"And how do all of those Democratic senators who voted for Kyl-Lieberman feel now?"
Probably pretty good; they just need to make sure they're keeping up their 'front' to the American people as a party that wants to avoid war with Iran while doing everything in their power to empower the Neocons to do so, if and when the Neocon's Corporate masters instruct them to do so.
Posted by Tampa Student at October 17, 2007 03:50 PMI'm with Tampa Student...they aren't losing any sleep over that vote even in light of the madman in chief's latest tough guy bring it on WWIII cheerleading statements.
Posted by emal at October 17, 2007 04:16 PMThe senators who voted for Kyl-Lieberman were attempting to force this president to exert some diplomatic pressure towards Iran concerning their behind-the-scenes nuclear program. I doubt they had a choice between "yea," "nay," or "I refrain from voting on this legislation since our president is a moron."
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at October 17, 2007 04:30 PM"The senators who voted for Kyl-Lieberman were attempting to force this president to exert some diplomatic pressure towards Iran concerning their behind-the-scenes nuclear program."
Yeah, that's the same bullspit that we heard about the Iraq War Resolution in 2003. Back then, the Democrats were 'trying to force the Bush Administration to work within the UN and give weapons inspectors time to do their jobs'...all while giving Bush every opportunity to invade Iraq.
If the Democrats really wanted to stop this war after they helped start it they could've filibustered every war-funding bill passed since the war started. They didn't. Now they're in power and they have no interest in stopping either the funding or the war itself.
All DLC lies and spin.
Posted by Tampa Student at October 17, 2007 04:48 PMI think when he says "World War III" he means the United States versus the rest of the world.
Posted by facethemusic at October 17, 2007 05:09 PMIt'll WWIII all right, except we'll be playing the role of Nazi Germany, the militarist aggressor.
Clown-in-Chief has mental problems, the press sits and listens to this stuff wothout making any editorial comment and the Congress refuses to pass legislation saying that there won't be any sustained attack without Congressional approval, as the constitution provides. Our system is broken and no one is willing to say so.
Doesn't every nuclear scinetist on earth have the KNOWLEDGE of how a nuclear weapon is "made"?
The Kaiser? Nero jr must've not quite understood that Ottoman Empire genocide "briefing". What a comedy....bombs away!
Frankly, I blame the Congress as much as the mentally ill Nero, it's quite clear he hasn't been able to think straight for a few years. What's their excuse?
Posted by euzoius at October 17, 2007 05:23 PMfacethemusic: I think when he says "World War III" he means the United States versus the rest of the world. Don't forget about Albania - they love GWB.
Why is GWB getting so belligerent now? This isn't like 2002 when he began banging the war drum. Back then it was the prelude to getting Congressional approval and followed by a UN authorization that slowed down their schedule for beginning of the war by at least a month. This time, he has everything he needs to begin another war. Not going to bother with a coalition of the bribed either. Is he bluffing? Still trying to bait Iran into attacking first?
Are the next three weeks critical or part of a plan to make us feel like chicken little when nothing happens? Designed to make us more complacent next spring when they ratchet up the rhetoric again?
Posted by Marie at October 17, 2007 05:48 PMIt'll WWIII all right, except we'll be playing the role of Nazi Germany, the militarist aggressor.
Stupid statement. The usual though. And you wonder?
jj, I imagine when a peabrain like you can't see (or closes one's eyes) to what's actually happening, the analogy seems stupid.
But that's more a reflection on your ignorant jingoist blindness than the analogy.
Posted by euzoius at October 17, 2007 06:22 PMHell, he's not belligerent ... he's completely casual announcing WWIII. Why shouldn't he be? His every psychotic move has been enabled if not applauded by our media and congress. Hell, this selling-war-after-war shit is so effortless, he can fucking do it drunk and in his sleep, and does. He's almost bored with it, though the nuke thing does make his drug-disabled noodle almost stir a little.
It's up to Vlad and the Chinese to stop this, since we can't seem to. We are going to pay a steep price for allowing these criminals to trash the civilized world and murder millions for a goddamn nickel.
However, Chimpy will continue to have not a care in the world, riding his bike in Paraguay. Cheney will live to be 100, and periodically invite his buddy Rush to Dubai for some gold-plated sex tourism.
Posted by Sharkbabe at October 17, 2007 06:26 PM
You folks are entertaining.
Posted by snark at October 17, 2007 06:59 PMwhy is Bush sounding like a man who has green-lighted WW III?
Do you think the highjacking of the US government is a metaphor? The motivation is power pure and simple. They invaded Iraq in order to give the dolt a shot at re-election. They are on schedule to start WWIII in order to declare martial law and suspend the elections. Stick that in your 22nd Amendment and tell me I'm wrong next year. What other chance do they have for post-2008?
This is a perfect example of why Kyl-Lieberman was so useless. If Congress wanted to actually protect the U.S. interest, they would vote to cancel the authorization for this idiotic war today. Instead, we keep marching down this rat hole.
