Channeling Alberto Gonzalez
That damn Alberto Gonzalez! Man, did he ever get me into trouble. I had spent a good part of the day yesterday listening to his testimony about the NSA spying scandal. I had originally put aside the day to study some strategic poker tips in Card Player magazine, but my attention kept shifting back to Gonzalez’s riveting performance on C-SPAN. I don’t know about you, but I found his arguments quite convincing. So convincing that I couldn’t wait to try them out while playing a few hands of no-limit Texas Hold’Em.
Next thing I knew, I was sitting at the #5 seat at a $200 No-Limit table down at the Commerce Casino. Sitting on the big blind, I played my 7-10 offsuit when I flopped a Ten-high straight. I check-raised my heads-up opponent and went all-in with my $185 chip stack. I had put him on a puny two-pair of 10-8. But he actually called my bet and then flipped over a diamond flush. I knew his hand beat mine, but this was my moment to make my move, to roll-out the fabled Gonzalez Bluff. Who cares which hand really beats another? As if I were Alberto himself, I stood up, buttoned my coat jacket, and nonchalantly reached for the pot chips in the middle of the table. Before I could start scooping them up, the guy with the flush angrily grabbed my arm and shouted: “Hey! What the hell’s wrong with you, bro’? Don’t you know the rules?”
Unruffled, I politely smiled and --virtually channeling Gonzalez-- I answered him patiently, calmly and deliberately. “Sir,” I said, affecting a mixed Texas/Harvard accent. “You kinda look Iranian to me. For all I know, you might be in Hezbollah or linked up with Al Qaeda. And I think it is obvious that when Congress voted after September 11th to authorize the use of military force against Osama Bin Laden, it implicitly authorized U.S. citizens to take whatever measures are necessary to deny suspected terrorists their funding sources. So, flushes used to beat straights, but not any longer, Mohammed…”
The Hezbollah guy wasn't buying it. He tightened his death-grip on my arm and interrupted me sputtering, “What the f….?”
I kept my cool and, fortunately, the rather alarmed dealer intervened and summoned over the big Samoan “floor man” – the hulking pit manager who is called upon to resolve disputes among players. He made the Iranian guy let go of my arm and then asked if we would be kind enough to truthfully tell him what had happened. The Iranian guy went first, relying on the tired and predictable pre 9-11 concept that flushes beat straights. I then told the floor man that, really, there was no reason for me to swear to tell the truth. We were, after all, among gentlemen and colleagues here (except maybe for the suspected terrorist holding the flush). “Sir,” I said to the pit manager, “I’ve been the virtual ‘captain’ of this table for the past few hours. I’m the one who has been leading the action and giving direction to the game as well as offering safeguards for the most vulnerable players at the table. And, frankly, I find it in my inherent authority to simply over-ride the rules whenever I deem it convenient. Don’t you know we’re a country at war?” The big Samoan loudly grunted and then scooped me up my by the scruff of my neck, dragged me out the door, and rudely shoved me onto the rough parking lot asphalt. “And don’t even dream of ever coming back here with that sort of B.S., you a_ _ hole!” he shouted to my back. I shakily stood up, dusted myself off, and with those words ringing in my head kept, shuffled to my car wondering just how Alberto the Master would have played this.
February 7th, 2006 at 4:03 am
You should have, at least, noted what powers Clinton’s advisors said Clinton had when he was Pres.
Kind of a double standard, OK with Slick Willy but no for Cowboy George. But so much Leftist junk is.
I did like the story. And it matches the Dem talking points “NSA [terrorist surveillance] domestic syping” is obviously against the law.
Just like, prior to 1973, abortion was clearly against the law (except in states where state laws explicitly changed). But, when push came to shove at the US SC, it was found that abortion was NOT against the law.
Until the “big Samoan” SC rules on the President’s War Powers for NSA intel gathering, there’s no way to know for sure. (And nobody really knows how Alito or Roberts will really rule!)
The 9/11 Commission Dems seemed to be complaining a LOT about how Bush didn’t do “enough” — and now Dems are complaining a LOT about how Bush is doing “too much.”
Leftists wonder why non-Dems don’t think they’re very serious.
