Trending Topics:

Democracy Now, interviews with Phyllis Bennis, Trita Parsi on Israel’s threat to attack Iran

News
on 43 Comments

Phyllis Bennis and Trita Parsi zeroed in on the impact these latest threats out of Israel to bomb Iran are having on our election season. Or… is it the election season impacting the threats? Oops, can’t make up my mind, you be the judge.

Transcript:

PHYLLIS BENNIS: So when we hear this coming from Israel, particularly right now at this very vulnerable time of an election cycle here in the United States, what we’re hearing is that if there is going to be an Israeli strike, and with the political leadership saying there is, there’s not going to be a military coup in Israel where the military would refuse to carry out such an order. If they are told to do it, they will do it. The choice that the leadership has is, do we wait until after the election, when we might get a president we like better, meaning Mitt Romney, but we might get Barack Obama again, who might be in a stronger position? Imagine the problems facing President Obama today if we heard from the Israelis, “Oh, by the way, our planes are in the air. They are en route to bomb Iran. And we’re expecting your help to send refueling capacity, for instance, in the air. And if you don’t, our pilots might die.” Imagine what that would mean for a president running for re-election here in the United States. So we have a very dangerous moment despite the opposition of the military and the intelligence agencies of all across Israel, all across the United States, everybody disagreeing with this, the vice president, the president of the United States disagreeing with it. And yet, do we want to imagine that we would be certain there be no such attack and no such U.S. involvement at this moment of the election? I think it’s a very, very dangerous—a very, very dangerous moment.

It is true that in the past, when Israel has preventively attacked Arab countries, those being Iraq in 1981 and Lebanon in 2007, on the claim that they might someday be able to build a nuclear bomb, it was after silence. It was not after this kind of public campaign, public ratcheting up of the war rhetoric. This would be a very different scenario. But Bibi Netanyahu is a very different kind of Israeli prime minister in a host of ways, and I don’t think we can depend on those prior approaches to necessarily reflect what’s going on this time.

………

NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. Trita Parsi, you’re with the National Iranian American Council. Can you comment on what the ambassador said?

TRITA PARSI: Well, I think the ambassador has played a significant role in bringing the debate in this country to a hysterical level in which a lot of facts are just simply thrown out the window. And we’re looking at it from a perspective in which—a frame in which we’re essentially saying we either have to take military action or accept an Iranian nuclear bomb. Those are not the options. That is not the accurate frame. There are plenty of other options. Diplomacy certainly has not been exhausted. In fact, it’s only in its very early phases so far. So, there’s a deliberate attempt there to push it towards a position in which the only options are bomb now or bomb later.

But I think, also go back and talk about why we’re seeing this flurry of threats from the Israeli side at this moment. I would agree with the previous panelist in that this is different from previous cases, and we have to be careful not to necessarily dismiss it. But we also have to keep in mind that there is a value for the Netanyahu government to continue to make these threats and continue to increase the pressure on the Obama administration. If these threats work, as they have had success in the past, it would mean that the United States would move further into pursuing more sanctions on Iran, further away from pursuing a diplomatic compromise, and moving closer into the U.S. itself taking military action. If the Obama administration, on the other hand, resists and pushes back against Netanyahu two or three months before the elections, it would accentuate the differences that exist between Obama and the Romney campaign, which the Netanyahu government, I believe, calculates will benefit Romney in the U.S. elections. And the Obama administration, I think, agrees with that, in the sense that they don’t want to have a public spat with the Israeli government right before elections. The alternative, that the Israelis actually will take military action, would bring very unpredictable repercussions. As it was mentioned earlier on, there’s a lot of opposition to this within the Israeli military. The proposition of just making the threat, however, seems to be a win-win for the Israelis. Regardless of what Obama does, it does bring some benefit to the Netanyahu government. It either increases the likelihood of a Romney victory in the elections, or it pushes the U.S. closer towards the U.S. using the military option.

Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

43 Responses

  1. annie on August 15, 2012, 2:27 pm

    there is a value for the Netanyahu government to continue to make these threats and continue to increase the pressure on the Obama administration. If these threats work, as they have had success in the past, it would mean that the United States would move further into pursuing more sanctions on Iran, further away from pursuing a diplomatic compromise, and moving closer into the U.S. itself taking military action. If the Obama administration, on the other hand, resists and pushes back against Netanyahu two or three months before the elections, it would accentuate the differences that exist between Obama and the Romney campaign, which the Netanyahu government, I believe, calculates will benefit Romney in the U.S. elections.

    bingo. win-win situation for you know who.

    • CloakAndDagger on August 15, 2012, 4:41 pm

      I am not so sure. I think Obama can be justified in feeling a little cockier after the Ryan announcement as Romney is starting to feel the heat from both the Republicans and the Democrats. Reports in the media notwithstanding, the refusal to disclose taxes is having a huge negative impact on Romney. The common wisdom is that he must have something to hide.

      The RNC convention at the end of this month also promises to be an explosive one given the charges of election fraud and the very public confrontations with Ron Paul’s supporters, including physical violence. This is a very tainted candidate and Ryan brings a ton of baggage of his own. Expect a lot of media coverage at the end of August – mostly negative of Romney.

      Some of the “leaks” and even public comments by Whitehouse spokespeople seem to indicate a strong reticence, if not outright refusal to go to war even if Israel launches first. While this may not, in and of itself, deter Netanyahu from doing so, I think it greatly increases the internal resistance that he would have to overcome in order to go it alone. While he may have been confident in the past that the US would follow him into battle, he has to be lying awake at night wondering “what if I threw a war and nobody came to my aid”? I bet that most Israelis would punish him if he went to war and the US did not follow through (those that would be left alive, anyway).

      One scenario that most pundits seem to be presenting is the following:

      1. Israel bombs Iran
      2. Iran retaliates by hitting US troops in the Gulf and in surrounding countries
      3. US is forced into battle

      What if that isn’t the sequence that happens?

      What if Iran has already decided to play chess while everyone is playing checkers? Consider the following scenario:

      1. Israel bombs Iran, with or without US air support
      2. Iran ignores the US complicity and doesn’t attack our assets
      3. Iran sends a torrential shower of missiles on Tel Aviv and Dimona – much smaller land mass than Iran and more densely concentrated.
      4. While Syria is currently neutered (although this could unify them enough to open a front), Hizbollah opens a front from Lebanon
      5. Hamas opens a front
      6. Egypt opens a front (not likely immediately, but possible)
      7. Saudi Arabia, cognizant of the growing sympathy of Arabs with Iran following Israel’s attack, refuses to allow over flights
      8. Turkey already refuses overflights, leaving only a narrow corridor over Iraq

      Where does it leave Israel? – Netanyahu will be done and over!
      Maybe he will use nukes?

      And what if the following happens as well:

      9. Pakistan gets involved, including providing nukes to Iran
      10. Russia gets involved in support of Iran and to protect its ME influences
      11. China gets involved to protect its Iranian resources
      12. Israel sues for ceasefire.

      If I were Barack Obama, I might not be dragged into battle quite so easily, ‘specially since it doesn’t look like I will lose the election either ways. I might actually screw up the courage to go to the American people and tell all.

      And most importantly, Taxi tells me that there is no chance that Israel will attack Iran, so I feel very confident with my predictions.

      • ritzl on August 15, 2012, 7:11 pm

        “A strange game, Professor Falken. The only way to win is not to play.” – War Games

      • Rusty Pipes on August 15, 2012, 7:15 pm

        Re #9, if Iran had wanted nukes from Pakistan, it could have stocked up on AQ Khan’s suitcases ages ago.

      • CloakAndDagger on August 15, 2012, 9:45 pm

        @ Rusty Pipes

        I don’t believe Iran wants nukes. However, a nuclear attack by Israel could have them quickly scurrying to get some – and rightly so.

      • Les on August 15, 2012, 7:21 pm

        This ignores that the moment Iran retaliates with an attack on Israel, the US will act. Obama is not the President Kennedy was when the CIA set up an invasion of Cuba by forces trained and armed by the US to overthrow Castro, which the CIA expected would fail. The agency presumed that failure would force Kennedy to send in US forces, for which it was forever and bitterly upset that he refused to do, which many believe points to the agency’s role in Kennedy’s assassination.

        Ask yourself how long before the NY Times, CNN, NPR, etc., would propagandize that Obama needed to rescue Israel from its miscalculation. Of course, if Israel gets the US to join in, Israel cannot be said to have miscalculated.

