Skip to main content

Here's a list of our Democratic Senators who are voting for Bill # S.Res.65 that urges the USA to provide military and other support, if Israel should ever decide to attack Iran. On their own that is. Cool. Isn't that a great idea guys? Go Bibi Go! Don't even ask, we got your back!..... Signed, the following Dems:

Alaska --------- Mark Begich (D)

Arkansas -- ---  Mark Pryor (D)

California -- --- Barbara Boxer (D)
                       Diane Feinstein (D)

Colorado------- Michael Bennet (D)

Connecticut----Richard Blumenthal (D)

Delaware-------Chris Coons (D)

Florida----------Bill Nelson (D)

Hawaii----------Mazie Hirono (D)

Illinois----------Richard Durbin (D)

Indiana---------Joe Donnelly (D)

Maryland-------Barbara Mikulski (D)
                      Benjamin Cardin (D)

Michigan-------Debbie Stabenow (D)

Minnesota-----Amy Klobuchar (D)

Missouri-------Clair McCaskill (D)

Montana-------Max Baucus (D)
                      John Tester (D)

New Jersey----Frank Lautenberg (D)
                      Robert Menendez (D)

New York------Kirsten Gillibrand (D)
                      Charles Schumer (D)

N. Carolina---- Kay Hagan (D)

N. Dakota------Heidi Heitkamp (D)

Ohio------------Sherrod Brown (D)

Oregon---------Ron Wyden (D)

Pennsylvania---Bob Casey (D)

Rhode Island---Sheldon Whitehouse (D)

S. Dakota-------Tim Johnson (D)

Virginia---------Mark Warner (D
                       Tim Kaine (D)

Washington-----Patty Murray (D)

W. Virginia------Tim Manchin (D)

Don't it make you proud as all hell to be a Democrat? Way to go team! Any Kossacks still wondering how we got railroaded into the Iraq war? Well right here's your answer, in these names, ready and rarin to go at it again. Never mind the warmongering Republicans who sponsored the damn bill, we got plenty of Democrats here, chomping at the bit.
                     

But wait a minute -- I thought these folks were supposed to be on our side. You remember, the anti-war side? Did I get something wrong here? Did I get my signals crossed? Yeah well they're Democrats alright... you can tell by the letter. And they sure be a lot of them.... but better Democrats? Ummm.....you got to wonder.

Unless you want to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. WMDs take two, yabba dabba doo, Hollywood get the cameras ready, WaPo get your journalists in line, we got lots of Democrats waiting for prime time. National Security boys, it's all about National Security. Judy Miller, where'd you go to? Hope none of you Senators threw your flag lapel pins away.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  Given that Boeing is my state I'm somewhat (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wolf10, Deward Hastings, native, claude, jm214

    shocked to see only one of my Senators on that list. Time to call Sen. Patty Murray and ask WTF she was thinking. Thank you Sen. Cantwell for not voting for this ridiculous bill.

    You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

    by ontheleftcoast on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:13:11 AM PDT

  •  Our Democratic (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deward Hastings, native, Wolf10

    Congress Critters are not uniformly anti-war. A few may be, but most are only when its politically expedient.

    "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

    by just another vet on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:16:29 AM PDT

  •  Don't matter whether this bill (4+ / 0-)

    has any chance of passing. The point is, all these Dems who signed on to it bring us closer and closer to another catastrophe which, if we had any sense, we would not want to even get near to.

  •  Thanks for writing this (8+ / 0-)

    I hadn't seen discussion of this bill here yet. Could I request that you add "S. Res. 65" to your tags to assist with searching this bill?

