Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Greenwald:
"You should look up the words "justification" and "motivation" in the dictionary in order to figure out what the difference is."
Yes, it was my own bit of disingenuity, I admit. But you should admit that there is absolutely no boldness, no imagination in this guy. He's mindlessly embraced the idea that he should aspire to be another mythical version of lincoln or fdr, rather than responding intelligently to what he has before him here and now. he's as childish in his own way as bush, acutely concerned with image. Boldness would be to instantly change the game with iran and begin full diplomatic relations - not agreement or capitulation, but diplomacy without the mindless red meat rhetoric. And completely change the game in the mideast. there is no reason other than mindlessness that we have to be on war footing with iran. But he has no boldness. No imagination.
Iran has stated repeatedly, when anyone appeared to be listening, that the goal of their technological programs, including their nuclear one, is to become the pre-eminent technological, scientific, cultural, and economic power of West and Central Asia. That's how it was sold to the Iranian people, and that's what they've told others, including the U.S.
They've also stated specifically on the subject of nuclear power that the previous offers, over the entire period since 1979, to hand them the processed fuel, build them the reactors for nuclear power, and monitor, as a "solution" to letting them have nuclear power but not weapons, has never worked because by the time the ink is dry on such agreements, whoever is signing them always fails to come through with the components and fuel.
They believe the world is acting hypocritically: The world claims it doesn't want a nuclear power in the Middle East or Central and South Asia, but doesn't mind Israel, Pakistan, and India. The world acts as if it becoming a technological, scientific, and economic threat is a problem, 'given its human rights record', but gladly forks over all the controls on technological, scientific, and economic supremacy to China.
The primary obstacle to defusing Iran as a threat is the belief in a permanent unipolar world with the U.S. as the single pole. Were we to entertain a multipolar world, we would easily see how we could integrate Iran's stated goals with our own, and even construct our usual 'constructive engagement' bullshit to go with it, like we do/did with Apartheid South Africa and with China, and with the Arab Oil Sheiks, and with.... Constructive engagement might even work, given that Iran is a very proud nation about culture, and that they have democratic underpinnings in place. Those two elements give public pressure more clout than in someplace like China which doesn't have much cultural opposition to autocracy.
What's astounding to me is that Barack Obama, by acquiescing to the unipolar world view isn't being conservative like the DLC, he's being more conservative than the DLC. That unipolar world view as a justification for the necessity to always have war on the table is the essence of the Project for a New American Century. Barack Obama is apparently striking a compromise between the DLC position and the PNAC position, which puts him far to the right of the only DLC president we've had, Bill Clinton, who turned down PNAC's letter demanding immediate war with Saddam Hussein in 1998.
Of course, the primary obstacle to a multipolar world in technology, science, economy, and culture is the belief by our major corporations that they shouldn't have to compete on techology, science, economy and culture. That's a harder nut, but one our domestic agenda president would probably be good at, if even one of his blue ribbon advisers was secure enough of their position in the 'meritocracy' to suggest it.
By their participation in, and endorsement of the resultant Reports, Lake and Rice (AIPAC/WINEP Task Force on Future of U.S.-Israeli Relations Report) and Ross (Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development Report, otherwise known as the Coats-Robb Report), have clearly telegraphed their views on Iran, its nuclear program and the need for pre-emptory action against same.
Ye shall know them by their advisors and appointees.
The views of these key Obama advisors have not been hidden. For example, Lake is on record as unequivocally stating that "the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is the biggest threat facing the world".
Gasp!
Rice is on record endorsing the Bush doctrine. For example, with regards to Somalia, she stated that "we have to go after the terrorist cells where we find them."
Ross' endorsement of the Coats-Robb Report speaks for itself.
And don't get me started about Hillary "Obliterate Iran" Clinton...
In sum, all signs, including Obama's own words during the campaign, which he has not shied away from, point, if not to a continuation of Bush policy towards Iran, then towards an even more aggressive policy. All of this was made public well before the election.
You get what you vote for. On the subject of Iran, Obama's words and his choice of advisors/appointees speak volumes. Or, as Margaret Kimberly has put it: "[Obama] will be the first president in modern history who convinced millions of people not to believe the words that came out of his own mouth." Surely nobody here can claim that they weren't voting for an aggressive, Bush-style policy towards Iran...?
Letting politicians off when they commit crimes will only encourage future crimes by politicians. In many cases, voting for them does much the same; it only encourages them.
Have you ever been to Iraq?Didn't think so.Are they less oppressed than under Saddamm?Do they have a chance to govern themselves?Do they have more liberty to express themselves ?Yes there is a whole universe you can't acknowledge because it doesn't fit in with your narrow selfish concept of the world.Talk to some who've been there,built the schools and clinics,made friends with the population and maybe you'd be less of a pompous know-it-all. Go there yourself and see that many there are aware we are not the big Satan now.Somehow I don't see that on your agenda.Like it or not we ended up there and everything we did wasn't all bad or torture or evil.You drink strong kool-aid buddy.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