I’m glad Bush is seriously pushing “as far as the law allows.” And it’s not always so clear as poker.
February 7th, 2006 at 4:13 am
Okay, that was hilarious. Good job.
Not quite Wodehouse, but still pretty damn funny.
February 7th, 2006 at 8:16 am
Kind of a double standard, OK with Slick Willy but no for Cowboy George. But so much Leftist junk is.
[BIG YAWN]
If you have any proof that wiretaps were done in the Clinton administration without the FISA Court, please present it.
This is about as groundless as your attempts to blame Darfur on the left when it is the Bush administration that has been torpoeding the Darfur Accountability Act.
Reading you is kind of like listening to the reports of Baghdad Bob at the start of the Iraq War - and your comments are about as truthful.
Great post, Marc.
February 7th, 2006 at 9:29 am
The trick, Marc, is being on the same side as the guy who hired the pit manager. See this kind of game only works if you’re the dealer! That way, when people complain you get to tell them, “house rules, if you don’t like it, head over to Canadabet down the street!”
February 7th, 2006 at 9:33 am
No wire taps were done by Clinton. Righties believe their own lies. That’s what makes them foolish, as we’ve just seen. Again. Notice how examples of past president’s doing this sort of thing were before FISA. “Roosevelt,” Gonzales said. That’s no accident. It’s irrelevant history and the ususal Texas side step.
February 7th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Woody,
Cowboy George?
Yeah, more like Cowboy Cheerleader George.
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/1703988.php
February 7th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
“No Wiretaps were done by Clinton.”
Anyone who doesn’t believe that Clinton, more than anyone, paved the way for the anti-liberties attitude of the Bush administration doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Clinton paved the way for many things that if first proposed by the right, would be rejected.
I don’t remember Bush pulling a Waco yet.
No self-respective progressive or leftist or even liberal should admire the Clintons.
February 7th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
“You should have, at least, noted what powers Clinton’s advisors said Clinton had when he was Pres.”
What powers were those? And what Clinton advisors are you talking about? When did this happen? Can you provide a source?
I love it how guys like you and Woody post some ridiculous assertion and then refuse to defend said assertion. Kind of cowardly, don’t you think?
February 7th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
“I don’t remember Bush pulling a Waco yet”
Some might argue that an undeclared war in Iraq wIth tens of thousands of people killed and untold more wounded and maimed is an even bigger abuse of executive power.
February 7th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Look Cummings you’re staring to sound like a bonafide Loon. Clinton wanted modifications and got them specifically and legally. Don’t conflate these two very real situations. And yes invading countries can be considered looney. But don’t imitate the wingers by preaching about who to admire or not based this their all the same if not a radical stance. That’s exactly what the problem is.
February 7th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
“I don’t remember Bush pulling a Waco yet.”
Well, there’s this country called Iraq…
February 7th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Sorry David, I didn’t realize you beat me to it…just had to scroll right down to the comments box when I read that howler.
February 7th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
“Look Cummings you’re staring to sound like a bonafide Loon”
Yeah, Cummings!
February 7th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Cumming’s right actually, Clinton laid down the groundwork for this spying business. Bush is merely upping the ante. Why any liberal would think that Hillary wouldn’t do more of the same is likewise a big mystery.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Well I don’t anyone is going to let Iran advance in this manner. I find this conflation feckless. George made his own bed here. He midlead us and the dems into the war as I’ve said. They have major differences in opinion of foreign policy whether radical news editors think it’s so or not. His thesis fails on merit in my view. Just saying something doesn’t make it valid.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
“Clinton laid down the groundwork for this spying business.”
It simply isn’t true, only that you see it that way. Legally doing something is not the same as illegally doing it. The president clearly did the latter as Dems point out all the time, Hillary included and Feingold on the Senate floor right now.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Really? They sound pretty similar to me, Iran bad, US good….sanctions, military options on the table…more support for Israeli armaments, etc. More military solutions in Iraq….
Both buy into the idea that Iran is now one of the biggest if not the biggest ‘threat’ to the American people…
Good thing the US is stuck in a quagmire in Iraq or it’d have been bombs away long ago with Democratic approval.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
John, you mean like the Democratic Congress which banned aid to the Contras which a Republican President’s cabal circumvented? (Not that the ban was a ban on torture precisely, but it was prompted by the hideous record of a hideous group).”