    Here's a video of Lawrence Wilkerson's critique of it.
    "The Backdoor to War with Iran" - Wilkerson Attacks Senate Resolution

     Plus
    The gov trak link to the bill

    And a line by line critique of the bill
    A Deconstruction of S.RES 65

    “In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upwardly mobile—and the rest of us are fucked until we can put our acts together: not necessarily to win, but mainly to keep from losing completely." - HST

    by cosmic debris on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:25:36 AM PDT

  •  Of course, any attack on Iran will probably (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wolf10, native, mojocat, claude, Quicklund, jm214

    choke off the world's access to about 25 % of the world's supply.  Given this dismal fact, any such attack will accomplish little if regime change is our goal and will have the potential to crash our economy as well as that of most of the Western industrialized world.
     For those too young to remember it, the Arab Oil Embargo certainly got our attention when the choke-off was far less, our dependence on Arab oil was less and our civilizations reliance on oil was far less.

    •  Sure enough, but we must not over-estimate (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wolf10, mojocat, allenjo, jm214

      the intelligence, nor underestimate the power of of the US Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex. I believe it is fully capable of crashing the entire world economy out of sheer incompetence.

      A war with Iran is, at this time, far more possible than it should be.

  •  Israel once again the tail wagging the American (7+ / 1-)

    dog. The question is devolving toward what level of egregious aggression (nukes, blockbuster bombs, special ops, assassination) will be used to maintain Israel's position as the sole nuclear power in the region.

    Given the history of U.S./Western/Israeli aggression in the region, Iran has good reason to seek the security that its own nuclear deterrent would provide.

    The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

    by Wolf10 on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:26:43 AM PDT

  •  I think the democratic party, led by the CINC (6+ / 0-)

    and his cabinet and department appointments, has proven without a doubt that it has no claim whatsoever of being an antiwar party.  If anything it seems to have completely melded with the republican party in terms of the agenda for world domination by military force.
    This is just another checklist item, something insisted on by AIPAC and others, to further build the case for US military action against Iran when and if the time comes, as well as to continue the narrative of Iran being evil and a menace in the ME and against Israel.  At this point, neither Israel or the US has any legal justification and everyone knows that, except the sheeple of course.

    "The Global War OF Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:35:39 AM PDT

  •  This is just (pathetic) theater (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    native, Deep Texan

    It is a resolution (a statement of opinion) not a binding law. Israel is not repeat is not going to attack Iran on its own, never, and the professional pols know that. So they are trying to score some cheap points. Congress is ever this way.

    I agree it is a pathetic display but it's nothing more than that.

    •  Beyond pathetic theater the diarist is wrong (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, native

      Even in the sense of pathetic theater, this diary felt wrong. I I just skimmed the Senate bill in question. The diarist is not giving an straightforward account of what is in this bill.

      This claim made by the diarist does not hold water:

      Bill # S.Res.65 that urges the USA to provide military and other support, if Israel should ever decide to attack Iran. On their own that is.
      This langiage does not appear in the bill. This is quite a slanted re-wording of what does appear in the bill.
      (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.
      (Bold done by Quicklund.)

      Unilaterally launching an unprovoked war against Iran is not the same thing as "self-defense".

      Basically this bill is nothing more than a great big show of pathetic theater. There is no law being made, only a lot of hot air. Let us discuss what is actually in the bill and not just make-up melodramic elements which are not there.

      This diary should be taken down for extensive renovation.

      •  Self defense could be simply preventing (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        native, claude, allenjo, milkbone

        Iran from the capability of building a nuke, a claim Israel and others have been making for years.  Attacking Iran based on that would be an unprovoked war.  
        The bill is more than theater, although it is pathetic.  It's a message, propaganda, a signal, a power display, and a checklist item for any future actions against Iran.  

        "The Global War OF Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

        by BigAlinWashSt on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:08:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A: No. The words that make law make a difference (0+ / 0-)

          It does not say "in the event Isreal attacks". It does says "self-defense".

          and

          B: Even if it did, this bill does not create a law. It creates a statement that says Congress has voted to say Congress likes Israel much more than this jerks running Iran.

        •  Exactly. It is a jockeying for US position (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BigAlinWashSt, milkbone

          in the event that Israel might attack Iran. It is not a guarantee of US support, if that were to occur, but it is an expression of solidarity with Israel, in any future hostilities.

          But there is virtually no chance that Iran will attack Israel. There is some significant chance that Israel will attack Iran, and if it were to do so, the attack would surely be framed as being done in "self defense". And so be entitled to US support.