      • Roya on August 15, 2012, 7:57 pm

        CloakAndDagger, I sort of agree with your analysis. If Israel attacks Iran, I agree that Iran would likely not take any direct action against the US, but I also think that there is a good possibility that Iran may not take direct action against Israel either. Iran does not fear an Israeli strike too much, as Israel is not capable of carrying out a sustained attack, and the attack it is capable of would do limited damage. Also, world opinion would turn against Israel and make Iran look like the victim, and Iran would want to play that card, which would be ruined upon retaliation. But if the US were to kowtow to Israel and attack…

      • annie on August 15, 2012, 11:38 pm

        If Israel attacks Iran……..Iran may not take direct action against Israel…… Israel is not capable of carrying out a sustained attack, and the attack it is capable of would do limited damage.

        what is your idea of limited? you mean something merely as inconsequential as the impact on the US from the 9/11 attacks?

        iran has already stated they would hit back hard, why would you doubt them? surely you don’t think an israeli attack on iran would be surgical with little consequence on human life. do you?

        while i think there is a possibility iran may not strike out at the US, especially if we do not participate, it is inconceivable to me iran would do nothing. completely inconceivable.

        but israel won’t strike iran without US cover. they are not all suicidal fanatics.

      • CloakAndDagger on August 16, 2012, 12:19 am

        I agree. It is inconceivable that Iran would not strike back. The govt. of Iran would have an uprising on their hands for doing nothing.

  2. FreddyV on August 15, 2012, 3:04 pm

    ‘”Oh, by the way, our planes are in the air. They are en route to bomb Iran. And we’re expecting your help to send refueling capacity, for instance, in the air. And if you don’t, our pilots might die.”‘

    Bollocks. The US has some 40 odd military bases in the M.E. All of which are circling Iran.

    If Obama really wanted to avert war in that situation, he’d advise them to land before striking.

    If Obama took a support option, he’ll have proved he’s nothing but ‘Bibi’s girl’ (Bibi’s girl – Read: Bitch).

  3. Divest on August 15, 2012, 3:05 pm

    Yes, when it comes to US electoral politics, we who are opposed to this madness have no say and no allies. But we can take matters into our own hands. We can all help to (nonviolently) raise the cost to Israel of attacking Iran. We can pledge to BOYCOTT ISRAEL IF IT ATTACKS IRAN:

    http://www.divestfromwar.org

    Please sign the petition, and spread the word about it.

    These madmen can be stopped, but only if we look beyond Washington.

    Thanks!

    • Boycott Israel on Campus on August 15, 2012, 3:19 pm

      Great. Thanks, Divest.

      The best way to prove we’re serious is to start pushing divestment resolutions immediately, the first week of school.

    • ColinWright on August 15, 2012, 4:04 pm

      I signed that one as well.

    • Roya on August 15, 2012, 7:49 pm

      Thanks Divest but I think we need to boycott Israel regardless of war. Apartheid states aren’t worth investing in.

  4. ColinWright on August 15, 2012, 4:01 pm

    J Street has a petition up that people can sign if they actually want to encourage Obama to refuse to attack Iran:

    http://act.jstreet.org/sign/iran/?akid=1636.207235.9aF6bV&rd=1&t=1

  5. Rusty Pipes on August 15, 2012, 4:38 pm

    Barack could tell Bibi that Joe “over my dead body” Biden will be screening all of Bibi’s calls until the election — ’cause Barack has so much on his plate right now. If Bibi can never get through for a green light on his attack, Joe can take the fall. The donors may hate it, but the base will appreciate it — especially if Barack can show that his time is being well-spent on legislation and other initiatives that help the average American. It doesn’t have to be a plus for Romney unless Obama allows it to be.

  6. lysias on August 15, 2012, 4:49 pm

    The proposition of just making the threat, however, seems to be a win-win for the Israelis. Regardless of what Obama does, it does bring some benefit to the Netanyahu government. It either increases the likelihood of a Romney victory in the elections, or it pushes the U.S. closer towards the U.S. using the military option.

    If the pick of Paul Ryan for running mate has now made a Romney victory impossible, as it may well have, then it’s no longer a win-win for Israel. There’s much less reason for Obama to choose the military option, and the likelihood of a Romney victory remains zero.

    In fact, it becomes a lose-lose, because it will only antagonize Obama.

  7. American on August 15, 2012, 5:05 pm

    ” Imagine the problems facing President Obama today if we heard from the Israelis, “Oh, by the way, our planes are in the air. They are en route to bomb Iran. And we’re expecting your help to send refueling capacity, for instance, in the air. And if you don’t, our pilots might die.”
    Imagine what that would mean for a president running for re-election here in the United States. So we have a very dangerous moment despite the opposition of the military and the intelligence agencies of all across Israel, all across the United States, everybody disagreeing with this, the vice president, the president of the United States disagreeing with it.”‘>>>>>>

    And to what forces do we owe ‘having to imagine’ what it would mean to a Presidential election if we didn’t or didn’t let Israel attack another country on what we and the entire world all know is a phony overblown threat to Israel, much less to the US?

    We know what forces put a Presidential candidate in this position and there’s no point in pussyfooting around it.

    I. 6 Million Jews in the US.
    II. A organization of Zionist who are seen by US leaders as the representatives of the majority US Jewish demands on the US for their Israel Homeland.
    III. The US leaders then accepting these demands for political gains or necessity.

    That’s it in a nutshell and there’s no way around it. It’s like a circle. Attack the zionist and it circles back to the Jews. Attack the politicians and it circles back to the Jews. Attacking the guilty always hits the taboo shield of the Jews who are the beginning of the Zionist circle. So I understand very well Phil’s reasons and relentless outing of the Zionist. I just don’t know what practically or more can be done about this Israel trap the US is in. Would more people and more sane Jews raising hell about it have any real effect on the current Israel Iran demands or change the political dynamics of Jewish/Zionist/Israel political fundamentals in the US? And even if Obama can finesse them on attacking Iran, what about the next demand and the next, and the next US President?
    When I first came to this issue I thought thoughtful Americans could just point out the obvious irrationality and Orwellianess of this Israel fetish in the US government and everyone, pro Israel Jews and politicians, everyone would understand the folly of it. But I was naive and underestimated zionism in the US. So now I increasingly think this ‘thing’ has such a political grip and momentum going it has to play out however it plays out. And dont ask me how it’s going to play out, I don’t have first freaking idea. I can’t even work up a good shock or hate of this crap any more cause my main reaction to it now is my head exploding over the sheer Stupidity,Stupidity Stupidity of it all.

    • YoungMassJew on August 15, 2012, 11:39 pm

      Correct American. Each and every one of the 6 million American Jews are entirely responsible for Israel attacking Iran. Yup every single one of them. Including babbling newborns.

      • ColinWright on August 16, 2012, 12:28 am

        YoungMassJew: “Correct American. Each and every one of the 6 million American Jews are entirely responsible for Israel attacking Iran. Yup every single one of them. Including babbling newborns.”

        Frankly, from my point of view it would be an improvement if this were so.

        However, all Americans are going to be responsible for Israel attacking Iran. All 300 million of us.

      • annie on August 16, 2012, 12:30 am

        ymj, i take it you do not agree there are 6 Million Jews in the US and an organization of Zionists who are seen by US leaders as the representatives of the majority of US Jewish demands on the US for their Israel Homeland and the US leaders then accept these demands for political gains or necessity?

        were you willfully not comprehending american’s meaning or are you just thick sculled?

      • American on August 16, 2012, 1:54 am

        @YMJ

        Are you having a bad day and misreading me?
        I am outlining the “Set Up”. This is just how it is.
        How the circle works.
        It is undeniably true that 6 million Jews living in the US makes it the “beachhead”for Israel.
        If the US had 5000 Jews Israel would be slam out of luck because the zionist wouldn’t have enough voters to wave in front of politicians for Israel.
        And no matter how much money the Zios donate to politicians ,politicians still have to get votes to stay in office.
        So the zios give them money and tell them they represent the Jews and that the Jews all vote/care for Israel.
        The Circle–>Jews–>Zios–>Politicians –>back to Jews– in electoral states, etc.,etc..
        So you tell me how you break the circle of the perfect setup of the world’s superpower having almost half the world’s Jews living in it and at the disposal of Israel’s zionist, with or without their permission.
        No, we don’t throw the Jews out of the US.
        If anyone actually wanted to do that it would be the stupidest of all suggestions because it would only solidify Israel as the Holy Grail refuge for Jews.
        So what’s the next option or stragety to puncture the circle?
        I can’t think of one.
        Despite the yeoman efforts of a diverse force of critics and bell ringers the US Israel boat is not turning around.
        That’s why I said it has to play out however it plays out.
        Unless you or someone else has a really brilliant idea.

      • American on August 16, 2012, 3:04 am

        @YMJ

        One other thing ymj. Even if I say some Jews are Israel centric voters it shouldn’t be cause for a 5 alarm fire drill.
        At some point, some day saying the word Jewish and problem in the sentence has to stop creating any more panic than saying the Tea Party or republicans and a problem in the same sentence.
        Work toward that, it could solve the problem.

  8. subconscious on August 15, 2012, 5:23 pm

    The Dem. Now! conversation w/ Parsi, posted above, continues in another segment discussing the effects of the sanctions, esp. given the recent Iranian earthquakes:
    http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/15/iranian_americans_warn_harsh_us_sanctions

  9. Citizen on August 15, 2012, 5:39 pm

    One thing Bibi knows is that Obama said nothing during the time nexus covering the US election finale and OP Cast Lead. And, once in power, Obama acted proactively to deep six the Goldstone Report. And he knows, although Obama made his Cairo speech, he stuck it in the closet before the ink was quite dry on it, where it’s been ever since. And that Obama offered to give Bibi an extra squadron of F-35s (Israel had already contracted for the first squadron, to be paid for with US foreign aid)–gave that really quality carrot merely on condition Bibi pause settlement expansion for a couple of months so Obama could reap the political benefits at that time. But Bibi knows he did not stop, and Obama remained mute ever after on the settlement subject.

    I imagine Bibi assumes Obama likes the power end benefits as much as he does of being big honcho, and so he concludes, from Obama’s past pattern, that He can play Obama like a fiddle in behalf Israel, which means playing the US election’s evolving scorecard over this summer and early Fall, while the Sheldon Adelson types push Mitt to push Obama, flaming Obama as the wuss on Israel/US defense, i.e., as not Commander In Chief material when superterrorist Iran is about to get the BOMB and throw it!

    The joint war games US and Israel are going to do in the ME have been pushed near the end of the US campaign too. How’s that for timing, for a cornucopia of chances to raise false flag attacks?

  10. traintosiberia on August 15, 2012, 5:44 pm

    Obama has promised to attack Iran by June of 2013 if negotiations did not result into a meaningful result [ meaningful means complete capitulation by Iran] according to Israeli media ( Channel 10 )
    http://www.antiwar.com 08/15/12

    The wider ramification of this promise is that the beast known as Israel could never be satisfied .American prostitute will destroy herself to satisfy this pimp -cum -customer known as Israel who also manages to get the money from the prostitute in that wonderful arrangement where the moral and legal words are redefined everyday to soothe the pimp’s feelings.

  11. CloakAndDagger on August 15, 2012, 6:27 pm

    Here is Richard Silverstein’s description of Israel’s attack plans:

    http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2012/08/15/bibis-secret-war-plan/

    I am not able to confirm its veracity.

  12. CTuttle on August 15, 2012, 6:30 pm

    Aloha, Annie, drop what you’re doing and check this out…! Bibi’s Secret War Plan was leaked out…! All hands on deck…! ;-)

  13. American on August 15, 2012, 6:35 pm

    You take your help from whereever you can get it.

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/08/14/grover-norquist-takes-on-the-war-party/

    Grover Norquist Takes On the War Party
    Conservative leader attacks Romney-Ryan for refusing to cut the military budget.

    Grover Norquist is a bit of a punching bag for both the Hollywood-DC left and the neoconservative right. On the left, he’s often held up as an example of everything that’s supposedly wrong with the conservative movement and the GOP: his “no tax hike”pledge is excoriated by the Huffingtonpost-MSNBC-TPM axis of Obamaism as typical of “know-nothing”conservatism. On the neocon right, he’s viciously attacked as an “Islamist,” a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood far more dangerous than, say, Huma Abedin — in part because he’s an influential conservative married to an Arab woman. For both groups, he’s a bit of a Rasputin, with his weekly meetings of Washington-based conservative activists characterized as something between the right-wing equivalent of the Bilderbergs and Opus Dei.

    Now he’s gone and done something bound to induce paroxysms of rage — or disbelief — in members of both groups: he’s denouncing the newly-minted Republican ticket — particularly Paul Ryan and his infamous budget — for refusing to countenance cuts in the military, and he’s doing it in style. In a talk given at the Center for the National Interest (formerly the Nixon Center), he ripped into Ryan for refusing to consider cuts in the military budget.
    Besides being a Ron Paul supporter.

  14. American on August 15, 2012, 6:40 pm

    And the game goes on.

    http://news.antiwar.com/2012/08/15/report-obama-to-tell-israel-us-will-attack-iran-by-june-2013-if-diplomacy-fails/

    Report: Obama to Tell Israel US ‘Will Attack Iran by June 2013′ If Diplomacy Fails
    It could be a tactic to stave off an Israeli attack before the November elections, but such talk is incredibly dangerous
    >>>>>>

    Maybe it’s not that dangerous.
    I think if Obama has to play the game he should promise and give Israel a date for our attack..and then change his mind…and promise them for certain a new date….and then change his mind….LOL..forever and ever.

    • eljay on August 15, 2012, 6:47 pm

      >> Report: Obama to Tell Israel US ‘Will Attack Iran by June 2013′ If Diplomacy Fails

      If he’s doing it to appease “the Jews” – but not all Jews, just the “Judaic” ones! – he’s nothing more than another gutless, Zio-supremacist toady.

      If he sincerely believes that attacking non-nuclear, non-aggressor Iran is the right thing to do, well, then, he’s just another warmongering @sshole.

      I get the feeling that he’s a bit of both. Way to go, Barry O. Just remember: You’re neither Jewish nor Israeli so, at the end of the day, you mean sh*t to the Zio-supremacists whose @sses you’re licking.

    • ColinWright on August 16, 2012, 12:59 am

      “…Maybe it’s not that dangerous.
      I think if Obama has to play the game he should promise and give Israel a date for our attack..and then change his mind…and promise them for certain a new date….and then change his mind….LOL..forever and ever…”

      Tell ’em first we gotta finish moving our embassy to Jerusalem. One thing at a time.

    • Rusty Pipes on August 16, 2012, 5:00 pm

      “According to Israeli Channel 10 news”? It’s very common for Israeli news outlets to float assertions from unidentified Israeli or American officials about what Obama has or will promise. Most of these stories look like pressure tactics on Obama to confirm or deny what the Israeli leaders are pushing. The months immediately before a US election are an especially suspect time for these kinds of tactics.

  15. Roya on August 15, 2012, 8:10 pm

    Wow I did not know that the Iranian president was named AKKKHHHHHMENIJAD. Apparently Iranians all around the world have been pronouncing his name wrong all these years….Thank you for letting us know Michael Scott Bornstein “Oren”!! 30:55

    • just on August 15, 2012, 11:47 pm

      His American accent and derision of others are both improving.

  16. tombishop on August 15, 2012, 9:44 pm

    The interview with journalist Gideon Levy, about the political and social situation in Israel at the moment, on this same Democracy Now! show should also be seen:
    http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/15/israeli_journalist_gideon_levy_on_the

  17. chuckcarlos on August 15, 2012, 11:11 pm

    A pissant two bit Foreign Leader with a very shaky military establishment (remember Hezbollah sending Jews back in a box?and all the Israeli tears?) does not threaten the President.

    The President or the US Military will not put up with that kind shit…now matter what political persuasion…

    These Israeli scumbags have signed their own death warrant.

    In 1865 Johnson sent Sheridan and 150,000 troopers to the border and warned France that they either move out or Sheridan was going to call the moving vans for them. The French left and the Mexicans lined Maximillian up against the wall and shot him. Johnson was impeached but not convicted for not being radical enough.

    You don’t threaten or give ultimatums to the President. The Japanese tried it, in private and see how it worked out for them.

    • ColinWright on August 16, 2012, 1:10 am

      Ahem…pretty fractured history there.

      Andrew Johnson’s impeachment had nothing to do with the threatened US intervention in Mexico. Then too, what either that or Pearl Harbor had to do with ‘threatening or giving ultimatums’ to the President escapes me.

  18. Real Jew on August 16, 2012, 2:44 pm

    It makes my blood boil to see the amount of influence Israel and right wing Jews have over American foreign and security policies. It’s disgusting. The fact that they are able to black mail the president of the US to engage in war with an adversary which presents no threat to America is incomprehensible. Have they forgot the lessons of the Iraq war already. It killed 5000 US soldiers, killed hundreds of thousands iraqis, devastated our economy, and killed our international standing. For what?

    It’s even more disgusting that our spineless greedy politicians aren’t standing up to these war mongering criminals and saying ” Iran is no threat to Israel or anybody else and should you choose to attack, you will be on your own. In addition you will face sanctions and decrease in aid for attacking a country unprovoked.”

Leave a Reply