Republicans succeed in getting Obama to capitulate to Israel on Iran

This is late, but I've been wanting to say something about it for awhile.

The whole ridiculous letter to Iran from Senate Republicans is here:

Letter From Senate Republicans to the Leaders of Iran

It's condescending, ostentatious, threatening, egotistical and pretty much a pack of lies. But Obama folded anyway. The Republicans intended to conduct diplomacy on behalf of a foreign power (ISRAEL, in case you missed it) with Iran outside of diplomatic and official and presidential channels, but they ended up crippling the president more directly (and helping their bedfellow, Israel). Why do liberals have to be so darned reasonable?? I don't expect a stunt like this from Democrats when the Republicans gain control of the White House. And not only because they'll go to war at the drop of a hat and before trying any kind of diplomacy!

Here is the best rundown on all the lies and implications of the Republican letter to Iran:

http://billmoyers.com/2015/03/17/real-story-behind-republicans-iran-letter/

Also, 10 Frightening Facts About Tom Cotton, the architect of the stunt.

Ron Suskind's The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism

The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism
by
Ron Suskind

Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Way-World-Story-Truth-Extremism/dp/0061430625
Two shows/interviews:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93319762
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/13/the_way_of_the_world_ron

My thoughts:

Wow. Bush should have been impeached. He and his admin did in fact break the law. It was bad that they lied in the run up to Iraq (not illegal necessarily, unfortunately), but forging a letter from an Iraqi official "confirming" their list of lies in a covert action to alter public opinion tipped the scale. Ironically, the guy they wanted to copy the info in his own handwriting and sign it was the Iraqi intel guy who confirmed other reports from British intel and our own agencies that Iraq had no WMD (months before the invasion). He and those who reported this were ignored by Bush and only "used" when they wanted him to copy down this fabricated (by the White House) letter and have it planted in Baghdad by CIA. Of course their outing of him ( with a total lie only to save them some shame and from having to come clean) would put him and his family in danger, being collaborators and all, but hey, when has that ever mattered with Bush admin officials? Plame, anyone?

The book starts out with personal stories of a handful or people and how they experienced America or its decline in those 8 years. I was really enjoying that, then the second part really dove into 9/11, the run up to Iraq, Guantanamo, Bhutto's death and the admin's mishandling (to put it mildly) of it all (every last bit). We had the sympathy of the world after 9/11 and blew it. The British opened back channels in Iraq and then Iran to get solid intel and future negotiations started and we slammed the door because they wouldn't fall in line with our assumptions of WMD, etc.

When the story abruptly changed from personal stories to Bush admin stuff (I've about had enough) I was tempted to stop reading, but it actually was tied together quite nicely in the end. I think it was a bad decision to not fully investigate everything to find out who knew what and when and put it out for all eyes. Only then can apologies and amends be made and perhaps our reputation restored. We can and I hope we do repair our image by doing the right thing, but apologies and admissions of guilt (taking responsibility) are always a solid, healthy way to go.

I fully agree with the sentiment in the book that America needs to get back its moral authority -honesty, compassion, respect for others- and stop imposing our will on others. Giving without leaving the recipient in our debt. Bush was not a leader that helped us build on these principles. He destroyed them. Obama has had to start from scratch- or a negative position.

Israel and Iran's UN General Assembly Speeches

The irony in Netanyahu’s talk about the Holocaust, nuclear capabilities, and peace was astounding. I guess it's not really a forum for apologizing for one's mistakes so much as telling why you are so awesome, though. I thought Iran and Israel stood out for exceptional irony. Qaddafi just stood out-- but I'm not going there.

Interestingly, people walked out on Ahmedinejad's speech when he was critical of Israel, not for the legitimate (and obvious?) reason of the disputed elections- if I have heard the news report correctly. He made some good points about double standards and Palestine, but who’s going to listen to this guy what with the dubious election results, aggressive style and his country’s own human rights record?

