Tonkin Gulf II and the Guns of August?

[Habermill]

Now if this is accurate, the Democrats are looking the other way and giving the go head? For that matter, any Republican or Democrat! Throw a Raul into the mix and you have a hot topic.


Tonkin Gulf II and the Guns of August?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted 07/17/2007 ET



Is the United States provoking war with Iran, to begin while the Congress is conveniently on its August recess?

One recalls that it was in August 1964, after the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater, that the Tonkin Gulf incident occurred.

Twice it was said, on Aug. 2 and Aug. 4, North Vietnamese patrol boats had attacked the U.S. destroyers Maddox and Turner Joy in international waters. The U.S. Senate responded by voting 88 to two to authorize President Johnson to assist any Southeast Asian nation whose government was threatened by communist aggression.

The bombing of the North began, followed by the arrival of U.S. Marines. America's war was on.

As Congress prepares for its August recess, the probability of U.S. air strikes on Iran rises with each week. A third carrier, the USS Enterprise, and its battle group is joining the Nimitz and Stennis in the largest concentration of U.S. naval power ever off the coast of Iran.

And Tonkin Gulf II may have already occurred.

In Baghdad, on July 1, Gen. Kevin J. Bergner charged that Iranians planned the January raid in Karbala, using commandos in American-style uniforms, that resulted in the death of five U.S. soldiers.

As The New York Times reports, this "marks the first time that the United States has charged that Iranian officials have helped plan operations against American troops in Iraq and have had advance knowledge of specific attacks that have led to the death of American soldiers."

The Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards is using Hezbollah to train Shiites to attack our soldiers and providing them with enhanced IEDs that have killed scores of U.S. troops, Bergner charged. He says we have captured a veteran Hezbollah agent and documents pointing to direct Iranian complicity in the Karbala raid.

Iran has denounced the charge as "ridiculous." But the Senate has voted 97 to zero to censure Iran for complicity in killing the Americans.

If what Bergner alleges is true, President Bush has not only the right but appears to have the blessing of Congress to attack Iran. And he now has the naval and air forces at hand. What is stopping him?

For it is surely not Congress, which buried a resolution last spring declaring that Bush must come to Congress before taking us into a new war in the Middle East. Congress appears to be signaling Bush: "If you want to hit Iran, you have the green light. No need to consult us."

Is this yet another abdication by Congress of its moral and constitutional duty to decide when and whether America goes to war?

And something smells awfully fishy here.

Iran has no interest in a war with the United States, which it seems to be toying with. Iran supports the pro-American Shia regime in Baghdad. And the al-Qaida umbrella group in Iraq, which is our mortal enemy, has just warned Iran it faces terror attacks if it does not stop supporting Shiites in Iraq.

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who leads the al-Qaida group known as the Islamic State in Iraq, says his fighters have been preparing for four years for war on Iran:

"We are giving the Persians, and especially the rulers of Iran, a two-month period to end all kinds of support for the Iraqi Shiite government and to stop direct and indirect intervention -- otherwise a severe war is waiting for you," al-Baghdadi said in a 50-minute videotape.

Al-Baghdadi also warned Arab Sunnis in the region who do business with Shiites in Iran that they were inviting assassination.

Query: If Iran's ally, the Maliki government, is our ally, and if Iran's enemy, al-Qaida in Iraq, is our enemy, why would Iran use the Quds Force to attack Americans and risk U.S. retaliation?

Killing Americans in Iraq is not going to defeat the United States. But it could trigger heavy U.S. retaliation, not only on the Quds Force, but on Iran's nuclear facilities -- and a war with the United States. Yet Iran's diplomatic behavior suggests it wishes to avoid such a war.

Another explanation comes to mind. Iran is not initiating, but is responding to U.S.-inspired attacks inside Iran, in the Kurdish north, the Arab southwest and the Baluchi southeast of its country. Was Karbala an attempted kidnapping to exchange U.S. soldiers for the five Iranian "diplomats" we are holding?

