Politics > Politics-USA > McCain hits on solution for Republican party's woes: a nuclear war with Iran
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
06 May 2007 10:22:10 AM |
| Object: |
McCain hits on solution for Republican party's woes: a nuclear war with Iran |
From The Guardian, 5/5/07:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2073133,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
Saved by the bomb
Senator McCain has hit upon a solution to all the Republican party's
woes: a nuclear war with Iran
Terry Jones
Saturday May 5, 2007
The Guardian
Campaigning in Oklahoma the other day, the Republican senator John
McCain was asked what should be done about Iran.
He responded by singing, "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran", to the tune
of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann.
How can any thinking person disagree?
I mean, any country with a president who doesn't shave properly and
never wears a tie deserves what's coming to it - a lot of American
bombs, with a few British ones thrown in to ensure we don't miss out
on the ensuing upsurge in terrorism.
The problem is how to unload enough bombs on Iran before next year's
US election to bring about enough flag-waving to get the Republican
party re-elected.
This is essential if we are to safeguard the revenues of companies
such as Halliburton - particularly at a time when the special
inspector general for Iraq reconstruction is discovering what a shoddy
job Halliburton has been doing.
In projects at Nasiriya, Mosul and Hilla - declared successes by the
US - inspectors have discovered buckled floors, crumbling concrete,
failed generators and blocked sewage systems - due not to sabotage but
largely to poor construction and lack of maintenance.
The trouble is that the re-election of the GOP is becoming more
problematic as opinion turns against George Bush's little invasion of
Iraq.
Even Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah recently condemned the US action as
"an illegal foreign occupation"; his nephew, Prince Bandar, hasn't
been returning calls for weeks.
More worrying is the plummeting popularity of the party, as White
House corruption becomes ever more difficult to disguise.
The LA Times reports that what Representative Thomas M Davis III
called a "poisonous" environment has begun to dent fundraising - an
unheard-of problem for the Republicans.
So the only solution is to bomb Iran, as Senator McCain so wisely and
amusingly suggests.
The real issue is whether to use regular weapons or do the job
properly and go nuclear.
Nuclear bombs have the advantage of being much bigger, and they will
also pollute vast swathes of Iran and make much of the country
uninhabitable for years.
With a bit of luck some of the fallout will sweep into Iraq and finish
off the job the US and UK have begun without incurring more costs.
But the biggest advantage of nuclear weapons is that the repercussions
would be so enormous, the upsurge in terrorism so overwhelming, that
the world would be totally changed.
A year before 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis "Scooter" Libby signed a
statement for the Project for the New American Century, a
neoconservative thinktank.
They rather hoped for "some catastrophic and catalysing event like a
new Pearl Harbor" to kickstart their dream of a world run by US
military might.
A nuclear war would do the trick in spades.
The Republican party could expect to stay in power for the next 50 or
even 100 years.
Of course, a large proportion of the human race could be wiped out in
the process, but that shouldn't be a problem as long as there are
anti-radiation suits for White House and Pentagon staff.
Such a shake-up would give the US a golden opportunity to corner
what's left of the world's oil reserves.
In 1955 Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell said the world was faced
by a "stark and dreadful and inescapable" choice:
"Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce
war?" Senator McCain wasn't bothered by such questions; the human race
may be standing on a precipice, but the Republicans have a chance of
permanent re-election.
____________________________________________________
Don't laugh. Repugs are quite capable of starting a nuclear war if it
would guarantee their permanent re-election.
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Bob Eld" |
|
| Title: Re: McCain hits on solution for Republican party's woes: a nuclear war with Iran |
06 May 2007 10:57:52 AM |
|
|
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:vksr33huks5ainhdgohfjrisk0o8khdin5@4ax.com...
From The Guardian, 5/5/07:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2073133,00.html?gusrc=rss&a
mp;feed=1
Saved by the bomb
Senator McCain has hit upon a solution to all the Republican party's
woes: a nuclear war with Iran
Terry Jones
Saturday May 5, 2007
The Guardian
Campaigning in Oklahoma the other day, the Republican senator John
McCain was asked what should be done about Iran.
He responded by singing, "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran", to the tune
of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann.
How can any thinking person disagree?
I mean, any country with a president who doesn't shave properly and
never wears a tie deserves what's coming to it - a lot of American
bombs, with a few British ones thrown in to ensure we don't miss out
on the ensuing upsurge in terrorism.
The problem is how to unload enough bombs on Iran before next year's
US election to bring about enough flag-waving to get the Republican
party re-elected.
This is essential if we are to safeguard the revenues of companies
such as Halliburton - particularly at a time when the special
inspector general for Iraq reconstruction is discovering what a shoddy
job Halliburton has been doing.
In projects at Nasiriya, Mosul and Hilla - declared successes by the
US - inspectors have discovered buckled floors, crumbling concrete,
failed generators and blocked sewage systems - due not to sabotage but
largely to poor construction and lack of maintenance.
The trouble is that the re-election of the GOP is becoming more
problematic as opinion turns against George Bush's little invasion of
Iraq.
Even Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah recently condemned the US action as
"an illegal foreign occupation"; his nephew, Prince Bandar, hasn't
been returning calls for weeks.
More worrying is the plummeting popularity of the party, as White
House corruption becomes ever more difficult to disguise.
The LA Times reports that what Representative Thomas M Davis III
called a "poisonous" environment has begun to dent fundraising - an
unheard-of problem for the Republicans.
So the only solution is to bomb Iran, as Senator McCain so wisely and
amusingly suggests.
The real issue is whether to use regular weapons or do the job
properly and go nuclear.
Nuclear bombs have the advantage of being much bigger, and they will
also pollute vast swathes of Iran and make much of the country
uninhabitable for years.
With a bit of luck some of the fallout will sweep into Iraq and finish
off the job the US and UK have begun without incurring more costs.
But the biggest advantage of nuclear weapons is that the repercussions
would be so enormous, the upsurge in terrorism so overwhelming, that
the world would be totally changed.
A year before 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis "Scooter" Libby signed a
statement for the Project for the New American Century, a
neoconservative thinktank.
They rather hoped for "some catastrophic and catalysing event like a
new Pearl Harbor" to kickstart their dream of a world run by US
military might.
A nuclear war would do the trick in spades.
The Republican party could expect to stay in power for the next 50 or
even 100 years.
Of course, a large proportion of the human race could be wiped out in
the process, but that shouldn't be a problem as long as there are
anti-radiation suits for White House and Pentagon staff.
Such a shake-up would give the US a golden opportunity to corner
what's left of the world's oil reserves.
In 1955 Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell said the world was faced
by a "stark and dreadful and inescapable" choice:
"Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce
war?" Senator McCain wasn't bothered by such questions; the human race
may be standing on a precipice, but the Republicans have a chance of
permanent re-election.
____________________________________________________
Don't laugh. Repugs are quite capable of starting a nuclear war if it
would guarantee their permanent re-election.
Harry
Duncan Hunter with the other nine dwarfs said as much in the debate the
other night. We're in deep ***** if we are stupid enough to elect one of
these war mongering, antiscience, theocratic, nuclear nut cases.
.
|
|
|
| User: "can_o_worms" |
|
| Title: Re: McCain hits on solution for Republican party's woes: a nuclear war with Iran |
06 May 2007 07:47:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 May 2007 15:57:52 GMT, "Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:vksr33huks5ainhdgohfjrisk0o8khdin5@4ax.com...
From The Guardian, 5/5/07:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2073133,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
Saved by the bomb
Senator McCain has hit upon a solution to all the Republican party's
woes: a nuclear war with Iran
Terry Jones
Saturday May 5, 2007
The Guardian
Campaigning in Oklahoma the other day, the Republican senator John
McCain was asked what should be done about Iran.
He responded by singing, "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran", to the tune
of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann.
