Skip to main content

    In August 2001 I arrived in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for a job. A few weeks later the 9/11 attacks occurred. I lived in the KSA for the next five years as the Afghan and Iraq wars unfolded. I rode to work every day with a young Canadian who insisted that the US would never invade Iraq. I told him again and again that it was clear that their rhetoric proved that the administration had already decided to do so. He insisted that their wild rhetoric was meaningless, symbolic, political posturing. I insisted that it was laying the groundwork for war…  

    This being the 10th anniversary of our invasion of Iraq, the media (in which I include commentators on this site) is engaged in a great deal of reflection on that tragic event. At the same time, discussion of the very real, ongoing efforts by some to lay a groundwork for military action against Iran seem to be getting less attention. That is a pity, because if we hope to defuse the Iranian issue peacefully, the time to get to work is right now. The struggle to confront S RES 65 is a good place to start.
    The Bush administration was able to move this country to war in Iraq largely because it manipulated symbols and language in powerful (albeit highly dishonest) ways. Of course they had a huge head start because of the existing negative stereotypes of Arabs and of Islam that have been present in western culture since the middle ages. In other words, it wasn’t a set of real facts that convinced the country to back the Bush invasion, it was a set of evocative images that were woven together into a seductively plausible (but as it turned out, utterly false) narrative.
    In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration conflated the symbol of Osama Bin Laden with the symbol of Saddam Hussein. Having succeeded in that, every drop of Ricin was made to seem equal to a million dead Americans.  Every potential “threat” (you know, like someone setting their underwear or shoes on fire next to you on a plane) was another potential 9/11. A model plane powered by a lawnmower engine was a threat that could cross the Atlantic, all white powder became anthrax,  and so on. Similarly, if congress or other branches of the government agreed to vague assertions (such as those listed in  S RES 65) they became “facts of record.”  So Cheney could cite Wolfowitz, who would cite Rice, who would cite Powell, who would cite Rumsfeld, who would cite the President, who would cite Cheney,… Needless to say, we never got good facts—or really any facts— from this process. Yet it was, and remains, a powerful example of how symbols can be manipulated to produce political actions that kill real people in a real world. In short, our debacle in Iraq was the direct result of the manipulation of “symbols.”
    Unfortunately, many comments on the Iran war issue and on S RES 65 that I have seen on this site and elsewhere reflect a disturbing inability on the part of some parties to understand how language, symbols and politics all work to mobilize action in the real world.
    As Professor Edward Said pointed out, “Orientalism” (the systemic tendency to represent eastern cultures in derogatory ways determined by the norms of western cultures) is often simply a system of citation. In other words, you plant a lie in your own media and then refer to it incessantly until it becomes accepted as “truth.” In S RES 65, there are several such self-referential assertions. Iran and Hezbollah and Hamas are all terrorist organizations because we (the Senate or some administration official) has previously said they are. And maybe they are, but if the only evidence is an assertion to that affect by a congress that so clearly takes its marching orders from the AIPAC lobby, then excuse me if I am skeptical. Our march to war in Iraq began in much the same way.
    In fact, to my mind, the most serious lasting harm that comes from symbolic gestures like S RES 65 (that according to some have ‘no real standing in law’) is that they plant a false narrative in the official thinking of our government on issues like war and peace. When assertions like this gain the force of historical record, the whole process of real academic discourse—the search for real facts and rigorous analysis— becomes a travesty.  
    So those who have been minimizing the practical implications of S RES 65 are dead wrong, mainly because they share a dangerously skewed view of the power of symbols in politics. Symbols—and the power to control them—are a real political force. Consider the discussion we are having about Iran on the “Native” and the “Flashcat” streams here on the Daily Kos. One writer seized on my assertion that  Iran has been behaving as a “rational actor.”
    My stress on the fact that the Iranian leadership has largely behaved like a “rational actor” is my response to the fact that for years folks in AIPAC and other Islamophobic forces (and I include our former president in that group) have tried very hard to portray the Iranian leadership as  a bunch of “Mad Mullahs” who would be happy to get a single bomb—at an enormous cost to their nation— and then fire that single, untested weapon at Israel on an unreliable delivery system. In other words, that they will act in a violently irrational and nationally suicidal way because they long for martyrdom.