Has Bush secretly authorized covert attacks inside Iran? Are U.S. and Israeli agents in Kurdistan behind the attacks across the border to provoke Iran? On July 11, Iranian troops clashed with Kurd rebels inside Iran, and the Iranians fired artillery back into Iraq.

Why is Congress going on vacation? Why are a Democratic-controlled House and Senate not asking these questions in public hearings? Why is Congress letting Bush and Vice President Cheney decide whether we launch a third war in the Middle East?

Or is Congress in on it?

[Linda_D]

Paddy is lying: "But the Senate has voted 97 to zero to censure Iran for complicity in killing the Americans." He also seems to have "borrowed" his idea for this column from other websites/blogs. Tacky, tacky.


The US Senate did NOT vote to censure Iran for anything. I googled the topic and the only references to this was from the "usual suspects" -- primarily right wing websites with dubious records for truthfulness and honesty, but also from blogs and other "reliable" sources that tend to confuse opinion with fact.

I searched the NY Times and the Washington Post on line, and found no hits on any story about censuring Iran. Methinks that when the US Senate votes 97-0 to censure another country, it might not make the Buffalo News, but it will make one of those newspapers. It seems to me that it would also be a hot topic on the television newscasts as well, but ... umm, nothing.

Well, as a final check, I checked the Congressional Record, which is the official archive of the US Congress where all votes from both houses of Congress are recorded (it's how you can find out how a congressman voted on any obscure bill you'd like). Again, nothing.

More bogus right wing bull manure!

[Habermill]

Paddy is lying: "But the Senate has voted 97 to zero to censure Iran for complicity in killing the Americans." He also seems to have "borrowed" his idea for this column from other websites/blogs. Tacky, tacky.


The US Senate did NOT vote to censure Iran for anything. I googled the topic and the only references to this was from the "usual suspects" -- primarily right wing websites with dubious records for truthfulness and honesty, but also from blogs and other "reliable" sources that tend to confuse opinion with fact.

I searched the NY Times and the Washington Post on line, and found no hits on any story about censuring Iran. Methinks that when the US Senate votes 97-0 to censure another country, it might not make the Buffalo News, but it will make one of those newspapers. It seems to me that it would also be a hot topic on the television newscasts as well, but ... umm, nothing.

Well, as a final check, I checked the Congressional Record, which is the official archive of the US Congress where all votes from both houses of Congress are recorded (it's how you can find out how a congressman voted on any obscure bill you'd like). Again, nothing.

More bogus right wing bull manure!

How about this: http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom....cfm?id=278654

Linda_D, you must be wearing your rose colored liberal glasses since this happened probably not to your liking! Do you think Pat Buchanan would ruin his credibility by covering a topic that wasn't true. Now, I know you are use to the propaganda from the left, but Buchanan has more common sense. Once again, you attack the man after you did one of your random google searches without being more thorough.

First of all, the resolution was sponsored by Joe Lieberman ( a former Democrat Senator that didn't get his party's endorsement).

On Heels Of Senate’s Iran Vote, Brownback Declared I’m Ready To Strike Iran
On Wednesday, the Senate voted 97-0 to pass a resolution sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to censure Iran “for what it said was complicity in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.” The resolution required the Bush administration to regularly report to Congress on Iran’s role in Iraq.

While the resolution explicitly rejected authorization for immediate military action, the gist of the resolution declared Iran is participating in acts of war against the United States, thereby laying the foundation for a confrontation with Iran. Newshoggers wrote that the resolution may provide the “political cover for launching a war.”

Validating the concern many felt, Sen. Sam Brownback appeared on Fox News shortly after the vote and declared he was ready to preemptively strike Iran. Host Sean Hannity asked Brownback, “There’s probably going to come a point for the next president that they’re going to have to determine whether to go out and have that preemptive strike. And you’re ready and would be ready to do that?”