How can any thinking person disagree?
I mean, any country with a president who doesn't shave properly and
never wears a tie deserves what's coming to it - a lot of American
bombs, with a few British ones thrown in to ensure we don't miss out
on the ensuing upsurge in terrorism.
The problem is how to unload enough bombs on Iran before next year's
US election to bring about enough flag-waving to get the Republican
party re-elected.
This is essential if we are to safeguard the revenues of companies
such as Halliburton - particularly at a time when the special
inspector general for Iraq reconstruction is discovering what a shoddy
job Halliburton has been doing.
In projects at Nasiriya, Mosul and Hilla - declared successes by the
US - inspectors have discovered buckled floors, crumbling concrete,
failed generators and blocked sewage systems - due not to sabotage but
largely to poor construction and lack of maintenance.
The trouble is that the re-election of the GOP is becoming more
problematic as opinion turns against George Bush's little invasion of
Iraq.
Even Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah recently condemned the US action as
"an illegal foreign occupation"; his nephew, Prince Bandar, hasn't
been returning calls for weeks.
More worrying is the plummeting popularity of the party, as White
House corruption becomes ever more difficult to disguise.
The LA Times reports that what Representative Thomas M Davis III
called a "poisonous" environment has begun to dent fundraising - an
unheard-of problem for the Republicans.
So the only solution is to bomb Iran, as Senator McCain so wisely and
amusingly suggests.
The real issue is whether to use regular weapons or do the job
properly and go nuclear.
Nuclear bombs have the advantage of being much bigger, and they will
also pollute vast swathes of Iran and make much of the country
uninhabitable for years.
With a bit of luck some of the fallout will sweep into Iraq and finish
off the job the US and UK have begun without incurring more costs.
But the biggest advantage of nuclear weapons is that the repercussions
would be so enormous, the upsurge in terrorism so overwhelming, that
the world would be totally changed.
A year before 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis "Scooter" Libby signed a
statement for the Project for the New American Century, a
neoconservative thinktank.
They rather hoped for "some catastrophic and catalysing event like a
new Pearl Harbor" to kickstart their dream of a world run by US
military might.
A nuclear war would do the trick in spades.
The Republican party could expect to stay in power for the next 50 or
even 100 years.
Of course, a large proportion of the human race could be wiped out in
the process, but that shouldn't be a problem as long as there are
anti-radiation suits for White House and Pentagon staff.
Such a shake-up would give the US a golden opportunity to corner
what's left of the world's oil reserves.
In 1955 Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell said the world was faced
by a "stark and dreadful and inescapable" choice:
"Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce
war?" Senator McCain wasn't bothered by such questions; the human race
may be standing on a precipice, but the Republicans have a chance of
permanent re-election.
____________________________________________________
Don't laugh. Repugs are quite capable of starting a nuclear war if it
would guarantee their permanent re-election.
Harry
Duncan Hunter with the other nine dwarfs said as much in the debate the
other night. We're in deep ***** if we are stupid enough to elect one of
these war mongering, antiscience, theocratic, nuclear nut cases.
Probably the reason Ron Paul won the viewers poll was
because he was a clearer antiwar voice than anyone
in the Democrat's debate other, possibly, than Kucinich.
For-real anti Iran-war advocates support antiwar candidates
of either party and partisan party loyalists undermine the
oppositions antiwar candidates and the antiwar effort in
so doing.
The Democrat controlled CONgress is perfectly OK with
giving the "decider" or any other theocrat the right to attack
Iran, once more without solid evidence of a nuclear weapons
program......btw
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2007/03/17/aipac-democrats-give-bush-free-hand-to-attack-iran/
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=174804
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "can_o_worms" |
|
| Title: Re: McCain hits on solution for Republican party's woes: a nuclear war with Iran |
06 May 2007 07:39:01 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 May 2007 15:22:10 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
From The Guardian, 5/5/07:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2073133,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
Saved by the bomb
Senator McCain has hit upon a solution to all the Republican party's
woes: a nuclear war with Iran
Terry Jones
Saturday May 5, 2007
The Guardian
Campaigning in Oklahoma the other day, the Republican senator John
McCain was asked what should be done about Iran.