    Alternatively, so the same narrative goes, they MIGHT be willing to pack that same bomb into the camel bags of any passing terrorist who happens to wander by.  Both scenarios are absurd—yet groups like AIPAC have been very successful in making them symbolically real to many Americans. Serious policy decisions can (and have been) based on exactly this kind of symbolic reworking of reality. Didn’t you all watch the early GOP primary debates? They really believe this stuff.
    So the fact that we are talking about who is “rational” and who is “not rational” is an example of how far the symbolic narratives of AIPAC have distorted the shape of the real debate we should be having. I didn’t explicitly question the rationality of the US or Europe or Israel simply because their “rationality” has never been on the table in the same way that the “rationality” of the Iranian leadership has been. (More’s the pity…)
    A real debate on the Iranian nuclear issue would involve questioning whether the basic assertion underlying this whole messy debate even comes close to holding water: that is the assertion that the acquisition by Iran, of a nuclear weapon, would be “unthinkable.” It is similar to the popular belief, prior to the Iraq war, that it was “unthinkable” that Iraq DIDN’T have WMDs.
    Let’s all think about the “unthinkable” about Iran for a minute.
    As a rational actor, one with many threats on its various borders (some of them nuclear), Iran would probably never dream of actually launching a nuclear warhead at Israel, a country which is 1,000 miles away. To do so would be ‘assured unilateral destruction’ (and I do hope that AUD becomes as popular an acronym as MAD was). First of all, 1,000 miles is the extreme range for any existing Iranian missile. Their missile systems are not very reliable and their “nuclear warhead” exists only in the realm of hypothesis. It would be a shot in the dark.. Iran would immediately cease to exist under a hail of Israeli warheads (they have over 300 hundred now by most counts.) At last count, even with all the uranium that Iran has enriched to date, they might (in time if all goes well) be able to produce a couple of warheads (one at least has to go for testing)—and after that they might be able to produce about a warhead a year… firing off one of their two or maybe three warheads would virtually disarm them.
    So logically, if Iran should actually obtain a weapon, they will not squander it on offense--they test it to show they have it and then hold on to it for an extreme circumstance… It would be a great DEFENSIVE weapon for them because it would make Israel and the US seriously reconsider the notion that they could launch a casual set of airstrikes with impunity. We also might be less casual about keeping our carrier groups in the Gulf and the threat such a weapon would pose to nearby Saudi Arabian oil ports (and to US And European interests) is obvious.   As to Israel, Iran simply has no real interests at stake there that make it anywhere close to being a worthwhile target for Iran. Iran issues verbal threats against Israel mostly in order to irk the US –and as a way of slyly pointing out to its Sunni Arab rivals how badly they have failed in protecting the rights of Palestinians.
    The right question to ask then is: Should we risk (or let Israel risk) a pre-emptive strike with nuclear implications just in order to deprive Iran of the ability to defend itself? Wow. That would be a really bad precedent and stretch the notion of pre-emption beyond defensibility.
    In other words, in the context of this real argument that I have just suggested, the word “CONTAINMENT”  would figure prominently. So why doesn’t this word appear in what some folks try to insist are purely “symbolic” discussions? If “symbolic” discussions are indeed as benign as some writers have suggested, wouldn’t  that be a perfectly safe place for them?   The AIPAC, Irano-phobic,  Islamophobic, argument clearly says that it’s not. Why? Because contrary to some denials of the fact, symbolic discussions do matter very much in shaping agendas and conversations that at some point become the basis for policy and action. As I have just pointed out “Mad Mullahs” have been ruled “in” and “containment” has been ruled out.
    Now, the reason S RES 65 is so clearly part of an effort to soften up the US political terrain and make it more amenable to a war with Iran is that the wording of S RES 65 slyly shifts from ‘supporting our president’s intention to stop Iran from a acquiring a “nuclear weapon”’ to stopping it from “acquiring a nuclear weapon capability.” If that is not a determined effort to lower the bar for action, I don’t know what is. Let me quote from the testimony of David Clapper, Director of National Intelligence as explained by Trita Parsi on a recent Huffington Post Blog:

“Clapper indirectly explains why efforts by the Israeli Prime Minister and the U.S. Congress to draw a red line for war at the point where Iran would have the "capability" to build nuclear weapons is unwise. In short, Clapper indicates that Iran already is there. Drawing this red line would mean war. The Director of National Intelligence writes:
“Tehran has developed technical expertise in a number of areas -- including uranium enrichment, nuclear reactors, and ballistic missiles -- from which it could draw if it decided to build missile-deliverable nuclear weapons. These technical advancements strengthen our assessment that Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons.” (my emphasis)

    So bingo, the “purely symbolic” language of S RES 65 becomes an (almost) actionable document. All you need to do is take the same language and the same lame arguments back to the spineless politicians who already signed it and say “now put your money where your mouth is—or face the ensuing recriminations about how you are not true to your word.” That’s hardly a scenario any politician would relish. My simple point is that these supposedly “purely symbolic statements” matter, and they matter very much.
    No in all, about seven “Whereas” clauses in S RES 65 simply take wild statements by various Iranians and pose them as “the real intentions of the current regime.” They no more reflect the “real intentions” of Iran any more than the statements over the last year by the likes of Michelle Bachman and Louis Gomert reflect the real intentions of the Obama administration. Nevertheless, approval of them by a majority of the Senate helps turn their symbolic value into something much more durable—and eventually—actionable.
    I would be remiss if I failed to mention the fact that, even in the much wider public debate that took place during the lead-up to the Iraq war, some arguments would seemingly disqualify people from any consideration as “real” commentators. It seemed pretty clear to me that to be taken seriously at all in the mainstream debate, one needed to pay lip service to certain kinds of “common wisdom.” So just as we apparently can’t talk seriously today about the “containment” of Iran if it should go nuclear, we couldn’t during the run up to the Iraq War, even admit the possibility that Iraq DIDN’T HAVE ANY WMDs AT ALL. I remember reading article after article, even by people who were passionately against our invasion, that immediately ceded the point that “of course Iraq had WMDs!”
    And of course functional WMDs were never found…
    So that kind of false premise helped shape the whole debate. And of course given all the other “purely symbolic” softening of the political terrain that had already taken place, the argument against the necessity for a war with Iraq was an easy one to lose. All in all, looking at the record, anyone who is complacent about the kind of tactics deployed by AIPAC in S RES 65 should take a long hard look at their assumptions.
    I also hope that those who agree with my position here will take the time to write their Senators and urge them to hold the line against S RES 65.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Suggest You Explain "S RES 6" Somewhere Up Top. (6+ / 0-)

    This site has a large diverse readership.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:19:02 PM PDT

  •  S RES 65 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    truong son traveler, Sandino

    I couldn't get the link to post in the last comment... A full description is at:

    S RES 65

    •  Some notes about the... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Council for the National Interest:

      Notorious Anti-israel activist Alison Weir has recently admitted attempts by her group, the "Council for the National Interest" to infiltrate the tea party. The Council board features such luminaries as Hassan Fouda, Paul Findley and Pete McCloskey. Alison Weir's work has appeared on the David Duke website. Yeah. She's that kind of "peace activist"
      In recent years, CNIF sent several delegations to the Middle East that met with terrorist leaders from Hezbollah and Hamas, including two delegations that met with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in Damascus in 2009 and 2008. A previous delegation met with Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah in January 2006. During the meeting, Nasrallah informed his guests of his intention to abduct Israeli soldiers. Edward Peck, a member of the delegation, later described Nasrallah's comments as a "logical, reasonable presentation" and cited it as proof that Hezbollah's image in the West was distorted.
      Our Executive Director Phil Giraldi is taking CNI’s message to new constituencies—he spoke to “Tea Party” events in Virginia and Texas, and to supporters of Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. Recruiting new friends and allies is essential to our growth and influence."

      Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and former foreign policy adviser to Ron Paul. He is also a venomous antisemite who has written that "Israel-firsters" are the "masters of the executive and legislative branches." Yeah. He's that kind of "peace activist", too.

      CNI and its sister organization, the Council for the National Interest Foundation (CNIF), maintain close ties with numerous individuals linked to Islamic terror groupsr groups. One such person is CNIF Board Member Abdurahman Alamoudi, an open supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah. Alamoudi is currently serving a 23-year prison term for having illegally accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from top Libyan officials, plotted to murder Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah (on behalf of Libyan President Muammar Qadhafi), and violated numerous tax and immigration laws.

      Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

      by Hey338Too on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 09:09:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, used to live in the district (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too, JNEREBEL

      of CNI founder Paul Findley.

      He got redistricted out of office, and then found a lucrative second career claiming to have been defeated by AIPAC.

      Hint: he's lying.

      And the organization pretty much shot itself through the head when it picked Alison Weir to lead it.

      •  still waiting (0+ / 0-)

        for a response that actually takes up in any substantial way the arguments I made in my last two postings (or, if your interest in CNI, and the author of the article I created a link to is really so sincere) any of the arguments he made...

        this vague "guilt by association" ploy is so tired...

  •  Don't forget all the other Think Tanks (5+ / 0-)

    AEI and WINEP have people just sitting on their asses waiting for any event to happen to send them to the press to 'inform' us about what is going on.

    I think Bolton sleeps in a comfy chair in the building next to FOX and waits for Iran or Syria to be brought up. He will then attack the administration for not doing enough to counter their current evilness.

    I'm sure Droopy the Dog will be sleeping next to CNN now he works for AEI. Where Bolton plays the mad six-shooter FOX viewers love, Droopy the Dog will play the seasoned, well-established member of society that doesn't want us to get involved, but by golly we just have to.

    Oil and Defense pay big money for these organizations to be on the ready to tell America what they want them to hear. And our media is too lazy to find out for themselves.

    And as long as you don't go against the big money think tanks, they will not bother your chance for re-election.

    A broken system that leads to more wars and conflicts and money in the pockets of some really rich bastards.

  •  what's the point of having 300 warheads (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    if you can't use them to scare off another nuclear power?

    "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

    by TheHalfrican on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:44:37 PM PDT

  •  Don't forget (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans, al-Qaeda the same.

  •  How very nice of you to suggest that Israel (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hey338Too, sandbox, zemblan

    should put her very existence in the hope that the only reason Iran is developing atomic weapons is  simply for
    "defensive" reasons.

    •  Ok, what are you willing to sacrifice to take (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, Sandino, protectspice

      care of Iran's nuclear program?  Are you willing to give up Social Security and Medicare?  How about being conscripted to go fight in Iran with no body armor and only one MRE a day for food?  Or would you rather see Tehran preemptively turned into a big glassy hole in the ground (to "break their will to fight")?

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:00:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  no problem (3+ / 0-)

      always happy to help.
      for the record, S RES 65 states in part

      "Israel must be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat."

      But the whole resolution sets the table for US intervention on Israel's behalf.

      Israeli's really can't have it both ways (you know, demand endless US tax dollars and then tell us that they will do as just as they like. If we are allies, then they owe us a bit of respect too.

      The best way to show that respect would be to agree to Obama's original request for a settlement freeze.

      The real issue is that in purely military terms, Israel has never been more secure than it is today.
      Still, that "security" is not, and never will be, absolute. There is no amount of US support that could ever change that. Israel has to live in the same world as the rest of us.