Dan and Mark, your facts are a little disingenous…your Democratic party goggles are blinding you two once again…
TIMELINE
1982- Congress approves 19 million dollars in covert aid to Contras through the CIA
1983-Congress approves 24 million dollars in overt aid (and now the fun begins)…
Sept. 1983- Contras use their funds and resources to damage internal infrastructure vital to Nicaraguan people: Oil pipelines, the Managua airport, Corino port facilities, etc.
January-Feb 1984-Contras mine Nicaragua’s harbors
October 1984- CIA assassination manuals found in Contra officer’s hands. Interviews by international organizations confirm directives.
May 1, 1985- Congress approves Economic embargo on Nicaragua and its people, Reagan signs it.
June, 1985-Congress approves 28 million dollars in “humanitarian aid” to Contras, a novel interpretation of that term given the rather unhumanitarian activities of the contras.
1986- Congress approves 100 million dollars in aid to contras, 70 million of it in military aid.
1987-as the Iran-Contra scandal is becoming known, Congress approves 20 million dollars in what it calls “non-lethal aid” to the contras.
1988- even after North and Poindexter’s activities are known, Congress approves 48 million dollars in overt aid to the contras.
April 1989- Congress approves 50 million dollars in overt aid to the contras.
Dan, there was never, as you say, a “ban on aid to the contras” by the Democratic Congress - in fact, it was quite the opposite. They continued funding them right on up until the “magic of Democracy” occurred….meaning that the Nicaraguan people, sick of their country being torn apart by Washington’s proxy army in their country, relented and voted in Chamorro over Ortega. The magic of democracy indeed.
Congress DID pass what were called “the Boland Amendments” in Dec. 1982, which prohibited the Defense Dept., the CIA, or any other government agency from providing explicit military aid to the contras from Dec. 1983 to Sept. 1985. In other words, it was a tiny little bit of oversight that they wanted to retain, to better see how things were going.
Note that Congress continued to appropriate large sums of money to the contras well after their activities against the Nicaraguan people were known. These monies continued even in wake of Human Rights Watch reports on the contras, which stated that the contras “engaged in violent abuses…so prevalent that these may be said to be their principal means of waging war.”
Perhaps the Democrats in Congress were following the advice of liberal dove writer Michael Kinsley, who wrote a defense of Washington’s deadly proxy armies in Central America by proposing that their activities needed to be understood using a “cost benefit analysis.”
Mark York says, “Well, we know what happens when powerful popular presidents want things from Congrees don’t we, Steele? They tend to defer across party lines making your insinuation sort of devoid of actual value.”
In other words, Mark York is saying that it is okay if an opposition party goes along with an agenda that is repugnant since they don’t have the backbone to oppose it. I assume that this is York’s position on neo-liberal free trade, “welfare reform,” health care, Iraq, and so on.
It is kind of easy to see why Democrats keep losing elections, when they adopt this sheepish and rather cowardly political philosophy.
I hope this helped.
http://marccooper.com/smothering-the-hearts-and-minds/#comment-26818
February 7th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
No I’m not saying that you are. I’m saying this opposition thing is a numbers game. We don’t have the numbers. What part of that can’t you see. If I need an interpreter I’ll call for one of my choice. One who can actually think for himself.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
“Iran bad, US good” Either or fallacy. Works when reversed too since it’s a formula, for a fallacy.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
The opposition isn’t an opposition, just a different side of the same coin I’m afraid.
Then again, who has to buy into “Iran good” to be critical of the farcical argument that Iran presents a major threat to the people of the US today?
February 7th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
We’re Playing Russian Roulette!
The minute I walked into the casino–called the U.S. Senate, you had this overwhelming feeling that it was all fixed, that you could never beat the house—Arlen Specter did NOT even want Gonzalez to take an oath—why take the chance of perjury, that’s a tough rap to beat.
According to the Feds there is TERROR everywhere, there are no borders to contain it, there is no time when we can predicts its end; it’s just a continuous amorphous enemy that we must be vigilant against.
