possible, forcibly if not.

I think you're all a little gun-shy because of the Iraq debacle. Of COURSE we want to blow the crap out of Iran if they force the issue and try to develop nukes. Duh !

Just because Iraq was wrong, doesn't mean Iran is.

[Robbien]

57. Right now there are about a dozen US warships in Iranian waters

Another one is set to sail to Iranian waters by the end of this month.

If your country was being patrolled by warships of a country whose president has repeatedly whined "I want to bomb Iran back to the stone ages. Please let me Dick Cheney. Please! I wanna!", you would definately be looking for ways to defend yourself.

So your statement

Nuclear Proliferation = bad. This is a liberal position, and I think we all agree.

Is wrong and we don't all agree. It is not a liberal position (see DU poll yesterday). And we don't agree with you. You appear to agree with Bush's desire to bomb Iran. Many here don't agree.

[rpgamerd00d]

58. You're wrong. Nuclear Non-Proliferation is a liberal position.

In fact, its a "non-stupid people" position.

Nukes are bad, mmmkay?

Iran with nukes is really, really bad, mmmkay?

The proper solution here is Diplomacy.
Parking a fleet outside Iran = Diplomacy.
"Leaking" that Isreal will nuke Iran = Diplomacy.
Dem Leaders saying military action vs. Iran is "on the table" = Diplomacy.

If diplomacy should fail here, we need to physically stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
I do not think Iran's nukes are imminent, however.

[Robbien]

62. When the biggest bully on the block refuses to talk

how can you even mention the word diplomacy. Parking a dozen warships in Iranian waters is not diplomacy. It is a loud, insane and very dangerous threat. A bully swaggering if you will.

Also, Since no one is doing any talking, your statement

If diplomacy should fail here, we need to physically stop Iran

makes no sense, just another bully threat.

When the biggest bully on the block is swaggering around the world parking gunships and dropping bombs willy nilly, every country had better build better defenses. Up to and including nukes. It would be stupid not to do so.

What is also studid is your broad statement that ALL liberals agree with you and Stoney Hoyer who is willing to allow BushCo's bomb dropping campaign on men, women and children in Iran. ALL liberals do not agree.

mmmkay

[The Stranger]

80. OPPOSING Invading other sovereign nations AGAINST U.S. NATIONAL INTERESTS, is an AMERICAN POSITION.

I don't care whether it is liberal, conservative, or anything in between.

[oblivious]

59. Iran does not have nukes and has no plans to get nukes.

Perhaps you are mixing up nuclear power for peaceful purposes with nuclear weapons.

The Iranian government has said over and over it has no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons. The IAEA has verified to date that there is no indication so far that Iran has diverted research into nuclear weapons.

[rpgamerd00d]

60. I dont disagree with you.

But that isn't the issue.

The issue is making sure they are prevented from doing so.

[frazzledmom]

66. Why?

Why is it wrong for Iran to have nukes? Is it because:

1. Their leader is nuts?
2. They may attack someone unprovoked?
3. They care nothing for the lives of other people?
4. They don't live in a Democracy?

Can you give me one non-hypocritical reason that we should be allowed Nukes and someone else shouldn't?

Who made the US, the UK, China, and Russia the deciders of who gets what technology and power?

[rpgamerd00d]

67. Because their government would use them against Israel.

Iran is a government, not a terrorist group.
Governments have policies.
When the policies of Iran change, I will reconsider my position on letting them have nukes.
Until then, they are not allowed to have any.
And I would support full-scale war to prevent them from getting them, if they push it.

[Junkdrawer]

71. You support full-scale war, but would you go as far as serious negotiation...

I know that's a radical position...

[rpgamerd00d]

73. You really need to read more carefully.

I only said that like 4 times.

[Junkdrawer]

75. Bush is using "diplomacy". Iran wants us to renounce "regime change" and to...

stop supporting the MeK, etc. etc.

Diplomacy and serious negotiations are two different things.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Robbien]

78. thanks

really do like that beautiful peaceful flower.