          Did the USA not attack both Afghanistan and Iraq under the banner of "self defense"?

          •  The US is waging a Global War OF Terror based (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            native, claude, allenjo, milkbone, jm214

            on supposed self defense.  It's all about self defense in the minds ofthe warmongers, with a little humanitarianism and democracy spreading thrown in for good measure.   All wars are lies so if a war with Iran happens, it would be based on lies.  

            "The Global War OF Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

            by BigAlinWashSt on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:47:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Israel is not going to attack Iran. (0+ / 0-)

            She cannot launch an attack w/o US, Iraq , Saudi, and/or Turkish support at a bare minimum.

            Israel alone does not have the heavy bomber and tanker fleet s needed to sustain air operations over Iran. Even if Israel did have "secret" support from the US, an Israeli attack would accomplish only superficial damage at a vast cost.

            Israeli leader know this. They are bluffing.

            •  They do have quite a few missiles and I am (0+ / 0-)

              sure they can be modified to carry a conventional bunker busting payload.

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

              by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:03:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not without nuclear warheads (0+ / 0-)

                This is an understandable erro so thank you for the opportunity to clear it up.

                A bunker-buster is a big long heavy bomber-delivered bomb.  It bust bunkers because the explosive part is encased in a long armored shaft. To give you a sense of scale, the original versions were built from cannon barrels filled with explosives. Now the armored portion is built for the purpose.

                The effect is like driving a long stake into the ground. The weight, shape, and armored strength allows the bomb to penetrate deeply into the earth before it blows up.

                This sort of weapon cannot simply be attached to a missile. It would weight too much to achieve much range - if it was stable in flight at all.

                A further level of impossibility is that Israel does not own the heaviest buster busters needed to reach the Iranian targets. The US has sold Israel some bunker busters but not the largest ones in the US arsenal. And the largest ones might not even be able to do the job.

                So while Israel certainly find ways to get explosives to detonate somewhere in Iran, Israel cannot materially affect the Iranian nuclear program with a direct military attack. Israeli hawks would like Americans to believe they can, they swagger like they can, but it's all for show.

                •  How does that compare to the weight of a MIRV (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Quicklund

                  warhead cluster with the ability for each re-entry vehicle to take it's own evasive action as well as the decoys?

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

                  by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 11:16:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'll see if I can find out (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Throw The Bums Out

                    One thing though, MIRVs do not take evasive action. The sub-munitions split off and get a course correction to an individual target. But these are "ballistic" warheads. That means they fly on their path using the inertia provided by the launch, much like a bullet.

                    The Soviets/Russians claim they made warhead capable of maneuvering away from anti-ICBM interceptor missiles. But I do not recall if that is considered more fact or more bluff. It's probably what you were thinking about though.

                    •  Yes, that is the one. Russia said they had MIRV (0+ / 0-)

                      warheads that could do the fancy "roboteching" to dodge anti-ICBM countermeasures.  In that case, wouldn't it just be an ICM since the warheads are not ballistic?

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

                      by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 08:14:06 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Some VERY rough comparisons (0+ / 0-)

                        A common US MIRV warhead. the M76 warhead, weighs in at 362.5 lbs or just under 165 kg. Physical dimensions are unpublished.  US missiles are said to be able to mount 3 to 12 of them.

                        GBU-28 bunker buster bombs have been sold to Israel. They are rated at 5,000lbs or 2,272 kg. (Though the actual weight is saidto be 4,637 lbs  or 2,108 kg.) The Wiki article has them at 24 feet long.

                        The largest US bunker buster is rated at 30,000 lbs or 13,637 kg. These are the ones needed to reach Iran's deepest facilities ... if they really can.

                        To the new question...