If this anxiety was professed by any individual, you would probably conclude he was a paranoid. Unfortunately, this is not an individual it’s our government. And how long does our government say, we will be in this state of war against terror: “for as long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens.”
Well if that’s the case, we better prepare ourselves for one hell-uv-a-ride! BECAUSE THE WAR WILL NEVER EVER END! And because of this so-called war against TERROR, our government can pass with ease oppressive legislation in the guise of PROTECTION!
What happens if NSA is incapable of discerning what is legitimate surveillance from illegal domestic spying? Supposedly the FBI is getting so much false info from NSA—that they are becoming disgruntled—they don’t need to know if someone ordered pepperoni with their pizza.
Bush stated that the information gathered on Iraq was false and “It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.”
So if we carry this thought to a logical conclusion then we can say–If ANYONE CAN BE SPIED ON AT ANY TIME; there is a good chance that errors will inevitably be made!
And most importantly WHO WILL ULTIMATELY DECIDE who and what TERROR IS?
Is terror a political activist?
Is terror a natural disaster?
Is terror a pandemic?
Will all these laws designed to protect Americans ultimately be used against Americans?
We must be vigilant to ensure that “executive powers” are always accountable and that they never go unchecked–otherwise we will all be in deep sh–t!
February 7th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
“Is terror a political activist?”
Yes it is. That has been the operating definition of the national security apparatus since the Cold War began…actually, it goes all the way back to the Palmer Raids…and the earlier jailing of the first great terrorist, Eugene Debs while running for president!
February 7th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Published on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
The Iran Crisis — “Diplomacy” as a Launch Pad for Missiles
by Norman Solomon
The current flurry of Western diplomacy will probably turn out to be groundwork for launching missiles at Iran.
Air attacks on targets in Iran are very likely. Yet many antiwar Americans seem eager to believe that won’t happen.
Illusion 1: With the U.S. military bogged down in Iraq, the Pentagon is in no position to take on Iran.
But what’s on the horizon is not an invasion — it’s a major air assault, which the American military can easily inflict on Iranian sites. (And if the task falls to the Israeli military, it is also well-equipped to bomb Iran.)
Illusion 2: The Bush administration is in so much political trouble at home — for reasons including its lies about Iraqi WMDs — that it wouldn’t risk an uproar from an attack on Iran.
But the White House has been gradually preparing the domestic political ground for bombing Iran. As the Wall Street Journal reported days ago, “in recent polls a surprisingly large number of Americans say they would support U.S. military strikes to stop Tehran from getting the bomb.”
Above those words, the Journal’s headline — “U.S. Chooses Diplomacy on Iran’s Nuclear Program” — trumpeted the Bush administration’s game plan. It’s a time-honored scam: When you’re moving toward aggressive military action, emphasize diplomacy.
Donald Rumsfeld proclaimed at a conference in Munich on Saturday that — to put a stop to Iran’s nuclear program — the world should work for a “diplomatic solution.” Yet the next day, the German daily newspaper Handelsblatt reports, Rumsfeld said in an interview: “All options including the military one are on the table.”
Top U.S. officials, inspired by the royal “W,” aren’t hesitating to speak for the world. Over the weekend, Condoleezza Rice said: “The world will not stand by if Iran continues on the path to a nuclear weapons capability.” Meanwhile, Rumsfeld declared: “The Iranian regime is today the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. The world does not want, and must work together to prevent, a nuclear Iran.”
Translation: First we’ll be diplomatic, then we can bomb.
Illusion 3: The U.S. won’t attack Iran because that would infuriate the millions of Iran-allied Shiites in Iraq, greatly damaging the U.S. war effort there.
But projecting rationality onto the Bush administration makes little sense at this point. The people running U.S. foreign policy have their own priorities, and avoiding carnage is not one of them.
Non-proliferation doesn’t rank very high either, judging from Washington’s cozy relationships with the nuclear-weapons powers of Israel, India and Pakistan. Unlike Iran, none of those countries are signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Only Iran has been allowing inspections of its nuclear facilities — and it is Iran that the savants in Washington are now, in effect, threatening to bomb.
