Not Going to War With Iran is a Good Thing

I've only read the basics of the deal, but anything that makes us or Israel attacking Iran less likely is a good thing. Times like this are useful to point out the warmongering psychopaths among us by watching the people who reflexively oppose any deal. Kudos to the Obama Administration and John Kerry putting time and energy into this route.

Peace is good. We should try it more often. 

US Officially Reveals Role In 1953 Iran Coup

Chris Hayes made a really good point on his show the other night, linking anti american feeling directly to shit like this:

The National Security Archive on Monday published evidence of the CIA's long-known role in the 1953 Iran coup that helped pave the way for the Islamic revolution 26 years later.

The newly declassified material is believed to contain the CIA's first public acknowledgment of its role in deposing democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalized the country's oil industry. The move – and Iran's broader lurch to the left under Mossadegh – infuriated Great Britain and the United States, which pressed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to depose him in 1953.
In publishing a decades-old internal CIA history on the coup's 60th anniversary, the National Security Archive urged the U.S. intelligence community to “make fully available the remaining records on the coup period.”

There isn't a single Egyptian that doesn't know about our decades of support for Hosni Mubarak. Part of the colonial mindset is thinking so little of those whose affairs you interfere with that you can't fathom that there will be consequences for your actions. If you see other citizens of the world as human beings as well, you're less likely to do things to them that you wouldn't like done to you or your country. This is pretty basic stuff, but it's a mindset we can't seem to abandon.

Bibi Has Completely Lost His Mind

So we know that he's a warmongering bigot. But during his speech at the UN yesterday, he actually did this:

God help us when Iran gets to the "final stage" and acquires a fuse for their nuclear weapon.

The Perils of Interventionism

I think I'm going to post something from Up With Chris Hayes every week until one of the suits at General Electric realizes it's on their airwaves and shuts it down.

I thought this section on interventionism was incredible, especially the exchange between Scahill and Anne Marie Slaughter. As someone who is very sympathetic to Scahill's point of view, I can't say how amazing it is to see on television, and also that it was treated as a respectable point of view.

Watch the whole show if you get it a chance, it's really worth your time.

The Awesomeness of War WIth Iran

David Broder has found a way to restore the economy:

Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.

The casual way people like Broder discuss killing lots of human beings is fucking stunning.

A Primer on Nuclear Weapons Development

With the idiotic question of whether or not to bomb Iran's uranium enrichment facilities being passed around the news outlets these days (wanna make sure Iran feels the need to make a nuclear deterrent? BOMB THEM), I figure Train readers could use a refresher on just how these weapons are produced.

First off, let's set one thing straight: no one – up to and including Iranian leaders and scientists – knows if and when Iran will produce enough weapons-grade uranium to make a bomb. Any set date you see printed anywhere is an estimate based on insufficient information, and probably advanced primarily to advocate a particular political viewpoint or action. But I will say that unless things change radically, Iran will very likely have enough material for a bomb within the next ten years. Although I'm skeptical that Iranian nuclear weapons will radically alter the equations of world power, a new state entering the nuclear club is always alarming – and of course, overreaction on the part of the United States or our allies is as much of a danger as the bomb itself.

But now the facts:

Not Bloodthirsty Enough

Apparently Barack Obama hasn't shown a firm enough commitment to slaughtering civilians and making blindingly stupid acts of aggression:

Speaking to some 6,500 assembled for the conference, Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, warned of “the potential for a deep disagreement between the U.S. and Israel governments over how to really deal with a nuclear Iran.”

The issue could produce “the most tense face-to-face disagreement between the United States and Israel in the past 61 years,” he said.

Other close observers of the relationship say its contours remain unclear.

“Barack Obama still has to prove himself to American friends of Israel, who still don’t know where his heart is on Israel,” said a Democratic member of the House of Representatives. “And Bibi has to prove he is up to this moment.”

Not that AIPAC insanity is anything new, but I just like the idea that by opposing a carpet-bombing of Iran or Gaza, it means that Obama "has to prove" he supports Israel. These people really are monsters.

Just what we need...

Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector, someone with lots of contacts as well as great knowledge of US policy in the region:

There’s no doubt in my mind that the United States is planning right now, as we speak, a military strike against Iran. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and almost every senior US military official has pretty much acknowledged the same. They speak of the need to punish Iran and deter Iran from continuing to provide material assistance to Iraqi groups, these so-called “special groups” that operate, according to the United States, outside of the umbrella of the Mahdi Army. And they speak of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command as being a rogue organization within the Iranian government that provides this support. The United States Senate, through the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, has pretty much given a target list blessing to the US military by passing a resolution that labels the Revolutionary Guard Command as a terrorist organization. And the Bush administration, of course, is engaged in a global war on terror backed by two congressional war powers resolutions.

We take a look at the military buildup, we take a look at the rhetoric, we take a look at the diplomatic posturing, and I would say that it’s a virtual guarantee that there will be a limited aerial strike against Iran in the not-so-near future—or not-so-distant future, that focuses on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command. And if this situation spins further out of control, you would see these aerial strikes expanding to include Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and some significant command and control targets.

When the reports of the US planning strikes on Iran came out back in 2006, I was really skeptical. I mean, these guys are stupid... but are they really that stupid? Even for Bush and Cheney, that would be a new level.

Well, after several dozen times over the last 7 years when I thought they had hit rock bottom, I've come to the realization that literally anything is possible, even something as mind-bendingly stupid as attacking Iran. Although it wouldn't be fair just to blame the Bush administration, they can't pull something like this off on their own. Special thanks to AIPAC for writing the authorization bill, and to the 76 senators who signed it. Congrats guys, it wouldn't have been possible without you.

Scott Ritter has been right on just about everything else in this area, lets just hope he's wrong on this one. The thought of going to war with Iran on top of everything else is really just too much to take.

Hillary Clinton is smarter than you

As far as being condescending goes... this just about takes the cake.

"Rolph was one of several hundred people who turned out in this small town in northern Iowa for Clinton's appearance. When she called on him for a question, he pulled out a piece of paper and read a question about Iran.
Rolph asked Clinton to explain her Senate vote Wednesday for a resolution urging the Bush administration to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Rolph interpreted that measure as giving Bush authority to use military action against the Iranians."

Good question! When choosing our next president, it's probably a good idea to revisit the biggest judgment call that any of them has made, and see how they they feel about it now. The only possibly options for the democratic nominee should be:
1. They were right in 2002, allowing them to begin the first minute of each debates by flicking off all other candidates. (Obama, Kucinich)
2. They were wrong in 2002, but see it at the biggest mistake they ever made. Not nearly as good, but at least they admit their colossal error. (Edwards, Dodd, Richardson)
But thanks to the mind blowing stupidity of a certain front runner, we have a third option:
3. Does everything possible to deny the 2002 vote was a mistake, and then makes what many (like Mr. Rolph) see as the exact same mistake only on this time on the AIPAC written bill intended to provoke a confrontation with Iran.

Back to the exchange, so how does she respond to this VERY LEGITIMATE question?

She offered a detailed description of the resolution, which she said stressed robust diplomacy that could lead to imposing sanctions against Iran, and then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."

Stupid person! How dare you read about the stupid stuff that I do and then ask me to explain why it's not stupid! Obviously a plant! What else could it be?

"I take exception," Rolph interjected. "This is my own research."

His OWN research? Just who the hell does he think he is? Come on Hillary! Take this fucker down a notch!

"Well, then, I apologize. It's just that I've been asked the very same question in three other places," she said."

Three other questions? The Not-Getting-Us-Into-Another-Senseless-War lobby must have planned for weeks to pull this trick off! Bastards!

Or... maybe, just maybe, people around the country are tired being lied to at every turn, and want basic answers to important questions before they make you the most powerful person in the world.

This exchange is even more damning then the vote itself in my mind. It's beyond doing the wrong thing to begin with, and it's beyond not having learned anything from your mistakes. The contempt and condescension towards the average citizen seen in this exchange was truly shocking, even to someone who doesn't expect much from her like myself.
And speaking of Hillary, there will be more, much more on her chief campaign adviser Mark Penn in the next couple of days. Stay tuned...

Senate: "Two wars not enough"

Taking a break between condemning a newspaper ad and doing nothing to end the disastrous war in Iraq, the senate decided on Wednesday to vote in favor escalating tensions with Iran. Even worse, the measure passed with that always lovely-reminiscent of the Iraq authorization bipartisanship.
Sen Webb:

"At best, it’s a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy. At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate"

He also adds:

"Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good."

Cut to Hillary Clinton voting...... Yes!!!

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a hawk - and one who doesn't learn at that. Whoever you 40 percent of democrats are, please wake the hell up!