19 Comments

1. JK Ribera:

Good point, but I am suspicious Hillary will be the new Henry Jackson wing of the Democratic Party.

Jan 19, 2006 - 8:01 pm 2. Pierre Legrand:

Roger nothing will wake up the west…not when you have President Bush arguably the most fierce President in 50 years declaring that one of the most violent religions in history is the religion of peace. We may not be as far advanced into dhimmitude as the French who refused to rise up against that gang of Youths and instead lay on the floor of the train afraid of doing anything, but we are not far behind.

My question is Was Muhammed an Islamist? Or was he a moderate?

Jan 19, 2006 - 9:20 pm 3. David Thomson:

I am going to make a bold prediction: Hillary Clinton will not capture the Democratic Partyís presidential nomination. She may not even run in the primaries! Her weaknesses as a national candidate are becoming glaringly obvious. The Daily Kos and Moveon.org crowds cannot be ignored. They are forcing Senator Clinton to make a fool of herself. She is unable to offer a clear message to the voters. This is rarely forgiven on election day.

Am I infallible? Not exactly. I also thought that Hillary Clinton would not win her New York senatorial race. This time, however, I feel much more confident.

Jan 20, 2006 - 3:37 am 4. Terrye:

Pierre:

Not so long ago I heard Bush actually name the enemy, Islamic fascists. It took a while but at least he said it.

Jan 20, 2006 - 9:24 am 5. markus:

“The Daily Kos and Moveon.org crowds cannot be ignored.”

They’ll be ignored by most Democrats in Washington when it comes to Iran. Iran isn’t Iraq, and Iranian nukes are serious shit. We’re not talking about overthrowing a tinpot dictator whose missles can’t fly more than five miles in order to do some liberal social engineering.

Also, Democrats are tired of losing.

This is why Bush and the Democratic leaders and candidates will more or less be on the same page regarding Iran. Or they’ll be trying to outhawk each other.

Jan 20, 2006 - 10:51 am 6. flenser:

Hillary is calling on the UN to impose sanctions on Iran, knowing quite well that it is very unlikely to do so as it would affect the business interests of several important countries. I’m not sure I’d even call that triangulation, which at least implies some degree of policy change.

If/when Iran gets the bomb she wants to be on record as having said something on the subject. In this case its that Bush should have acted in a more unilateral fashion, and also that the UN is the only body that can take action. Makes no sense, but thats the corner the Democrats have painted themselves into.

Jan 20, 2006 - 11:04 am 7. markus:

China is the only real obstacle to sanctions. Bush will lean on them, show ‘em a few sticks, a lot of carrots. Not sure if he’ll succeed, but he’ll definately try. This is an especially bad time to be a Chinese dissident.

Once Security Council options are exhausted, Dems won’t have much objection to Bush “acting unilaterally”, since whatever he would contemplate doing would be small potatoes. Invading and occupying Iran is simply not an option. Under Bush, post-Iraq, we’re simply TOO WEAK and stretched TOO THIN.

Jan 20, 2006 - 11:44 am 8. Sun-Tzu:

markus:

Please define “exhausted,” as in “Security Council options are exhausted.”

Would they be exhausted if the Iranians said that they were willing to negotiate?

Would they be exhausted if inspectors were allowed in some facilities, but not others?

Would they be exhausted if other powers (let’s say an obstreperous Tony Blair, responding in a tit-for-tat fashion) made it clear that there was no way that they’d ever vote for authorizing the use of force?

Would they be exhausted if the Iranians said “Trust us, we’ve nothing to hide,” but refused to provide an accounting of materials?

Somehow, I don’t think we’d ever actually reach the point where the UN Security Council would be exhausted.

Jan 20, 2006 - 12:07 pm 9. markus:

By exhausted I simply met unable to get security council sanction/inspection regime approved by the security council. Of course, people will keep talking to one another as long as they’re alive.

Jan 20, 2006 - 12:52 pm 10. Sun-Tzu:

Markus:

Again, I ask, under what circumstances would the UN Security Council admit to being exhausted?

Was the UN Security Council exhausted in March 2003? Was there any reason to believe that it would ever have been, viz. Iraq?

Has the UN Security Council been exhausted yet by North Korea?

Exactly how would we know that the UNSC was exhausted by Iran?

Jan 20, 2006 - 12:54 pm 11. danny:

Need your experience & opinion: Online political news survey! ($10 reward possible)

Hello!
My name is Daekyung (danny) Kim, a Ph.D. student studying journalism and mass communication in Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. I am emailing to ask you to do me a favor. I am now working on my dissertation whose topic is about online political news and want to gather information about how and why Internet users are using news Web sites for political information based on an online survey.

This online survey will approximately take 15-20 minutes to complete. After collecting the data, I will draw to pick up 50 respondents among those who complete this survey and each will be given $ 10 gift card.

Would you please spend some time to fill out this survey? http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=594061481532
(please click on the address, OR if not working, copy it into the URL address)
Your experience will be very useful in understanding how politically interested online users are using online news and the consequent effect on traditional news media.

You can withdraw the survey at any time you want. All responses will be kept confidential and only be used for academic purposes. This survey has been reviewed and approved by the SIUC Human Subject Committee. So, there are no questions that may identify personal information.