With sugar-plum visions of Iran’s massive oil and natural-gas reserves dancing in their heads, the Washington neo-cons evidently harbor some farfetched hopes of bringing about the overthrow of the Iranian regime. But in the real world, an attack on Iran would strengthen its most extreme factions and fortify whatever interest it has in developing nuclear arms.
“The U.S. will not solve the nuclear problem by threatening military strikes or by dragging Iran before the U.N. Security Council,” Iran’s 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi wrote in the Jan. 19 edition of the Los Angeles Times, in an oped piece co-authored by Muhammad Sahimi, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Southern California. “Although a vast majority of Iranians despise the country’s hard-liners and wish for their downfall, they also support its nuclear program because it has become a source of pride for an old nation with a glorious history.”
The essay added: “A military attack would only inflame nationalist sentiments. Iran is not Iraq. Given Iranians’ fierce nationalism and the Shiites’ tradition of martyrdom, any military move would provoke a response that would engulf the entire region, resulting in countless deaths and a ruined economy not only for the region but for the world. Imposing U.N. sanctions on Iran would also be counterproductive, prompting Tehran to leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its ‘additional protocol.’ Is the world ready to live with such prospects?”
While calling for international pressure against Iran’s serious violations of human rights, Ebadi and Sahimi said that “Iran is at least six to 10 years away from a nuclear bomb, by most estimates. The crisis is not even a crisis. There is ample time for political reform before Iran ever develops the bomb.”
Last Friday, the Iranian Student News Agency quoted Iran’s former president Muhammad Khatami, who urged the Iranian government to offer assurances that the country’s nuclear program is only for generating electricity. “It is necessary to act wisely and with tolerance so that our right to nuclear energy will not be abolished,” he said.
Though he failed to develop much political traction for reform during his eight years as president, Khatami was a moderating force against human-rights abuses. His demagogic successor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a menace to human rights and peace. But it’s by no means clear that Ahmadinejad can count on long-term support from the nation’s ruling clerics.
The man he defeated in the presidential runoff last summer, former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, wields significant power as head of the government’s Expediency Council. Though he has a well-earned reputation as a corrupt opportunist, Rafsanjani is now a beacon of enlightenment compared to Ahmadinejad.
In early January, a pair of Iran scholars — Dariush Zahedi and Ali Ezzatyar, based at the University of California in Berkeley — wrote an LA Times piece making this point: “Contrary to popular belief, the traditional conservative clerical establishment is apprehensive about the possibility of violence inside and outside Iran. It generally opposes an aggressive foreign policy and, having some intimate ties with Iran’s dependent capitalist class, is appalled at the rapid slide of the economy since Ahmadinejad’s inauguration. The value of Tehran’s stock market has plunged $10 billion, the nation’s vibrant real estate market has withered and capital outflows are increasing.”
And the scholars added pointedly: “The history of U.S.-Iran relations shows that the more Washington chastises Tehran for its nuclear ambitions, the more it plays into the hands of the radicals by riling up fear and nationalist sentiment.”
Right now, the presidents of Iran and the United States are thriving on the belligerency of the other. From all indications, a military assault on Iran would boost Ahmadinejad’s power at home. And it’s a good bet that the U.S. government will do him this enormous favor. Unless we can prevent it.
Norman Solomon’s latest book is “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com
February 7th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
24.
Published on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
The Iran Crisis — “Diplomacy” as a Launch Pad for Missiles
by Norman Solomon
The current flurry of Western diplomacy will probably turn out to be groundwork for launching missiles at Iran.
Air attacks on targets in Iran are very likely. Yet many antiwar Americans seem eager to believe that won’t happen.
Illusion 1: With the U.S. military bogged down in Iraq, the Pentagon is in no position to take on Iran.
But what’s on the horizon is not an invasion — it’s a major air assault, which the American military can easily inflict on Iranian sites. (And if the task falls to the Israeli military, it is also well-equipped to bomb Iran.)
Illusion 2: The Bush administration is in so much political trouble at home — for reasons including its lies about Iraqi WMDs — that it wouldn’t risk an uproar from an attack on Iran.
But the White House has been gradually preparing the domestic political ground for bombing Iran. As the Wall Street Journal reported days ago, “in recent polls a surprisingly large number of Americans say they would support U.S. military strikes to stop Tehran from getting the bomb.”