                        warheads that could do the fancy "roboteching" to dodge anti-ICBM countermeasures.  In that case, wouldn't it just be an ICM since the warheads are not ballistic?
                        I've not read a technical description of these, but, my answer leans to "no". I assume they fly balistically their entire flight unless they have to try a maneuver. I cannot believe they fly the entire way under thrust. I say this because every kg of rocket motor and fuel is one less kg available to the warhead itself.
                        •  Not all the way but I wouldn't be surprised (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Quicklund

                          if they take evasive action most of the way.  I guess it would depend on the weight of the extra fuel vs the weight of an additional radar system to detect the presence of interceptors (detecting being locked on to would be easier but that would just result in an anti-ICBM system that tried just locking on first to force the warhead to use up all it's fuel).

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

                          by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 06:47:15 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

      •  "Self defense"? You're kidding, right? Israeli (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BigAlinWashSt, native, allenjo

        self defense nowadays consists of defending its right to liquidate Palestinian rights and land claims with complete impunity.

        To its credit, and I don't give the current Iranian regime credit for much, it opposes the colonial, apartheid project that is Israel. It is doing this largely through its support of proxies whose principal and perhaps only virtue is their opposition to Israel.

        Before you play the anti-Semitic card let me say that my position on Israel takes the form of a question: By what moral principle is it defensible for Palestinians to have been forced to pay such a terrible price for horrific European crimes against Jews?

        From the very beginning Israel in Palestine was a very wrong idea.

        The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

        by Wolf10 on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:15:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Israel can say whatever she wants (0+ / 0-)

          Her utterings do not change what is actually in the bill any more than this inaccurate dairy changes what is actually in the bill.

          The rest of your statement is off-topic and also does not change what actually sappears in the bill. But it does explain your unwillingness to address what is actually in the bill.

        •  When Israelis and Palestinians do stand together.. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          native, BigAlinWashSt, Wolf10
          When a Palestinian boy loses half of his home to Israeli settlers in East Jerusalem, he joins his community in a campaign of nonviolent protests.

          Efforts to put a quick end to the demonstrations are foiled when scores of Israelis choose to stand by the residents' side.

          "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

          by allenjo on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:08:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the actual language of the resolution (7+ / 0-)

        but it still strikes me at least as both troubling and concerning, since the past and current right-wing Israeli government continues to claim that any nuclear capability, or anticipated capability possessed by Iran threatens Israel's "defense of its territory, people, and existence."  This has provoked much debate in both Israel and the U.S. about whether a preemptive strike on Israel's part would be rationalized and justified as part of its "defense." I think it's more worrisome than you allow.

        •  It is troubling (0+ / 0-)

          It is more evidence of how madly congress works at their real job. At how apt they are to put on a dog and pony show instead of addressing genuine issues.

          Benjamin Netanyahu can say whatever he wants. His words do not determine us law. Which this bill does not create, regardless of the language.

        •  i should add (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          allenjo

          The signers of this proposal have earned themselves many critical letters and questions, especially around item 8. But let's keep ourselves grounded in fact.

          Were I a constituent of Sheldon Whitehouse (or if I thought Ron Johnson capable of human thought) i might be tempted to ask is item 8 implied approval of an Israeli first-strike on Iran, and if so why he chose to sign it. I might also ask if he thought the bill was legally binding on the President, and if not, why he didn't think his time could be put to more productive use.

      •  a distinction without much of a difference, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        native, Quicklund, BigAlinWashSt

        Quicklund.

        If Israel attacks, they will use their own "compelling" reasons to say it is self-defense.

        Netanyahu refuses to accept Obama's assertion that Iran is a year away from being able to "make a bomb" and seems those above who signed the senate resolution are not listening too much to Obama either.

        "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

        by allenjo on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 11:53:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Is Israel the united States of America? (0+ / 0-)

          I am shaking my head dumbfounded at the need to repeatedly explain that Israeli propaganda announcements to dot determine US law.

          I am dumbfounded at the need to repeat over and over again that this bill does not create law in any evernt. So even if Israeli propaganda defined US law - which again it does not - this bill does not create any law,. It creates a statement that says is of the opinion the US should side with Israel.

          It's a Congressional circle-jerk. Alert the media; we don't see that very often.