Netanyahu, in his UN address, started off with condemning Ahmedinejad and Holocaust denial and those who didn’t walk out on him. He used this speech as a platform to “build” a case for invading Iran. He said of the UN and all nations that were either too critical of Israel or not critical enough of Iran that they were on the side of terror (!). I’m having Bush déjà vu. His comparison of Iran and Hamas with the Nazis was gratuitous. Forget about Iran’s disputed elections, it’s always about the Holocaust (the Jewish one, not the one the Jews perpetrated), right? He condemned Iran as backward and fanatic. Nice. That should help diplomatic efforts.

And he’s trying to channel former President Bush here- trying to con people into thinking that his pet project (or diversion) is the real problem of the day:

“The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge?”

Netanyahu also condemned the recent UN report, the Human Rights Council, and the whole UN for daring to say anyone other than Israel is the victim:

“We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.”

No one is allowed to deny or even debate facts surrounding the Holocaust. It’s taboo. Other people died too, but discussing it as anything but a Jewish tragedy is forbidden. But, on the other hand, saying there is no such thing as Palestinians (or making al-Nakba commemoration illegal) is not a problem. On the contrary, it’s a convenient solution. And surprisingly, it’s one people don’t dismiss out of hand. They consider it; they aren’t enraged at the suggestion and they don’t think the person who suggested it is racist or loony- like Holocaust denial or disputing various numbers or events surrounding it. If you say Palestinians didn’t exist, then you massacred nobody and nobody has a claim to the land you “found” totally (and conveniently) empty. You are occupying nobody’s land, oppressing nobody and therefore aren’t committing any crimes. Perhaps this is why Netanyahu is incensed? He’s being blamed for the tragedy of a people that he thinks don’t exist?

Here is an outright lie:

“In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza.”

(Dov Weisglass said the intent of his government at the time was “political formaldehyde,”- his term- the holding off of real negotiations, which would mean peace- for Israel, minus responsibility for past crimes- without justice for Palestinians)

His constant assertion, here, is that Israel wants peace, but his examples are telling. He names Jordan and Egypt as successes, but the only way they got those agreements was by taking Palestinian issues off the table. These agreements were probably of significant importance in subjugating and oppressing Palestinians, since both were regional heavyweights (Egypt- militarily; Jordan- diplomatically or politically), but not so much for solving the main issue causing unrest in the region.

Netanyahu also talks about the ridiculous demilitarized state idea:

“The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.”

He just got finished talking about how it is Israel’s right to defend itself and now he turns around and says Palestinians don’t have this right?? Israel may want peace, but it has to be on Israel’s terms! Notice that mentality where he wants delegates to choose Israel’s side and reject the report or else Israel can’t make any more ‘risks for peace’:

“This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow.”

To his credit, he didn’t mention equality or justice in his speech, so kudos for not lying about wanting or intending to bestow these gifts- I guess.

He goes there- to 1947. The Jews accepted this resolution; Arabs didn’t. Hmmm. What if the UN were to do the same today and give Palestinians 50% of the Israel/Palestine area. Would Jews accept that?? No way! Back then, Palestinians rightfully owned (not occupied) some 95% of the land and the UN decided to divide it in two and give 55% to this small population of Jews. That was crazy to them. Hindsight being 20/20, I guess they should have taken it, right? But, back then, I bet it seemed nuts to accept such an unfair division of their land. They didn’t really have a guarantee, though, that the Jews wouldn’t have invaded and taken more land, seeing as how they had connections to get more people and weapons from escaping Jews and all people against the Holocaust (one example, another).
*In both of those linked examples, you see the appearance of the idea that little David (Israel) was fighting big, evil Goliath (7 Arab armies), but check this, among other sources, before you swallow that whopper.

And there's the nukes. Israel won’t sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, like India and Pakistan, but we’re supposed to crack down on Iran. Israel succeeded in keeping their nuclear weapons program secret for a long time and considers Vanunu, who outed them, an enemy of the state who will never be free. No one thinks this odd, but Iran is assumed to be planning an imminent attack on Israel because it doesn’t want its enemies to know about its capabilities.

Freedom, justice and self-defense are Israel’s right, but not Palestinians’ as evidenced by the reservations to the Roadmap and the conditions under which Netanyahu would accept a Palestinian entity. Nuclear power and weapons are Israel’s right to have or disclose-- or not, but everyone else is subject to rules, inspections or bans.

Apartheid is bad, except when Israel does it. Ethnic cleansing is bad, except if Israel does it (it’s always “self-defense”). I’m starting to see a pattern? Are you?


Full text of the speeches (Sept. 23 & 24, 2009):

Netanyahu Speech at UN: Full Text Transcript and Video
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/netanyahu-speech-un-full-text-transcript-and-video

Transcript of Ahmadinejad's U.N. Speech
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6107339

Bible prophecy about Iran elections...or not so much...

Someone posted a link and asked for comments. The link is below and my comments follow. I hope I don't come off as sarcastic or rude. (I'd like to save that for politics ;) ) Premillennialism is something I've tried to understand in the past. I really have not been able to connect the dots as to how people extract this belief from the Bible, given the context, meanings, and history. It is kind of a soapbox issue (like support for Israel and its crimes) because it is widely accepted, but I just can't figure out why.

Anyway, here goes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67G0E0Uquyc

My comments:
In Galatians 3, the Bible calls the old law a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Our reading of these fulfilled prophecies gives us hope. The modern state of Israel is not mentioned in the Bible, contrary to popular belief. The Israelites were God's chosen. Jews today turn their back on Christ and God's sacrifice of his son. People often confuse today's Jews with Israelites. This is a really common false teaching, or group of false teachings, called premillennialism.

Ezra 1:1

The prophecy being fulfilled here is in Isaiah 44:28-45:1. Ezra1:1-4 says this prophecy is being fulfilled by Cyrus’s action, but you seem to apply this to Ahmedinejad in present-day Iran instead of Cyrus in Persia in comments like: “it’s ironic that the king of Persia is building God’s temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 1), but Ahmedinejad, leader of Iran today, is “trying to destroy everything that has to do with God’s temple in Jerusalem.”

I have a problem with his equating modern day Israel and modern Jews with ancient Israelites (God’s chosen people) and land (conditionally) promised (and received…and lost) to them at that time. It’s not historically accurate. Biblically speaking, it doesn’t matter one bit with regards to our salvation or Bible prophecy what goes on in Jerusalem (how ever interesting it may be).

You seem to differentiate between time periods, here, but I wasn’t clear on whether you thought Ezra was indeed a fulfillment (he didn’t say it at all) as we know it to be, or a prophecy to be fulfilled in the future (as you do later).

I thought the comment – ‘Jerusalem’s supposed to be their 3rd holiest site, but when they pray, they turn their back on it. Doesn’t sound holy to me.’ had no real place in the discussion of Bible prophecy. It was kind of catty, snide, and very much opinion.


Ezekiel 38

Ezekiel 38:11 speaks of unwalled villages. Israel today has tons of walls and fences, checkpoints, etc. Being attacked in a time of peace when defenses were decreased is spoken of in Ezekiel, but Israel is on high alert, is a very militarized society, and is filled with walls. This clearly doesn’t fit today’s situation or any since 1948 (and likely any after).

Most premillennialists say Israel was restored in 1948, but by saying this is a future prophecy it goes against even premillennial thought.

Ezekiel 39:29 “poured out My spirit” reminds me of Joel 2:28 which refers to that time when the gospel was beginning to be preached and people needed signs and before scripture was completed as referred to in 1 Corinthians 13:10. One could at the very least surmise that the fulfillment occurred before the scriptures were completely revealed. The Israelite captivity is also referred to in chapter 39, so I’m guessing it was fulfilled much earlier than the time the scriptures were completely revealed?