Above those words, the Journal’s headline — “U.S. Chooses Diplomacy on Iran’s Nuclear Program” — trumpeted the Bush administration’s game plan. It’s a time-honored scam: When you’re moving toward aggressive military action, emphasize diplomacy.
Donald Rumsfeld proclaimed at a conference in Munich on Saturday that — to put a stop to Iran’s nuclear program — the world should work for a “diplomatic solution.” Yet the next day, the German daily newspaper Handelsblatt reports, Rumsfeld said in an interview: “All options including the military one are on the table.”
Top U.S. officials, inspired by the royal “W,” aren’t hesitating to speak for the world. Over the weekend, Condoleezza Rice said: “The world will not stand by if Iran continues on the path to a nuclear weapons capability.” Meanwhile, Rumsfeld declared: “The Iranian regime is today the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. The world does not want, and must work together to prevent, a nuclear Iran.”
Translation: First we’ll be diplomatic, then we can bomb.
Illusion 3: The U.S. won’t attack Iran because that would infuriate the millions of Iran-allied Shiites in Iraq, greatly damaging the U.S. war effort there.
But projecting rationality onto the Bush administration makes little sense at this point. The people running U.S. foreign policy have their own priorities, and avoiding carnage is not one of them.
Non-proliferation doesn’t rank very high either, judging from Washington’s cozy relationships with the nuclear-weapons powers of Israel, India and Pakistan. Unlike Iran, none of those countries are signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Only Iran has been allowing inspections of its nuclear facilities — and it is Iran that the savants in Washington are now, in effect, threatening to bomb.
With sugar-plum visions of Iran’s massive oil and natural-gas reserves dancing in their heads, the Washington neo-cons evidently harbor some farfetched hopes of bringing about the overthrow of the Iranian regime. But in the real world, an attack on Iran would strengthen its most extreme factions and fortify whatever interest it has in developing nuclear arms.
“The U.S. will not solve the nuclear problem by threatening military strikes or by dragging Iran before the U.N. Security Council,” Iran’s 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi wrote in the Jan. 19 edition of the Los Angeles Times, in an oped piece co-authored by Muhammad Sahimi, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Southern California. “Although a vast majority of Iranians despise the country’s hard-liners and wish for their downfall, they also support its nuclear program because it has become a source of pride for an old nation with a glorious history.”
The essay added: “A military attack would only inflame nationalist sentiments. Iran is not Iraq. Given Iranians’ fierce nationalism and the Shiites’ tradition of martyrdom, any military move would provoke a response that would engulf the entire region, resulting in countless deaths and a ruined economy not only for the region but for the world. Imposing U.N. sanctions on Iran would also be counterproductive, prompting Tehran to leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its ‘additional protocol.’ Is the world ready to live with such prospects?”
While calling for international pressure against Iran’s serious violations of human rights, Ebadi and Sahimi said that “Iran is at least six to 10 years away from a nuclear bomb, by most estimates. The crisis is not even a crisis. There is ample time for political reform before Iran ever develops the bomb.”
Last Friday, the Iranian Student News Agency quoted Iran’s former president Muhammad Khatami, who urged the Iranian government to offer assurances that the country’s nuclear program is only for generating electricity. “It is necessary to act wisely and with tolerance so that our right to nuclear energy will not be abolished,” he said.
Though he failed to develop much political traction for reform during his eight years as president, Khatami was a moderating force against human-rights abuses. His demagogic successor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a menace to human rights and peace. But it’s by no means clear that Ahmadinejad can count on long-term support from the nation’s ruling clerics.
The man he defeated in the presidential runoff last summer, former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, wields significant power as head of the government’s Expediency Council. Though he has a well-earned reputation as a corrupt opportunist, Rafsanjani is now a beacon of enlightenment compared to Ahmadinejad.
In early January, a pair of Iran scholars — Dariush Zahedi and Ali Ezzatyar, based at the University of California in Berkeley — wrote an LA Times piece making this point: “Contrary to popular belief, the traditional conservative clerical establishment is apprehensive about the possibility of violence inside and outside Iran. It generally opposes an aggressive foreign policy and, having some intimate ties with Iran’s dependent capitalist class, is appalled at the rapid slide of the economy since Ahmadinejad’s inauguration. The value of Tehran’s stock market has plunged $10 billion, the nation’s vibrant real estate market has withered and capital outflows are increasing.”