      To find more lasting  security , Israel will need to make a real peace with the Palestinians. That will require, (as it always has required) a pullback from its settlement and occupation. And the result of such a peace would be an immediate reduction of Iranian influence in Israel's neighborhood.

      thanks for commenting.

    •  Would you say the risk to Israel approaches 1% (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      truong son traveler, Sandino

      Mr. Cheney?

      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

      by JesseCW on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:26:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The rest of the region has no choice but to hope (3+ / 0-)

      that this is why a crazed racist party like Likud has its hands on a nuclear stockpile.

      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

      by JesseCW on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:27:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Iran is developing nuclear weapons ..." (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino, protectspice, JesseCW

      Any evidence of that?

      If so you should let the various US intelligence agencies that say they have no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, know about it.

      Or are you just spouting the usual propaganda on this topic? This gets old.

      Orwell - "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

      by truong son traveler on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 05:36:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tip Jar HR'd for ZOG (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hey338Too, JNEREBEL, zemblan
    a congress that so clearly takes its marching orders from the AIPAC lobby
  •  The Iranian leadership are radical shiite (0+ / 0-)

    islamists, who believe in the coming apocalypse to be signaled by the return of the twelfth imam.  It's nutty, but that's their worldview--which they state publicly.  So attempting to destroy/degrade their nuclear development capacity by air strikes (no ground invasion) should definitely be on the table.

  •  The only measure to judge whether we'll go to war (0+ / 0-)

    Is whether or not we can create a market for our products there. Interestingly, Iraq buys tons of our stuff now.

    by DAISHI on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 05:09:49 AM PDT

  •  Seriously not reality based diary (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hey338Too, JNEREBEL, livosh1, zemblan

    When President Obama leaves office in four years and we will have not attacked Iran, will you write a diary apologizing or at least saying you were wrong? (Didn't think so.)

    I've been hearing about Obama's imminent attack on Iran as a pawn of Israel since he was first sworn into office and yet strangely it hasn't happened.

    Moreover you have a basic lack of understanding of the geopolitics of the region and the nuclear issue:

    A real debate on the Iranian nuclear issue would involve questioning whether the basic assertion underlying this whole messy debate even comes close to holding water: that is the assertion that the acquisition by Iran, of a nuclear weapon, would be “unthinkable.”
    It would be a great DEFENSIVE weapon for them because it would make Israel and the US seriously reconsider the notion that they could launch a casual set of airstrikes with impunity.
    It wouldn't be a disaster just because Iran would have a bomb that could be used offensively or defensively.

    It would be a disaster because it would set off a nuclear arms race in the region. If Iran gets the bomb, then Saudi Arabia will have to get the bomb and then perhaps Egypt.

    The supreme nuclear policy of almost all major states is nuclear non-proliferation. This is not just policy of states that have nuclear weapons, but those that don't. According to this view, it's already a disaster that Israel has the bomb because that acquisition was what set off the potential arms race. A second state would increase the level of disaster exponentially.

    Your analysis of the US government is puzzling. PM Netanyahu just spent the last four years trying to intervene in the US elections to defeat Obama precisely because the administration has made it clear that it won't attack Iran and won't tolerate Israel preemtively attacking Iran.

    Bibi lost. Now he is groveling back into the US fold.

    There isn't going to be an attack on Iran.

    •  really? (0+ / 0-)

      First, I certainly share your (apparent) hope that there will be no war. I would love to be wrong about this. On the other hand, I’m not willing to take the outcome for granted: even good presidents can be maneuvered into taking actions they really don’t want to.

      Your assumption that I would never apologize to Obama is unwarranted, but also off base:  
      I won’t need to apologize to Obama because in speaking up against S RES 65 I am supporting him. I believe he sincerely wants to resolve the Iranian situation peacefully. It is clear to me that the authors of S RES 65 are trying to undercut his position—that’s one reason I don’t think we should let their efforts pass without comment or protest.