      •  I for one will never trust the IDF or Israel when (0+ / 0-)

        it comes to their "self defense" judgements and machinations.
        They have proved themselves duplicitous and self serving, and US policy should never be predicated or dictated by them.
        No better example than the USS Liberty incident:

        The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy motor torpedo boats, on 8 June 1967, during the Six-Day War.[3] The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two Marines, and one civilian), wounded 171 crew members, and severely damaged the ship.[4] At the time, the ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nmi (29.3 mi; 47.2 km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.[1][5]
        205 casualties out of a complement of aprx. 358 officers and men,  57% of the American crew.
        Lenczowski notes that while the Israeli decision to “attack and destroy” the ship “may appear puzzling”, the explanation seems to be found in Liberty's nature and its task to monitor communications on both sides in the war zone. He writes, “Israel clearly did not want the U.S. government to know too much about its dispositions for attacking Syria, initially planned for June 8, but postponed for 24 hours. It should be pointed out that the attack on the Liberty occurred on June 8, whereas on June 9 at 3 am, Syria announced its acceptance of the cease-fire. Despite this, at 7 am, that is, four hours later, Israel’s minister of defense, Moshe Dayan, “gave the order to go into action against Syria.”[73] He further writes that timely knowledge of this decision and preparatory moves toward it “might have frustrated Israeli designs for the conquest of Syria’s Golan Heights” and, in the sense of Ennes’s accusations, provides “a plausible thesis that Israel deliberately decided to incapacitate the signals-collecting American ship and leave no one alive to tell the story of the attack.”[74]

        (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.

        "Double, double, toile and trouble; Fire burne, and Cauldron bubble... By the pricking of my Thumbes, Something wicked this way comes": Republicans!!. . Willkommen im Vierten Reich! Sie haben keine Bedeutung mehr.

        by Bluefin on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 04:06:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  discussion of S RES 65 (0+ / 0-)

        there is a good point by point analysis of S RES 65 on the websites of AUPHR and also "The Council for the National Interest". It is entitled " A Deconstruction of S RES 65. Look it up and read it.
        flashcat

    •  I do not share your complacence, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BigAlinWashSt, Wolf10, allenjo

      though I hope you are right. And you may well be right. But if war were to actually break out, your prior analysis of the situation would be worthless. And tragic.

      In any case, all steps toward such an awful war, whether they are merely theatrical or actual, should be vehemently opposed

      •  Eh? (0+ / 0-)

        This is a statement of opinion it does not compel the CinC to act in any way. If it did so compel the POTUS, it's quite likely the POTUS would veto such a bill. Which, again, this one is not.

        So all this moves us closer to is it mores us closer to tearing our or hair in despair over the ways Congress has invented to waste time while making it look like they are serious old men with suits on the outside.

        If war breaks out, this bill won't be the cause nor will it affect the American reaction to said war. This bill is a big nothing.

        In conclusion...

        •  A big nothing, eh? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BigAlinWashSt, native, allenjo

          Your commenting here seems rather desperate to defend a big old nothing.

          Here is a different, extremely well informed view. See also Lawrence Wilkerson above. He also does not think it is nothing.

          The article that follows is a point by point commentary on S. RES 65, an initiative put forth by AIPAC which has already garnered more than 40 co-sponsors in the US Senate. The resolution is not just a show of force by AIPAC; it also makes a US war with Iran (at a time and place of Israel’s choosing) much more likely. A show of legislative support like this, even if it does not ostensibly commit the US to war with Iran, certainly makes such a commitment in the future much more likely.

                   The dynamics are simple: with such a show of US Senate support for US action in the case of a confrontation between Israel and Iran, it will become much easier for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to convince his cabinet that a pre-emptive strike by Israel will actually receive US support in the event that Israel decides to exercise its military options.

                   Let us be clear. The position of the US President, under advisement from US intelligence, is that such an Israel first strike is not only unnecessary, but that even the threat of it undermines the administration’s already robust efforts to discourage Iran from weaponizing its still peaceful nuclear program.
          source

           my bold

          “In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upwardly mobile—and the rest of us are fucked until we can put our acts together: not necessarily to win, but mainly to keep from losing completely." - HST

          by cosmic debris on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:50:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I enjoy foreign affairs (0+ / 0-)

            Always have since I was a little lad. Sue me.  Got anything aside from cheap jibes?

