Blasting Obama as ‘blurred,’ McConnell assures Israel lobby that bipartisan Congress will authorize ‘overwhelming force’ against Iran

US Politics
on 109 Comments
McConnellAIPAC
McConnell at AIPAC, by the AP

The old saw that partisan policy differences stop at the water’s edge was shattered last night at the Israel lobby’s convention in Washington, when Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate’s minority leader, openly defied Obama’s Iran policy as “blurred” and flawed and said that the Congress would make policy– the use of “overwhelming force” to end Iran’s nuclear program.

“I will introduce authorization for the use of military force,” McConnell told the AIPAC policy conference to wild applause. That authorization would make it clear that any effort by Iran to enrich uranium to weapons grade levels “will be met by overwhelming force.” 

This policy would have “strong majorities of both parties of the Congress” behind it, McConnell assured. “We certainly can’t shrink from telling a sitting president how” to stop Iran, he said. Though he said he would “consult” with the President on the policy.

McConnell said his policy was necessary because Obama’s policy had a “critical flaw”– it was not coherent about when the U.S. would use force. Sanctions have failed to stop the Iranian nuclear program, he said, as have the administration’s efforts at engaging Iran. And Obama has failed to articulate “clear military consequences.”

McConnell’s speech was met with far more enthusiasm than President Obama’s “loose talk of war” speech of the day before. And he firmly embraced Israel. 

“We share these interests [of no Iranian nuclear weapons] with Israel. We have exactly the same interests,” he said.

109 Responses

  1. eGuard
    March 6, 2012, 8:26 am

    McConnell: Sanctions have failed to stop the Iranian nuclear program

    Nonsenes by powers. There are no sanctions agains Iran’s (civil) nuclear program. If he meant to say: “stop the nuclear weapons program” (then why not say so, instead of blurring), that is not proven.

    • Fredblogs
      March 6, 2012, 10:27 am

      Iran’s “civil” nuclear program is Iran’s nuclear weapons program. They are using the first to support the second.

      They are making highly enriched uranium (20% U-235) which is higher than nuclear power plants require.

      They are also refusing to allow IAEA inspectors to inspect all their nuclear facilities.

      All phony denials aside, they’re going for nuclear weapons.

      • dahoit
        March 6, 2012, 10:52 am

        All phony denials aside,the Israelis are stealing more land.
        All phony denials aside,they refuse to join the IAEA and let international inspectors list their arsenal of nukes.(And what about US,do we let furriners(other than Israelis)spy on our nuclear arsenal?)
        All phony denials aside, they are Hitlers ideological nephews and we are their puppets.
        All phony denials aside,I look at McConnell and I see traitor.

      • Brooks
        March 6, 2012, 10:57 pm

        dahoit has hit it right on the head! McConnell is one of at least 500 traitors to the US who are holding seats in the House and Senate. Their every action shows that they place Israel’s interests ahead of those of the US. They would rather vote to increase funding to Israel than to increase funding of any American program that looks after the aged, the sick, the homeless, the jobless, the starving children, the 9/11 first responders, etc etc etc… of their own nation! They would happily send our young soldiers to their deaths to appease Israel. They do not belong in Washington. They certainly do not belong in Congress. They do not represent their constituency except for a few absolutely token gestures that they can use as talking points when they go back home.

      • braciole
        March 6, 2012, 11:21 am

        Another idiot member of the hasbara brigade – The Iranians need uranium enriched to 20% to fuel a nuclear reactor that creates radio isotopes for medical treatments. They tried to obtain this from the west in exchange for the equivalent amount of low enriched uranium but the idiots in the White House thought they could stiff Iran so reneged on the deal that Turkey and Brazil had made with Iran.
        Although Uranium enriched to above 20% is described as highly enriched and is capable of use in a very large inefficient fission device, most atomic bombs including those held by the Israelis are typically enriched to 80% or more.

      • lysias
        March 6, 2012, 2:38 pm

        The deal that Turkey and Brazil made was exactly the deal the Obama administration had recently been offering to Iran. The U.S. in the end just couldn’t take yes for an answer. Reminds me of the way Hitler negotiated with Czechoslovakia and Poland.

        The history is all discussed in Trita Parsi’s new book.

      • Fredblogs
        March 6, 2012, 6:09 pm

        Except that Iran “already has sufficient enriched uranium to power the reactor for more than five years and has not even installed the equipment necessary to manufacture fuel elements” out of the enriched material.

        link to syracuse.com

        No, the medical angle is just an excuse. They aren’t doing what they need to use it for medical reasons and they are making far more than they would need, even if they did.

        If you can enrich to 20%, you have already enriched it by a factor of 30. Another factor of 4.5 and you have weapons grade uranium.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 6, 2012, 6:51 pm

        fred, could you provide information this is against the NPT signed by iran. or that this 2 month old article is even relevant today? i suppose you know the IAEA have visited iran since jan 9th.

        thanks

      • Shingo
        March 6, 2012, 7:08 pm

        Except that Iran “already has sufficient enriched uranium to power the reactor for more than five years and has not even installed the equipment necessary to manufacture fuel elements” out of the enriched material.

        Sorry, but this syracuse.com link is completely BS. The headline that Iran is enriching uranium closer to nuclear weapons grade is hysteria, becasue the IAEA has never accused Iran of producing nukes.

        Scondly, Iran has indeed produced it’s own fuel elements for the TNR reactor, so Hague is lying.

        Thirdly, the story is contradictory. How can Iran have enough fuel to powerthe research reactor for 5 years if, according to the IAEA, they have only just started enriching at Fordo?

        No, the medical angle is just an excuse.

        No it’s not and you are simply an ignoramus. Iran, Brail and Turkey tried tro broker a deal in 2009 to have the fuel supplied to them by other states and the US rejected the offer, so Iran decided to produce it themselves.

        They aren’t doing what they need to use it for medical reasons and they are making far more than they would need, even if they did?

        See above. The claim they are making far more than they would need is BS.

        If you can enrich to 20%, you have already enriched it by a factor of 30. Another factor of 4.5 and you have weapons grade uranium.

        Stupid argument. Iran have never come close to entiching to 90% and indeed, it has been revealed that they have serious technicla difficulties in even achieving 20%.

        Stick to what you know Fred, which is clearly very little.

      • eGuard
        March 7, 2012, 5:18 am

        Fredblogs 10:27: They are making highly enriched uranium (20% U-235) which is higher than nuclear power plants require.

        Fredblogs link 6:09: … to a level that can be upgraded more quickly for use in a nuclear weapon

        I cannot trust you with facts, is it? BTW, do you also happen to know where Iraq’s WMD are?