Posted by smooth at October 17, 2007 07:14 PMRussia and China should just go ahead and sign mutual defense treaties with Iran. That would nip this bullshit in the bud.
These fucking criminals running our country belong in the Hague answering for war crimes and crimes aganist humanity, not plotting more goddamn wars of aggression.
Posted by ran at October 17, 2007 07:58 PMWhat a pathetic situation. A KGB creep like Putin has the best chance of putting the brakes on our lame-brain war criminals-in-charge and derailing a potentially catastrophic war. I mean more catastrophic than the one we've got. It's like we're watching some awful gangster movie but it's our world.
Posted by Delia at October 17, 2007 08:29 PMJeff Dinelli: "The senators who voted for Kyl-Lieberman were attempting to force this president to exert some diplomatic pressure towards Iran concerning their behind-the-scenes nuclear program...."
Quite possibly the STUPIDIST thing I have read on this website, even from pants-pissing peter.
Why would anyone vote for a bill if there was even the remotest chance that Dear Leader would use it to justify an attack on Iran?!?!?!?
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 18, 2007 05:25 AMI'm honored, GV, thank you.
Again, Iran Revolutionary Guard: terrorist orgainization or no? "Yea" or "Nea." "Our president is a moron who cannot be trusted" is not an option.
How would the brilliant GV have voted?
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at October 18, 2007 05:48 AMJeff,
That's a very important aspect of this debate that has been completely ignored.
Yes, the Revolutionary Guard is very likely engaged in covert activities that are affecting our forces in Iraq.
Of course, using that criteria one would probably have to declare the CIA a terrorist organization also.
Posted by snark at October 18, 2007 05:54 AMThe US invaded Iraq, destroyed most of its infrastructure and buildings and killed uncounted thousands and tortured hundreds....that sounds pretty much like terrorism to me.
Posted by T2 at October 18, 2007 06:16 AMSnark and T2, I totally agree. The CIA has been involved in terrorist activity for decades. Many decades. I read my Chomsky and Woodward, too.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at October 18, 2007 07:08 AMVote yea or nay on K-L? Are those our only options?
How about sponsoring amendments: declare Iran National Guard and the CIA terrorist organization. or declare ING a terrorist organization because it is operating like the CIA?
Just make the point that we are sitting in a glass house when it comes to sponsoring terrorism in the world. Remember Nicarauga? Remember Chile? Guatemala?
We have the rhetoric of the beacon of light in the world while we sponsor and export huge amounts of death and destruction around the globe.
Posted by angel at October 18, 2007 07:29 AMAngel: I don't know where you are from, but I like your attitude, based on the comments you've posted...
Posted by tempus at October 18, 2007 07:38 AMWhy isn't Blackwater a terrorist organization? They kill only civilians, and maybe some Iraqi police. And the trigger happy, reckless way they operate is clearly intended to induce fear in the affected civilian populace.
Did the "experts" ever decide if attacking military targets can be termed terrorism?
It takes quite a prezlidenter to make KGB caseworker Putin look like a world leader of enormous staure, sense and good judgement. Try reading the communique the two presidents of Russia and Iran signed---one diplomatic and economic advance/agreement after another. First visit of a Russian head of state to democratizing Iran.
Then think about Clown-in-Chief wild-eyedly blathering about "WWIII!, WWIII!, Axis! Kaiser!". The spittle launching from his fake Tex-ass accent, probably with his first boner since he gave the excitin' order to destroy Fallujah. What a whack job.....We are a militarist nation of deranged clowns.
Posted by euzoius at October 18, 2007 08:04 AMeuzoius: it's a good thing that we are getting old, and it doesn't really matter if we go hell four hours from now. As always, tempus.
Posted by tempus at October 18, 2007 08:53 AM"go to hell". I'm such a friggin' idiot.
Posted by tempus at October 18, 2007 08:57 AMJeff Dinelli: "Again, Iran Revolutionary Guard: terrorist orgainization or no? "Yea" or "Nea." "Our president is a moron who cannot be trusted" is not an option.
How would the brilliant GV have voted?"
gee, let's just play the neo-con psychopath's "war on Iran" game and pretend we only have 2 choices
The Democrats control the floor of both the Senate and the House. They determine what gets voted on.
So once AGAIN you have to ask: WHY did the Democrats vote for Kyle-Liebermann and run the risk of giving Dear Leader an excuse to attack Iran? can you say "complicity"?
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 18, 2007 10:14 AMWhy can't you just answer the question?
Posted by snark at October 18, 2007 10:38 AMWhy can't you just get a clue?
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 18, 2007 11:59 AMAren't you funny.
It's a simple question really. Why so hesitant to give a yes or no answer?
Posted by snark at October 18, 2007 12:04 PMWhy so hesitant to give a yes or no answer?
'Cos histrionics are lots more fun?
Posted by iamcoyote at October 18, 2007 12:17 PM"How would the brilliant GV have voted?"
NO, or better yet place a hold on it and stop playing the neo-con psychopath's games. If Democrats were smart......hell, I can't even finish that sentence.
Posted by gay veteran at October 18, 2007 03:27 PMThe fact that this unhelpful propaganda was up for a vote in a Democratic-controlled Congress should tell you pretty much all you need to know about Democrats right now.
Jeff D., you may have read Chomsky; but you apparently didn't agree with the message, given your zeal to support a Democrat that is fanning the flames over Iran and has no demonstrated interest in stopping the military-industrial pillage of Iraq.
Posted by Tampa Student at October 18, 2007 04:33 PMyo Democrats, there comes a point when it is complicity
Posted by gay veteran at October 18, 2007 05:53 PMHey guys, keep opposing anyone who opposes Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.
Who knows. Maybe you'll get your way.
If Iran manages to get nukes, all kinds of countries will start nuclear programs. I suppose that you'd like that, because it would level the playing field.
Then when a nuke is provided to Hezbollah or some other nutty organization, and everything within a 4km radius from a Manhattan dock is reduced to ash, what will you say?
If Iran doesn't provide that nuke, some nutty state like Syria will. If you don't stop Iran, then you clearly won't stop anyone, so any tinpot dictator or nutty theocracy will know that there's no penalty for seeking nuclear weapons.
Probably more of the same "Oh, me, oh, my, we've brought this upon ourselves! People hate us because we're horrible, horrible, I tell you!".
You loser appeasers are all the same. Unable to stand for anything, even if your own survival is ultimately at stake.
Any rational person would be slightly concerned that a crazy theocracy who calls America 'the Great Satan', whose leader has stated his desire to destroy the state of Israel, and whose leader doesn't believe that the holocaust occurred is seeking nuclear weapons.
Not you guys.
I bet in 1938 you would have been saying that Hitler was a nice guy, and just misunderstood.
Posted by CaptainReality at October 18, 2007 11:48 PMOh, and Gay Veteran, you're a bed-wetting gutless imbecile.
I've done shits that had more brains and backbone than you.
I bet that you think that your 'pants pissing peter' line is very funny and clever.
Your responses to snark were hopeless.
Posted by CaptainReality at October 19, 2007 12:00 AMwith people like CaptainUnReality around I really need to buy Depends (the stock, not the product, the product if for pants-pissing couwards like the Captain)
btw Captain, since you have a hard-on for war are you posting from Iraq?
no?
then STFU
blast, can't spell today: the product is for pants-pissing cowards like the Captain
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 19, 2007 04:53 AMAny rational person would be slightly concerned that a crazy theocracy who calls America 'the Great Satan'…
I know of a crazy Democratic Republic whose leader calls Iran part of an “Axis of Evil” too. So Iran doesn’t have a lock on using over the top religious rhetoric.
…,whose leader has stated his desire to destroy the state of Israel…
Bzzzzzzt! Wrong. He didn’t say anything about “destroying the state of Israel”. What he said was it needs to be wiped off the face of the map (of the Middle East). Or at least that's the translation. His comments didn’t say anything about removing Israel via force of warfare. He asked, somewhat legitimately, why the Palestinians had to be evicted from their lands to repay a crime visited on the Jews by Europeans. He asked why can a Jewish state not be carved out of lands in Europe or North America.
…, and whose leader doesn't believe that the holocaust occurred is seeking nuclear weapons.
He has publicly denied the “massacre of the Jews by the Nazis”. No getting around that. Some rather offensive political rhetoric I think. I don’t really think he himself ‘believes’ it.
But yes, nuclear proliferation is a big problem. George Bush's sanctioning of India's possession of nuclear weapons outside the NPT was a colossal fuck up. And his interest in developing tactical nuclear weapons is insane. These actions send exactly the wrong message to countries like Iran. The more countries that have nukes the more chance there is that they will fall into the wrong hands. Purposefully or accidentally.
Yes, he said that Israel needs to be wiped off the map. It's obvious that he's referring to doing it militarily; there's no other way, unless you think that the Israelis can be convinced to all simultaneously pick up and move to Europe. If you believe that, you're living in la-la-land.
Your response to his statements about the holocaust are incredibly weak. "I don't really think he himself 'believes' it". Oh, well, he must be a nice guy then. Let's let him acquire nuclear weapons and see what happens.
Calling America a 'crazy democratic republic' and comparing it to the insane theocracy that is Iran shows your true colours. You obviously hate America. Do you know any gay people? Go and ask them whether American and Iran are moral equivalents.
Snark, you're one hell of an America hating apologist.
Posted by CaptainReality at October 22, 2007 06:30 AMGay Veteran...
Since when does wanting to ensure that a maniac doesn't acquire nuclear weapons mean that one has a 'hard-on for war'? Constructing ridiculous straw-man arguments such as that doesn't help your case.
What's this obsession that you have with using the term 'pants pissing'? It is truly weird.
Posted by CaptainReality at October 22, 2007 06:37 AM