And the scholars added pointedly: “The history of U.S.-Iran relations shows that the more Washington chastises Tehran for its nuclear ambitions, the more it plays into the hands of the radicals by riling up fear and nationalist sentiment.”
Right now, the presidents of Iran and the United States are thriving on the belligerency of the other. From all indications, a military assault on Iran would boost Ahmadinejad’s power at home. And it’s a good bet that the U.S. government will do him this enormous favor. Unless we can prevent it.
Norman Solomon’s latest book is “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com
February 7th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
AND NOW IRAN!
United States is gearing up for an attack on Iran, Bush will never mention oil as a reason for going to war. As in the case of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will be cited as the principal justification for an American assault. “We will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon [by Iran],” is the way President Bush put it in a much-quoted 2003 statement.
But just as the failure to discover illicit weapons in Iraq undermined the administration’s use of WMD as the paramount reason for its invasion, so its claim that an attack on Iran will be justified because of its alleged nuclear potential.
Iran occupies a strategic location on the north side of the Persian Gulf, it is in a position to threaten oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates, which together possess more than half of the world’s known oil reserves. Iran also sits adjacent to the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which, daily, 40% of the world’s oil exports pass.
In addition, Iran is becoming a major supplier of oil and natural gas to China, India, and Japan, thereby giving Tehran additional clout in world affairs. It is these geopolitical dimensions of energy, as much as Iran’s potential to export significant quantities of oil to the United States that ultimately determines our government’s military strategy.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Eddie, take it easy on the full articles. Post a link and a description or one article at most. Thanks
February 7th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Yeah we know where to find these articles. I’m against the Gonzalez method as a number of the even republican senators are. That doesn’t sound like all or nothing to me at least in the recognition department. Now what can we do about it is another matter.
That requires certain numbers of votes as the Alito confirmation illustrates nicely. How much Iran is a threat is open for debate. I predict it won’t be all one thing or the other.
February 7th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Yeah, how’s that blood for oil thing working out? $63/barrel! Chimpy-effin-bushy-mchitler neocon cabal domestic spying moron worst president ever he should be impeached - did I leave anything out? Oh yeah, Gonzales is a liar; but you knew that already ‘cuz Shumer, Lahey, and Feinstein say so.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, McCain is calling Obama out.
February 7th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
“how’s that blood for oil thing working out? $63/barrel!”
Could be more the measure of competence than motive.
As for as Gonzales being a liar, you forgot to include Feingold…
http://tinyurl.com/d49an
February 7th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Good catch!
February 7th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Eddie Ambister: What do you think that you are you doing by cutting and pasting a past post of mine (on the Contra funding by the Democrats and the timeline)? That’s a pretty pathetic thing to do, especially since you took my post completely out of context. That post of mine has nothing to do with the subject at hand now. What point were you trying to prove?
Are you perhaps trying to say that I am a hypocrite? Listen, the fact that I pointed out that a number of Democrats were complicit in funding the Contras during the 1980’s does not change the fact that Bush’s circumvention of U.S. constitutional law make whatever tactics Bill Clinton may have pulled during Monicagate or the Waco standoff (which I spoke out against) pale in comparison.
February 7th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Eddie Ambister: Just in case you weren’t paying attention, Bill Clinton is no longer in power. For that matter, nearly all of the prominent Democrats of the 1980’s who supported covert funding of Latin American death squads are also either dead or retired.
George W. Bush is the one in power.
February 7th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Wicked, wicked satire, Marc. Best laugh of the day!
February 7th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
I shouldn’t say that Waco pales in comparison, because it was a tragic loss of life, including women and children. Indeed, I have always asserted that an independent counsel should have been appointed for THAT, and not some stupid Arkansas real estate deal (that came to be more about the president’s sex life with time).
But in terms of sheer statistics, the victims of the Iraq war are far greater. For anyone to claim that there hasn’t been an executive use of force comparable to Waco under the current President is absurd.