      • Fredblogs
        March 8, 2012, 1:48 pm

        I’ve looked it up. Apparently the same tech that gets you 20% enriched uranium gets you 90% enriched uranium. You just have to run the centrifuges 10% longer. That’s not a typo, not twice as long. If it takes a month to get 5 kilos of 20% enriched uranium, it takes 33 days to get a kilo of over 90% enriched uranium. Which makes sense since the same principles are involved. Spin it in the centrifuge, keep the top part, dump the bottom part and you’ve just enriched the top part and depleted the bottom. The tough part isn’t getting 90% instead of 20%, its getting the uranium into a form that the centrifuges can handle at all (not sure if they’re using Uranium hexafluoride, but that’s what we used in the U.S.).

        According to this they could produce a few bombs a year by diverting just 1% of their centrifuge capacity to it.

        link to longwarjournal.org

        Once you’ve got the weapons grade uranium, the bomb itself is so simple that the scientists at Los Alamos didn’t even test the uranium bomb before it was used to nuke Nagasaki.

      • Fredblogs
        March 9, 2012, 2:56 pm

        My mistake, the uranium bomb was used on Hiroshima, not Nagasaki.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 9, 2012, 4:03 pm

        “Once you’ve got the weapons grade uranium, the bomb itself is so simple that the scientists at Los Alamos didn’t even test the uranium bomb before it was used to nuke Nagasaki.”

        “My mistake, the uranium bomb was used on Hiroshima, not Nagasaki.”

        The reason they didn’t test Little Boy had nothing to do with the enrichment, it had to do with basic physics. It was a gun-type bomb which pretty much has no choice but to cablooey if the explosives fire, because the design is so straight foward. (You basically stick one sub-critical mass and fire it at another sub-critical mass, which creates critical mass and dozens if not hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. [Yeah, weapons research!])

        Gadget was tested at Alamogordo because it was an “implosion” weapon — in which explosive shaped charges all around a hollow ball of uranium or plutonium are exploded to force the ball into a critical state. This was a much, much challenging design than the gun-type weapon, but has a higher yield. They needed to know if the weapon would work as they believed it would.

      • Shingo
        March 9, 2012, 4:12 pm

        Irrelevant. No one but the superpowers coudl possibly deliver a gun type nuke.

      • Shingo
        March 9, 2012, 5:47 pm

        I’ve looked it up. Apparently the same tech that gets you 20% enriched uranium gets you 90% enriched uranium.

        Barry’s piece is full of obfuscation and BS. 

        I won’t get into all the flaws in his piece, but the bottom line is that the gun type nuke he refers to is a complete waste of time unless you have a massive bomber to drop it. The Nagasaki bomb was the size of a car and could never be delivered by a missile.

        Israel would see any such bomber long before it got anywhere bear Israel and shoot it down.

         The tough part isn’t getting 90% instead of 20%, its getting the uranium into a form that the centrifuges can handle at all

        The tough part is not even the enrichment, it is the implosion/detonation decide and delivery systems. An implosion system is very complicated and requires thousands if tests using depleted uranium – and no, such tests cannot take place us a steel containment vessel.

        I’ve worked at a nuclear facility as a nuclear engineer. The facility had 2 research reactors – one that used 20% enriched fuel and the other a much lower. Only the 20% fuel reactor was used for medical isotope production, as only 20% U235 can produce sufficient neutron flux – so Barry is the one creating a smokescreen when he argues that there are many types of research reactors.

        In fact the TNR in Iran was built by the US and was originally a TRIGA type reactor – the one that uses near weapons grade fuel.   The Iranians decided after the revolution that they didn’t need a reactor that used such highly enriched fuel, so they converted into a 20% fuel reactor.

        That’s hardly consistent with a regime that wants to produce nukes.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 9, 2012, 7:37 pm

        “Irrelevant. No one but the superpowers coudl possibly deliver a gun type nuke.”

        Not so. The South African arsenal was gun-type bombs and they were working on a missile-based delivery system.

      • Shingo
        March 9, 2012, 9:48 pm

        South Africans did not have nukes Woody. They had a nuclear wepoans program but produced none.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 10, 2012, 8:52 am

        “South Africans did not have nukes Woody. They had a nuclear wepoans program but produced none.”

        Not so. They produced six weapons and were in the process of buidling the seventh when they chose to dismantle the program and join the Non Proliferation Treaty regime.

        They did not have a fusion weapon, however, nor did they use plutonium. Those never got beyond the program stage. But they did have a number of gun-type uranium weapons.

      • JohnAdamTurnbull
        March 6, 2012, 11:34 am

        Until other production methods for medical isotopes are in place, uranium enriched to 20% is the only material that permits heart and cancer treatment and hundreds of industrial and agricultural technologies. Uranium enriched to this level is produced by several countries and shipped almost everywhere in the world — except Iran.

        So in addition to all of the other reasons why an industrial country of 74 million people would want to have domestic production, Iran has the ultimate reason: without it thousands of peope will die for lack of fairly ordinary medical procedures.

        There is hardly any doubt that Iran will also prepare to build a weapon. Almost every industrial nation is capable of buiding a nuclear weapon. That technology is not rare or exclusive and it doesn’t respect borders.

        So we’re left with the question, why would they bother?

        Every interaction that Iran has with the rest of the western world simply demands that they take defensive weapons seriously and make significant investments in them. In fact, only an Iranian leader who is a religious fanatic could avoid that responsibility to his people.

        The US invasion of Iraq created an enormous opportunity for Iran to expand its economic and poitical power across its borders. “Nation building” is exactly what the US government did — but in the opposite sense. We’re long past the time when we could influence this situation with raw power.

      • Dan Crowther
        March 6, 2012, 11:44 am

        Nuclear weapons require over 90% enrichment — to get to this level, the Iranians would need to toss the inspectors out. They haven’t.

        The IAEA has inspected the nuclear facilities – the Iranians won’t allow access to non-nuclear sites, something they don’t have to do – and the IAEA has ZERO jurisdiction on non-fissile material.

        Apparently Fredblogs knows something that the rest of the world – including israeli intelligence- doesn’t. He states that they are going for nuclear weapons – there is no evidence for this, fredblogs gives none; in short, fredblogs is full of shit

      • mig
        March 6, 2012, 1:37 pm

        Iran Has a Nuclear Power,
        Not a Weapons Program

        Clinton Bastin, a nuclear scientist, chemical engineer, and former
        Department of Energy official, was interviewed on the recent IAEA
        report on Iran’s nuclear program.

        link to 21stcenturysciencetech.com

      • Fredblogs
        March 6, 2012, 4:19 pm

        Straight from the horse’s mouth.

        “Yukiya Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, also told the IAEA’s 35-nation board of governors about the lack of progress in two rounds of talks between the Vienna-based UN agency and Tehran this year.”

        “The IAEA ‘is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities,’ he added.”

        “Since the IAEA’s previous report in November, Amano said Iran has tripled monthly production of uranium refined to a fissile concentration of 20 percent – well above the level usually needed to run nuclear power plants.”

        link to jpost.com

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 6, 2012, 6:02 pm

        “Straight from the horse’s mouth.”

        No, straight from some zionist rag, and none of those statement support your assertion.

      • Brewer
        March 6, 2012, 6:31 pm

        “On the eve of release of the latest IAEA report, the New York Times reported (November 7) that Amano visited the White House on October 28 to meet with top officials of the National Security Council concerning the report. While White House officials declined to even confirm the meeting or Amano’s presence in the White House, the question is, why would the head of a supposedly independent body like the IAEA need to brief US officials on his upcoming report about Iran? Do some states, like the US, have special rights? Was Amano there to get instructions from the Americans?

        No clearer proof of Amano as an American stooge could be provided. He was appointed to head the IAEA in order to carry out the US agenda vis-à-vis Iran. What credibility could the agency’s report have when its director general takes orders from the Americans and in the words of a high level diplomat, there is not only a “very high degree of convergence between his priorities and our own agenda at the IAEA,” but the transition period from July to December 1, 2009 before he took over as director general was seen as “a further window of opportunity to us [the Americans] to shape Amano’s thinking…” (emphasis added). The IAEA’s latest report is proof that the Americans have been highly successful in not only shaping Amano’s thinking but also dictating to him what to do vis-à-vis Iran.”

        link to crescent-online.net

      • Shingo
        March 6, 2012, 10:21 pm

        Straight from the horse’s mouth.

        And let etrasnlate what the horse (who BTW has pledged allegiance to US policy on Iran in return for the job) actually said.

        “The IAEA ‘is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities,’ he added.”

        In other words, the political whore Amano is saying he cannot provide credible assurance that somethign he has no evidence exists does not exist. The fact is that he has no evidence undeclared material exists, and has no reason to believe it does, but is playing politics.

        “Since the IAEA’s previous report in November, Amano said Iran has tripled monthly production of uranium refined to a fissile concentration of 20 percent – well above the level usually needed to run nuclear power plants.”

        He’s right, but what he is saying is entirely above board. 20% is higher what is needed to run nuclear power plants, but it is the enrichment required to run a civlian research reactor to produce medical isotopes. And BTW. All of that enriched uranium, every gram, that is produced by the enrichment facilities is 100% accounted for by the IAEA.

        BTW, the fac that Iran has tripled monthly production of uranium refined to 20 percent is not in any way illegal, nor does it suggest it is beyond Iran’s legitimate needs.

      • Shingo
        March 6, 2012, 4:33 pm

         
        Iran’s “civil” nuclear program is Iran’s nuclear weapons program. They are using the first to support the second.

        Rubbish. Even the Mossad admits there isn’t one.

        They are making highly enriched uranium (20% U-235) which is higher than nuclear power plants require.

        But not higher than necessary for their research reactor which produces medical isotopes.

        They are also refusing to allow IAEA inspectors to inspect all their nuclear facilities.

        Rubbish. They denied access to military facilities, which the IAEA have no right to inspect anyway.

         All phony denials aside, they’re going for nuclear weapons.

        Why would the Mossad and all 16 US intelligence agencies indulge in phony denials?

      • Fredblogs
        March 6, 2012, 6:11 pm

        The IAEA says the Iranians aren’t letting them inspect the nuclear facilities. Should we believe the IAEA, or you?

        The phony denials are Iran’s and yours. I don’t have any knowledge that the Mossad and U.S. intelligence agencies are saying Iran isn’t going for nukes. If the U.S. agencies are saying it, I’d have to put that down to not wanting to make the same mistake they make in Iraq. So instead they are erring so far the other way that they can’t see what’s plain as day.

      • RoHa
        March 6, 2012, 6:37 pm

        “They denied access to military facilities, which the IAEA have no right to inspect anyway.”

        News today that they are going to allow at least some inspection of the Parchin base. (They allowed some inspection there in 2005, as well.)

        link to abc.net.au

        Since we know Iran is evil (EVILEVILEVIL) this is obviously part of some fiendishly cunning plan to lull us all into a sense of false security.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 6, 2012, 6:41 pm

        The IAEA says the Iranians aren’t letting them inspect the nuclear facilities.

        could you please provide a source for this allegation

        link to thehindu.com

        Iran has announced that it is ready to open up its Parchin military facility for inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — a move likely to retard the growing call for military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

        In Vienna, the office of Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s permanent representative to the IAEA, issued a statement on Tuesday that the agency’s inspectors could visit Parchin once an agreement was reached on the modalities for inspections.

        “Given the fact that Parchin is a military site and finding access to such a site is a time-consuming process and cannot be done repeatedly, and taking into account that the Agency has been asked (by Iran) to integrate all the related issues, including the hydrodynamic tests, permission will be granted for access,” said the statement as quoted by the semi-official Fars News Agency.

        In a day of fast-paced developments, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany, who are demanding that Iran freeze all uranium enrichment, announced on Tuesday that they have accepted an offer to resume stalled nuclear talks with Tehran.

        .

      • Shingo
        March 6, 2012, 6:58 pm

        The IAEA says the Iranians aren’t letting them inspect the nuclear facilities. Should we believe the IAEA, or you?

        Stop lying Fred, you are over your head on this topic. The IAEA aren’t even suggesting that Parchin is a nuclear facility.

        The phony denials are Iran’s and yours.

        And the Mossad’s and the US intelligence communty’s. We all agree Iran is not producing nuclear wepoans.

        I don’t have any knowledge that the Mossad and U.S. intelligence agencies are saying Iran isn’t going for nukes.

        Then educate yourself and stop trolling.

        “Israel believes Iran itself has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear bomb, according to intelligence assessment to be presented later this week to U.S. Joint Chief of Staff [Martin] Dempsey.”
        link to haaretz.com

        And..

        U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb
        link to nytimes.com

        If the U.S. agencies are saying it, I’d have to put that down to not wanting to make the same mistake they make in Iraq.

        Yes it wold be a mistake to make false claims and repeat lies.

        So instead they are erring so far the other way that they can’t see what’s plain as day.

        Right Fred, all 16 US inteligence agencies can’t see what you can. How does that explain why the Mossad can’t also see it?

      • Dan Crowther
        March 6, 2012, 7:02 pm

        This thread is EXACTLY why Mondoweiss is the shiznit — Fredblogs comes up with some nonsense, and then four people in a row destroy his propaganda with excellent sources and arguments!!

        You just can’t come with the weak-sauce around here, not with Annie, Shingo, RoHa and Brewer (and so many others) around…….

      • eljay
        March 6, 2012, 7:03 pm

        Given the continual barrage of existential threats and actions being made against it, Iran has no choice but to do what the West would do:
        - develop a nuclear capability ASAP;
        - carry out pre-emptive “defensive” strikes against rogue, nuclear-armed aggressor nations like Israel and the U.S.; and
        - cry “victim!” in the aftermath.

        First, though, they really need catchy slogan for emotional blackmail. What’s a good Iranian equivalent to “Remember the Holocaust!”? ;-)

      • Shingo
        March 6, 2012, 7:10 pm

        News today that they are going to allow at least some inspection of the Parchin base.

        Not only that, but notice that this is not the first time the IAEA has been allowed to inspect Parchin? They were allowed to inspect it twice in 2005.

      • Fredblogs
        March 6, 2012, 8:58 pm

        LOL. Yeah, you are welcome to search your teenager’s room as well except for the parts he doesn’t want you to see, you know, like where he keeps his stash. Hey, maybe you can even search all of it, now that he’s moved anything incriminating elsewhere.

      • RoHa
        March 6, 2012, 9:57 pm

        “Hey, maybe you can even search all of it, now that he’s moved anything incriminating elsewhere.”

        F: They won’t let us look there. That proves they are hiding something.
        R: They will let us look there.
        F: That proves they have moved the something to somewhere else.

        But I don’t expect you can see what’s wrong with that.

      • Shingo
        March 6, 2012, 10:06 pm

        LOL. Yeah, you are welcome to search your teenager’s room as well except for the parts he doesn’t want you to see, you know, like where he keeps his stash. Hey, maybe you can even search all of it, now that he’s moved anything incriminating elsewhere..

        Stop trolling Fred.

        First you’re complaining that the IAEA is not being given access to sight they have no business visiting, and then when the Iraniasn agree to give them access, it’s still not good enough because they are obviously trying to hide something.

        On the two previous visits to Parchin, the IAEA were given free reign to look anywhere they wanted. The US will have their satellites watching every stone on the sight, so they will detect if anythnig is hidden.

        Just admit it. You want a war with Americans dying just to keep your apartheis state feeling a little more secure.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 6, 2012, 11:28 pm

        LOL. Yeah, you are welcome to search your teenager’s room as well except for the parts he doesn’t want you to see

        like the WMD’s huh fred . whoops! bummer we ruined yer county iraq. hey fred, think we should bomb that teenager since we know he just hid his stash? hell yes!

      • Chaos4700
        March 7, 2012, 2:24 am

        We should bomb his cousins too, according to Fred. And also his neighbors.

      • eGuard
        March 7, 2012, 5:31 am

        Fredblogs 6:11 Should we believe the IAEA, or you?

        Well, let’s both not believe the NYT to start with. My starting point is
        Seymour M. Hersh in The New Yorker. He says: No proof, and nothing has changed since 2003.

        Let’s not forget: Israel has introduced nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Israel is not cooperating with IAEA. Israel is the war-centric country.

      • Fredblogs
        March 7, 2012, 4:59 pm

        @ RoHa
        They won’t let us look there NOW. They will let us look there later, after they’ve had time to move it, but wouldn’t let us look without clean up time.

        I suspect you can see the difference between what I just said and what you said.

        P.S. I’ve often wondered what does RoHa (the name) stand for?

      • Brewer
        March 7, 2012, 5:38 pm

        You have got to love the logic.

        “If Iran was building a bomb, they wouldn’t let anyone see it.
        No-one can see an Iranian bomb – ergo – they must be building one.”

        Sheesh.

        Actually, the centrifuges, which are not manufactured in Iran, are all accounted for and monitored.
        Enrichment to 90% is not possible without a huge cascade of centrifuges or a lengthy time frame – years.
        Iran doesn’t have the former and hasn’t had the latter.

        Much of the “bomb” noise emanates from David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS, an institute which he himself founded) and author of the now laughable “Iraq’s Bomb: Blueprints and Artifacts,” “Iraq: It’s all over at Al Atheer” and “Iraq’s shop-till-you-drop nuclear program” articles. Ring any bells?

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2012, 6:03 pm

        “LOL. Yeah, you are welcome to search your teenager’s room as well except for the parts he doesn’t want you to see, you know, like where he keeps his stash.”

        Fred, your problems with your child and drugs is not our problem. Frankly, I don’t blame the kid. Imagine having you as a progenitor! That’s enough to make anybody reach for the crack pipe.

        And BTW, Freddie, don’t forget to let us know which service you have joined to support and fight the War on Iran, and please send us some pictures from Tehran. I mean, you are going to join up and fight, right Freddie? Remember, it takes about a year or more to train an effective soldier. So now is the time to start if you want to get in on all the action and glory.
        Of course, you could just be another Zionist chickensoup-hawk. In that case, be merciful and give your kid the drugs he needs. Remember, he’s going to have to introduce his prospective wife to you.

      • Brewer
        March 7, 2012, 6:09 pm

        IRAQ’S SHOP-TILL-YOU-DROP NUCLEAR PROGRAM

        by David Albright and Mark Hibbs

        Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 48, No. 3

        April 1992

        “…….After exposing Iraq’s efforts to enrich uranium and design an atomic bomb, U.N. and IAEA experts zeroed in on how Iraq put its program together. The basic answer is that along with determination and persistence, Iraq had a great deal of foreign help…..”

        link to iraqwatch.org

      • RoHa
        March 7, 2012, 7:07 pm

        “They won’t let us look there NOW.”

        This is a sensitive military site, so Iran is going to say “Wander in and poke around any time guys. Don’t bother knocking.” Just like every other country would say.

        Seriously, do you think that IAEA inspections in any sites anywhere are spur of the moment events?

        “after they’ve had time to move it,”

        You have no reason to suppose there is anything to move.

        “. I’ve often wondered what does RoHa (the name) stand for?”

        Abbreviation of my name.

      • Shingo
        March 8, 2012, 4:07 am

        You have got to love the logic.

        “If Iran was building a bomb, they wouldn’t let anyone see it.
        No-one can see an Iranian bomb – ergo – they must be building one.”

        Sheesh.

        Or put another way. The fact we haven’t found it proves they are hiding it.

      • Chaos4700
        March 7, 2012, 2:13 am

        Hey, guys, listen to the neocon. He was totally right about nukes in Iraq. Worth every drop of blood spilled, wasn’t it?

  2. seafoid
    March 6, 2012, 8:32 am

    “We share these interests with Israel. We have exactly the same interests,” he said.

    Namely who gives a **** about the working people of the US.
    No money for schools in Michigan but unlimited resources for Israel’s wars.
    I wonder what the bond markets will make of it.

  3. Bumblebye
    March 6, 2012, 9:04 am

    McConnell spoke before the man to whom he clearly feels greater allegiance than his own president. Netanyahu then told aipac, and more than half the US Congress who were present that the time for dipolomacy was over, and invoked the holocaust:
    link to guardian.co.uk

    • Woody Tanaka
      March 6, 2012, 7:10 pm

      “McConnell spoke before the man to whom he clearly feels greater allegiance than his own president.”

      Of course he did. He’s a perfect example of why hoppy getting his girdle in a knot about the term “Israel Firster” is dopey. You want to see an Israeli Firster? Look at this Kentucky Baptist loser.

  4. Dan Crowther
    March 6, 2012, 9:08 am

    He’ll introduce “authorization for the use of military force” and he’ll get it. And Obama will agree/sign whatever. And Republicans will go out and say, “we forced the president” and the democrats will say, “the president was forced” — and Barry, Mitch, Bibi; NATO, and the rest of the gang will sit back and laugh.

    Both political parties? check. A faction of the MIC? check. MSM? check.

    All the pieces are there. The war party has what it needs – no general consent is required or wanted.

    Any argument “defending” Obama at this point, after his speech sunday — and I watched Phyllis Bennis give it a go on the real news– is based on what barry himself can control; in other words, as long as barry is around – or so the thinking goes- there wont be war, at least an overtly aggressive one. What the defenders of O don’t mention is that the groundwork – including, possibly a war any time you want it resolution- will have been laid entirely by Obama. (cue the “he was forced” crowd)

    And that is where american “liberalism” is at in 2012 – “hoping” for there to “only” be murderous sanctions etc instead of bombing (at least until a republican gets into office) — because we all know, nothing gets “liberals” more fired up then when a “conservative” wages war.

    • Chu
      March 6, 2012, 9:50 am

      It seems the only way this mess will ever get resolved is if the citizens flush the entire Congress down the toilet and vote in a clean third and/or fourth party, and have them vote AIPAC as a foreign lobby. Most of the congressional quislings, don’t have enough fortitude to buck the lobby, as they see both sides of the Congress willing to sign any letter that AIPAC proposes.

      • Charon
        March 6, 2012, 12:37 pm

        Apparently they even sign an agreement to do their bidding. Don’t know if that’s true or not, but I wouldn’t doubt it. Congress is antiquated. You can fly from NJ to CA, the length of i-80, in about four hours.

        Back when there was an actual need for a state representation in Washington, four hours is about how long it took to get to DC from Baltimore. As long as Congress is Congress, and as long as Congress is corrupt by AIPAC and other big corporations and lobbies, the POTUS is virtually powerless.

      • Bumblebye
        March 6, 2012, 1:54 pm

        @Charon
        link to angryarabscommentsection.blogspot.com
        Cynthia McKinney made that claim last year, in this short vid.

      • lysias
        March 6, 2012, 2:36 pm

        Election turns out to be the wrong way to choose representatives. The kind of person who gets elected by and large is the sort of person who’s psychologically dependent on continuing to hold his office. So he will do just about anything just to get re-elected. As if losing an election is the worst thing in the world.

        We would be better off with the ancient Athenian system of choosing representatives by lot.

      • American
        March 6, 2012, 1:51 pm

        It seems the only way this mess will ever get resolved is if the citizens flush the entire Congress down the toilet”…Chu

        Right. But that would take a full scale American revolution or some Israeli style assassinations .
        In voting them out the majority is still trapped by the ‘this evil or that evil’ non choice.
        “If” the US is forced into another war I hope it is a piss ripper that decimates the US economically to the point we get a revolution of some kind.
        That appears to be the only way the public will get angry enough to change Washington.

      • lysias
        March 6, 2012, 3:00 pm

        When the Fourth French Republic reached a political impasse where it could not end the war in Algeria because of the political power of the large number of European settlers in Algeria but also could not succesfully end the war, the army revolted and brought De Gaulle back to power, in a peaceful revolution. De Gaulle proceeded to impose the constitution of the Fifth Republic (and to end the war in Algeria, something he had the political capital to do).

        Peaceful revolutions can occur.

      • Fredblogs
        March 6, 2012, 9:00 pm

        So let me get this straight “American”. You hope that if America gets into a war that it wrecks us? I hope we don’t get into a war, but if we do I hope we win with minimal damage to us.

      • Donald
        March 6, 2012, 9:57 pm

        “I hope we don’t get into a war, but if we do I hope we win with minimal damage to us.”

        Just “to us”? Personally, I hope that if we get into war it’s fought along the lines seen in historical re-enactments of the Batley townswomen–

        Re-enactment of Pearl Harbor

      • Shingo
        March 6, 2012, 10:10 pm

        Stop being so coy Fred, you clearly want a war more than anyone. If you had any interest in avoiding such a war, you wouldn’t be trying so desperately to ignore evidence and ample reports that debunk the aggelations Iran is producing nukes.

        No, you want it to be true, which means you would rather there be a war based on spurious allegations than peace based on facts.

      • American
        March 6, 2012, 10:17 pm

        Yes, I hope it wrecks us enough to teach us a lesson and cure us of wars of choice.
        And what the heck is that you would want to win?
        And who is we anyway, you don’t sound like a we you sound like zio or neo Iran war monger to me.
        There is nothing that threatens the US except our own politicians and nothing we need that we aren’t getting except some uncorrupted leadership.
        You think the US needed to invade 3 countries for a GWOT and kill hundreds of thousands of people for a small bunch of terriers?

      • American
        March 6, 2012, 10:28 pm

        Peaceful revolutions can occur”

        Good, let us pray.
        Before Washington maims another 50,000 American boys and girls in another democracy spreading GWOT.

      • Chaos4700
        March 7, 2012, 2:14 am

        Fredblogs is the one demanding a war. He’s the one thirsting for blood.

      • Fredblogs
        March 7, 2012, 1:05 pm

        If they were already producing nukes, the game would be over. They are trying to produce nukes. Is there any difference in the technology needed to produce weapons grade uranium and the tech to produce 20% enriched uranium, or is it just a question of running the centrifuges longer? It’s a big country, lots of places to hide, and they are still playing for time and limiting where they let the IAEA look. Now they are talking about maybe letting them look a few more places. They are just playing for time.

      • Fredblogs
        March 7, 2012, 1:08 pm

        re:thirsting for war.

        Not at all, I think we should let them have the nukes. And make it clear that if they use them there won’t be a square centimeter of Iran that doesn’t glow in the dark. I just don’t believe in burying my head in the sand about the fact that they are going for nukes and that there is at least some chance they will use them.

      • American
        March 7, 2012, 6:05 pm

        Israel is the ONLY country who has actually threatened to use it’s nukes.

      • Shingo
        March 7, 2012, 6:15 pm

        They are trying to produce nukes.

        For the umpteenth time dufus, they are NOT trying to produce them – which is the conclusion US and Israeli intelligence have both come to.

        So why do you keep repeating this BS? Is your Zionist brain impervious to facts and evidence?

        Is there any difference in the technology needed to produce weapons grade uranium and the tech to produce 20% enriched uranium, or is it just a question of running the centrifuges longer?

        Yes and yes. The centrifuge cascades need to be configured differently and there are a number of technical issues to overcome, not least of which is to stop heavy metal impurities like molybdenum from destroying the centrifuges.

        It’s a big country, lots of places to hide, and they are still playing for time and limiting where they let the IAEA look.

        An enrichment plant is not a meth lab whee you can hide it in a garage. They require significant infrastrucure to operate. There is no way they could keep these places secret with the IAEA there 24/7.

        Now they are talking about maybe letting them look a few more places. They are just playing for time.

        No, they are playing for more guarantees that they will not be attacked and that sacntions will be lifted.

      • Shingo
        March 7, 2012, 6:20 pm

        I just don’t believe in burying my head in the sand about the fact that they are going for nukes and that there is at least some chance they will use them.

        It’s not a fact. The fact i they they are NOT going for nukes, which is what the US and ISraeli intelligence community have concluded.

        The only one burrying their head in the sand is you, while you refuse to accept the evidence and base your argument purely on hysteria, fear and irrationality.

      • RoHa
        March 7, 2012, 11:26 pm

        “Is your Zionist brain impervious to facts and evidence?”

        If it’s a Zionists brain, what do you expect?

      • Fredblogs
        March 8, 2012, 1:32 pm

        When did Israel threaten to use its nukes? It would be a major change in policy since they won’t even officially admit to having nukes.

      • Shingo
        March 8, 2012, 7:48 pm

        Israel has threatened to use it’s nukes a number of of times. Most infamously was in 1973, when they threatened to go nuclear unless Nixon sent arms ro them.

    • teta mother me
      March 6, 2012, 8:58 pm

      Hillary Leverett on how Jeff Goldberg boxed in Obama –or whoever the next president is. link to raceforiran.com

    • Mooser
      March 7, 2012, 6:05 pm

      “All the pieces are there. The war party has what it needs – no general consent is required or wanted. “

      Exactly. And yes, Obama will go right along.
      Thank God, Fredblogs will be there, leading the charge into Tehran.

  5. Exiled At Home
    March 6, 2012, 9:32 am

    Really, Phil? The fact that McConnell made the obligatory call-out against Obama’s Iran policy “shatters” the notion that both parties share the same foreign policy goals? So, McConnel couldn’t simply be blowing smoke to score political points with AIPAC for the GOP? You’re providing cover for the Democratic party in their culpability for the US’s “wag-the-tail” foreign policy. It’s cheap, and transparent.

  6. yourstruly
    March 6, 2012, 9:52 am

    “exactly the same interest”
    nothing but more israel-firster treachery!

    hey, Senator McConnell
    what’s it all about?
    make war so we can forget our troubles?
    make war and so what if there ain’t enough jobs?
    nuke iran to prove that we’re number one?
    cause in god we trust?

    • Charon
      March 6, 2012, 12:49 pm

      What exactly is that same interest? The Netanyahu government is a coalition with a Neo-Soviet political party made up of former Soviets who share Neo-Soviet ideology (Yisrael Beiteinu).

      I was under the impression that since the fall of the USSR, the West has been trying to Westernize the East and the former Soviet states. The ideology that Debra “I hate all Iranians” Cagan subscribes to along with all the Neocons. East vs. West. The nuclear thing is just an excuse.

    • Mndwss
      March 6, 2012, 3:11 pm

      “nuke iran to prove that we’re number one?
      cause in god we trust?”

      Pearl Jam – Do The Evolution:

      I can kill ’cause in God I trust, yeah….

      link to youtube.com

      It’s evolution, baby…

  7. lysias
    March 6, 2012, 10:31 am

    Even if Congress declares war, the President remains the Commander in Chief. Congress cannot command him to take any particular military action in that war. In other words, it would still remain within the President’s constitutional power to do absolutely nothing.

    The U.S. declared war on Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania on June 5, 1942. It was a long time after that before the U.S. took any military action against any of the three. Indeed, apart from the bombing of the oil fields in Ploiești, Romania, I cannot think of any military action the U.S. took against these countries.

    For the U.S. to engage in a war of aggression against Iran would be a serious violation of international law. The UN Charter, valid law in the U.S., prohibits war unless it is either authorized by the Security Council or in response to an attack. An aggressive war against Iran would be worse than Bush’s war in Iraq, because, unlike that war, it could well cause a world war, like Austria-Hungary’s attack on Serbia in 1914 (which was in any case not unprovoked) or Germany’s attack on Poland in 1939.

  8. NickJOCW
    March 6, 2012, 11:11 am

    …That authorization would make it clear that any effort by Iran to enrich uranium to weapons grade levels will be met by overwhelming force.

    Well, that should be a relief for everyone, including the Ayatollahs, since Iran is not doing that and the IAEA inspectors are there 24/7 in case they might ever change their minds. It’s actually more comforting than Obama:

    I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say.

    Every affirmative implies a negative. McConnell’s implies that overwhelming force would not be used so long as Iran doesn’t enrich uranium to weapons level. Obama’s affirmative is more equivocal since it doesn’t identify any red line. But then, it’s an election campaign speech after all.

  9. BradAllen
    March 6, 2012, 11:16 am

    Actually, he really didn’t say anything new, this still looks like kissing up with no real subtance. His words “That authorization would make it clear that any effort by Iran to enrich uranium to weapons grade levels “will be met by overwhelming force.” Still wagging the dog.
    I am curious, how americans feel when they see their top leadership all the way from the president, to the def sec, to party leadership to practically anybody who runs their Govt, lining up to kiss up to AIPAC. And then watch the PM of a foreign country talk down to them by reiterating we will be the only master of our destiny, but please keep sending us billions of your money while keeping away from your people and also we appreciate sending your sons to die for “our destiny”.

  10. richb
    March 6, 2012, 12:15 pm

    McConnell said his policy was necessary because Obama’s policy had a “critical flaw”– it was not coherent about when the U.S. would use force.

    At the same time the Republicans criticized the President for giving definitive withdrawal times, presumably that the enemy would take advantage of the situation. The same thing holds by showing where the red lines are. Iran would just go up to but not cross the line. Furthermore, by giving the Commander-in-Chief less flexibility it also makes stumbling into war more likely.

    Call me old school but shouldn’t the process for declaring war be the President makes the request and the House passes the resolution? The Republicans claim to be all for the Constitution yet when the Constitution is both clear and explicit they conveniently ignore it. If the House chooses to put the cart before the horse the President should veto it saying if there are casus belli then he will make the request and not before. The House as representatives of the people will then determine whether a real red line was crossed. Any complaints about this being “inefficient” should note we were attacked on December 7, 1941 and declared war on December 11, 1941.

    • MarkF
      March 6, 2012, 2:39 pm

      AIPAC needed a different strategy since they felt the executive doesn’t really want to go to war. Shove a bill down congress’ throat and you force the president’s hand.

      Heck, I wonder if they’d vote to impeach the guy if he doesn’t carry out a war that congress declares?

  11. kapok
    March 6, 2012, 12:38 pm

    The only thing that makes any sense is that this is some kind of elaborate kabuki theatre. The Republicans blustering about a war that’s less and less likely(does anybody really think they have a chance in the next election?),Obama looking like a hero for standing up to AIPAC whom nobody has a good word for.

    Meanwhile the “Jewish State” scoops up more of what is not their’s to take, and the “international community” is focused elsewhere.

    Israel is the “bad guy” in a wrestling match: fighting dirty when the ref’s not looking but the audience is.

    • chet
      March 6, 2012, 1:27 pm

      kapok – you’re absolutely correct.

      We are witnessing one of the most masterful con jobs of all time – while the world frets about the nightmarish consequences of of an attack, relaentlessly ginned up by Netanyahu and his cronies, the Israelis continue to gobble up Palestinian land and water resources at a breakneck speed.

    • MarkF
      March 6, 2012, 2:32 pm

      “Israel is the “bad guy” in a wrestling match: fighting dirty when the ref’s not looking but the audience is.”

      Hey man, don’t insult the WWE like that ;)

      Good one, I liked that.

  12. DICKERSON3870
    March 6, 2012, 12:42 pm

    RE: “I will introduce authorization for the use of military force,” McConnell told the AIPAC policy conference to wild applause.

    MY COMMENT: I wonder if these people are heavily invested in oil futures. I also wonder whether the head honchos at CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS are heavily invested in oil futures.

    SEE: U.S. media takes the lead on Iran, by Glenn Greenwald, Salon, 2/14/12

    (excerpt) Many have compared the coordinated propaganda campaign now being disseminated about The Iranian Threat to that which preceded the Iraq War, but there is one notable difference. Whereas the American media in 2002 followed the lead of the U.S. government in beating the war drums against Saddam, they now seem even more eager for war against Iran than the U.S. government itself, which actually appears somewhat reluctant. Consider this highly illustrative, one-minute report yesterday from the nightly broadcast of NBC News with Brian Williams, by the network’s Chief Pentagon Correspondent Jim “Mik” Miklaszewski, which packs multiple misleading narratives into one short package…

    ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to salon.com

    ALSO SEE: Diane Sawyer and Brian Ross belong in a fear-mongering museum, by Glenn Greenwald, Salon, 2/15/12
    LINK – link to salon.com

    AND SEE: Erin Burnett: Worst of the worst, by Glenn Greenwald, Salon, 2/17/12
    LINK – link to salon.com

    AND, LASTLY: Gen. McCaffrey privately briefs NBC execs on war with Iran, by Glenn Greenwald, Salon, 2/28/12
    LINK – link to salon.com

  13. Citizen
    March 6, 2012, 1:22 pm

    Occupy Wall Street Activists Disrupt Sen. Levin in AIPAC: Don’t Bomb Ira…: link to youtu.be via @youtube

    • optimax
      March 6, 2012, 3:27 pm

      Anybody else notice the security guards are always black at aipac and other pro-Israel conferences people demonstrate at. In fact, the security guards are usually the only people of color at these events. Is this their idea of multiculturalism? Or Norman Podhoretz’s payback for the humiliation he suffered as a child he describes in “My Negro Problem–and Ours.”

      • Fredblogs
        March 7, 2012, 1:13 pm

        The AIPAC people presumably hire security firms. Who put security guards of their own selection at events. In DC, a high percentage of the population is black, as are a high percent of the security guards. You probably just don’t notice the white ones. There are black Jews (some of my relatives for example), but most Jews in the U.S. are white. Nice of you to try to make it about racism when it’s really just about demographics.

  14. ToivoS
    March 6, 2012, 2:41 pm

    McConnel’s speech is all thunder, no lightening. He defines a red line as enrichment of U235 to weapons grade. That is close to what Obama said.

    Netanyahu is the danger. He doesn’t sound like he is bluffing but still Israel does not have the power (short of nuclear war) to cause Iran much damage.

    • seafoid
      March 6, 2012, 5:16 pm

      Israel is talking itself into doing something that is against its own long term interests.
      Like a father who screams blue murder at his son and then has to really hurt him to retain his credibility.

      Israel can’t afford a long drawn out conflict. The moden Israeli economy developed after Egypt was neutralised in 1978. The capital flows are very sensitive. Israel is most vulnerable in its financial underbelly.

      An attack on Iran would be lashing out. There wouldn’t be any sense of control. The Israelis need to call Bibi’s bluff. He’s like Captain Schettino of the Costa Concordia with his salute off the coast of that island.

    • piotr
      March 7, 2012, 7:13 am

      “… He doesn’t sound like he is bluffing …”

      So how does bluffing sound in your opinion?

      One data point: recent Israeli record on “little wars” is that Israel survives but the government does not. I bet 100 bucks that Netanyahu will simply talk.

  15. lysias
    March 6, 2012, 4:57 pm

    Would you fight on behalf of a country that mounts false-flag operations? Gareth Porter makes a case in Al Jazeera that Iran was not behind the bombing in New Delhi: Who was behind the Delhi bombing? The bombing of an Israeli diplomat’s car in India isn’t consistent with Iranian or Hezbollah involvement.:

    We may never be able to establish with certainty what happened in Delhi, Bangkok and Tbilisi earlier this month, but the evidence that has come to light thus far doesn’t support the widely accepted notion that Iran and Hezbollah were behind it. That evidence is consistent, however, with a clever Israeli “false flag” car bombing operation that would not injure the passenger but would serve its broader strategic interests: dividing India from Iran and pushing US public opinion further towards support for war against Iran.

  16. DICKERSON3870
    March 6, 2012, 5:59 pm

    RE: “McConnell assures Israel lobby that bipartisan Congress will authorize ‘overwhelming force’ against Iran” ~ Weiss

    PUSH BACK AGAINST THE WARMONGERING CHICKENHAWKS: Please help Tikkun/NSP run the following ad in major American newspapers.

    No Mr. Netanyahu, No President Obama:
    No War on Iran and No First Strike

    Some who have signed this ad believe that the best path for homeland security is through rejecting the old-fashioned “domination strategy” to get your way…
    …Click HERE to see a draft of how this ad would look in the newspaper.

    If you would like to help Tikkun/NSP run this ad, please make a donation.
    TO DONATE -
    link to salsa.democracyinaction.org
    TIKKUN WEBSITE – link to tikkun.org
    NETWORK OF SPIRITUAL PROGRESSIVES (NSP) WEBSITE – link to spiritualprogressives.org

  17. Daniel Rich
    March 6, 2012, 6:24 pm

    Will any of McConnel’s kids be dropped behind ‘enemy’ lines or is this just another idiot who believes ‘justice from the air’ is his attempt at playing ‘god?’

  18. upsidedownism
    March 6, 2012, 6:30 pm

    Iran has every right to BOTH nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Its a big country of 70 million people; why can the US and Israel have whatever energy and weapons they want, and not Iran? How can Israel, a country of 7 million people, dictate to Iran, 10 times its population?

    I hope Iran gets nuclear weapons as soon as possible. Iran needs these to deter US and Israeli aggression.

    Israel can have peace in the middle east whenever it wants; it just needs to end the ethnic cleansing of palestine, and the occupation of palestinian and other arab lands; israel’s unceasing expansion and addiction to arab lands is the cause of the conflict, NOT Iran or Iran’s nuclear ambition.

  19. RoHa
    March 6, 2012, 6:41 pm

    When it gets to this level, I think Israel must have more than pictures and videos from the hotel air-conditioner grill. Something that would lead to serious jail time, perhaps?

  20. Pixel
    March 6, 2012, 10:39 pm

    “Fredblogs comes up with some nonsense, and then four people in a row destroy his propaganda with excellent sources and arguments!!”

    Agreed.

    I commend all the commenters on this thread – those who thoughtfully addressed Fredblogs initial points and then did not allow themselves to be baited by his/her further comments .

    And everyone for then IGNORING HIM/HER!

    That’s the way to deal with trolls.

    • Shingo
      March 7, 2012, 12:20 am

      Fredblogs is a garden variety Zionist sociopath. He pretends like he doesn;t want a war with Iran, but rejects every logical reason and evidence for why war with Iran is unjustified.

      • Fredblogs
        March 7, 2012, 1:00 pm

        Well aren’t you sweet. War is justified, but not a good idea. With Hezbolah and Hamas ready to fire 50,000 missiles at Israeli civilian areas if Israel or the U.S. attacks Iran, it would kill too many innocent people.

        I think or at least hope that Iran’s leaders are not crazy enough to nuke Israel, once they get the bomb. Which they will, probably within the next five years. I’d hate to see Iran glassed, which would be the retaliation if they nuke Israel. Not as much as I’d hate to see Israel nuked in the first place, but there’re a lot of innocent people in Iran alongside all the psycho theocrats.

      • Shingo
        March 7, 2012, 6:23 pm

        War is justified, but not a good idea.

        War is neither justified nor a good idea. Iran are not even tyign o produce nukes, so unless you n come up wit another very compellin reason to go to war, there is no justification.

        You’re simply revealing yourselfto be an extremist and a crazed one at that.

    • Chaos4700
      March 7, 2012, 2:24 am

      Yes, because when you ignore a problem, it goes away. Just like cancer!

  21. Chaos4700
    March 7, 2012, 2:29 am

    If McConnell kisses that ring any harder, Netanyahu is going to come away from it with one of his tonsils.

  22. Talkback
    March 7, 2012, 3:56 am

    Let Israel attack Iran an deal with the consequences. I’m fat up with all it’s warmongering.

  23. Erasmus
    March 7, 2012, 4:14 am

    Mitch McConnel

    To hear and see this man talking at the AIPAC Conference gave me the shivers!!
    Unfortunately the C-Span video only showed the speaker, so I could not see the enthusiasm and applause of the warmongering audience. However, just listening to the applause was more than enough: nauseating
    To see McConell’s tight-lipped smiles, hardly suppressed, and happiness about the thunderous enrapture of his AIPAC audience was close to be unbearable. These are the ISRAEL FIRSTERS, regardless of any other consideration.
    My goodness, what a country have the USA have become where such public war mongering and incitement is not met with 100 % disapproval but CHEERS.
    McConnel’s speech advocating “overwhelming force” was akin to another version of earlier times, touching very unpleasant cords:
    “Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?”……
    Given the detesting alternatives, one must (willy-nilly) hope for a second Obama term – hopefully with a POTUS with big balls.

  24. eGuard
    March 7, 2012, 5:52 am

    AIPAC noted: Jon Stewart is with us.

  25. piotr
    March 7, 2012, 6:57 am

    Israel cannot attack Iran without American weapons. The action would not be defensive and would require permission. Then either USA puts sanctions on Israel or is a legitimate target. Iran can retaliate in a number of ways.

    In my opinion, US position in Afghanistan is such that we have a choice of withdrawing with dignity or without. After an attack on Iran, the second option is almost certain.

    Attack on Iran would break the international security system. What prevents China from taking over Taiwan, for example? Especially if we are busy in Persian Gulf?

    Another piece of news. Hamas announced that it would not participate in any conflict that would follow attack on Iran. Hezbollah did not. Can missiles from South Lebanon destroy Israeli port facilities? This is called “strategic ambiguity”.

  26. Erasmus
    March 7, 2012, 2:34 pm

    CENSURE Inquiry from the Editors:

    i posted a comment on Sen. Mitch McConnel’s Speech at AIPAC.

    This is to inquire why you have censored it?
    I hardly can see any reason as to why my comment was to have violated anything wrt MW comment policy principles.
    Looking forward to your reply.

Leave a Reply