Here is more regarding the former Democrat Vice President candidate's resolution:

Levin introduced the actual vote on the Lieberman Amendment by stressing that the Senate stands as one and that Iran had better listen. The final vote: 97 Ayes, 0 Nays

If you would like to thank the Senate for taking us one step closer to war on Iran - and in particular Senator Levin for his big smooch for Joe and Senator Reid for his “leadership,” here are the numbers:

U.S. Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

Once again, quit attacking the individual as you are continually making a fool of yourself.

[Linda_D]

How about this: http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom....cfm?id=278654

Linda_D, you must be wearing your rose colored liberal glasses since this happened probably not to your liking! Do you think Pat Buchanan would ruin his credibility by covering a topic that wasn't true. Now, I know you are use to the propaganda from the left, but Buchanan has more common sense. Once again, you attack the man after you did one of your random google searches without being more thorough.

First of all, the resolution was sponsored by Joe Lieberman ( a former Democrat Senator that didn't get his party's endorsement).

On Heels Of Senate’s Iran Vote, Brownback Declared I’m Ready To Strike Iran
On Wednesday, the Senate voted 97-0 to pass a resolution sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to censure Iran “for what it said was complicity in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.” The resolution required the Bush administration to regularly report to Congress on Iran’s role in Iraq.

While the resolution explicitly rejected authorization for immediate military action, the gist of the resolution declared Iran is participating in acts of war against the United States, thereby laying the foundation for a confrontation with Iran. Newshoggers wrote that the resolution may provide the “political cover for launching a war.”

Validating the concern many felt, Sen. Sam Brownback appeared on Fox News shortly after the vote and declared he was ready to preemptively strike Iran. Host Sean Hannity asked Brownback, “There’s probably going to come a point for the next president that they’re going to have to determine whether to go out and have that preemptive strike. And you’re ready and would be ready to do that?”

Here is more regarding the former Democrat Vice President candidate's resolution:

Levin introduced the actual vote on the Lieberman Amendment by stressing that the Senate stands as one and that Iran had better listen. The final vote: 97 Ayes, 0 Nays

If you would like to thank the Senate for taking us one step closer to war on Iran - and in particular Senator Levin for his big smooch for Joe and Senator Reid for his “leadership,” here are the numbers:

U.S. Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

Once again, quit attacking the individual as you are continually making a fool of yourself.

Excuse me, but where does the Lieberman news release say that the Senate passed this resolution??? It was a proposed amendment.

What you posted about Brownback is NOT what's in the news release. This crap about this censure is floating on the internet but it's not in the Congressional Record nor has it been reported by a single, reputable news source. It's bogus.

[Habermill]

Excuse me, but where does the Lieberman news release say that the Senate passed this resolution??? It was a proposed amendment.

What you posted about Brownback is NOT what's in the news release. This crap about this censure is floating on the internet but it's not in the Congressional Record nor has it been reported by a single, reputable news source. It's bogus.

You are excused so you can read this right from Senator Lieberman's desk:


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 11, 2007
Contact: Marshall Wittmann, 202-224-4041


Senate Unanimously Adopts Lieberman Amendment to Confront Iran on its Attacks on American Soldiers



WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Senate voted 97-0 today to approve an amendment introduced by Senator Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT), confronting the Islamic Republic of Iran over its proxy attacks on American soldiers in Iraq.


"Today's unanimous vote sends a strong, clear message from the entire Senate to the Iranians that we know what they are doing in Iraq, and they must stop," said Senator Lieberman. "This is a warning to the Iranians that whatever differences divide us politically here in Washington, we stand united against these outrageous attacks."


The Lieberman amendment -- which was cosponsored by Senators McCain, Kyl, Graham, Coleman, Collins, Sessions, and Craig -- detailed the publicly available evidence about Iran's proxy attacks against American soldiers in Iraq. It also stated that the murder of U.S. service members by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable and unacceptable act against the United States by that government, and establishes a regular report to Congress on Iran's anti-coalition attacks in Iraq.