He responded by singing, "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran", to the tune
of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann.
How can any thinking person disagree?
I mean, any country with a president who doesn't shave properly and
never wears a tie deserves what's coming to it - a lot of American
bombs, with a few British ones thrown in to ensure we don't miss out
on the ensuing upsurge in terrorism.
The problem is how to unload enough bombs on Iran before next year's
US election to bring about enough flag-waving to get the Republican
party re-elected.
This is essential if we are to safeguard the revenues of companies
such as Halliburton - particularly at a time when the special
inspector general for Iraq reconstruction is discovering what a shoddy
job Halliburton has been doing.
In projects at Nasiriya, Mosul and Hilla - declared successes by the
US - inspectors have discovered buckled floors, crumbling concrete,
failed generators and blocked sewage systems - due not to sabotage but
largely to poor construction and lack of maintenance.
The trouble is that the re-election of the GOP is becoming more
problematic as opinion turns against George Bush's little invasion of
Iraq.
Even Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah recently condemned the US action as
"an illegal foreign occupation"; his nephew, Prince Bandar, hasn't
been returning calls for weeks.
More worrying is the plummeting popularity of the party, as White
House corruption becomes ever more difficult to disguise.
The LA Times reports that what Representative Thomas M Davis III
called a "poisonous" environment has begun to dent fundraising - an
unheard-of problem for the Republicans.
So the only solution is to bomb Iran, as Senator McCain so wisely and
amusingly suggests.
The real issue is whether to use regular weapons or do the job
properly and go nuclear.
Nuclear bombs have the advantage of being much bigger, and they will
also pollute vast swathes of Iran and make much of the country
uninhabitable for years.
With a bit of luck some of the fallout will sweep into Iraq and finish
off the job the US and UK have begun without incurring more costs.
But the biggest advantage of nuclear weapons is that the repercussions
would be so enormous, the upsurge in terrorism so overwhelming, that
the world would be totally changed.
A year before 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis "Scooter" Libby signed a
statement for the Project for the New American Century, a
neoconservative thinktank.
They rather hoped for "some catastrophic and catalysing event like a
new Pearl Harbor" to kickstart their dream of a world run by US
military might.
A nuclear war would do the trick in spades.
The Republican party could expect to stay in power for the next 50 or
even 100 years.
Of course, a large proportion of the human race could be wiped out in
the process, but that shouldn't be a problem as long as there are
anti-radiation suits for White House and Pentagon staff.
Such a shake-up would give the US a golden opportunity to corner
what's left of the world's oil reserves.
In 1955 Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell said the world was faced
by a "stark and dreadful and inescapable" choice:
"Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce
war?" Senator McCain wasn't bothered by such questions; the human race
may be standing on a precipice, but the Republicans have a chance of
permanent re-election.
____________________________________________________
Don't laugh. Repugs are quite capable of starting a nuclear war if it
would guarantee their permanent re-election.
Harry
Oh, I'm not laughing because the Democrat controlled
CONgress is perfectly OK with giving the "decider" or
any other Hawk the right to attack Iran, once more
without solid evidence of a nuclear weapons program.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2007/03/17/aipac-democrats-give-bush-free-hand-to-attack-iran/
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=174804
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Eld" |
|
| Title: Re: McCain hits on solution for Republican party's woes: a nuclear war with Iran |
07 May 2007 12:08:48 AM |
|
|
"can_o_worms" <can_o_worms@bogus.com> wrote in message
news:hrss33d0rojooq4fccgb7891tl6qte91dp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 06 May 2007 15:22:10 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
Snip.....
Don't laugh. Repugs are quite capable of starting a nuclear war if it
would guarantee their permanent re-election.