Thank you very much in advance for your cooperation. Please email me back if you have further concerns or questions. Happy New Year!!

Jan 20, 2006 - 2:14 pm 12. jedrury:

Hillary goes to Princeton and talks about “a new vision” for the Middle East. Any politician who ever mentions the phrase “new vision” should be banished to the Hyannisport in the Sky. The phrase is so meaningless, so “DC speak,” so overused.

Jan 20, 2006 - 3:21 pm 13. markus:

Sun-Tzu: I never said there was a point that the Security Council would admit to being exhausted. I said “once Security Council options are exhausted.” OK, so they are never completely exhausted. The Security Council dithers, Iran gets a nuke together, there is still a faint glimmer of hope. What exactly is your point?

Jan 21, 2006 - 4:30 am 14. Sun-Tzu:

markus:

You state

Once Security Council options are exhausted, Dems won’t have much objection to Bush “acting unilaterally”, since whatever he would contemplate doing would be small potatoes.

The implication is that, at some point, the Democrats would support Presidential action regarding Iran.

My comment, which you seem to agree with, is that, in fact, such a point will not occur, at least regarding most Democrats, because UNSC options will never be exhausted.

As important, for the “Axis of Weasels,” that same point will also never occur—for nations like Russia and China, as well as bureaucrats such as El Baradei, who apparently still opposes even referring Iran TO the UNSC, it is quite likely that there will NEVER be a point when diplomatic/UN options are exhausted.

Indeed, the two feed off each other. So long as there are substantial numbers of senior US politicians (i.e., Dems) opposing going to war, the UN will claim that its options are not exhausted. So long as the UN claims that its options are not exhausted, the Democrats will oppose US action.

And meanwhile, Iranian efforts proceed apace. Even now, we’re hearing from the arms control community (overwhelming Democrats) “So what?” In their view, even if Iran is interested in developing nukes (and their skepticism leaks through), really there’s another 10 years worth of dithering available.

Jan 21, 2006 - 10:49 am 15. flenser:

markus

You are avoiding the question Sun-Tzu addressed to you. He asked how we, or you, would know that the UN options have been exausted, and that the time has come to stop trying to work through the UN and take unilateral action.

As best I can tell you feel that we never reached that point in our dealings with the UN over Iraq. So it would be helpful if you could explain what criteria you would use in making the determination that, in your opinion, Security Council options are exhausted.

Jan 21, 2006 - 10:54 am 16. markus:

Flenser — stop feeding the troll.

Jan 21, 2006 - 3:09 pm 17. markus:

Sun Tzu — thanks for the clarification. You say:

“The implication is that, at some point, the Democrats would support Presidential action regarding Iran. My comment, which you seem to agree with, is that, in fact, such a point will not occur, at least regarding most Democrats, because UNSC options will never be exhausted.”

No, my implication was that most establishment Democrats (Members of Congress, Presidential candidates, DNC leaders, ex-Presidents and Vice-Presidents,etc.) will support the actions of President Bush regarding Iran…since they are likely to agree with him. This is because there is a basic consensus about what we should be done in regard to Iran, that being “whatever is possible”, both multilaterally and unilaterally. Also, a basic consensus about what CAN be done: not too damn much.

Jan 21, 2006 - 3:22 pm 18. Sun-Tzu:

By DNC leaders, do you mean Howard Dean?

By ex-Presidents, do you mean Jimmy Carter?

By Presidential candidates, which version of John Kerry are you referring to?

By members of Congress, do you mean Jim McDermott (who said that Bush=Saddam before the war with Iraq began), SEN Patty Murray (who noted that Osama bin Laden garnered support b/c his family has helped build health care centers), Sheila Lee (who couldn’t even support the war in Afghanistan), or Cynthia McKinney (who believes that Bush LIHOP)?

Of course, I’m sure we’ll find out, the minute the war clouds loom on the horizon, that President Clinton, VP Gore, and National Security Advisor Berger gave BushCo detailed plans on exactly what to do and say and act on Iran, and there will be the claims that everything was working hunky-dory ’til Dubya screwed it up.

I mean, that’s SOP now, isn’t it?

Jan 22, 2006 - 7:16 am 19. markus:

Sun-Tzu: yes, I mean Howard Dean (supported military action in Afghanistan, opposed US withdrawal from Iraq during the 2004 primaries.) He¥s no dove. Neither is Kerry.

Neither is Carter, who lost an election because of the Mullahs.

McDermott and McKinney are to the Democratic House caucus what someone like B-1 Bob Dornan was to the Republican caucus. That is, kooky and marginalized.

My whole point was that Dems likely will not oppose the President, because Iran potentially really is a threat to regional stability and to our vital interests (unlike Saadam), potentially really is run by an irrational madmen (also unlike Saadam), and also because Bush really is unlikely to anything crazy this time (like invade and occupy the country).

By ex-Presidents, do you mean Jimmy Carter?

By Presidential candidates, which version of John Kerry are you referring to?

By members of Congress, do you mean Jim McDermott (who said that Bush=Saddam before the war with Iraq began), SEN Patty Murray (who noted that Osama bin Laden garnered support b/c his family has helped build health care centers), Sheila Lee (who couldn’t even support the war in Afghanistan), or Cynthia McKinney (who believes that Bush LIHOP)?

Jan 23, 2006 - 9:43 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: