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.
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.
“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.
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:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/06/netanyahu-iran-nuclear-weapons-israel
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.
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.