      The RES repeatedly quotes Obama’s intention to stop Iran from getting a “nuclear weapon”.
      While claiming to be acting in support of his policy, the authors of S RES 65, lower Obama’s bar by referring to the need to deny Iran a “nuclear weapons capability.” National Intelligence Director Clapper’s assessment that this is a dangerous move  helps bear out my critique.

      Further, I am against anyone having nuclear weapons, but to base my position on wishful thinking would be absurd. That is why I pointed  out the fact an Iranian weapon might not be quite as “unthinkable” as we have been told and that “containment”  might really be a quite viable option. It has been tested and worked. Other knowledgeable and thoughtful people have made the same point. They just don’t get the coverage they deserve. In my last diary I really only pointed out how the “containment” discussion has been taken off the table…

      You point out that it is a disaster that Israel has the bomb. I agree. They have used it as a backstop to their continued belligerence as they steal and settle Palestinian land. That said, an nuclear arms race in the core Arab world has been largely lacking. Most of the Arab world seems satisfied to live under the American nuclear umbrella—but Iran doesn’t have that luxury. Overall, the idea that an Iranian bomb would set off an arms race is not a given. Israel’s acquisition of a bomb in the 60’s really didn’t.

      You make an excellent point about Netanyahu’s interference in American elections and the setbacks that he has suffered in elections at home as well). Polls showed that Israeli voters had very little interest in attacking Iran. They were much more on Obama’s side—as am I.

      You say that Netanyau has lost and is “groveling back into the US fold.” I hope that is true, but crucially, towards the end, S RES 65 says this:
      (8) urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.

      The danger that I see, is that this RES undercuts Obama in a very serious way because it is not being considered in isolation—it is being considered in the context of Netanyahu’s very public assertions that an Israeli pre-emptive strike would be an act of “self-defense.” Sadly, I can envision many US senators going along with that glib interpretation.

      So S RES 65 really gives Netanyahu a document that he can show his war cabinet to reassure them that he can get away with a first strike against Iran—in direct contradiction of US interests and policy and in direct defiance of the Obama administration. With S RES 65 in hand he can argue to his cabinet that he can bully Obama into sending more money, guns, and lawyers after he takes unilateral action. This is the big picture that you don’t seem to see. In short, S RES 65 is an attempt to force Obama into a corner and to force him to eventually sanction a dangerous course of action that he is strongly opposed to.

      I detect an odd disconnect in your logic, so for the sake of all those good people who spoke out against the Iraq war let me just ask you this: if all the anti-war protesters who filled the streets of Europe and the US prior to the US invasion of Iraq had won their point and had actually gotten the Bush administration to back down and abandon the whole idea of invading—in that case, would all of those protesters have owed the administration an apology for mistaking their intentions?

      Thanks for commenting. I’ll watch for your response.

    •  If one group of unhinged warmongering nutbars (0+ / 0-)

      hungry for territory having a nuclear arsenal were enough to ignite an arms race in the region, it would have started in the 1970's.

      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

      by JesseCW on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:56:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh dear (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hey338Too, JNEREBEL


    Yes. Why? Because EVERY week is "OH NO WE'RE ABOUT TO ATTACK IRAN TO MAKE THE ZIONISTS HAPPY" week at Daily Kos, and is has been for the more than half-decade I've been here.

    •  I am pro Obama also... (0+ / 0-)

      That's why I'm strongly against S RES 65. It undercuts Obama's position.

      I've just been posting on the D Kos for a few days, but if this has been a popular topic for as long as you say, it may well be because "Zionists" have been warning almost yearly  for decades that Iran is 'only just a year away from going  nuclear.' Of course they are often joined by a chorus of American neo-cons and other hawkish types.

       I think we know how reliable their assessments are...

      •  If you stick around (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I hope you'll come to see that "Zionist" is a blanket term that covers opinions as divergent as "Democrat" does. There are posters here who sloppily presume that "Zionists" means something "people who like Bibi" or "people who agree with Jennifer Rubin." Boy oh boy is it not. I know plenty of Zionists, and most of them think Netanyahu is Israel's Dubya.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site