If the northern lands are indeed today’s countries as you say, then they will be fighting with horses, swords and shields (?) and not planes, bombs and other equipment long removed from swords. That begs some explanation if we are to continue to assume this will happen in the “future” from today’s vantage point.

He says Moscow and Iran are leading a world war against Israel. Really, Moscow is becoming dependent on the West more and more and consequently is pressured to have good relations with Israel which will probably actually hurt their relations with Iran, so I would say their bond or association is not so tight as you say.

He also says about the Ezekiel passage “recovered from war” that Israel has had a few wars. I’d say yes, but they are in a constant state of war and are nowhere near “recovered” from it, so this doesn’t fit here either. He says we are already seeing verse 14 in that Iran won’t accept Israel’s right to exist, but I say we can’t be seeing it (even if you ignore the fact that this has been fulfilled) since Israel’s at “war”, not recovered.

　

Dan 10 “time yet to come” He says that means it hasn’t happened yet. In reality, at the time of the writing, it was yet to come. It is important to think about when it was written, to whom, by whom, context, when considering a passage.

It is essential to read Daniel 10-12 to get the prophecy here. The Persian, Greek, and in 11, the north and south (Syrian and Egyptian) kingdoms are discussed. History shows that these things did indeed happen.

Going back to your assertion, how do we know this is meant for us at this point in history, rather than events that have transpired already for which there is documentation? This is something I have always wanted to know from premillennialists. Why is it impossible that it happened thousands of years ago and by the time we read it, it has been fulfilled?

When prophecies were written, they were written about specific people and events, but folks like to insert current events all too often. It is astounding that things were prophesied 400 years before they occurred. We don’t need to put current events in there to reinject the “magic”. It is amazing and tells us God is faithful and takes care of those that obey him- for instance when we see Jesus and his life and message, the Israelites’ captivity prophesied or their return and each of them fulfilled.


V20- angel says soon I will fight against the king of Persia
and
Revelation 22:7 , 12 coming soon

Students of Revelation will realize that when the Bible says “soon” it means soon, not 2000 or more years later. For example, Revelation was written to Christians undergoing persecution we can barely comprehend. This letter was their comfort and many saw the comfort in their lifetime, otherwise what good would it have been? Soon, I’d gather, would be more like a generation than a millennia or two.

We are not given signs or even a timeframe (i.e soon) for his return:
Matt 24:36, 42-44

Bottom line on Iran

Iranian Protest Parallels With 1979
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8109101.stm

There are a lot of folks comparing recent events in Iran with 1979 and many Americans are Tweeting and Facebooking their support for demonstrators and declared the election rigged as soon as Ahmadinejad's victory was announced. We may never know for sure if the election was indeed rigged, but there were a lot of suspicious events surrounding it. Too many for a coincidence.

I think we need to be careful who we throw our support behind, especially with us Westerners not being all that familiar with Middle Eastern history. With all the American support and media coverage for demonstrators and the reform candidate, before I did some homework I thought this guy must be a drastic change from the current leader. Maybe he is going to start a new revolution away from an Islamic Republic and toward a Western democracy. Wonderful.

Except that's not exactly the case. All candidates are vetted by the Ayotolla, so really, how revolutionary can these folks be anyway? They are people very much tied to this current government: a PM that led during the Iran-Iraq war, a revolutionary guard commander against Iraq, a speaker of Parliament.

A guest on The Diane Rehm Show summed it up quite well. The fight is not between the government and exiled or illegal opposition, it is a fight within the government. Even if Mousavi were to prevail in a recount or truly free and monitored election, Iran would not morph into a Western liberal democracy (complete with the AIPAC branch?), it would just be a slightly more moderate version of the current government. Our troubles and issues with Iran wouldn't disappear and Israel certainly wouldn't be anymore satisfied or less demanding (of it's demands on us to demand more of Iran), regardless of who wins, unless it changes to a Zionist Western democracy, of course.

I'm all for free and fair elections and I think rigging elections is frustrating and insulting (and shooting peaceful protesters is outrageous), but I also think perhaps the media has made so much of the demonstrations that people mistakenly think that Iran is on the verge of creating a liberal democracy (that will have zero nuclear ambition if the US wants it to).