            Looks like what you did cite agrees with me in the area of FACT: That fact being that this bill does not carry any legal weight whatsoever.

            A show of legislative support like this, even if it does not ostensibly commit the US to war with Iran, certainly makes such a commitment in the future much more likely.
            In the arena of speculation, we disagree. And the reasoning you offer is thin gruel to me. It relies on the supposition Israeli that leaders cannot interpret a empty resolution w/o any force of alw for what it is.

            It also relies on the supposition that Israel can actually mount an attack on her own, against the desires of the Saudis, the US/Iraq, or Turkey. Consult a map, or read a diary which goes into the whys at length.

            And what is that US attitude towards an Israeli attack on Iran? Your third paragraph answers that.

            Let us be clear. The position of the US President, under advisement from US intelligence, is that such an Israel first strike is not only unnecessary, but that even the threat of it undermines the administration’s already robust efforts to discourage Iran from weaponizing its still peaceful nuclear program.
            What does this tell us? It tells us that whatever publicity stunts Congress might be pulling, that the private communications between Israel and the US are telling Israel there will be no attack. And when the US is telling Israel that, Israel is not going to attack. Because they can't.

            So thanks for the citation. A calm reading shows most of it supports what I have been posting. Where there is disagreement lies in the realm of speculation. The main point is verified. This document does not commit the US to support an Israeli attack on Iran. This diary is inaccurate.

        •  I do not say (0+ / 0-)

          the bill compels anything. I do say it influences quite a few things. At exactly the wrong time.

          •  Not according to the diary (0+ / 0-)
            who are voting for Bill # S.Res.65 that urges the USA to provide military and other support, if Israel should ever decide to attack Iran. On their own that is. Cool. Isn't that a great idea guys? Go Bibi Go! Don't even ask, we got your back!...
            still wondering how we got railroaded into the Iraq war? Well right here's your answer, in these names, ready and rarin to go at it again. Never mind the warmongering Republicans who sponsored the damn bill, we got plenty of Democrats here, chomping at the bit.
            Unless you want to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. WMDs take two, yabba dabba doo, Hollywood get the cameras ready, WaPo get your journalists in line, we got lots of Democrats waiting for prime time. National Security boys, it's all about National Security. Judy Miller, where'd you go to? Hope none of you Senators threw your flag lapel pins away.
            One word that does not appear anywhere? "Influences".
    •  Not if you read the actual bill (0+ / 0-)

      The actual billdoes not say what the diarist claims.  What it says amounts to little more than "Israel is keen but Iran is groaty", That should shock anyone.

      •  That should [not] shock... (0+ / 0-)

        One day I will learn to proofread.

      •  undue complacency (0+ / 0-)

        Dear  Quicklund , your responses are truly saddening in their naivety.
        They bring to mind the phrase “the banality of evil.”
        AIPAC is a highly sophisticated, powerful, and effective political operation.
        Their mission is to parley a highly misleading and self-serving symbolic narrative of
        “Israel” and what “Israel means” into hard political and economic support from the US.
        They have been remarkably successful.
        Can anyone really believe such an effective operation  would spend their time on
        drafting and getting the Senate to adopt legislation that  is totally benign and meaningless?
        Of course not.

        In his responses, Quicklund repeatedly stresses that S RES 65 has “no force in law” and reassures us that we shouldn’t “panic.”I think we should. Politics is largely a struggle over symbols and S RES 65 certainly has enormous political force.  

        First, It simply papers over the real nature of Israeli rule over Palestinians. When senators approve of that kind of whitewash, the American people are misled.

        Second, it reinforces misleading stereotypes about Iran and its regime by confusing the various real failings of that regime with their treaty responsibilities in terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. These are two very different things.

        Third, it takes the many statements by president Obama to the effect that he is not willing to let Iran obtain a  “nuclear weapon”, and pretends to support those efforts, BUT in the “Sense of the Congress” section the resolution  stresses the need for the US to prevent Iran from gaining a “nuclear weapons capability.” This is a very sly rewording of very specific legal language that potentially  has enormous consequences. It substantially lowers the bar for countenancing military action against Iran. Since almost all nuclear technology can arguably have “dual uses” there is probably no one on the planet who can untangle “peaceful nuclear technology” (to which Iran is completely entitled under the NPT) from military uses of the same technology (which are prohibited.)

        Fourth, on the eve of President Obama’s trip to the Middle East S RES 65 undermines his peaceful efforts to defuse the Iranian issue. This resolution simply gives Netanyahu something that he can use to convince his cabinet that an Israeli strike against Iran will receive automatic US support: as such, it makes it much more likely that he will risk a first strike. Such a strike is assessed to be directly contrary to US  interests. President Obama has strongly opposed such an action.

        Finally as the late great 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 body 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…well…war and peace. When assertions like this gain the force of historical record, the whole process of real academic discourse become a travesty.  

        So grow up Quicklund! S RES 65 was largely drafted by AIPAC—and any Senator that gives in to AIPAC and signs on to S RES 65 Is acknowledging their allegiance to AIPAC as a political force.
        When  a “real war resolution”  is finally proposed (god forbid), it will surely look almost identical to this one.  Therefore any senator that signed this resolution will have a hard time explaining why they won’t back “the real war resolution.” In short, S RES 65 is just a softening up operation. Your reassurance that it has ‘no force in law’ has no force in the real world.

        I’d think if you had watched the lead up to our misguided war in Iraq (also slyly nudged along by AIPAC and friends) you would now understand these fairly simple points.
        Flashcat

  •  Don't jump to unwarranted conclusions. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quicklund

    Your entire premise of rushing into another war is invalid when you read the last line

    Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war.
    •  No need for that any more. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cosmic debris, native, allenjo

      It's been approved in perpetuity.

      "We refuse to fight in a war started by men who refused to fight in a war." -freewayblogger

      by Bisbonian on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:49:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  absurd (0+ / 0-)

      see posting on the "justforeignpolicy" website today:

      Iran

      5) Ten years after the invasion of Iraq, the discrepancy that existed between the media description of the Iraqi threat and the non-manipulated assessment of the U.S. intelligence community is being seen again on Iran, argues Trita Parsi in the Huffington Post. The Worldwide Threat Assessment report Director of National Intelligence James Clapper presented to the Senate shows why efforts by the Israeli Prime Minister and Congress to draw a red line for war at the point where Iran would have the "capability" to build nuclear weapons is unwise. Clapper indicates that Iran already is there: "Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons." Drawing this red line would mean war. (my emphasis)

  •  Well, just before any physical confrontation, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigAlinWashSt

    there is a moment when even the slightest movement of one's adversary is important. It's not how much your opponent moves, but rather if he moves, and when he moves, that counts.

  •  "We're still the dog, with all due respect" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    native, Quicklund, BigAlinWashSt

    Dov Zakheim, a former US under-secretary of defence, told the Herzliya conference, a gathering of Israeli security officials and analysts: "The United States does not want to have to react to Israeli military action. We don't want the tail wagging the dog and with all due respect to Israel, we're still the dog."

    But the Netanyahu government wants the US to agree to "red lines" to limit Iranian bomb-making capacity, which would trigger action in the event of progress towards making plutonium, or an expansion of Iran's uranium-enriching capacity to the point at which it could make a warhead between UN inspections.
    The Americans have said they will not commit to triggers for military action, other than repeating that Iran will not be permitted to make a weapon.

    Obama told an Israeli interviewer last week that it would take Iran a year to make a bomb: much longer than the Israeli government estimates.

    "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

    by allenjo on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 11:34:05 AM PDT

  •  I mean really (0+ / 0-)

    what could possibly go wrong?

    If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

    by Major Kong on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:36:39 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site