Lieberman-Kyle

I've been a bit behind the curve on this, but it's worth listening to Jim Webb's warnings that the Lieberman-Kyle Amendment on Iran could well be a sub rosa authorization of the use of force masquerading as a meaningless sense of the senate resolution. It's also worth noting that this crew has been at this game for a long time. Let me quote myself from the February 2002 [CORRECTION: should be 2006] American Prospect:

The atmosphere on the morning of Monday, January 23, was more of a bad dream than a press conference. I was in a small room in the basement of the U.S. Capitol; sitting directly behind me amid the rows of cheap folding chairs was a young man from the National Union for Democracy in Iran, an obscure California-based exile group I'd never heard of seeking, yes, regime change in Tehran.

The walls were overcrowded with reproductions of John Audubon's brightly colored bird prints. At the front of the room was an American flag, a podium, a projection screen, and R. James Woolsey, former director of Central Intelligence who went more-than-a-little around the bend sometime after leaving the Clinton administration. He was one of the very first prominent commentators to finger Saddam Hussein as the likely culprit for the 9-11 attacks, doing so just after the strikes when no empirical evidence could possibly support the contention, and maintaining his view steadfastly even as evidence continued to be non-existent.

Needless to say, such loyalty to his own imagination has done nothing to diminish his standing in the neoconservative world or his access to mass audiences on cable television. On that January day at the Capitol, he was speaking on behalf of the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), a think tank he founded in the summer of 2004 with various neocon B-listers under the nominal auspices of Senators Jon Kyl and Joe Lieberman. The occasion was the release of a six-page policy paper on Iran, which to no one's surprise reached the conclusion that “the United States' policy objective must be regime change in Iran.”

At some point, the madness has to stop, right? Right?

Comments

Not bloody likely.

At least most of the people I know in very GOP Indiana think it's a dumb idea, so there probably won't be much support. Not that that would make much of a difference.

Posted by Jeremy | September 26, 2007 2:09 AM

If we attack Iran, I will pray for the complete and utter destruction of the United States. If we attack Iran, may we suffer the same fate as Carthage. That's the long run; in the short run, I hope that our army in Iraq is cut off and destroyed utterly, and both Aircraft Carriers in the gulf sunk. Hopefully the world will have the guts to cut off all trade with the US, and hopefully China will turn off the money spigot. Then Russia needs to promise to let the nukes fly if the United States engages in the first use of Nuclear weapons.

Posted by true patriot | September 26, 2007 2:15 AM

At some point, the madness has to stop, right? Right?

Why would it? I mean, they don't make a version of risperdal for this kind of nuttiness.

I don't see any signs that any but a handful of people with any kind of power in either party are willing to risk anything to end the madness, even when a near-constitutional amendment-sized majority opposes the policy. So the hits should just keep on comin'.

max
['Who is going to stop them or it, exactly?']

Posted by max | September 26, 2007 2:19 AM

Wait: you wrote this in January 2002:
".... a think tank he founded in summer of 2004 with various...."

You could foresee what he was going to do in 2004? Wow.

Posted by WTF | September 26, 2007 2:22 AM

HEY EVERYONE CHECK OUT THE DEBATE AT THE GANJI LETTER ITS MORE INFORMATIVE.

Posted by Wurd | September 26, 2007 4:34 AM

HEY EVERYONE CHECK OUT THE DEBATE AT THE GANJI LETTER ITS MORE INFORMATIVE.

Posted by Wurd | September 26, 2007 4:34 AM

Calling it 'nutty' is no substitute for geopolitical analysis.

The core problem is that terrorist-supporting governments use oil revenue to build a war machine. Eventually, like Iran, they want to build a nuclear war machine. This enables them to conquer more oil (like Saddam's conquest of Kuwait) to further their plans. The eventual result is World Domination by an over-paid oil exporter with delusions of Jihad.

Putting nuclear weapons in the hands of the mullahs puts the oil money of Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia in their orbit. The mullahs will use this additional power to further their stranglehold over Syria, Lebanon and their neighbors. Eventually they will use oil to blackmail Europe into submission.

Stopping this is absolutely essential to world peace. We must be willing to do anything to stop this nuclear holocaust. Anything.

Calling this 'nutty' is just rabble-rousing of the deadliest sort.

Fred

Posted by Fred | September 26, 2007 5:31 AM

It would appear from this thread that the nuttiness on this issue isn't solely on the right.

Posted by southpaw | September 26, 2007 5:35 AM

"At some point, the madness has to stop, right? Right?"

The comments from Fred, Southpaw, and no doubt the rest of the nitwits momentarily ought to answer than question definitively.

Thirty percent or MORE of this country supports Bush no matter what he does.

What part of that don't you understand, Matt?

Get a clue, Matt. The Iran war is a DONE DEAL. It's not open to discussion any more. The only thing in question is when are you going to realize that and start definitively speaking out against it, rather than hiding behind "pundit wishy-washy" opinions designed to CYA so you don't get accused of supporting it like you did Iraq.

In any event, the Kyl-Lieberman resolution isn't even needed. Once Bush can manufacture some "border incident" with Iran, Bush can use the original authorization of force against "terrorists" - now that they have defined Iran's IRGC as a "terrorist organization" - as the "legal justification" for the initial attacks.

And of course, once Iran retaliates, as it will, Bush will get carte blanch from the Senate - ESPECIALLY from the Democrats - to go ahead on.

It's all over but the dying - and the bleeding of the US to death militarily, economically and geopolitically.

And get this bit: while we're threatening Iran over a nonexistent nuclear weapons program, Israel is petitioning for an EXEMPTION from the rules!

Israel seeks exemption from atomic rules
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070925/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_israel

How much more obvious does the situation need to be?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 26, 2007 5:55 AM

Re: If we attack Iran, I will pray for the complete and utter destruction of the United States.

This is way, way, way over the top. If we attack Iran I will pray that public opinion forces the Bush administration to resign and he the GOP collapses and 2008 brings us a goverment that is free of such reactionary fools.

Re: If we attack Iran, I will pray for the complete and utter destruction of the United States.

And this is disgusting. The men and women of our armed forces are not responsible for the stupidity of our leaders and to wish disaster on them because Bush is a fool and Cheney is malevolent is downright evil.

Re: Then Russia needs to promise to let the nukes fly if the United States engages in the first use of Nuclear weapons.

Now you are being an idiot. You want the world to go to nuclear war? Wow.

Posted by Jonf | September 26, 2007 6:27 AM

Petitioning for an exemption is different from violating signed agreements.

Nobody is worried that the Israelis will give a nuke to a terrorist group. With Iran, it's practically guaranteed.

Claiming that the Iranian nuclear weapons program is 'nonexistent' is deliberate dishonesty.

The combination of hiding nuclear activity from IAEA inspectors and support of multiple terrorist groups is too much to ignore: Iran is building nuclear weapons and intends to use them.

If they really just wanted to sell electricity, nobody would object, not even me. The game they are playing is old fashioned Imperialism; The Mullahs Islamic law sees nothing wrong with that.

Fred

Posted by Fred | September 26, 2007 6:30 AM

true patriot is truly trolling

Posted by cleek | September 26, 2007 7:04 AM

At some point we have got to see evidence of the Iranian weapons allegedly being used to kill Americans. Lay them out on the table.

Posted by bob h | September 26, 2007 7:19 AM

Fred, how do you manage to post so many replies while driving your taxi?

Posted by Guy in Jersey | September 26, 2007 7:25 AM

I haven't read the link so I apologize in advance if I'm missing something here. That said I'll echo WTF's comment above; a link to a 2002 article yet a mention of a 2004 founding of a think tank? Matt, please clarify.

Posted by steve duncan | September 26, 2007 7:51 AM

Fred, how did you come so be such a hateful moron?

Posted by Jennifer | September 26, 2007 7:53 AM

"At some point, the madness has to stop, right? Right?"

Not really.

Posted by bob mcmanus | September 26, 2007 8:20 AM

The response to the threat of Iran is very simple. Make a parking lot out of it.

Posted by SLC | September 26, 2007 8:32 AM

Jonf,

You stupid, reeking idiot. The ONLY hope for the world to avoid nuclear war if we attack Iran would be for Russia to make such a promise. Don't you people realize that attacking Iran will otherwise INEVITABLY lead to nuclear war. We can't "win" such a war conventionally. It WILL escalate to nuclear war unless Russia steps in as Iran's protector.