Further, I am a little worried that all this worldwide attention on Iranian protests is maybe leading to a list of grievances for which a group of nations will want to confront Iran and give it an ultimatum that will result in another war (needlessly). Hopefully, Obama will be more cautious than Bush & Co, but it is unsettling. We in the West are all too eager to jump into war when it's not on our soil, regardless of whether or not we have all the facts. I mean, let's say we jump in and "liberate" Iran and install who we think should have won- Mousavi (or someone else who is actually pro-West and will implement liberal democratic changes). Will we make sure the election was rigged before bombing them to the stone age? The bigger question is- are we sure Mousavi would be that much better than Ahmadinejad and would it justify another war, massive casualties, and all the horrors that go with it??

Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but the media coverage and tone worries me a bit.

Netanyahu and Obama begin key talks in US
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8055105.stm



With regard to Iran, Israel is saying:

"The prime minister will emphatically emphasize the element of urgency,"

Uhhh, does this translate to- you’d better make up a reason to go in there and get ‘em or we’ll nuke ‘em for ya. It doesn’t have to be a good reason, as we’ve seen in Iraq. Just mention national security and maybe 9/11 and mushroom clouds and BAM! You have a population more than ready to sign their sons’ and daughters’ lives away to “fight terror” or “fight for freedom”. Wow. That sounds familiar. It sounds like how people are recruited for extremist groups.

When are we going to learn that doing Israel’s dirty work is not in the interests of us, them or the Middle East as a whole?? I guess the danger is that Israel would go it alone and we’d be blamed for not being able to “persuade” them from starting nuclear war.

So, maybe we have to be involved, but must we simply be yes men?

“Tenders have been issued to build 20 housing units in Maskiot, a former Israeli military base that has been designated for housing settlers removed from Gaza in 2005.”

I wonder if this will come up at all in the meeting. Hmm. It should go something like if you don’t stop building settlements (which are against our policy and international law) then our “aid” to you stops today. If they continue to build, they should have to pay the Palestinians (like a hefty fine) and risk home demolishing (or bombing) by Palestinians. Just a thought. We already know Israel thinks this is fair and acceptable.

We may not have ALL of the issues in the conflict figured out, but this one is a no-brainer. It’s against the law. We should apply pressure, cut off aid, boycott. Do something, at least! All we do is make lame little statements that must get lost on the way over to Israel. They always come back and slap us in the face with plans to expand and build more settlements. We cower and back down every time so that our “stand” becomes more like a “run and hide”. Is that hole we pulled Saddam Hussein out of still open? It’s as though we make a bold statement about dismantling settlements in public, but in private meetings, we must say- settlements? We love settlements. Settlements are great. Keep up the good work. Otherwise, why would Israel keep building these things with absolutely no consequences??

Another interesting tidbit- the American public isn’t holding our elected officials back from holding Israel accountable:

On Israeli Settlement Freeze, Public Has Obama's Back
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/on-israeli-settlement-fre_b_194751.html

Mr Netanyahu has so far been unwilling to endorse a two-state solution, saying only he wants a "fresh approach".

Interesting. We are still meeting with these guys even though they don’t endorse the two-state solution that Hamas, other Palestinians, the US, Europe, etc endorse.

The only other solution is one secular state with equal rights for all--- and we know full well that no good Israeli Jew could ever live with such a thing. Equal rights? Whoever heard of such a silly notion?

I guess there is another solution. Genocide. Is that the “fresh approach” Netanyahu talking about? Maybe not killing everyone, but at least transfer them somewhere out of Israel’s way.



Another interesting article I found:

Obama's Middle East moment of truth
His diplomatic moves are a good start. But does he have the will to challenge Israel?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2009/03/17/middle_east_obama/

boycotts

Ok. Bush and others discouraged an Olympic boycott of China because its not fair to the athletes to bring politics into the sports competitions. Great. Human rights, sweat shops, Tibet, and a bunch of other stuff. We'll ignore it.