Harry
Oh, I'm not laughing because the Democrat controlled
CONgress is perfectly OK with giving the "decider" or
any other Hawk the right to attack Iran, once more
without solid evidence of a nuclear weapons program.
Where do you get that idea? The Dems barely control Congress. They don't
have the votes to override anything and barely get stuff passed. They have
little choice but to compromise with the decider and his minions in the
repug party in congress. There's no way in hell they are going to OK going
into Iran but they probably don't have the votes or power to stop it. The
Dems will need a veto proof congress to really get anything done. Stay tuned
for '08.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: McCain hits on solution for Republican party's woes: a nuclear war with Iran |
06 May 2007 11:11:07 PM |
|
|
On May 6, 10:08 pm, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"can_o_worms" <can_o_wo...@bogus.com> wrote in message
news:hrss33d0rojooq4fccgb7891tl6qte91dp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 06 May 2007 15:22:10 GMT, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com>
Snip.....
Don't laugh. Repugs are quite capable of starting a nuclear war if it
would guarantee their permanent re-election.
Harry
Oh, I'm not laughing because the Democrat controlled
CONgress is perfectly OK with giving the "decider" or
any other Hawk the right to attack Iran, once more
without solid evidence of a nuclear weapons program.
Where do you get that idea? The Dems barely control Congress. They don't
have the votes to override anything and barely get stuff passed. They have
little choice but to compromise with the decider and his minions in the
repug party in congress. There's no way in hell they are going to OK going
into Iran but they probably don't have the votes or power to stop it. The
Dems will need a veto proof congress to really get anything done. Stay tuned
for '08.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "can_o_worms" |
|
| Title: Re: McCain hits on solution for Republican party's woes: a nuclear war with Iran |
07 May 2007 12:28:01 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 6 May 2007 21:08:48 -0800, "Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"can_o_worms" <can_o_worms@bogus.com> wrote in message
news:hrss33d0rojooq4fccgb7891tl6qte91dp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 06 May 2007 15:22:10 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
Snip.....
Don't laugh. Repugs are quite capable of starting a nuclear war if it
would guarantee their permanent re-election.
Harry
Oh, I'm not laughing because the Democrat controlled
CONgress is perfectly OK with giving the "decider" or
any other Hawk the right to attack Iran, once more
without solid evidence of a nuclear weapons program.
Where do you get that idea? The Dems barely control Congress.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2007/03/17/aipac-democrats-give-bush-free-hand-to-attack-iran/
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=174804
I read Liberal sources too. I like to stay informed.
They don't
have the votes to override anything and barely get stuff passed.
I understand their problems on opposing continued occupation
of Iraq and am sympathetic to those realities. I'm talking about
their lack of opposition to a new war with Iran.
They have
little choice but to compromise with the decider and his minions in the
repug party in congress. There's no way in hell they are going to OK going
into Iran but they probably don't have the votes or power to stop it. The
Dems will need a veto proof congress to really get anything done. Stay tuned
for '08.
It wasn't Republicans in CONgress who got Pelosi to pull
the provision restricting an attack on Iran by the "decider".
Democrats ceded CONgress's constitutional responsibility
to decide any new wars due to Lobbying efforts of the
"American Israel Public Affairs Committee" (AIPAC) and
not much else.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_final_act_of_submission/
That's the thing most Democrats don't understand.
Republican neoconservatives who like Middle East
regime changes are a part of the Israel Lobby and
the Democratic party is a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Israel Lobby.....that's why Democrats don't
offer viable candidates (like Russ Feingold for
instance) who actually vote against Middle East
wars even though most of their constituents would
like such a candidate. If they did, the DNC would
go broke.
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/11/blankfort-interview.html
--
Recent legislation sponsored by the
"American Israel Public Affairs Committee"
to effect an eventual regime change in Iran.
No energy lobbies pushing this legislation.
***************
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 105
H R 282 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 26-Apr-2006
BILL TITLE: To hold the current regime in Iran
accountable for its threatening behavior and to
support a transition to democracy in Iran
YEAS 397
Too numerous to list but include Democrats Jack Murtha,
John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Lee,
and Lynn Woolsey.