Haven't you people been paying fucking attention?

Posted by true patriot | September 26, 2007 8:41 AM

Eventually, like Iran, they want to build a nuclear war machine. This enables them to conquer more oil (like Saddam's conquest of Kuwait) to further their plans.

Remind me which country Iran has invaded.

The prospects for Iran acquiring nuclear weapons in the immediate future are quite remote. However, in time, eventually any country with enough money could pretty readily manage to acquire this mid-20th-century technology if they tried. In later years, they may actually develop rocket technology sufficient for releasing them over long distances.

More likely, of course, is that Iran would face direct pressure from both Russia and China. The former of which has strategic interests in the regions and the border area around Iran and the latter doesn't want its oil supplies cut off. Both of these countries have nuclear weapons.

A more rational prospect is to realize that Iran is the main power broker in the region, especially since their sphere of influence extends right into Iraq. The next is making sure that nuclear material is carefully and tightly controlled. Dealing with these simple facts is of utmost importance.

The important, and the only question about Iran is how we reach some level of detente with them.

We must be willing to do anything to stop this nuclear holocaust [which does not exist on the horizon]. Anything.

In addition, we must do anything to prevent the corrupt of the purity of essence of our precious bodily fluids. Anything.

I'm really not sure that whipping yourself into a paranoid fervor is a good idea. However, as you so clearly reminded us in a previous thread, you're still harboring a lot of bitterness over the Iranian hostage crisis and have been itching to "show them who's boss" for over 30 years.

Posted by Tyro | September 26, 2007 8:46 AM

Thanks for giving us the rarely expressed pro-genocide point of view, SLC.

Posted by William Burns | September 26, 2007 9:09 AM

Who is this "Kyle" you speak of?

Posted by sean | September 26, 2007 9:10 AM

Re William Burns

If one wants to make an omelet, one has to break a few egg shells.

Posted by SLC | September 26, 2007 9:27 AM

The core problem is that terrorist-supporting governments use oil revenue to build a war machine. Eventually, like Iran, they want to build a nuclear war machine. This enables them to conquer more oil (like Saddam's conquest of Kuwait) to further their plans. The eventual result is World Domination by an over-paid oil exporter with delusions of Jihad.

I don't know if anyone else has addressed this but I feel compelled to make clear that there is aboslutely no chance whatsoever of Iran dominating the world and that basing foriegn policy on trying to prevent Iran from achieving world domination is insane.
Carry on.

Posted by WillieStyle | September 26, 2007 9:33 AM

If one wants to make an omelet, one has to break a few egg shells.

Or kill a few million innocent civilians. But really, SLC, that kind of tired cliche just needlessly lengthens the comment thread. It's almost as lame as commenting "First!"

Posted by James Gary | September 26, 2007 9:34 AM

If one wants to make an omelet, one has to break a few egg shells.

Given that there cannot possibly be anyone left in America who uses this maxim unironically, I have to think that's he's saying this tongue-in-cheek.

Posted by Tyro | September 26, 2007 9:48 AM

If one wants to make an omelet, one has to break a few egg shells.

Tell the truth. Are you Little Tommy Friedman's sock puppet?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | September 26, 2007 10:03 AM

MY:
It's Kyl. Can't you at least spell the Senator's name right? ;-)

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | September 26, 2007 10:06 AM

WillieStyle:

Iran won't win the game the way they want to: it's a matter of how many people die before they're stopped. They are indeed playing for global stakes and are willing to use nuclear weapons to spread their version of Islam.

The apocalyptic language, 'the age of monotheism has commenced' and the big powers must end their 'obedience to Satan' combined with their habit of hiding their nuclear development from the IAEA and their support for international Terrorism should be enough to get you very worried indeed.

We don't need to believe in Iranian victory in order to see the need to avoid nuclear war!

Calling ideas 'insane' won't reduce the threat of Iranian neo-imperialism. Try to keep a civil tongue.

Do you think the entire Security Council that ordered sanctions against Iran was also 'Insane'? Do you think Iran's announcement that it will ignore the Security Council was 'Sane'?

Posted by Fred | September 26, 2007 10:16 AM

The dollar is at all time lows...we destroying ourselves economically and undermining the best principals of our government all for what?
Stop the 30% NOW!
Find anti-war candidates in either party and support them...even if is only a small contribution.

Posted by centrist | September 26, 2007 11:15 AM

centrist - it's not 30%. It's 30%, plus another 50% that hates Bush because they think he isn't doing a good enough job of pursuing Hegemony.

There are (almost) no antiwar candidates in either party. Your money would be better spent supporting relief organizations in the middle east - say the Red Crescent.

Posted by LarryM | September 26, 2007 11:22 AM

In fact, here is a helpful link to the English language version of the Iranian branch of the Red Crescent: http://www.rcs.ir/en/index.php. I urge all of you to make as big of a donation as you can afford.

Posted by LarryM | September 26, 2007 11:29 AM

That link seems to be broken, and even if you get to the site, they unfortunately don't have an on line donation option. Here is another link, though, of a way to donate legally to help Iranian children in need: http://childfoundationus.netropole.com/OurPrograms/SponsorshipPrograms/DonatingtoIran/tabid/747/Default.aspx.

Posted by LarryM | September 26, 2007 11:47 AM

That link seems to be broken, and even if you get to the site, they unfortunately don't have an on line donation option. Here is another link, though, of a way to donate legally to help Iranian children in need: http://childfoundationus.netropole.com/OurPrograms/SponsorshipPrograms/DonatingtoIran/tabid/747/Default.aspx.

Posted by LarryM | September 26, 2007 11:48 AM

Waiter, waiter, where is my f*cking omelette? I've been sitting here for f*cking years, you keep saying it's coming, it's coming, just need to break some eggs... Well, where the f*ck is my omelette?

Posted by kvenlander | September 26, 2007 11:49 AM

Larry,
Great idea, projects like that are the most effecient anti terror investment!

I have seen data that showed solid decreases in anti-americanism in the muslim nations affected by the tsunami and then aided by the efforts of clinton and bush1. Much more cost effective than "endless war"...

Posted by centrist | September 26, 2007 12:09 PM

kvenlander wins the thread.

The propaganda campaign is just getting started, folks. Here's a prediction: Within one year's time, at least 30% of Americans will believe that Iran was "behind 9/11."

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | September 26, 2007 12:33 PM

Re Joe Kleins' conscience

"Tell the truth. Are you Little Tommy Friedman's sock puppet?"

Associating me with that moron Tom Friedman is an insult of monumental proportions. The only thing worse would be associating me scumbag Robert Novak.

Posted by SLC | September 26, 2007 2:03 PM

Gee, SLC isn't in favor of outing CIA agents?

Why, just because they remind him of Mossad agents?

Fred is a complete idiot. Nothing he's said is even remotely true. He lives in a dream world of paranoia and greed where being an "American" means he gets to lord it over everyone else in the world.

Which merely demonstrates his pathetic lack of self esteem - a common problem with virtually all right wing nuts and Christian Zionists.

"Petitioning for an exemption is different from violating signed agreements."

Iran has never violated a signed agreement. Look it up.

"Nobody is worried that the Israelis will give a nuke to a terrorist group. With Iran, it's practically guaranteed."

a) It's not even remotely guaranteed; b) the problem with Israel's weapons is theft, not being sold. I might add that the main problem with Israel's weapons is that they might be used as well. Iran's would be purely defensive.

"Claiming that the Iranian nuclear weapons program is 'nonexistent' is deliberate dishonesty.

The combination of hiding nuclear activity from IAEA inspectors and support of multiple terrorist groups is too much to ignore: Iran is building nuclear weapons and intends to use them."

Iran did not hide nuclear activity from the IAEA. They were not required by the NPT to divulge their enrichment activities prior to introducing nuclear material into them. The ONLY issues the IAEA has with them is that Iran has been slow or unwilling to explain how they got certain technology - probably because they don't want to compromise their contacts with Pakistan and cause any more trouble for themselves.

Second, Iran does not support "multiple terrorist groups". They support Hizballah which is a Lebanese nationalist resistance group against Israel (and the US when necessary.) Hizballah is not a "terrorist group" in the same sense as Al Qaeda or its franchises.

And even if all of that were true, there is ZERO evidence that Iran has any nuclear weapons "program" - and beyond that, there is ZERO evidence that Iran could or would use such weapons unless they HAD NO CHOICE - exactly like most other countries with such weapons.

You're a paranoid right wing fruitcake, Fred. Take some medication.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 26, 2007 4:52 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

"You're a paranoid right wing fruitcake, Fred. Take some medication."

Iran is going to be attacked and if Mr. Hack doesn't like it, he can go fuck himself.

As for outing CIA agents, that's the least of of Robert Novaks' transgressions. Novak is a lying, fascist piece of filth. He is nothing but a shill for the born again dominionists who are angling to turn the USA into a theocratic state which, oddly enough, would resemble a Christian version of Iran under the mullahs and Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Posted by SLC | September 26, 2007 6:37 PM

There's another Fred so I'm becoming FredJ.

Mr. Hack: I am not a paranoid fruitcake. At one time you were taught to avoid hate speech and that invective is no substitute for critical thinking. Please try to remember those lessons.

And if these ideas are new to you, look them up. Please.

The Security Council has required that Iran stop all uranium enrichment and stop all work on heavy water. Please think about why these governments took this action and whether they are paranoid right wing fruitcakes.

Issues such as nuclear war need to be handled with the utmost gravity.

Posted by Fred => FredJ | September 26, 2007 7:45 PM

Are we really being asked to believe that Iran has such a lust to generate and sell electricity, that it will suffer grievous economic sanctions? With sanctions in place, where will they sell the electricity?

Posted by FredJ | September 26, 2007 7:55 PM

"The Security Council has required that Iran stop all uranium enrichment and stop all work on heavy water. Please think about why these governments took this action and whether they are paranoid right wing fruitcakes."

Ah, you ARE the clueless Fred.

First of all, to answer the last question first, Iran is not interested in selling electricity, YOU MORON. Iran needs that nuclear-generated electricity in order to avoid consuming their own OIL, allowing them to continue to sell the oil in order to finance their infrastructure.

If you had ANY clue as to the facts, you would know this, as it has been acknowledged by just about everybody except the right wing nuts.

By the way, you see anybody suggesting that Iranian sanctions should include their not selling any oil to anybody?

I thought not. And if they did, you'd find the oil companies behind it as it would drive the price up.

The governments of the Security Council have been pressured by the US to do what they did. Some of them - notably Russia and China - are merely trying to stave off a war with Iran which will severely impact their access to Iranian oil and gas - especially China. The rest are the usual run of colonialist nitwits who supported the war in Iraq - which we now know was completely insane.

So, yes, those countries are insane. And so are you for believing any of this crap in the wake of Iraq.

If you have any evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, I suggest you contact the IAEA because El Baradei at this point would consider you insane for suggesting that anything other than diplomacy needs to be done to clear up some OLD issues about where the Iranians got their centrifuge technology. El Baradei is opposed to sanctions, let alone military attacks.

Only a nitwit like Chancellor Merkel would suggest, as she did yesterday, that Iran has to somehow "prove" that it does not have a nuclear weapons program. Would Merkel like to "prove" that Germany doesn't intend to start WWIII and another Holocaust"? How would they go about that?

As for SLC, Israel is doomed, and if he doesn't like it, he can go fuck himself. I can't wait to see what Hizballah does to Israel in the next round - backed by Syria and Iran directly this time. The stupid Israeli military got their heads handed to them last time, and next time it will be worse.

SLC is a Zionist scumbag who wants to see the US bled dry militarily, economically and geopolitically for the benefit of Israel - which is exactly what will happen when the US attacks Iran. But Israel will not escape unscathed because they will be stupid enough to attack Hizballah and Syria at the same time. Both the US and Israel will lose - big time.

In fact, the US - and Israel - are about to experience the biggest military disaster in US and Israeli history.

Have a nice day!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 26, 2007 11:41 PM

Hey Fred, die painfully in a fire.

Posted by Terrible Swift Sword | September 27, 2007 12:36 AM