"This is the beginning of a longer conversation that I hope we will have here in Washington about Iran and the deadly and destabilizing role it is playing in Iraq, the Middle East, and the world," said Senator Lieberman. "The threat posed by Iran to our soldiers, to our allies, and to our national security is a truth that cannot be wished or waved away. Congress today began the process of confronting it."

Just so you know, this was in yesterday's paper out here in California:

July 18, 2007

An Open Letter to Boxer and Feinstein
Falling for Lieberman's Iran Resolution
By FELICE PACE

I am outraged that you both voted for the resolution by Senator Lieberman suggesting that Iran is responsible for the death of American soldiers in Iraq. This is a blatant attempt to provide cover to Bush and Chaney for an attack on Iran. It demonstrates once again that Mr. Lieberman's main allegiance is not to this nation but to the American Zionist Agenda and those in Israel and the US who want to promote instability in the Middle East and to have the US attack Iran on behalf of the Israeli military.

The Lieberman resolution you voted for ignores what has been reported about the nationality of foreign fighters in Iraq. In 2005 the Center for Strategic International Studies, chaired by former senator Sam Nunn, found that 20,18,17,15, 13 and 12% of foreign fighters--a total of 95% of foreign fighters--came from Algeria, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia respectively (see: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html).

Recently the LA Times reported that most of the foreign fighters in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia (see: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/)

By backing the Lieberman Anti-Iran resolution you have indicated that you are not really for peace in the Middle East and that you are subject to undue influence by American Zionist extremists who want to push this country into war with Iran.

Is that your position? Please clarify. I am your constituent and I request a clear, public written statement from each of you indicating where you stand on how the US should relate to the nation of Iran. Specifically, will you commit NOW to actively and publicly opposing any and all military attacks by this country--including CIA and other covert actions--against Iran?

Californian's overwhelmingly want our elected representatives to stand strong for Peace and against the Bush/Zionist/Israeli attempts to further destabilize the Middle East by attacking Iran. Do you stand with the People of California or with Mr. Lieberman and others who want more US aggression in the Middle East?

The people who elected you deserve to know where you stand. That is why I am asking you to explain your vote for Mr. Lieberman's anti-Iran resolution and to clarify your position on Iran.

Felice Pace
Klamath, California

Like I said Linda, Pat Buchanan wouldn't be stupid enough to print something without the proper backup. As far as legitimate news services, you are going to have to define what you mean. The major networks fabricate the news to their political point of view and many times will not report legitimate articles or stories. This is especially true in the Middle East outside of Iraq and Gaza.

I remember a few years ago not one major news service reported the massive troop buildup on the Pakistan-India border. It just didn't serve their political purposes of fabricating the nightly news.

[Habermill]

Paddy is lying: "But the Senate has voted 97 to zero to censure Iran for complicity in killing the Americans." He also seems to have "borrowed" his idea for this column from other websites/blogs. Tacky, tacky.


The US Senate did NOT vote to censure Iran for anything. I googled the topic and the only references to this was from the "usual suspects" -- primarily right wing websites with dubious records for truthfulness and honesty, but also from blogs and other "reliable" sources that tend to confuse opinion with fact.

I searched the NY Times and the Washington Post on line, and found no hits on any story about censuring Iran. Methinks that when the US Senate votes 97-0 to censure another country, it might not make the Buffalo News, but it will make one of those newspapers. It seems to me that it would also be a hot topic on the television newscasts as well, but ... umm, nothing.

Well, as a final check, I checked the Congressional Record, which is the official archive of the US Congress where all votes from both houses of Congress are recorded (it's how you can find out how a congressman voted on any obscure bill you'd like). Again, nothing.

More bogus right wing bull manure!

I think it is more like eating crow!

The Senate's Blank Check for War on Iran
by Chris Floyd


As you may know – unless you rely on the corporate media for your news, of course – yesterday the U.S. Senate unanimously declared that Iran was committing acts of war against the United States: a 97-0 vote to give George W. Bush a clear and unmistakable casus belli for attacking Iran whenever Dick Cheney tells him to.

The bipartisan Senate resolution – the brainchild (or rather the bilechild) of Fightin' Joe Lieberman – affirmed as official fact all of the specious, unproven, ever-changing allegations of direct Iranian involvement in attacks on the American forces now occupying Iraq. The Senators appear to have relied heavily on the recent New York Times story by Michael Gordon that stovepiped unchallenged Pentagon spin directly onto the paper's front page. As Firedoglake points out, John McCain cited the heavily criticized story on the Senate floor as he cast his vote.

It goes without saying that all of this is a nightmarish replay of the run-up to the war of aggression against Iraq: The NYT funneling false flag stories from Bush insiders. Warmongers citing the NYT stories as "proof" justifying any and all action to "defend the Homeland." Credulous and craven Democratic politicians swallowing the Bush line hook and sinker.

To be sure, stout-hearted Dem tribunes like Dick Durbin insisted that their support for declaring that Iran is "committing acts of war" against the United States should not be taken as an "authorization of military action." This is shaky-knees mendacity at its finest. Having officially affirmed that Iran is waging war on American forces, how, pray tell, can you then deny the president when he asks (if he asks) for authorization to "defend our troops"? Answer: you can't. And you know it.

This vote is the clearest signal yet that there will be no real opposition to a Bush Administration attack on Iran. This is yet another blank check from these slavish, ignorant goons; Bush can cash it anytime. This is, in fact, the post-surge "Plan B" that's been mooted lately in the Beltway. As you recall, there was much throwing about of brains on the subject of reviving the "Iraq Study Group" plan when the "surge" (or to call it by its right name, the "punitive escalation") inevitably fails. Bush put the kibosh on that this week ("Him not gonna do nothin' that Daddy's friends tell him to do! Him a big boy, him the decider!"), but that doesn't mean there isn't a fall-back position – or rather, a spring-forward position: an attack on Iran, to rally the nation behind the "war leader" and reshuffle the deck in Iraq.

Of course, the United States is already at war with Iran. We are directing covert ops and terrorist attacks inside Iran, with the help of groups that our own government has declared terrorist renegades. We are kidnapping Iranian officials in Iraq and holding them hostage. We have a bristling naval armada on Iran's doorstep, put there for the express purpose of threatening Tehran with military action. The U.S. Congress has overwhelmingly passed measures calling for the overthrow of the Iranian government. And now the U.S. Senate has unanimously declared that Iran is waging war on America, and has given official notice that this will not be tolerated. It is only a very small step to move from this war in all but name to the full monty of an overt military assault.

We've said it before and we'll say it again: there is madness at work here. There is no other word for it. As I noted a few years ago:

Homo sapiens is the only species that dreams of its own total demise. Our brief history of conscious thought is replete with vivid scenarios of the end of life on earth....Religion has produced most of these – giddy, voluptuous nightmares of universal extinction, usually by fire, at divine order. A favored remnant is always saved in such tales, of course, but only after being transformed into some different, higher order of being. The gross human body – that bleeding, fouling, endlessly replicating sack of earth – is gleefully consigned to eternal oblivion.

It seems that some ineradicable nihilism pervades us, like a virus, now dormant, now flaring: something in us that wants to die, to be done with the long, overhanging doom of mortality – and to take the world with us. Our grandiose visions of the future seem to hide, at their core, a secret, desperate anxiety about the profound meaninglessness of existence – an anxiety that often disguises itself in elaborate fantasies of the afterlife, in dreams of "dominance" for one's "own kind" (nation, tribe, faith, race, ideology, etc.), or in the eroticizing of death, war and destruction.

Instincts for preservation, sentiments of affection, the drive for pleasure – from the most basic bodily urges to the most sublime creations and apprehensions of the intellect – act as counterweights to this dark virus, of course. They provide for most of us, most of the time, enough fragments of meaning – or at least sufficient distraction – to get on with things, without too much resort to world-engulfing visions or the extremes of nihilistic anxiety.

On the individual level, the calibration of these competing impulses can be intricate, subtle, ever-shifting, because the individual mind is so complex and all-encompassing, yet also so enclosed, so unlockably private as well: an infinitely supple tool for managing the conflicts and contradictions of reality. But on the broader level – species, nation, group – human consciousness is, of necessity, a far more blunt and brutal instrument.

There, our brain-fevers and anxieties rage more virulently, lacking the counterweights of individual feeling and the quick, intimate responsiveness of the private mind. In the group-mind, the fantasies that root in the muddy fear of meaninglessness can emerge full-blown. Thought and discourse are reduced to broad strokes, slogans, codes and incantations, with little correspondence to reality. Awareness of this tendency can mitigate some of its effects; but the group-mind's fundamental falsity and irreality almost invariably infects the thoughts and actions of group leaders – and eventually many of the group members as well.

Thus we can sometimes say, not entirely metaphorically, that nations "go mad," hurtling themselves toward ruin, embracing self-destruction, lusting for violence and death, sick with nihilism – although this sickness is always painted in the colors of patriotic fervor or religious zeal, or both…

Now draw these dangerous streams together, and you have a portrait of the blunt and brutal group-mind at work in the leadership of the world's most powerful nation. The folly, fantasy and death-fetish of the Bush Regime – long evident to anyone who cared to see – were finally "revealed" in the mainstream media recently by the quasi-official Establishment oracle, Bob Woodward. His latest insider portrait, Plan of Attack, offers – in the usual, easily-gummed pabulum form – a few tastes of the bitter truth behind the Regime's mad, ruinous war crime in Iraq.

The corrosive nihilism at the heart of the enterprise ate through the gaudily-painted surface most tellingly in a single anecdote. Woodward asks George W. Bush how he thinks history will regard his adventure in Iraq. Bush, gazing out the window, shrugs and waves the question away. "History, we don't know," he says. "We'll all be dead." No fine, faith-filled talk here about God and Jesus and the immortal soul responsible for its actions throughout all eternity – the kind of zealous patter Bush favors in public statements. This was just the cold, rotten, meaningless core of his grand vision: "We'll all be dead." So who cares? Après moi, le deluge.

Who would have thought the floodwaters of this death vision would have risen so high again so soon? Yet here they are again, beating against the gates.

UPDATE: Jonathan Schwarz points out that all of the Senate's Democratic candidates for president voted for Lieberman's Iran War amendment: Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and Joe Biden. Just in case you were expecting a saner foreign policy after the 2008 election.

UPDATE II: Meanwhile, George Milhouse Bush wants to make one thing perfectly clear: even in the highly unlikely (if not totally impossible) event that the Senate grows a rudimentary spine and tries to place the slightest obstacle in the way of a military attack on Iran, the Commander Guy will peremptorily veto it and instigate the mass murder anyway.

Spencer Ackerman at TPM Cafe found this gem of arrogant defiance in "a little-noticed letter from the White House to Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee." The main subject of the letter was a similar vow to veto any restrictions on Bush's ability to continue his war crime in Iraq. The passage concerning Iran might seem redundant now, after the Senate's vote on Lieberman's "Persia delenda est!" measure, which puts a gun in Bush's hand and screams for him to pull the trigger, but the President is obviously taking no chances.



July 14, 2007

[Linda_D]

Chris Floyd does not write for any mainstream media, be it newspaper or news bureau (like AP or Reuters) or broadcast. That he's a Bush critic means nothing because Bush is getting hammered from the left and the right, which further makes a 97-0 vote for a censure very unlikely.

I want to see a reference to some recognizable news source without an agenda. I want to see an article in newspaper or see something about it on the television news. This supposed "censure" is a creature of the internet, and just because somebody said it on the web and others have repeated it doesn't make it true.

[run4it]

ya, can we get confirmation from someone with a little credibility?

Where's DT when you need him? Surfin? Rez? Help?