NAYS 21
Tammy Baldwin - Dem
Earl Blumenauer - Dem
Allen Boyd - Dem
Peter DeFazio - Dem
John J. Duncan - Rep
Jeff Flake - Rep
John Hostettler - Rep
Walter B. Jones (NC) - Rep
Dennis Kucinich - Dem
Jim Leach - Rep
Jim McDermott - Dem
Jim McGovern - Dem
Cynthia McKinney - Dem
Jim Oberstar - Dem
Dave Obey - Dem
John Olver - Dem
Ron Paul - Rep
Nick Rahall - Dem
Vic Snyder - Dem
Pete Stark - Dem
Gene Taylor (MS) - Dem
********
Did I mention that this legislation was sponsored by
the "American Israel Public Affairs Committee"
to effect an eventual regime change in Iran ?
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll105.xml
No energy lobbies pushing this legislation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Eld" |
|
| Title: Re: McCain hits on solution for Republican party's woes: a nuclear war with Iran |
07 May 2007 09:41:15 AM |
|
|
"can_o_worms" <can_o_worms@bogus.com> wrote in message
news:63dt33l5qumiv3bjtbtldb1bgcsorp0rcl@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 May 2007 21:08:48 -0800, "Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"can_o_worms" <can_o_worms@bogus.com> wrote in message
news:hrss33d0rojooq4fccgb7891tl6qte91dp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 06 May 2007 15:22:10 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
Snip.....
Don't laugh. Repugs are quite capable of starting a nuclear war if it
would guarantee their permanent re-election.
Harry
Oh, I'm not laughing because the Democrat controlled
CONgress is perfectly OK with giving the "decider" or
any other Hawk the right to attack Iran, once more
without solid evidence of a nuclear weapons program.
Where do you get that idea? The Dems barely control Congress.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2007/03/17/aipac-democrats-give
-bush-free-hand-to-attack-iran/
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=174804
I read Liberal sources too. I like to stay informed.
They don't
have the votes to override anything and barely get stuff passed.
I understand their problems on opposing continued occupation
of Iraq and am sympathetic to those realities. I'm talking about
their lack of opposition to a new war with Iran.
They have
little choice but to compromise with the decider and his minions in the
repug party in congress. There's no way in hell they are going to OK
going
into Iran but they probably don't have the votes or power to stop it. The
Dems will need a veto proof congress to really get anything done. Stay
tuned
for '08.
It wasn't Republicans in CONgress who got Pelosi to pull
the provision restricting an attack on Iran by the "decider".
Democrats ceded CONgress's constitutional responsibility
to decide any new wars due to Lobbying efforts of the
"American Israel Public Affairs Committee" (AIPAC) and
not much else.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_final_act_of_submission/
That's the thing most Democrats don't understand.
Republican neoconservatives who like Middle East
regime changes are a part of the Israel Lobby and
the Democratic party is a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Israel Lobby.....that's why Democrats don't
offer viable candidates (like Russ Feingold for
instance) who actually vote against Middle East
wars even though most of their constituents would
like such a candidate. If they did, the DNC would
go broke.
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/11/blankfort-interview.html
--
Recent legislation sponsored by the
"American Israel Public Affairs Committee"
to effect an eventual regime change in Iran.
No energy lobbies pushing this legislation.
***************
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 105
H R 282 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 26-Apr-2006
BILL TITLE: To hold the current regime in Iran
accountable for its threatening behavior and to
support a transition to democracy in Iran
YEAS 397
Too numerous to list but include Democrats Jack Murtha,
John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Lee,
and Lynn Woolsey.
NAYS 21
Tammy Baldwin - Dem
Earl Blumenauer - Dem
Allen Boyd - Dem
Peter DeFazio - Dem
John J. Duncan - Rep
Jeff Flake - Rep
John Hostettler - Rep
Walter B. Jones (NC) - Rep
Dennis Kucinich - Dem
Jim Leach - Rep
Jim McDermott - Dem
Jim McGovern - Dem
Cynthia McKinney - Dem
Jim Oberstar - Dem
Dave Obey - Dem
John Olver - Dem
Ron Paul - Rep
Nick Rahall - Dem
Vic Snyder - Dem
Pete Stark - Dem
Gene Taylor (MS) - Dem
********
Did I mention that this legislation was sponsored by
the "American Israel Public Affairs Committee"
to effect an eventual regime change in Iran ?
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll105.xml
No energy lobbies pushing this legislation.
Interesting! What do we do about it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "can_o_worms" |
|
| Title: Re: McCain hits on solution for Republican party's woes: a nuclear war with Iran |
07 May 2007 06:42:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 May 2007 14:41:15 GMT, "Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"can_o_worms" <can_o_worms@bogus.com> wrote in message
news:63dt33l5qumiv3bjtbtldb1bgcsorp0rcl@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 May 2007 21:08:48 -0800, "Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"can_o_worms" <can_o_worms@bogus.com> wrote in message
news:hrss33d0rojooq4fccgb7891tl6qte91dp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 06 May 2007 15:22:10 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
Snip.....
Don't laugh. Repugs are quite capable of starting a nuclear war if it
would guarantee their permanent re-election.
Harry
Oh, I'm not laughing because the Democrat controlled
CONgress is perfectly OK with giving the "decider" or
any other Hawk the right to attack Iran, once more
without solid evidence of a nuclear weapons program.
Where do you get that idea? The Dems barely control Congress.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2007/03/17/aipac-democrats-give
-bush-free-hand-to-attack-iran/
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=174804
I read Liberal sources too. I like to stay informed.
They don't
have the votes to override anything and barely get stuff passed.
I understand their problems on opposing continued occupation
of Iraq and am sympathetic to those realities. I'm talking about
their lack of opposition to a new war with Iran.
They have
little choice but to compromise with the decider and his minions in the
repug party in congress. There's no way in hell they are going to OK
going
into Iran but they probably don't have the votes or power to stop it. The
Dems will need a veto proof congress to really get anything done. Stay
tuned
for '08.
It wasn't Republicans in CONgress who got Pelosi to pull
the provision restricting an attack on Iran by the "decider".
Democrats ceded CONgress's constitutional responsibility
to decide any new wars due to Lobbying efforts of the
"American Israel Public Affairs Committee" (AIPAC) and
not much else.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_final_act_of_submission/
That's the thing most Democrats don't understand.
Republican neoconservatives who like Middle East
regime changes are a part of the Israel Lobby and
the Democratic party is a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Israel Lobby.....that's why Democrats don't
offer viable candidates (like Russ Feingold for
instance) who actually vote against Middle East
wars even though most of their constituents would
like such a candidate. If they did, the DNC would
go broke.
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/11/blankfort-interview.html
--
Recent legislation sponsored by the
"American Israel Public Affairs Committee"
to effect an eventual regime change in Iran.
No energy lobbies pushing this legislation.
***************
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 105
H R 282 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 26-Apr-2006
BILL TITLE: To hold the current regime in Iran
accountable for its threatening behavior and to
support a transition to democracy in Iran
YEAS 397
Too numerous to list but include Democrats Jack Murtha,
John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Lee,
and Lynn Woolsey.
NAYS 21
Tammy Baldwin - Dem
Earl Blumenauer - Dem
Allen Boyd - Dem
Peter DeFazio - Dem
John J. Duncan - Rep
Jeff Flake - Rep
John Hostettler - Rep
Walter B. Jones (NC) - Rep
Dennis Kucinich - Dem
Jim Leach - Rep
Jim McDermott - Dem
Jim McGovern - Dem
Cynthia McKinney - Dem
Jim Oberstar - Dem
Dave Obey - Dem
John Olver - Dem
Ron Paul - Rep
Nick Rahall - Dem
Vic Snyder - Dem
Pete Stark - Dem
Gene Taylor (MS) - Dem
********
Did I mention that this legislation was sponsored by
the "American Israel Public Affairs Committee"
to effect an eventual regime change in Iran ?