An Iranian wants to sign with the NBA now. Guess what? It's ok to punish athletes in this case.

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/basketball/news?slug=aw-nbairan081608&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

A flow chart of Bush policy would be a total web of confusion and contradiction, except if you map presidential power. That one's very simple, ballooning from 2000-2008.

McCain and Iran

McCain singing Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/mccain-sings-bomb-bomb-iran.html

I realize it was a joke, but it's really uncalled for when you're talking about bombings that will involve killing innocents. Unless they have those magic weapons that Israel has that don't kill any inncents, right? The "threat" is another resurrected one, so far unsubstantiated, so he should even be talking like that, let alone joking about it.

US Exports Cigarettes and more to Iran-supporting terrorism??
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/iran.us.buying.ap/index.html

McCain responding to the above report of exporting cigarettes.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080709/pl_nm/usa_politics_mccain_iran_dc

Again, yes, it's joke. But sometimes some kinds of jokes are inappropriate. Especially if you're running to be in charge of such matters in the near future! I want someone that I know will take matters seriously, especially ones that involve life and death. One who will consider the human cost and make absolutely sure there's an imminent threat before we cause harm to us and others.

Speaking of responsible choices... McCain's probable pick for Treasury Secretary is Phil Gramm. THE Phil Gramm. Enron (he and his wife). Forclosure crisis. Is that someone who you wnat anywhere near financial decisions?? Yikes. And recently he said Americans need to stop whining about a mental recession. Where is this guy living? Mars? Anyway, McCain did the obligatory backpedaling, but will we see him kick Gramm to the curb, as Obama has done with controversial figures?
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/9/foreclosure_phil_journalist_david_corn_on

Terror watch uses local eyes
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9725077

This sounds scary. Or it could be. It doesn't look that bad in the article, but the fact that things you do and say that aren't even illegal are being recorded and could be pieced together in patchwork fashion to frame you if the need arose is crazy. This opens the door for abuse, big time. On one hand it's great they're being vigilant; on the other, we're all a bad picture away from Guantanamo.


Preparing the Battlefield
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
Hersh knows what's up. When he wrote about Iraq, I was thinking...naw...Bush isn't that crazy. It would be too hasty, there are too many former officials dissenting, the evidence doesn't seem to be there yet. And we ended up in a disaster there.

I didn't imagine it. I thought maybe I'd confused some news stories as I was listening to CNN while nodding off on the couch...

Mofaz said: "Israel would attack Iran "if it continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons". "

Mofaz criticised over Iran threat

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7442471.stm

If this is true (and it probably is), who do you think will foot the bill? Who do you think will volunteer it's citizens gladly, without a thought to what's in its citizens' best interest? Israel won't even have to declare war. There will be some back door calls or visits to the White House by Israeli officials and we will happily sacrifice our sons and daughters for Israel's paranoid perceived existential threat because we have promised to protect Israel at all costs. It's in the oath of office for president and Congress. It must be. Why else would we hold to this even when it completely is at odds with our interests and security??

Israel's writing a check our American butts are going to have to cash. But that's never happened before, right? ;)

"Israel won't accept nuke weapons in Iran."

I saw this headline on Yahoo news..."Israel won't accept nuke weapons in Iran."

First, I must say, SO WHAT?! Let Israel deal with it. Or don't...they have nukes and have threatened to use them more than once! They are more of a loose cannon than some of the dictatorships we deal with. Israel is more dangerous because they feel they are under an existential threat (they aren't...look at the facts); the dictators aren't under that kind of pressure and are less likely to blow their tops.

Second, I know realistically that this will be our problem. GWB or the next president will be forced into dealing with this on behalf of Israel and could possibly drag us into trouble.

Speaking of trouble... the voice on our tape of the Iran approaching US boats incident ended up not being the correct accent to be real. And we were worried about theirs being a fake! That's great!