[Habermill]

ya, can we get confirmation from someone with a little credibility?

Where's DT when you need him? Surfin? Rez? Help?

So if Michael Moore wrote it would be credible?

So, how about the letter of complaint to Senator Boxer and Feinstein? They are both liberal Democrats to your liking.

I know, maybe if Barbra Streisand posted it Or MoveOn.org, or Al Gore or Jesse Jackson or Jimmy Carter! Give me a break will you, like I said before, do you think Pat Buchanan would be stupid enough to publish something that wasn't true? On the other hand, liberals tend to believe in only what they want if it is true or not.

[run4it]

So if Michael Moore wrote it would be credible?

So, how about the letter of complaint to Senator Boxer and Feinstein? They are both liberal Democrats to your liking.

I know, maybe if Barbra Streisand posted it Or MoveOn.org, or Al Gore or Jesse Jackson or Jimmy Carter! Give me a break will you, like I said before, do you think Pat Buchanan would be stupid enough to publish something that wasn't true? On the other hand, liberals tend to believe in only what they want if it is true or not.

Ohh...you mean Buchanan the anti-semite? Or Buchanan the racist? Or Buchanan the Hitler-admiring nazi apologist? How about the Buchanan that tried to cover up Watergate? Oh...you must mean the Buchanan who William Bennett says is "flirting with fascism"?

Yeah...that guy.
http://www.realchange.org/buchanan.htm

And thanks for trying to put words into my mouth, but I don't take everything Moore says at face value (though he will give you $10k if you prove any of his facts wrong...go ahead and give it a try), and don't hold Striesand in any greater regard than I do Charleton Heston. I think Al Gore is a flawed hero, and I think move-on.org has something to say, but is just one of the many voices needed in a national conversation.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Habermill.

You've yet to provide any real proof that this resolution passed. How about a link to this Felice Pace's "open letter"? I can't find a single legitimate news outlet that reported this.

In fact, the only seemingly legitimate evidence you've provide is the press release from Lieberman's office. That's okay, I guess -- assuming it is, in fact, legitimate -- but why isn't the vote on any of the co-sponsors offical web sites?

By the way, did any news outlet print Buchanan's letter?

[Habermill]

Ohh...you mean Buchanan the anti-semite? Or Buchanan the racist? Or Buchanan the Hitler-admiring nazi apologist? How about the Buchanan that tried to cover up Watergate? Oh...you must mean the Buchanan who William Bennett says is "flirting with fascism"?

Yeah...that guy.
http://www.realchange.org/buchanan.htm

And thanks for trying to put words into my mouth, but I don't take everything Moore says at face value (though he will give you $10k if you prove any of his facts wrong...go ahead and give it a try), and don't hold Striesand in any greater regard than I do Charleton Heston. I think Al Gore is a flawed hero, and I think move-on.org has something to say, but is just one of the many voices needed in a national conversation.

Prove Buchanan is an anti-semite. One example because you have no proof and it is just another personal attack and nothing more. If he was anti-semite, the Simon Wiesenthal Center would have taken him to task. There is no place for this kind of name calling especially when an individual is being taken to task without offering their side of the story.

Prove Buchanan is a rascist because you can't. If I was Buchanan I would sue you for libel making such outlandish accusations. A flawed hero, what in the world is a flawed hero? What is a national conversation? Just the liberal point of view like Move-On.org or actually Liberals, Conservatives, Middle of the Roaders discussing issues? What is it?

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Habermill.

You've yet to provide any real proof that this resolution passed. How about a link to this Felice Pace's "open letter"? I can't find a single legitimate news outlet that reported this.

In fact, the only seemingly legitimate evidence you've provide is the press release from Lieberman's office. That's okay, I guess -- assuming it is, in fact, legitimate -- but why isn't the vote on any of the co-sponsors offical web sites?

By the way, did any news outlet print Buchanan's letter?