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll105.xml
No energy lobbies pushing this legislation.
Interesting! What do we do about it?
I vote in the primaries for candidates who voted
against the Iraq war (Kucinich or Ron Paul) and
stick it to the special interests who want regime
changes in the Middle East.
Partisan pundits and the party leadership will always
try to steer people away from candidates who don't
represent defense contractors (the primary funders of
neoconservative think tanks shilling for Middle East
regime changes) and pro-war party donors. They
want their party to win regardless of compromises
made to these groups and will keep selling us the
phony empty suits who poll high.
And if true antiwar candidates fail in the primaries: don't
be afraid to make your statement with a third party
candidate. Personally I'm not a liberal/progressive
voter but voted for Nader in '04 just in order to make
my statement of opposition to unnecessary wars in the
Middle East.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AirRaid" |
|
| Title: Re: McCain hits on solution for Republican party's woes: a nuclear war with Iran |
09 May 2007 03:49:23 PM |
|
|
Senator McCain would most probably be FAR TOO SOFT on Iran.
I'm sure he would only go along with a limited nuclear attack, using
tiny, tactical nukes, or mini-nukes, that explode underground, on
Iran--when instead the U.S. should launch an all-out thermonuclear
strike using large hydrogen weapons to turn large sections of Iran
into parking lots. level all of their cities. leave no trace of the
Iranian nation left.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patriot Games" |
|
| Title: Re: McCain hits on solution for Republican party's woes: a nuclear war with Iran |
10 May 2007 10:44:07 AM |
|
|
"AirRaid" <airraid.mach2.5@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178743763.819459.325660@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Senator McCain would most probably be FAR TOO SOFT on Iran.
I'm sure he would only go along with a limited nuclear attack, using
tiny, tactical nukes, or mini-nukes, that explode underground, on
Iran--when instead the U.S. should launch an all-out thermonuclear
strike using large hydrogen weapons to turn large sections of Iran
into parking lots. level all of their cities. leave no trace of the
Iranian nation left.
Death to Iran!
Bomb Iran NOW!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lamont Cranston" |
|
| Title: Re: McCain hits on solution for Republican party's woes: a nuclear war with Iran |
10 May 2007 01:23:22 PM |
|
|
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5H0i.8442$HR1.4100@trnddc01...
"AirRaid" <airraid.mach2.5@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178743763.819459.325660@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Senator McCain would most probably be FAR TOO SOFT on Iran.
I'm sure he would only go along with a limited nuclear attack, using
tiny, tactical nukes, or mini-nukes, that explode underground, on
Iran--when instead the U.S. should launch an all-out thermonuclear
strike using large hydrogen weapons to turn large sections of Iran
into parking lots. level all of their cities. leave no trace of the
Iranian nation left.
Death to Iran!
Bomb Iran NOW!
Can you get any more inane?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patriot Games" |
|
| Title: Re: McCain hits on solution for Republican party's woes: a nuclear war with Iran |
10 May 2007 03:33:52 PM |
|
|
"Lamont Cranston" <lamont.cranston@I-Know.com> wrote in message
news:f1vo0f$uov$1@news.albasani.net...
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5H0i.8442$HR1.4100@trnddc01...
"AirRaid" <airraid.mach2.5@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178743763.819459.325660@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Senator McCain would most probably be FAR TOO SOFT on Iran.
I'm sure he would only go along with a limited nuclear attack, using
tiny, tactical nukes, or mini-nukes, that explode underground, on
Iran--when instead the U.S. should launch an all-out thermonuclear
strike using large hydrogen weapons to turn large sections of Iran
into parking lots. level all of their cities. leave no trace of the
Iranian nation left.
Death to Iran!
Bomb Iran NOW!
Can you get any more inane?
Sure.
But I like brevity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