February 7th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
This wire-tapping without oversite is uncomfortable stuff, even for a conservative. If I understand it correctly, Gonzales is saying the Executive has the right to do it without Judicial oversite. Seventy-two hours is too long to wait for a Judges oversite. In fact, even seventy-two hours after the wire-tap there is no need to go to a Judge for retroactive approval.
The FISA law is too old to apply to this never ending war against the terrorist menace. But rather than try to get it amended, we’ll just ignore it and apparently by the same logic, the Executive is free to label any law as outdated and for that reason not obey it……….RIGHT!
Now every American citizen must make a decision. In light of the Gonzales appearance, are you still more concerned for your safety from terrorists or more concerned by and Executive branch that sees itself in perpetual war with all the power to ignore those pesky peace-time laws.
I’ll take the latter and I am going to contact all my representatives in Washington, from the President on down. Hope you do too!
February 7th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
IT ONLY HURTS WHEN I LAUGH
It should be noted that, in a recent memo, George W. Bush’s chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, along with Defense Department general counsel William Haynes and [Cheney counsel] David Addington .” gave the opinion that laws prohibiting torture do “not apply to the President’s detention and interrogation of enemy combatants.”
Further, the memo puts forth the opinion that the pain caused by an interrogation must include “injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions—in order to constitute torture.” The methods outlined in the memo “provoked concerns within the CIA about possible violation of the federal torture law and also raised concerns at the FBI, where some agents knew of the techniques being used” overseas on high-level al Qaeda officials.
“Executive Presidential Powers” MUST never go unchecked.
IT’S ALL IN THE INTERPRETATION!
When Alberto Gonzales was Texas Chief Legal Counsel, for then Governor George Bush, In his briefing on death-row defendant Terry Washington – a mentally retarded 33-year-old man with the communication skills of a seven-year-old – Gonzales devoted nearly a third of his three-page report to the gruesome details of the crime, but referred “only fleetingly to the central issue in Washington’s clemency appeal—his limited mental capacity, which was never disputed by the State of Texas.
In addition, Gonzales “failed to mention that Washington’s mental limitations, and the fact that he and his ten siblings were regularly beaten with whips, water hoses, extension cords, wire hangers, and fan belts, were never made known to the jury, although both the district attorney and Washington’s trial lawyer knew of this potentially mitigating evidence.”
Nor did he mention that Washington’s lawyer had “failed to enlist a mental-health expert” to testify on Washington’s behalf, even though “ineffective counsel and mental retardation were in fact the central issues raised in the thirty-page clemency petition” it was Gonzales’s job to review. This all came at a time when “demand was growing nationwide to ban executions of the retarded.”
ARE LAWS MADE TO BE BROKEN?
And what is really dangerous, is if we are “not vigilant,” our government could pass oppressive legislation in the guise of PUBLIC PROTECTION!
What happens if NSA is incapable of discerning that their data mining is being used for illegal domestic spying?
February 7th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
BTW, OT for a bit. Did anyone watch the democratic political ral …..uh, I mean the Wellstone funer…….damn, that would be the Coretta Scott King funeral. I’m sorry!
February 7th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
This is big on my beat. This is the guy from NASA who issued the edicts to the scientists on global warming and the big bang and the like. He didn’t even graduate from Texas A&M.
http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/2006/02/breaking-news-george-deutsch-did-not.html
He resigned. Bushwhacked.
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/02/george_deutsch_1.html
February 7th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
The Cheney interview with Jim Lehrer was atrocious. We’ve saved lives with the wiretapping he claims. Nah, he weaselworded the whole thing on counter questioning. Went completly ad Ignoratiam on it.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
More on Gozalez and his dancing at National Nitwit, America’s premiere source of disinformation.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:30 am
spread bet…
Bohemianism flosses hospital unnaturalness Jungian?take?caffein,odds calculator http://odds-calculator.extra-sport-betting.com/ …
July 24th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Kiss me w poker rurexbs
August 9th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
flagstaff attorney flagstaff attorney
September 27th, 2006 at 11:25 am
…
[…] sealer […]…
June 30th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Lily…
Phishing (definition) (FISH.ing) pp. Creating a replica of an existing…