Jeez....no wonder this Lieberman thing didn't get any media attention -- except from a handful of the very very left wing and very very right wing activists who, for what sounds their own political purposes, distorted what it is on their web sites.


From the Library of Congress: This is what the amendment does.....

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To require a report on support (emphasis mine) provided by the Government of Iran for attacks against coalition forces in Iraq.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP2073:

That's a lot different than what Lieberman's July 11 press release describes:

"Senators Lieberman, McCain, Kyl, Graham, and Coleman today introduced a bipartisan amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, confronting the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran over its proxy attacks on American soldiers in Iraq."
Lieberman's link:http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom...fm?id=278654&&


Also different from the way left wing activist Joshua Frank describes the action, which was "moving toward war with Iran."

The link to Frank:http://www.counterpunch.org/frank07192007.html

Different from Buchanan's description, which is moving "to censure Iran for complicity in killing" Americans in Iraq.
The Buchanan link:http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=803

But the distortions did generate a lot of buzz at the extreme left and right wing blogs, which reprinted those descriptions without checking on the actual language of the amendment.

Habermill, are you listening? Do you even care?

[Linda_D]

So if Michael Moore wrote it would be credible?

So, how about the letter of complaint to Senator Boxer and Feinstein? They are both liberal Democrats to your liking.

I know, maybe if Barbra Streisand posted it Or MoveOn.org, or Al Gore or Jesse Jackson or Jimmy Carter! Give me a break will you, like I said before, do you think Pat Buchanan would be stupid enough to publish something that wasn't true? On the other hand, liberals tend to believe in only what they want if it is true or not.

I don't care if Bill Clinton posted it on bubba.com! I want to see it on a legitimate non-internet media source. I'd settle for FOXNews, but they haven't peeped about this "resolution" any more than CNN or NBC or whatever.

This internet bull crap starts with one self-serving cretin with an agenda who posts a bogus "article" created from half-truths and outright lies. Frequently the "evidence" comes from a website that you have to subscribe to in order to read (and which is simply another website by the author of the bogus article's author). Then somebody else reads said website, and uses the article as the basis for his/her own "article" (that's plagerism, but on the internet, copyright laws don't count for much) and then somebody quotes it in a blog ... and so it goes. This is like the hoax that some guy had going a few years ago about WMDs coming across the Mexican border into Arizona and New Mexico.

Now, maybe the US Senate passed something 97-0, but it wasn't a censure of Iran that stood on its own and had any impact on anything. If this thing was passed, it may have been attached to an amendment to an amendment to a bill, and the amendment(s) never passed so it never came up as part of the bill (the Senate has been dealing with defense appropriations for 2008).

There is no way the US Senate votes 97-0 to censure any country -- and the mainstream media doesn't even mention it. That's big news -- on either side of the aisle.

[Linda_D]

Jeez....no wonder this Lieberman thing didn't get any media attention -- except from a handful of the very very left wing and very very right wing activists who, for what sounds their own political purposes, distorted what it is on their web sites.


From the Library of Congress: This is what the amendment does.....

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To require a report on support (emphasis mine) provided by the Government of Iran for attacks against coalition forces in Iraq.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP2073:

That's a lot different than what Lieberman's July 11 press release describes:

"Senators Lieberman, McCain, Kyl, Graham, and Coleman today introduced a bipartisan amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, confronting the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran over its proxy attacks on American soldiers in Iraq."
Lieberman's link:http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom...fm?id=278654&&


Also different from the way left wing activist Joshua Frank describes the action, which was "moving toward war with Iran."

The link to Frank:http://www.counterpunch.org/frank07192007.html

Different from Buchanan's description, which is moving "to censure Iran for complicity in killing" Americans in Iraq.
The Buchanan link:http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=803

But the distortions did generate a lot of buzz at the extreme left and right wing blogs, which reprinted those descriptions without checking on the actual language of the amendment.

Habermill, are you listening? Do you even care?

Thanks, ATTF. I missed your explanation while writing my tome, but that's about how these agenda-driven internet "authors" operate.