[The Stranger]

79. Like most sane people, WE DISAGREE with Hoyer.

Aware that the nation was hijacked after 9-11 by Extremist Far-Right Elements of Neoconservative Think Tanks and Fundamentalist Religious Extremists and Clerics, we DISAGREE with Hoyer and if he wants to invade other sovereign nations, give him (and his Neocon buddies) a rifle and a swift kick in the ass in the direction of the Middle East.

[windbreeze]

55. Actually, was there any need

for Hoyer to even make any statement regarding Iran? Why don't we do our homework, choose the best course of action regarding all things, and in the meantime, keep our mouths shut? I can't see that people need to keep bringing this up..I wonder what's the purpose??Why can't we just say...no comment, if someone questions us? Why confirm or deny actions we may or may not take?
wb

[mzmolly]

64. He was asked a question and answered it.

:hi:

[The Stranger]

81. Good, if he keeps giving the wrong answer, as here, then get him the fuck out of office.

PRONTO.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

86. The right answer is apparently - "no we will never use force, ever ever ever again."

Gotcha.

[windbreeze]

84. I still say

he could have said, no comment at this time...people don't want to hear that nothing is off the table regarding Iran...they don't want another war...I venture to say...they don't even want it to be an "option"...so why feed that monster...why not starve it, instead...
wb

[mzmolly]

87. People do want real answers from politicians.

Saying "no comment" to every uncomfortable question is not an option IMHO.

[Emit]

68. Hoyer also said

"There are some who believe that we must demonstrate more even-handedness in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. I do not.

Instead, I believe we must guard against making muddled parallelisms between justified actions by Israel and terrorist tactics designed only to inflame and destroy." ~ Address to AIPAC Political Leadership Conference, December 15, 2003

http://democraticwhip.house.gov/in_the_news/statements_and_speeches/index.cfm?pressReleaseID=406

[ripple]

70. Uh oh. That sort of ideology is what put us where we are today. n/t

[ripple]

69. Maybe it's the big stick approach

After all, one doesn't negotiate with countries one disagrees with by saying 'we really want you to do this, but even if you don't, there will be no consequence.'

I think it makes sense to at least leave the possibility there as a deterrent for Iran. I don't know if that's where Hoyer was coming from, but if so, I can't disagree. The difference is whether or not Hoyer or other dems would actively attempt to use force against Iran in the absence of an imminent threat.

To me, it's like not showing your opponent your hand in a game of poker. :shrug:

[mvd]

72. Leaving options on the table is ok

I believe that in complete self-defense, sometimes force is needed. But I'm very anti-war and think that should be the only reason. Hopefully, the Democrats will be different and not rush to judgment if they develop a nuke.

[Douglas Carpenter]

89. Zbigniew Brzezinski on the possibility of attacking Iran

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006. Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security advisor to President Carter from 1977 to 1981.

Been there, done that by Zbigniew Brzezinski --
April 23, 2006

link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions%20

"First, in the absence of an imminent threat (and the Iranians are at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without a formal congressional declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).

Second, likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the United States in regional violence for a decade or more. Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.

Third, oil prices would climb steeply, especially if the Iranians were to cut their production or seek to disrupt the flow of oil from the nearby Saudi oil fields. The world economy would be severely affected, and the United States would be blamed for it. Note that oil prices have already shot above $70 per barrel, in part because of fears of a U.S.-Iran clash.

Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become an even more likely target of terrorism while reinforcing global suspicions that U.S. support for Israel is in itself a major cause of the rise of Islamic terrorism. The United States would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote.

In short, an attack on Iran would be an act of political folly, setting in motion a progressive upheaval in world affairs. With the U.S. increasingly the object of widespread hostility, the era of American preponderance could even come to a premature end. Although the United States is clearly dominant in the world at the moment, it has neither the power nor the domestic inclination to impose and then to sustain its will in the face of protracted and costly resistance. That certainly is the lesson taught by its experiences in Vietnam and Iraq. "

link to full article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions%20